- Counter-Currents Publishing - https://www.counter-currents.com -

Anders Breivik & the Manchester Bombing

1,967 words [1]

Many people have been talking about Anders Breivik in the wake of the recent jihadist attack during a concert in Manchester, England which claimed twenty-two lives and injured dozens more. Clearly, this was a premeditated act of terror similar to the thirty thousand-plus other premeditated acts of terror that have been perpetrated since 9/11 by the nihilistic, militant cult that is Islam. But who was Anders Breivik? This was a Norwegian man who, on July 22, 2011 at the age of 32, bombed government buildings in Oslo, Norway, killing eight, and then attacked the island of Utøya, where members of Norway’s liberal, socialist, pro-immigration Worker’s Youth League were holding their summer camp. He shot and killed sixty-nine people – many of whom were under twenty – before surrendering to the police. He is currently being held in solitary confinement in a prison in Norway, serving a sentence of twenty-one years.

The crux of the issue lies in whether or not Anders Breivik will be lionized in the long run for what he did, and also whether the Alt Right or White Nationalists in general should lionize him to begin with. Vox Day raised the issue on his blog [2] and then expounded further on it in one of his Darkstreams [3].

The tongue-in-cheek meme he likes to push refers to Breivik as a saint:

[4]
The two attacks have quite a bit in common in that they were both deadly strikes from opposing sides of the same war; they were each carried out only by a single person; and the victims in each case were completely unsuspecting. But there are three crucial differences.

  1. Where the Manchester bomber was following the orthodox, anti-infidel cant found in the Qur’an, and was in effect no different than any other suicidal jihadist willing to give his life and many others for their pork-free prophet, Anders Breivik was, in a way, trying to be a prophet himself (or at least a trailblazer). This alone makes Breivik at the very least . . . interesting.
  2. Breivik selected his arguably less-than-innocent victims for maximum political impact, whereas the Manchester bomber slaughtered perfectly innocent civilians at random just for the sake of terror.
  3. Breivik targeted people of his own race, whereas the Manchester bomber did not.

As is well known, prior to his attacks, Breivik compiled a document entitled 2083: A European Declaration of Independence and e-mailed it to over a thousand Right-wing and far-Right individuals. According to the information found in the Infogalactic entry on Breivik [5], the Alt Right today would find little in his Declaration of Independence with which to quibble:

Breivik blames feminism for allowing the erosion of the fabric of European society. The compendium advocates a restoration of patriarchy which it claims would save European culture.

In his writings Breivik states that he wants to see European policies on multiculturalism and immigration more similar to those of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan which he said are “not far from cultural conservatism and nationalism at its best”. He expressed his admiration for the “monoculturalism” of Japan and for the two nations’ refusal to accept refugees. The Jerusalem Post describes his support for Israel as a “far-right Zionism”. He calls all “nationalists” to join in the struggle against “cultural Marxists/multiculturalists”.

Furthermore, according to Infogalactic, Breivik “was concerned about race,” has been labeled a White Nationalist, and “considered himself a knight dedicated to stemming the tide of Muslim immigration into Europe.” The question of his sanity pops up a lot, with various experts offering various diagnoses. In either case, however, Breivik planned meticulously for his attack, pulled it off, and since then has offered remarkably consistent and logical rationales for his actions. Not only this, but he selected his victims because they were either part of the Norwegian globalist elite or were being groomed to be, in the case of the Worker’s Youth League. According to Vox Day’s sources, about fifty percent of the next generation of the Norwegian Labor Party’s leadership was wiped out in one fell swoop, and the Norwegian Left has still not recovered.

That’s a lot of achievement for one madman.

It seems to me that the question of whether Anders Breivik was honorable supersedes the question of whether he was (or is) sane. Vox himself seems to sidestep this issue and proclaims that future generations of Europeans will find Breivik highly honorable regardless of what we think about him today. In my opinion, this will only happen after the worst possible predictions of Europe’s future come to pass. Suppose, after obtaining a thirty-to-thirty-five percent minority in most Western European nations as well as key positions in government, law enforcement, the media, and the military, Muslims initiate their violent conquest of Europe while being safeguarded from afar by the nuclear arsenals of Turkey and Iran. Then suppose that after a commensurate and effective resistance on the part of European whites that a number of these nuclear devices are actually detonated on European soil, killing millions.

After such a nightmarish scenario, yes, white Europeans will and should look back at Anders Breivik as a brave and prescient hero as they violently cleanse their homelands of all non-whites down to the last Arab, Asian, black, and Jew. And after all the radiation clears and the rubble is swept away, there should be statues of Breivik in every major European capital affected by the carnage. The Europeans would have learned the hard way that Anders Breivik had been right all along, and that if we had heeded his warnings on the day of his incarceration rather than fifty or so years later, Europe could have avoided the hell it had so obliviously stumbled into.

But this is only the worst-case scenario, which makes me a little suspicious of Vox’s prognostications. The best-case scenario is that, with a combination of favorable election results, a popular swing towards nationalism, and the continued self-exodus of Jews from Europe within the next ten to fifteen years (as well as a little luck), Right-wing, anti-immigrant, nativist leaders like France’s Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders of the Netherlands will gain power and staunch the flow of non-whites into Europe. They may not reverse demographic trends, but through common sense legislation and judicious uses of force they would at least keep them manageable long enough for many of the foreigners to either assimilate or self-deport. After that, Europe might get a little browner and its average IQ may take a hit, but it would survive and carry on, and be mostly recognizable to those of us alive today. Furthermore, the inhabitants of this future Europe would likely look back at Breivik as a deranged criminal who clearly overestimated the dangers presented by non-white immigration.

While being far preferable to the worst-case scenario (not to mention an outcome I strive towards every time I submit a piece of writing to Counter-Currents), I deem this best-case scenario as equally unlikely. As with bad science fiction writing, both predictions transpose cultural sensibilities from one time period into actual cultures from another without considering whether such a transposition could ever have evolved on its own. So, in the worst-case scenario, we drop the red-diapered, high-trust, racially-naïve white elites of today into the boiling cauldron of race relations in the future and watch with horror as they get obliterated. In the best-case scenario, on the other hand, we place the once-bitten, low-trust, race-savvy whites of the future into the still-tolerable melting pot of today and watch with gratification as they sort everything out.

Of course, both scenarios, while worth considering, ignore any natural evolution of European racial attitudes which would necessarily take place between now and Ragnarok. In an attempt to split the difference, I’d say that the likeliest outcome will entail enough whites in the next ten or twenty years feeling the temperature in the pot rise to prevent an all-out, civilization-ending war. But this will come at the cost of permanent changes in certain portions of Western Europe. After a few mid-level wars (civil or otherwise), some nations will become irrevocably Arabized, some will become true white ethnostates, and some will remain in the multicultural mud between these two extremes. After this, peace will prevail as much as it has ever prevailed in Europe whenever hordes of foreign armies sweep in for conquest and then get used to the place and decide to settle – which is to say, both not and enough, if that makes any sense at all.

In this future, would Anders Breivik be considered a hero? Yes and no. Yes in some places, no in others. And that’s exactly how it should be. I’m sure even Thaddeus Stevens wouldn’t have expected the Georgia citizenry to lionize William Tecumseh Sherman, just as General MacArthur wouldn’t have expected the surviving populace of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be big fans of Americans. I predict that the citizens of future white ethnostates will remember their dead and look back fondly at Breivik, while the citizens of Eurabia will remember their dead and look back bitterly at him.

It’s as simple as that.

Nationalism is by no means a catholic phenomenon and therefore does not exist to serve a single Truth. Nationalism (or nationalisms, really) can only serve one people at a time, or, in the case of America, one race at a time. Whites attempted to make nationalism more catholic over a century ago. This was called imperialism. It was an arrogant betrayal of true nationalism and, as a result, ended poorly for most of the whites. Either they left millions of their own people behind, vulnerable to their Third World host populations (as in the case of South Africa and Rhodesia), or they opened the doors for these same Third Worlders to come and despoil their homelands. Envisioning all of humanity as a single village or family may appeal to those of us with the best intentions, but it ignores the many and varied evolutionary paths that disparate peoples have taken throughout history. And these disparate peoples must have disparate myths and legends with which to justify their origin and continued existence, even if that means vindicating or omitting past sins committed against other peoples. As Vox astutely pointed out in his Darkstream, the founders and defenders of all nations are killers. This is the ugly truth which accompanies nationalism, but is still far preferable to the soft-minded mendacity of the one-world globalists who wish most of all to destroy nations.

So, in effect, one man’s Anders Breivik is another man’s Manchester bomber. This is a tolerable state of affairs when the first man lives in Norway and the second in Libya. This becomes intolerable when they both live in Norway in the same apartment complex, near the same school where both their children attend. Then we have problems that only history can sort out, one way or another.

But as for the question of Anders Breivik today, should the Alt Right praise him or demonize him? We must bear in mind that Breivik didn’t act out of pure hatred against perfectly innocent people the way Dylann Roof or Alexandre Bissonnette did, but instead struck a calculated blow for ethnonationalism against its true enemies (i.e., the white European Left) in a war that is being waged more and more inter cives rather than inter milites. Our enemies don’t wear uniforms and come at us across battlefields with mechanized weaponry anymore. They smile at us as they hamper our freedoms and crush our identities with political correctness and other globalist ideologies. Or they blow us to pieces when we go to a concert.

Either way, we don’t see them coming. The people in Oslo and on the island of Utøya did not see Anders Breivik coming. Should we blame him for that? Or them?

My answer right now is that it is too soon to tell.