Breivik’s spectacular message

Dear lefties:

Keep working for your multicult global plan. But this is our plan for YOU.





A couple of recent comments I just read at The Occidental Observer:


Wattylesrevolt said…

One way to think about what has happened is this: the revolt against race-replacement has begun… earlier than we expected.

And I’ll tell you something. On the one hand, I don’t support the shooting. But I also know that a future generation of vicious race-replacement enthusiasts, many of them Paki youth, have been put out of commission.

Beowulf said…

Anders Behring Breivik might not be fully awakened—it’s a process for most of us—, but his instincts were dead on. He struck a carefully aimed blow at his enemy, which cannot be done through talking or intellectualizing.

This is primal.

His actions—not rational—were meant to redeem the bloody sacrifices of his people to the multiculturalists. He thought about the problem, felt the impulse to act, and attempted—imperfectly—to construct a rationale and calculate the consequences as best he could.

None of us know what those will be exactly. Such is the nature of action, particularly violent action. But make no mistake: this is a war. It has come because most of the damage has already been done—it’s too late to put the genie back in the bottle.

The kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent bear it away.

I say…

Unless Breivik is emulated by other Europeans, his actions will not have any effect on the West and their elites’ multicult plan. Such actions could even turn to be counterproductive… unless many of us start reading The Brigade.

* * *

P.S. Jaego Scorzne nailed it elsewhere.

Scorzne said…

Yes, History will judge. If Europe rises up, Breivik will be seen as a Hero, a latter day Charles Martel. This is Breivik’s hope and vision. If Islam conquers, he will be just seen as a failed crusader–and forgotten since he failed and didn’t kill any Muslims anyway. If Liberals win, he will go down in history as a Criminal. But this is actually the least likely scenario long term since Liberalism is a death cult [see here]. Who cares what they think?

My point is that history is interactive. It’s not written in stone until the stones are toppled one upon another. Short term we play him down for sure, but use his trial for all it’s worth. These people may not like us but the stakes are too big to let that get in the way–way too big.

Published in: on July 26, 2011 at 10:12 pm  Comments (16)  

16 Comments

  1. Further commentary on the significance of the Breivik Action: here.

    • I hope counterterrorism police locate you and execute you upon raiding your apartment. You are a waist of oxygen and food. You are evil and misguided. You shall discover whether eternal damnation is real. You shall suffer forever as you are suffering now unless you let go of the hate within you.

      • To Craig – this may well happen but what is far more propable, to actually HAPPEN, is that you will be killed off by some assortment of random feral Darkies. Think of us, as they are bashing your skull in.

      • No, Denise, Craig will have relocated somewhere safe by then, and he will justify his move by citing such factorsd as “less crime,” “nicer environment,” “better schools” and so on, all code words for “whiter.” You underestimate the infinite capacity of liberals for double-think and intellectual dishonesty.

  2. hmmm…I don’t suppose any of you guys used to read LGF, did you?

    • What LGF failed to say in that diatribe against us is that the book I recommended at the end of my initial post, The Brigade, is a revolutionary novel with the revolutionary commandment “First and foremost: No kids!”

      This blog gets little traffic. If you want to see the debate from the other side you must go instead to the ongoing debates at The Occidental Observer, Occidental Dissent and Majority Rights. I wouldn’t recommend counter-jihad blogsites since they’re chicken cowards.

  3. I disapprove of Anders Behring Breivik, but I still find him interesting, and I won’t have settled, detailed opinions of him till I read his entire file. (This is how I felt about the Unabomber too: I disapproved of what he did, but my opinion of him did not crater into total lack of interest till I read and thought about what he had published in Penthouse.)

    The first, obvious and I think correct argument against Anders Behring Breivik is: the “one nut with a gun” theory of political transformation never works. The masses do not rise up. The horn sounds in vain.

    The second was pointed out by Kevin MacDonald immediately. People have an evolved distaste for the killing of the young, particularly young people of the same ethnicity. No matter how diligently you may have thought through other aspects of your terrorist action, you’re fighting nature if you disregard that evolved negative reaction.

    (In a similar way, the Hyde Park and Regent’s Park bombings did the IRA no good. The nail bombs killed 11 soldiers including 7 bandsmen, but what people really remembered was the seven horses killed and another seriously wounded.)

    But there are a lot of “devil’s advocate” arguments that can be made for Anders Behring Breivik.

    One is that in the face of slow genocide for Whites there’s nothing to lose.

    Another is that maybe all that matters is getting to 10% or whatever the critical mass of settled, fervent opinion in your favor turns out to be. Suppose for argument’s sake that the vital number is indeed 10%. If respectable means could keep you bumping along at 9% or a bit less in your favor forever, but with no chance of going above that, they would be worthless. And if undesirable, even terrorist means would probably crater your support to 1% or so, but there was definitely a tiny outside chance of getting enough exposure for your ideas to move your support to 10%+, well, cross the beams…

  4. A personal reflection…

    There’s another reason to hesitate to put “case closed” next to Anders Behring Breivik.

