Two opposite views on the Norway massacre

Yesterday, at Majority Rights Trainspotter commented:

While not unmindful of the possibility that our understanding of this event may change dramatically in the coming days, weeks and years, a few preliminary observations are in order. Regardless of what the ultimate “truth” turns out to be, there are some things we’ve learned already.

I should also mention, sincerely and not by way of candy coating the points to follow, that the slaughter of these young people was an astonishing atrocity, and the mind staggers while contemplating the type of individual that would do such a thing.

Having said that:

1. If a group of white nationalists had been slaughtered in such a fashion, would the Labour party youth have shed a single tear, even so much as a crocodile tear? Or would they have laughed and guffawed? In your heart, you know the answer. The Left wants nothing for us but humiliation and death. Of course, this is one of the reasons that many of us came to hate the Left, for they are of a different spirit than us.

2. Whatever the truth of the killer’s (or who knows, perhaps killers) motivation, the Left will always seek to blame the Right. They will shamelessly use any tragedy to their own advantage, even though we know that atrocities don’t really bother them at all, unless it fits their political script. Atrocities tear us up, they make us sick. Not so with the Left. The Left will shamelessly smear, deceive and lie in order to accomplish their goals.

3. On the other hand, the Left never worries about being smeared itself. By their stars, Leftist terrorists are at worse somewhat misguided idealists who got a bit off track. The imported non-whites that set about raping and murdering the indigenous white stock? You’re an evil racist if you point out the truth. Leftist anger is entirely directed at you, the speaker, as opposed to the rapist. As Linder has so often pointed out, the Left is far angrier at the white who speaks the truth than the black who is dripping with the blood of a white victim.

Point is that the Left never lets a tragedy go to waste. God, how much they must love being able to use blonde, fair haired and Nordic in this context.

O.K. So what does this mean for us? It will undeniably create problems, but over time I don’t think it’s going to be as bad as some people think. The West really is in crisis, the demographic conquest of our nations really is happening, and the cultural degradation, rapes and murders will continue apace. We are, quite literally, losing everything. This isn’t a TV show, we can’t just change the channel. It really is happening.

Many will point to Timothy McVeigh and how his actions took the steam out of the American militia movement. While there is a lot of truth to that, the reality is that the militia movement was largely populated by either oddballs or well meaning yahoos. They had no intellectual foundation, no real worldview beyond a vague paranoia and sense that the country was slipping away, and no solutions beyond putting on some camo and running around play acting as soldiers. Just go to some of the militia type sites that are still out there. They are a total joke. They really are know nothings.

We, on the other hand, are building on something far more substantial. A few nutballs, cranks and kooks aside, we’re a different breed today. Our understanding of the situation is not only far broader than that of the yahoos, it’s about a thousand times deeper – and that’s being charitable to the yahoos, I can assure you. We’re not going away. We will continue to hone and refine our worldview, spreading our message because it is true and right and necessary. And we will continue to find a growing audience receptive to our cause, because after all the sturm and drang, our people are still being victimized on a massive scale. The existential threat to our people remains. This tragedy doesn’t change any of that, and reality is a helluva lot more obvious today than it was in 1995.

This is one of the reasons why it is so important to build an intellectual foundation, a worldview that is appealing but strong. Once somebody adopts it, they become immune to the cultural toxins. But a movement that lacks such a worldview and solid foundation is easy pickings. Events like the tragedy before us can in fact destroy a movement of know nothings. But it can’t destroy white nationalism, no matter how hard they try to pin this on us.

Fortunately, the guy doesn’t seem to have much in terms of white nationalist ties, and has described his views as anti-racist, pro-homosexual, and pro-Zionist. For now, that’s may mantra. We need to hammer that home. He’s not one of us. He’s opposed to us.

We also need to take a lesson from the Left’s playbook, which I somewhat went into above. The Left blames us for everything, absolutely, all the time. It never stops. For example, if they can’t find an example of explicit racism, they will come up with “institutional” racism, disparate impact, or something rather less tangible. They don’t quit, they are winners.

We should blame the Left for this. Diversity and multiculturalism demonstrably reduce trust and cohesion in a community. We are probably going to see more nutjobs going off as our societal fabric frays. The Left destroyed our culture, our sense of shared values, our sense of belonging, and our most important civic institutions. In such a context, tragedies happen. They are every bit as much responsible for this as they are for the crimes they facilitate in integrated schools. They are every bit as much responsible for this as they are for turning once peaceful and safe white communities into war zones. The Leftist (Jew or otherwise) who comes after you on this? Within 30 seconds you should have put the blood on his hands, hammering him over the countless murders and rapes of innocent whites that he has never once brought up to you, that he demonstrably doesn’t care about. He is a psychopath.

We can and should condemn this tragedy in no uncertain terms. It was terrible. But never cede the moral high ground, not even for a minute. Always attack, just as the Left does.

On the other hand, this is what Chris Saltarello told me tonight at Facebook. I don’t know how to properly respond…

They deserved it.

Terrorism is when you deliberately target non-combatant civilians in order to extract certain demands. Anders Behring Breivik did not do that. He did not target the Muslim or ethnic quarters of Oslo which motivated his actions, he targeted those parties directly responsible.

What sort of “democracy” is it which weans its future political leaders from a narrow group of teenagers who are all ideologically motivated both within and by an ideologically biased, Cultural Marxist educational system? – That is not a “democracy”, that is a single party state.

If you make ethno-masochist Marxist Extremists out of Norwegian teenagers it’s no different from making boy soldiers out of Congolese minors.

They were all legitimate military targets of political interest, no different from when the United States, or Israel or NATO eliminates Islamic leaders in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine.

These were all legitimate military targets and this was a completely justified act of war by Norwegian National Resistance Forces.

Whilst I cannot speak for Mr. Breivik’s Zionist leanings, as Nationalists, our only regret is that more enemy combatants were not killed in this, including the corrupt Prime Minister of that enemy state.

Postscript of 12:40 PM

The discussion at several nationalist blogsites is getting deeper. I received more than a hundred follow-up emails on comments of those threads that I still haven’t read. Here I’ll limit myself to include a couple of comments from one of the threads at The Occidental Observer:

Schlageter said…

I haven’t watched his video or read his blog entries. But think about from this perspective: he knew he would be relatively powerless to combat each and every Muslim/ immigrant criminal currently raping, murdering, and defiling a once docile country. He likely rationalized that the best way to tackle the problem was to take the fight directly to the facilitators of the multi-kulti policies which have enabled these criminals to run rampant. Therefore, he attacked Stoltenberg and his leftist party in Oslo, and more importantly tried to amputate the future leadership of the organization–the future leftist agitators, jurists, and parliamentarians being schooled at the indoctrination camp on the island.

I’m not condoning the action, nor do I see him as truly “right-wing” in a pan-European sense (more like a Christian Zionist).

Of course, the focus of rage will come down on true adherents to the former while the latter, as always, will be scot-free.

Thomas Mallon said…

Apparently the camp that was attacked was also a breeding ground for multiculturalist ideologues (here).

Published in: on July 24, 2011 at 3:40 am  Comments (8)  

8 Comments

  1. You could respond that by slaughtering his kinfolk, and if the current MSM narrative prevails, Breivik will have likely biased his people against the views he purports to seek to advance.

    If instead his actions had targeted known, violent, criminal Muslims (which I am not advocating), it’s at least theoretically possible that he would have earned a vigilante “Batman” type of sentiment/image, privately in the hearts and minds of many of his fellow Norwegians.

    Or if he had framed Muslims and not gotten caught (which I am not advocating), it’s conceivable that he might have driven Norwegian public sentiment/thinking further negative on immigration.

    These are developed and well-known strategies in political warfare amongst a population one seeks to win over, a.k.a. insurgent warfare.

    Instead he chose an act that extinguished the existence of scores of his own people and denied the future to scores of White children, all ostensibly attributable to nationalism and at a time when nationalism had been making gains.

    An anti-White couldn’t have scripted it more perfectly. It’s not just Breivik’s violence of which I disapprove, but also his monumental stupidity; and that from an obviously intelligent man.

    [I corrected some of my grammar/spelling/verbiage from my prior comment, which you can delete, Chechar. Thanks. -M]

  2. The gist of what the second poster said….

  3. What sort of “democracy” is it which weans its future political leaders from a narrow group of teenagers who are all ideologically motivated both within and by an ideologically biased, Cultural Marxist educational system? – That is not a “democracy”, that is a single party state.

    What does he mean by this? How are the future political leaders drawn from a narrow group of teenagers….?

  4. Never mind – I think I understand now.

  5. Trainspotter, at Majority Rights: “We can and should condemn this tragedy in no uncertain terms.”

    There is no need for any solemn condemnation. Any leftist who tells us to condemn Breivik has more blood on his hands than any of us. Every leftist should be asked to recognize his responsibility in the Utoya massacre.

    I partly agree with Chris Saltarello’s message, except for the idea that “they deserved it”. The young victims were too young to deserve anything. Their parents are not responsible for their own stupidity. But I think the parents brought this on themselves. It is to be expected that some people will react violently to the genocide of their people.

    And also, we need to keep a perspective. How many casualties in the Iraq war? What for? How many millions of our own descendants may be saved from violent death if people like Breivik make a stand?

    (A few million casualties) minus (a few hundred casualties) plus (saving the West) = ?

  6. McVeigh targeted a building full of exactly the sort of people the militia movement needed to reach.

    • McVeigh, like Oswald was a Patsy for the real perps. It would be more accurate to say, ‘the ZOG set him up to target a building full of the sort of people that would shy away from militia movements once it became known they do this kind of thing’.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: