French Essayist Blames Multiculturalism for Breivik’s Killing Spree

Bruce Crumley, Time World, August 28, 2012

Richard Millet is an accomplished figure in French literature. His book Le Sentiment du Langue (The Feeling of Language) won the Académie Française’s 1994 essay award. His work as an editor for celebrated publisher Gallimard, meanwhile, helped produce two recent Prix Goncourt winners—including the 2006 novel Les Bienveillantes (The Kindly Ones) by American author Jonathan Littell. Now, however, Millet is getting attention of an entirely different kind with a new work attacking immigration and multiculturalism, and describing the acts of convicted Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik as “formal perfection … in their literary dimension.”

That bookish qualifier, says newsweekly L’Express in its critique of Millet’s new essay, “Éloge Littéraire d’Anders Breivik” (Literary Elegy of Anders Breivik), is a “gratuitous facade” for an otherwise “vindictive text” and thesis. Indeed, though Millet states he does not approve of Breivik’s murderous actions on July 22, 2011 that left 77 people dead, he does write the slaughter was “without doubt what Norway deserved.” The reason? Norway, Millet contends, allowed immigration, multiculturalism and the domination of foreign customs, language and religion to become such dominant influences that a self-designated defender of traditional society felt compelled to take decisive action.

“Multiculturalism, as it has been imported from the United States, is the worst thing possible for Europe … and creates a mosaic of ghettoes in which the [host] nation no longer exists,” Millet told France Info radio on Aug. 27. “Breivik, I believe, perceived that and responded to that question with the most monstrous reply.”


{snip} Breivik, Millet writes, is “an exemplary product of Western decadence” and a “child of the ideologico-racial fracture that extra-European immigration has introduced in Europe.” Because he sees the resulting “loss of national identity” and “Islamization of Europe” decaying “Christian roots” everywhere, Millet appears to believe acts similar to Breivik’s may be replicated outside Norway as well.

“Within this decadence, Breivik is without doubt what Norway deserved, and what awaits our societies that won’t stop blinding themselves in denial,” Millet writes in “Éloge Littéraire d’Anders Breivik,” one of three essays published under the collective title Langue Fantôme (Ghost Language) on Aug. 24 by publisher Éditions Pierre-Guillaume de Roux. “European nations are dissolving socially at the same time as they’re losing their Christian essence in favor of general relativism.”


Topics: , , , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Ulick

    I commend this author.  He knew full well that the members of the multi-culti cult would attack him, but he showed enough courage to speak the truth anyway.  Courage is contagious.  There are now numerous people who read this article who are suddenly more emboldened to also speak the truth.  Truth has a snowball rolling down hill effect.  It starts small but quickly grows in size.

    • Church_of_Jed

      Jewish privilege: holy and sacred; see Evangelical Obligation to Israel, Multicult for Thee But Not for Me


      Perpetuating Black privilege: good and mandatory; see Social Progress, Transformational Change through Diversity Leadership


      Perpetuating White privilege: evil and hateful; see Neo Confederate Klu Klux Nazi Tea Party, Dangerous Extremism, Advocating Violence

    • Good point. The anti-multiculturalism movement is snowballing. It’s already past the point of no return, especially with the economy in the dumps. Something is going to happen soon, not sure what or when, but I’ll bet my life on it.

      • Yea, Golden Dawn is growing and it’s only going to be a snowball rolling down an avalanche from here on in. It’s pretty obvious that the white population has problems with multiculturalism and the inaction of the government proves that they are fundamentally sick in the head.
        This is precicely why people like hitler come to power. The government stops listening to it’s people and needs an enema.

  • loyalwhitebriton

    One has to ask the question, in all honesty: If Norway’s Labour government hadn’t allowed over three decades of non-white immigration, would Breivik have committed his attrocity?
    Considering that Breivik spoke out about the Islamisation of Norway (and Europe generally), one has to conclude: No.
    Norway’s  political Left are the root cause of Breiviks’ actions.
    Just as the political Left are responsible for all of the bad things, everywhere.

    • Norwegian prime minister Jens Stoltenberg should be put on trial.

