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

Kevin MacDonald


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.”

Advertisement

No philo-Semite would claim that deportation of Jews from Germany (and implicitly other European countries) is legitimate and would eventually be appreciated by the Jews. Fundamental to Judaism throughout history has been the legitimacy of the Diaspora as an unassimilated group living as a minority. His statements that 75% of Western Jews are “nation-wreckers” and that most Jews during Hitler’s time were disloyal are compatible with the general view that Jews in the West have taken a hostile stance toward the people and cultures they have lived among—the central theme of The Culture of Critique; again, they do not suggest a philo-Semitic point of view.

There are a number of inadequacies with Breivik’s analysis.

  • It is a mistake to consider conservative Jews in the West as allies of European/White nationalism. Thus, the vast majority of “conservative Jews” in America are neocons who have been strong supporters of Jewish  nationalism in Israel while enthusiastically cooperating with the dismantling of the pre-1965 American nation. Neocons—the only significant movement of Jewish “conservatives”— are typically very soft on immigration (see here, p. 26 and passim), including Muslim immigration, favoring a “house-broken” non-militant Islam in the West that tacitly cooperates in the dispossession of the Palestinians.
  • Neocons have been strong supporters of the proposition nation concept in which the nations of the West have no ethnic core while simultaneously being strong supporters of Jewish ethnic nationalism in Israel. Jews who oppose massive non-White immigration into Western countries are vanishingly rare. In America, the only ones who come to mind are Stephen Steinlight and Lawrence Auster, both of whom seem motivated more by saving Jews from immigration of hostile Muslims than a concern about the traditional peoples and culture of the West and neither of whom has any power or influence in the organized Jewish community. Paul Gottfried is likely a real exception but, like the others, he has no influence on the organized Jewish community.
  • In the U.S., Jews have been a critical force in moving the Republican Party away from its traditional conservatism. Sam Francis described “the “catalog of neoconservative efforts not merely to debate, criticize, and refute the ideas of traditional conservatism but to denounce,vilify, and harm the careers of those Old Right figures and institutions they have targeted” (see here, p. 26). As noted repeatedly in TOO (e.g., “Abe Foxman is a hypocrite“), Diaspora Jews in the West commonly have a double standard when it comes to issues related to immigration and multiculturalism in Israel versus the West.
  • Far less than the 25% of European Jews labeled by Breivik as conservative support European nationalism. Not only has Wilders been condemned by the major European and American Jewish organizations (and even by Muslim critic Daniel Pipes whom Breivik admires), only 2%  of Dutch Jews voted for Geert Wilders despite his strong support for Israel and his well-advertised philo-Semitism. “Jews obviously like Wilders’s message even less than a party devoted to Christian morality. Wilders can depend on support from radical Jewish colonists on the West bank or some renegade Israeli generals, but if Wilders campaign against the Muslims succeeds, it will be without the help of Dutch Jews” (see also “Geert Wilders’ Unrequited Love“). The notion that, in Breivik’s words, European rightists should “embrace the loyal Jews as brothers” is a non-starter from the Jewish side. (Nevertheless, as noted here, this rhetoric may well be an effective tactic in getting middle-class non-Jews to vote for nationalist parties because the parties cannot be painted as “racist” or anti-Jewish.)
  • The anti-nationalist tsunami that engulfed the West following WWII did not simply arise out of thin air. Internationalism has been a hallmark of the left throughout the 20th century into the 21st, and there is no question that Jews were the backbone of the left throughout the West before and after WWII and formed a hostile elite in the USSR at least until the end of WWII. The victory over National Socialism was fundamentally a victory of the internationalist left. Jews were critical to that victory and they have been its major beneficiaries in the decades following WWII.
  • Breivik focuses only on the number of Jews rather than on the sources of Jewish power: the organized Jewish community (e.g., in the U.S., the ADL and the SPLC/$PLC as propagandists and enforcers of the multicultural left) and Jewish influence on elite institutions of the West, particularly the media, the academic world, and the political process (AIPAC for starters). Nevertheless, his acknowledgment that Jews are “a problem” in the U.S., Britain, and France is an important concession given that the U.S. is the unquestioned leader of the West and that Britain and France are the leading European cultural powers since Germany has been rendered supine and is therefore powerless to do anything about the current malaise.
  • For example, the academic world as producer and disseminator of knowledge and culture is a critical arena for creating the elite culture of the West. Importantly, academic culture is international rather than national. That is, all of the important academic societies are international in scope, so that a dissident academic culture in, say, Norway, is unthinkable. Once the academic world had become irredeemably liberal in the major cultural centers of the West—most importantly, the U.S. since WWII, it was inevitable that it would cast a huge influence on lesser centers of academic power. Indeed, it is critical for an academic in a small country such as Norway to develop a reputation beyond national borders—or effectively have no reputation at all. Similarly, as discussed in the previous link, in the U.S., academic culture is top-down, with the highest levels rigorously policed to prevent any deviations from multicultural orthodoxy and virtue; hence the outrage over E. O. Wilson’s Sociobiology and the recent uproar over Mearsheimer and Walt on the  Israel Lobby. These academics are difficult to ignore since they are associated with prestigious institutions and they have  outstanding research and publication records apart from their controversial work.

A good example of how this works is Thomas Hylland Eriksen, the “career multiculturalist and intellectual celebrity” who is discussed several times in Breivik’s work. Eriksen, as (correctly) quoted by Breivik, believes that the “most important task ahead is to deconstruct the majority, and we must deconstruct them so thoroughly that they will never be able to call themselves the majority again” (see original here).

Eriksen contributed to an email discussion on the University of Oslo website where the topic was the Rector’s program for combating anti-Semitism and promoting diversity. Here we have the usual stuffed-shirt academic administrator appealing to a community consensus on these issues—the sort of discussion that I am continually forced to endure and which could take place at any university throughout the West. Notice the Rector’s suggestion for mandatory reading of a book on anti-Semitism—a typical example of how the university  uses its power over the curriculum to propagandize its young charges.

Eriksen’s contribution to the discussion is to note that “the Jewish population in Europe (and increasingly in North America)” has been “a key contributor — some would say the heart blood — of intellectual life.” Eriksen has internalized the anti-nationalist, anti-European thrust of the Jewish movements that have dominated intellectual discourse in the West, especially since WWII. In doing so, he is entirely within the mainstream, a respected member of the academic community at his university; I am sure he is also a well-respected member of international associations in his discipline, cultural anthropology—captured for the left by the Boasians by the mid-1920s.

Notice also that Eriksen identifies anti-Semitism as directed against “free inquiry and free thinking in an environment where [academics] are evaluated based on their contributions and not from their cultural or religious identity.” This is ironic to say the least. The pall of political correctness hovering over universities has meant that racial/ethnic and gender identity are now key factors in evaluating academic personnel and there are intense mobbing campaigns against any dissenters from leftist orthodoxy. Recently social psychologist Jonathan Haidt (see here and here) has called attention to “tribal moral communities” in the academic world that function to stifle debate, define research questions, determine standards of publication (much more rigorous for material that challenges multicultural dogmas) and ostracize and punish dissenters.

Moreover, and critically, the fact is that  much of the credibility of Jewish intellectual contributions has been achieved by masking the role of Jewish identification and pursuit of specifically Jewish interests—e.g., the fact that Franz Boas was motivated by his perceptions of anti-Semitism and his loathing for Prussians and Prussian culture. Jewish ethnic identity has been absolutely central to Jewish contributions to the social sciences and humanities, and Eriksen’s field of cultural anthropology is certainly no exception:

As [Gelya] Frank (1997, 731) points out, “The preponderance of Jewish intellectuals in the early years of Boasian anthropology and the Jewish identities of anthropologists in subsequent generations has been downplayed in standard histories of the discipline.” Jewish identifications and the pursuit of perceived Jewish interests, particularly in advocating an ideology of cultural pluralism as a model for Western societies, has been the “invisible subject” of American anthropology—invisible because the ethnic identifications and ethnic interests of its advocates have been masked by a language of science in which such identifications and interests were publicly illegitimate. [see here, p. 23]

Eriksen is a willing and seemingly self-conscious soldier on behalf of the Jewish-led revolution in the culture wars—an exemplar of the disastrous victory of the multicultural left in the elite institutions of the world. If nothing else, Breivik has certainly pointed his finger at some of the most egregious enemies of the legitimate interests of European peoples and their cultures.

Anders Breivik: The great Satan, his cult and the Jews

Whenever someone asks if I am a national socialist I am deeply offended. If there is one historical figure and past Germanic leader I hate it is Adolf Hitler. If I could travel in a time-machine to Berlin in 1933, I would be the first person to go – with the purpose of killing him. Why? No person has ever committed a more horrible crime against his tribe than Hitler. Because of him, the Germanic tribes are dying and MAY be completely wiped out unless we manage to win within 20-70 years. Thanks to his insane campaign and the subsequent genocide of the 6 million Jews, multiculturalism, the anti-European hate ideology was created. Multiculturalism would have never been implemented in Europe if it hadn’t been for NSDAPs reckless and unforgivable actions. Eastern Europe would have remained free, the US and Russia would never have risen up as super-powers. The balance of power would have remained in Europe. And it would be a beautiful Europe with beautiful cultural conservative policies – very similar to the ones you now find in Japan and South Korea. Hitler almost destroyed everything with his reckless and unforgivable actions and he will forever be known as a traitor to the Nordic-Germanic tribes.

So, I am really speechless when I see the cult calling themselves national socialists today. If you truly love our tribe, the Nordic tribes or any other European tribe, you must learn and acknowledge that Hitler is a traitor to the Germanic and all European tribes, NOT a hero. Hitler had the military capabilities necessary to liberate Jerusalem and the nearby provinces from Islamic occupation. He could have easily worked out an agreement with the UK and France to liberate the ancient Jewish Christian lands with the purpose of giving the Jews back their ancestral lands. The UK and France would perhaps even contribute to such a campaign in an effort to support European reconciliation. 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.

But what did the great Satan do? He invaded Poland, France Russia and several other countries in his crazed effort for world domination. It was completely reckless and unforgivable as the consequences of such acts aren’t very hard to predict. And 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.

Were the majority of the German and European Jews disloyal? Yes, at least the so called liberal Jews, similar to the liberal Jews today that opposes nationalism/Zionism and supports multiculturalism. Jews that support multiculturalism today are as much of a threat to Israel and Zionism (Israeli nationalism) as they are to us. So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists, against all cultural Marxists/multiculturalists. Conservative Jews were loyal to Europe and should have been rewarded. Instead, he just targeted them all… So, are the current Jews in Europe and US disloyal? The multiculturalist (nation-wrecking) Jews ARE while the conservative Jews ARE NOT. Aprox. 75% of European/US Jews support multiculturalism while aprox. 50% of Israeli Jews does the same. This shows very clearly that we must embrace the remaining loyal Jews as brothers rather than repeating the mistake of the NSDAP. Whenever I discuss the Middle East issue with a national socialist he presents the anti-Israeli and pro-Palestine argument. He always seem unaware of the fact that his propaganda is hurting Israeli nationalists (who want to deport the Muslims from Israel) and that he is in fact helping the Israeli cultural Marxists/multiculturalists with his argumentation. In all five discussions they have moderated or fully changed their views after the discussion as they realize what they have done. But I was unable to discuss this issue further after I was banned and kicked out by Stormfront and another national socialist forum.

In any case; educate yourself and learn the difference. Today’s conservatives and want-to-be Nazis are ignorant when they obsess so much over the Jews. There is no Jewish problem in Western Europe (with the exception of the UK and France) as we only have 1 million in Western Europe, whereas 800 000 out of these 1 million live in France and the UK. The US on the other hand, with more than 6 million Jews (600% more than Europe) actually has a considerable Jewish problem. But please learn the difference between a nation-wrecking multiculturalist Jew and a conservative Jew. Don’t make the same mistake that NSDAP did. Never target a Jew because he is a Jew, but rather because he is a category A or B traitor. And don’t forget that the bulk of the category A and B traitors are Christian Europeans. 90% of the category A and B traitors in my own country, Norway, are Nordic, Christian category A and B traitors.

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

162 Comments to "Breivik’s “The great Satan, his cult and the Jews”"

  1. Ciaran's Gravatar Ciaran
    July 29, 2011 - 4:46 pm | Permalink

    Hitler DID cooperate in creating a Jewish Homeland. It’s NOT Hitler’s fault that almost every Jew on planet Earth has used him as their boogeyman, ad infinitum.

    • dc's Gravatar dc
      July 30, 2011 - 12:08 am | Permalink

      This is true. Once the myth of wanton persecution is removed there is nothing left in the jew narrative.

    • Anglo Saxon's Gravatar Anglo Saxon
      July 30, 2011 - 4:00 am | Permalink

      Indeed Ciaran … you are absolutely correct. NSDAP paid the officials of an important Jewish organization for the very purpose of funding such emigrations to Palestine. And many Jews travelled on this arrangement, but it was slow to implement.

      “Nazi-Zionist” medallion was issued by Goebbel’s daily Der Angriff to commemorate a joint visit to Zionist Palestine by SS officer Leopold von Mildenstein and Zionist Federation official Kurt Tuchler. A series on their tour, “A Nazi Travels to Palestine,” appeared in Der Angriff in late 1934. The inscription (on the medal) says “A Nazi travels to Palestine.”
      See: www[dot]henrymakow[dot]com/the_lies_of_zionism[dot]html

      Early in 1935, a passenger ship bound for Haifa in Palestine left the German port of Bremerhaven. Its stern bore the Hebrew letters for its name, “Tel Aviv,” while a swastika banner fluttered from the mast. And although the ship was Zionist-owned, its captain was a National Socialist Party member. Many years later a traveler aboard the ship recalled this symbolic combination as a “metaphysical absurdity.”1 Absurd or not, this is but one vignette from a little-known chapter of history: The wide-ranging collaboration between Zionism and Hitler’s Third Reich.
      See: www[dot]ihr[dot]org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber[dot]html

      In 1939, over 900 Jews tried to escape Germany (remember, the Jewish leadership had declared war on Germany on March 24, 1933, so we should no harbour pity for these migrants) by boarding a ship, the St. Louis, headed for Cuba. The ship sailed from Hamburg on May 13, 1939.

      “Each of you, Jew and Gentile alike, who has not already enlisted in this sacred war should do so now and here. It is not sufficient that you should buy no goods made in Germany. You must refuse to deal with any merchant or shopkeeper who sells any German-made goods or who patronises German ships or shipping…. we will undermine the Hitler regime and bring the German people to their senses by destroying their export trade on which their very existence depends.”
      ~~ Samuel Undermeyer (close friend of Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt) in a Radio Broadcast on WABC, New York, August 6, 1933. Reported in the New York Times, August 7, 1933

      Upon arrival the Cuban government under Federico Laredo Brú refused the passengers entry. According to the Wikipedia entry on the MS St. Louis:

      Telephone records show discussion of the situation by Secretary of State Cordell Hull and Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, members of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s cabinet, who tried to persuade Cuba to accept the refugees. Their actions, together with the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, were not successful. The [...] St. Louis was [also] turned away from the United States, [prompting] a group of academics and clergy in Canada to attempt to persuade Canada’s Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King to provide sanctuary to the ship, which was only two days from Halifax, Nova Scotia. However Canadian immigration officials and cabinet ministers hostile to Jewish immigration persuaded the Prime Minister not to intervene on June 9.

      NSDAP Germany did not bring war to Europe. Jewish (or Bolshevik) occupied Germany was forced into war by an increasingly hysterical international Judaic leadership, who had agents controlling or influencing the governments of Britain, France, and the USA:

      On the 3rd of June, 1938, the American Hebrew boasted that they had Jews in the foremost positions of influence in Britain, Russia and France, and that these “three sons of Israel will be sending the Nazi dictator to hell.”
      ~~ Joseph Trimble, the American Hebrew.

      “We Jews are going to bring a war on Germany.”
      ~~ David A. Brown, National Chairman, United Jewish Campaign, 1934 (quoted in “I Testify Against The Jews” by Robert Edward Edmondson, page 188 and “The Jewish War of Survival” by Arnold Leese, page 52).

      “Germany is our public enemy number one. It is our object to declare war without mercy against her. One may be sure of this: We will lead that war!”
      ~~ Bernard Lecache, the president of the “International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism,” in its newspaper “Droit de Vivre” (Right to Life), 9 November, 1938.

      “The war now proposed is for the purpose of establishing Jewish hegemony throughout the world.”
      ~~ Brigadier General George Van Horn Mosely, The New York Tribune, March 29, 1939.

      “The Second World War is being fought for the defense of the fundamentals of Judaism.”
      ~~ Rabbi Felix Mendlesohn, Chicago Sentinel, October 8, 1942.

      The more I learn about Anders Breivik’s 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, the more I suspect somebody else penned it in preparation for his involvement in Oslo’s false-flag … whose aftermath has now given a reason for the Norwegian government to start imposing draconian “Homeland Security” restrictions upon its populace.

      This is all beginning to stink quite a lot like 9-11 which almost immediately brought about the Patriot Act: about 1,000 or so pages of legally concise prose (affecting directly at least 15 other major Statutes) that were somehow ‘magicked’ into existence in less than 4 weeks [allegedly] starting from September 12, 2001.

      ********************

      “It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted war in 1939. It was wanted and provoked solely by international statesmen either of Jewish origin or working for Jewish interests. Nor had I ever wished that after the appalling first World War, there would ever be a second against either England or America.”
      ~~ Adolf Hitler, April, 1945.

    • Ciaran's Gravatar Ciaran
      July 30, 2011 - 11:51 am | Permalink

      Anglo Saxon – I know. I try to correct JewLies every single day of my life.

    • Anglo Saxon's Gravatar Anglo Saxon
      July 30, 2011 - 1:38 pm | Permalink

      I know you do Ciaran … and I salute your determined efforts my Brother, I really do.

      My lengthy comment was written for the benefit of those others who are still unsure about how to interpret what passes for 20th century ‘history’.

  2. July 29, 2011 - 5:38 pm | Permalink

    MacDonald: “No philo-Semite would claim that deportation of Jews from Germany (and implicitly other European countries) is legitimate and would eventually be appreciated by the Jews.”

    As someone who believes Zionist Jews (which Breivik claims as “brothers”) have no more business being in the West than do Islamists, and are a huge component in inciting wars against Islam and war in general, I would say that Breivik actually is a Judeophile, and admires Zionist Jewry’s warmongering efforts, while perhaps simultaneously being anti-Semitic.

    These is why I believe he and most other hard-core Judeo Christian Zionists are most probably insane. They’re certainly irrational, and because their wars end up driving Islamic refugees into the West, incredibly stupid if they fear and loathe Islam as they claim to.

    You see, like Zionist Jewry, they can’t control their insatiable greed, and so they want to bring the 2nd and 3rd world masses into the West maximize market potential and government coffers while simultaneously waging war against them.

    Like I said: they’re nuts, and so is Breivik.

    • July 29, 2011 - 5:59 pm | Permalink

      MacDonald: “No philo-Semite would claim that deportation of Jews from Germany (and implicitly other European countries) is legitimate and would eventually be appreciated by the Jews.”

      Isn’t Breivik speaking of a hypothetical alternative to the holocaust? If so, then I think that Jews would have been grateful for that.

    • Lew's Gravatar Lew
      July 29, 2011 - 6:32 pm | Permalink

      How often do Christian Zionists describe Jews as nation wreckers as ABB did?

    • David F.'s Gravatar David F.
      July 29, 2011 - 6:44 pm | Permalink

      Breivik’s writings are consistent with strict Zionism, though.

      Ideologically consistent Zionists regarded the diaspora as a dead end. Jews belonged in Israel, just as Germans belonged in Germany. Many, including Hertzl, saw anti-semitism as beneficial if it forced Jews to give up assimilation and emmigrate to Palestine.

      I think Breivik’s writings would be approved by ideologically pure Zionists of the time and even today.

    • July 29, 2011 - 7:18 pm | Permalink

      Judeo-Christian Zionism’s once-feigned Judeophilia has become fact. Breivik embraced neocon doctrine, other than the fact that he acknowledges large percentages of Jews are nation-wreckers. For this reason, he probably wants most Jews out, but if that was his primary imperative, he would not have embraced neocon doctrine.

      Maybe Christian Zionists once harbored secret desires to get the Jews out, but once Jewry penetrated so deeply into the American hierarchy, they threw in the towel and basically concluded, “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.”

      Maybe Breivik fantasized that Judeo-Christian Zionist Whites would eventually turn on the Jews after dealing with the Muslims, but the Zionist disease has already spread too deeply into the Judeo-Christian Zionist marrow for this to ever happen.

      For all their posing, these people are no longer even Christians, and neither, obviously, is Breivik.

      I believe he is where neocon Judeo-Christian Zionism leads — insanity, and too gutless to go after the real malefactors way down underneath the piles, and deep down knowing it.

      Breivik should have become anti-Jewish. It might have saved his sanity and prevented all that bloodshed.

    • Rich Pearson's Gravatar Rich Pearson
      July 29, 2011 - 8:09 pm | Permalink

      Jews are running the “chutzpah” strategy: you support our nationalism while we oppose yours.

      As noted Jewish power is far stronger in the US than in Europe, thus consequent support for Zionism. While Muslims are the demographic threat in Europe, in America Muslims are mostly irrelevant, a small but particularly toxic group of foreigners among millions of third world mestizos, boutique minorities like various groups of resettled refugees, and highly competitive Northeast Asians.

      For Americans, the best strategy is also chutzpah: support our nationalism while opposing theirs, Zionism. Europeans and Americans should perform a good/bad cop, with Europeans supporting Israel and Americans opposing them. Even geographically this makes sense. While deluded fantasies about reincorporating the “Holy Land” as the southern boundary of Europe may appeal to romantic types, in reality that line is probably drawn on this side of Istanbul. But Europe may benefit by playing along, and Palestine is a lot closer to Europe than America.

      One can’t help but notice the redrawn maps of Greater Levant included in the purported Breivik manifesto bear a resemblance to the redrawn maps of the entire Middle East surrounding Iran that were released in 2005 as part of the neo-conservative, Zionist war propaganda campaign.

      Has Facebook officially released proof that this supposed manifesto was in fact released by the alleged gunman?

  3. Geiseric's Gravatar Geiseric
    July 29, 2011 - 5:51 pm | Permalink

    Great, unique and potentially very influential article from MacDonald. As for T.H. Eriksen, he seems to be more influenced by the French school, Boas’ coethnics like Durkheim, Derrida etc.

  4. David F.'s Gravatar David F.
    July 29, 2011 - 6:32 pm | Permalink

    “He makes a strong distinction between conservative Jewish nationalists and liberal Jews, arguing that only the former are opposed to the interests of Europeans.”

    I assume you meant “only the latter” here.

  5. Masculinity's Gravatar Masculinity
    July 29, 2011 - 6:47 pm | Permalink

    I’m not sure what I think about this. The men I’ve known who were conservative, and who admitted that the Jews were liberal would never go further than that.

    Admitting that Jews are liberal, and admitting that Jews have promoted ideologies to genetically disadvantage their centuries old enemies (us) are two different things.

    The people I’ve known who ascribed to part 1 but not part 2 where all careerists who would scream “you’re jealous because they are smarter than you and you’re not smart enough to compete with them and win debates and out maneauver them!”

    So then it becomes a nasty cycle….Those men then turn their backs to me and then support Jews (out of spite, because they think Jews are smarter, because they want to play ‘fair’, because they think they can win them over with debate)…and then the Jews use this power to support only Jews.

    It’s a very bad weakness. It’s like leaving the door open Just A Crack so the badguys can pry it open again.

    • Masculinity's Gravatar Masculinity
      July 29, 2011 - 6:52 pm | Permalink

      You can’t defeat something if you can’t Name it Exactly.

      This has been going on for 100 years because even though the Germans could Name Him. None of the other European Nations Could.

      Let’s say that Anders was a part of an army of knights who eventually defeated multiculturalism and saved our countries.

      I think something else bad would happen because it’s like Thomas Jefferson not tacking on the ‘…united by blood’ phrase.

      Rumplestilztkin people’s. You have to name him or else he gets your child.

    • Masculinity's Gravatar Masculinity
      July 29, 2011 - 7:09 pm | Permalink

      Seriously, if the Princess would have gone up to Rumplestiltzkin and said “You’re name is Rumple!”

      He would have laughed and laughed and laughed. There ain’t no half credit given in this game.

  6. Joe Webb's Gravatar Joe Webb
    July 29, 2011 - 6:54 pm | Permalink

    Wow. Breivik’s argument reminds me of the Pat Buchanan argument in his World War 2, the Unnecessary War, which implies (I think) that we should have allied with Germany (and England and France) to defeat the USSR, thus forever changing the future of Europe and Whites if not forever, then for the foreseeable future.

    Given Hitler’s and Nazi sympathies and beliefs, that could have been engineered. Hitler loved England, fellow Aryans, etc. The problem of course was Hitler’s invasion of Poland, etc. and FDR, Churchill, and others already under the sway of Jews and/or communism. Everywhere in Europe, most folks were sympathetic to Germany’s Versailles grievance, etc. It was a blunder to invade Poland, etc.

    Think 1917, the problem of communism and its pimping little sister Liberalism was there at the start, the 1920s forward. Actually, it goes back further as we all know, but let us start with 1917.

    Breivik’s argument that Hitler set the White and Christian West back, from our vantage, is clearly true. What is not clear is whether, barring an alliance with Germany against the USSR, which was not in the cards for reasons advanced below, Hitler bears that much responsibility for the disaster of our times. He certainly bears some responsibility given his mistakes in diplomacy in the late 30s, and his monumental error of underestimating Stalin’s divisions and the US’s productive capacity, jewish power, and FDR Lib-Rad power.

    But if Germany had remained social-democratic and stumbled on without helping to start world war 2, and the West continued to flirt with communism and then multi-racism, would the outcome might have been much different from what we got now?.

    For example, I lived thru the 60s and 70s as a generic red, but anti-communist. Hitlerism was NOT part of the rhetoric of the times. That rhetoric was Third World Revolution, Racial Equality, and Civil Rights, as it was then called. Nobody was talking about Hitler. Nobody on the Left was talking about 1948 or even 1967 Palestine/Israel. Then it also became Vietnam, and before that Algeria.

    The zeitgeist was Liberal and Pink, another term we don’t hear anymore, probably because even the alleged conservatives today are kinda pink today, (no child left behind, etc.). You can see where I am going with this. Short of a total defeat of the USSR in World War 2, it was “inevitable” that the anti-colonial and anti-racist struggle became the only game in town. Not only was “Hitlerism” defeated, but the relative success (economically up to about 1960 or so) and Sputnik (the first successful satellite launch) gave the USSR and socialism or communism a lot of good press.

    So, after WW2, “Racism” became very bad indeed, and also helped fuel the resistance to Colonialism by well-meaning Whites like myself.

    Hitler helped, but did not determine this cultural and political romance of Whites. Just look at the success of Franz Boas and the other commie-jews and goyim who were infected by 1917 in Russia. The 20s were a time of general infection of the US and Europe by communism. Communism pretty much became the only game in town for lefites. Socialism, Anarchism, and home-grown Populisms shrank while Communism grew. Fascism had nothing to do with this. Popular news sources praised Mussolini, etc.

    In Europe, in the 30s, there were the United Fronts, and the Popular Fronts…all more or less dominated by commies. The only lefties in Europe to hold out were the Anarchists, but again, the zeitgeist was leftish for most folks who had little money, etc.

    So, National Socialism, which was fundamentally anti-communist, and not anti-Jewish, emerged. Without the USSR, there would have been no Hitler, etc. Remember Mussolini, an ardent socialist, like his father. When communism became the existential threat in the 20s, Mussolini became a fascist.

    So, White Altruism again here. We have done it to ourselves. It was not (just) HItler, and not just the Jews, although they instinctively went for the White jugular. Whites invented Liberalism and socialism. Arguably it took Jews to invent communism with its Leninist totalitarianism, but ….Whites ‘r’ Us.

    Breivik somehow has missed the socio-biology of Whites, which makes us so vulnerable to anti-racism, etc.

    Hitler had his part in this, but to blame him as the only source of our present situation is one-dimensional. J

    • Gabor's Gravatar Gabor
      July 29, 2011 - 7:29 pm | Permalink

      Without the Jews these leftist fads would be coming and going. With the Jews they cemented their ethnic networks in and now nobody can challenge the consensus and establishment the same way it could be done before.

      So yes, there might have been a communism (or rather a pinkism) without the Jews, but probably not nearly as strong and universal, and not they would have collapsed quickly as new evidence on racial differences etc. would have come to light.

    • dc's Gravatar dc
      July 30, 2011 - 12:25 am | Permalink

      “The problem of course was Hitler’s invasion of Poland, etc. and FDR, Churchill, and others already under the sway of Jews and/or communism. Everywhere in Europe, most folks were sympathetic to Germany’s Versailles grievance, etc. It was a blunder to invade Poland, etc.”
      The invasion was plainly forced on Hitler by Polish war-mongering, Polish mistreatment of its German minority, and Poland’s refusal to negotiate. You can begin with AJP Taylor and then work through the documentation of the time. Hitler was not the aggressor.

    • buckle's Gravatar buckle
      July 30, 2011 - 3:00 am | Permalink

      Joe – I am not sure PB advocated any American involvement in WWII but simply exposed the complete lack of logic to what involvement there was prior to formal entry into the war. After all the book’s title contains the word “Unnecessary”!

      Hitler’s strategic error in 1939 was to misunderstand the British and the proto-neocons who existed there. Indeed, as Buchanan indicates, it was a hybrid of the Labour party leftists and Conservative rightists who pushed the moderate Chamberlain into war. Evidently, Hitler never grapsed this.

      I had a similar experience in Italy at the time of the British coup against Thatcher. Italians couldn’t understand how she could so easily be dumped by “men in gray suits” but she was! I even translated “men in gray suits” into their language but in the land of Armani the term didn’t resonate. Chamberlain, of course, suffered a similar indignity in a different context.

    • Sam Davidson's Gravatar Sam Davidson
      July 30, 2011 - 9:22 am | Permalink

      Joe Webb: “So, White Altruism again here. We have done it to ourselves. It was not (just) HItler, and not just the Jews, although they instinctively went for the White jugglar (sp?). Whites invented LIberalism and socialism.”

      The masses of white people did not choose their own dispossession. It was only AFTER things like forced racial integration was enforced at bayonet point and the middle class whites moved into suburbs that their children, away from non-whites, could buy into the multi-cultural propaganda. Racial integration in the U.S. was met with 2 reactions by whites – race riots or white flight. And the latter usually followed the former once whites realized it did them no good to protest. Since 1965 most whites have always been against mass immigration and open borders. Border states like California have attempted to pass multiple referendums to deal with the problem but were always stifled by a hostile judiciary.

    • Joe Webb's Gravatar Joe Webb
      July 31, 2011 - 12:15 pm | Permalink

      Sam, you are correct. It is the White elites. But it is always the elites who lead, read and write books, and are, possibly, more “sensitive” to altruistic impulses. It is the “ordinary folks” who are in closer contact with their genetic feelings of the strangeness of Others. I should have distinguished between the two.

      It is ordinary folks, unsullied by intellectual fashions, who are now “leading” the way out of the liberal swamp. And then there is the opportunism of the intellectuals who make a living thru their do-gooding, and the ordinary folks who have to deal up close and personal in their home neighborhoods with the blacks and browns, and of course, experience job loss or pay loss.

      DC. the objective reality with regard to Poland is not the point. The point is public relations, which AH lost with the invasion. He should have waited, from a diplomatic point of view.

      Buckle: you are correct, PB did not advocate an invasion of the USSR. But, I took a small liberty and suggested that PB “probably” would agree that that might have been a great strategic opportunity.

  7. mari's Gravatar mari
    July 29, 2011 - 7:10 pm | Permalink

    Speaing of Israel here is something I found very interesting

    WELL WHAT DO YOU KNOW! ISRAELI COMPANY IN CHARGE OF SECURITY AT GLASGOW AIRPORT, SAME ONE IN CHARGE OF SECURIT AT AIRPORTS CONNECTED WITH 911, AND IN Quote All 911 Airports Serviced by Same Security Firm

    It’s one of those times when an innocuous comment in an unrelated news report triggers a revelation. In the article at “To make the situation worse, a private security company called ICTS, owned by an Israeli, Ezra Harel, and registered in the Netherlands, was employed at Charles de Gaulle airport to screen passengers boarding US planes.

    Most of its personnel are ex-Shin Bet officers. The company covers security at Boston’s Logan airport, where the American Airlines plane came down after flight attendants and passengers overpowered Reid.”

    The point of thier article was that ICTS knew Reid was dangerous, but allowed him on board a flight from Tel Aviv to Paris. Maybe they did and maybe they didn’t. But the idea that an Israeli owned company had inside access to the airport used to launch an abortive terror attack brought to mind the strange message Odigo Systems, another Israeli owned company with offices near the World Trade Towers, received that warned of the impending attacks before the hijacked planes had even left the ground.

    So, I went back to another story that had surfaced briefly, reported at ARTICLE_ID=26626 about how at least one hijacker had smuggled a GUN aboard one of the hijacked planes. Even prior to 9-11, getting a gun on board a passenger plane represented a serious lapse of security. I wondered why this story of a gun was being concealed behind talk of box cutters and screwdrivers.

    Then I went back to the first article and its mention that ICTS handled security at Logan International Airport, from which two of the 9-11 hijacked planes had departed. Sure enough, a visit to ICTS’ own web site at It has been suggested that the incredible feat of hijacking four aircraft without a single arrest at the gate would require the resources of a nation-state.

    This is even more true with the revelation that at least one gun had managed to be aboard a hijacked plane. One company had automatic inside access to all of the airports from which hijacked planes departed on 9-11, and to the airports used by Richard Reid, the shoe bomber. An Israeli company.

    One that Mossad agents could easily find employment with without the management knowing who they were or what their purpose really was. But one thing is clear. By virtue of the Odigo warning, someone knew enough about the planned attacks to warn Odigo before the planes had even departed the airport gates.

    Yet they did not call the Israeli security company at the airports which could have stopped the flights from leaving. Think about that one for a while. “Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It’s classified information.” — US official quoted in Carl Cameron’s Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring.

    “Investigators within the DEA, INS and FBI have all told Fox News that to pursue or even suggest Israeli spying … is considered career suicide.” — Carl Cameron, as quoted in The Spies Who Came In From The Art Sale “While I agree with you, if I say anything about US geopolitical interests with Israel, I might as well clean off my desk.” — Unnamed reporter as quoted in American Media Censorship and Israel

    • Rich Pearson's Gravatar Rich Pearson
      July 29, 2011 - 8:36 pm | Permalink

      Quoting from the alleged Breivik, “Never target a Jew because he is a Jew, but rather because he is a category A or B traitor.”

      In light of mari’s comment above, and strongly denouncing all terrorism, at a minimum you can’t allow Israelis or Jews to have security clearances. After all, they don’t consider espionage, terrorism, or subversion against the United States of America to be “treason” if they perceive it to be beneficial for Israel, a foreign state.

      The Jewish community is nearly unanimous in calling for the release of Jonathan Pollard.

  8. Gabor's Gravatar Gabor
    July 29, 2011 - 7:11 pm | Permalink

    You can’t defeat something if you can’t Name it Exactly.

    Very good point.

    This has been going on for 100 years because even though the Germans could Name Him. None of the other European Nations Could.

    Every nation could between Germany and the USSR. But those were backward and poor nations, and they didn’t matter much.

  9. July 29, 2011 - 7:11 pm | Permalink

    Strong criticism of non-Zionist Jews often comes from Jews, for example, the leader of the World Zionist Organization Chaim Weiszmann said in response to negotiations with Hitler over Jewish emigration:

    “It would bother me little if cholera or Bolshevism came over Germany. As far as I am concerned both plagues can come over the Germans…. I would sooner see the demise of the German Jews than the demise of the State of Israel for the Jews.”

    Weiszmann thus said that he was willing, through intransigence, to cause the deaths of half a million Jews if it would accomplish his Zionist purpose.

    Some of the same kind of vitriol toward Jews that are not entirely on board with the Zionist project is still heard today, from Michael Savage, and no doubt from some other Zionist-Jews sources.

    This idea put out by Zionist Jews, that the liberal Jews are bad Jews, has filtered down to Christian Zionists. We have seen this in Glenn Beck’s lack of inhibition about pointing out that George Soros is a Jew, with the qualification that Soros is a bad Jew, not like the good Jews who support Israel unconditionally. Some Jews have expressed discomfort with this kind of talk coming from Beck, but others may be quite happy to see the pressure put on their fellow tribesmen to get on the program, and a little “anti-Semitism” really doesn’t bother Jews so much as help them maintain their unity.

    Fox News serves that purpose. It caters to a White conservative audience, throwing them bones on topics like immigration and Black crime to convince them that Fox News is their friend, so that an effective pitch can then be made for supporting Zionism.

    How does that Fox News audience regard the political left in their own country? As total scum.

    Mass-murder of political enemies and children of political enemies is quite Biblical. Voltaire calculated the number of Jews mass-murdered by other Jews in the Old Testament at 239,650. This is celebrated in the Bible as righteous, and a philo-Semite could thus find easy justification for similar acts.

