Greg Johnson’s second thoughts on Breivik

Originally titled:
“Breivik: A Strange New Respect”

My initial reaction to Anders Berhing Breivik’s killing spree on July 22, 2011 was largely anger, because I feared that his actions would harm not just Norwegian ethno-nationalism but white nationalism around the world.

I was relieved to learn that Breivik was a product of the Jewish-controlled Counter-Jihadist movement, which eschews racial nationalism and builds a case against the Muslim colonization of Europe on “Judeo-Christian” religious and cultural grounds. I was quite content to let them take the heat. But of course both our enemies and our chosen audience are none too concerned about such fine distinctions.

I also, frankly, took a visceral dislike to Breivik, who struck me as a creepy, narcissistic dork.

However, since Breivik went on trial last month, I have found a strange new respect for him. He has comported himself in a dignified manner and made a forceful, intelligent, well-argued case for his views and actions. His only real gaffe has been to insist on the existence of his make-believe Knights Templar organization.

By the end of the first week, the trial was being pulled from front pages around the world, for the simple reason that Breivik was making too much sense to too many people.

Breivik admits to the killings. But he demands to be acquitted on the grounds of what is essentially ethnic self-defense. Based on news coverage, machine translations of trial transcripts posted on the internet, particularly at Tanstaafl’s Age of Treason and Attack on the Labor Party, and our own Andrew Hamilton’s translation of Breivik’s Opening Statement on the second day of his trial, the rationale for Breivik’s attack and his defense is the following.

The Norwegian Labor Party and its allies in the press are primarily responsible for imposing non-white immigration on Norway and for stigmatizing and silencing Norwegian opposition. The Labor Party has imposed multiculturalism without a popular referendum. Their policies have led to the rape, murder, brutalization, and ethnic displacement of Norwegians by non-white immigrants—crimes to which the Norwegian establishment, including the media, has responded with lies, cover-ups, and psychological warfare against Norwegians, labeling them “racist” and “xenophobic” and denigrating their culture and traditions.

Since, moreover, these non-white immigrants are far more prolific than Norwegians, who are taxed to subsidize the invaders, the long term consequence of the Labor Party’s policies is the destruction of Norwegians as a distinct people.

Although Breivik does not, to my knowledge, use the term, this is actually genocide as defined by the United Nations, which holds that genocide is not merely the outright murder of a people, but the creation of conditions that make its long term survival as a people impossible.

Thus the Norwegian Labor Party and its allies have imposed a genocidal regime on Norway. And if there are any absolutes in the world today, the moral rectitude of resisting genocide is chief among them.

Under international law, the leaders of the Norwegian Labor Party, as well as their collaborators, should be removed from power and tried and punished for genocide. But dissenting voices about multiculturalism are silenced, so rational debate and peaceful political change are impossible. As Breivik says in his Opening Statement:

More and more cultural conservatives realize that the democratic struggle is pointless. It is not possible to win when no real freedom of speech exists. As more realize this in the coming decades it is a short path to the weapon. When a peaceful revolution is impossible, a violent revolution is the only possibility.

Thus, Breivik planned and executed his attacks. The purpose of the attacks appears to be fourfold.

First, Breivik wished to punish people in the Labor Party who were responsible for instituting anti-Norwegian genocide. He failed at this, because most of his victims were innocent bystanders, low-level functionaries, and youth activists.

Second, Breivik wished to publicize his 1518 page manifesto, 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, a compendium of Counter-Jihadist writings. In this, he was wildly successful.

It is unfortunate, however, that his manifesto was such a vast and indigestible data-dump. If it had been a slender, concise work, like The Communist Manifesto or the Unabomber’s Industrial Society and Its Future, it would have had a far greater impact, because it would actually have been read by far more people.

Furthermore, although Breivik did not expect to survive his attack, he has used his imprisonment and trial to refine his message and garner new publicity. At this, he has been extremely successful.

Third, Breivik hoped to inspire imitators, perhaps even someone who will actually bring into existence the fictional Knights Templar order outlined in his manifesto. To my knowledge, he has not yet succeeded in this aim. But it seems inevitable, given enough time, that others will follow Breivik’s example.

Fourth, Breivik hoped to increase political tension and polarization, perhaps even provoking a crackdown on moderate nationalists, including the various democratic nationalist parties that are actually making some progress in Europe. This, of course, is what I fear the most, and I find it especially galling that Breivik intended this outcome. His rationale is that such a crackdown will radicalize nationalists to take up arms.

But if one is going to polarize the political field in order to empty the middle ground by forcing moderates to the extremes, one needs to give them somewhere else to go—somewhere real, not a fantasy order of Knights Templar elaborated with all the detail one would expect from someone who spent countless hours in online role-playing games. Otherwise, polarizing the field will only lead right-leaning moderates to give up entirely.

Furthermore, the existence of moderate shades of political opinion in nationalist circles actually provides channels of influence bridging the gap between the mainstream and the radical fringe. Radicals can actually utilize this moderate infrastructure to influence and radicalize people who might otherwise be unavailable to them.

Finally, although nationalists today labor under huge handicaps, we still enjoy some freedom of speech and association, and we benefit far more from them than we would from the possible radicalizing effects of a real crackdown.

Even though Breivik is stridently anti-Nazi and anti-Communist, his basic political model shares much with the Old Right and the Old Left. He hoped to create an armed, conspiratorial, revolutionary party (in the form of an initiatic knightly order) as a vehicle for halting and reversing the Islamic colonization of Europe.

From a New Right perspective, Breivik’s overall strategy is counter-productive. Our race will not be saved by armed struggle, but by the transformation of consciousness and culture. The Norwegian Labor Party did not come to power by force of arms, but because the New Left laid the intellectual and cultural groundwork. For the New Right to do the same, we need to maintain freedom of speech and association and learn to use the infrastructure of the political mainstream to spread our message outward and draw people and resources in a more radical direction.

It is necessary for the New Right to draw a bold, clear line between our approach and Old Right approaches like Breivik’s, because his approach does not compliment ours but fundamentally undermines it.

As for Breivik’s rationale for violence, he claims that indigenous peoples have special rights to their homelands, which entitle them to resist invaders with violence. It is a principle of ethnic self-defense. It is true that indigenous peoples have the right to ethnic self-defense. But surely that right extends to all peoples. All peoples have the right to resist genocide by all necessary means, including violence. Morally speaking, there is simply no valid argument against political violence per se, particularly in resistance to genocide. The justification of a particular act of violence depends entirely upon whether or not it actually is necessary to serve a moral end.

The weakness of Breivik’s case is not the moral premise, but the choice of his targets: If he had killed the actual leadership of Norway’s Labor Party, or the leaders of the Norwegian press—as opposed to people as young as 14—his defense might actually hold water. It is really shocking that Breivik put so much thought and planning into his acts, but didn’t think just a bit more about his targets. He chose the wrong targets, both from the point of view of their culpability and from the point of view of publicity, of propaganda of the deed.

Breivik was not indifferent to innocent life. But some “collateral damage,” i.e., killing of the innocent, is necessary and unavoidable even in just struggles. Breivik tried to minimize such deaths. His error was in ascribing culpability to young people whose only crime may have been to believe the multicultural propaganda they were steeped in from birth.

The leaders of the Norwegian Labor Party have taken one of Europe’s most homogeneous, harmonious, and happy societies and colonized it with hostile, fast-breeding aliens. Since racially, culturally, and religiously diverse peoples inevitably end up hating and killing one another when forced to coexist within the same system, the Norwegian Labor Party has responded to these tensions by hushing up both crimes and criticism. They created a boiling cauldron of social and psychological turmoil. Then they clamped a lid down on it. Then they were shocked—shocked!—that the whole thing exploded in their faces. First and foremost, Breivik needs to be seen as the inevitable consequence of the Labor Party’s policies.

The establishment obviously wished to use the Breivik trial to stigmatize ethnonationalist sentiments. But Breivik was making too much sense, so they are drawing a veil of censorship over the proceedings. In short, they are doing the very thing that made Breivik’s rampage necessary in the first place. Will they ever learn?

I grew up around a lot of Norwegian Americans in the Pacific Northwest. They are known for being taciturn and for not expressing their feelings. I still remember the only Norwegian joke I ever heard: “Did you hear the one about the Norwegian man who loved his wife so much that he almost told her?” Nordics don’t just keep back positive emotions, either. They are notorious for suffering a long time in silence, bottling up their anger, until, eventually, there is an explosion and someone goes Viking.

There will be more Breiviks. Of course the multiculturalists will merely blame Breivik for that. But the truth is that Breivik himself was merely a product of the hatred and violence that multiculturalism predictably brings. The Norwegian Labor Party is responsible for all of the violence caused by their policies, including the inevitable violence by Norwegians who get fed up and finally fight back. That includes Breivik. Primarily he needs to be seen as a victim of an evil system. (Breivik, of course, bears some responsibility for his acts. These were not crimes of passion but the products of lengthy, meticulous premeditation.)

Yet in the end, for all of his crimes and mistakes, I cannot judge Breivik too harshly. He is an awakened white man, and those are all too rare. He was a loyal Aryan, and ultimately that matters more than anything else. Yes, he committed crimes. But he committed them out of love.

Granted, when Breivik awakened he fled one form of Jewish ideology for another, namely the Counter-Jihad movement. But the whole reason that such false opposition groups exist is to deceive, deflect, and delay awakened whites. Still, many whites eventually see through them. And, as Breivik’s Opening Statement indicates, since his arrest, his thinking has evolved in the direction of explicit ethnonationalism. Given time, he might even evolve toward a consistent New Right outlook.

Breivik is going to spend many years in prison. If I could whisper to the Norns, this is the wyrd I would have them spin. I hope he continues his intellectual evolution in a New Right trajectory, renouncing violence and emphasizing intellectual and cultural strategies of change (the only strategies that will be available to him, in any case). I hope that he comments on Norwegian and international affairs and develops a following. Surely events in the coming decades will only argue in his favor. More and more Norwegians—and Europeans around the world—will come to sympathize with his outlook.

He will become a pundit, a guru, a cult figure. People will rifle through his garbage for relics. Women will want to bear his children. His face will end up on t-shirts, just like Che Guevara. And when he gets out of prison, who knows, perhaps Breivik will follow the path of rehabilitated ex-terrorists like Nelson Mandela and Menachem Begin. Perhaps he will end up a Prime Minister or a Nobel Peace Prize winner. He would not be the first to have used dynamite along the way.

Published in: on May 18, 2012 at 3:22 am  Comments (8)  

Breivik’s recent statement at Oslo District Court

It is important that everyone understands why the journalists, lawyers and even the prosecutor in this case will continue to lie about me.

The answer is simple. I have conducted the most spectacular attack committed in Europe since the Second World War. And they want to do everything in their power to prevent this.

I and my nationalist brothers and sisters represent what they fear. They want to try to intimidate others from doing the same. It is the reason the massive demonization of me is going to continue.

The economy will crash and result in mass layoffs of public employees. People who then lived with blinders end up in a situation where they will lose everything.

When they have lost everything, they are forced into a state of suffering, and then, only then, will they dare to say what they really mean.

In the meantime it is important that more patriots in Scandinavia and Europe take responsibility as I have done, as Peter Mangs of Malmö [a Swedish Hunter-type killer of immigrants] has done.

It is important that these Nordic and European nationalist heroes receive the attention they deserve. These heroic young men have sacrificed their lives to ensure that everything we love will not disappear. They are all ideal knights, perfect foot soldiers for the conservative revolution. For national rebirth. Europe needs more heroes like them.

I am approaching the end.


Read it all.

Published in: on May 12, 2012 at 12:54 am  Comments Off on Breivik’s recent statement at Oslo District Court  

Linder on Breivik

Here’s Alex Linder’s take on Anders Breivik from his VNN Forum (source). No ellipsis added between unquoted sentences or quotations from other VNN commenters:

There’s a soft side and a hard side.

The soft side is VNN/F, all White websites, any kind of educational outreach, a potential White HS [home schooling] curriculum (that does not exist and no one shows interest in creating).

The hard side is killing the enemy.

* * *

The people agree with us but are scared of the consequences of being called haters.

Who calls us haters, extremists and the rest of the litany? The communists, socialists, leftists, illiberals, feminists, journalists. But who creates the terms and frames and entire ideo-structure? The jews do. They set the agenda. The determine the framework. They raise the issue and define the contestants. They define what is inside the pale and what is outside.

They cut it so everyone opposed to them is sick ‘n’ evil. There is no middle. You cannot be opposed to their agenda and retain your integrity in their eyes, and more importantly, in their mass media.

How do you fight this? On the hard stuff, you simply kill them off. If their technical prowess is such that they can break up cells by early detection, thanks to their owning the FBI and other spy agencies, then obviously those who would take them out must act alone or with one or two people they’d trust with their lives to keep their mouth shut, since their lives are indeed what’s at stake if they screw up, and very likely even if they don’t screw up.

Once a man is willing to risk it all, a lot can be done from the hard side. That’s what Breivik’s act demonstrates. It’s not part of a larger plan, obviously, for the reasons I just stated—the enemy is able to prevent enemy networks from being established, as far as we can tell, judging by what we’ve seen since WWII. So his act was propaganda of the deed. Ably executed, and with an ideological backdrop and context he made sure to circulate, so that all could see his actions as part of a wider strategy, waiting for others to pitch in and push along.

Rounder correctly said that the jews are all in while the goyim who serve them are mostly opportunists. That means, as he said, and I’ve observed the same myself, the goyim are more lightly guarded. Jews have been racial criminals, shifty-eyed parasites, for 2,000+ years. It’s what they know. It’s what they are. They don’t have another way to be. All their eggs are in one basket, and as Twain advised, they are guarding that basket. They don’t have any plan B fallback option. They expect to be attacked. After all, they know what they’re doing! Jews are some of the most detail-oriented, microscopically-observant, mini-movement obsessed people on earth. They not only know what they are doing to us, and know they obtain racial advantage from their tricks, they positively enjoy degrading our culture and torturing our people. That’s the psychological and political truth: jews obtain a near-sexual joy from torturing our people.

These jews must be exterminated at some point—all European-jew history screams with one voice that any other way of treating the threat they present will not work because it cannot work. Jews can no more change the nature of their race than termites can stop eating wood. Only the catholic christ cult dogma that jews are just men like any other defined only by their non-conversion to the One True Way keeps us from seeing what is obvious.

The point is for any hard-siders, the goyim serve the jews not because they like the jews (no matter what it’s in their interest to claim in public), but because they fear the jews and like the benefits that sucking up to and serving the jews gets them. All that means to those who don’t like the existing order is that if there were anywhere near equal and opposite pressure on these weaklings and sellouts—they would find some pretext to flee quickly to the other side.

Remember always the basic lie of the jews, their fundamental conceit: that they rather than we speak for our community. They can get away with this monstrous imposture because they have suborned too many of our elite; they have created and surrounded themselves with goypuppets; and they control the official voices that most white humans biologically incline to respect and listen to and follow. But if the loudspeakers are taken out of their hands, and a new voice comes over them—the people will follow that which in their hearts they genuinely prefer, and default to white normal with no small relief! And the jews well know this. If they were actually self-deceptive about what they’re doing, they would believe their own bullshit and not worry about “hate” and “extremism.” But they do worry about it, enough to lie about its existence, to turn white normal into hate, and to root out and scream down or set up anyone who dares to resist.

The jews are the ringleaders, but in pure numbers, most of their frontmen and lower-level servants are raceless, self-interested goyim. An example: Rush Limbaugh used to criticize homos. One time a bunch of homos arranged to show up at his late TV show, and when he started going off, they started screaming at him. After that, he basically never criticized homos again. He yielded to a pretty small bit of verbal/economic pressure.

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.”—John F. Kennedy. Breivik’s actions are a perfect example of what JFK was talking about.

You lying judeo-communists filling our clean, successful, calm Norway with violent stupid third-world rapists and murderers can call us “haters,” “extremists,” and “racists,” and all the other filth terms in your liar’s lexicon all day long—but you are the real haters, the real killers, and the real usurpers. And you are going to get exactly what you deserve. Itz coming.


You said you want critical responses, so here’s mine.

And that’s a big part of my beef with Breivik and other similar stunts. There’s nothing to run to. It’s not scary if it’s a one-off. Anybody can be gotten to. That’s not news.

It most certainly is news. When was that last time anyone did in literally dozens of White enemies in two fell swoops—expertly planned, competently carried out? I’ve never seen it in my lifetime—and if you’re going to mistakenly refer to Oklahoma City, please remember that was a government sting operation, produced by our enemy, not by our guys. McVeigh didn’t actuate the plan, and McVeigh was never, at any point in his life, a racialist. All ZOG lies. Remember Solzhenitsyn’s quote:

To defend oneself, one must also be ready to die. There is little such readiness in a society raised in the cult of material well-being. Nothing is left, then, but concessions, attempts to gain time, and betrayal. —Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Breivik sacrificed his future to save his nation. He acted heroically. He had other choices, but chose the most difficult of them. He showed what is possible, not just technically but spiritually. He showed that despite everything we’ve learned from jewish sitcoms and public schools that sex, money and material goods are not what life is all about—at least not to some people. Because Breivik had it all—looks, money, youth, a shining future. Yet none of that mattered to him as much as the spiritual need to defend his own people. That is manly. That is heroic. That is Western. That is white.

“Nothing new here.” In a sense you’re right. Something very old here. Not everyone thinks “it’s all good” and abandons his waking interstice to sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll.

It doesn’t have to be the entire populace—maybe 5%, maybe 10%—some threshold. Within that percentage, you are recognized as legitimate, despite the shit hurled against you by your opponent. You can’t win hearts and minds by first blowing people away—even people who deserve it. You haven’t at that point established any accepted opposition.

You’re talking about Mao’s guerrilla war tactics. It makes no sense to judge Breivik by that standard because he wasn’t part of a cell, to all appearances, no matter what he said.

I would separate the discussion into two parts: 1) what was Breivik’s intent, and what did he achieve, by that measure? 2) how would hypothetical “hardists” be wise to act if they want to rid the West of the judeo-communist elite murdering our nations?

First you establish your core. It’s unassailable. Then, perhaps, one could use political violence—to establish among the fence sitters that you do in fact mean business. But you can’t do that until you can’t be quashed, until your core is large enough to withstand the blowback. Surviving that, you expand the core with the influx of fence-sitters who are now believers. It’s a feedback loop to your favor.

Sure… but this is obvious, and you’re discussing it at a level that’s too abstract to be useful.

“Establish your core.” Yeah, ok. What does that mean? Not in theory, but in actuality. How are you going to do that in an age in which virtually all communications are collected and analyzed; and seemingly most actual physical movements are videotaped?

Forming a physical core seems a rather difficult thing to do, if there is any outward sign this core is bent on physical fighting (or really, anything more than virtual whining). We know the history of the White movement in the 20th century. It’s nothing but a history of being set up and infiltrated and destroyed. Do you know how to change this? Do you have the technical solution, or the organizational solution?

And Breivik’s target… How was that helpful?

That’s been answered. Apparently you don’t agree with the answer, but if you have a better one, you haven’t stated it.

Norway is a country of 5 million. It is run by socialists bent on doing in the Nordic nature of the country and turning into another third-world shithole. A good portion of the rising generation of leaders of its main party has been taken out in a single calendar day. “How is that helpful?” I should think the answer is pretty obvious.

Imagine the electorate. Cow-like. Obtuse. That’s who votes. That’s who you’re winning over.

Ok, so you’re driving off the usual “we have to appeal to people, we have to win them over.” But that is wrong. The way to look at it is what I said in my post above: assume the people are with us, based on the fact that, well, they are. The reason they don’t follow us or vote for us is because they quite rationally fear the consequences of loss of status and livelihood. What will get rid of that fear? Eliminating the people who are causing it: the corrupt elite who will not allow their political monopoly on power to be voted out of office.

That’s the whole argument, which you’re simply avoiding, defaulting to the typical WN [white nationalist] conservative view: that we’re just another electoral option, who must gamely persevere in a rigged game until we finally somehow win at 3-card monte. Breivik ain’t playing the rigged game. He’s not playing democratic politics, he’s playing the same game the totalitarians-pretending-to-be-democrats are: he’s playing ultimate politics. There are no rules. The battle goes to the winner, and no one asks how victory was achieved. And all that is life itself, which all operates on that principle, no matter what the religious fool, to be redundant, asserts out of his ignorant cowardice about god and morals.

How can “we” win if we’re called haters, thrown in jail for making arguments, and denied access to the main media on the same basis as the people occupying the government? There is no way. We cannot win. Breivik shows there’s a way that, potentially at least, we can win. Not one of those dead judeo-socialist nits will ever admit a Somali into Oslo; lead a campaign to normalize sexual perversion in Trondheim public schools; order the bailiff to seize the children from the parents who have taught it that Norway belongs to light-eyed, flaxen-haired Scandinavians. That is victory. However small, it is victory.

Humans are a profoundly imitative species. Breivik knows that. It’s why he did what he did. One reason anyway.

The facade of the System oppressing Whites is democratic. Deliberately is created the illusion that things-as-they-are be the result of neutral machinery, rather than a nasty dark tyranny inside a big-grinnin’ Richard Nixon bankrobbing mask. But when you try to get a little o’ that tasty democratic process (laws, courts, established procedures, mass media access) for your own White self to create fundamental change in favor of your people, the gigantic majority… why, you find that the works are jammed, and your call isn’t put through. No matter how many times you redial.

Breivik called the System’s bluff. He played not the game the oppressed are supposed to play, but the game the actual rulers of the country are playing: “Just win, baby!” as NFL jew Davis once put it. The System does not like that. It damages its facade, it shows it’s not invincible, it puts ideas in the heads of onlookers who just maybe are tired of getting mugged and harassed by the mud monsters the leftists keep bringing into the city centers. All bad for the jewish-left trying to nation-wreck Norway.

Now you go out and blow away a bunch of sitting ducks on an island.

What connection does Bjorg dipshit, out on his fjord, make of that? Nothing positive. “But they were the new cadre of destroyers!” Yes they were. “They deserved it!” Can’t argue with you.

But the vast majority of the white public does not and will never understand that. It’s intangible. It’s too intellectual. The crowd doesn’t get that, and never will.

The crowd understands exactly what it needs to: the reason Breivik did what he did. The fact that he killed a lot of enemy.

This, as the economists say, exerts downward pressure on the number of jusos (young socialists) who might want to be part of next summer’s fun-in-the-sun commie indoctrination camp, and it exerts upward pressure on any enheartened by the idea that, hey, maybe I could kill a few punk-ass hate-communists too!

If it were put to a vote whether Norway should open its borders to Africa and the rest of the Third World, would the majority vote to do that, or to retain Norway’s boundaries and character? The majority would vote for the latter. So the argument breaks Breivik’s way. The majority is made up of people who have to step lightly in their biggest cities; who have daughters and sisters and friends who have been robbed, raped and harassed by the monkeys the socialists let in. They are intelligent enough to grasp what Breivik meant by his act, whether they agree with it or not. That’s all that matters. Of course one act won’t win the population over into active resistance, no more than the first pickaxe blow splits the boulder. But it does make the public opens its eyes, look around, sniff the wind, wonder just what might be going on here. Put the first little shiver of doubt in the ruling party, and make the herd nervous that maybe, just maybe, there’s going to be a battle for authority.

Now, sink a ship of dusky invaders crossing the Skagerrak, and simultaneously blow away the immigration ministry where these “liberal” kids are working—even Bjorg can figure that out, and almost certainly applaud.

Except the whole problem is how passive whites have become, especially in the Nordic countries. If Breivik killed a bunch of niggers or muslims, they would fight back with great vengeance, which would be blamed on him. Instead he went after the whiteskin leaders of the passives—and all they will ever do is hold a candlelight vigil. Which they already have. Yeah, they’ll make noise about taking away butter knives and requiring a journalist license to use nouns and adjectives outside the Official Vocabulary List, but that means nothing. Norway already has no freedoms worth mentioning. Multiply zero as many times as you want, and the result is the same.

The most important right of all is the one that no man can rescind: the right to fight back against your enemy.

The hard part is building the core. You can’t begin to think of anything serious on the macro scale before you’ve accomplished this. You must win hearts and minds. There’s no equation (that I’m aware of). Maybe there will be after we’re through. It’s chaotic.

You’re confusing two different things. The need to have a base for a guerrilla war, per Mao’s doctrine, and the need for WN to spread their message. We can’t win hearts and minds in the mass way you’re talking about without control of tv, and that is the same thing as saying we’ve won the revolution. It simply doesn’t have anything to do with violence; they’re two separate considerations. We have to assume people are with us, which is biologically true, as we represent white normality, and work to reduce the fear that prevents them from associating and working with us politically. Striking physical blows at the enemy reduces their fear of ZOG, since they see right before their eyes ZOG elitists being blown away.

You think some Norwegian journalists and bureaucrats aren’t going to think twice after this event? Or after it happens a few more times? Of course they will. It’s human nature. If all the blows are struck by one side against the other, then who the heck wants to join the losing side? But if the blows begin to run both ways, why, then it becomes a much more interesting question. Joining with the pro-Norway forces, if they prove they’re serious, as Breivik has, begins to become a serious option in the eyes of the people. Who of course fall into the usual bell curve of cowardice/bravery. Bravery not only attracts the brave, it emboldens the less brave. It shifts the bravery curve to the right—it increases the amount of bravery, just as men literally generate more testosterone when they triumph at something. That’s how men are.

Our side is so bitchy and whiny because all we do is take take take blows and never deliver them, except in our cutesy little typings. Well, this guy, altho not technically one of us, did deliver a blow. ZOG/Norway has indeed been hurt by Breivik’s action.

Stuff like a homeschool curriculum feeds into this. Not sexy. But part of it. Winning hearts and minds. Winning women. Winning children.

Yes—it creates actual community, mental and physical. But it’s entirely a different and smaller order than controlling tv, which is the only real way to effect mass mind change. That means, you’re never going to build up a large enough community to get the support for violence through homeschooling, so it’s not part of that discussion. WHS is just something that should be done for its own sake, as part of the soft agenda. The average white is with us in the sense I’ve said many times. That is a political fact. But that “with us” doesn’t mean anything until we’re in position to leverage it, which means we have a political force that speaks for it cogently (offers it defense, racial aid, and a plausible new system to counter/replace ZOG’s). WHS is for growing a hard seedcore of people who aren’t just white but White—white not just racially but White politically, socially, consciously, organically and life-contextually. The parallel would be to conservative christians building HS networks and setting up HS colleges and law schools—they’ve created a full, if small, parallel culture to the ZOG mainstream culture, even if they’ve yielded (or never had opposed) the ZOG ideology on the central points (equalitarianism, loosely).

The first 5%: It’s a meat grinder. It isn’t pretty. For the vast majority who lead in this period, who play a role that will have been pivotal later on, there will be no glory, no accolades. That’s just the way it is.

So I really don’t want to read about Breivik being a hero or a genius. He isn’t. Smart guy? Generally… apparently. He gets a big mark for having balls, that I grant.

But so what? What base has he built? Don’t give me any brain-dead “starting a fire” crap. He wouldn’t have had occasion to recognize (to his immense credit) the imminent danger posed to Norway by non-white immigration if his society were amenable to righting itself by the act he committed.

You’re conflating two different things. There is a hell of a lot more than 5% of Norway that doesn’t want muds let in to ruin the country.

You’re saying that Norway can’t begin to physically resist until 10% are hard-core, ideologically solid, professionally and personally networked racial nationalists. My counter to that is you’re forgetting the size of the country, and the demographics. There’s 5m people, and about 500k mud invaders, and more coming daily. There isn’t enough time to do what you describe. The muds will overwhelm before any ideologically solid base can be built.

Rather, resistance must base on never having control of mass media, but being on the side of the Norwegian majority, which does not want Oslo turned into Lagos. Based on that unchanging passive support, others following Breivik must through their deeds and organization convert passive feelings into positive action. Taking out a bunch of the vile and murderous and nation-wrecking enemy seems to me a pretty darn good way to do that.

After all, as the Italians say, “eating makes appetite.”

Scolding Norwegian women

Occidental Dissent
(including a woman)
responds to liberal Norwegian women
about the Breivik incident:

1st response:


(1) In Norway, the AUF is the equivalent of the ANC Youth League in South Africa and Campus Progress in the United States, where the future communists and socialists are trained to work as political hacks for the Democratic Party.

(2) The AUF is about anti-racism, multiculturalism, political correctness, socialism, and mass immigration. It seems clear that is why Breivik chose the AUF as his target.

(3) In Norway, the political class is just one branch of the same entity that is committed to this program of making the Norwegian people a minority in their own country. Obviously, there are parallels in Sweden, Germany, France, and America.

(4) Conservatives have always been skeptical of democracy. Plato, for example, was one of its most powerful critics. Have you heard of him? Plato hated “the open society.”

(5) Even in America, we know that 100 percent of the rapes in Oslo are committed by Muslim immigrants, who are brought into Norway by the Labor Party. Thus, it is entirely fair to say that the Labor Party is implementing that agenda.

(6) Anders Breivik is far ahead of the curve. He is not a fool, a lunatic, or a madman. This is someone who is highly intelligent. The Unabomber, for example, was similarly brilliant.

(7) Finally, Norway has a very discernible political class (i.e., the Labor Party) with an agenda that anyone in the world can see with a few Google clicks. Obviously, there are people in Norway who believe—with good reason—that the agenda of the Labor Party will ultimately destroy their country and Europe as well.

Now I’m sure the young communists on Utoya can smoke pot, sing kumbaya, and pretend that everything is going to be fine when ethnic Norwegians are 25 percent of the population—White liberals don’t have the slightest understanding of European history—, but smarter men than they are can see the writing on the wall and where this is all headed.

Where is all this headed?

I suggest you travel to the Balkans to ask the Serbs what it was like to live under the Ottoman Empire. Go ask them if they would like to live under the Ottoman Empire again. You might be amazed at your response.

No, people are not really all the same.

2nd response:

Marian: You are living in an Elite country. That’s your problem. If your blood “royalty” can attend Public Schools, without fear of harm, then this means your Average Citizen is Elite.

You, and other lovely, exquisite, elite Nations (Nation is derived from the Latin word “natal” meaning “birth”. A “Nation” is flesh and blood. Race, Marian, race) are importing thousands, and millions of savage racial aliens—who can never be you. They are not white. They cannot be you. You say rapes are uncommon—wait. Just wait. They are going to increase, in frequency, and barbarity, with every sand nigger you import.

You want us to learn about you? You need to learn about the tragic history of the USA. The USA was funded as a Republic—not a democracy. Democracies are the worst forms of Government, and they always trend down to the lowest common denominator: the stupidest, most selfish, worthless lout, in a society. Anyway, the USA, founded by Whites for Whites, allowed the Other in. It started with the Great Wave—40 years of greasy, roiling, vicious, aggressive, hostile, hate-filled European Jews. The problems—agitation, protests, social rending—began to emerge approx ten years after they settled in. Jews founded the N double ACP—and have used feral Darkies, ever since, as the blunt weapon against the hated White Christian.

This is happening in your Nation. You feral Darkies will kill you. Not Anders Behring Breivik—the Muzzies. They will kill you off. Shake off your delusions of “tolerance”. They cannot be you—so they will kill you.

Elin H: You will be back in the caves, soon enough, when your land is taken over by Paki Muzzies. Stop being such a stupid twat, mmm’kay?

3rd response:

Elin H: Those of us who have actually lived among Blacks and Mexicans know what is coming to your country. In small numbers, the Darks will generally behave themselves. As their numbers increase, so will their aggression. You’ll see. By the way, just what is the racial breakdown for rape, robbery, and assault in Norway? If Moslems don’t commit all the rapes, what percent do they commit?

4th response (after Elin said this):

Elin—my initial reaction was aligned with yours. I bewailed the outcome that everyone will lament the loss of these poor little kiddies, etc.

Since I’ve been educated a bit, on the nature of that camp—I’ll tell you why those kids, and young adults were guilty. They were engaged in being groomed for Rule, and would have actively prosecuted the destruction of Norway. They would have actively aided and abetted the genocide of the White Race.

Don’t blame Anders Breivik for the death of that 14 year old girl. Lay that crime at the feet of her parents, and the organizers and funders of that camp. I know a 14 year-old doesn’t have the slightest clue about what she’s being brainwashed to do—but actions have consequences, and her ignorant participation in genocide, and her subsequent execution for being there is literally the Sins of the Fathers, being played out in blood.

I am a woman, but unless I make that fact known—I have generally been thought of as a man—I have always come across as a man online because I am usually analytical, and not touchy-feely emotional, in my thought processes. You are all touchy-feely female and therefore a danger to the White Race, and Humanity in general. I always deride the way females infantilize everything and attempt to characterize savage Darkies into the children they never had.

Your latest post is all about that. A textbook study of a woefully, suicidally wrong white western female, turning her racial and civilizational alien savages into her Pet Darkies, in her own enfeebled, dis-organized mind.

You are a disaster, Elin—and a danger to the world. You are obviously some type of Social Worker ergo Destroyer. You believe every line of BS that is poured into your empty, yet arrogant head because you want to, and because your noxious, grotesque “beliefs” advance your pathetic career. You are all poisoned Vanity and your Niggers will come for Elin. They will come for you.

You will deserve everything that happens to you. Why don’t you learn something real—and take a few moments out of your hideous self-congratulatory vanity, to discover what’s happened to aiders and abettors of the ANC take-over of South Africa? That’s your fate, you sick vile twisted Race Traitor bitch.

When your savage feral Niggers come for you—and deliver unto you your Eve Caron Moment of Poetic Justice—think of us, Elin.


Source: here

Published in: on July 31, 2011 at 2:24 pm  Comments (11)  

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)  

No white nationalist…

would open fire on White kids, ever!

Today’s entry at Balder Blog, Norway: Mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik is anti-racist, pro-homosexual and pro-Israel advices us: “If you have a website please copy this post to your site, before my webhost again shuts me down for too much traffic”:

Some comments about the ideological background of the Oslo bomber and Utoya shooter Anders Behring Breivik

Norwegian sources have identified the man who, dressed up as a policeman, shot perhaps as many as 80 or more innocent young people on the island of Utoya [Utøya] as the 32 years old Anders Behring Breivik. He is also alleged to stand behind the bomb in Oslo, which so far killed seven people.

The perpetrator was a regular poster on several Norwegian Internet media, notably the blog, which is run by Hans Rustad,[1] a former left wing journalist. Hans Rustad is Jewish, and extremely pro-Zionist, and warns against islamization, violence and other problems connected with Muslim immigration. Many regular contributors on his blog naturally more or less share his views.

They represent an ideology where the importance of ethnicity is played down or dismissed completely, and the need for the preservation of Western cultural and democratic values is commonly used as the substitute key argument against immigration. Their rhetorics and activities are almost completely focused on Islam and Muslims; other immigrant groups such as Vietnamese, Chinese, non Muslim Africans and other groups are routinely painted as “harmless,” or even as “positive contributors to society.”

This is the currently most popular strain of the anti-immigration movements in Europe, as represented by Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party, the Danish People’s Party, the Sweden Democrats, and in Germany the so called “Pro-movement,” of which Pro-Cologne (Pro-Köln) is one of the most active, as well as several recently new established parties with a similar ideology. In England the EDL is connected to this ideology, together with groups such as SIOE and its local chapters, The Danish Free Press Society and their magazine Sappho, and some others. Note that the SIOE uses the slogan: “Racism is the lowest form of stupidity! Islamophobia is the height of common sense.”

This picture was taken on the island of Utøya the previous day. (Chechar’s note: Could it have irritated philo-Semite Breivik?)

Their American allies are people such as Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, etc. The dedication to the Zionist cause, and their rejection of classical nationalist ideas such as the importance of ethnicity, sets them apart from the sincere nationalist parties such ad the British National Party, Front National (France), Jobbik (Hungary), and NPD (Germany—and the only clearly National Socialist inspired movement of those mentioned).

Their heroes are mainly Jews such as German Henryk Broder, the French Zionist Bernard Henry Levy, British Melanie Philips, Bernard Lewis, to mention just a few, and many more. The Flemish Nationalists fall somewhere in between, and are mainly traditional Nationalists with no love for the US, Zionism or Israel, who are trying to adapt to a new pro-Zionist image, inspired by the success of Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party in Holland, and the Danish People’s Party in Denmark.

Members of the pro-Zionist groups and parties often paint their non-philosemitic fellow nationalists as Nazis, anti-Semites and racists, copying the rhetorics the left wing PC-brigade uses against themselves, and try to present a more polished image towards the mainstream. They are also much better connected to mainstream politicians than the traditional nationalists, and at times are supported by mainstream newspapers, such as Jyllands-Posten in Denmark, as well as by right wing Jewish groups and individuals. The mainstream press usually judges these groups more favorably than traditional nationalists, who are invariably accused of being “Nazis.”

Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian bomber and gunman also pursued this line of thought:

Posted on 2009-09-14 10:57:20 as a reaction to post by “Caper”


I didn’t see that the EDL as it is today is what we would have wanted. But it is essential that the intellectual conservative forces (unofficially) offer political and ideological schooling to our youth between 15 and 25. Who else is to do that?

We cannot despise the young in society and refuse to come closer to them only because they lack ideological training, since it is exactly OUR (culturally conservative intellectuals) responsibility to do so.

Bawer [referring to homosexual anti-islamist Bruce Bawer] is probably not the right person to work as a bridge builder. He is a liberal anti-Jihadist, and in many ways not a culturally conservative. I have my suspicions about him being TOO paranoid (with reference to his homosexuality). It could seem as though he fears that “cultural conservatives” will become a threat against homosexuals in the future. Therefore he refuses to take his chance to influence them into a positive direction? That seems completely irrational.

It has to be said that many organizations such as VB [probably referring to the Flemish nationalist party Vlaams Belang] needs to go through many “reforms,” before they reach our level.

Anyway, we are not in a position where we can pick and choose our partners. That’s why we have to ensure that we influence other culturally conservatives to take our anti-racist, pro-homosexual, pro-Israeli line of thought. When this direction has been taken we can take it to the next level.

The consolidation MUST continue, and people must contribute by influencing (instead of isolating).

The above was translated from this page, where has collected all posts by Anders Behring Breivik. So far it is not possible to read the separate comments in the original thread; according to an announcement on the website, they changed IT-systems a few days ago, and are working on bringing the comments and the full posts back online. The URL to the article to which this comment belongs is here; maybe it will work later on.


1 I dislike Mr. Hans Rustad for at least one reason: He does not support freedom of speech when it comes to WWII history and the holocaust.

Total deathtoll at this moment 9:00 local Norwegian time: 91


I commented at Age of Treason:

One thing is clear: Anders Behring Breivik is no White Nationalist. No White Nationalist would ever open fire on White kids, ever! I mean: not even in the most gruesome pages of William Pierce’s or Harold Covington’s novels such a thing happens. In those revolutionary novels the nationalists don’t even kill colored kids! (It is important to say this over and over if some nut tries to relate yesterday’s incident at Norway with us.)

P.S. Anders Behring Breivik’s manifesto:

(Note of 2019: The blank space means that the site has either removed the video or it has been censored.)

Published in: on July 23, 2011 at 12:05 pm  Comments (5)