  • Where is the translation of this incisive book? Of course the MSM won’t print it, but someone in the traditional blogosphere has to…

  • whiteyyyyy

    Breivik’s planting a  few seeds. When I read about Breivik, I looked him up on youtube. Sooner  or later I’m looking upCultural Marxism, race realist sites etc. Even people who disagree with him, understand  his point. When politicians sell out  nations they set this kind of thing in motion.

  • .

    Breivik didn’t just target “little tykes and kiddies on holiday”, he specifically decapitated the next generation of Norway’s socialist, leftist, liberal politicians and cultural ‘enrichers’.

    Literally, the children, nieces and nephews and close friends of the families of the current Norwegian political leadership.

    These are the very same people who enacted immigration laws and social policies which are getting BREIVIK’S friends, children, nieces, nephews and neighbors assaulted, robbed, raped and murdered in their own homes.

    If you want to understand the mindset of the killer, examine the mindset of his targets.

    Breivik’s motives and intentions are clear. He was taking out the youngest of the Quislings, quite possibly the only real way to make politicians suffer the street-level consequences of laws they thought only applied to others.

    • That island where he did the shootings was owned by the Labour party to brainwash the next generation of students

    • refocus

      How did Brevik manage to drive up to the office window of the Norwegian PM, park his car and then detonate a powerful bomb?

  • That’s a very courageous thing to write, obvious as it may be to us normal people. If this whole affair gets an honest debate going in Europe, then perhaps all those people will not have died in vain.

  • IKantunderstand

    Breivik did what he felt needed to be done to further his revolution against European Union hegemony over immigration.  Have I ever heard cries of condemnation of Robespierre? Non. Each century produces their own radical who believes implicitly in their cause. Breiviks’ cause , to my mind, is far more reaching and important for the very existence of Western Civilization. Viva La France, hell; Viva La Western Civilization and Viva Christianity! Robespierre, you have no idea where your concept of egalatarianism has taken your country. And the rest of the world.Don’t R.I.P.

  • It’s a slippery slope to explain, even justify, the actions of a deranged murderer. The young white people Breivik slaughtered might have come around to a different way of thinking one day, but he stole that chance away from them. 

    • Kronolog

       More likely thought, is that they would have ended up in the parliament, from where they would have supported larger immigration quotas.

    • godzillabloggs

      “It’s a slippery slope to explain, even justify, the actions of a deranged murder”. 
      Ignorance is bliss?  

      Richard Millet expects there to be more massacres  sooner or later.  If he is right. it will become impossible to justify shirking the job of trying to explain the underlying causes.

    • One man’s mass murderer is another man’s ethnic hero. Take Robert Mugabe for example. There is a war going on, a war between the races, and right now the European race is losing by attrition. You call it mass murder because you are too brainwashed to see that there is in fact a war. 

  • Sherman_McCoy

    I suppose that, had he attacked a Muslim ghetto, he would have accomplished nothing except to create more sympathy for Muslims.  

    He killed whites, who will be swiftly forgotten. for as we all know, we deserve to be erased from the planet.  

    Crazy like a fox?

  • JackKrak

    I agree with his point, but how exactly was “multiculturalism…….imported from the United States”?

    It must be standard operating procedure for French intellectuals to blame the US for anything they don’t like, but Europe’s version of the multicultural plague is distinctly home-grown.

  • godzillabloggs

    Richard Millet is doing what journalists have done after previous massacres. He has gone beyond mere condemnation and looked at the forces at work in the society where the killings occurred.  There is nothing surprising about his conclusion – except perhaps for his boldness in publishing it.  If fundamental and irreversible changes are forced upon a society, there is going to be an explosion sooner or later. 

    It would be useful to know more about the attitude of the Norwegian public to immigration.

    • Yes, he is stating, quite unequivocally, that the ruling class in Europe has sold it’s people out to the enemy. they will not even acknowledge that these “immigrants” are enemies. Such a statement would make them gasp with shock and indignation. They want to perpetuate a crazy fantasy that to be “English” or “Norwegian” or  “French” has nothing to do with ethnicity but is merely an adherence to a “national identity” and a  language .None of these immigrants think this though, they see themselves as a separate people and they see the native peoples of Europe as something that they must destroy.