    (Or Andrew Berwick, which I find easier to remember, and which I think says something important about him. He’s happy to be anglicized, to be internationalized, to be made accessible. He’s happy to provide pictures, which are clearly symbolic even at the expense of making him look like a mall ninja. He’s happy to be read and criticized at any length, and for those who don’t want to read he’s provided a video. He has not escaped his crime in death, like the Virginia Tech creep, he’s stuck around for the trial and the rest of his miserable life. In other words, he’s put himself on a platter to be chewed on in every way, and if we still fail to learn anything that’s not his fault.)

    That is, many of the criticisms of him are bogus. People are eager to distance themselves from him. (And me too.) So we catch the nearest way, even if it’s unconvincing or definitely unsound. My reaction to these nervous-seeming and flawed criticisms starts with thinking: no, Berwick was right about that bit… And then I stop, unhappy with myself, reluctant to think further. In other words: “crimethink!”

    I think “crimethink!” is a bad thing to leave in your memory as your final opinion on any topic. Even if you are determined from the outset to condemn someone, I think it’s better to take the time to do it properly, on the basis of reading and reason. I want not only a verdict but the right reason for it.

    If someone had asked me a day before anyone had heard of Andrew Berwick why I thought Hitler was not only so objectionable but so useless, I would have said that I would be ready to listen to someone writing now, addressing our crisis, today, reasoning from the numbers that drive that crisis; but they would have to be pro-White and not just pro-German or pro-English or pro-American, they would have to lay out their case and a hopeful plan at some length, they would have to act like the things they say are a crisis really are a crisis for them, personally, and if they gave any indication of being a Hitler fan my eyes would glaze over instantly. (I would not have thought of adding: “and of course they can’t be a terrorist”.)

    Except for his having made the immense mistake of committing murder, Andrew Berwick meets my requirements as a contemporary would-be leader that people who waste their time on Hitler should be looking to instead. That’s awkward. Now I have to think about him.

  5. Kevin MacDonald continues to take an interest in Andrew Berwick and his errors. This is immensely helpful.

    • I agree. MacDonald surprised me. Somewhat similar to what I said at the beginning of my latest post “Why I love your Nordic race more than you do”, Prof. MacDonald got death threats. Fortunately he taped them…

      • Kevin MacDonald is a remarkable man as much for his moral courage as for his intelligence. You can see this in his response to the terrorist strike in Norway. When others ducked and hid, he refused to take this as a “sensitive” topic. He read seriously and gave his opinions plainly, whether on Anders Behring Breivik’s mistakes or his good strategic ideas. Naturally this resulted in Kevin MacDonald being denounced and threatened, and naturally he has given not an inch. And all of this in his cool, professorial style!

        It’s a reminder never to mistake swear-words, hysteria and other kinds of degrading verbal aggression for real courage and the real will to fight.

      • MacDonald has kicked ass on this. He is actually reading Breivik’s book and commenting while using a little nuance. I really appreciate MacDonald as a true voice of reason in a sea of confusion and caculations.

        Unlike some idiots like Stan Hess over at VoR running Breivik down as a staunch Zionist and shabbos goy while admitting he hasn’t even read his book yet.

  6. MacDonald’s articles are very interesting, but some of the comments at TOO are disappointing.

    You could post your above comment there. It will make a difference…

  7. Chechar, keep up your fine work sir.

    Daybreaker, insightful comments.

    • Thanks, Stinkum.

  8. Chechar: “Unless Breivik is emulated by other Europeans, his actions will not have any effect on the West and their elites’ multicult plan.”

    Daybreaker: “the ‘one nut with a gun’ theory of political transformation never works. The masses do not rise up. The horn sounds in vain.”

    I think that massacre can have a significant effect, but we cannot measure it. Some White Nationalists think that it is being exploited by the media to our disadvantage. If so, why would the media be unable to exploit the mayhem committed by one hundred nuts armed with guns?

    I suppose that the anti-white media don’t know what to do. They want to muffle the horn and distort the horn-blower’s message. At the same time, they want to show that anti-immigration activists are heartless murderers.

    If there were several Utoya-like terrorist attacks in the next few years, maybe it would embolden people into taking to the streets to ask for an end to the government’s anti-white policies. It would be a kind of mass uprising. But a one-off massacre can also have some effect. I think what happened in Utoya will probably be enough to restrain the race-replacing enthusiasm of many leftists. There is no need to cause a mass uprising in order to be partially successful.

    I followed the link given by Andreas on another thread to pictures of the young victims. Seeing this picture makes me wonder if the girl’s parents will one day realize that the race-replacement policy of Norway’s Labor Party is criminal. Are they going to adopt a Somali to compensate for the loss of their daughter? If not, why do they expect Norway to progressively replace its white children with non-Whites? Liberalism is indeed a death-cult.

    “many of the criticisms of him are bogus. People are eager to distance themselves from him. (And me too.) So we catch the nearest way, even if it’s unconvincing or definitely unsound.”

    Some of the arguments used to condemn Breivik are so moronic that they are probably meant to be so. People have no choice but to condemn him. So, they deliberately choose flawed arguments to do so.

    Chechar: “MacDonald’s articles are very interesting, but some of the comments at TOO are disappointing.”

    Some people may be uncomfortable posting comments on MacDonald’s blog because he is doing serious work and knows much more about the JQ and related subjects than the commenters. It is awkward to contradict him and to post a half-baked comment on his blog as you would do on other blogs. And also, you are unlikely to get a reply by him, as he usually doesn’t intervene in the comment section.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: