Originally Posted by Zaleukos
That post didnt make much sense at all in the context of Breivik and Europe. Do not try to apply US labels and issues to events on this side of the pond.
Read his ramblings or a summary of those. He claims that Europe is about to be taken over by the muslim hordes, that this takeover is facilitated by conspiracy and/or omission by cultural marxists, certain types of liberals (a word with a different meaning in the US, your "liberals" correspond to social democrats), and feminists. He self identifies himself as a "national conservative".
He is not against welfare but against "islamisation" of Europe, which is a widespread theme among anti-immigration political parties who as far as they can be cathegorised are lumped together under a "far right" label (they tend to have their roots either in extreme libertarianism, reactionary catholicism, or neo-nazism depending on the country). These parties do tend to attract working class voters and thus take voters from the left, but that doesnt make the parties leftist (their policies tend to mix various "tough on-" stances with lower taxes AND welfare statism).
Of course Breivik takes this much further by wanting to wipe out the future leaders of the social democrats, but his underlying world view is sadly not THAT uncommon and mostly shared by PARTIES that usually are labelled far right.
EDIT: I am a rightwinger myself in some sense (maybe a "moderate libertarian" in US terms), but I dont have a problem with using the far right label to describe nutters like Breivik. One can argue that the left-right axis is inadequate for actually representing multi-dimensional political matters, but it's what we have and it is a Quixotic endeavour to challenge established terminology.