In recent weeks, Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik and the authors he cites as his influences have often been described as "right-wing extremists." But as I pointed out not too long ago in a Norwegian-language post on Dispatches from the North, that term is largely useless, having devolved into a meaningless slur with no clear, objective definition. Its purpose at present seems to be to tarnish everyone on the non-establishment Right with the stain of Breivik's atrocities. Those atrocities came about, the reasoning goes, because Breivik's views were on the "extreme Right," i.e. to the Right of accepted political opinion, and thus, anyone who holds views that are to the Right of accepted opinion, whether or not they advocate terrorism, has an indirect culpability for Breivik's actions. Right-wing terrorism, it seems, is not abhorrent because it is terrorism, but because it is right-wing.

The trouble with this reasoning is that it completely relativizes the concept of extremism. If Breivik and his idols are extremists because their views are to the Right of the Western European mainstream, they are only extremists in the context of the Western European mainstream. After all, two or three generations ago, most of Breivik's opinions, exhortations to violence aside, would have been regarded as respectable and moderate. (In fact, his apparent atheism -- he describes himself as merely a "cultural Christian" -- and his liberal attitude toward homosexuality -- he calls for a "pro-gay, pro-Israel, anti-racist Right" -- would even have threatened to place him on the loony far Left.) This is not to say that he is not an extremist – his violent actions clearly show that he is, just as the lack of violent rhetoric or actions on the part of writers like Peder Jensen, Bat Ye'or, and Robert Spencer shows that they are not – but it is to say that the criteria used to label him as such are clearly faulty.

But what makes Breivik an extremist, if not his conservative nationalism? It may help if we step back a bit. In my view, extremist ideologies are defined by three traits: they 1) trace everything that is wrong with the world back to a single human source, usually a group (examples include Jews, capitalists, white Europeans, and the Catholic Church), 2) claim that it is possible to eradicate all evil by eradicating this designated root of all evil, paving the way for a utopian heaven on earth, and 3) dehumanize anyone associated with the designated root of all evil, legitimizing genocide, terrorism, and other similar tactics. In short, extremism is a sort of political monomania.

Therefore, Anders Behring Breivik is not an extremist because his views on immigration, Islam, or nationalism are to the Right of the mainstream. To say that Breivik's violence resulted exclusively from his preoccupation with race or his hostility to feminism makes about as much sense as saying that it came about because he watched Dexter or because he played video games. No, Breivik became violent because he genuinely believed that everything that is wrong with Europe can be traced back to its cultural elites' acceptance of Islam and non-Western mass immigration, that those elites are so wicked as to be less than human, and that murdering them (and anyone who aids them) is a “heinous but necessary” paving-stone on the way to a European nationalist utopia.

Most people on the European and American Right share Breivik's antipathy towards the elite. But they are also wise and sane enough to realize that the mass murder of that elite is as morally inexcusable as it is unlikely to solve all our problems and bring about a perfect society. This is what separates him from us. This is what puts him in league with Osama bin Laden rather than Fjordman, no matter how much his rambling manifesto may claim otherwise. In fact, the political views of the elite are, on my definition, far more extremist than those of Breivik's idols. In the last decades, the idea that white Europeans are responsible for all the evil in the world has become orthodoxy in the West. Minority groups are encouraged to celebrate their heritage, while white Europeans are condemned as bigots if they do the same. History textbooks are dedicated almost entirely to showcasing the cruelty and ignorance of our ancestors, while universities no longer aim to transmit knowledge to the next generation or to do serious research, but to "deconstruct the majority so that it can never again be a majority," in the words of Norwegian social scientist Thomas Hylland Eriksen.

In all fairness, it must be said that the more conspiratorial parts of the counterjihad movement do sometimes come precariously close to extremism. In itself, however, this proves very little. Every movement has its kooks – the real question is whether they are kooks in spite of or because of their ideology.

Extremist ideologies are often superficially appealing – they offer simple explanations of complex realities, and flatter their adherents by convincing them that they are part of an elite exempt from all moral responsibility. It is no coincidence that extremist movements come to the fore as society becomes more secular. One of the many brilliant aspects of Christianity (and, to a lesser extent, other religions) is that it addresses and neutralizes the extremist temptation. Christianity does trace all evil back to a single source, namely defiance against God – be it in the form of human sin or the revolt of Satan and other fallen angels against their Master. This source, however, is not human, nor can it be fully defeated in this world -- nor fought with means that violate the dignity of man. If Anders Behring Breivik were a genuine Christian rather than the “cultural Christian” he claims to be, he might have taken greater heed of this.