  • godzillabloggs

    According to a report in the Guardian, the killings led to a boost in pro-immigrant sentiment, but the effect is now wearing off.  The relevant quote is below.  

    “There is a growing consensus that Norway’s feeling of national unity, symbolised by the huge “rose marches” in which hundreds of thousands marched in defiance after the attacks, has slowly ebbed away as the country becomes divided over the issues of rising immigration and cultural integration.

    Some experts believe that anti-immigrant antipathy has now slid back to levels that existed before Breivik, a far-right militant, slaughtered 77 people last year.Thorbjørn Jagland, the Norwegian chairman of the Nobel peace prize committee, is among those who believe nothing has been learnt in the 13 months since the attacks”.

  • curri

    Did he mention that Breivik’s father abandoned him at an early age and refused contact thereafter?  And that his mother was far from a sexual paragon?  Along with his wigger youth, this makes B. an almost perfect product of the western cultural revolution.

  • The weakness of the multicultural liberal elites is going to be their undoing. Their response to a man that murdered 70 plus people has basically been a slap on the wrist. This will embolden the enemies of the liberal elites. What we are witnessing is the START of Breviks career. He will not be going away because they did not put him away. 

    • JustaWhiteMom

      I think you’re right.  I don’t think a violent genocide is planned, but it is none-the-less true that the EU elites have set in motion trends that will lead inexorably to the decimation of the native peoples. When immigrant numbers are small, they say nationalists are “hysterical” and “paranoid” and then where their numbers grow they appeal to the natural kindness of the people to get them to give up thier cultural dominance.  Rinse and Repeat.

      You are ABSOLUTELY right about the EU elites.  Their weakness in dealing with him is, ironically, one of the things that Breivik objected to about Norwegian society, feminization. 

      Permissive government only works for Europeans.  When you replace the population, a new form of government will be needed.

      • People will follow the strongerhorse. Brevik is now the stronger horse. He will someday be out of prison and he will be the  stronger force.

  • I suspect that the last sentence of Millet and Breivik is  “But, I am not a racist” and that the discussion will boil down to integration versus multiculturalism. If multiculturalism would give us a few more breath, the real choice we have is integration or separation. While a white territory and institution is a necessity, only if we are able to imagine that we can live elsewhere we may continue to live where we live now, but if we define ourselves by where we live, we will loose it all. While we have  great inhibition to politically exploit children, the anti-racists have no scruple to reach them from a young age on. The Aryan way is to sanctify  the family next to the special bound between the child and the mother, so that the children can grow in a largely depoliticized environment protected from the folly of men.

  • Breviks crime should wake up norwegian society and law makers to stop and reverse  third world immigration.

  • Sheila Dinehart

    “Multiculturalism, as it has been imported from the United States, is the worst thing possible for Europe … and creates a mosaic of ghettoes in which the [host] nation no longer exists,” Millet told France Info radio on Aug. 27. “Breivik, I believe, perceived that and responded to that question with the most monstrous reply.”

    (Wait a second, multiculturalism began in Europe, then spread to America, and all over the world where British and American colonialism prevailed, *after WWI  with Moscow  money.)

    There are always monstrous replies…

  • I only got around to reading about 1/3rd of Breivik’s  manifesto at the time this was all going on, but up until that point at least, I could not find much to quibble with.

    Much of it was not his own work, as far as I could tell, but it was a collection of things which set out a picture. I don’t know what it went on to be like towards the end. Maybe I should dig it out and have another look one day.

    That was the problem with the manifesto he sent out for mass viewer ship – it was far too long for ordinary people to read and comprehend. Only followers of the cause and people already around the scene would likely be hardcore enough to go through it studiously from cover to cover. 

    When it happened, I thought it was the ultimate disaster for the cause. I just knew we were going to be tainted by association ever since. Then there were all the conspiracies about it being an inside job, Mossad, how he was some kind of religious fundamentalist….. I believed the opinion that he was not really bothered about racial issues, just the “counter-jihad” cause.

