Print this post Print this post

Breivik: A Strange New Respect

2,165 words

Audio version here

My initial reaction to Anders Behring 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 “necessity,” but what it boils down to is 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 violently 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 whole political spectrum to spread our message outward and draw people and resources inward, 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 complement 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.

Breivik also makes a utilitarian argument, claiming that his acts were justified because he killed today to save a much greater number of people in the future, who will die unless multiculturalism is stopped.

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 reserved about 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 bottling up their anger, suffering in silence 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. In spite of his errors, he was acting out of loyalty to our people, and that matters a great deal. 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—would come to sympathize with his outlook.

Eventually, he could become a pundit, a prophet, a guru, a cult figure. Political prisoners definitely have a glamor. People may someday rifle through his garbage for relics. Women will want to bear his children. His face might 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.

 

This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , . Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

56 Comments

  1. jack
    Posted May 31, 2012 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

    A psychological analysis of Anders Breivik by Cambridge University psychologist Kevin Dutton on George Galloway’s show.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VNOuWt5vUc

    Apparently he has a narcissistic personality motivated by social alienation and Norwegians girls giving him the brush off for Asian men.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted May 31, 2012 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

      Why do these people need academic credentials to come up with cliches like that?

      • jack
        Posted May 31, 2012 at 11:33 pm | Permalink

        I don’t give much credence to psychiatry especially in regards to criminal profiling as with the case of the DC sniper they got it spectacularly wrong in trying to profile the killer(s) who were stating that it was likely two white guys in a van in their 20’s and 30’s when it was 2 blacks John Muhammad, 41, (aka John Williams) and Lee Boyd Malvo, 17, (aka John Lee Malvo) driving a car.

        “We were looking for a white van with white people, and we ended up with a blue car with black people,” was D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey’s afterthought upon the fact that the culprit car had attracted police attention at least 10 times during the critical period, once on an overnight stopover in Baltimore when Mohammed displayed his authentic Washington state driver’s license, and was waved on his way in an old Chevy bearing New Jersey tags, headed toward the next set of shootings in Virginia.

        Wrong place, wrong ages, wrong race — the wrong men, if the jury is made up of profilers. The media, however, did serve an odd, but useful purpose when acting as a conduit to the killers. They were asked say “‘We have caught the sniper like a duck in a noose.’ ” That bears analogy to the New York Times publication of Unabomber Ted Kaczynski’s 35,000-word manifesto. It worked. The FBI profilers on that case had been looking for an uneducated man with a menial job.”

        http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2002-12-15/entertainment/0212160297_1_van-zandt-serial-killers-snipers

        The bizarre thing about the Breivik case in the media is that there was a strong focus on the fact he played World of Warcaft that I would assume was meant to represent his disconnect with reality.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY6cJybuqVA

        Another psychoanalytical profile of Breivik.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNzqAnWmqxA

  2. anon
    Posted May 27, 2012 at 10:44 pm | Permalink

    “The Norwegian Labor Party did not come to power by force of arms, but because the New Left laid the intellectual and cultural groundwork.”

    Yes but only because the Old Right played fair. If the cultural tables are turned the New Left won’t. However the cultural war has to be won first.

    .
    “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.”

    The thing that struck me most at the time was him taking the logic of an eye for an eye past the point most people (including me) could either handle or support but in a way choosing targets *one step* too far solidifies the actual message.

    .
    “Most norwegians grow up without ever meeting one.”

    Hollywood.
    Cosmopolitan magazine.
    Sociological theories like the blank slate and feminism.

    Most Norwegians have indirectly met thousands of Jews without ever realizing it.

  3. MOB
    Posted May 21, 2012 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

    Jacques says: “You cannot claim to be concerned for the white community if you can coldly reason your way into thinking that the murder of young, white people is merely a part of a political act. Such coldbloodedness strikes me as very feminine and very Jewish.”

    This would be more reductio ad feminum.

    Greg: 1. If a new Knights Templar or Männerbund is politically ineffectual if it remains just an idea, how can it be developed from idea to activity?
    2. In years past, I have been active on a variety of mainstream lists, sometimes alone and sometimes with another, and the result was always the same: extreme negative reactions to anything hinting of “anti-semitism” or “racism,” which doesn’t mean, though, that there weren’t some or many who gained new information and who checked out the URLs I or we included wherever possible. I think that practically speaking, we don’t have true freedom of speech or association; social pressures are to strong.
    3. For me, OldRightNewRightOldLeftNewLeft fails to make anything clearer than before, and yet I do know what I want. I haven’t seen the part about Breivik wanting to destroy free speech and association, and I’m unable to visualize the radicalization of moderates without on the ground collaborative activity.
    4. I lack imagination: I’m unable to connect the dots leading from “an intellectual and cultural hegemony of our ideas” to “we will have the police, the military, and the intelligence apparatus.” Of course I love it. It’s a great plan. How and by whom will it be carried out?

    I consider understanding the strategies and deeds of Jews to be indispensable, and to the extent that Breivik seems not to have seriously considered that aspect, his goal is only tangentially related to mine.

    Martell: I’m not saying you are, but you sound like Yggdrasil, enticed here by Greg’s use of the word “endgame.” We’ve had WN art, literature, philosophical principles, moral codes, structure and social theory beyond eugenics for years now, have we not? All interesting, but how much closer have they moved us toward the goal? There’s no reason at all why all of those interests can’t be read about, written about, shared, whatever — without making them into a WN strategy of choice. Either-Or decisions are not compulsory. I think that, rather than continue pursuing them as a strategy, effort could be placed on utilizing what we already have in a way that enlightens those with eyes that see and ears that hear.

    I appreciated reading what Utgardsloke wrote about Norway, then and now. What a paradise! Jews constitutionally forbidden to enter!! Arrest and deportation!!!! Jewish ritual slaughter forbidden!! Surely Norwegian supermarket items don’t carry the kosher symbols American items do, either!! But even while reading about the one TV channel, one radio channel, government ownership and plutocracy (how much better to have a Norwegian plutocracy than a Jewish one!), I still can’t believe that these things would stop Jews from their normal takeover activity, if they coveted this land of the Midnight Sun. And indeed there does exist an additional disincentive that may have spared Norway at least the bearded men in hats who rock as they mumble: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_law_in_the_polar_regions

    Utgardsloke ends on a critical note, blaming Norwegians themselves, without help from Jews, for their descent into Americanized pop-culture, institutionalized cultural Marxism, and multiculturalism — but these are all consequences of Jewish thinking and implementation.

    • Jacques Vendée
      Posted May 21, 2012 at 7:01 pm | Permalink

      MOB,

      Reductio ad feminum? Perhaps if I had been engaged in a conversation with people whose views differ markedly from mine you would be right to criticize. However, I was communicating with like-minded people for whom a such a phrase should convey a pretty clear meaning. I was not writing a scholarly essay and chose the words for the sake of efficiency. I’d be happy to clarify if you so desire but I suspect that you were just disagreeing with my belief and not with the structure of my, admittedly, very informal argument.

  4. Trainspotter
    Posted May 20, 2012 at 5:25 pm | Permalink

    Vick: “…Brevik could have killed off a big chunk of the ruling party’s leaders, but he didn’t. Better yet, in my view, he could have put together a list of Somali orcs that have raped Norwegian women and then killed them off. I predict some segment of the non-nationalist Scandinavian populace would have applauded an action like that, at least quietly.”

