Does the Norway Atrocity Make Nationalism Illegitimate? A Reply to Stephen Walt

Charles Dodgson


My first thoughts on learning about the mass murder committed by Anders Behring Breivik in Norway on 23rd July 2011 were mixed with emotions. That such atrocity could be committed in the name of something I also believe in–the defence of the West from Third World colonization–was sickening. Should I feel shame? Perhaps. I certainly felt fear. As a parent I could imagine how those youngsters’ parent felt and my own children being targeted for my beliefs.

Then shame or a sense of impending shame began to take over. Viewing Breivik’s video and skimming his book forced the realization that this was not an aimless rampage but an act carefully thought out to achieve a goal. Breivik may be a psychopath, but he is a psychopath with a purpose. And his purpose is also mine. I had a moral dilemma.

The dilemma was this: If defending Western identity inevitably leads to atrocity, to the killing of innocent people, how can I justify participating in identity politics? How can I be a White loyalist and live with myself? It is easy to make excuses and brush the issue under the proverbial carpet. Most nationalists are not killers. We have a just cause. The other side does bad things. Some immigrant communities are prone to violence. Etc. etc. Still, if our side descends to atrocity, that is something for which we must take responsibility.

Advertisement

The problem can seem intractable if one believes that Breivik was a good soldier for his people, that he understood the problem and did what needed to be done. It is still worse if one believes that the warrior mind-set will be vital to mounting a fight-back against our treacherous elites. The intelligence of his views is the most depressing thing. He is a bright, thoughtful man. Perhaps ethnic nationalism is too emotive an idea to keep under control. Perhaps this ideology arouses such passions that it is, in a sense, too hot for politics to handle; an unfortunate necessity in times of war but never in peace time. To reiterate: If our most promising advocates are liable to forego politics and start a civil war, should we call off  the struggle?

With this question in mind I followed the various comments on Breivik. Those rare few who extolled or excused his actions were overwhelmingly outvoted by people like Kevin MacDonald and Pat Buchanan who condemned him. Marine Le Pen suspended a National Front member who praised Breivik. The consensus among credible White activists and Western cultural nationalists is that Breivik’s tactics, not his goals, are illegitimate. And the goal does not imply violence. The goal of accumulating resources is not discredited by thievery, though an eye should be kept on obsessive profit-seeking. Love of family is not discredited by feuding, though clannishness can be a trap. And the goal of ethnic advocacy is not discredited by genocide, as long as a stand is taken against murder. Breivik did not do what had to be done. He was a fanatic in search of a cause. Killing innocent people runs counter to the values of the West. Defending the West necessarily entails defending its way of life by living it. We can be relentless in warfare, but civilians are not legitimate targets. Breivik condemned Hitler for discrediting European nationalism with his barbarism but then shot unarmed boys and girls. My guess is that his arguments are rationalizations of an obsessive mind desensitised by ego-shooting computer games.

Then I read Stephen Walt’s comment, “Breivik’s Warped Worldview”, in which he condemned Breivik’s goals in addition to his tactics. His comment is so appalling in its confusion of values and reason, so evocative of the depths to which our elite culture has sunk, that it has swept away remaining doubts. I’ve snapped out of it. Ours is a just cause.

Stephen Walt is an eminent scholar of international relations at Harvard. He has courage. He co-authored The Israel Lobby with John Mearsheimer, which dissected the inordinate control exercised by the organized Jewish community over American Middle Eastern policy. But at least on this occasion this incisive mind is not much in evidence.

Consider his argument.

Breivik was seeking to defend a “fixed and sacred notion of the ‘Christian West’ which is supposedly under siege by an aggressive alien culture.” Walt criticizes this world view. Firstly, Norway’s Muslims constitute only 4 percent of the population. Also, and this is the main thrust of Walt’s argument, the West has changed dramatically. It is not fixed. Christianity was developed by a Jewish sect and imported to Europe from the Middle East. Walt continues:

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.”

In fact, Walt believes, immigrants generally benefit societies, if the latter are willing to change in order to assimilate the newcomers. He berates Brievik for assuming that Norway is the best society available while believing this superior society is so brittle that a handful of immigrants present a shattering threat. Previous generations of Americans made the same mistake, seeing immigrants as a threat instead of a perpetual boon.

How credible are Walt’s claims?

Why is it irrational to seek to prevent 4 percent foreigners becoming 10 or 20 percent? That is prudent, not irrational, if the thing being measured is unwanted. Why do so many Norwegians and other Europeans not want more Muslim immigrants? Breivik discusses some immigrant characteristics such as high crime rates. A high proportion of rapes in Scandinavian countries are committed by Muslim immigrants. Walt does not mention rape. Muslim immigrants also take more than their fair share of welfare. They are free riders in welfare states that were developed in homogeneous, high-IQ, frugal, hard-working societies. Walt’s failure to allow for any negatives from immigration is the most disappointing element of his comment. For whom does he write?