    However, I have to say I was impressed and surprised by the contents of his opening and closing statements in his trial. These can be found on the internet, such as on the counter currents publishing website. It brought him into a different light, well, it did to me anyway.

    This author in France is brave to say what he has. He is clearly an intelligent person (and not some media stereotype Neanderthal) which of course gets up the oppositions nose from the outset as it does not fit their image of people who hold such views.

    I can remember in the UK news when he had carried out his acts. All of the TV reporters and newspaper reporters were describing his manifesto as “mad ramblings of a psychopath” etc –  but I will bet that not one single journalist or reporter saying those things will have even read it, or even a 1/3rd of it, never mind comprehended it.

    They will just be told what to say, they will make sweeping remarks that fit the mood, rhyme things off from a crib sheet and from the general narrative being manufactured. Of course, the mainstream news would not have it any other way.

    I do not know what the author is like or what his fuller opinions are, but clearly he has bothered to read the manifesto document and then made a judgement about what it has to say. This is more than most people have done, especially the many critics.

    It might have been a revelation to him, something that finally made sense about a situation going on – or at the least provided some academic food for thought about Breivik’s world view and rationale. He may not ultimately agree with Brievik, but he has been questioning enough and free-thinking enough to study it and assess the thesis which Brievik laid out.

    That is how it should be in a thinking society. There was a radio show here about a fortnight ago which discussed the ‘macabre’ culture around serial killers and such events in the UK. Ian Brady, Jack the Ripper, etc. One of the people on the panel went to explain that with Breivik, she did not want to even hear or know what his viewpoint was. To her, ignorance really was bliss, and she made that clear.

    Of course, a serial killer like Harold Shipman or Brady, has nothing at all to do with what motivated Breivik. He was doing it, in his mind, as a political act for a cause. People seemed to want to understand Nelson Mandela and his concerns readily enough, and if the tide turns in Europe, it is one of those mad twists of fate where Breivik may become such a figure himself.

    Liberals will ignore this stuff at their peril, I think.  There is an article about this French author in the Daily Mail – but as usual, the article does not, not once, put forward the kinds of issues and concepts which Breivik wanted to share.

    They explain the ‘controversy’ over the authors remarks, then go to say, again, what Breivik did – leaving out ALL the explanations of why this French author thought it was a good piece of work worth risking his reputation for to speak up about.

    I don’t think it is a coincidence, just like the banning of Breiviks closing statements from being recorded or broadcast. They must fear that quite a few parts of it, although admittedly not all of it, will chime with many ordinary Europeans. Until I read the whole thing myself, I will of course not be able to have a say about it with any authority. If only the so called ‘journalists’ and media outlets took the same view.

  • Vil

    The NATO sure did alot of good.

  • GM (Australia)

    Exactly, but  the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq have been a costly, pointless and mainly ineffective response to 9/11 and the ongoing threat of Islamic terrorism on, and invasion (by stealth) of the West. Costly in both lives and money. I would also suggest  both wars are being fought with unnecessary restraint so as not to upset the Islamic world. The West has effectively supported Islamists taking power in Tunisia, Lybia and  Egypt and are supporting the Islamist cause in Syria. This makes it even more pointless to try and establish a “moderate’ Islamic democracy in Afghanistan. 

    As for the Balkans, perhaps NATO did not invade Bosnia or anywhere else but they certainly bombed  Serbia and generally supported the Islamic side of that complex conflict.

    I will completely stand by my statement that the West is bowing down to Islam and is apologizing to Islam and is appeasing Islam despite the conflict in Afghanistan. Just the fact that we have so many  laws to prevent discrimination against Muslims is sufficient evidence to back up my statement. 

    •  yes exactly, what is the point of waging a war against islamic terrorists when you let them waltz right into the country through immigration?

  • Greg Holiday

    To all the people who think the US has played no role in fomenting the Marxist religion known as multiculturalism: it all follows logically with the destruction of NS Germany in the Second World War–the Germans, aka one of the only peoples who thought we had a right to maintain something for ourselves, had their nation partitioned between the so-called “free world” and the USSR. Thus Communism was allowed to flourish when it should have been stamped out of existence. All the Trotskyites came out of the woodwork in the following two decades.

    The US supported the formation of the EU, and the first colored immigrants followed in the late 1950s and throughout the 1960s. (Great Britain–1948 onwards). Pat Buchanan was right: The Second World War was fought to give the third world access to Europe.

    The reason ****** troops are in Europe to this day leaving half-caste babies in countries such as Germany is because a dysfunctional nation like the US had existed in the first place, and the US had been a multiracial i.e. multicultural society from the beginning. The South should have risen again after Little Rock, but they didn’t…

  • refocus

     Yeah, Serbia  surrendered when Clinton dropped 2,000 cluster bombs, each with 1,000 bomblets, from space on Belgrade.

  • curri

    I think Moldbug is closer to the truth about this: 
    First, I believe anti-Americanism is best described as an epiphenomenon of Universalism. The single most significant fact about the world today is that sixty-two years ago it was conquered by a military alliance whose leader was the United States, and whose creed of battle was this nontheistic adaptation of New England mainline Protestantism. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the European ruling class holds essentially the same perspectives that were held at Harvard in 1945. The US Army did not shoot all the professors in Europe and replace them with Yankee carpetbaggers, but the prestige of conquest is such that it might as well have.

    It makes sense to view anti-Americanism as a postwar phenomenon, because it’s hard to find anything in Europe’s prewar political scene that corresponds to it. Before WWII, a European who found American influences pernicious was most likely a man of the Right, generally either an anti-Wilsonian aristocrat or a Bonapartist nationalist demagogue. After the war, and especially since the rise of the postwar-educated generation of 1968, European anti-Americanism has been overwhelmingly on the Left. Considering the animosity between these factions, it’s hard to find any continuity between them.

    Here’s another puzzle: even long after it’s become clear that the atrocities of Communism met and exceeded those of Nazism, anti-anti-Communism remains our conventional wisdom. It has never been even slightly dislodged from its victory over the anti-Communist McCarthyites and Birchers. There is no hint, of course, of anti-anti-Nazism.

    It’s interesting to read classic works of American anti-Communism today, like the all-time Bircher bestseller, John Stormer’s None Dare Call It Treason, which sold seven million copies in its day. From the benefit of hindsight, almost all the details in the book are correct – Castro and Mao really were Communist bastards, and so on – and at this low level its grip on reality is far stronger than anything which was taught at Harvard in its time.(…)

  • curri

    The late author George MacDonald Fraser relates  how PC/MULTICULT was imported from the US to the UK: 
    Through the Seventies and Eighties I led him on his disgraceful way, toadying, lying, cheating, running away, treating women as chattels, abusing inferiors of all colours, with only one redeeming virtue – the unsparing honesty with which he admitted to his faults, and even gloried in them.

    And no one minded, or if they did, they didn’t tell me. In all the many thousands of readers’ letters I received, not one objected.

    In the Nineties, a change began to take place. Reviewers and interviewers started describing Flashman (and me) as politically incorrect, which we are, though by no means in the same way.This is fine by me. Flashman is my bread and butter, and if he wasn’t an elitist, racist, sexist swine, I’d be selling bootlaces at street corners instead of being a successful popular writer.But what I notice with amusement is that many commentators now draw attention to Flashy’s (and my) political incorrectness in order to make a point of distancing themselves from it. It’s not that they dislike the books. But where once the non-PC thing could pass unremarked, they now feel they must warn readers that some may find Flashman offensive, and that his views are certainly not those of the interviewer or reviewer, God forbid.

    I first came across this in the United States, where the cancer has gone much deeper. As a screenwriter [at which Fraser was almost as successful as he was with the 12 Flashman novels; his best-known work was scripting the Three Musketeers films] I once put forward a script for a film called The Lone Ranger, in which I used a piece of Western history which had never been shown on screen and was as spectacular as it was shocking – and true.The whisky traders of the American plains used to build little stockades, from which they passed out their ghastly rot-gut liquor through a small hatch to the Indians, who paid by shoving furs back though the hatch.The result was that frenzied, drunken Indians who had run out of furs were besieging the stockade, while the traders sat snug inside and did not emerge until the Indians had either gone away or passed out.