    (Let me be absolutely clear about this: I do not advocate violence or terror of any sort. What follows is purely a discussion of hypothetical “what ifs” or alternate history, and is not in any way an endorsement. More on that to follow.)

    Better still, and purely hypothetically, why not both? A truly effective terrorist could have hit the rapists first, striking a righteous and visceral blow that is perfect for propaganda of the deed. Any sane member of the populace would have understood this quite well, and it would have forced the anti-white system – with the Labor Party front and center – to clamp down on evil white racism. That’s about as good a start as any violent revolutionary could hope for. Perfect framing. Things will get messy later on if the violence continues, but the first blow need not be messy at all, at least in propaganda terms. It is entirely up to the terrorist/freedom fighter.

    Issue a brief statement as to why the executions were carried out, and demand that all non-whites be removed from Norway peacefully. If this demand is not carried out, which of course it wouldn’t be, explain that the consquence is that it will be carried out by any means necessary. As a twist, applicable only if you’re sure that you’d win it, demand a popular referendum to be held within six months to stop all immigration from Third World countries. Only ethnic Norwegians can vote in this proposed referendum (further guaranteeing that it will never happen).

    Of course the demands of peaceful deportation and/or popular referendum will not be met. Instead, the Labor Party inevitably cracks down and spews vitriol against horrible white racism. Second act of terror is therefore directed against them and their adult leadership. They wouldn’t have even seen it coming, convinced as they would be that they were simply dealing with a “nigger killer” who wouldn’t dare to target higher ups.

    At that point, the connection is made in everyone’s mind. The higher ups are every bit as guilty, if not more so, than the orc rapists. Peaceful solutions have been rejected. The higher ups are actively trying to harm indigenous Norwegians, and since they will not allow peaceful change, violence is justified.

    That is effective propaganda of the deed.

    How complicated is that? Yet it never, EVER happens this way. Ever. There are loads of clearly culpable people in our societies. They are never hit. Instead, all targets are selected via the Bozo the Clown School of Strategy. With our luck, next time some clown will dust off a golden oldie and take out a church with some Sunday schoolers. Disgusting.

    In fairness, Breivik did better than most in the target selection department. At least he clued in on a culpable institution – the Labor Party. But then he decides to take out the most cute and cuddly, the most telegenic and kitten like, of all possible targets. This as your calling card, what you will always be remembered for, not something down the road once things started getting messy.

    And please, for the Aspergers Contingent out there, spare me various quibbles about how they “weren’t really children,” or what they were likely to grow into. I know and understand that, and it’s entirely beside the point.

    Having said all of the above, we must also say that Breivik did something that most have not: he stood up and put his life on the line for his people. So far, at least from what I know, his defense in court has been fairly decent. I also agree completely that, since the Left apologizes not at all for the many mass murderers in its history, neither should we. I condemn Breivik “in house,” but I do not condemn him to outsiders. I simply say that hitting the youth wing was a pretty awful thing to do (Breivik himself says as much), but then quickly transition into a discussion of the traitorous so called elites that provoked his attack.

    What Breivik did was evil (again, he says as much), but we need not be ashamed of him. Breivik has much going for him: intelligent, a solid understanding of many things, personal courage and bravery. But something was just a little off, a little Aspergery. Why go for sympathetic, telegenic youngsters/children when the far more culpable were all around? Again, this as his first act as opposed to something down the line after the Labor Party had effectively been declared a criminal organization, and everyone understood why. It boggles the mind.

    In this alternate history/hypothetical that I’m discussing, it would have been different as time went on. Once the Labor Party had been declared criminal in a way that everyone understood, after the issue had been successfully framed, then if some white punk, teenager or not, chose to put himself in the cross hairs by remaining a member of an organization that clearly chooses orc rapists over native Norwegians, then so be it. Stupid is as stupid does, or more accurately evil is as evil does.

    Of course, the Aspergers Brigade will say, “The Labor Party is already making that choice!” To which I say, I get that…but you don’t get the bigger picture. If you still don’t get it, read my post again. Slowly.

    Just goes to show that a “little off” means a great deal, and in the realm of target selection, close enough only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

    In any event, I’d like to conclude as I began. I am not advocating violence, in fact I condemn it. The time is not right, our ideas are not spread far enough. I’m of the general opinion that occasional acts of violence are counterproductive. Such rare acts only serve to allow the system to demonize us, limit our freedoms, and get closer to the day where they can deny us the one medium that we really have: the internet. We still need that medium for now. Our ideas are spreading as we type. We have every reason to believe that we will be stronger in ten years than we are today, and the internet will play a big role in that. To lose the internet when we aren’t yet in a position to follow up outside of it would be a terrible setback.

    Once our ideas spread far enough, violence may not be necessary. But even if it is, and I confess that I think it will be (again, a hypothetical without advocacy), it will only be effective if there is a real ongoing revolutionary movement, not occasional one offs. If Norway had reached the point where instead of a single loner, there were a couple dozen operational cells, then the Labor Party could have been hit again and again, not to mention the big money donors and foundations and media behind it. Any politician or string puller would then know that his anti-white policies might not just cost him the election, but his very life and possibly the lives of his family. One offs generally don’t create that effect. On the other hand, one offs are extremely effective at justifying increases in state power. The terror wears off, the enhanced state powers linger.

    Bottom line: any lone nut that goes off is only hurting us.

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Posted May 21, 2012 at 6:48 am | Permalink

      The thing is isolated acts of terrorism are ineffective and mostly counterproductive ( they will be condemned by the broad public and the state will become more oppressive). But continued attacks on crucial targets ( in this case : leftwing politicians responsible for race-replacement) will make the grievances to be taken seriously. At that stage a POLITICAL organization should be formed that should try to reach a negotiated settlement ( in this case : stopping of all non-white immigration and the orderly repatriation of all resident non-whites).

      The evolution from a despised terrorist organization to a respected political one is not that unusual in modern history. Think IRA, ETA, ANC, PLO etc.

      I dont’t like killing civilians, even of the despicable sort of leftwing pro-race-replacement politicians, but this IS a realistic scenario.

      • Greg Johnson
        Posted May 21, 2012 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

        Are the politicians and bureaucrats who command armies, police, and spies and start wars “civilians” whom the enemy must take pains not to kill? Are the warmongers in the press “civilians”? The only sense in which that makes sense is as a professional courtesy among the ruling class not to kill one another and let the little people do all the dying. That means nothing after Nuremberg, Saddam, Milosevic, etc. They extend no such professional courtesies anymore, and they deserve none themselves.

      • Franklin Ryckaert
        Posted May 21, 2012 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

        @ Greg Johnson, May 21, 2012, 12:55 pm.

        You can differ in opinion about which civilians are guilty or not, but there is a difference between murdering them in a terrorist attack or arresting them and giving them a fair trial. Sometimes even that is beyond justice.

        Is a journalist who praises multiculturalism guilty of “genocide” and can his murder therefore be justified as an act of “self defence”? Or should he be arrested for promoting genocide? Most of this battle simply has to be fought in the sphere of ideas, not violence.

  5. katana
    Posted May 20, 2012 at 4:16 am | Permalink

    Greg Johnson
    Posted May 19, 2012 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

    Breivik may be a terrorist, but he’s our terrorist. Thus I cannot really judge him too harshly. Certainly not any more harshly than the left judges its terrorists. Even though the left pursues evil ends, they do so with a level of loyalty and moral certitude that eludes most rightists. They don’t apologize, and neither should we. I will not apologize TO THEM for anything done for OUR cause, even if it is counter-productive, even if it is not something I would recommend doing. Loyalty to our kind and our aims should come first.
    ——————–

    ‘Loyalty to our kind and our aims should come first.’

    You’ve packed a lot in that paragraph but that last sentence sums it up.

  6. katana
    Posted May 20, 2012 at 1:51 am | Permalink

    Greg Johnson: A Strange New Respect

    I was starting to ‘dismiss’ you a little, what with your view on the holohoax and recently your ‘porcelain guns’ post. But, you’ve largely expressed very well what I think about Breivik. A nuanced, insightful overview. You haven’t bowed down. Thank you for that.

    Brevik’s action was a demonstration, a revolt by one individual who rightfully rejects the catastrophe that is happening in Norway and the rest of the West.
    Whites are the proverbial frogs being slowly boiled alive by jewish ideas.

    • jack
      Posted May 20, 2012 at 7:14 am | Permalink

      What is his view on the Holocaust?

  7. Armor
    Posted May 19, 2012 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

    About Breivik and the Jewish problem. I’m sure that Jewish malfeasance is less conspicuous in Norway than in the USA. Besides, thanks to greater freedom of speech, it is probably easier for Americans to mention the question.

    What can be achieved by spreading information about the JQ?

    First of all, it helps people to make sense of what is happening. Once they have been told about the Jews, they have to decide for themselves how much of the problem really comes from there, but they won’t waste so much time on wrong explanations. Even those who refuse to believe that the Jews play a decisive role should recognize that the western governments and the western media are under the control of a small minority. Most white people don’t want to be replaced at all.

    In the USA, I think that a good practical objective is to develop pro-White TV stations and political organizations that explicitly oppose Jewish anti-White activism and do not allow Jews. White people should protest against the over-representation of Jews in key institutions and they should take action to correct the situation.

    In Norway, it’s useful to explain that the ideology of the labor party is tightly linked to international networks where the Jews play a central role. Race-replacism isn’t a social disease that naturally appeared in every White population. It comes from the top, and from identified organizations. But, because Jewish malfeasance is less obvious and less direct in Norway than in the USA, it doesn’t matter as much. It will be harder to make people see the problem, and it won’t be as effective as in the United States. I’m not saying that Norwegian nationalists should drop the subject, though. I don’t know much about Norway anyway. I don’t know how many Jews are interfering with the Norwegian media and Norwegian government.

    • Utgardsloke
      Posted May 20, 2012 at 3:51 pm | Permalink

      There are very few Jews in Norway. And contrary to many other western nations, the norwegian industry of banking, media, higher education, entertainment, publishing etc are not dominated by a handful of Jews. Most norwegians grow up without ever meeting one.

      Originally, the Norwegian constitution forbade Jews (and Jesuits) to enter the kingdom, but even after the ban was lifted, very few settled, and those that did were for the most part arrested and deported during WWII by the norwegian police. After the war, some returned, some new ones immigrated, but the Jews in Norway have never achieved any kind of dominating influence, as they tend to do in gentile nations.

      As for the question of why, there a several things to consider.

      One is that Jewish ritual slaughter is verboten in Norway, so the Jews must import all their kosher meat from abroad . This requires both effort and expenses, as the native Norwegian production of food is protected by tolls and various regulations that seek to bar foreign products from entering the market. Thus any Jew wanting kosher meat need to buy it from a select few shops at very steep prices. Various Jewish lobby groups tend to press the issue now and then, calling it Anti-Semitic, as Norway was one of the few nations not to lift the ban on kosher meat after WWII, but they tend not to press too hard, as there is an agreement to keep the ban in place from the left to the right across the political spectrum. This, many Jews feel, creates an unwelcoming atmosphere.

      Another explanation is that well into the 70s and the beginning of the 80s, Norway was in large a sort of “national” socialist state. One TV channel. One radio channel. Most vital industries were owned by the government – and anything else owned by a small clique of norwegian industrialists that cooperated closely with the government. This environment was not very welcoming for ‘outsiders’ to do business – and even today the largest norwegian corporations are either partly state-owned or owned by a rather small ‘plutocracy’ of ethnic norwegians and norwegian families that seldom open the arena for outsiders.

      A third explanation is that traditionally, Norway have been quite unwelcoming towards minorities. Up until the immigrant waves and the implementation of the multiculuralist utopia policy, Norway was an ethnic homogenous and fierce nationalistic nation that tended not to tolerate any sort of minority making too much fuzz or gaining any sort of influence. Well into the 70s the Norwegian goverment had active eugenics laws, and these were compulsory employed not only against the mentally defect and the unreedemable criminal misfits, but also against the gypsy minority, as these were judged to be of criminally genetic stock.

      So it is sad to say: the suicidal multiculturalist madness; the immigration waves that according to the state census will make Norwegians a minority in their own cities within 30 years; the cultural marxist idiocracy reigning in the institutions of education, media and higher learning; the ‘americanization’ of every media and entertainment through import and distribution and replicating of the american mass media pop-culture – all these ills the Norwegians choose to implement on themselves. Or rather, some Norwegians – the political elite and idealist crackpots of the 68 and their children that sought to disseminate in society their own utopian pipedreams of cultural marxism and ethnomasochistic poison.

      Norway did not need the Jew. We did it ourselves.

      • Armor
        Posted May 21, 2012 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

        “Most norwegians grow up without ever meeting one.”

        But Norwegian politicians and intellectual elites meet lots of them.

        “very few settled, and those that did were for the most part arrested and deported during WWII by the norwegian police. After the war, some returned, some new ones immigrated”

        And then, they created a Jewish museum and a holocaust center in Oslo, with government money, to brainwash Norwegian children. And the Norwegian government paid them reparations.

        Do Norwegians believe in the Jewish holocaust narrative? Do they know about the millions killed by the Judeo-bolsheviks? Is it okay in Norway to say that the Jewish narrative is a joke? Why would the Norwegians naturally care more about the Jews than about the victims of the Judeo-bolsheviks?

        My conclusion is that Norway is not immune from Jewish interference.

        – Jewish activists want us to think that the Jews are Europeans. A politically correct Norwegian will say that Jews like Fjordman are 100% Norwegian.

        – We know that ethno-masochism is a big problem in Norway. Norwegians are supposed to believe that White people are bad, and non-Whites are good.

        – If so, how come it is not all right to vilify the Jews? After all, we are told to believe that they are White people.

        Again, my conclusion is that Norway is not immune from Jewish interference.

        “Norway did not need the Jew. We did it ourselves.”

        I think Breivik is right to say that Norway is not a democratic country. In a dictatorship, you should blame the government, not the people. The North Koreans are not responsible for the government they have. They are basically the same people as the South Koreans. And today’s Norwegians are basically the same people as their grand-parents who lived in the 1930s, and who were not crazy.

        Even if Jews didn’t play any role in Norway, it still wouldn’t be true that Norway did it to itself. Even if you think that Norway did not need the Jew, it still needed the American example. The same thing happened in every White country at the same time, against the wish of most people. It means that the problem comes from the top and from international networks. If the United States had not opened its gates to non-White immigration in 1965, it is unlikely that the Norwegian elites would have decided to destroy their own country.

  8. Vick
    Posted May 19, 2012 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

    As always, a well-written, engaging article by Mr. Johnson. I agree with many of the points.

    I have to ask, however, as I always do when it comes to the Brevik affair – what good has Brevik accomplished with his deed?

    We can read his manifestoes and listen to his statements where he attempts to justify his actions, and nod our heads at the parts we agree with, but so what? It doesn’t matter much if we agree. Few of us will leave “the movement” or become more committed to it as a result of his action.

    Who has he persuaded that didn’t agree before? How has he furthered “the cause” in any way? How has he slowed down our enemies in any significant way?

    And if he has accomplished nothing, then why support him? Why support a loser whose scheme failed? Just because he’s sort of vaguely, somewhat like us? If that’s the case, then I suggest we raise our standards.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted May 19, 2012 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

      What does “support” mean in this case?

      I would not have done what Breivik did. I would not recommend doing what Breivik did. I did not rejoice at what Breivik did. Because his acts were and are more likely to damage our cause than help it. That said — and it bears repeating — I have still come to respect his performance at his trial. There is a reason the establishment started downplaying coverage: too many people thought he made sense. And I now see it as at least POSSIBLE that a net positive could come out of this, and I hope it does.

      So, I do not support Breivik — for the reasons I have given. But I am not comfortable with your attitude of throwing the “loser” to the dogs. I guess my objection is that such an act presupposes a lack of moral certitude, a sense that one needs to apologize for ethnonationalism when it scrapes against the moral status quo, which needs to be overthrown in any case.

      I really don’t feel the need to apologize for anything done to save our race. For me, that end justifies any and all means, provided they really are means. I might quarrel about the most effective means. But even to argue about such issues sets the parties apart from the rest of THEM: the unawakened and the enemy. And I don’t think we should forget that.

      Breivik may be a terrorist, but he’s our terrorist. Thus I cannot really judge him too harshly. Certainly not any more harshly than the left judges its terrorists. Even though the left pursues evil ends, they do so with a level of loyalty and moral certitude that eludes most rightists. They don’t apologize, and neither should we. I will not apologize TO THEM for anything done for OUR cause, even if it is counter-productive, even if it is not something I would recommend doing. Loyalty to our kind and our aims should come first.

      • Vick
        Posted May 20, 2012 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

        I don’t feel the need to apologize, but I do feel, and rightly so, that I have been put in the position of having to apologize or defend what Brevik has done. Having to make such a bullshit choice feels like a waste of energy, a diversion, and a derailing.

        He put us in this position, and no one asked him to. It’s well within our rights to resent the hell out of him for putting us in this position.

        This is the problem with all nutball, lone wolf attacks (and yes, I think he’s mentally unsound in some way). They make us rational folks waste our energies explaining, forgiving, apologizing, denouncing or not denouncing, arguing amongst ourselves, and otherwise wasting our precious bodily fluids.

        However, I will differentiate between the long list of lone wolf attacks that have failed and the possibility that such attacks could succeed.

        For example, as you point out, Brevik could have killed off a big chunk of the ruling party’s leaders, but he didn’t. Better yet, in my view, he could have put together a list of Somali orcs that have raped Norwegian women and then killed them off. I predict some segment of the non-nationalist Scandinavian populace would have applauded an action like that, at least quietly.

        The ultimate metric of success is winning popular support. Lone wolf attacks should be about that – but they never are. They’re almost always irrational lashings out with convoluted, far ranging justifications that don’t mean much to anyone except those who sort of already agree with them before the attack.

        I think this is what frustrates me most – that to a man, lone wolfers seem to be effing retarded. At best, they’re dedicated soldiers – but soldiers without wise leadership, alone and acting as best they can, like those crazy Japanese guys fighting the war by themselves years after it was over. I don’t feel any sense of solidarity with such figures at all. They’re sad figures.

        • Greg Johnson
          Posted May 20, 2012 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

          I share your frustration. But this sort of retarded behavior to be expected, given the alienation of young white men, their steady diet of junk culture laced with anti-white, anti-male denigration, and the troll-dominated madhouse atmosphere of the online movement. I don’t think Breivik is mentally ill, just the product of a very sick culture, someone who was especially affected by it because he may just be more sensitive and intelligent than most. I wish that we had enough of a real, healthy counter-culture that people like Breivik could feel part of, perhaps gaining some wisdom and groundedness and positive direction in the process.

          I do feel solidarity with him. You should too. If we can’t feel solidarity to the people who share our concerns, if not our thinking, then how can we feel real solidarity to the rest of our brainwashed people?

  9. MOB
    Posted May 19, 2012 at 8:59 am | Permalink

    This is an extremely helpful analysis, worthy of distribution and a long shelf life (on the order of a “Sticky”?). I love the word “data-dump”–the linguistic creativity of “our side” on Usenet was one of my first surprises and enjoyments on getting connected. Data-dump is right; people in the computer age don’t have the endurance to wade through that, unless highly motivated. Given his radical mission and the potential for his not surviving it, he would have been obsessed with wanting to put every single thought he had into writing for posterity. Cutting it down to a digestible size may now become his long-term prison project.

    Another “little” work designed to inculcate rightthink into the minds of the masses was Mao’s Red Book, a book of quotations, a bright red pocket-sized manifesto, which has not been out of print since its original printing in 1966.

    I don’t know how much actual progress nationalist parties are making in Europe, but I doubt their determination, strategy, and access to help from high places can keep up with activist groups like the one founded by high-level Jewish organizer Barbara Spectre. It boggles my mind that this American Jew, wife of a rabbi, groomed in America and Israel for a mission to renew post-Holocaust European Jewish culture and train future Jewish leaders to carry on, simply walks into a European country, gives her “non-denominational” European Institute for Jewish Studies a Greek name, Paideia, to signal its “democratic” ideology, and proceeds to calmly embark on altering the European NON-Jewish culture because Jews know what’s best for Europe and they’re the only ones who can get the job done. Mrs. Spectre isn’t burdened by a whiff of doubt. She is Klaatu, come from the highly advanced planet of the Jews, on a mission to “save Europe” from self-destruction.

    I think the idea of radicalizing moderate nationalists has merit, and yes, “one needs to give them somewhere else to go­somewhere real. ” But what makes his Knights Templar concept useless fantasy, while C-C’s much lauded Männerbund presumes real-world value? Polarizing may cause some right-leaning moderates to give up entirely, but it may cause others to coagulate into fighters for a cause; why pose an either-or construct consisting of mainstream/radical fringe? Why even call people like us “radicals?”

    I think that imagining our struggle against world Jewish domination, which includes the flooding of White countries with yellows, browns and blacks whose presence demotes Whites and despoils their culture, can be fought without forceful action beyond merely intellectual is fantasy. Even Estonia’s Singing Revolution employed forceful means along with song. You have only to look at most worthy Occidental Observer to see that the intellectual discourse there could easily go on forever. It lacks edge. It is what it says it is: an observer.

    Breivik may have overdone edge, but I don’t see his act as counterproductive; he has gotten the problem of multiculturalism out in clear view. The New Right should build on that to harden the imprint, and forget distancing themselves or drawing a bold, clear line between approaches. I’m not a fan of Breivik. But I do see justification, at least theoretically, in the utilitarian argument. And I also think that, if he purposely chose the young people as his target, making them much more than collateral damage, then he choose not based on their culpability but on their next-generation potential, and because the murder of young people gets far more attention than the murder of politicians. Multiculturalism stands out in starkest relief against a visibly homogeneous background (recall also Jesse Jackson in Sweden) Dramatically speaking, between the young people and the homogeneity of the background, Breivik’s attack on multiculturalism was a visual success.

    I can’t guess what Breivik’s future holds, but as you say, the future is not bleak for “rehabilitated ex-terrorists.” If you include those who have not been rewarded with Nobel Peace Prizes, the list of winners to have used dynamite along the way is quite long.
    .

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted May 19, 2012 at 10:04 am | Permalink

      Thanks for your kind words. Here are some thoughts on your criticisms:

      1. A new Knights Templar is a Mannerbund of sorts. It is a great idea. But it is politically ineffectual if it remains just an idea.

      2. We are radicals because we seek to understand and address the root causes of our problems. We want to radicalize the moderates and draw the mainstream in our direction. But that will not happen if we lose freedom of speech and association, which is what Breivik was trying to provoke. Even if Breivik had a functioning revolutionary movement, not one moderate nationalist or lurker would join him for every thousand who would just give up under such conditions.

      3. Sure, the path I am laying out is a fantasy. But so are The Turner Diaries and the Northwest Quintet. I do not know what the endgame will be. The Old Right approach has worked in the past. Just like the Old Left approach. But the New Left approach has also worked. Indeed, it has created the world we live in. So I think it is worthwhile to try a New Right approach.

      But that approach will never get off the ground unless we draw some bright, clear lines. If we don’t, we are in a muddle. We are neither fish nor fowl. And that means that NEITHER and Old Right or a New Right approach will work, if we don’t know what we really want. The two approaches DO CONFLICT.

      Breivik is a crystal clear case of how they conflict. He wants to destroy free speech and free association. We depend on it. He wants to destroy the moderates. We want to use them as channels for communication and radicalization. Those are crucial differences.

      4. As for an “edge”: The New Right approach seeks power through establishing an intellectual and cultural hegemony of our ideas, not through revolution. But we do seek power. And when we have power, we will have the police, the military, and the intelligence apparatus. And we will use them to separate the races. But even that need not be all that bloody. In my essay “To Cleanse America,” I talk about some of these issues. You tell me if that has enough “edge.” http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/10/to-cleanse-america/

      PS: I nicked “data-dump” from George Hocking.

      • Charles Martell
        Posted May 19, 2012 at 10:30 am | Permalink

        Greg,

        I think that perhaps you have inadvertently put your finger on an essential missing piece in the WN movement:
        “Sure, the path I am laying out is a fantasy. But so is The Turner Diaries and the Northwest Quintet. I do not know what the endgame will be.”

        My sense of what is missing in the WN movement is the vision toward which people are working. What I see has been lots of analysis that digs down into every detail and it has all been excellent I will say.
        What I do not see is the vision around the life, the way of living, the way of being that we are seeking.

        I hate the word but the “diversity” of opinion is actually dragging this movement toward fragmentation. I know you have said as much. What I like about this site is its propensity toward philosophy and its willingness to engage culture but until something that achieves consensus emerges all we will have is opinions.

        I say that what is most urgently needed is a WN art, literature, philosophical principles, moral code and structure and social theory beyond the eugenic ideas that sometimes float about.

        Personally I get close to some WN ideas and then in pops something which I find abhorrent and I am disenfranchised. I suspect many are just like me. I also suspect this is why the MSM can so easily brand us as hate mongers.

        We need the positive vision. This is what is lacking in the current and past elections. This is why no one is getting excited. This is what the Oratory post was about. Great Oratory comes from clear, committed and passionate visionary comprehension. It comes from knowing where you are headed and in this people can form their ideas around how to help. We need to engage the artists in this effort and build the pictures about our worldveiw after we detail what it is.

        Hopefully this will be construed as constructive and not critical.

  10. Jacques Vendée
    Posted May 19, 2012 at 7:48 am | Permalink

    Children, teenagers? Fetus, human? Collateral damage, strategic attack? When in doubt err on the side of life.

    In France a gypsy will throw her baby at you knowing that you will catch it, thus leaving your pockets open for picking. She is willing to let her child die to gain a few coins.
    We should never be willing to do that with our children. Never. It is vile, barbaric, Oriental, and sickening. Those Norwegian children were our children. You cannot claim to be concerned for the white community if you can coldly reason your way into thinking that the murder of young, white people is merely a part of a political act. Such coldbloodedness strikes me as very feminine and very Jewish.

  11. Sandy
    Posted May 19, 2012 at 12:14 am | Permalink

    That was a well balanced look at a strange event! VERY well thought out.

    While we are all shocked that children were targeted there was lots of children at Dresden, Hiroshima and Croydon so lets keep it in perspective. You and I couldn’t attack children but our perspective governments are not bothered by allowing serious criminals on the street to target whom they will.

    Also, here is a Youtube of an allied pilot shooting up horses when the war was obviously won. Defenseless horses and civilians or children-not much difference.
    1945 Strafing Farmers on Horse Drawn Vehicles!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=V6cl4TvZopA

  12. White Iceland
    Posted May 18, 2012 at 11:26 pm | Permalink

    Terrorism is oft justified in the long term as an act of desperation. I suspected that after the Oklahoma City bombing the American militant white nationalists would be in for a witch-hunt. When I clicked on the TV on 9/11 I thought at first that I was seeing an act of WN terror. Studying violent resistance to the forced “civil rights” movement in the American south, I once encountered the shocking statement that something like 50 federal agents and “outside agitators” were killed during its course. Of course the knee-jerk reaction and media spin is to mourn the “innocent victims” of such armed resistance. Breivik might well be “mentally disturbed,” as modern social conditions in any formerly white nation are certainly mentally disturbing. The killing of children is a total war tactic and deliberately meant to shock parents into a vulnerable state of paranoia, more effective than even fear of their own death. I’m reminded of the jewish daycare shooting spree by Buford Furrow in Los Angeles in 1999.
    A wise man who understood such things once told me, to paraphrase, that when dealing with an untouchable enemy in a position of power, one of the simplest and most effective things you can do is anonymously send them photos of their children or grandchildren at the playground.
    It is all quite chilling, a sad state of affairs that has brought us to understand what would bring a man to such an act, but I fear there is more to come. When a group is genuinely threatened and disenfranchised as the rank and file thinking whites are today, you fight when cornered. I remember the old t-shirt “The Last Act of Defiance” which depicts a rabbit giving an eagle the bird as it swoops in for the kill. I would much rather see 10,000 whites effectively giving the ruling elites the finger on a regular basis than feeling themselves cornered to the extent that they lash out… but even such ideological resistance is too often not enough to break thru the media static and bring these issues to the mainstream. One last thought… there is now current much unsavoury whispering that Iceland’s ruling class, in this country’s defeated economic condition, are considering selling massive tracts of interior land to China for development of factories which would require the import of 50,000 Chinese laborers. If the day comes that the politicos decide to green-light such a destructive measure, I should suspect a massive round-up and execution of all those who vote in favor is in order. Desperate days, bitter, hopelessly desperate times…

  13. jaego scorzne
    Posted May 18, 2012 at 11:13 pm | Permalink

    If we prevail, he will be considered a hero. If not, he will be either a villain – or just forgotten once the Muslims have triumphed over the Liberals. So we could be optimistic and consider him a hero now – quietly of course.

    Given the rate of the Muslim population growth vs the rate of White Awakening, it is probably already too late for a peaceful end to the invasion of Europe via Democracy.

  14. rhondda
    Posted May 18, 2012 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

    I have been thinking about your essay. When grief has had its turn, and people can start to think again, I can imagine a steely cold understanding of the situation and an unremitting, calculated retribution happening. If one can figure out the ‘why’ – the political why, that is, beyond the mason nonsense. I would not want to be a liberal in Norway at that time. It would not be motivated by anger, but total dispassion. When one has lost what was most meaningful to you, you have nothing left to lose. Those Norwegians are not reserved for lack of brains.

    I will pass on Breivik’s baby though.(and the t-shirt)

  15. Briton
    Posted May 18, 2012 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

    Those kids were being bred to be our worst enemies. Besides he didn’t just kill kids. He killed those who are killing us.

    He did not think of how bad the public relations surrounding this event might be. He acted with a force of will many of us cannot fathom which is why many of us feel we must vilify him. Not one tear for these evil bastards.

  16. jack
    Posted May 18, 2012 at 5:25 pm | Permalink

    From what I understand Norway has a miniscule Muslim population according to The Israeli Lobby author Stephen Walt in his Breivik’s Warped Worldview article for Foreign Policy magazine it is less than 4 percent of those that are permanent citizens are undefined and has a very strong immigration policy like other Scandinavian countries.

    Israel Shamir remarked:

    “Immigration into Norway has slowed to a trickle. In a wild swing away from its own liberal policies, the government of Norway – like many West European governments – has changed the rules to make immigration almost impossible. In a famous case, a young girl from the Caucasus lived for some ten years in Norway, completed her university studies, wrote a novel in Norwegian – and ended up being deported as an illegal alien.”

    http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Breivik.htm

    • Posted May 19, 2012 at 3:37 am | Permalink

      The rate of immigration is not the only issue worth considering, and it should not be given undue primacy; indeed, it is just one component of a larger problem at which Breivik’s vitriol is targeted (i.e. multiculturalism and “Cultural Marxism”).

      However, the mere fact that almost every rape in Oslo during the past few years has been committed by a Muslim, along with their high levels of criminality and their unassimilable character (not that we want them to assimilate), is more than enough to vindicate Breivik’s concerns. I would not expect an anti-racist Jew like Israel Shamir to support a man whose central concern is the racial survival of Nordics, though.

      Beside that, 4% is already too much!

      If all immigration into Norway stopped tomorrow, the average Muslim birthrate would still exceed that of the natives, which is where Breivik’s extensive commentary about feminism comes into play. You need to remember that Islam is not his sole concern, despite his emphasis on it.

      He does not understand the true nature of the Jew at the root of ‘gender feminism’, but everyone he criticises for the decline of natural sex roles just happens to be a Jew (Betty Friedan, Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse chief among them). I think he does have a better understanding of subversive Jewish activities than many WNs are prepared credit him, but he downplays it because of his misguided belief that Jews are allies-in-waiting, rather than unreformable antagonists. Perhaps a careful reading of The Culture of Critique could set a few things straight for him!

      He does admit, for example, that “approx. 75% of European/US Jews support multiculturalism” (pp. 1163). In other words, like the Norwegian “multiculturalist traitors”, they are enemies with the potential to become allies under the right circumstances. This is another example of the “worse is better” thinking that is so common among White advocates, but Breivik’s problem is that he bases his geopolitical vision of a Euro-Israeli alliance on false assumptions. For him, once the Muslim population across Europe rises beyond a certain threshold, their natural antagonism towards the Jews will cause the Jews to align with us against the mutual enemy.

      We know this is wrong because most of them are taught to believe that a successful European nationalist revival will lead to a “second” holocaust – but even if they didn’t, Israel is the ideal escape plan if things get too rough in the diaspora. The hyper-philo-Semite Geert Wilders, whose nationalism is barren of racial considerations and is far less radical than Breivik’s, only managed to win a pitiful 2% of Jewish votes in his breakthrough election, in spite of his emphatic pandering to Jewish and Israeli interests. So, why would these people support Breivik, whose compendium includes a long critique of their beloved holocaust propaganda machine, and identifies 75%~ of Jews as valid targets for future attacks?

      For them, a White man concerned with White survival is no more appealing than a Muslim seeking Muslim dominion over the Infidel world. If anything, we are seen as a greater threat to Jewry, because the Jews know that organised ethnocentrism among Whites is more formidable than any Islamic organisation can ever hope to be – and, moreover, that our ethnocentrism necessarily excludes them. It is worth nothing, too, that Islam is universalistic – if worse comes to worst, Jewish Infidels can convert for the sake of expediency and self-preservation, but they can never become Europids.

      In short, Breivik understands the Jews’ practical involvement and despises the conditions they have created for White people, but he does not understand their psychology and motivations. Without understanding the latter, he cannot understand the former. It precludes genuine ideological radicalism.

    • Victoria
      Posted May 25, 2012 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

      I feel slightly uncomfortable commenting on this site – due to the whole jewish thing going on here, but I follow the Breivik case all over, especially were people seem to do more than just demonize him, and I just want to address what you are saying just here, Jack. Norway leads one of the most liberal immigration policies in Europe. And even though it has been shown that by 2040 over 50% of the inhabitants in our capitol will be immigrants (this is btw. statistics by SSB, who continuously have provide lower immigration growth than what turns out to be reality, and they do not include third generation immigrants in their calculations), that our immigrants always, through out their entire life in Norway, cost more than they bring in financially – which leads to a huge burden on our well fare system, and 100% of the assault rapes are being committed by immigrants, the leader of the Youth Labor party (which Breivik attacked) has gone out and said he wants to double the amount of quota refugees we take in.

      About the girl you are talking about: She and her family applied for a residence permit several years before, when she was a kid, but was denied and supposed to be sent out. They, however, went underground and she lived here paperless, took her degree paperless ect. THEN she wrote a book about being a paperless illegal immigrant, which ultimately OBVIOUSLY got her deported. But now she’s back on a workers permit due to the enormous press from the media. The whole situation was borderline ridiculous.

  17. April Gaede
    Posted May 18, 2012 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    I for one never did and never will shed a crocodile tear over those he shot. Those WNs who claim that they do are liars or fools.

    These same ” children” are the same antifa assholes who like to throw feces and battery acid and attack people with clubs and tire irons. They are the same “children” who threaten my children and my family for simply wanting to preserve our own race. Fuck them.

    • Jacques Vendée
      Posted May 18, 2012 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

      There is a long tradition in the West of recognizing that children are not fully formed moral beings. That is not to say that any one of them who committed a crime like you describe should not be punished to the fullest extent of the law but unless that has happened or until they reach the age of majority they should be given some leeway for stupidity. I can tell you that my politics were simply those of my parents at the age of 14–a very common occurence. I would have been on the side of those Norwegian kids when I was that age! I was raised as liberal as is possible. But here I am.

      I totally understand your anger. I couldn’t even begin to tell you the experiences I have had with blacks and other non-whites in every single place I have lived in this country. I am certain that all of us have plenty of stories, some truly horrible. But white children need to be given the benefit of the doubt. There is no excuse to kill children unless they are threatening your life. Nor do philosophical or political threats count as life threatening when stupid, uninformed, misguided children are involved.

      When you say “fuck them” you are letting emotion triumph over reason–just like black people. We are better than that. And strategically you are dooming yourself to failure because you will get zero support from the white community–outside of thugs and low-lifes whose support we neither need nor desire.

      Age 18? All is fair in love and war.

      • Deviance
        Posted May 18, 2012 at 11:06 pm | Permalink

        Again, Breivik did not kill children, but teenagers. This is not the same thing, though I agree some of them, especially those under 16, could still have changed their minds ideologically.

  18. Posted May 18, 2012 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    Legally his defence was not ‘self defence’ but political and/or military necessity.

    ** Slaughter cruel but necessary, says gunman Anders Breivik | Roger Boyes & Anne Barraclough | The Australian | July 25, 2011 12:00AM
    ** Anders Behring Breivik: Oslo, Norway Bombing ‘Necessary’ | First Posted: 07/23/11 09:24 PM ET Updated: 09/22/11 06:12 AM ET | Huffington Post
    ** Norway suspect Anders Behring Breivik says attacks necessary | WalesOnline | Jul 24 2011
    ** Norway suspect tells attorney that attacks were ‘necessary,’ newspaper reports | July 23, 2011 | Ann Simmons | Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
    ** Anders Behring Breivik: Massacre in Norway was ‘atrocious but necessary’ | Metrow Web Reporter | Metro UK | 24th July, 2011
    ** Anders Behring Breivik, Norway Killer: Attacks Were “Atrocious, But Necessary” | Rosie Gray | Sun., Jul. 24 2011 at 10:40 AM | Village Voice

    In U.S. criminal law, necessity may be either a possible justification or an exculpation for breaking the law. Defendants seeking to rely on this defense argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as a crime because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm and when that conduct is not excused under some other more specific provision of law such as self defense. .. Generally, the defendant must affirmatively show (i.e., introduce some evidence by means of expert witnesses) that (a) the harm he sought to avoid outweighs the danger of the prohibited conduct he is charged with; (b) he had no reasonable alternative; (c) he ceased to engage in the prohibited conduct as soon as the danger passed; and (d) he did not himself create the danger he sought to avoid.

    Military Necessity:
    Military necessity is governed by several constraints: an attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

    Breivik Defence: Political & Military Necessity (Hum. Law of Armed Conflict)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNywJNQjK_c

  19. Stirner
    Posted May 18, 2012 at 9:37 am | Permalink

    Killing children is a monstrous tactic that only brings discredit to the right.

    That being said, it should be noted that there was a twisted logic to his target selection. He did not just kill children at random, instead he attacked the summer youth camp for the Norwegian Labor Party. How many of those children would have grown up to be the future leadership of the NLP? How many would have gone on to be effective leaders in defending and sustaining the multiculturalist regime?

    Breivik has made things more challenging in 2012, but he may have changed the dynamics of the struggle for the next generation. The future NLP leadership will have to be drawn from a pool of lesser candidates, and may be less effective as a result.

    Perhaps Breivik saw himself in the role of a “Terminator” acting in the present to kill the “John Connor” of the NLP.

    • AnalogMan
      Posted May 22, 2012 at 5:32 am | Permalink

      There was indeed logic. Twisted? A matter of opinion, I’d say. Quite apart from the fact that these were the future leaders of the genocidal project in training, many of them were presumably the children of prominent present leaders. He hit them where it hurt. Do you think he got their attention? I do. Much more than if he had killed a bunch of random civilians, IRA-style.

  20. Jacques Vendée
    Posted May 18, 2012 at 9:13 am | Permalink

    Interesting essay. I have often wondered at what point we stop saying “no, he does not represent us. I denounce his particular brand of violence–but I do support violence as a morally acceptable choice in certain situations”. Will we know when the right guy does the right thing? And will we have the courage to back him up? Hard to say. I think the killing of children is unacceptable now as it always has been–it is unsoldierly and distinctly Oriental–and I doubt that, having done just that, he is capable of redemption. The best thing we can do is to continue denouncing his actions and offering a “but” by explaining his motives. Either way, there is more to come. We shall, doubtless, have others to choose from for our t-shirts.

    • It is I only
      Posted May 30, 2012 at 9:25 pm | Permalink

      Quote as you say:”I think the killing of children is unacceptable now as it always has been–it is unsoldierly and distinctly Oriental–and I doubt that, having done just that, he is capable of redemption.”
      There’s only one army which does this & it’s the “most moral” army in the world.
      Read the OT. That’s were they get their idea of killing childrens!
      Breivick to me is on a par with the captain of the “most moral” army, wich killed a
      11 y.old girl by emptying the complete clip of his gun into her little body.
      Of course the “free respected media” of the free western democratic countries don’t mention it. It is not done! It would have been a hate speech!

  21. Boris
    Posted May 18, 2012 at 7:36 am | Permalink

    How could Nelson Mandela invent necklacing if he was in prison at that time? Maybe his wife?

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted May 18, 2012 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

      Maybe he sketched it out. Like Hitler and the VW beetle.

  22. Jan L
    Posted May 18, 2012 at 7:28 am | Permalink

    Don’t forget Yitzhak Shamir, the man responsible for the murder of Folke Bernadotte, who later became prime minister of Israel.

    How many lives have Ariel Sharon on his conscience? I’m not sure but I think he was involved in the Deir Yassin massacre, where more than 100 Palestinians died.

  23. Franklin Ryckaert
    Posted May 18, 2012 at 6:59 am | Permalink

    The right trajectory for WN, in contrast to the terrorism of Breivik, is a LONG MARCH THROUGH THE INSTITUTIONS.

    When your enemies are successful, imitate their strategies.

    • Anon
      Posted May 25, 2012 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

      The main argument I tend to hear against this ‘march through the institutions’ model – especially here in Europe – is that we simply do not have the time anymore before the balance tips and destiny is taken out of our hands by sheer demographics alone.

      Putting aside the very difficult struggle to position white advocates into all sections of society (which is largely brainwashed to counter our positions from the outset) and setting aside the uphill struggle of changing the attitude of the prevailing white (now “multiracial”) societies…… in Britain, for example, over 33% of the ‘under five’ age group in England and Wales are already “non-white British”.

      Therefore, it is suggested by some white-advocates that we have somewhere around 20 to 30 years left before it is collective ‘game over’ for Britain, just physically, not attitudinally. That 30 years time frame probably assumes that all the whites left will be, by then, uniform in their viewpoints and on our side. I do not think we can count on that.

      The original ‘long march’ might have taken at least 40 years to ferment….I am thinking of radicals in the early 1930’s setting about plans of how to do it, with place-men starting to be formed in perhaps the late 1940’s, leading to the ‘cultural revolution’ in the 196o’s.

      This has then been expanded another 50 years, since the 1960’s, where many of the last vestiges of “non-liberal” thinking have been pretty much expunged from thoughts, society, institutions, culture – to the point where most people know of nothing else or any other viewpoint to the one the revolutionaries wanted.

