Liberalism, 16

Classical and modern

Enlightenment philosophers are given credit for shaping liberal ideas. Thomas Hobbes attempted to determine the purpose and the justification of governing authority in a post-civil war England. Employing the idea of a state of nature—a hypothetical war-like scenario prior to the State—he constructed the idea of a social contract which individuals enter into to guarantee their security and in so doing form the State, concluding that only an absolute sovereign would be fully able to sustain such a peace.

John Locke, while adopting Hobbes’s idea of a state of nature and social contract, nevertheless argued that when the monarch becomes a tyrant, that constituted a violation of the social contract, which bestows life, liberty, and property as a natural right. He concluded that the people have a right to overthrow a tyrant. By placing life, liberty and property as the supreme value of law and authority, Locke formulated the basis of liberalism based on social contract theory.

To these early enlightenment thinkers securing the most essential amenities of life—liberty and private property among them—required the formation of a “sovereign” authority with universal jurisdiction. In a natural state of affairs, liberals argued, humans were driven by the instincts of survival and self-preservation, and the only way to escape from such a dangerous existence was to form a common and supreme power capable of arbitrating between competing human desires. This power could be formed in the framework of a civil society that allows individuals to make a voluntary social contract with the sovereign authority, transferring their natural rights to that authority in return for the protection of life, liberty, and property.

These early liberals often disagreed about the most appropriate form of government, but they all shared the belief that liberty was natural and that its restriction needed strong justification. Liberals generally believed in limited government, although several liberal philosophers decried government outright, with Thomas Paine writing that “government even in its best state is a necessary evil”.

As part of the project to limit the powers of government, various liberal theorists such as James Madison and the Baron de Montesquieu conceived the notion of separation of powers, a system designed to equally distribute governmental authority among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Governments had to realize, liberals maintained, that poor and improper governance gave the people authority to overthrow the ruling order through any and all possible means, even through outright violence and revolution, if needed.

Contemporary liberals, heavily influenced by social liberalism, have continued to support limited constitutional government while also advocating for state services and provisions to ensure equal rights. Modern liberals claim that formal or official guarantees of individual rights are irrelevant when individuals lack the material means to benefit from those rights and call for a greater role for government in the administration of economic affairs.

Early liberals also laid the groundwork for the separation of church and state. As heirs of the Enlightenment, liberals believed that any given social and political order emanated from human interactions, not from divine will. Many liberals were openly hostile to religious belief itself, but most concentrated their opposition to the union of religious and political authority, arguing that faith could prosper on its own, without official sponsorship or administration by the state.

Beyond identifying a clear role for government in modern society, liberals also have obsessed over the meaning and nature of the most important principle in liberal philosophy: liberty. From the 17th century until the 19th century, liberals—from Adam Smith to John Stuart Mill—conceptualized liberty as the absence of interference from government and from other individuals, claiming that all people should have the freedom to develop their own unique abilities and capacities without being sabotaged by others. Mill’s On Liberty (1859), one of the classic texts in liberal philosophy, proclaimed that “the only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way”. Support for laissez-faire capitalism is often associated with this principle, with Friedrich Hayek arguing in The Road to Serfdom (1944) that reliance on free markets would preclude totalitarian control by the state.

tom green

Beginning in the late 19th century, however, a new conception of liberty entered the liberal intellectual arena. This new kind of liberty became known as positive liberty to distinguish it from the prior negative version, and it was first developed by British philosopher Thomas Hill Green. Green rejected the idea that humans were driven solely by self-interest, emphasizing instead the complex circumstances that are involved in the evolution of our moral character. In a very profound step for the future of modern liberalism, he also tasked society and political institutions with the enhancement of individual freedom and identity and the development of moral character, will and reason and the state to create the conditions that allow for the above, giving the opportunity for genuine choice. Foreshadowing the new liberty as the freedom to act rather than to avoid suffering from the acts of others, Green wrote the following:

If it were ever reasonable to wish that the usage of words had been other than it has been… one might be inclined to wish that the term “freedom” had been confined to the… power to do what one wills.

Rather than previous liberal conceptions viewing society as populated by selfish individuals, Green viewed society as an organic whole in which all individuals have a duty to promote the common good. His ideas spread rapidly and were developed by other thinkers such as L.T. Hobhouse and John Hobson.

In a few years, this New Liberalism had become the essential social and political program of the Liberal Party in Britain, and it would encircle much of the world in the 20th century. In addition to examining negative and positive liberty, liberals have tried to understand the proper relationship between liberty and democracy. As they struggled to expand suffrage rights, liberals increasingly understood that people left out of the democratic decision-making process were liable to the tyranny of the majority, a concept explained in Mill’s On Liberty and in Democracy in America (1835) by Alexis de Tocqueville. As a response, liberals began demanding proper safeguards to thwart majorities in their attempts at suppressing the rights of minorities.

Besides liberty, liberals have developed several other principles important to the construction of their philosophical structure, such as equality, pluralism, and toleration. Highlighting the confusion over the first principle, Voltaire commented that “equality is at once the most natural and at times the most chimeral of things”. All forms of liberalism assume, in some basic sense, that individuals are equal.

In maintaining that people are naturally equal, liberals assume that they all possess the same right to liberty. In other words, no one is inherently entitled to enjoy the benefits of liberal society more than anyone else, and all people are equal subjects before the law.

Beyond this basic conception, liberal theorists diverge on their understanding of equality. American philosopher John Rawls emphasized the need to ensure not only equality under the law, but also the equal distribution of material resources that individuals required to develop their aspirations in life. Libertarian thinker Robert Nozick disagreed with Rawls, championing the former version of Lockean equality instead.

To contribute to the development of liberty, liberals also have promoted concepts like pluralism and toleration. By pluralism, liberals refer to the proliferation of opinions and beliefs that characterize a stable social order. Unlike many of their competitors and predecessors, liberals do not seek conformity and homogeneity in the way that people think; in fact, their efforts have been geared towards establishing a governing framework that harmonizes and minimizes conflicting views, but still allows those views to exist and flourish.

For liberal philosophy, pluralism leads easily to toleration. Since individuals will hold diverging viewpoints, liberals argue, they ought to uphold and respect the right of one another to disagree. From the liberal perspective, toleration was initially connected to religious toleration, with Spinoza condemning “the stupidity of religious persecution and ideological wars”. Toleration also played a central role in the ideas of Kant and John Stuart Mill. Both thinkers believed that society will contain different conceptions of a good ethical life and that people should be allowed to make their own choices without interference from the state or other individuals.

Liberalism, 8


The radical liberal movement began in the 1790s in England and concentrated on parliamentary and electoral reform, emphasizing natural rights and popular sovereignty. Thomas Paine’s The Rights of Man (1791) was a response to Burke’s conservative essay Reflections on the Revolution in France.

paines-bookAn ensuing revolution controversy featured, among others, Mary Wollstonecraft, who followed with an early feminist tract, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. Radicals encouraged mass support for democratic reform along with rejection of the monarchy, aristocracy, and all forms of privilege.

The Reform Act 1832 was put through with the support of public outcry, mass meetings of “political unions” and riots in some cities. This now enfranchised the middle classes, but failed to meet radical demands. Following the Reform Act the mainly aristocratic Whigs in the House of Commons were joined by a small number of parliamentary Radicals, as well as an increased number of middle class Whigs. By 1839 they were informally being called “the Liberal party.”

The Liberals produced one of the most influential British prime ministers, William Gladstone, who was also known as the Grand Old Man: the towering political figure of liberalism in the 19th century. Under Gladstone, the Liberals reformed education, disestablished the Church of Ireland, and introduced the secret ballot for local and parliamentary elections.

“This article was like a breath of fresh air”

An insightful article by William Rome on the Norway incident, “Knights Templar: Honesty and Hypocrisy,” was published today at Occidental Dissent:

A lot of people are going to be infuriated by this post so I might as well get started early: I will not shed a single tear over the dead brats of Norway’s traitorous elite.

For over half a century the Evil Elites of the West have systematically brought tyranny to the people they rule over through non-white immigration, forced integration, forced busing, and Multicultural propaganda which has led to an endless maelstrom of rape, robbery, assault, and murder. To top it off these evil elites also institute Hate-Crimes legislation to silence those who speak out against their tyranny.

Are the Evil Elite and their children affected by any of this? Of course not! They’re protected and hidden away in gated communities and private schools. In other words for half a century the Evil Elites of the West have forced policies that they insulate themselves from.

The hands of this Evil Elite are dripping with the blood of their people from the assaults, rapes, and murders they have unleashed. The lives of countless families have been shattered because of the policies shoved down their people’s throats. Why should I shed one fucking tear when they finally get a taste of what they’ve unleashed? Sorry: my tears are reserved for the people whose lives have been shattered by the policies of the Evil Elite not the Evil Elite themselves. To paraphrase Marie Antoinette, “Let them eat lead.”

As Hunter has pointed out, Anders Behring Breivik didn’t simply pull off some Columbine-style massacre of teenagers for the hell of it (as much as many are making it out to be) but an attack on the next generation of traitors for Norway’s government. They weren’t attending a Salute Your Shorts Camp Anawanna but the training camp of 16-22 year olds for Norway’s ruling Multicult-loving Leftist party. In other worlds he hit them where it hurt most: the training ground for their hand-picked successors.

That is why I included the quote from Rikky-Tikky Tavi in the beginning [Chechar's note: omitted here]. Anders Behring Breivik (as all intelligent political thinkers once did) knew that eliminating the heirs was just as important as eliminating those currently in power. But many will say, “He killed kids! He’s an insane lunatic!” My question is: since when does killing kids for political reasons right away mean lunacy? Roman emperors and Norman dukes killed their rival’s families. The Bolsheviks shot the Romanov children along with the Tsar and Tsarina. We bombed Kaddafi’s children in Libya. Does this mean every Roman emperor, Norman duke, the Bolshevik shooter, and the American pilots that killed children in the name of politics were batshit crazy? And let’s not forget the murder of millions of children every year in the form of abortion which Leftist cheer as a “Human Right”. Is every white woman that gets an abortion a batshit crazy lunatic? Maybe to gain Leftist sympathy he should call himself an extremely late-term abortionist.

I’m not jumping up and down cheering what he did but let’s put the womanish sentimentalism aside. Is killing children for political reasons cold, cruel, and calculating? Absolutely. Does it mean mental illness? Absolutely not.

Even worse those knee-jerkingly calling Anders Behring Breivik a lunatic strengthen the old Marxist canard that all violence done against the Left is a sign of mental illness, while Leftist violence such as the crimes of Che and Mandela are acceptable if misguided acts of political dedication. Why is it that violent Leftists are never mentally unstable?

While I won’t be toasting his actions tonight I also won’t be shedding tears for the loss of the future traitors who would grow up to continue their parents destruction of Norway. The Evil Elite brought this backlash on themselves with the policies they forced. That’s my honestly.

Now for the hypocrisy.

The reaction by the non-mainstream Right to the events in Norway has been jaw-dropping. First off is the spectacle of those who worship Hitler denouncing Anders Behring Breivik for killing fellow whites. They scream, “How could a Nationalist kill his own people?” This from the people who worship a man who killed millions of white people (Eastern Europeans) because they were Slavs? Such hypocrisy is stunning.

The next hypocrisy is from those who are doing everything imaginable to distance themselves from Anders Behring Breivik, saying he’s not one of us. Such self-survival is understandable and justified (especially those in Europe). But this distancing is coming from the same people who are routinely denouncing mainstream conservatives for being too afraid to embrace and identify with the non-mainstream Right. They are doing the exact same thing they lambast mainstream conservatives for: being afraid to embrace their extremists like the Left does.

The third hypocrisy is from those who are saying Anders Behring Breivik should have attacked some Muslim rapists and he would have gained more sympathy. This from the same people who’ve said for years that we shouldn’t attack those the Evil Elite have invited in but the Evil Elite themselves. Anders Behring Breivik did just that and he’s being denounced by some for not doing they’ve always said not to do.

My fourth hypocrisy is one of cowardice. On this site and others there is continuous talk about the backlash and collapse of BRA [Black Run America] here in America and Eurabia in Europe. How did you think this would play out? Debates on German philosophers? Essays on political theory? As much we may like to see ourselves as contemporary Voltaires, Thomas Paines and Martin Luthers, our radical writings (like theirs) will have no teeth to them until they’re taken up with physical force. Am I calling for this physical force? Hell no! I know when it finally comes it will be violent and unpredictable. I’m not looking forward to the day it comes but I know it’s coming and I know it won’t take the form of democratic elections or academic debates. Anders Behring Breivik is just the start of the form the backlash and collapse is going to take. Muslims in Eurabia and blacks in BRA are assaulting, raping, and murdering us while they riot, bomb, and burn our cities to the ground: did you not expect a backlash just as violent?

No system falls except in blood. The Roman Republic, Vatican control over Western Europe, British control over the American Colonies and Ireland, and the French and Russian monarchies all collapsed in blood. BRA and Eurabia will be no different. So unless the armchair revolutionaries denouncing Anders Behring Breivik while publically wanting the same thing (Muslims out of Europe) are ready to accept this they need to stop reading Harold Covington, listening to IRA rebel songs, admiring the American Revolutionary Fathers, and saying we’ll never vote ourselves out of this mess because they’re no different from the hated mainstream conservatives who say this country needs a revolution while also saying we shouldn’t be too extreme.

Anders Behring Breivik walked the walk you only talk.

Selected comments from the thread

Wayne says:

Mr. Rome: I’m with you. No tears shed by me. Those were no “children”, they were young adults. It is all-tragic, but is clearly the fault of no one but the white-hating leftists who brought multi-culturalism. They deserve the blame as they were the root cause of this, as well as the rape of over 800 Norwegian women.

Denise: Did you see their pictures… no kids there. Young adults. Multi-culturalists have brought havoc on Europe and possibly America. Our children will have to fight for their lands and heritage. Thanks, multi-culturalists.

My question to all groups involved, regardless of the spectrum of rightist politics you fall into: Do you believe there is any way to regain our land, culture, heritage and protect our race without bloodshed? I sure hope so, but honestly don’t see it. It’s not our fault, it’s the multi-cultists.

Ed the Department Head says:

I agree completely with Rome’s analysis of this situation. While I don’t like any of Breivik’s neocon stances, Rome is right about this situation. Breivik is the new Pied Piper. The leftist Norwegians hate and vilify the poor Germans over the war and try to psychologically destroy them for being German. The leftist Norwegians sentence their fellow Norwegians to rape, torture, and murder by invading mud people the leftists let through the gates, all for the crime of being white.

Breivik only showed them that if Germanic people and white people are to be brutalized they should be consistent. They take innocent white people’s children and now he has taken their evil guilty leftist brats. It is well deserved!

Discard says:

Unless someone has advocated killing adolescents, they are not a hypocrite to think Breivik a madman. Bombing governments is revolutionary activity. Slaughtering your enemies’ children is simply savage.

As a civilized White man and a racist, I don’t model myself on Roman emperors, Norman dukes, or Trotsky’s death squads. By the way, since Richard III murdered the sons of Edward V, no English prince has been named “Richard”. That kind of thing hasn’t gone over well, historically. Denise is right, nobody will see anything but a pile of nice looking dead White kids. I recognize that you can’t send the tyrannical class to the gallows and let their offspring go walking down the street, but that’s what re-education camps are for, once you’ve won your revolution.

But you won’t win any revolution by shooting up youth camps, even commie youth camps. What did the PLO’s repeated bombings and shoot-ups of school buses and airliners get them but the contempt of every non-Nazi White in the world? 9-11 sure persuaded a lot of people to look into the Sand People’s grievances, didn’t it?

That said, this event is just one more in the war that the multi-cult has brought on us. This will spin out of anyone’s control. These dumbass kids will not be the last victims.

Wandrin says:

“Denise is right, nobody will see anything but a pile of nice looking dead White kids.” – Discard

I think Norway’s ruling elite will be traumatized.

Ed the Department Head says:

Wandrin said “I think Norway’s ruling elite will be traumatized.” I think you are right and I wonder if in their (deserved) grief and panic they won’t do something evil and stupid and oppressive that will, in the short term, harm the White Norwegian people, but in the long term might so injure and alienate the general population that this could eventually lead to civil conflict.

I hope so. I hope they decide after this to try to destroy the Norwegians with much more overt oppression and greater mud immigration and the people either succumb or fight back. (Obviously I want the latter.)

Wandrin says:

“I just wish that their pain had another source” – Discard

I don’t really know what I think. My gut feeling is this will have an impact in Norway itself and one that is less predictable than most people seem to believe but at the same time my kids are that age so trying to think about this event is like sandpaper in the brain.

Yggdrasil says:

Is this the very first time that a gathering of leftists in a Western Nation, post 1960, has been made to pay the ultimate price for their anti-democratic multicultural impositions? If so, then I suspect that the pictures of dead young adults will have a rather powerful deterrent effect on parents who might otherwise encourage their kids to be leftists.

It is hard to imagine a more powerful and socially compelling deterrent than to inject the sort of horrific risk that these pictures implant into the minds of multiculturally inclined parents.
Viewed without emotion, this incident implies a multi-layered level of calculation that I find quite remarkable – an example not to be emulated to be sure – but remarkable nonetheless.

Thus far, Islamic terrorism has been confined to sub-way commuters in Spain, Street car commuters in Britain, and primarily, office workers in Manhattan – all nobodies that the elites could, quite frankly, care less about losing. 
All that the Islamic terror attacks carried out on average working stiffs accomplished was to generate broad popular support for the war on terror and the vast increase in budgets for the security state. In short, their targeting was terrible as they never terrorized the elites responsible for their grievances. This attack was entirely different, as it appears designed to inject an element of extreme risk into volunteering to join the ranks of the multicultural political elite.

Further, the soft sort of totalitarianism of the Frankfurt School variety that is spreading throughout the West is carefully designed to avoid pushing its victims over the edged to the kind of violent reaction that occurred in Norway. Multiculturalism was supposed to be something you could impose on the proles without any cost!

This attack seems to be a rather remarkable demonstration that the velvet-glove totalitarianism that we all live under has failed in its primary mission to keep the elites safe from harm. What are they going to do? Have platoons of guards armed with automatic rifles patrolling the campus of Harvard to protect the future elites from the townies? Wouldn’t that be a bit obvious?

After Norway, hasn’t the task of obliterating the White race become a bit more “messy”?

The analogies of Hunter and others to the killings commanded by Bush and Western butchers are apt, but miss the point. This job had the kind of purposefulness that one would expect from a state planned attack, not an attack prompted by the rage of some lone nutter.

It hit the aspiring elites were it hurts, in their training camp for future leaders, and it hit the proud, self righteous multi-culti parents where it hurts as well. It revealed the soft underbelly of the multicultural regime for all to see.

On a personal level, I feel sad for the parents and relatives of these dead young adults. After all most were lured into a wildly risky scheme of Quisling oppression of their fellow countrymen thinking that the enterprise was riskless and profitable.

But putting on the cap of an intelligence analyst, I see a picture of profound significance and meaning, one sure to be a major turning point.

CBM says:

Yggdrasil, thank you for your posting. This is exactly what needs to be said rather than this mindless handwringing and conspiracy nonsense that has gone on in right wing circles since this happened. I am glad that there are people out there on the right that are actually thinking.

Kievsky says:

Old Atlantic, I agree we have a right of self defense. But if shoot people, will that be an effective defense? It shall remain to be seen if Breivik’s act reduces the mud-flood into Scandinavia. My criticism is that it is taking a gun to a MindWar.

What needs to be happening in Norway is that most Norwegians need to be fanatically opposed to open borders ideology, to scare the crap out of the leaders. The Europeans have to decide whether their native country is really their home or not, and if it is, to take to the streets like in Greece, or better, Egypt.

If ordinary natives have a blase or even positive attitude to the invasion of their own native home country, what can you do for them? Not much? I think a great slogan would be,
“The immigrants have a home somewhere else; but this is the only home you have. Are you ready for your grandchildren to be refugees from their ancestral land?”

I’m kind of surprised to see this article from William Rome. Aren’t you the one who has a kind of multicultural lifestyle?

Maybe it’s because he has the same kind of cognitive dissonance as Breivik did. I think it must be horrible to be a “Cultural Conservative” while partly or wholly denying the significance of race.

I’m glad it wasn’t a WN or Neo-Nazi though. The kosher conservatives are like the nerd boys who play by the rules and still get bullied and mistreated, and then go postal.

We WN’s are like the kids wearing hoodies smoking pot and cigs in the woods across the street from the school — we say “fuck your rules” right from the get go. And so we have less cognitive dissonance about the whole thing. We are able to keep our cool better.

The Systematic global displacement and genocide through mixing and attrition program against Whites is a MindWar, not a hot lead and cold steel war.