    Basically what we get from Anders Breivik is the same ideology that we get from our Christian Zionists in the United States, many of whom are quietly racialist, but are imbued with Jewish propaganda and have to justify expression of their racial impulses on that basis.

    • July 29, 2011 - 7:38 pm | Permalink

      I also believe that the implacable hostility between “left and right” in the United States is part of the Jews’ game. It prevents any real dialogue.

      Obviously, though, it’s not supposed to lead to one faction exterminating the other! If that happens, the game is over.

  10. Concrete man's Gravatar Concrete man
    July 29, 2011 - 7:14 pm | Permalink

    Kevin, Earlier this year you were on Tom Sunic’s show at Voice of Reason Radio. Near the end of the show I was shocked, and this created a bit of internet stir, when, and I am paraphrasing, you said we may well throw the Palestinians overboard if we can get the Jews to agree to help get the Muslims out of Europe. I listened to what you said very carefully and that was the intent of what you said. Michael Hoffman even wrote a rebuttal of your remarks (maybe you were having a bad day), but you also were very condescending to me in an email exchange. My point being, how can we even take you seriously now that you have basically admitted that you do not have a moral position, only a strategic or tactical one? Further, it is obivous you want to preserve your reputation since you never comment on issues like whether the Holocaust happened as the Jews say it did; whether Israel was behind 911, and other topics. As for the Oslo affair, you are taking it for granted what the media has put out is the truth, and then analysing it as such. Consider that this whole mass murder may have much more too it that the jewish owned mainstream media is telling us, or are you so naive as to believe them (Breivek’s treatize sounds like a mass of contradictory nonsense, written by either a nutter or the CIA/Mossad), and then write a critical essay based on their version of the story? A lot of people on the internet seem to be!

    The other day I analysed this as a case where a white nationalist was doing just what you in a sense prescribed, which was to get the Muslims out of Europe, and the killer attacked pro Muslim types, as if to prove that point.

    I know you don’t approve of violence but I also know you do not take morally principled positions, only strategic ones.

  11. Cary's Gravatar Cary
    July 29, 2011 - 7:34 pm | Permalink

    “A good example of how this works is Thomas Hylland Eriksen, the ‘career multiculturalist and intellectual celebrity’ who is discussed several times in Breivik’s work. Eriksen…believes that the ‘most important task ahead is to deconstruct the majority, and we must deconstruct them so thoroughly that they will never be able to call themselves the majority again…’”

    This campaign of defamation and division has been attacking our white European and American cultures at least since Heinrich Graetz launched a propaganda campaign of “scourging” and “flogging” the majority demographic in his home country (Germany) in 1868…” It was true in ancient Egypt and Persia, too, if the Old Testament is factually accurate on this point.

    What to do? Name it in a white voice and speak against it in a white centric way. Call it what it is, the Anti-White Narrative which specializes in cherry-picking history, emphasizing their team’s successes, and emphasizing our team’s failings. Some of are fighting it on its own turf, see: http://www.resistingdefamation.org/

  12. Rob's Gravatar Rob
    July 29, 2011 - 7:45 pm | Permalink

    KMD, thanks for posting some of ABB’s key writings, as I would probably never read them otherwise. Political manifestos aren’t my forte (although I did read Mein Kampf decades ago).

    ABB’s confusion regarding worldwide organized jewry – if he even realizes such a thing exists – is probably mostly due to the educational and cultural upbringing he’s been subjected to. Considering what they’re taught in Europe, it surprises me he has anything bad to say about jews at all.
    His babbling about the nonexistent holocau$t is due to the indoctrination he’s been subjected to.

    He has a point about Hitler and the National Socialists. Hitler let his vanity get the better of him, what with his general eastward expansion policies, visions of German grandeur in that regard and his view of Slavs as being sub-par. These attitudes were and are non-starters if European culture is to survive.

    Additionally, the NS simply wasn’t politically mature enough to realize the power of the worldwide forces arraigned against them. They wanted to achieve all their goals yesterday. That is one of the more fundamental mistakes made by the NS, I think.
    I think it will take more than one generation to thoroughly defeat our enemy.

    • Rob's Gravatar Rob
      July 29, 2011 - 8:07 pm | Permalink

      I might add that the German lawyer Horst Mahler, who is currently serving 5 years in Germany for holocaust denial, was a founding member of the Baader-Meinhof Gang in 1970, a rabidly anti-nationalist, leftist terror group. Mahler’s gradual 180-degree turn from Maoist to German nationalist took some 20-30 years. Such is the power of educational and cultural brainwashing.
      Perhaps ABB will likewise recognize the true face of the enemy in the coming years.

    • July 29, 2011 - 11:45 pm | Permalink

      Rob says

      I might add that the German lawyer Horst Mahler, who is currently serving 5 years in Germany for holocaust denial, was a founding member of the Baader-Meinhof Gang in 1970, a rabidly anti-nationalist, leftist terror group

      Stalinist-type attacks against lawyers that defend our people seem commonplace, see the case of Edgar Steele, accused of attempted murder against his wife in a ludicrous conspiracy theory wholly concocted, likely because he was investigating organized crime groups involved in “white slave trade” meaning sex trafficking.

      His wife that he is accused of supposedly trying to “car bomb” is his only advocate. The “mainstream” press like the NYT have refused to cover this case, presumably, because he provided legal services to some “Aryan Nations” group years ago. It’s like a blood feud. Didn’t Patton warn against this?

      Google and Facebook distributed “news” sites have claimed that Breivik requested the top lawyer from the Norway Labor Party, the same political party that was attacked. This lawyer immediately claimed that Breivik was “insane” and “on drugs” and the court system in Norway is preventing him from making a direct statement to the media.

    • Greg's Gravatar Greg
      July 30, 2011 - 12:40 am | Permalink

      That is the huge problem with nationalism. People only begin to wake up to its importance maybe in there 40s and 50s after years of promoting an anti-white agenda. I’m sorry, but if that trend continues we’re seriously screwed.

  13. ps79's Gravatar ps79
    July 29, 2011 - 7:46 pm | Permalink

    Please put the comments on a different page like Altright or blogspot

  14. Harumphty_Dumpty's Gravatar Harumphty_Dumpty
    July 29, 2011 - 8:13 pm | Permalink

    “He makes a strong distinction between conservative Jewish nationalists and liberal Jews, arguing that only the former are opposed to the interests of Europeans.”

    Is this a typo? Shouldn’t “former” be “latter”? Maybe I’m not understanding something, but I’ll slap this up now just in case.

  15. Steve's Gravatar Steve
    July 29, 2011 - 8:16 pm | Permalink

    Breivik’s lengthy manifesto ‘European Declaration of Independence’ is also an enigma which is full of inadequacies. He most certainly must have known about the Jewish role at the vanguard of his grievances since his research goes very much in depth about the Frankfurt School and political correctness, feminism, immigration, media control, the EU, etc., yet he mentions little about their complicit role. This may have been a strategic measure on his part, similar to Geert Wilder, of keeping the limelight away from the Jewish role in order to make their crusade more palatable for the unwary general populace, since the stigma of being branded anti-Semitic would nullify their campaign from the start. In any case, his writings leave me in a quandary.

  16. Harumphty_Dumpty's Gravatar Harumphty_Dumpty
    July 29, 2011 - 8:33 pm | Permalink

    “…arguing that Hitler should have cooperated in creating a Jewish homeland in the Middle East and deporting the German Jews there…”

    Filed away somewhere from my pre-computer days is a long and very positive book review written in the Jerusalem Post decades ago, on a book entitled “The Transfer Agreement,” about the deal the Zionists cut with the new Hitler gov’t to use their influence to end the economic boycott of Germany (which I believe they successfully did) in exchange for the Hitler gov’t permitting the emigration of wealthy German Jews to Palestine, taking their wealth with them. I believe Ben Hecht also wrote a less scholarly book on this subject.

  17. Tralee Ronan's Gravatar Tralee Ronan
    July 29, 2011 - 9:01 pm | Permalink

    At the time of the formation of the Israeli State one of the great problems was populating the place. Typical Jews in the West had no interest in migrating to the “homeland.” To save face, those promoting the Jewish State had to beat the bushes for Asiatic “Jews” who might find some material advantage in relocating. These Khazars have no blood or covenant link whatever to ancient Israelites, but rather, have their origin in mass conversion of a savage Mongol-Turkish-Central Asian race by Bulan Khagan
    c 730 AD.

    The entire Ashkenazic sect sprang from these Khazars who were finally driven out of Asia and are today recognized in history as the savage hordes which invaded Europe as the Huns. Ashkenazic “Jews” are the dominant group in Israel, and despite their voluble posturing as God’s Chosen People, they have no more relationship to Abraham than predatory potted plants. Their origin, however, does explain the barbarism which has characterized this sand-pile-on-the-Mediterranean since its inception.

    We are left to conclude that “liberal Jews” then are simply those who prefer the prosperity, comforts and conveniences of the Western States they parasitize and subvert, whereas Zionists are crazed barbarians obsessed with making Israel the capitol of a World State.

    Anyone not in a coma should be able to see that it’s time to relegate this crowd to the junk heap of history. Since the militance and belicosity spring entirely from them – and has since time immemorial – no mercy is due them. Enough with the lying, scheming, deceiving, thieving, subverting, debauching, obstructing, and polluting of everything fine and decent! Civilized man has squandered time, stamina, resources on these folk for too long now. Away with them!

    It’s time to STOP the polemic and hand-wringing, and confront this issue head-on. Seventy-five-cent-words and literary nuances, acronyms and internet slang aren’t going to accomplish anything whatever. It’s time to force this issue into the open and discuss alternatives of quarantine, deportation, expulsion – whatever. Many of you think the jig is up. I do not. Every nation in Europe has had to grapple with this problem at one time or another. Let us take the lead in breaking the fetters with which these liars and felons would shackle Western Man. Caucasians stand at the top of the evolutionary ladder! We are only momentarily dazed by tactics so far beneath us as to be almost inconceivable. But the machinations are quite real, and it’s time to rise to the occasion now, beat down the vermin for what they are and neutralize them forever.

    • Cary's Gravatar Cary
      July 29, 2011 - 9:16 pm | Permalink

      There is a role for everyone in this affair. We pioneered attacks in the media on the terms “righteous gentile,” “shiksa,” “goyim,” “gentile,” and “goy,” as well as their favorite term of abuse and triumph, “WASP,” not to mention the hideous poem affixed to the inside wall of the podium for the Statue of Liberty.

      Those are all logocentric efforts, and while they were quite successful in our area, it still leaves their religious tax on our food, their promotion of the Anti-White Narrative, their Asian wars, their intoxicants and diamonds, and their deeply destructive films and glossy publications designed to strip our children of their decent sense of self-respect. Plenty to do.

      For ideas, see: http://www.resistingdefamation.org/

    • Scooter's Gravatar Scooter
      July 29, 2011 - 9:55 pm | Permalink

      Tralee -Get real pal – Hitler tried what you propose and it was a disaster. I think we are going to have to learn to live with them…

  18. Joe Webb's Gravatar Joe Webb
    July 29, 2011 - 9:26 pm | Permalink

    From what I read, genetic scanning of ashkenazi jews comes up with a 50-50 mix, on average, of European genes and semitic genes. I dunno if Khazar genes were or are semitic, but i doubt it, since they were apparently a Turkic people. Also, phenotypic evidence for all of us to see, suggests a heavy White, even northern White, genetic background. There are many blue-eyed and blonde Jews.

    Back to Breivik’s argument that Hitler set us back because of his unacceptable behavior (unacceptable to most Whites), the same argument can be turned on him. It remains to be seen what the effect will be. Norway’s Progress Party’s progress or lack thereof at the polls will tell us something. Ditto the rest of the nationalist parties at the polls. There is nothing but elections to win or lose…for the foreseeable future. Joe

    • July 29, 2011 - 10:07 pm | Permalink

      It’s all in the way the government and mass-media treat the matter. For some reason the Negro rioting of the 1960s in the United States did not result in any official backlash against Blacks. No, it led to concessions and more efforts to aid the poor aggrieved Negro, because that was the direction that the media and government already wanted to take.

    • Carleton's Gravatar Carleton
      July 29, 2011 - 10:18 pm | Permalink

      Also, phenotypic evidence for all of us to see, suggests a heavy White, even northern White, genetic background. There are many blue-eyed and blonde Jews.

      There is such a thing as convergent evolution.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution

      It could very well be the case that blue eyes and blonde hair are advantageous in the northern European environment, or at least less disadvantageous than they are elsewhere, and thus the thousand years or so Ashkenazis have spent in northern Europe could’ve caused them to develop a higher rate of blue eyes and blonde hair than they had when they were in southern Europe (or before that the Levant) through a process of convergent evolution.

      The reason I think this likely is because the genetic studies so far have found not all that much northern European admixture in Ashkenazi Jews, not enough to explain the rate of blue eyes and blonde hair they seem to have at least.

      At the same time you’re right that Ashkenazi Jews are heavily White in their background, while still having a quite large chunk of recent ancestry from the Middle East which European Christians and their descendants all lack.

      Since even the Middle Eastern element in Ashkenazis comes from Levantines, who are closer to Europeans than almost all the other Middle Easterners, the genetic differences between Ashkenazis and Europeans are small.

      But the problem is that while Levantines are similar to Europeans, and while as you point out Ashkenazis have enough recent European ancestry to make them heavily White, the Ashkenazi have maintained all too much of that old Levantine clannishness.

      This clannishness makes them hostile to anyone they perceive to outside their tribe, and unfortunately for us Ashkenazis overwhelmingly think Europeans are a different tribe than them.

      This is why Breivik was incorrect to think that 25% of Jews are friends to European nationalists.

      In reality at this point in time it’s probably closer to 5% at best (thanks to their clannish and absurdly parochial morality causing them to view even the closely related Europeans as an out-group).

      Back to Breivik’s argument that Hitler set us back because of his unacceptable behavior (unacceptable to most Whites), the same argument can be turned on him.

      That’s the irony here.

      Breivik says that Hitler made it much easier for the Multiculturists to triumph by associating nationalism with one nation attacking another nation.

      This is true.

      Breivik says that Hitler made it much easier for the Multiculturists to triumph by associating nationalism with crude anti-Jewish sentiment and brutal anti-Jewish actions and policies.

      This is also true.

      But what Breivik didn’t get was that another thing the Hitler did which made it much easier for the Multiculturists to triumph was associate nationalism in the European mind with the killing of unarmed people without trial.

      It wasn’t just because Hitler killed Jews and Slavs that it was so easy for the Left to demonize him!

      Even if he left the Jews and Slavs alone, it wouldn’t have helped that he killed a lot of unarmed Germans without trial.

      People just don’t want to live in a country like that, or at least European-derived people sure don’t.

      In killing unarmed people without trial, Breivik repeated one of the mistakes Hitler made which helped the Multiculturists to triumph.

      It’s really hard to understand.

      It remains to be seen what the effect will be.

      It’s more likely to be negative than positive, and even if it turns out to be positive just by making people think more about Multiculturism, the positive effect will be muted compared to what it could’ve been due to the morally retarded and strategically insane choice of targets.

      The taboo against killing people without trial is understood to apply less to heads of state.

      Killing the Prime Minister of Norway, a man with infinitely more complicity and responsibility for the destructive impact of non-European immigration on Norway than those poor misguided youths on the island, would’ve gotten at least as much attention to Breivik’s anti-Islamic writings while doing far less to alienate his co-ethnics and co-racials.

      Not to advocate such an action, only to point out that even if one were to think Breivik was right to use violence, he was still both profoundly wrong in both a moral and Machiavellian sense to perform the act of violence he chose to commit.

      The greatest significance of Breivik is that anyone out there who wishes to “work outside the system” must strive with heart and soul to learn from his mistakes.

  19. Rehmat's Gravatar Rehmat
    July 29, 2011 - 9:44 pm | Permalink

    The ‘Great Shaitan (Satan)’ for United States – is an internationally trademark coined by the Leader of Islamic Revolution (1979) in the 1980s. Therefore, like the so-called ‘Holocaust’ reserved for the Jewish sufferings – should not be applied loosely.

    One can call Breivik a Jewish-lover White homicidal or plainly anti-Muslim extremists. But then the West is full of such bigots who like to blame Muslims for their knee-jerk failures – as their European ancesters used to blame the Jews for all their problem – from Jesus’ murder to the ‘Blood Libel’.

    Pity, though – after pumping $3 trillion into Jewish colony in Palestine – the latest UN report says that one out of every three Jewish child in Israel lives in poverty.

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/07/30/israel-and-the-jewish-spring/

    • Scooter's Gravatar Scooter
      July 29, 2011 - 9:57 pm | Permalink

      Rehmat:

      When do you plan to blow up that Canadian power plant where you “work”?

    • Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
      July 29, 2011 - 11:17 pm | Permalink

      It is amazing how much nonsense Rehmat,our indefatigable house-Muslim, can stuff in even one sentence.He keeps on spouting his blundering anti-Western nonsense without learning anything.As for Khomeini’s demonization of America (the “Great Satan”),it would benefit Rehmat to know that our great seer and poet Dante in his work la Divina Commedia placed the prophet Mohammed in one of the deepest Hells.Perhaps with a reason.

  20. Harumphty_Dumpty's Gravatar Harumphty_Dumpty
    July 29, 2011 - 9:47 pm | Permalink

    This Norwegian Labor Party MP is possibly more likable than most:

    “Outrage over Holocaust-denying Norwegian lawmaker”

    http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?ID=213159&R=R1

    • John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
      July 29, 2011 - 11:39 pm | Permalink

      He keeps on spouting his blundering anti-Western nonsense without learning anything.As for Khomeini’s demonization of America (the “Great Satan”)

      I agree that Rehmat is an anti-western b.s. poster, but…
      Do you not think that America has earned the reputation as being “the Great Satan” to at least some degree ?

      I DO NOT the people of the US, I DO mean the US government. The American people are great, but they have been conquered from within as you might agree.

      The US gov. has been absolutely barbaric in it’s treatment of the people of the middle east and all in the name of AIPAC.

  21. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    July 29, 2011 - 9:59 pm | Permalink

    Fascinating piece. Well, we now see why the media is burying the story and refuses to talk about it: They don’t want people connecting the dots about this man’s motivation and the issues he raised. In a month, it will be as if the event had never happened. However, I suspect that it will be a small nagging question in the back of a lot of minds out there.

    • Bubba's Gravatar Bubba
      July 29, 2011 - 11:04 pm | Permalink

      The jew-gentile alliance is comprised, overwhelmingly, of white gentiles. Remove the gentiles through the actions of men like Breivik and the big bad jew is left with bags of money and nowhere to spend it. That would not be good for jews.

  22. Anonymous's Gravatar Anonymous
    July 29, 2011 - 11:03 pm | Permalink

    Everything we are fighting today is everything that won WW2. It’s the losing ideology of WW2 vs. the winning ideology of WW2.

