There is one point of departure though, Atman.

>> It appears he mistakenly takes Breiviks ravings as a coherent political document. Breivik's ideas are a confused conglomeration of quotes and extreme belief systems and hardly amount to anything we haven't heard before.<<

Well, two, actually.

There are no "ravings" in Breivik's manifesto. It may not be a coherent political document as you or I would understand the term, but he doesn't "rave".

But the main difference to the stuff we have "heard before", is that on pages 822 to 848 he describes the basis for what he calls "operations", including Section 3.22 "Using terror as a method for waking up the masses".

Then. pages 849 to 944 go into detail on how to plan the "operation", and along the way takes time out to define the targets - Category A, B and C traitors, and Category D individuals.

The next section, pages 950 through to 1062 covers proposed attack strategies, including "shock attacks", sabotage operations and "detonating radiological bombs in Western European Capitals".

From page 1069 to page 1115, he discusses communication and logistics.

That's close to three hundred pages of sober, calculating detail, on how he intended to go about his business, and how he felt others should follow his example. That he was in control of, and understood his actions at every stage is beyond any doubt, and defines him as totally sane.

Notwithstanding, I think the idea that Breivik's actions can be categorized as "white male rage" is complete drivel.

Jay,

Mr Suter is a long term member of the Club of Rome. The COR is a group of wealthy and influential elite who push an agenda which portrays all social(like the Norway incident),political, ecological and economic crises as the inevitable consequence of a decadent western civilisation. They push the idea that the world is in crisis, on the tipping point. They plan to offer the only (in their terms) solution. A single government to rule the globe through removal of national sovreignty to the UN where they currently hold significant influence. They would be able to the control economic, social and financial future of all nations under the banner of a world community through control of international finance. You will see these themes regularly coming from their members. Al Gore is also a member.

Last year Keith Suter attended the Prof Neils Harritt lecture on nano thermite in which he and 8 other international scientists have presented proof in a peer reviewed study that explosives were used to bring down all three 911 towers.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDZcRiRGRWE

You will hear Keith Suter review this lecture with Brian Wilshire on 2GB.Suter did not know like many others of the existance of WTC7.I don't think he is part of the elite Club of Rome otherwise he would have not done this interview with Brian Wilshire.

Finding fault with white males seems popular at present, possibly as a result of feminist corruption of our society.

The author fails to remember what has happened over time in areas such as Africa and Asia.

Recent examples include Darfur, Sri Lanka, East Timor etc.

"Mencius Moldbug" has written a great article on Breivik,it's about the most sensible piece that's come out of the "Authentic Right" over the last few days.
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2011/07/indisputable-humanity-of-anders-behring.html

"The over riding philosphy via environmentalism is that there are too many people on the planet destroying the environment and only a totalitarian world Govt controlled by large corporate interests is the way."

Who says that is the overriding philosophy? It is more about respecting and valuing environments for our own long term health and wellbeing.

I doubt very much that there is a world conspiracy of environmentalists desirous of totalitarian world government, particularly one controlled by corporate interests. The Greens have certainly never fostered this idea other than a notion of greater accountability via an agreed global governance. That is Global Governance NOT Global Government.

Environmentalists have for years been decrying control by corporate interests especially in relation to degradation of landscapes in developing countries where there is often corruption due to a lack of governance.

You talk about global governance as though it is a bad thing to push an agenda for greater accountability, and ultimately reduce the pillaging of environments merely to suit the interests of some large corporations.

You can foster global governance in many ways that do not include 'world domination' and a one-world government. One way is for developed nations to refuse to deal with corrupt regimes thus preventing the fostering of corruption and totalitarianism. Foreign policy has for too long been too self-interested rather than 'fair' and while governments act in the interests of their people, there is an equally valid argument that it is in our best interest if there is a more equitable landscape that does not foster hatred and dissent.