      Ideally we do need to create a culture war for our survival, I certainly advocate winning arguments, putting over our case, informing people, changing the viewpoints and mentality of people……

      I would love a ‘reverse march through the institutions’ and to be honest I do not like to encourage any violent acts or strategies (often even street jostling with the police authorities etc as it can harm our other platforms and images we may seek to portray)……but I can sometimes understand it when other people say back to me that “we haven’t got 20 to 30 years left to imitate the left” and that we need “some kind of more abrupt and bolder revolution” of our own if we are to salvage ourselves.

      The trouble seems to be that the majority of whites around us do not seem to want to be saved, or are not even interested in listening to the importance of what we say and why it should matter. Perhaps Brievik wanted to thrust the issue into peoples minds by committing this act, rather than it being hidden away all the time?

      But this seeming lack of interest from wider society is exactly why I think such strategies are wrong and why I tend to agree that we first need to change the attitude of the population before they can ever join up or support anything further than simple assertion of racial awareness /identity.

      As I see it, we cannot jump in and have some magical revolution without a wider populace that actively seeks one, or is at least willing to turn a blind eye to one taking place. After all, we would not be in half the trouble we are in now if we had simply taken rational and logical measures to prevent things getting so bad.

      But then we come back to the ‘have we really got the time to get them all on our side before it is too late?’ factor …….

      I don’t know.

      • Greg Johnson
        Posted May 25, 2012 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

        Maybe it is too late. But it is our duty to try our best regardless.

        I don’t think we will vote ourselves out of this mess anyway, so the loss of majority status alone does not spell doom. Whites were a tiny minority on this continent when Jamestown was founded, but that did not stop us from conquering it once.

  24. Posted May 18, 2012 at 6:13 am | Permalink

    There is a clear ideological kinship between Breivik and the Counter-Jihad ‘movement’, but I think it is wrong to say that he is one of them, even if he fails to understand the Jewish question. His advocacy of ethnic homogeneity, and his concern for the preservation of Nordic blood, is completely alien to the Counter-Jihadists, and it is something that he has stressed numerous times in his ‘manifesto’ (pp. 1188-1194) and his trial.

    Their concern is limited to Islam alone, but Breivik makes references to the racial component. He is a racial nationalist, otherwise he would not openly strive for a 98%~ ethnic balance between Nordics and non-Nordic immigrants in Norway (pp. 1162).

    He is wrong to view Islam as the main problem, but even if all of the Muslims in Norway converted to Christianity, I think he would remain opposed to their continued presence in his nation because of his pro-Nordic stance. Christian Arabs would still have higher birth rates than the natives, and they would still be hostile ethnic competitors.

  25. Posted May 18, 2012 at 5:08 am | Permalink

    “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.”

    Shocking, but also shockingly common among so-called terrorists. The Basques, who once killed the Spanish Minister of Justice with a bomb so powerful his corpse flew over a cathedral [which was covered by no less a news source than National Lampoon], and those Israeli “Rightists” [sorry, Alex] who assassinated thaex-PM guy, have always seemed to me the only examples of reasonable targets. Otherwise, it seems to be pubs, housewives and children.

    • Posted May 18, 2012 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

      Paul Craig Roberts, ruggedly handsome Nordic ex-Reagan economist, made a similar point last week; the proof that there IS no “islamic terrorist” threat is that they never strike, or try to strike, the DC policymakers, only innocent civilians, who then clamour for more “protection.”

      “Strange, isn’t it, that none of the above are faced with a terrorist threat. Yet, the tough, macho Navy Seals who allegedly killed Osama bin Laden must have their identity kept hidden so that they don’t become terrorist targets. These American supermen, highly trained killers themselves, don’t dare show their faces, but Rodriguez, Rumsfeld, and Condi Rice can walk around unmolested. Indeed, the Seals’ lives are so endangered that President Obama gave up the enormous public relations political benefit of a White House ceremony with the heroic Navy Seals. Very strange behavior for a politician. A couple of weeks after the alleged bin Laden killing, the Seals unit, or most of it, was wiped out in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan.”

      Curious, eh? He then goes on to make a point I’ve made [mentally] many times here in NYC: what’s the point of bag checks when all the terrorist has to do [he’s suicidal, remember?] is set the bomb off IN LINE FOR THE INSPECTION! He doesn’t have to set off a bomb in Grand Central to shut down the whole system, he just needs to set one off in a news stand outside a station in Long Island and WE’D GET THE POINT.

      “If you were a Muslim terrorist seeking retribution for Washington’s crimes, would you try to smuggle aboard an airliner a bomb in your underwear or shoe in order to blow up people whose only responsibility for Washington’s war against Muslims is that they fell for Washington’s propaganda? If you wanted to blow up the innocent, wouldn’t you instead place your bomb in the middle of the mass of humanity waiting to clear airport security and take out TSA personnel along with passengers? Terrorists could coordinate their attacks, hitting a number of large airports across the US at the same minute. This would be real terror. Moreover, it would present TSA with an insolvable problem: how can people be screened before they are screened? Or coordinated attacks on shopping malls and sports events?”

      http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/05/14/the-case-of-the-missing-terrorists/

      • Posted May 18, 2012 at 7:52 pm | Permalink

        A self-styled “Amurrican” acquaintance of mine could always be counted on to rave about how “the Geeehawdists” would attack our schools whenever some “foiled plot” was unveiled on CNN. Yet they never, ever, ever came to be. Ever.

        Are you familiar with the alternative history writer Harry Turtledove? His little universe’s claim to fame consists of the CSA winning the Civil War. It quickly becomes a Third Reich proxy (complete with negroes in cattle cars!). Mormons attempt secession and start strapping on explosive vests. Mormons for Odin’s sake. If a bored Judaic with an Americana fetish can think of this, why can’t one of his Magian cousins do likewise?

        Methinks (well, Richard Hoste) that it’s an IQ issue. Lots of low level Aaayrabs getting played by the Famous But Imcompetent. Real turrorists are getting scarce.
        Let’s make em!

        http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/district-of-corruption/fighting-terror-means-picking-on-the-low-iq/

  26. Free Man
    Posted May 18, 2012 at 3:02 am | Permalink

    “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.”

    He is a White nordic, they will never going to forgive him like Mandela (invented necklacing) or Begin (killed British soldiers).

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted May 18, 2012 at 4:23 am | Permalink

      Of course THEY aren’t going to forgive him. WE will rehabilitate him, if we WIN — meaning create a new context, culture, narrative in which his terrorism seems a small thing, just like the terrorism of a Begin on Mandela seems a small and churlish thing to mention in the world THEY have made. It really comes down to strength of will, to moral strength: THEY are not stopped by these little things. They do not apologize. They just get on with it. WE will never win until we adopt that mindset.

      • Eric Hale
        Posted May 20, 2012 at 8:01 am | Permalink

        *When* we win, Greg. We are going to win.

        The hindbrain that governs self-preservation and group identity is stirring from its sluber.

      • Justin Huber
        Posted May 20, 2012 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

        Right on, man.

  27. Faustus
    Posted May 18, 2012 at 2:30 am | Permalink

    Very well done.

2 Trackbacks

    Kindle Subscription
  • Our Titles

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    The World in Flames

    Venus and Her Thugs

    Cynosura

    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics

    Rising

    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Reuben

    The Node

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance