Letter from Sweden: Fallout from Breivik

/54 Comments/in , /by

This appeared as a comment on a TOO article but has general interest. Ed.

I think many here have misunderstood why European nationalist parties have taken this much of the Zionist and neo-conservative position to heart. Firstly, ethnic nationalism is more or less failed for the moment – but may not be so in the near future, because the elites are losing power.

But for the moment there are very few successful ethnic nationalist parties in Europe. Those who have succeeded to some extent are the French National Front [which has taken a cultural position. Ed.], the British National Party (BNP) and possibly a couple of parties in Eastern Europe, such as Jobbik in Hungary and Ataka in Bulgaria.

Today, BNP has lost what had been gained in recent years, maybe because of internal struggles but also because they never took the important step of  “cleaning” itself from its history and therefore could not get access to middle class professionals. The situation has long been desperate for many nationalist parties.

So how could you make progress? Well, these “cultural-nationalist” parties studied the political climate and made the assessment that no one can achieve any progress if they do not adapt to the prevailing norms, which are mediated by the elite. The first thing they did was to “wash off” their history and rid themselves of those members who first built the parties. People with criminal backgrounds, a history of neo-Nazism, all religious radicals and conspiracy theorists had to leave the parties.

Those parties who were most successful at this were also the most successful in elections. After the Islamic terror attacks of 2001 these nationalist parties saw their chance to enter the establishment’s institutions. Read more

Breivik’s “The great Satan, his cult and the Jews”

/166 Comments/in , , , /by

The section of Anders Breivik’s 2083: A European Declaration of Independence titled “The great Satan, his cult and the Jews” focuses on Jewish issues. He is unsparing in his criticism of Hitler (the “great Satan”) and the National Socialists, blaming their defeat in WWII  for the rise of multiculturalism and European self-immolation. He makes a strong distinction between conservative Jewish nationalists and liberal Jews, arguing that only the former are opposed to the interests of Europeans. Like several other important European rightists, he expresses strong support for Jewish nationalism, arguing that Hitler should have cooperated in creating a Jewish homeland in the Middle East and deporting the German Jews there. “The deportation of the Jews from Germany wouldn’t be popular but eventually, the Jewish people would regard Hitler as a hero because he returned the Holy land to them.”

When the tides turned for the Nazis and the Russian campaign failed, they decided to massacre the Jews and thus further condemning the Germanic tribes and the conservative/nationalist ideology to hell… They knew perfectly well what the consequences would be for their tribes if they lost, yet they went ahead and completed the job. After WW2, the greatest anti-nationalist and anti-European propaganda campaign the world has ever seen was launched. And people like myself, and other cultural conservative leaders of today, are still suffering under this propaganda campaign because of that one man.

Breivik acknowledges that most German Jews were disloyal in Hitler’s time and estimates that 75% of European and American Jews favor “nation-wrecking” multiculturalism. He concludes that “we must embrace the remaining loyal Jews as brothers rather than repeating the mistake of the NSDAP,” and claims that Jews are not the problem in Europe “with the exception of the UK and France” where 800,000 of Europe’s 1,000,000 Jews live. And he acknowledges that the US with its 6,000,000  “actually has a considerable Jewish problem.” Read more

Anders Breivik as a Nordicist

/128 Comments/in , , , /by

It’s been noted, particularly on the racialist, paleoconservative right, that Anders Breivik’s ideas closely resemble the ideas usually associated with the neoconservatives: Strong support for Israel and opposition to Islam. For example, in his book, Breivik cites Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, and he includes several excellent articles from the Gates of Vienna site. My article, based on his web comments, may have contributed to this perception.

However, unlike the great majority of neoconservatives who are focused mainly on supporting  Israel and for whom any other conservative attitude is a position of convenience, Breivik comes across as someone who is mainly motivated to preserve Europeans and their culture. (For example, neocons are typically very soft on immigration (see here, p. 26 and passim, including Muslim immigration; Breivik includes an article  by “Fjordman” that questions neocon Daniel Pipes‘ idea of promoting moderate Islam.)

And, despite condemning cultural Marxism as the main villain, in the end Breivik realizes that it’s a biological battle. In his book, Breivik comments several times on the eventual extinction of the  Nordics if something isn’t done. Breivik’s view is that a poisonous, maladaptive culture may result in evolutionary death just as surely as a genocidal military invasion. His ideas imply what I take to be correct, that evolutionary conflict is now mainly taking place in the arena of culture—the view of The Culture of Critique. Because cultural Marxism has resulted in natural selection against the Nordics, Breivik views it as a racist ideology of hatred toward Nordics: “Multiculturalism IS as evil and racist as Nazism and as brutal as Stalinism.” This strongly suggests that his web comments where he condemns ethnocentrism are strategic and don’t go to the heart of his thinking. Read more

Condemning the Messenger: Earl Ofari Hutchinson, Anders Breivik, and the Politics of Repression

/125 Comments/in /by

The Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable, led by Earl Ofari Hutchinson, has issued the following statement regarding one of my articles on the Anders Breivik:

Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable President Earl Ofari Hutchinson on Sunday, July 24 demanded that California State University Board of Trustees President Herbert L. Carter and the entire Board of Trustees condemn Cal State Long Beach Psychology professor Kevin McDonald who praised Norway mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik as a “serious political thinker” and for having “good practical ideas on strategy.” McDonald is an influential university professor and he praised Breivik in a July 23 op-ed piece in the well-read e Zine on-line alternative right newsletter.

The fulsome praise of Breivik a self admitted hater of Muslims, persons of color, and multi-cuturalism, by McDonald is vile and reprehensible and deserves swift condemnation. This gives back door validity and justification to mass murder, but also tacitly encourage others to believe that mass murder is the way to solve social problems.”

The censure of McDonald by the California Board of Trustees will send the strong message that professors at taxpayer supported institutions that spout racially loaded views do not speak for those charged with administering state supported institutions.

Endorsed by:

Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable

NAACP National Board Member Willis Edwards

Youth Advocacy Coalition

Black Ministerial Alliance

Los Angeles Civil Rights Assn.

National Action Network West Coast

Black Womens Coalition

See also this KABC-Los Angeles story that includes an interview with me, death threats, etc.

Hutchinson’s claims are ridiculous. Saying that someone is “a serious political thinker” and has “good practical ideas on strategy” is certainly not to endorse his actions. Indeed, the blogs I have written (see here and here) quite clearly show that I do not approve of his actions either as morally legitimate or as tactically well-advised. And it is at least highly doubtful that they will help the cause of keeping Europe European. Read more

Breivik: Sending a message to the elites

/169 Comments/in , /by

Is this the very first time that a gathering of leftists in a Western Nation, post 1960, has been made to pay the ultimate price for their anti democratic multicultural impositions?

If so, then I suspect that the pictures of dead young adults will have a rather powerful deterrent effect on parents who might otherwise encourage their kids to be leftists.

It is hard to imagine a more powerful and socially compelling deterrent than to inject the sort of horrific risk that these pictures implant into the minds of multiculturally inclined parents .

Viewed without emotion, this incident implies a multi-layered level of calculation that I find quite remarkable –  an example not to be emulated to be sure – but remarkable nonetheless.

Thus far, Islamic terrorism has been confined to subway commuters in Spain, Street car commuters in Britain, and primarily, office workers in Manhattan – all nobodies that the elites could, quite frankly, care less about losing. Read more

White Refugees from Third World Barbarism: The Case of South Africa, Part 1

/39 Comments/in , , , , /by

The Battle of Jus Sanguinis (Right-of-Blood) River Campaign

Jus Sanguinis is a legal term that refers to Right of Blood citizenship, to preserve a nation’s cultural and ethnic homogeneity; as opposed to Jus Soli, which refers to Right of Soil citizenship. The Jus Sanguinis Campaign was a group of South Africans who have researched their genealogical history back to their original European progenitors; they are petitioning their relevant EU progenitor nations for redress.

On October 31 2010 the Jus Sanguinis Campaign submitted its “Boer Volkstaat or Jus Sanguinis Right-of-Return to Europe Petition and Briefing Paper” to the progenitor nations of Netherlands, France, Germany, United Kingdom, and Switzerland, and subsequently to the NATO Chiefs of Defence. 160 EU politicians, academics, legal experts and military officials were petitioned for:

[A] International Political and Legal Recognition for a Boer-Volkstaat in South Africa; or in the absence thereof;

[B] The enactment of Jus Sanguinis Right-of-Return legislation by the relevant Progenitor EU Nations to provide EU citizenship for African White Refugees. Read more

Breivik: Imposing Costs on Multicultural Elites

/97 Comments/in /by

The following is from an article in Al-Jazeera by Robert L. Lambert, the co-director of the European Muslim Research Centre (EMRC) at the University of Exeter (“Nationalists pose a bigger threat than Al-Qaeda“). Judging by his editorials in The Guardian, Lambert is pro-Muslim.

Breivik may have to explain to outsiders why he did not choose to bomb a mosque instead. Surely, for the violent nationalist confluence he represents, that would have been a direct hit on the enemy. Instead, by choosing to attack a government building and a Labour Party summer school, Breivik is drawing attention to what many fringe nationalists see as the political failure of mainstream and left-wing politicians to confront the Muslim threat. So-called appeasers of the “Islamification of Europe” have become as hated as Muslim activists and therefore face the same kind of attacks.

Terrorism is propaganda, not just violence

In addition, Breivik can claim to have followed a long tradition of terrorism target selection that is intended to send a strong message to politicians in an attempt to persuade them to change policy. As leading terrorism scholar Alex Schmid reminds us, terrorism is a form of communication that “cannot be understood only in terms of violence”. Rather, he suggests, “it has to be understood primarily in terms of propaganda” in order to penetrate the terrorist’s strategic purpose.

Breivik appears to understand Schmid’s analysis that terrorism is a combination of violence and propaganda. “By using violence against one victim,” a terrorist “seeks to coerce and persuade others”, Schmid explains. “The immediate victim is merely instrumental, the skin on a drum beaten to achieve a calculated impact on a wider audience.” This is certainly the kind of rationalisation that perpetrators of political violence have adopted in many contexts in pursuit of diverse political causes for decades.

Many extremist nationalists in Norway, the rest of Europe, and North America will be appalled by Breivik’s resort to terrorism and in particular his target selection. However, Breivik is likely to argue that he has sent a powerful and coercive message to all politicians in the West that will help put the campaign against the “Islamification of Europe” at the top of their agenda.

The fact is that Breivik very carefully chose his target. The victory of the left has meant that there is nothing but personal upside for Whites who administer the slow death of their own people. These are the Whites who are the public face of the entire mainstream political spectrum, from far left to neoconservative right. They have wonderful careers as university presidents, politicians, government bureaucrats, heads of major corporations, talking heads in the media. Read more