If you treat it like a hot lead and cold steel war, the neutral Whites who might have been on our side will end up shooting us on behalf of the Leftists. This is the mistake Germany made — they relied on too much hot lead and cold steel, and not enough on diplomatic savvy. The Jews ran circles around them diplomatically speaking — they had the US and the USSR sewn up, they encircled them, and the Germans thought they could just shoot their way to victory, all the while refusing to develop the atom bomb. Just like Knights in Shining Armor going against Mongols with compound bows on ponies. Beautiful defeat, rather than dirty victory.

The shooting spree is a sort of romantic expression of hopelessness — “we are defeated, so I will go down with guns blazing” statement.

The MindWar is where it’s at.
I wrote a post about how hate is like gasoline, and you can burn yourself, or you can fill a tank and start a useful engine with it. Breivik is an example of someone who burned himself (and others).
One of the kids at that youth camp may have been a future nationalist leader. Maybe one of the survivors is. Who knows how this will shake out. It could end up changing some minds in our direction. Violence is certainly part of the European soul.

And some things should be hated.

Old Atlantic says:

Kievsky, I agree with your strategy. This view, which I find much to agree with, could be stated as:

1. With the support of the people, the violence is not needed.

2. Without the support of the people, the violence is useless and even counter-productive.

Rollory says:

Thank you. This is an excellent piece. Says everything I would have.

Excellent, excellent piece.

“Your Anders hero just screwed White Nationalism forever.”
- Denise

This is a comment I posted at Mangan’s but I suspect isn’t going to be approved:

I was not specifically expecting an event like this but I don’t find it at all unbelievable or nonsensical. It fits into the overall pattern.

Tom Baugh’s black hats/white hats dichotomy comes into play here. This guy was a black hat. GoV and Auster and Mangan are white hats. It would be better if the white hats could win on their own civilized terms, but I see no reason to expect that to actually happen. The Left simply does not believe that consequences for their actions are possible, therefore they will continue to act in defiance of the facts that imply those consequences and civilized behavior predicated on those consequences; therefore those consequences will become more extreme. There will be more black hats, lots more. That is simply the nature of the situation we are in. Calling it ugly won’t make it go away.

“There is no substitute for victory.” – Douglas MacArthur

Jeffrey Heavin says:

The events in Oslo are part of a beginning. Revolutions are bloody, ugly events without glamour. The glamour comes only later when stories are told to grandchildren. Any real White Nationalist understands what Mr. Rome understands, and that is that “history rhymes” — there is precedent upon precedent of violent events that make a revolution. Lawyers and other such hustlers have not only failed us but have become impotent and quite ridiculous.

To expect such change as is needed to occur without violence is like expecting a pork chop without killing a pig.

Spooky says:

God forbid that we feel anything but horrendous guilt that a group of Marxists took it in the groin for the first time in 70 years. Yes, we’re only supposed jump for joy when our Apache helicopters strafe a few brown journalists in Iraq. Otherwise we’re “showing our negro.”

Wandrin says:

“How would you like it if an anti-racist leftist killed your kids because of what you believe?”
- Lew

See here: “Thus far, Americans have proven to be more tolerant of the ethnic vibrancy in their midst, despite the Sept. 11 attacks and 4,380 annual murders by immigrants.” They are doing it already. They’ve been doing it for decades.

I agree that going after their kids is too much but the political elite have been doing this for years to everyone who can’t afford to get away from diversity murder.

“Don’t have the stomach for this small event”
- WR

It’s not a small event. I have relatives who infiltrated terrorist organisations as part of the security services. None of the people in those organizations would have dreamt of going after the kids of their enemies. The mafia doesn’t do this. It’s a big fucking deal to specifically go after the kids of the political elite rather then the elite itself.

Given the specific nature of the crimes of the political elite and given that it is other people’s children who have been the majority of victims of forced integration, mass immigration and murder by diversity I can see the logic of what he did but morally it is a big fucking deal. Don’t pretend it’s not.

Spooky says:

Not that I’m jumping for joy, mind you. Nor am I weeping in my yard.

Denise says:

Oh…but….Muslims were not persecuting Jews when Israel was created… bagan after Jews started attacking Muslims….but who cares? As long as the Aryan Hero is killing lefties! Woo HOO!!!!! tha’t ALL that matters! Lefties! YEE HA!!!
NO dead Muzzies or anything. Labour’s still in power. Woo HOO! He killed Lefty Teens! WOW!!!! This is just like Poitiers! Just like the Seige of Malta! The 300! Woo HOO!

Spooky says:

Fair enough. 

But do you honestly still believe we will beat this thing with nothing but breeding and talk? You agree they have us totally surrounded electronically. So very few voices are actually going to get out, regardless of wealth or looks. In the meantime millions of voices are raised to the contrary, educated to the contrary, and prepared to act contrary to our message.

Kievsky says:

Your Anders hero just screwed White Nationalism forever.
- Denise

Denise, I don’t think that the people we are trying to reach have such weak stomachs as to forever swear off White nationalism just because a roiled up neocon whacked some of our common enemies.

He was not a WN! And maybe Labor will have second thoughts about being traitors.

Spooky says:

Thank you Kievsky. Revolution makes strange bedfellows. Doesn’t make sense to argue ideological purity.
I’m going to get a knock on the door for this shit. Just talking Janet! Just talking!

Brutus says:

“it’s ABOUT the FACT that your Anders hero just screwed White Nationalism forever. ”


Where have you been? It used to take a few months, but now it is only taking about two weeks for the public to forget.

Rob says:

“How would you like it if an anti-racist leftist killed your kids because of what you believe?”
- Lew

Well they are targeting our kids. Its called Demographic Warfare and Genocide by assimilation. Just because the anti-whites keep their hands clean, by using non-whites to do their dirty work, does not mean they are not every bit as guilty as Anders. The only difference between Anders and the anti-white left, is Anders did not delegate.

All Rapes in Oslo Committed by Immigrants, British National Party (here). So please explain who is responsible for bringing in these rapists and why they are not responsible for their crimes.

Is the only difference between them getting actual dirt on your hands?

Richard Harlos says:

This is a sober interpretation of the situation and an icon of sanity following two days of reactionary bias-confirmation by those who seemed to jump from fanatical opportunity of bias-confirmation to the next. This is only the second piece I’ve read on this site, being introduced to it only yesterday but I’m quite pleased with what I’m reading and I’ll surely return for more.

Thank you for having the courage not merely to look at the situation for what it is, but also for having the courage to state it so plainly.

sybille says:

This article was like a breath of fresh air indeed. I thought I was the only one who was not actually mourning the demise of some far-left youth and “youfs” (I believe many were non-white).

And if it keeps people from becoming white nationalists, Denise, what use would they have been anyway if they care more for the deaths of some leftwing youth than they care about the impending extinction of our entire culture and race due to those cultural-Marxist leftists and their parents?

AnalogMan says:


Good article. Your shares have gone up. I understand what many others seem to have missed: that you have consistently argued against this kind of action.

There are only two ways that the present situation can be resolved. The peaceful solution means the death of the race. We may not win a racial war, but we can’t win any other way. History often turns on seemingly trivial events. I have no idea whether Breivik’s actions will be one of those events, nor whether they will lead to the extinction of WN, as Denise believes, or to escalating rounds of reaction and counter-reaction. But I agree that it was a logical development, and quite likely not the last.

This is not to be interpreted as endorsement of his actions. I’m not wise enough to judge them. There is no evidence that he did them to further our cause.

One point of fact seems to have been overlooked by some commenters agonising over the image of Nordic children being slaughtered. This was a political camp attended by the rising generation of the perpetrators of the multicult – and their clients. Many of them were immigrants from Africa and Asia. At least one of the survivors quoted in the press was a Member of Parliament. As you point out, it was a logical target.

On a lighter note, for any readers of golden age science fiction, here’s a parable from 1961 that illustrates the logic.

Norman Lowell says:

Very good article expounding the result of Breivik’s action. The Left, the Do-Gooders, the Traitors will tremble–as they should.

The follow up action to Breivik will all be positive for us: the RRRRR: Radical, Racialist Right, Revolutionary Reactionaires.
But his ideology and intentions were wrong–terribly misguided. He was a patsy, a tool in the hands of the Rodents: a Christian Zionist.

Can one get any lower than that? You couldn’t. But yes, Breivik has set in motion a ripple, a wave, a Tsunami of wrathful Whites–the Right ones.

This is just the beginning: just the start of the White Man’s Fury. And our Ideology, our Intentions will be diamond pure, diamond hard.

The Final Battle has started. No quarter given to Traitors–and none asked.
2012: Anno Zero!

Published in: on July 25, 2011 at 5:59 pm  Comments (9)