    Political correctness stormed onto the scene, red in tooth and claw. The word came down from on high that the scene would offend “Native Americans”.

    Their ancestors may have got pieeyed on moonshine but they didn’t want to know it, and it must not be shown on screen. Damn history. Let’s pretend it didn’t happen because we don’t like the look of it.

    I think little of people who will deny their history because it doesn’t present the picture they would like.

    Read more: 


  • curri

    American origins of PC:

    America is seen as right-wing in the current political theater, however historically America together with France has been the main force in pushing our civilization to the left.
    After WWII European patriotism was seen as the root of the evil, which had to be held down. The only permitted patriotisms where American and Israeli. Britain and France got away with some, but after the Suez crisis in 1956 they were effectively out of the picture too. Now offensive military actions were only accepted from America and Israel.In the 50s and the 60s America and Israel were celebrated as model countries of progressivism. European conservatism had been rooted out in the cultural revolution imposed upon America in Western Europe. Adorno’s The F-Factor describes European conservatism as a psychological pathology related to fascism. But the Europeans learned fast. First they learned to follow the American example and see America as the model country. The Europeans could pick this up fast since the ideas were rooted in the Christian gospels. But soon they learned that America didn’t live up to code of moral goodness that they had imposed on the Europeans. And left-wing anti-Americanism was born. And to be precise, even anti-Americans wasn’t born in Europe but also imported from the US.The problem for America was that in their quest to end all “evil” empires, they had effectively become the big empire themselves. E.g. inheriting the role of maintaining the Pax Britannica. Then they had to do all the sort of things they had taught the Europeans were wrong. The Europeans soon learned to beat the Americans in their own game, becoming the leading in progressivism and “holier than thou”. And curiously enough, thus America ended up being seen as right-wing. The original right-wing had been rooted out in a collaboration between America and the European socialists in the wake of WWII.The turning point came by the end of the 60s — the Vietnam war and the Six-Days war. The image of America and Israel shifted, and they were no longer seen as the model countries of progressivism, but as “evil” right-wing countries. We should remember that our progressivist paradigm (which is always going left) is based on Christian ethics. And Christian ethics means the inversion of values. So it’s the weak that is considered good, while the strong is considered evil. In WWI and WWII America had defeated all the strong (and therefore evil) European empires. The job was completed in the Suez crisis in 1956 by turning against their former allies. But you can never win with Christian ethics, because now America became the strong one, and therefore the evil one.So now American and Israeli patriotism becomes highly questioned and opposed. But not based on restoring any other patriotism, but by going even deeper into deranged progessivism. Thus, in effect, American and Israeli patriotism are still the only permitted patriotisms. Surely now the holiest priests of our leftist paradigm now condemn the actions of America and Israel. But in effect it is tolerated. While if any other (white) country acts militarily offensively it’s seen as a major global crisis (e.g. Serbia, Russia).
    7/26/2009 9:54 AM

  • You have something very potent here with your viewpoint that
    “the political Left are responisble for all of the bad things, everywhere”. 
    Holding the Marxist/neoCon Zionist New World administration currently terrorising every White Western nation, responsible for the ongoing mass murder of native White peoples of the West at the hands of non-White Third World invaders and the bloodletting in the Muslim world etc,  is a master stroke and must be expanded upon with the gathering of appropriate international data so as to enable the construction of prima facie cases of Genocide, Treason (on the domestic front), Sedition, Subversion and worldwide Embezzlement of savers’/taxpayers’ funds, to name just some examples of criminal culpability.

  • This is similar to an idea I have been thinking on for a while. Social conflict and discord resulting from multiculturalism, from cultural clashes and tribalism up to violence and terrorism, are inherent and unavoidable. This *includes* the violence stemming from members of the native population, because even if they are not recognized as “vibrant” or “diverse”, the native or majority population is nevertheless part of the multicultural society.

    “The world is shrinking”, according to the popular mantra, but the antagonisms found in this world are growing inversely proportional to this.

  •  Narcissism is notably encouraged in individualistic, liberal societies.