  23. Rob's Gravatar Rob
    July 29, 2011 - 11:04 pm | Permalink

    My general opinion about all this is that this guy is no different from many other political clowns, except that he killed some 90 people, or however many. Take that away and all you’re left with is a guy who wrote a political manifesto, like so many others, part of which might be agreeable to some people and part of which might not, again, like so many others.
    Yawn.
    Move on.

    • dc's Gravatar dc
      July 30, 2011 - 12:49 am | Permalink

      Correct. Breivik is a stick with which to beat nationalists. He serves that function admirably. His views and attempts at coherent thinking are worthless crap. More, we devalue ourselves by taking his thinking seriously.

  24. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    July 29, 2011 - 11:22 pm | Permalink

    This Norwegian Labor Party MP is possibly more likable than most:

    “Outrage over Holocaust-denying Norwegian lawmaker”

    The above and other examples of the NLP stepping on very powerful toes would make me think that the Norwegian Labor Party is at risk of suffering some very grave consequences.
    Or have already suffered ?

    Nahhh , that would be not nice and it’s too ” tin hat conspiracy”.

    The Zionists would just be deeply hurt and so they would ask the NLP to please stop threatening Israel and it’s most sacred political foundations .
    Maybe they would invite them out for a kosher lunch at a deli and sit them down and explain how hurtful the NLP is being.

  25. Heather Blue's Gravatar Heather Blue
    July 29, 2011 - 11:53 pm | Permalink

    There is no excuse for killing white children. NONE.

    Everybody in the world seems to want to kill white people and now this Breivik character accommodates them.… doing an efficient job picking on defenseless young people. The Hitler he loathed would have had his cold blooded mug facing a firing squad by this time. He and the Jews have one thing in common – they play God with other people’s lives.

    Breivik’s ramblings don’t muddy the waters for me. He is a flat out killer of innocents who intended to confuse us with a mixed bag of political hog wash.

    It stinks. Something is rotten in Denmark – Norway.

    Israel has come out with accusations that Breivik is as an anti-Semite. Isn’t that a little fast on the trigger? Breivik did not kill any Jews. Nor try. He mentions Jews but his focus was never the Jews.

    Frankly, when something disastrous happens it usually means there is a Jew in the grass.

    • Rich Pearson's Gravatar Rich Pearson
      July 30, 2011 - 12:53 am | Permalink

      “It stinks. Something is rotten in Denmark – Norway.”

      Everyone knows it, Heather Blue is 100% correct.

      But like under the Stalinist regime, what risk do you take to tell the truth? Orwell said, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. Anyone other than Heather Blue going to say it out loud? Or even hint at it?

      Why were those young commie kids – deluded they may have been – targeted for mass murder, professional style? They were all Beautiful White Europeans, Norwegians, and their major crime was to take multi-culti rhetoric seriously, and not support Jews over Muslims. To believe the commie rhetoric they were taught and believe in “equal rights” but didn’t get the hint you were supposed to make an exception for the Jews.

      For that, they were murdered in cold blood – the youngest.

      Their parents were the target. So list their names.

      Why not let this supposed “lone gunman” make a statement on live media? The Norway media is claiming he might “speak in code” so they have to keep it all covered up. Also, he’s a “lone nut” “on drugs” and the alleged “manifesto” is “rambling” and “crazy” according to 95% of the blogs I’ve read.

      Why should I take any of this at face value?

  26. James's Gravatar James
    July 30, 2011 - 12:01 am | Permalink

    Good Jews-bad Jews? Who has time to sort them out? Could you believe what they said anyway? I say to hell with all of them…..let God sort them out……and they can take the Muslims with them. Then maybe we can get the Christians to settle down and act like they have some sense….. Maybe.

  27. July 30, 2011 - 12:08 am | Permalink

    I deal with the “blame Hitler” canard here:

    http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/04/the-burden-of-hitler/

    • July 30, 2011 - 4:34 am | Permalink

      The “Hitler-Bormann Documents” that you quote in that piece have long been known as a fraud, Greg. Check David Irving on that.

    • July 30, 2011 - 6:24 am | Permalink

      Greg Johnson says: “The National Socialist doctrine, as I have always proclaimed, is not for export. It was conceived for the German people” (Hitler-Bormann Documents, Feb. 21, 1945). What he means is that the ideas behind National Socialism may be universally and eternally true, but the National Socialist movement — its political platforms, symbolism, and other external trappings — are the products of a particular time and place.

      That quote, like many other statements attributed to Hitler in the fraudulent “Hitler-Bormann Documents,” is based on statements that Hitler and Goebbels actually made. The real context gives those words “not for export” a much more specific meaning than your interpretation (which seems to be an uninformed speculation). The expression had one connotation when Goebbels said it publicly in 1934 and a rather different one when Hitler said it privately in 1942. I happen to have done a bit of research on the question just a few weeks ago. http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com/2011/05/national-socialism-not-for-export.html

    • Whiteawake's Gravatar Whiteawake
      July 30, 2011 - 11:53 am | Permalink

      Wonder why my comment here wasn’t posted?

    • July 30, 2011 - 12:26 pm | Permalink

      Hadding, thanks for pointing this out. I removed the spurious quote without altering the meaning of the paragraph at all.

  28. July 30, 2011 - 12:52 am | Permalink

    “My point being, how can we even take you seriously now that you have basically admitted that you do not have a moral position, only a strategic or tactical one?

    White people have done enough moral universalism, to the point of suicide. Strategy and tactics are indeed what we need.

    • Gabor's Gravatar Gabor
      July 30, 2011 - 6:42 am | Permalink

      Agreed.

  29. Masculinity's Gravatar Masculinity
    July 30, 2011 - 12:53 am | Permalink

    Gosh darn…

    Balder Blog has an article from Debbie Schlussel.

    Reading this article makes me think that maybe (assuming anders is a real person) he didn’t put any JQ stuff in the manifesto because he figured it would become so obvious to the other population that these people don’t care about our children. (and yes those kids our are children, albeit brainwashed)

  30. Daybreaker's Gravatar Daybreaker
    July 30, 2011 - 12:55 am | Permalink

    Kevin MacDonald is a remarkable man as much for his moral courage as for his intelligence. You can see this in his response to the terrorist strike in Norway. When others ducked and hid, he refused to take this as a “sensitive” topic. He read seriously and gave his opinions plainly, whether on Anders Behring Breivik’s mistakes or his good strategic ideas. Naturally this resulted in Kevin MacDonald being denounced and threatened, and naturally he has given not an inch. And all of this in his cool, professorial style!

    It’s a reminder never to mistake swear-words, hysteria and other kinds of degrading verbal aggression for real courage and the real will to struggle.

    • July 30, 2011 - 3:01 am | Permalink

      Daybreaker, I agree 100 per cent with what you say.

      And thanks Prof. MacDonald for these series of articles on the Norway event!

  31. Tralee Ronan's Gravatar Tralee Ronan
    July 30, 2011 - 1:11 am | Permalink

    @Scooter

    Glad to hear from you. I’ve noticed the good-sense of your posts, particularly a reply to Franklin’s call for suggestions about peaceable resistance. You offered some good ideas.

    Another of your comments counseled readers to find a pastoral location where the self-sustaining lifestyle might be possible. By coincidence, I have done that.

    Responding to your remark this evening, I’ve studied this subject exhaustively and am familiar with its details. For my part, I take personally the effrontery of this sleaze, and have no intention of standing aside for the materialization of their agenda. Hitler was only the latest to have wrestled publicly with the issue. A list of countries from which Jews have been successfully expelled is lengthy. Yahudis are accustomed to this; that’s why they’re paranoid and keep a low-profile. Another reason lies in the fact that they know their guilt better than we do, and it’s impossible to fraternize with folks you’re cheating, thieving, subverting and whose genocide you’re plotting.

    I couldn’t respect myself if I felt passive acceptance were the only choice. I’ve often wondered how martyrs could be so passionate about a cause as to take that ultimate risk. I no longer do. The martyr’s perspective has become quite real to me. Honor and manhood set the bar high.

    On the other hand, impulsive behavior is out of the question. So these scum-bags think they’re clever, do they? Well, they’ve flung the gauntlet before us. And how gladly I seize it! The necessity is to be more clever yet, and in the end, show these fools how stupid and gross they really are. Insanity is exemplified in behavior which repeats itself endlessly with no perception that it is unproductive.

  32. July 30, 2011 - 3:22 am | Permalink
    • July 30, 2011 - 3:28 am | Permalink

      “The “nazi ghost” has scared millions of Europeans from caring about their blood and homeland for sixty years now, and it is about time we banish this ghost and again start to think and care about the things that (whether we like it or not) are important to us.”

    • Anglo Saxon's Gravatar Anglo Saxon
      July 30, 2011 - 6:26 am | Permalink

      Well said Varg!

      “In losing Germany, Jewry lost a territory from which it exerted power. Therefore it was determined to re-conquer it.”
      ~~ Louis Marschalko, The World Conquerors : The Real War Criminals.

    • Helvena's Gravatar Helvena
      July 30, 2011 - 8:14 am | Permalink

      You’re great. I’m totally with you.

  33. July 30, 2011 - 3:22 am | Permalink

    “Breivik is a stick with which to beat nationalists.”

    But that could backfire on them. Guns can be pointed in many directions, and sometimes warriors do hit wrong targets. However, before now no White man was seen caring enough about his people to actually use a gun.

    We don’t know yet if they’ll make him a stick to beat nationalists. Some Jewish writers worry that his extreme act will make Norwegians start paying attention. But we do know that Breivik made himself a stick that beat multiculturalists who are working to give away Norway, betray their own people, and destroy the Norwegian way of life and genotype.

    Does anybody care about what’s happening to Norway?

    “Muslim Rape Epidemic in Sweden and Norway”
    http://www.newsnet14.com/?p=76417

    Or that sweet Norwegian girl who committed suicide recently after a brutal gang rape by Muslims? Anybody give a damn? Maybe Breivik just cared more about his people and the women of Norway more than he cares about the leftist Norwegians who want to bring more of that, more of that until the point comes where all Norwegian youth are nothing but a hunted minority, street game, heading for extinction.

    It seems he made the right choice about who to care about. War is hell, people.

  34. July 30, 2011 - 3:28 am | Permalink

    “Kevin MacDonald is a remarkable man as much for his moral courage…When others ducked and hid, he refused to take this as a “sensitive” topic…gave his opinions plainly…”

    What Kevin did was dared to view Breivik as having legitimate issues; dared to look for a moment through a warrior’s eyes; and to see the event through White eyes, not Jewish.

  35. Anglo Saxon's Gravatar Anglo Saxon
    July 30, 2011 - 4:35 am | Permalink

    Copied from the Google Group: “total_truth_sciences”, and posted 25th July 2011 …

    The latest twist over the killings in Norway, from the media propaganda spin machine is as follows: Breivik is a white supremacist, gun lover, and Christian fanatic, who hates multiculturalism and MUSLIMS. That gives him a motive. So what did he do about his “extremist” views? Did he commit mass murder against Muslims? No. He went to a summer youth camp used by the Norwegian elite, and filled with young white Norwegian children. He then massacred more than ninety white Christian children. Is there something wrong with this picture?

    Could this monstrous act have something to do with the FACT that the Norwegian government has repeatedly called for the prosecution of key Israeli political leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity? Could this monstrous act have something to do with the FACT that Norway has strongly endorsed Palestinian statehood? Could this monstrous act have something to do with the FACT that the day before the attack the Norwegian children at the camp held a BOYCOTT ISRAEL rally? Add to that the FACTS that Norway has pulled out of the Libyan invasion farce, and the Norwegian Pension Funds have dumped their investments in Israeli firms.

    Is there any reason to believe that this attack is anything more than what it clearly appears to be? An attack on the nation of Norway for daring to assert itself in international politics—for daring to speak out against murder and genocide? Is this what Mr. Stoltenberg, the Norwegian Prime Minister, was referring to when he said: “No One will bomb us into silence. No One will ever shoot us into silence. No one will ever scare us away from being Norwegians.” Will the plucky Norwegians take the murder of their children lying down? I don’t think so.

  36. July 30, 2011 - 4:39 am | Permalink

    Through White eyes, not Jewish” –Julian Lee

  37. ethnonationalism's Gravatar ethnonationalism
    July 30, 2011 - 6:25 am | Permalink

    Hasidic Jews are generally not such a big problem for Europeans. They tend to isolate themselves from the rest of society, they don’t vote, they don’t mix with Europeans, and a lot of them actually oppose Israel and Zionism.

    So, I really don’t see the point in criticizing ultraorthodox Jews.

    The liberal-secular Soros-type Jews are a problem.

    As for the neocon Jews, they are a problem: not because of their support for Israel, but because they destroyed the real Right.
    They turned the mainstream “Right” into a part of the multiculturalist Left.

    • July 30, 2011 - 10:11 am | Permalink

      Hasidic jews in New York have their own, in effect, private religious, ethnic schools and a whole TOWN in upstate NY financed by the goyim taxpayers. They are VERY politically active. In the City of New York as well as in the upstate areas.

    • Anglo Saxon's Gravatar Anglo Saxon
      July 30, 2011 - 1:52 pm | Permalink

      @ ethnonationalism …

      A sub-sect of the Hasidic Jews, the Chabads, maintain subversive cells staffed by at least one Rabbi, in every single major city throughout the entire world. And I am not exaggerating. They also enjoy direct access to the Oval Room in the White House … groups of them have been photographed with the sitting POTUS on numerous occasions since the days of Ronny Reagan.

      Joy of Joys! One such cell was wiped out by bullets not too long ago. Remember Mumbai? They had p*ssed off an influential member of Bombay’s Underworld, so they were violently dispatched to where they truly belong. That is what that so-called “Pakistani terror attack” was really all about. Clearing away filth.

      Never mind European cities (there are Chabad Houses in at least 5 different cities in England alone) or North America, you can also find a fully funded and staffed Chabad House in Singapore, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, Saigon, Manila, Tokyo, Kyoto, Seoul, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Macau, Sydney, Melbourne, etc., etc.

      The Chabads have ideological roots in the Pale of Settlement (the Ukraine) but these Black Hatters started out in Manhattan, Jew York City.

  38. July 30, 2011 - 9:51 am | Permalink

    “academic culture is international rather than national. That is, all of the important academic societies are international in scope, so that a dissident academic culture in, say, Norway, is unthinkable.”

    Norway, sure, but if you’re big enough, you can. The USA, for example. Consider how, from circumcision to fluoride, Jewish-dominated medicine [I call them 'Ziontists'] stubbornly maintains entirely different views from the rest of the world, supposedly bases on Science ['Zionce'] rather than “ethnic bias.”

    Last night, on CNBC, I saw a spot on some kind of new smokeless tobacco that started in Sweden. Leslie Stahl [man, has she gotten old!] interviewed some top Swedish scientist, and when he insisted there was NO HARM AT ALL attached to this stuff, NO ONE THING, she looked at him like he was endorsing Dianetics. Then she switched over to some Hillary-like busybody in Indiana to “refute” him with her home-made, her-job-saving theories about “entry drugs.”

    See? When the media wants socialized medicine, Sweden is the model, and “Tea Partiers” are mocked. But when the almighty “anti-smoking” issue is up, then Sweden is a bunch of crazy hicks, and some Indiana bureaucrat is “saving our children.”

    Moral: don’t get in the way of the Jews’ agenda. Now, if tobacco was grown in Israel, Bloomboig would be handing smokes out in schools, “to combat obesity.”

  39. July 30, 2011 - 10:00 am | Permalink

    Breivik would consider that the Nazis were completely wrong in considering ‘the Jews’ to be the primary vectors of European and western political degeneration. He would appear to hold to the concept of ‘Judeo-Christian civilisation’. The phrase ‘Judeo-Christian civilisation’ is quite recent: it first appeared in what might be called an official ideological context in 1952, in a speech by then-US President Eisenhower. It has become a watchword among Jewish neoconservative anti-Islamic propagandists since 9/11. To understand the increased salience of this concept, I think we have to see it in the context of the very public swing to the right in zionist politics which started with the first Israeli Likud government in 1977. Up until then, western members of the hard right tended to regard Israel as somewhat ‘socialistic’, even though in fact it had been very firmly aligned with western imperialism from its foundation in 1948 (which was accompanied by a purge of soviet sympathisers from the parties allied to the ‘Labor Party’). But from the 1970s onwards, zionist propaganda in the US and Europe completely changed its pseudo-socialistic ‘kibbutznik’ angle of approach and began instead to concentrate on hard right themes. Gradually, the older idea of ‘the Jews’ as subversive of the conservative western order was eliminated. Instead, ‘the Jews’ became symbols of a western conservative defense against ‘leftism’ and ‘liberalism’. This really was the essential message of the neoconservative movement, pioneered in ‘Commentary’ magazine from 1979 onward.

    Rowan Berkeley, July 24th

  40. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    July 30, 2011 - 11:24 am | Permalink

    Academics like Thomas Hylland Eriksen deal in cultural ‘deconstruction ‘. The mainstream claim now being made is that Breivik was obviously deluded about non whites becoming a majority in Norway in the forseeable future as half of ‘immigrants’ are white (Poles, Swedes) and because immigrant birthrates decline to near native levels once they settle in.

    I think it is important to have carefully worked out estimates of the white demographic decline. People need to be confronted with concrete demographic facts.

    • Someday's Gravatar Someday
      July 30, 2011 - 11:44 am | Permalink

      The hegemony of the left is couched in moral arguments and leftist gibberish (ie ‘There is no legitimate grievance for whites about ethnic displacement as their is no displacement, fascism is a real threat, only held off by socialist action’), But they are respected academics and if they say it all makes sense people will think they must be right.

      What I mean is that the demographic facts need to be established by nationalists. Concrete facts about the demographic trends are needed.

    • Cary's Gravatar Cary
      July 30, 2011 - 1:07 pm | Permalink

      The diverse white Americans have an unlimited right to name and label themselves as well as to reject supremacist analyses by the Other that seek to define and describe the diverse white Americans as “less than,” “evil,” or “without grievance.”

      We do reject formulating responses as “grievances” as a matter of fact, and we just attackback with a highly personal attack on the speaker, not his or her entire demographic.

      Demographic facts are helpful, but needing them shouldn’t set back the establishing of a forthright aggressive response to such elements of the Anti-White Narrative when encountered. We do it in California all the time. We wish more people would get active in fighting back in the real world.

      The “respected academics” quoted above about “legitimate grievance for whites” are openly supremacist (speaking for us and our perceptions), bullies, and liars. Tell the respected academic so when he or she blathers on like this.

  41. bob johnson's Gravatar bob johnson
    July 30, 2011 - 11:59 am | Permalink

    To varg: are you the real varg or a guy using his name?

  42. Thomas Mallon's Gravatar Thomas Mallon
    July 30, 2011 - 1:00 pm | Permalink

    “He makes a strong distinction between conservative Jewish nationalists and liberal Jews, arguing that only the former are opposed to the interests of Europeans.”

    While he and Hitler (& all the other other warmongers) can go to ‘hell’ for all I care, at least he makes distinctions regarding the Jews, something that needs to be emphasized more in forums like this. Too many paint the picture that comes off as if they were a monolith instead of targeting powerful moguls who rope ordinary Jews as well as the rest of the West.

  43. Heather Blue's Gravatar Heather Blue
    July 30, 2011 - 1:10 pm | Permalink

    Obviously, Jews are trying to disassociate themselves from Breivik’s actions, but aren’t Jews always the bottom line? Not only do they try to turn white culture into a gravy train for the Jews and a position of power in the world, but their very presence is a hideous influence on gullible people. In some way and to various degrees most white people are influenced by the Jews. Are we going to get angry and shoot up groups of white people to teach ourselves a lesson?

    Mind control. Jews are the masters of mind control. Having control of the media certainly makes it a lot easier. But we don’t know how to handle it. That’s the problem. We don’t know how to handle the Jews and all the problems they create. Some of us (like the politicians) become traitors and play ball – which gives birth to acts of violence.

    Surely, wiser heads know that the Jew’s egotistical quest for global power is possible only as long as they are able to use the power of the west. Jews were unable to even think about global power until the west rose up like a gold mine. They have stolen everything they can get their hands on – including our minds. Why aren’t we offended? Surely, no sane person would consider that thieves have the right to steal anything at all much less our minds.

  44. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    July 30, 2011 - 1:45 pm | Permalink

    “The victory over National Socialism was fundamentally a victory of the internationalist left.”

    Certainly the existence of fascism and national socialism was a tremendous boost to the left. If the argument with Germany in 1945 is seen as ideological realist explanation of WW2. I think that if only WW2 is taken into account it is easy to conclude that WW2 was a conflict over ideology; a wider time-frame shows that there were realist reasons for Germany to fight in 1914 and hence the realist motivations (ie for Germany to use the advantage in relative power in possessed) become more plausible. Hitler’s movement can be seen, as in A.J.P. Taylor’s view, to have been an expression of German nationalism with largely similar objectives to those of the previous German leadership.

    As Nolte says “Thus capitalism is indeed the soil of Fascism, but the plant only grows to imposing strength if an exorbitant dose of Marxist fertilizer is added to the soil”

    Marxists misinterpret National Socialism in self serving ways, just as they do with almost everything about capitalism. Here

  45. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    July 30, 2011 - 2:40 pm | Permalink

    I like the new setup with comments I think it helps concentrate minds on the article. Comments were displayed too prominently before, they imbalanced the page and led to articles not being read carefully.

  46. Zenko Franu's Gravatar Zenko Franu
    July 30, 2011 - 2:56 pm | Permalink

    ABB if he is a philosemite, automatically will make him an anti NS. The two are mutually exclusive and irreconciliable. Could ABB , a serious political and social thinker, could be so misguided ? ABB should have spent a few minutes studying the force and impetus and intensity behind the anti NS coalition. Who were the driving engines in the USA and UK and USSR coalition of forces ?  There is a unacceptable avoidance of naming the enemy in many expression from nationalist forces and organizations. they skirt and dance around the enemy’s  bastion  and never bother to utter its name. They are stiff scared, pathologically scared. 

  47. Christian's Gravatar Christian
    July 30, 2011 - 3:06 pm | Permalink

    Letter from Sweden

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

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

    Today, BNP has lost what you gained in recent years, maybe because of internal struggles but also because they never those important steps to ”clean” itself from its history and therefore could not get access to middleclass 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 when not adapt to the prevailing norms, which are mediated by the elite. The first thing they did was to “wash off” their history and those members that 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 2001 these nationalist parties saw their chance to enter the establishment’s institutions.

    It was then that the so called “Islam Criticism” entered the established nationalist parties. This provided several advantages in particular with the media. First, one could point out that Islam was a religion and there was no intention to convey a racist agenda. It was all about values, nothing else. Secondly, Muslims in Europe are not very popular among voters. Assyrians, Gypsies or black aren’t popular either but since immigration has been primarily Muslim, they have become a media and public symbol of the multicultural and multiethnic society. It also “sounds” better, because critic of Islam cannot be connected to racialism, as Islam can. The best thing is that you can form alliances with some immigrants that in other cases would not touch the party.

    Even if they are from other Nordic countries it looks and sounds better.

    Thirdly, it gave many political advantages to defend Israel while criticizing Islam. The support for Israel gives in some cases some media legitimacy. No one could call them “Nazis” if they supported Israel. Islam criticism in turn gave the opportunity to play on the moral plane and thus criticize the establishment’s ignoring female oppression in Muslim communities. Fourth, it gives some help in networking with a few respected actors in society. Sadly it also comes with a price if your “new friends” have a sinister agenda. Never the less – this tactic has been very successful until now.

    In the Nordic countries there is only one party with a background as an ethno-nationalist party and it is the Sweden Democrats. Sweden Democrats left ethno-nationalism somewhere between 1999 and 2001 and gave it all up in 2005. But some of the racial ideology exists but very hidden and imbedded in their political thought. There are four of them currently in parliament in each country.

    The Progressive Party in Norway, where Breivik was a member, began as a libertarian populist party. Elites, however, are not especially sympathetic towards the Progressive Party.

    Progressive Party in turn is also not sympathetic to the other “nationalist” parties in the Nordic countries. In particular, they are not fond of the Sweden Democrats. The Norwegian Progress Party has also an ambivalent relation to the true Finns and the Danish People’s Party.

    Even if they do not have an explicit ethno-nationalist background, though, they are much more rooted in the historical Scandinavian nationalism, that is, ethnic nationalism.

    For batches of Progress Party, Danish Liberal Party, the True Finns and Sweden Democrats have gained much from doing politics of Islam. It has opened many doors previously closed. In particular, the Sweden Democrats that just before this act of terrorism was getting more and more support in some parts of the mainstream “conservative” establishment. Had not this attack happened – they would likely increase even more in both popularity and power.

    For the moment the Progress Party has 22.9 percent of voters, the True Finns, 19 percent, Danish People Party has 13.8 percent and Sweden Democrats have has 5.7 percent. Because of their high support they are all political powerful, but they have very little influence over the discourse in media.

    But now you’re all in trouble. Although the Nordic media do not lift up the terrorist Zionism and love for the Jews on the agenda, they lift up their criticism of Islam and use it against them in a more effective way than ever.

    All these parties have attracted many people from the Zionist, neo-conservatives and the Islam-hating factions, most of them are individuals have come from middle class background. They have loved their appearance because it helps them to attract middle class voters.

    The only problem is that these individuals now refuse to sit still in the boat. Even in an event like this, they continue to rabidly twittering and blogging about “Islamic evil”.

    The Swedish media has polarizes the incident to the extreme and that the Sweden Democrats have won the first year in parliament has been lost in a week.

    Had Sweden Democrats instead steamed themselves to continue with the cultural nationalism and implicit ethnic nationalism the situation had been different. Media have learned to tell the difference between ethnic nationalists and cultural nationalists.

    Media are also beginning to understand how they should argue against the Swedish Democrats, but this was not possible if there were not the terrorist event. Cultural nationalists’ primary argument has been that “Muslims” do not turn up on Enlightenment principles and therefore immigration from Muslim countries be limited. Now the media says that the “cultural nationalists”, because of this deed, does not stand for Enlightenment principles.

    This was exactly the deed that was needed for a media victory against the cultural nationalists. The cultural nationalists used a false argument and now the media use a false argument against them that actually sticks, because they have somewhere to point.

    Luckily, the cultural nationalists have created (with its existence) some debate in the libertarian-conservative media about multiculturalism. Many bourgeois politicians and journalists are using Islam as a tool to demonstrate Israel’s excellence and justify the wars in MENA.

    They do not like this event either for tactical reasons and they do not want to go back to the “old debate”, but denying everything that is wrong with multiculturalism and argue for non-liberal values just to justify Muslim immigrations. But as Kevin McDonalds notes – it is all about making the Muslims more liberal.

    The worst media propaganda you find in Sweden. In particular, since the Sweden Democrats have not managed to get into a partnership with the other parties. This means that the Swedish media (they are worst of all the elite in Sweden) has been able to throw dirt on them easily and have come up with the most ludicrous accusations, which the Norwegian, Finnish or Danish media cannot do.

    Right now it is in any case chaos in all these cultural nationalist parties in all Nordic countries. The Sweden Democrats is perhaps in the most chaos next after the Progress Party in Norway.

    Partly because the media talks about them all the time, they get invited on TV, where they’re accused of being jointly responsible for the attack because they created an “Islamophobic” debate.

    In the other hand, the Swedish Democrats deserve it. Even the Sweden Democrats’ press officer tried to make politics of this attack – just an hour after it was reported. They were so sure that it was an Islamic attack. But of course it was not an Islamic attack.

    Had they been right it would have been a great propaganda victory – but instead it became a major disaster. As the party leadership had legitimized this kind of rhetoric, they created a tail, especially among local politicians, who days after made a fool of themselves by (perhaps not entirely wrong though) that point to that multiculturalism and Islam had driven this madman mad. Although it might not be completely wrong, it’s a bad political rhetoric in such events in situation where media is extremely hostile.

    In a few months we will see the results of this in the Scandinavian press. The most important thing is that all the cultural nationalist parties in all Nordic countries tone down their anti-Islam rhetoric and takes some steps away from the Counter-Jihad movement. Unfortunately, they have too many sticks in the fire. Sadly, some of their more radical Islam bashing politicians do not seem to understand that they should take it easy.

    This can be applied especially to a Jewish member of the Swedish Democrats and is also a leading MP for them. The Grassroots scream that the highest executive authority of the party, should ask him to be a bit more pragmatic, but this MP do not seem to listen.

    Some Swedish Democrats have also raised the issue of going back to their roots and defend “cultural nationalism” and the indigenous people’s rights rather than to speak about Islam. Unfortunately, no one listen to them.

  48. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    July 30, 2011 - 3:44 pm | Permalink

    Thomas Hylland Eriksen on ethnicity :”No serious scholar today believes that hereditary characteristics explain cultural variations”

    In the context of ethnicity research he quotes Gregory Bateson:

    There is a profound and unanswerable question about the nature of those ‘at least two’ things that between them generate a difference which becomes information by making a difference. Clearly each alone is — for the mind and perception — a non-entity, a non-being. Not different from being, and not different from non-being. An unknowable, a Ding an sich, a sound from one hand clapping. (Bateson 1978: 78)

    Thomas Hylland Eriksen and like-minded ‘scholars’ are trying to mislead people about ethnicity. The Eriksens of this world don’t like what real scholars have to say about biological reality so they pretend that universalists are the only objective scientists and the dissent is from the non-serious fringe. He is a respected intellectual because he mystifies the public, his students and himself by wallowing in pretentious nonsense like Derridean deconstruction and Batesonian “meta-science” .

  49. July 30, 2011 - 3:44 pm | Permalink

    @Someday:

    Thanks.

    Putting the comments on a separate page is probably a favor to the authors, but we’re getting so many comments that the pages are getting unwieldy for larger pages. I could have paginated the comments to solve the problem, but I find that solution really irritating and imagine others do, as well.

    The nested comments make it difficult for folks to follow the discussion in a sequential manner and practically invite people to go dive into tangential issues. Admins still have the ability to insert the old-fashioned replies, but the rest use this new reply feature which allows one to easily link to the comment being replied to.

  50. Todd's Gravatar Todd
    July 30, 2011 - 3:51 pm | Permalink

    I consider neocons to be what many on the left call PEPs, or Progressive Except for Palestine. What else are they? They surely aren’t traditional conservatives.

    The following is one of the better articles I’ve read on the Breivik situation:
    http://www.judeofascism.com/2011/07/white-nationalists-stupidly-fancy.html

    • Someday's Gravatar Someday
      July 30, 2011 - 4:26 pm | Permalink

      @Todd: @Christian: @Christian: The Norwegian centre left are big on Palestinian rights though. The foreign minister gave a speech (to the kids who were shot later that day) in which he came out in strong support of a Palestinian state. This is another demonstration of what we are up against with the altruism and universalism of whites because there is nothing in it for Scandinavians to help Palestinians, as far as I can see.

    • Carleton's Gravatar Carleton
      July 30, 2011 - 10:32 pm | Permalink

      This is another demonstration of what we are up against with the altruism and universalism of whites because there is nothing in it for Scandinavians to help Palestinians, as far as I can see.

      Someday,

      The argument could be made that the insatiable thing called Israeli expansionism is a threat to the stability of the Middle East, and that which threatens the stability of the Middle East also increases instability in the World.

      If this argument is correct the Scandinavians are indirectly helping themselves by helping Palestinians.

      It should also be considered that helping Palestinians is no more inconsistent with Scandinavians helping themselves than Euro-Americans’ support for Israeli Jews is inconsistent with Euro-Americans helping themselves.

      Personally I’d prefer an isolationist or at least neutral position on foreign policy, but there’s just something in Whites that makes them care about the Middle East.

      If the Scandinavians want to care about it in the sense of siding with the Palestinians, what’s wrong with that?

      Sure, at least if you don’t see Israel as a threat to world stability, there’s nothing in it for Scandinavians to help Palestinians.

      But you could just as well say that there’s nothing in it for Americans to help Israelis.

      There also seems to be far more harm in it when you consider the destructive and draining wars America has fought on Israel’s behalf.

  51. Justinian's Gravatar Justinian
    July 30, 2011 - 4:45 pm | Permalink

    I am immediately struck that ABB is right about 2 principle things:

    1) If Europeans want to resist, they must fully, sincerely understand and embrace the meaning of Christianity; without pretence, without half-measure, without doubt, without dissent, without sectism. Only this will give back to Europeans A SHARED VOCABULARY of resistance, a shared vocabulary with a single verifiable standard of highest virtue, a vocabulary that carries the greatest distinction from the Enemy and the least possible compromise, the terms of which already agreed and understood.

    Europeans would not have to be so endlessly worried about being demonised by the propagandists or about the machinations of the culture manipulators or about corrupt academics and politicians if they took a great deal more care about their own souls, for a soul loved by God does not worry about such things.

    So, no more tantrums! No more self-indulgences! No more self-delusions!

    Europeans must remember what it means to be loved by God, for in the coming global age, strict religion will be all of courage and all of identity. It will be everything. So get ready now.

    2) Europeans must swallow their pride and self-righteousness, and cease their pessimistic opposition to ‘jews’. ‘Jews’ have long been the Gold-Standard when it comes to ‘SEPARATIONISM’ (a core essence of their religion) and it also is separationism that European Christians want and need. European Christians are NOT in search of an ‘Ummah’. Europeans, under the spirit of Christianity, must give full support to jewish separationism, both on its own terms and as a model and standard in which they intend to share, no matter what questionable things have been done by jews in pursuit of their separationism.

    Up until now, too many so-called ‘WN’s have continued to think like liberal democrats, hoping, despite their rhetoric, for liberal democratic solutions to their problems. But if you join with hysterical muslim complaints against jewish separationism then you will end up in their muslim ‘Ummah’ where you belong. For multiculturalism, and cultural marxism and the whole long line of philosophy that leads to modern liberal democracy is slowly being revealed for what it is: PROTO-ISLAMISM.

    And Europeans should consider whether the purpose of dubious and salacious anti-jewish propaganda on the web is not only to re-inforce the persecution mythology of the jews but also precisely to keep Europeans tied up with the muslim masses and keep them from realising their own separationism according to the jewish model.

  52. Tralee Ronan's Gravatar Tralee Ronan
    July 30, 2011 - 5:12 pm | Permalink

    A controversial, international event has held the world in thrall for nine days. Reactions have varied from day to day as additional news reports have come in. Because of my respect for Dr. MacDonald and the unique sanctum he has created here for informed, serious-minded people, most of my waking hours have been spent at this site. As usual, this means an immersion in the comment section, which draws opinions and impressions from readers the world over. The range has been breathtaking and stimulating. Information, ideas and imagery reach one, as if magically, from all over the Web, from countless nationalities and cultures.

    Of all the posts I have viewed in the present thread this item emerges as the single most compelling – a series of considerations which, for me, stands like an immovable wall. Despite the peculiarities of the incident – its contradictions and the maze of speculations surrounding it – this excerpt from one of the comments emphasizes details which, for me, are conclusive. I take the liberty of quoting it:

    Anglo Saxon
    “Could this monstrous act have something to do with the FACT that the Norwegian government has repeatedly called for the prosecution of key Israeli political leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity? Could this monstrous act have something to do with the FACT that Norway has strongly endorsed Palestinian statehood? Could this monstrous act have something to do with the FACT that the day before the attack the Norwegian children at the camp held a BOYCOTT ISRAEL rally? Add to that the FACTS that Norway has pulled out of the Libyan invasion farce, and the Norwegian Pension Funds have dumped their investments in Israeli firms.

    “Is there any reason to believe that this attack is anything more than what it clearly appears to be? An attack on the nation of Norway for daring to assert itself in international politics—for daring to speak out against murder and genocide? Is this what Mr. Stoltenberg, the Norwegian Prime Minister, was referring to when he said: “No One will bomb us into silence. No One will ever shoot us into silence. No one will ever scare us away from being Norwegians.” Will the plucky Norwegians take the murder of their children lying down? I don’t think so.”

  53. Dirk's Gravatar Dirk
    July 30, 2011 - 5:40 pm | Permalink

    @Varg: Welcome Mr. Vikernes.

  54. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    July 30, 2011 - 6:39 pm | Permalink

    Breivik, no matter what we think of him, evidenced a great deal of sophisticated thinking on the issues of race, culture and Jewish influence, and much of it is in a language that race realists would understand. So my question is this: Is this a sign that there is more widespread concern over the fate of White Europe than we have supposed? I mean explicit concern. To me, it suggests that in the privacy of their own hearts and minds, a growing number of people in Europe are thinking through these issues and questioning the reigning multicultural orthodoxy.

  55. Henry's Gravatar Henry
    July 30, 2011 - 6:50 pm | Permalink

    “Thanks to his insane campaign and the subsequent genocide of the 6 million Jews, multiculturalism, the anti-European hate ideology was created. Multiculturalism would have never been implemented in Europe if it hadn’t been for NSDAPs reckless and unforgivable actions. Eastern Europe would have remained free, the US and Russia would never have risen up as super-powers.”

    I seriously doubt this. Even if Hitler “liberated” Israel for the Jews, they’d still be demanding things and pulling off schemes in an effort to start wars and kill the enemies of Israel. It’s in their nature. The U.S. is an unquestionable supporter of Israel, yet they still attacked the USS Liberty in the 1960s and still spy on us and control the media, academia, government, banks, etc. But, yes, it is true that people hold up the Nazis as the symbol for European evil and the justification for our dispossession. Though, it isn’t very hard to look back into the history of aggressive non-Whites and see their past violence and genocide towards minority groups.

  56. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    July 30, 2011 - 7:33 pm | Permalink

    @Matt Parrott: I see your point, Mr. Parrott, but I do not agree that the nesting was a bad idea; quite the contrary, in fact. The true problem, I think, stemmed from the frequent failure of repliers to hit the Reply button when it was appropriate to do so—that is, when a previous comment was being commented upon or disputed, rather than when a comment pertained primarily to the article or blog post.

    I suspect that some folks just can’t bear seeing their replies indented. It’s a face issue or an ego thing, a local variant of the claws-out, teeth-bared scramble for top billing that has apparently been part of every film ever made.

    It shouldn’t be news to you that some comments are more nourishing than others, and as often as not it is such comments that spark the most readable replies—you know, the ones that advance a step or two past the “you’re a Jew” or “you’re a ‘tard” stage (or that at least spell their schoolyard sneers correctly).

    Loss of the nesting may make an omnivore’s life simpler, but anyone on the lookout for wild-caught Andean sea bass will now have to sift through a heck of a lot of shakes and fries to find what he’s after. Please reconsider your decision.

  57. Jarvis Dingle-Daden's Gravatar Jarvis Dingle-Daden
    July 30, 2011 - 8:08 pm | Permalink

    The diaspora-based auxiliaries of the Likud party who market themselves as ‘Jewish conservatives’, below the surface are either recovering stalinists (Red Diaper babies), or trotskyites, or plain Judaic ethno-fascists. This kosher crew has got as much to do with genuine conservatism as wailing in a baboon zoo has to do with La Traviata. Moreover, Judaic tribal resume is jammed with proud accounts of how they fought to undermine and ultimately dismantle the existing order (no matter the cost) in societies short-sighted enough to extend Jews a refuge. Activity that stretches for many a millenia. Therefore the notion of ‘Jewish conservative’ in itself is an oxymoron.

    The zio-cons goal is to drag as many western powers as feasible into endless wars with Jews’ fellow genital mutilation fiends a.k.a. the Mohammedans. A kosher take on the old Onward, Christian Soldiers theme – if you will.

    Assuming Breivik’s writings weren’t produced in the bowels of MI5, he comes off as a tool of the Sean Hannity fan variety.

  58. thm's Gravatar thm
    July 30, 2011 - 8:16 pm | Permalink

    @Christian: Very interesting and insightful analysis. Thank you for taking the trouble to write this post, which is clearly expressed and understandable, though it is obvious that English is not your first language.

    Are much of the press and other influential media in the Nordic countries controlled by Jews (as is the case in the US)? How effective is the Jewish controlled press and other media in Nordic countries in controlling, spinning and framing the debate over the question of ethnic and cultural nationalism?

    • Christian's Gravatar Christian
      July 31, 2011 - 9:13 am | Permalink

      First I should say that the proportion of Jews in the Nordic countries (Finland, Norway, Denmark, Iceland and Sweden) is very low.

      We are talking about 0.2 percent of the population. In Iceland, there is no Jewish congregation at all, although their former Prime minister is married to an Israeli Jewish woman. It lives about thirty Jews in Iceland. The population is around 200 000 but it says a lot how few Jews living on Iceland. The reason is that Iceland did not accept Jewish refugees World War II or during the Cold war. Sweden received the most Jewish refugees during World War II, although most came in the 1960-1970′s. These were atheistic and socialist Jews. It is also true for Finland, Norway and Denmark.

      These Jews brought with them Trotskyite socialism, rather than Judaism This event may explain why so few Jews in Nordic countries is religious or member of a Jewish congregation. Only 40 percent of the Jewish boys are circumcised t and even fewer have bar mitzvahs.

      Most Jews in Nordic countries are not tied to the religious Jewish community. However, what is significant and certainly far more significant than in the U.S. is the Jewish socialism. When the Jews in the U.S. abandoned socialism for more liberalism neo-conservatism the Nordic Jews did not. Instead they introduced their form of “Jewish Socialism” to the already socialist elite class.

      The Nordic socialism is historically based on a kind of ethnic nationalism. Until the 1970s it was combined with eugenics and cultural supremacy against minorities. Until the 1950s, Gypsies was not allowed live in Sweden since they were a threat to the “Swedish worker”. Even the Jews (if they were religious) had a hard time. The Well-known social democrat Alva Myrdal argued that against to let Jews build the Jewish primary school Hillelskolan. She viewed it as a threat to the Swedish solidarity.

      Another social democrat with had a grudge with the Jewish community was Tage Erlander (Prime-minister between 1946-1969) He was very opposed Jewish Identity politics and organized Jewry. He found them immoral and a threat to the “Christian faith”. Not in that “internationalist” meaning, but the ethno-nationalist form of Christianity which is practices in Nordic countries. It also important to remember that there is a state Church in both Norway and Denmark. Sweden abolished it in 2000. All children born were given received automatic membership in it. Once upon a time (before it became all multicultural) Norse history, traditions and even Norse pagan religion were celebrated. It was a truly “ethnic church”.

      In the 1960s prominent socialist Jews begin to lobby for more identity politics of minorities. Initially this was motivated by ethnic separatist arguments and it was as that “ethnic nationalism” Tage Erlander had in his head during when he introduced some multicultural polices, like “the right for all immigrants to take lectures free of charge. The immigrants would retain their language so it would be much easier for them when they returned home. It was called “Home language”

      When Tage Erlander was retired he was replaced by Olaf Palme. He was an internationalist. He abolished eugenics policies and then he introduced “multiculturalism” and rejected the idea that immigrant workers should return to their homelands. He also introduced “foreign aid” in its current form and internationalism. The multicultural policy was introduced in 1975. Sweden began to open their door to third world immigrants. In the 1980 Olaf Palme saw the destructive effects of immigration. He was murdered in 1986.

      In 1988 the parliament passed a law that would end all immigration to Sweden. Only a few numbers refugees would be allowed to immigrate. All parties expect the Zionist and liberal party Peoples Party rejected the idea. In the 1990s it was abolished when Peoples party refused to support a conservative government it was not abolished. Now were also populism introduced in Sweden.

      It was a party named “New Democracy”. Denmark and Norway had those parties since the 1970s, maybe because their elites were more internationalists and not as focused on nationalism as Swedish political mainstream parties. New Democracy lost their seats in the parliament in 1994. Immigration and multiculturalism became the new state religion and today Sweden in 100,000 immigrants a year. The demographics show that Swedish population consists of between 20-25 percent immigrants in the first and second generation.

      The Social Democrats have seen to it that only 99 percent (I’m not joking) are refugees as economic migrants would threaten their constituents’ jobs if you look at the immigration since the end of 1970. You see similar numbers in Denmark, Norway and Finland.

      If we look at the organized Jewish community, then it’s striking how “secular” or non-religious they are. The Jewish spear of influence is found primarily in the media, finance and academics. Sweden’s largest privately owned media corporation is Bonnier Corporation. It is a strict family owned company. The Bonnier family is a historic Jewish family. Bonniers has (as many other successful Jewish families in the Nordic countries) married into the Swedish families with money and influence. However, ensures that ownership is held within the family. The Jewish religion is therefore rather weak in the family, but the ethnic ties are there.

      One of the principal owners of Bonnier Corporation is a well known priest in the Swedish church. He has devoted himself to arguing for the importance of the Swedish Church to hide refugees. He also called Jews for his “brothers” – but he stress that they are certainly not Jews. It’s just their father, who is Jewish he says but that he has a great sympathy for the “Jewish faith”.

      There is also another large Jew-owned media group named Hjörne Corporations. The Hjörne family is Christian-Jewish family. The Corporation was founded by an ethnic Swede that intermarried in a rich Jewish family. This is very significant for Jewish influence in Nordic countries – intermarry into rich indigenous Christian families. If it is an imperative leave the religion but keep your ethnic ties and teach your children the importance of supporting Jewish causes.

      If one were to compare the Nordic parliament and media houses they are not explicitly Jewish as in the U.S. or England. Jews will not appear in the media if they look and act as Jewish as “Seinfeld”. It is true that Bonnier Corporation hire Jews and they have several Jewish journalists. But when Judaism and Jewish causes can be expressed more freely in the USA it is more hidden here. The Jewish interests are “sneaked” into the politics of the Bonnier and Hjörne press.

      For example, they hire non-Jews that promote their causes. There are a few “explicit” religious Jews in the media. One of them is the political editor of Bonnier owned newspaper Dagens Nyheter. Dagens Nyheter is heavily inspired by the New York Time. One could say that the overwhelming majority of the journalists and media heads are ethnic Swedes.

      If they are classical liberal or conservative they are parrots for Israel, if they are socialists, they are parrots for Palestinian causes and global equality.

      Bonniers main competitor in Sweden and in the rest of the Nordic countries is the Norwegian Schibsted. Schibsted is a Norwegian wealthy Christian family. To understand the Bonniers one must understand their history. The company is over 100 years old. They have been very pragmatic for Jewish affairs and avoided to anger competitors, politicians and the public. Of course, they advocating for their cause, but they avoid any kind of aggressive rhetoric if it is not directed against any white, implicit or explicit nationalists.

      A few years ago they bought a small online magazine and debate forum. The managing editor was a liberal Jew and active in the Jewish congregation in Stockholm. When the co-owned by the LO-union union and Schibsted evening paper Aftonbladet after the Ship to Gaza incident became more anti-Zionists this managing editor argued for a media war and called Schibsted and LO for “anti-Semites”.

      For example Aftonbladet let Israel Shamir’s son write about Jewish owned media companies and their ties to Israel and also Aftonbladet exposed the human-organ market in Israel. So I guess he had some causes to be upset. Bonnier is a good friend of the Schibsted family and also have rather good relations with them. The Jewish editor was fired. Bonnier do not want a “war” were they risk to be exposed.

      One could say this about Nordic media climate. You can criticize Israel and you can go very far doing it. You can even hold political positive views of Hezbollah and Hamas. You can be against Jewish practices as circumcision and ritual slaughter. You may even criticize Judaism. But you can only do this if you are a liberal or a cosmopolitan socialist. It all about who the sender is.

      A primary reason why all these nationalist parties in Parliament have such problems with credibility is that the elites do not trust them. They do not care for poor Palestinian children nor do they care for the “Neo-conservative” agenda. They care for the Norse indigenous people and therefore they are “dangerous”.
      All Nordic countries have their problem. Sweden has their pro-multicultural and pro cosmopolitan “Jewish-owned” media and rather aggressive socialists. Norway has more aggressive socialist’s political elite rather than a strong media-elite.

      In Denmark you have “cultural nationalism” more or less accepted by the elite class. But they are also the worst neo-conservative and pro-Israel country in the Norse civilization. In Finland, which has you 3 percent immigrants in first and second generation has still some ethno-nationalism feelings among the elites. The Finlandian multicultural project begun in the 1990s, so they are years “behind” their peers. In Iceland immigration is not I yet a problem because of their far away location. Instead they fight against the organized finance elite.

      I would say that Denmark is what you get when you make a barging with the elite class. The Danish Peoples Party pretty much say: We support your war on terror, Israel, the American wars in the Middle East and classical liberal economic policies if you at least decrease the Muslim and non-skilled third world immigration and replace it with highly educated Chinese immigrants instead.

      This pretty much what the Danish Peoples Party have gained, even though all policies making these happen is implemented yet.

      It is a rather smart tactic for several of reasons. Firstly, highly educated and skilled Chinese or Indian immigrants do not immigrate to Denmark or other high tax societies so the immigration is reduced, secondly it take of some pressure from the welfare systems and give more money to spend on social welfare.

      But in the long term is foolish because nothing really changes. They only change the “multicultural society” to a multiethnic society. This tactics has been used before and it all ended up in ethnic nationalists policies because the ethnic minorities could not be trusted.

  59. An observer's Gravatar An observer
    July 30, 2011 - 9:44 pm | Permalink

    @Pierre de Craon:

    Nesting makes it difficult to keep updated on the latest replies. Without nesting, when one revisits a page he or she can just take up where he or she left off.

    Commenters can aid in following comments-replies within the comment section by addressing their posts to a particular person. Another possibility is for the website to number each post; then commenters can reply to the number. Where one individual has commented numerous times, a numbering system helps connect particular comments to replies. Additional guidance could be provided by the commenters themselves. When they reply to a number they state the number and if they wish add a parenthetical describing the subject.

    For example: “@67 (Re: optimizing the reader discussion)”

  60. Rehmat's Gravatar Rehmat
    July 30, 2011 - 9:48 pm | Permalink

    Chaim Weiszmann wrote to Gandhi – asking his support, as president of All India National Congress, for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. Gandhi wrote back: “France is for the French, England is for the English and Palestine is for the Arabs”.

    However, the Zionist Jews know how to demonize their critics. According to Gandhi’s Jewish biographer, Joseph Lelyveld, Gandhi had a Jewish gay boyfriend. Though the author ignore to mention that Gandhi’s 17-year-old personal secretary in South Africa, Sonja Schlesin (1888-1956) was also Jewish…..

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/gandhi%E2%80%99s-secret-love-for-jews/

  61. An observer's Gravatar An observer
    July 30, 2011 - 9:58 pm | Permalink

    @Matt Parrott:

    Thank you, Matt, for the thought you have put into facilitating the discussion here. I agree that nested comments can make it difficult to follow the sequence.

    I wanted to float a couple of additional ideas for improving the reader-commenter interface:

    1. Number the posts and encourage repliers to add a subject in a parenthetical after the number. Numbering could be done as an alternative or an addition to naming the addressee. For example “@67 (Re: facilitating discussion)” or “@67 Matt Parrot (Re: facilitating discussion)” or “@Matt Parrot 67 (Re: facilitating discussion).” While the hyperlinks make it easy to actually refer back to the earlier post, a number system might make actual clicking unnecessary as, combined with the parenthetical, a reader might obtain enough of an idea of which post the reply is responding to.

    2. Add hyperlinks in original posts to replies to those posts. (You have hyperlinks in replies back to original posts.) I’m not sure how well this would work if there are multiple replies.

  62. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    July 30, 2011 - 10:45 pm | Permalink

    @An observer: Can’t say that I agree, Observer. Keeping up with the latest posts is a task that has been admirably accomplished by the comment feed at the head of the comment section. While your suggestions might well be useful under the new dispensation, I think rather too much is taken for granted. To take one example, you assume that commenters don’t already address replies to the person they are replying to, whereas they usually do. Overall, what you and Mr. Parrott view as needed changes I see as needlessly complex “improvements” to something that wasn’t broken to begin with.

    The problems the changes are remedying seem to me to be equivalent to those associated with rush hour travel between Minneapolis and St. Paul, Dallas and Fort Worth, or the east and west sides of Manhattan. No one denies that conditions are poor to wretched in each instance, but is the rerouting of all traffic through Lexington, Kentucky, really the most sensible remedy?

  63. Vic's Gravatar Vic
    July 31, 2011 - 12:17 am | Permalink

    As David F. noted earlier in the comments, there seems to be an error in the first paragraph of this article: “…only the former are opposed to the interests of Europeans.”

    Breivik believed that liberal Jews are opposed to the interests of Europeans; thus it should read, “only the LATTER.”

  64. Anglo Saxon's Gravatar Anglo Saxon
    July 31, 2011 - 7:14 am | Permalink

    @Pierre de Craon: Pierre, I am tending to agree with you. It wasn’t broken, but a fix was implemented anyway. The previous nesting system never gave me any headaches.

    Matt … your new “non-nested replies format” may prove itself given time. By all means, let us give your new design idea a go, although sudden changes are rather unsettling. For example yesterday, for a few minutes I thought the TOO website had actually been hacked because I couldn’t get into any Comments … until I at last spotted the new switching URL at the foot of each article.

    I have a simple recommendation. The voting system tried earlier this year (and which worked well until it was abused) did have one attractive and abiding feature … the use of background colours (colors!) attached to comments. How about marking all ORIGINATING (or ROOT) comments with a very pale colour, so that they are readily distinguishable from Replies? Replies can remain as is, with a white (default) background.

    Or perhaps you might prefer a vice-versa colouring arrangement?

  65. Luke's Gravatar Luke
    July 31, 2011 - 10:12 am | Permalink

    Excellent points, brother Henry. Oh, and let’s add to this ever growing list of sweet ‘favors’ that the USA has gained via this criminal gang of backstabbing psychopaths: JFK’s earlier than expected trip to Arlington cemetery, the OKC Bombing – which was an earlier false flag that failed to get us into a war in Iraq as it was supposed to do, and then the Grande Finale False Flag on 9-11 which most certainly did get us into multiple wars all over the middle east on behalf of Israel. And, if anyone thinks these backstabbing, treacherous psychopaths are not capable of more of the same, then I have a bridge I want to sell you for a good price.

  66. remain's Gravatar remain
    July 31, 2011 - 10:13 am | Permalink

    http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=16207

    According to this article posted on the Swedish site redicecreations Breivik lifted large chunks of his manifesto from unibomber Ted Kaczynski. Breivik is also known to have quoted anti-jihadist pro-zionist writers like fjordman, Geller, Spencer.

    The “manifesto” appears to be a copy and paste job compiled by unknowns.

    The photos do not look like the same man. One is a handsome, almost idealized nordic the other is heavier, balder, and older by several years.

  67. remain's Gravatar remain
    July 31, 2011 - 10:17 am | Permalink

    John de Nugent http://www.johndenugent.com has the officially released names of victims. Only a few were non-whites. Check it out, most of the victims were Norwegian whites.

  68. remain's Gravatar remain
    July 31, 2011 - 10:37 am | Permalink

    One problem with the replies button: right now on this post there are 116 comments. It is inconvenient and time-consuming to read through the comments, either partially or completely, on one day and when you come back later to where you left off you have to scroll through and read the entire thing again to see the replies.

    Maybe all replies could be “click on” and once you’ve clicked them on they stay up. That way it is easy to discern the old replies you’ve already read from the ones you haven’t read yet.

  69. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    July 31, 2011 - 11:48 am | Permalink

    If I may make a suggestion about the arrangement of the comments: why not NUMBER them and give the replies on a comment a SECONDARY NUMBER e.g.:
    comment nr. 15,and every reply to it: 15.1 ,15.2, 15.3 etc.

    Under the head of “Recent Comments”,give first of all the title of the article, then the new date and then only the numbers of the new comments and the secondary numbers of the new replies,e.g.:(Titel of Article), August 1 : 18.1 ,18.2, 18.3 , 25 ,26 , 27 etc. and make it possible to click on those numbers for a direct connection.In this way you can easily find the new comments and new replies on a given date without having to scan ALL comments to find new ones.

    The arrangement you now have is not an improvement.

  70. Joe Webb's Gravatar Joe Webb
    July 31, 2011 - 1:02 pm | Permalink

    Thanks to Christian for his info on Scandinavian nationalist politics. I was unaware of the Cultural Nationalism v. Ethno-Nationalism approaches.

    My arguments against “culturism” intellectually, do not apply at the level of everyday politics. Cultural nationalism seems like a very good approach as a pragmatic tactic.

    Whether to pursue a cultural nationalism or an ethno nationalism (or both with emphasis on one or the other) would depend on local conditions. For example, ordinary Americans are not very historically and culturally identified, compared to Europeans. They also have a residual racism (not racialism as racialism is intellectual) which is rooted in the experiences of the frontier (bad injuns and good cowboys in pop culture up until the jews got the hegemonic upper hand starting around 1960) and of course Blacks. White Americans know Blacks even better than Europeans know Muslims because of much more experience with them.

    Whites have been fleeing Blacks for many decades, and now the Mexers are here reprising the Black Experience. Therefore, the ethno nationalist position might be more appropriate here than in Europe. Since Europeans have less experience with race (except Hitlerism which continues to vex them), and are more naive and more afflicted by Pee-Cee than the US, the culture argument is probably more acceptable to them.

    Certainly the niceties of intellectual argument are less appropriate here in the US. Existential threat is alive and well in both Europe and the US, and I don’t know which feels it more. I would guess that Muslims are more Other for Europeans than Mexicans are Other for White Americans.

    The proportional representation system (Parliamentary politics) permits multiple political parties and thus provides a more reliable guide to popular feelings than the US system.

    Mexican immigration is easier for most folks to address publicly. Blacks are sort of a fact of life, and for most folks seems intractable. Probably White anti-Black energies are directed at Mexers.

    So, race nationalism for the US, and cultural nationalism for Europe?

    Breivik seems to be a cultural nationalist, and the inherent intellectual difficulties in such a position (if it is culture, then Others can be assimilated, etc.) may have driven him over the edge. Who knows?

    However, at the practical politics level, cultural nationalism provides shelter for racialist nationalists. Jews used communism, etc. to promote their Jewish racial agenda, and so can use a cultural nationalism to promote our racialist agenda.

    I am not suggesting an abandonment of intellectual racialism. I am just suggesting that political campaigns in the US could be both culturist and racialist, and more racialist than in Europe.

    j

  71. Anonymous's Gravatar Anonymous
    July 31, 2011 - 1:23 pm | Permalink

    So what would a suitable anti-cultural Marxist elite act look like to you?

  72. Anonymous's Gravatar Anonymous
    July 31, 2011 - 1:24 pm | Permalink

    That comment was supposed to be directed to John Hearns, but somehow wound up above it.

  73. Frank Edwin Stone's Gravatar Frank Edwin Stone
    July 31, 2011 - 2:12 pm | Permalink

    Breivik is himself a victim of the political correctness he claimed to oppose.

    His tenderfoot, almost grotesque, dancing around the Jewish Question is symptomatic of the 60 years of philo-Semitic brainwashing.

    Never once does he dare to point out, for example, the Jewishness of the Frankfurt School, George Lukacs. Herbert Marcuse, etc.. That is just one example.

    Since his Manifesto is a mish-mash of other people’s essays mixed with his own half baked reasoning, I do not remember exactly whether it was Fjordman or Breivik who called Joanna Rytel “Swedish” and Henryk Broder “German”.

    In fact they both are Jewish immigrants from Poland.

    Joanna Rytel is the quintessential leftist sicko Jewish psychopath, whereas Broder is less extreme, but still very bad.
    For a taste of Joanna Rytel’s sick mind here are her videos:
    http://www.joannarytel.com/video.html

    That Zionism is essentially a form of Jewish Nazism, was pretty clear to both the Nazis and the Jews.

    The Havaara Agreement between the ZioNazis and the Nazis was basically a way to break the Jewish blockade of Germany, at the time when most Diaspora Jews were against Zionism.

    Breivik’s confused mind does have a point: all true White nationalists should be supporters of ZIonism in its original form.

    That would solve the Jewish problem by removing all the Jews of the world to Israel. The Nazis realized that by supporting true Zionism, they could make Europe Judenrein in a civilized and humane way.

    It would be a sort of “cordon sanitaire”.
    Good Riddance and please do not Ever attempt to come back.

  74. Jarvis Dingle-Daden's Gravatar Jarvis Dingle-Daden
    July 31, 2011 - 2:44 pm | Permalink

    I feel that stressing whether or not a specific diaspora kosher sub-group observes their religious customs oughta be largely irrelevant. During the reign of Boris ‘Buy Me Another Drink’ Yeltsin (or as Russian nationalists called him Baruch Eltzin), the Judaic oligarchs who’d steal upwards of $300 billlion tended to “keep” Sabbath by munching on ham sandwiches washed down with Stoli. All the while maintaining dual citizenship and laundering the loot via co-ethnics in NYC and Tel Aviv banks.

  75. thm's Gravatar thm
    July 31, 2011 - 2:52 pm | Permalink

    @Christian: @Christian:

    Thank you for your detailed and insightful reply. What a convoluted situation! What seems to me to be called for is Nordic consciousness in Scandinavia and clear distinctions about ethnic background. The first step might be to get across that the failure to do this will lead to de facto genocide of the Scandinavian ethnic people. But that might be a big challenge to get across.

    Christian, your two posts in this thread helps people here to get a much clearer understanding of what the Scandinavian people face.

  76. Joe Webb's Gravatar Joe Webb
    July 31, 2011 - 4:43 pm | Permalink

    I just reread KM’s chapter on Boasian anthropology, which is noted in his above article.. I suggest folks read it. Noteworthy in the context of Stephen Jay Ghoul, I mean Gould, is the recent publication of a review of his mismeasurements of Morton’s skulls. Even the jew york times editorialized on this a few weeks ago, without much spin. Jews Lie department.

    Something that I have missed in the layers of deceit of the jewish assault on socio-biology is noted in KM’s chapter on the Boasians. They seem to have been the first to attack Universalism, thus leading to the following movements of deconstructionism, and so on.

    Now this is possibly confusing. The Boasians challenged Universalism because it was a White and Christian and Enlightenment view. The Universalist agenda of the late 18th C. and forward, the Jews saw as not universalist the way we might think of it today, but rather as the White Man’s universalism, masking White interests and White cultural standards.

    Thus their Culturism was from the start, as it is now, a refusal of Objective Truth, objective reality, and science for that matter. That position wound its way thru the following decades of leftist (no “human nature”…a position that I found absurd even as an adolescent and altruistic generic leftie) thought and its nihilistic degenerates of today in the po-mo, post-colonial, and god-knows-what else formations of anti-fas, anarchists, anti-racists, etc.

    Interestingly, this Jewish and left perception of “Universalism” as White is true. We do possess the Universalistic gene, to our disadvantage of course, now, but not when we were our own people living alone.

    The Po-Mo European “intellectual” scene has even allowed some White Nationalists to claim Whites have just as much right to their Ethnic Interests as any other race or ethny. In other words, we get to have a seat at the table alongside the barbarians and savages. This is a very weird position.

    It gets weirder. Now the Jews and our other enemies, have claimed Universalism for themselves and the Darkies, and assert a universal human family, all races, sexes, and assorted freaks are equally equal. There is Difference, yes, but difference makes no Difference. Whites are not invited however because of our irredeemable Whiteness…. another contradiction in Culturist “thinking”.

    Back to Breivik. He seems to be another advocate of Culturism. He does however claim apparently, that while we are all equal somehow in the abstract, some equals are better than Other equals. Hence, Christianity is better than Islam, and just possibly Nordicists might be a tiny little bit better than Arabs. (I can hear him protesting this statement.)

    So the New Universalism, as opposed to the old Universalism of the Whites (innocent of the True Equality of races and sexes, and of the Overwhelming Power of Culture and the Blank Slate which can pygmalionize a pygmy if only the correct Program and Resources are deployed) now has become Totalitarian Liberalism and the old communist End of History is upon us if only we overcome our provincialisms, guns, bibles,etc.

    So, the Jews have dialectically revolutionized Universalism and some of us Whites who refused the Old Universalism now also refuse the New Univeralism. We were reactionaries then, and now we are scum nazis.

    Thankfully, the Masses do not read books, jewish or otherwise, and are instinctively asserting their genetic traits and drives.

    What I want to know is, per KM’s piece on the Boasians and their victory, what were the Darwinians like Stoddard, Grant, and Davenport and Morton doing to combat the Jews? Where were their White comrads, what was the White cohort doing at the time. Were Whites so intellectually inclined to the Old Universalism that they just rolled over?

    I suspect that that is the case because of our Altruism gene.
    I further suspect that the explicit racism or racialism was a popular and not an elite thing. After all, the East Coast , where all this happened, was New England Puritan, mainstream Protestant, Abollitionist, and so on. Also the Quakers were Absolute Believers in equality, etc.

    White elites were vulnerable, very vulnerable. The working class whites were very racist (fear of job loss…the Yellow Peril in the 80s in the West…jack London a terriffic racist), the Southern Whites racist for obvious reasons, and the insularity of the mid-West probably also more or less racist.

    I am speculating here. But our elites have always been too “White”, too altruistic. On the other hand, Eastern Protestant elites did not like the Jews and kept them out of Harvard….did the Jews just shame them into silence?

    Again, our common folk, do not care about these matters. They smell the mexers and the blacks, and the jews, and they do not like it.

    I remember my grand-mother-in-law about 1960…from Illinois. She said of somebody, that he looked like a “greasy black Jew.” Shocked me of course, a naif in sunny California, with no jews around that I could see, more or less.
    J

  77. Guest's Gravatar Guest
    July 31, 2011 - 5:24 pm | Permalink

    @Frank Edwin Stone:

    Nazism was German Zionism (or Zionism for Germans). Not the other way around. Zionism came first.

  78. Joe Webb's Gravatar Joe Webb
    July 31, 2011 - 5:45 pm | Permalink

    Perhaps more precisely, they were both fascisms, and of course, Israel is fascist by any technical definition.

    Two fascisms can still conflict at the level of States.

    A problem for White fascisms or organic states, or national capitalist states, or you name it where the primary loyalty is to the White race, is to come up with a kind of federalism between states that ultimately recognizes that no single state can be coerced. Multiple nationalisms are Good, but they have to be felt as part of, not an internationalism, but as inter-racialism, to coin a new term. All Whites, all Western, all defending all.

    I recall a Jewish settler-extremist declaring that he would never kill another jew…in the context of West Bank confrontations of settlers with the IDF.

  79. Michael Hardesty's Gravatar Michael Hardesty
    July 31, 2011 - 5:46 pm | Permalink

    Why are we wasting time discussing the moronic ravings of this Zionist killer ? There was no ‘holocaust’ except that the world war itself was one. That he bought the standard ‘holocaust’ line proves him to be an utterly conventional, nonthinking imbecile.
    He needs to be executed now and dumped in an unmarked potter’s grave and be heard of no more.

  80. Harumphty_Dumpty's Gravatar Harumphty_Dumpty
    July 31, 2011 - 6:45 pm | Permalink

    @Matt Parrott:

    I may not be understanding the comment system as you presently have it, but I like the system my mainstream site knoxnews.com has now, though all of us there thought it would be cumbersome when it was first described to us (it hasn’t been). You can reply to ANY post, and your reply goes at the end of the thread and includes the post you’re replying to. It works very well, and more casual readers can see what issues in the thread have stayed alive without having to subscribe to see what’s actively going on with replies up in the thread as seems to be the case here.

    Here’s a knoxnews thread from today as an example…the first 26 posts are mine (except for trollhair’s), and the thread is the kind of thing I sometimes do to introduce just a few simple ideas about Jews, Nazis, Holocaust®, etc.:

    http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/jul/31/tis-the-season-to-lowercase/?comments_id=1866098

  81. Harumphty_Dumpty's Gravatar Harumphty_Dumpty
    July 31, 2011 - 6:47 pm | Permalink

    @Harumphty_Dumpty:

    Of course, all of those 26 posts could disappear at any moment!

  82. Harumphty_Dumpty's Gravatar Harumphty_Dumpty
    July 31, 2011 - 6:51 pm | Permalink

    @Harumphty_Dumpty:

    Oh, it looks like you (Matt) have it already fixed up exactly as I was hoping, except better!…excellent!! Sorry about the superfluous comment.

  83. Joe Webb's Gravatar Joe Webb
    July 31, 2011 - 8:59 pm | Permalink

    David Duke’s new video is just out on Breivik. For him it is just the Jews. It is a good propaganda piece for folks with some animus already against the lies of the Jews.

    However, with people who are only marginally aware of Jewish/zionist problems, it will register as only odd. Just take the Norwegians themselves, who are pretty much against zionism, or, at least the present Israel. if a Palestinian state were granted in the West Bank and Gaza, these Norwegian liberals would strike their anti-zionist tents and support the “two state solution” and rally to the defense of Jews everywhere.

    So, to repeat my argument, and KM’s to some extent, we have done more to harm ourselves than the Jews have done. This is not to deny that the Jews have been busily engaged in exploiting our altruistic genes. Without the Jews, Abolitionism grew rapidly in New England soil, and elsewhere. Without the Jews, the Civil Rights Movement would have developed anyway as there were plenty of white folks like myself who responded to the claims of the blacks, particularly those Whites like myself who had no experience with Blacks.

    Without the Jews the anti-colonialism of post world war 2 became part of the zeitgeist.

    Think about the Indian schools that Whites set up to uplift the savages, the missionary work of White Christians all over the world, and the large support of Whites generally for Uplift of blacks and browns at home and abroad.

    I posted an article a couple days ago about Norway from the NYT (?) which had an observer of Norway state that Norwegians “like to think of themselves as good people.” Whites largely like to do this, while other races would not bother with such a statement.

    The limits of propaganda are this: it must accord with gut instincts of the target group. You cannot get Israelis to get enthusiastic about foreign-aid to non-Jews, and so on.

    The “save the children” ads on TV for the darkie babes in Africa only work on Whites. The Animal Rescue ads likewise work with Whites. Try that ad in Mexico… (The Dog Whisperer, Caesar Milan, is backing an ad effort in the US for Tijuana animal rescue, where none exists of course.)

    Whites are easy marks for Pity for the wretcheds, and of course, for bringing every starving niglet to the US. No other race is capable of this.

    Breivik was undone by his own Culturist resistance to the facts of socio-biology. Those facts of course are called cruel by liberals, but are not cruel. They just are.

    And Whites, especially the more altruistic Whites, cannot bring themselves to concede racial inequality. I overheard a Stanford female student talking on her phone about Plato. Never missing a chance to promote our cause, when she was done on the phone, I asked her what was what. She started some drivel about how Plato’s simile of the various metals to describe different kinds of people was just an exercise in Difference. I returned that this was just a kind of Denial of the realities of inequality. She let out a sigh/groan at this starkly presented admonition.

    Females in philosophy. And our liberally educated white males have become feminized as well. Luckily, we got plenty of white males that never went to college. Joe

  84. Whites Unite's Gravatar Whites Unite
    July 31, 2011 - 9:36 pm | Permalink

    Regarding America’s entry into WWI, Johnson claims:

    “This was a pivotal moment in world history: In the United States, it became clear that whites had lost control of our destiny to Jews, and ever since then, Jews have been able to use their hegemony in the United States . . . ”

    Jews hegemonic in the USA beginning in 1917?

    In spite of this alleged hegemony, White Americans passed the 1924 immigration act despite strong Jewish opposition, White Americans impossed quotas in the Ivy leagues despite strong Jewish opposition, Wilson’s attorney General Mitchel Palmer crushed the far left and deported hundreds of (largely Jewish) foreign born radicals despite strong Jewish opposition, America supported the anti-Bolshevik side in the Russian civil despite strong Jewish opposition, censorship was imposed on Hollywood despite strong Jewish opposition, the 2nd KKK was large respected and influential despite strong Jewish opposition, Henry Ford was a folk hero despite strong Jewish opposition – I could go on and on with proofs that the Jews were not hegemonic in the USA during the 1920s, and that White Americans of that time unabashedly and successfully defended their ethnic interests, despite the culture of critique.

    This changed during the 1930s and 1940s – if not because of Hitler, then why?

    (Of course, those who object to Hitler’s deeds do so primarily out of respect for the sacredness of every human life, and only secondarily out of concern for political expediency.)

  85. Joe Webb's Gravatar Joe Webb
    July 31, 2011 - 11:54 pm | Permalink

    Wikipedia story on Charles Lindbergh:
    Rosen, Christine. Preaching Eugenics: Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement. New York: Oxford University Press (USA), 2004. ISBN 978-0-19-515679-9.

    Of course the author, a jew, might have had her own agenda. This issue of how popular racialist thinking was prior to WW 2 is very important. Joe

  86. Joe Webb's Gravatar Joe Webb
    August 1, 2011 - 12:00 am | Permalink

    here is the wikipedia sentence re the above claim: “Lindbergh’s anti-communism resonated deeply with many Americans, while eugenics and Nordicism enjoyed social acceptance.[73]”

    See the wikipedia section on Lindbergh dealing with race and politics.

  87. Joe Webb's Gravatar Joe Webb
    August 1, 2011 - 12:06 am | Permalink

    so the question of the demographics of racialism in pre-world war 2 in America is very important. Probably the White liberal academics were very vulnerable to the jewish lies of Franz Boas & Co. Capital should have been open to race equality ideology as well, inasmuch as divide-and-conquer tactics for attacking Labor is easy enough to predict. Protestant preachers. Catholics Church as well?? was probably open to it, and the various do-gooding types were always around, and Jews got to FDR big time and communists also got to him and the Dems. LIberal elites v. the common folk of America. There is probably a book in this. J

  88. Joe Webb's Gravatar Joe Webb
    August 1, 2011 - 12:09 am | Permalink

    Great post Whites Unite. I followed up per above. Joe

  89. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    August 1, 2011 - 1:17 am | Permalink

    @Joe Webb: I’m not ready to totally throw out philosophy, and I also do believe some basic framework for how the world operates is necessary, but I do have to agree with EO Wilson. I can’t find the exact quote, but he basically said that analyzing a plant species does more for understanding the metaphysics of the world, then reading ten volumes of philosophy books.

  90. Henry Ford's Gravatar Henry Ford
    August 1, 2011 - 7:36 am | Permalink

    Please watch the recent David Duke video on you tube which has some interesting info about the Christian Zionist terrorist Breivik.I think Anglo Saxon’s comment hit the nail on the head !

  91. August 1, 2011 - 9:10 am | Permalink

    The evidence is mounting that this is an inside job or at least that Breivik is not a lone assassin. I’m currently researching the issue. My results and views are published in norwegian here:

    http://www.solkorset.org/politikk/NVO/breivik.xml

    Is anyone here capable of reading norwegian and translating it to english? You’re free to publish it anywhere.

  92. Henry Baxley's Gravatar Henry Baxley
    August 1, 2011 - 12:34 pm | Permalink

    Breivik in a nutshell:

    “I do not approve of the super liberal, matriarchal upbringing as it completely lacked discipline and has contributed to feminizing me to a certain degree”….

    His parents divorced when he was one year old. And as a result he was raised by a SINGLE MOTHER (probably very neglectful, as she was going through a very difficult and stressful time)
    This is what happens to kids that are raised by single mothers, they (tend) to either grow up super liberal or super conservative. this is UN-NATURAL POLARIZATION. “Equality’s gift to the world.
    It’s simple. When men and women are equal, communication is impossible (equals repel) so they get a divorce and the young children pay for the so called equality by developing al sorts of mental disorders, (goggle; Children of Divorce) some of which manifest in elaborate, well considered, and seemingly logical world views.
    moral: until somebody or something puts women back in their place NOBODY will have a place!

  93. Carolus's Gravatar Carolus
    August 1, 2011 - 1:31 pm | Permalink

    @Hadding Scott:

    exactly right about the parallels between Breivik and the Fox news mentality.

    and you are right again that the left right dichotomy in the USA is now very useless except to divide opposition to Zion.

    what is the difference between the major parties on anything? very very little. and the socalled right in this country is just a more muddled version of the left.

    the bankers buy off both parties of course but focus their money on republicans because it was Greenspan and the socalled right wing objectivist types who first got their hoooked noses way deep into the republican tent under tricky dick and Ford adminstrations coming into full bloom under Reagan.

    Reversing then the anti-Jewish trend of the old Wasp establishment in this country which as exemplified by Dulles was staunchly Arabist when it came to the question of zionist designs on the middle east.

    Now the USA is a Jewish plantation via usury and globalism and the Jewish dominance of the media as well as academe and finance. The political system is more bogus than ever having fully descended into ochloochracy as RPO called it, a mass of morons casting their votes according to TV dikatates. There is almost no opposition to Zionism and most of it actually emanates from socalled leftists like Cockburn and a few more uppity jews like Chomsky. Of course even they are only opponents up to a point.

    And the sad European right now kowtows to Jews like Geert and this pathetic murderer. What an ugly spectacle.

    Not that anybody is in favor of Islamicization but how about considering how the demands of postwar European mercantile capitalism and social planning came together to create population dearth and demand for immigration in the first place? Things like that are too unimaginable for Europeans who are wedded to the contemparary agenda of unlimited materialist self indulgence. If that is what defines “the west” then count me out. Life is more than selfish indulgence of the senses and whims but that is exactly what has come to define European-west popular culture. Eating out, partying, and working a boring cubicle job for some global behemoth. Woohooo~! Count me out.

  94. Carolus's Gravatar Carolus
    August 1, 2011 - 1:36 pm | Permalink

    Oh did I call Geert a JEw? of course he isnt, just one of their collaborators. Geert of course is a part Indonesian quarter caste or so I have heard, a funny standard-bearer for the one note chorus of the anti-immigration right.

    And this narcissistic Breivik, not Jewish but what of the authentic Nordling is there in him? Where is the vaunted sense of community that characterizes some of the best aspects of current day Scandanavian nations? A murderer of teenagers blinded by Jewish propaganda.

    This should be a clarion call for the ausrotting of all Jew-symps in the European right. Immediately. And a reversal of the ridiculous flirtation with Zionism that has characterized the European socalled far right parties. This has to stop.

  95. John cameron's Gravatar John cameron
    August 1, 2011 - 1:52 pm | Permalink

    It’s official: not one Jew appears to have been killed in Norway attack. this despite the fact that Jews are ALWAYS prominent members of leftist groups like the one that sponsored the gathering where the shooting took place. Where were the Jewish children during these attacks?

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world/europe/Norway-Victims-Oslo-Utoya.html?hp

  96. Carolus's Gravatar Carolus
    August 1, 2011 - 2:03 pm | Permalink

    @Henry Baxley:

    Well dont wait for the bogus European faux right to oppose matriarchy. They are busy whining about Islam, which is most certainly a patriarchal religion. The funny thing is that the matriarchal, secular, tolerant milieu of Europe looks pretty weak sometimes compared to the patriarchal, sacred, and confident Muslim world. No doubt this is why some Europeans of our own race will actually begin to convert. Its too bad and if Roman Catholicism could put the Jews and feminizers in their place maybe we would have an alternative. Of course the bogus European right will have nothing to do with that because they want to play dressup in the forest or whatever. They want to return Europe to the days of impotent tribal division rather than the sacred political unity of Imperium.

    The whole farce is tragic mostly only because innocent Norwegian teenagers have uselessly died. The Jewish rackets will keep producing their evil fruit and Europe is almost completely dead in its heart. This vevent may be nothign more than the death rattle, the belch of a spiritual corpse.

    No doubt this comment will fly over the heads of the biological materialists who show up on cue to shout down every expression of religious sentiment that does not conform to their purely secular and shortsighted view of reality.

    Here’s something to think about. Biological materialism with its shortsighted focus on the individual’s own life, will as a group strategy, always fail against peoples organized with a shared supernatural purpose.

    All the IQ of Europe will fail it in the face of the confidence of the Muslim faith. Europe needs a genuine spiritual revival or it is finished. It will be all Nero fiddling while Rome burns, just a lot of discos and welfare checks until the takeover. And no outbursts of murderous rage at this trajectory will fill the place of a people rediscovering their own collective soul.

  97. John cameron's Gravatar John cameron
    August 1, 2011 - 2:29 pm | Permalink

    This just occurred to me about the list of the Norwegian massacre dead that I just posted.

    Breivik, the shooter, had a list of names of particular children that he called out so he could find out where his targets were.

    At first i thought that he had this list specifically to single out the children of people who he though were particular egregious enemies of his.

    Then another though came to me. I wonder if he called out these names specifically to differentiate his targets in order to make sure that he DIDN’T kill any Jews.

  98. thm's Gravatar thm
    August 1, 2011 - 2:34 pm | Permalink

    @Henry Ford:

    Zionist Terrorism in Norway is a very powerful presentation — as are many of David Duke’s recent videos. He frames Breivik in a very compelling way. Here is a link:

    http://www.youtube.com/verify_controversy?next_url=http%3A//www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DvDr6SjPMRzs

    Notice that the YouTube Jewish supremacist brigade got the video flagged so that you have to agree to a waiver to see it — which has various negative effects such as it can’t be embedded and it can’t win the YouTube “awards”.

  99. Joe Webb's Gravatar Joe Webb
    August 1, 2011 - 3:06 pm | Permalink

    Jason, right. and that is a great line from Wilson, who I admit I have not read, but will. There is an Ethics, but it must be 100% tied to Socio-biology, from the obvious group and kin selection right down to how two or more people need to behave to assure not only group and personal survival, but to assure good parenting, good spousal relationships, good friendships, and so on.

    Kant’s categorical imperative can be incorporated. (those unwilling to obey the imperative should be got rid of.) I recall from the Icelandic Sagas, how incorrigible folks were expelled. Two types of exile, one of which was total and if the offender returned, anybody could kill him on the spot.

    One of us should write a White Social-Biological Ethics.

    J

  100. Joe Webb's Gravatar Joe Webb
    August 1, 2011 - 3:10 pm | Permalink

    Henry, how is biological determinism merely about individual survival? J

  101. Carolus's Gravatar Carolus
    August 1, 2011 - 4:01 pm | Permalink

    @Joe Webb:

    sociobiology is not a moral or ethical system. it is scientific which means descriptive. it is not normative.

    biological materialism is another name for the heresy of naturalism, which is reducing all factors to the material world. it is par for the course for overly educated westerners who are steeped in the prejudices of French enlightenment rationalism.

    It is also regrettably become something of a lingua franca among westerners ,that we all think religion is pure superstition, etc. Which is an insult to our ancestors as much as to Muslims and Bible thumpers.

    Sociobiology in the same way of Darwinism, may sanction as a result the survival of the fittest group. Which right now looks like either Jews or Han Chinese, not white people. But I am sticking with white gentiles no matter what happens.

    Oh another thing about individualism. Since our primary biological outcome is our own children, sociobiology could sanction the white race traitor who pulls the cart of zionism for his own enrichment quite well. By sanction I mean give a sort of tacit approval of the individual choice which is based on the positive outcome of family resource accumulation. The diluted lesser effects of kin selection not being normative, well, its just tough crap for anyone not on the race traitor spoils bandwagon isnt it?

    Point is you should get your ethics from something besides just your own individual material outcomes. If that is all you are then you are not much.

  102. Harumphty_Dumpty's Gravatar Harumphty_Dumpty
    August 1, 2011 - 4:30 pm | Permalink

    Stephen M. Walt, of “Walt and Mearsheimer” fame, provides a look into his own warped worldview in an article,

    “Breivik’s Warped Worldview”:

    http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/07/29/breiviks_warped_world_view

    Would this be an appropriate article to post and analyze here? He and Mearsheimer did a service with their work on the Israel lobby, but his views expressed in the article above seem typical of today’s deracinated academics.

    Here’s a lot of the article:

    “…such paranoia also rests on a wholly romanticized vision of what the ‘Christian West’ really is, and it ignores the fact that what we now think of as ‘Western civilization’ has changed dramatically over time, partly in response to influences from abroad…Christianity itself is an import to Europe — it was invented by dissident Jews in Roman Palestine and eventually spread to the rest of Europe and beyond. I’ll bet there were Norse pagans who were just as upset when the Christians showed up as Breivik is today.

    “Moreover, even Christian Europe is hardly a fixed cultural or political entity. The history of Western Europe (itself an artificial geographic construct) featured bitter religious wars, the Inquisition, patriarchy of the worst sort, slavery, the divine right of kings, the goofy idea of “noble birth,” colonialism, and a whole lot of other dubious baggage. Fundamentalists like Breivik pick and choose among the many different elements of Western culture in order to construct a romanticized vision that they now believe is under ‘threat.’ This approach is not that different from Osama bin Laden’s desire to restore the old Muslim Caliphate; each of these extremists is trying to preserve (or restore) an idealized vision of some pure and sacred past, based on a remarkably narrow reading of history. Fundamentalists like Breivik pick and choose among the many different elements of Western culture in order to construct a romanticized vision that they now believe is under ‘threat.’ This approach is not that different from Osama bin Laden’s desire to restore the old Muslim Caliphate; each of these extremists is trying to preserve (or restore) an idealized vision of some pure and sacred past, based on a remarkably narrow reading of history.

    “In fact, any living, breathing society is driven partly by its ‘inner life,’ but also inevitably shaped by outside forces…most societies benefit greatly from immigration, especially if they have strong social institutions (as Norway does) and the confidence to assimilate new arrivals into the existing order while allowing that order to itself be shaped over time. What is even more striking about conservative extremists like Breivik is their utter lack of confidence in the very society that they commit heinous acts trying to defend. On the one hand, they think their idealized society is far, far better than any alternative, which is why extreme acts are justified in its supposed defense. Yet at the same time they see that society as inherently weak, fragile, brittle, and incapable of defending itself against its cruder antagonists.”

    So much to argue with. Some points could be refuted rather easily, others I think would require arguments of some complexity and subtlety. I wonder if Prof. MacDonald or someone else would like to post and respond to it, since the issues seem to me to be fundamental.

  103. Harumphty_Dumpty's Gravatar Harumphty_Dumpty
    August 1, 2011 - 4:42 pm | Permalink

    @thm:

    Dr. Duke is requesting on his website that readers send emails to youtube (service@youtube.com) requesting courteously that the warning be removed from his video and that the video be restored to the rating charts.

    Dr. Duke requests that we include the URL of his video in our emails to service@youtube.com. The URL of the video is:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDr6SjPMRzs&skipcontrinter=1

    I sent this simple message:

    Dr. Duke’s video is educational and does not promote violence or hatred, in fact, it promotes quite the opposite.

    So please restore it to the rating charts and remove the warning. Thank you.

  104. Henry Baxley's Gravatar Henry Baxley
    August 1, 2011 - 4:54 pm | Permalink

    Carolus;
    “Well don’t wait for the bogus European faux right to oppose matriarchy, they’re too busy whining about Islam”

    Very well put, brilliant, succinct, and humor too! I especially found this line to be true;
    “no amount of murderous rage at this trajectory will fill the place of a people who have rediscovered their own collective soul.
    That said, I think there is room for God and biological determinism as long as they work TOGETHER.

  105. Harumphty_Dumpty's Gravatar Harumphty_Dumpty
    August 1, 2011 - 5:20 pm | Permalink

    @Harumphty_Dumpty:

    redaction:

    “deracinated European-descended academics” (I assume Stephen Walt isn’t Jewish)

  106. Volksverhetzer's Gravatar Volksverhetzer
    August 1, 2011 - 7:47 pm | Permalink

    Mr Hylland Eriksen wrote a newspaper article in Aftenposten today, where he is trying to get the message across that he is not a cultural marxist nor a multiculturalist.

    My guess is that he is starting to understand that race replacement is not a game, where there are no consequences for the players involved, and that he or his family might become victims of some “hater”.

    From his article by google translate:

    “For several years I have been a central Prügelknabe for a handful of Norwegian sites that are critical of immigration, multiculturalism and – perhaps especially – Muslims. Often I referred to as a horror story of an academic who does everything he can to undermine the values ​​of the Norwegian and Norwegian culture, about as often as a confused multiculturalists who love everything foreign, and despise all natives.
    [FMPOV he is a horrorstory, and because he really enjoys being on television with his anti-white besserwisser attitude, everybody in Norway knows who he is. ]
    …snip…
    But to be called “cultural Marxist” (eg by Breivik), is mildly curious. I have actually never been a Marxist. Throughout the 1980s, I was active in the libertarian Street newspaper, and its main political opponents was a Marxist-Leninists.
    …snip…
    Little influence.

    It is often claimed that I have played a key role in transforming Norway from a homogeneous society to a multicultural ghetto hell. This description, I know I do not turn in. I have neither written official reports or driven lobbying political parties. It has happened that I have held lectures in the Immigration Directorate (UDI) or the Integration and Diversity (IMDi), but it’s been several years between each time.
    [He wanted to be famous as the great public intellectual, but should have understood that fame is a two sided coin.]
    …snip…
    Not kulturrelativist.

    A third common complaint is that I am the multiculturalists and kulturrelativist. This must also be due to a misunderstanding. Multiculturalism is a kind of doctrine that cultural groups should be allowed to live according to their own cultural values. This type of ideology, I have argued against for over 20 years, because it impairs the individual’s freedom to choose the background, and because it weakens the social integration in society.
    …snip…
    Defending diversity.

    However, it is okay to accuse me of defending diversity. I am in fact convinced that it is possible to base a sustainable society in anything other than cultural homogeneity and ethnic purity.
    [It's not diversity, it is genocide of ethnic Norwegians, and he knows it, having written books on Darwin and evolution.]
    …snip…
    My view is that we have no choice but to live with difference, without thereby abandoning the basic values. It is difficult to see alternatives that are compatible with the humanistic ideals of the Norwegian society is based.”

    http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aftenposten.no%2Fmeninger%2Fkronikker%2Farticle4188856.ece

    Norwegian society has never been based on humanistic ideals, but even this is something Hylland Eriksen knows.

    This is what Hylland Eriksen says himself:
    Thomas Hylland Eriksen, himself is of urban stock, provides a modern perspective on Norwegian nationalism: “With no powerful city bourgeoisie and no strong landed gentry, burgeoning Norwegian nationalism took on a different character from that of the European countries in the 19th century. It was emphatically rural and egalitarian in its orientation, and it trended to glorify the simple ways of life of the countryside rather than revel in urban grandeur of the military pride of the state… The irony of this invention of nationhood is the fact that those individuals who most strongly promoted the idea of Norwegianness as a rural form of life, were themselves urban and highly educated people – their daily life was very far removed from that of the simple peasants who they defined as the carriers of national identity.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_farm_culture

  107. Heather Blue's Gravatar Heather Blue
    August 2, 2011 - 1:00 am | Permalink

    Here is a link to a newsaper article that mentions Dr. Kevin MacDonald. (I am not sure what kind of paper it is. It was a link I checked out on a religious forum.)

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/24/998052/-Right-Wing-DEFENDS-Anders-Behring-Breivik

  108. remain's Gravatar remain
    August 3, 2011 - 10:18 am | Permalink

    Breivik’s manifesto was probably written by a copy & paste team of hasbarats. Unibomber Ted Kaczynski was an unattributed contributor.

    http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=16207

    These 3 videos posted at aangirfan’s blog.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xY1lYzT2qCA&feature=player_embedded

    NORWAY SHOOTING BLOG 2 DAYS BEFORE INCIDENT HAPPENED!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbL3D8uwkZ4&feature=youtu.be

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tq6h42lJzME&feature=youtu.be

    http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2011/07/raimondo-on-breivik-money-trail.html

  109. Mint's Gravatar Mint
    August 4, 2011 - 6:20 pm | Permalink

    Breivik is plainly nutty. Conspiracy or not, in the US there has been a huge pro-Muslim outpouring because of his actions. The fact that no Muslims were killed apparently has nothing to do with the fact that this shooting is somehow an anti-Muslim hate crime. Of course the Jews are claiming he is an anti-Semite.

    For Semites, you either acknowledge that the world revolves around them or you are some kind of deranged monster. Which Breivik is. And he will be used as another weapon with which to assault Whites.

    80+ Whites dead. Politicians continue to flood our lands with 3rd world invaders. We are our own worst enemy.

  110. Rehmat's Gravatar Rehmat
    August 7, 2011 - 3:51 pm | Permalink

    Breivik’s 1500-page manifesto is a short-form of Jewish Wikileaks. However, I would not be surprised if some day he will idolized like American Jewish traitor Jonathan Pollar.

    In May 2011 – Israel’s Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger, who told Obama to release American Jewish traitor, Jonathan Pollard if he wants to get re-elected.

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/israel-i-asked-for-pollard-not-osama/

  111. arthurdecco's Gravatar arthurdecco
    August 8, 2011 - 9:15 pm | Permalink

    @Heather Blue:

    Ms. Blue, I’m always bowled over by your candour and penetrating insight.

    Thank you.

    & to whomever asked: “Why should I take any of this at face value?” I answer: “You shouldn’t. Ever.”

4 Trackbacks to "Breivik’s “The great Satan, his cult and the Jews”"

  1. on July 29, 2011 at 8:07 pm
  2. on July 30, 2011 at 4:14 am
  3. on July 31, 2011 at 6:59 pm
  4. on August 1, 2011 at 5:07 pm

Comments are closed.