Regarding national identity, I find it puzzling that an intelligent liberal can criticise identity politics without trying to comprehend the values at stake. Walt’s position really allows no room for any valid concern about identity. The important thing, the only thing really, is acceptance and tolerance. But to make that case it is necessary to understand the subject, to get inside his head and heart. The starting point is to accept that most people, especially in non-Western societies, value their ways of life and their ethnic groups. They cannot say with scientific precision why they feel that way or what precisely they seek to defend. But they know a threat when they see it. Walt’s writing on the Middle East evinces great sympathy for the Palestinians suffering under Israeli occupation. Can it be that he has failed to grasp their sense of territorial violation, of loss of autonomy, of rage at seeing other Palestinians humiliated, of seeing Israelis always dominant and Palestinians always subservient? Is it possible for an observer of Palestinians’ humiliation and dispossession to only see their economic loss? To grasp these things, to feel empathy for the Palestinians, should be easy for anyone who feels protectively about his own people.

Let me return to particulars, starting with the idea that because Christianity was imported from the Middle East two millennia ago, it is not a valid component of European identity. Actually Christianity has been transformed in Europe. There was the Germanisation of the early Church that reshaped a “world rejecting” primitive Christianity to conform to a “world accepting” Indo-European folk religious pattern. There was the fusion of Church and society in a seamless whole. There was the Church’s protection of the lower orders from aristrocratic polygyny and Jewish exploitation, as analysed by Kevin MacDonald. There was the Church’s fostering of science and philosophy culminating in the university. There was the Reformation, and yes, religious wars. There was Christianity’s moderating influence on colonialism, leading to the outlawing of slavery.

Despite all this, for Walt Christianity is nothing more than an import. It is not part of us in a uniquely European way. He should understand that traditions are developed in dialogue with the peoples that bear them. They do not need to be fixed to be valid components of identity.

Next, Walt tells us that Europe is an “artificial geographic construct”. Perhaps this means that Europe does not hang together as a geographical unit. Funny, it is really a peninsula with an island perched on top. Not very large. Looks like a neat package to me. Or Walt could mean that the cultural similarities of Europe’s sub-regions are the product of propinquity. If the European peoples had been spread across the continents, they would have nothing in common. If that is what he is asserting, then it amounts to an admission that Europeans are bound by a shared culture. He cannot have it both ways. But of course the shared culture is anything but an “artificial construct” because it evolved over millennia. Europe’s racial identity evolved over a much longer period, but for the time being we are dealing with culture.

Finally Walt lists some negative European historical events and asserts that failing to include these as part of Europe’s identity is irrational. But identity rests on distinctive qualities while the negative traits Walt mentions are common to humanity. Religious strife, patriarchy, slavery, kingship, aristocracy, and empire are not special to Europe. How can a Harvard professor not know this? I suppose it could be argued that Europe conducted these activities on a larger scale or at a higher level of sophistication than did other peoples but that is a matter of capacity, not morality.

Walt also fails to note that most of these traits were not evenly distributed across Europe. The worst religious wars took place in central Europe following the Reformation. Most European countries never knew “patriarchy of the worst sort”. Pologyny is common to stratified societies but there was never the harem system found in Asia and Africa. And Christianity all but eliminated polygyny in Europe, a unique achievement among civilizations. Many European countries were not involved in the African slave trade or colonialism. There were various inquisitions which varied in scope, administrative bodies and penalties. Walt seeks to brand Europe with attributes that have never been common to the region while ignoring general traits such as the positive achievements of Christianity and the Greco-Roman inheritance, not to mention racial features, to be discussed presently.

In attempting to belittle European identity Walt also confuses interests and morality, missing the nepotistic character of patriotism. This is distilled in the saying “My country right or wrong”. Love of family or people is to a large extent independent of the morality of the object. The attachment is not primarily due to attribution of goodness but to individual bonds and shared identity which we experience due to evolved predispositions. That is why wrongdoing by a son or daughter causes such pain. We are psychically torn. And that is why U.S. senator Carl Schurz who coined the phrase in 1872 took care to describe the moral tension that unconditional bonds can create:

My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.

Walt’s criticism of European identity appears even weaker if viewed from an evolutionary perspective. Yes, cultural identity is important, but our genetic stake in preserving Europe and descendant nations intact would remain even if they converted to Islam. A parent might not like it when a child adopts a different religion. But the parent retains a vital interest in the welfare of the child. Some conversions are adaptive if they help foster families and communities. The change from paganism to Christianity was one such conversion, infusing primitive cultures with the Greco-Roman cultural tradition. Conversion to Islam would almost certainly increase the Western birth rate as a result of subjugating women. Most will consider that too high a human price to pay, and there would be other costs such as dumbing down the culture and opening borders even further to the Islamic world.

The most adaptive course for Westerners is to find a way to restore a sustainable birthrate and ethnic consciousness within the framework of the Western tradition, which forms the vital cultural aspect of our identity. That cannot be achieved if we misconstrue the content and nature of Western cultural identity, as does Stephen Walt, or if we apply military tactics to what is an intellectual, cultural, and political problem, as did Anders Breivik.

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

57 Comments to "Does the Norway Atrocity Make Nationalism Illegitimate? A Reply to Stephen Walt"

  1. james hamilton's Gravatar james hamilton
    September 4, 2011 - 12:28 am | Permalink

    Sir (author of article), your statement that heathen cultures were infused with the ‘Greco-Roman culture etc’ verges on the bizarre. I understand & even agree with the main point you tried to make in that paragraph. I will not however tolerate referring to my Celtic & Scandinavian ancestors as ‘primitive’, nor in the tortured logic that a non-Indo-European anti-religion of Middle Eastern origin brought ‘Greco Roman culture’ to our european ancestors. The coming of christianity set the stage for the destruction of ‘Greco-Roman culture tradition’ (as evidenced by all the orthodox jews & evangelical christians who revile as literally ‘satanic’ said tradition) & ‘our people’. You’ve got it exactly backward.

  2. Thomas Mallon's Gravatar Thomas Mallon
    August 9, 2011 - 4:59 pm | Permalink

    @Luke: “The Jews want us dead – all of us”.

    This is so Heather Blue? What would be the strategic point? Kill “all” European, American and indeed all other critics of Jews and Israel? Then undifferentiated “Jews” would be alone with Islam. Or all but alone on the face of the earth if Islam could be defeated. It’s a non-starter, Heather Blue. This kind of irresponsible inflammatory rhetoric only provokes loose cannons and nuts to want to kill first. Absurd.

  3. Brahms's Gravatar Brahms
    August 9, 2011 - 11:06 am | Permalink

    @Steelflash Ultra:
    Yes, that’s it I believe. the Marxist strategy is very successful – too successful; Zionism – not so much unfortunately for us. Another commenter made mention of a revolutionary Jewish psyche – also possible – definitely the case during the Jewish Wars. However, it seems more likely that what we are seeing is two evolutionary strategies bumping into each other. In Israel we have Zionism (racialism, nationalism) and in the West – Cultural Marxism (assimilation, destruction of indigenous cohesiveness). The latter strategy is now on autopilot and is infecting the world (including Zionist Israel). One of the tenets of the Marxist strategy was to hide the true Elders – it always uses a non-Jewish victim to fight its battles allowing anyone to co-opt the strategy (Jews were just one victim in the “struggle for equality”). The victim-hood facet of the strategy is now going after Israel (homosexuality, sexual liberation, feminism – those have a strong hold already). It is becoming ever more difficult for Jews to keep this dichotomy from public view. You want to fight for European people? – support Zionism, support nationalism. What happens when Israel falls to cultural Marxism, when Israel joins the global community and ends its apartheid? Nothing good will come of that from a white European’s perspective.

  4. Thomas Mallon's Gravatar Thomas Mallon
    August 8, 2011 - 9:51 pm | Permalink

    If any here have not seen Lars von Trier’s 2004 film Doggville starring Nicole Kidman about a woman named grace who is betrayed and refused hospitality by a small town of people (dogs) you might do yourself a favor and see it; be prepared to be shocked by the ending. While some have seen it as an “anti-american” film, others here will something else, esp in light of the directors background and WWII.

    http://www.sensesofcinema.com/2005/36/dogville/

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2003/06/15/directing-in-the-dark.html

    Then there is the very far-retched reading of it, “In the aftermath of the shooting spree of Anders Behring Breivik on the Norwegian island Utøya, film maker Lars von Trier expressed his regrets and concerns to the Nordic press that the film’s violent final scene may have acted as an inspiration for the Norwegian terrorist’s brutal murders on July 22, 2011. Anders Behring Breivik had listed the film as one of this top three favorite films on his facebook page before the murders”

    I can’t for the life of me see what in this film, in light of the ending, inspired the deplorable criminal actions of Breivik. Netflix.

  5. arthurdecco's Gravatar arthurdecco
    August 8, 2011 - 7:54 pm | Permalink

    @Bear:
    I’m thinking there is a brilliant novel-length treatise lurking behind the following excerpt from Bear’s earlier comments:

    “Bloody actions like Breivik’s are the logical consequence of stifling free discussion. Actions begin when words fail. (A) characteristic of politically-correct multiculturalism is to stigmatize and make illegal the peaceful expression of certain opinions.”

    Bear

    Thanks for your lucid good sense, Bear.
    But…why isn’t your point more obvious to the Many, I wonder?

  6. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    August 8, 2011 - 5:43 pm | Permalink

    @Helvena:

    When you understand how these people think,how all their values are the reverse of those of normal men,then it makes sense.Not the newcomers must adapt to the receiving society,no the receiving society must adapt to the newcomers.And of course more unemployement and more crime “benefits” society.Utopia will be reached when the whole society will be destroyed.You protest against it?You’r racisss!

  7. August 8, 2011 - 11:36 am | Permalink

    “In fact, Walt believes, immigrants generally benefit societies, if the latter are willing to change in order to assimilate the newcomers.” – I wonder if the American Indians would agree or the Bushmen of South Africa? Walt needs to explain what he means by benefit. Whose values do we use to judge *benefit*?

  8. Steelflash Ultra's Gravatar Steelflash Ultra
    August 8, 2011 - 10:56 am | Permalink

    ‘Seems most here have a a logic problem to solve. How is it that Jewish Cultural Marxism is now attacking the Jewish homeland?’

    Well since TOO is in many ways an evolutionary psychology blog, I would assert the Jews have chosen a very poor group evolutionary strategy!

    More proof that it is a poor one is the fact that Jews are such a small number numerically in the World!

    Yes right now they are at the height of their current power ‘bubble’, but rest assured it shall come crashing down at some point, just as it did for them in the Soviet Union. There is a pattern!

  9. Henry Baxley's Gravatar Henry Baxley
    August 8, 2011 - 10:29 am | Permalink

    @Luke:

    Hitlers mistake, the mindset of which continues to this day among some WNs, from Rockwell all the way to David Duke, is the failure to distinguish between the Jewish people and the Jewish religion.
    While secular Jews are at least sub-consciously pro Jew ie. anti-gentile, to say that they are bent on the destruction of others is paranoia.
    It is after all, the religion (Gods chosen people) that teaches them lies, just as the false gods of “Freedom”, “Demmocracy”, “Equality” etc. is teaching lies to the general public.
    Lane’s fourteen words didn’t say anything about killing anybody.
    The natural urge to live among our own kind is so that we can all live in peace with each having their own place, not so we can kill each other.
    The instinct to kill only comes out in the INDIVIDUAL when physically threatened. thus, the PURPOSE of this instinct is survival, not the destruction of others. It is only when people congregate in groups that they forget their instincts and yield to group hysteria (war)
    That said, if we keep overpopulating the earth with billions of people, and importing millions to our already over-populated cities it hastens the day when we will be FORCED to kill in order to survive, both as a people, and individually. jmo

  10. Luke's Gravatar Luke
    August 8, 2011 - 8:53 am | Permalink

    @Heather Blue: A good and well deserved spanking, delivered to Mr. Mallon. The facts are clear on the subject of jews who reside inside White European nations. Whether they are liberals or neo-cons, or somewhere in-between – they are all afflicted with the same obnoxious characteristics of self-worship, narcissism, arrogance and feelings of superiority. They all uniformly harbor resentments and hatreds for White Western European people and believe that it is their right to rule over White nations, despite the fact that they neither founded or built those nations. They all, regardless of whether they are hard core believers in judaism or secular, non-religous jews – are virulently in favor of flooding all white nations with millions of non-whites and think reducing whites to minorities inside their own native homelands is of paramount importance. The exceptions to this rule are so tiny as to barely be able to be measured, Mr. Mallon.

    Hence, all jews living inside White nations pose an existential threat to the ability of White European people to achieve the following entirely reasonable objective: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children.”

    Good response, Heather Blue!

  11. Heather Blue's Gravatar Heather Blue
    August 7, 2011 - 10:31 pm | Permalink

    @Thomas Mallon: It is a gross exaggeration, near paranoia, to say “the Jews” want us all dead. That is mythological projection. On the other hand Jewish media moguls are gutting the nation morally and financially and seeking to rewrite and mediate all of history and current events through media holdings. That is as serious as war. So the same surveillance they turn on others should be turned on them, not for violence, but for Intelligence.

    It is not a mythological projection! What a thing to say! Frankly, I have come to the conclusion that excusing the Jews because of some “nice” ones is weakness. Why feel so obligated to say not all Jews are in this mix? The so-called “nice ones” can be looked at when we are in a position to do so – if we are that fortunate – and hardly a subject to be thinking about at this stage of the conflict.

    How many Whites are exempt from the Jew’s Civil Rights laws? How many whites are exempt from the rigid control of political correctness? No one has come to my door and handed me a permit that says “Heather, don’t worry about getting fired for any remarks you might make. You are a nice gentile and therefore, exempt from the politically correct policies forced on the rest of Christendom.” Those laws are fostered on all of us.

  12. Heather Blue's Gravatar Heather Blue
    August 7, 2011 - 9:59 pm | Permalink

    @Franklin Ryckaert:
    The right to live is a basic right irrespective of “worth”.Whether a person is a moron,mediocre or a genius,he has the basic right to live.Same with peoples. Some are primitive ,some are mediocre, others are highly gifted,but all have the basic right to live.You don’t need to “deserve” it due to some higher “worth”.

    A person who asks such a question automatically assumes that Whites suffer from some “racial superiority complex” and that this is the reason they want to survive.Since “racism” is seen by such persons as the greatest sin imaginable they think it is a “just punishment” to deny the right to live to the “racist” Whites.But the right to live is not something to grant to some “deserving” groups ,or to deny to other “undeserving” groups,it is a basic right,irrespective of any considerations of “worth” that are after all always subjective.

    Yes, we must understand that all of us have the basic right to live, that pursuing that basic right is normal, natural and healthy and that doing whatever it takes is a moral obligation.

  13. Cary's Gravatar Cary
    August 7, 2011 - 8:49 pm | Permalink

    “How is it that Jewish Cultural Marxism is now attacking the Jewish homeland? Any takers?”

    We commented on that phenomenon in our online syllabus under “Graetz Legacy.”

    “The (Heinrich) Graetz campaign is one of calumny and hatred against the majority demographic (whatever it might be in the area where the defamer chooses to live) and the majority religion (whatever it might be in the same area) to destabilize and silence members of that demographic group and religion.”

    http://www.resistingdefamation.org/sub/g29.htm

    From tikkun olam to pilpulism to obsessive and mindless deconstruction to violence and murder, many leaders of the non-Arabic Semites are deeply under the sway of a compulsive oppositional disorder syndrome. Seriously. They are incapable of living with anyone else, and equally incapable of living with themselves in the long run.

    Members of that demographic were that way as mercenaries in the Persian army at Elephantine on the Nile River twenty-five centuries ago where and when they made a point of sacrificing animals in their temple ceremonies that were precious to the local Egyptian peoples. The entire Old Testament gives ample evidence of their offensive actions against every people they came into contact with, including their own rebellious destructive nature toward their own kings and leaders.

    It’s been called a “fire in the mind” and bragged about. See how it plays out.

  14. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    August 7, 2011 - 7:31 pm | Permalink

    @ Admin:
    My 2¢ – the new comments format is not user-friendly, neither for contributors nor for viewers (often I get as much from the comments as from the actual article).

  15. Brahms's Gravatar Brahms
    August 7, 2011 - 7:20 pm | Permalink

    So now we have a Leftist revolution starting in Israel (with Che Guevara posters even)- the same leftist ideals that have degraded our own societies (and Arab recently). Seems most here have a a logic problem to solve. How is it that Jewish Cultural Marxism is now attacking the Jewish homeland? Any takers?

  16. Henry Baxley's Gravatar Henry Baxley
    August 7, 2011 - 5:26 pm | Permalink

    @Thomas Mallon:

    I agree 100%. I would only add that its not only jews, but various other “Big brother” types who support them.
    Rupert Murdock comes to mind.

  17. Jim's Gravatar Jim
    August 7, 2011 - 2:03 pm | Permalink

    Charles said:
    “Religious strife, patriarchy, slavery, kingship, aristocracy, and empire are not special to Europe. How can a Harvard professor not know this?”

    Well stated. Liberal white academics demonstrate (quite unintentionally) that they themselves believe there’s something uniquely superior about Europeans, implying that whites deserve greater condemnation for such things as slavery and religious strife than do other cultures or races. Ivory tower whites also seem to believe that people of European descent should possess an almost superhuman capacity for tolerance when confronted with hordes of people who aren’t like them, hordes of people of people who’ve come to live in their country.

    Is that level of tolerance typical for the rest of humanity? Countless crusades and two world wars should’ve dispelled any myth about the white man’s capacity for “tolerance” a long time ago. You’d think a Harvard professor would know that, too.

    I strongly suspect that the members of this modern cult of liberal righteousness are, in fact, collectively purging their own demons. I think they’re trying to exorcise their own feelings of white uniqueness and send them to a place from which they’ll never return.

  18. Henry Baxley's Gravatar Henry Baxley
    August 7, 2011 - 1:19 pm | Permalink

    Nationalism, when based on genetic kindred is both natural and healthy. If however, it becomes a thing of worship over your immediate family/self it then becomes tyranny and becomes just another false god like communism, democracy, judeao-christianity, sex, food, or anything else. God must come before nation as it makes nation possible..not the other way around. This is why WNs fail in gaining popular support. Their WORSHIP of race is percieved by most people as HATE. jmo

  19. Luke's Gravatar Luke
    August 7, 2011 - 1:15 pm | Permalink

    @Franklin Ryckaert: I can agree with Franklin on this point. However, the live and let live philosophy is not one that jews are famous for having.

    Watching these drooling, frothing at the mouth, hate and vengeance consumed creatures pursuing 97 year old Germans in wheel chairs and who have to carry oxygen bottles around with them over having worn a German uniform during WW2 and for supposedly having some minuscule role in their grossly exaggerated holocaust – something really awful, you know, like driving a bread delivery truck to one of the concentration camps – when I see this sort of blood-lust, I begin to doubt that jews are even human in the sense of the word that non-jews and White Europeans would define the term.

    I’d surmise that they are all psychopaths and suffer from some very serious form of mental insanity, combined with their narcissistic, control freak mentality.

  20. Lancashire lad's Gravatar Lancashire lad
    August 7, 2011 - 10:15 am | Permalink

    @Julian Curtis Lee:
    Thanks for the Elgar.

  21. iboTTs's Gravatar iboTTs
    August 7, 2011 - 9:40 am | Permalink

    There was no justification for going on the rampage and killing unarmed civilians–that’s the actions of a coward, a crazed-person. Regardless of the cause in whose name he justified his actions, no one but him is responsible. Here we have a pro-Zionist, pro-homosexual, anti-muslim White guy, who goes out and kills innocent people! He was clearly not functioning properly. And, looking at his picture, he does look a bit disfunctional.

    He difinately wasn’t acting in the name of anything I believe in. And I definately don’t feel guilty for being a White advocate.

    If the White race is reduced to the minority, and forced to take up arms to stop the White genocide, then it won’t be innocent civillians we target.

  22. Thomas Mallon's Gravatar Thomas Mallon
    August 7, 2011 - 9:17 am | Permalink
  23. Thomas Mallon's Gravatar Thomas Mallon
    August 7, 2011 - 9:08 am | Permalink

    When ethnic neighborhoods are busted up by ideological city planners trouble awaits as witness the following in Milwaukee vis Drudge:

    “Witnesses describe mobs, some people claim racially-charged attacks”

    “It looked like they were just going after white guys, white people,” said Norb Roffers of Wind Lake in an interview with Newsradio 620 WTMJ.”

    http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/126825018.html

    Ethnics need to stick together for protection. That wisdom is as old as the world and only our NWO Utopians could seek to homogenize everyone everywhere. It ain’t gonna work. Ethnic groups may surely cooperate and certainly not hate and provoke, but sticks are stronger, almost unbreakable, in a bundle than individually the old saying goes.

  24. wattylersrevolt's Gravatar wattylersrevolt
    August 7, 2011 - 8:53 am | Permalink

    Walt is engaging in immigrant worshipping. He is unwilling to acknowledge that massive numbers of immigrants flooding into a country harms the natives. Or he just doesn’t care if there are harmfull consequences. This point of view is massively irresponsible. It just goes to show how mentally insane academic liberals really are. They are physically removed from the real world of real humans safely tucked away in the their faculty lounges and faculty eating clubs.

    In the end, I believe Walt is a liar. He will support the demogaphic preferences of the new racial order. Which is just anoher way of saying that he has massive hatred of his own kind. Ultimately, Walt is a very sick man.

  25. Luke's Gravatar Luke
    August 7, 2011 - 8:43 am | Permalink

    @Heather Blue: “The Jews want us dead – all of us. They developed a complex and brilliant agenda to get the deed done. They have brought it to us. We were not given a choice in the matter. ”

    Never have truer words been said or written with such clarity. Good job, Heather Blue. And, since this battle we are in is a matter of life or death – then, I think that there should be no rules of engagement that shackle our ability to fight for our survival. In other words, whites have to stop allowing the enemy who seeks our destruction to dictate what tactics or methods we are allowed to use or not use to fight back.

  26. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    August 7, 2011 - 1:49 am | Permalink

    @Jj:

    “What’s so great about white people?”

    The right to live is a basic right irrespective of “worth”.Whether a person is a moron,mediocre or a genius,he has the basic right to live.Same with peoples. Some are primitive ,some are mediocre, others are highly gifted,but all have the basic right to live.You don’t need to “deserve” it due to some higher “worth”.

    A person who asks such a question automatically assumes that Whites suffer from some “racial superiority complex” and that this is the reason they want to survive.Since “racism” is seen by such persons as the greatest sin imaginable they think it is a “just punishment” to deny the right to live to the “racist” Whites.But the right to live is not something to grant to some “deserving” groups ,or to deny to other “undeserving” groups,it is a basic right,irrespective of any considerations of “worth” that are after all always subjective.

  27. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    August 7, 2011 - 12:52 am | Permalink

    @mark:

    The cause of WN doesn’t need bloody violence,it needs a change of laws.Laws that forbid non-White immigration and laws that ordain the remigration of non-Whites.To change the laws you need political power,to attain political power you need to win elections,to win elections you need effective propaganda.Propaganda is a war of words and of words only.To engage in fantasies of violence is not only immoral,its counterproductive. We need WORDS,not SWORDS.

  28. Bear's Gravatar Bear
    August 7, 2011 - 12:05 am | Permalink

    It’s worthwhile to also peruse
    1 indisputable humanity of Anders Behring Breivik by Mencius Moldbug

    http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2011/07/indisputable-humanity-of-anders-behring.html

    2 Between Thought and Action in Norway by Jim Goad
    http://takimag.com/article/between_thought_and_action_in_norway/print#disqus_thread

    3 Breivik’s Brain by Steve Sailer
    http://www.amconmag.com/blog/breiviks-brain/

  29. Bear's Gravatar Bear
    August 6, 2011 - 11:45 pm | Permalink

    @mark:
    I doubt Breivik is a psychopath, at least not much of one. In a society not facing ethnocide at the hands of the one world project he would likely be a desirable contributor.

    I find your arguments however naive. Let me ask some rhetorical questions:
    1 What do you think the position of a White Nationalist politician or intellectual with some degree of success will be if he or she implicity endorses Breiviks massarce or the use of violence by not condeming it?

    Consider the effects of counter violence by leftist groups looking for an excuse and the enormous power of the state. The abillity to track blog posts, tap phones, shutdown sites, prosecute, fine and jail let alone contiue speaking in public. Consider public emotional reaction to the thought of loosing their own teenagers in the same way and the thought that said intellectual and his cause is callous.

    2 Breivik may have scored an own goal. I am not an expert in asymetric warfare and the psychology of terror but other posters on TOO have cited Lenin and at least two points stand out to me:
    a/ Isolated acts of violance probably do not work. I doubt the ‘indestructable cells’ able to carry out further actions are anything but wishfull thinking.
    b/ Never act unless you have a structures in place to take over the intruments of state or at least some strong support base.

    3 Can you really immagine a White society in which compassion and pity as primary reactions are switched of?. It’s not what I can immagine.

    It is probably not desirable. Most of the population are just absorbing their information through TV and will only act if their faltscreen tells them to. You need to be sensitive to where other people are at; they need to take several steps.

    Breivik admitted that his actions were horrible and perhaps he was giving a nod and a wink. Maybe one day when he gets out in 21 or 30 years if he will be rehabilitated in many peoples eyes and be able to share a dinner without being murdered by a vindictive sibling.

    The reality is that people take positions on certain topics; some of these postures are sincere and some are tactical. It’s human psychology; the ethno-marxist left are in fact the biggest practioners of this duplicity.

    The biggest lesson, which I doubt the intellectually retarded scions of the Norweigen Labour party will realise is this:

    Bloody actions like Breivik’s are the logical consequence of stifling free discussion. Actions begin when words fail. The characteristic of politically-correct multiculturalism is to stigmatize and make illegal the peaceful expression of certain opinions.

  30. August 6, 2011 - 11:16 pm | Permalink

    Before I even got to Walt’s disgusting, anti-White opinion I was already thinking, good God Dodgson, get a grip.

  31. Heather Blue's Gravatar Heather Blue
    August 6, 2011 - 9:57 pm | Permalink

    The average man is getting fed up. He may not know what world Jewry is, but he knows something is badly wrong. I hope the following will work. It is called Are you kidding me

  32. John hearns's Gravatar John hearns
    August 6, 2011 - 9:33 pm | Permalink

    Yeah sure ,
    Some lunatic pro- zionist freemason shoots up a bunch of anti-zionist leftist kids and so now suddenly nationalism is no longer legit , despite the entire history of the world saying that nationalism was completely legitimate up until these modern global multi-cult times ?

    I think not .

  33. Brahms's Gravatar Brahms
    August 6, 2011 - 7:28 pm | Permalink

    Walt is a leftist anti-Israel, cultural marxist. Why would anyone think he would stand up for white culture? Oh, because he said something bad about Zionist? Our hero.

  34. Dirk's Gravatar Dirk
    August 6, 2011 - 7:19 pm | Permalink

    The university is the least probable staging point of a “White revolution”. Intellectuals are not known for their bravery and renowned for their political correctness. University is politics from the beginning to the end, at least in Europe: only loyalists are appointed as professors and it is an institution to create loyalists. An university study is a one-way ticket to government service.

    Walt & Maersheimer’s carreers were built on political correctness until they were so naieve to write their book about the Israel Lobby. That’s not a sign of rebellion but just stupidity, if you look from a carreer perspective. Now they should prevent any hint of being pro-nationalist or anti-semite to save their carreers, hence the pro-immigration standpoint.

    I also believe we don’t need a lot of intellectuals. Goebbels said: “If we win, the intellectuals will come to us naturally.” The battle for the hearts and minds is won on the streets, not on the campus. Sarrazin wrote a hreat book, but nobody read it. People are mobilized by slogans, not a 1500-page manifesto’s.

  35. Rehmat's Gravatar Rehmat
    August 6, 2011 - 6:59 pm | Permalink

    Well – if questioning of 20th century’s biggest hoax, “Six Million Died” is illegitimate – then national must be illegitimate – as Nazis claimed killing of Polish Jews as part of their German nationalism.

    Take for example, the Crypto-Jew Nicolas Sarkozy, who is more loyal to Israel than France – have played ‘nationalism card’ against Muslims and Roma.

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/05/11/sarkozy-and-many-faces-of-racism/

  36. Bubba's Gravatar Bubba
    August 6, 2011 - 6:17 pm | Permalink

    Breivik’s seventy-seven victims are pictured here:

    http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article4187189.ece

    Forty-three of the Norwegian dead were of the age of legal consent. Twelve were of age (17 years) to join the United States armed forces and die in war, if provided parental consent. Sixteen were children of 16 and under.

    Politics is protracted, low-intensity warfare. It is neither victimless, nor its victims in death fewer in number or less dead than those killed by military action. In North America, Europe, Australia, and southern Africa underclass whites below age of legal consent die every day as a result of Marxist social policy and global capitalism. In the war for control of our destiny the Norwegian children recently killed are “collateral damage,” just as innocents killed by bombs dropped on enemies of the United States and its NATO allies are collateral damage. With western nations being little more than fishtanks with environments externally managed by a jew-gentile elite, the concept of civil legitimacy is an illusion. If Breivik is a thug, then he is morally indistinguishable from the state-sanctioned thugs who enforce multiracialism and feminism.

    Forty-one of Breivik’s victims were leftist females, knowingly availing themselves of popular chivalrous attitudes and the might of state-armed mercenaries paid to enforce feminist mandates of social equality between the sexes. As feminists they were elevated to levels higher than the ridiculed, traditional women we claim to honor. Thinking traditionalist women should be insulted by chivalrous attitudes toward feminist females.

  37. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    August 6, 2011 - 5:51 pm | Permalink

    Walt’s writing on the Middle East evinces great sympathy for the Palestinians suffering under Israeli occupation. Can it be that he has failed to grasp their sense of territorial violation, of loss of autonomy, of rage at seeing other Palestinians humiliated, of seeing Israelis always dominant and Palestinians always subservient? Is it possible for an observer of Palestinians’ humiliation and dispossession to only see their economic loss? To grasp these things, to feel empathy for the Palestinians, should be easy for anyone who feels protectively about his own people.

    Why do so many nationalists fail to see those whites who sympathize with the Palestinians for what they are: born (biological) liberals who think Western society will benefit from the presence of nonwhites. If Walt gets his way we will have to accept hundreds of thousands of young Palestinians into Western countries as part of a ME settlement (on top of the millions of other non whites still flooding in).

    Breivik didn’t affect Walt’s thinking in any way, for Walt the white cause is illegitimate end of story. Neither is Walt’s attitude to the Palestinian cause altered by the merciless massacres of Israeli civilians carried out by Palestinians: for Walt the Palestinian cause is totally legitimate. In response to the murder of the Fogels and their little children Walt wrote

    No good can possibly come from such a senseless act — not for Palestinians, not for Israelis, and not for anyone else — and it should be universally condemned.

    But while we are at it, we should not spare the other parties who have helped create and perpetuate the circumstances where such crimes are likely to occur.

    Let us therefore condemn every Israeli government since 1967, for actively promoting the illegal effort to colonize these lands.

    […]

    Let us condemn the settlers themselves, some of whom routinely use violence to intimidate the Palestinians who live in the lands they covet.

    Let us condemn Israel’s policy of targeted assassinations and the war crimes it has committed in Gaza and Lebanon.

    Let us condemn the hypocrisy of governments throughout the Arab world, who mouth solidarity with the Palestinians yet do little to improve their lives or advance the goal of an independent Palestinian state.

    Let us condemn the craven passivity of U.S. politicians, whose deference to the Israel lobby has enabled the occupation for more than four decades, squandered the opportunity afforded by the Oslo Accords, and undermined efforts to create a viable Palestinian state.

    Let us condemn the misguided fervor of Christian Zionists, who turn a blind eye to injustice against the Palestinians in the belief that it will hasten the “end times” tomorrow.

    Let us condemn the cynicism of the Netanyahu government, which used this latest tragedy to announce the construction of 500 more housing units in the Occupied Territories. Whoever wielded the knife in Itamar deserves to be condemned, caught, and punished for this reprehensible act. But let us not forget that many people bear responsibility for creating and perpetuating this conflict, and all of them should feel shame at this latest episode

    Like it or not, Steven Walt represents the dominant strand in Western thought, you’ll never convince him to think of the white cause the way he thinks of the Palestinian one.

  38. Bohemianh's Gravatar Bohemianh
    August 6, 2011 - 3:42 pm | Permalink

    Breivik does believe he is doing the right thing. The question is does it help or hurt the white grouping as a whole? Most likely not, it makes it harder on the real True believers, gives govt more reason to watch pro white people, and supports israel. The Truth is most zionist Christians, and like those on tv would be more than happy to have Mr. Breivik in their churches, becuase they believe the same ideals as he.

  39. fender_strat's Gravatar fender_strat
    August 6, 2011 - 3:15 pm | Permalink

    @Jj:

    Take it a step further. The Marxists need to be portrayed as the hateful, aggressive ones. The one constant in all of their rhetoric is hatred of White Europeans; this needs to be pointed out over and over until the idea that Europeans are being not criticized but ATTACKED, is formed in the public consciousness. It needs to be so that any criticism of whites or Europeans is met with a kneejerk reaction from whites; in short, we need our own equivalent of the “antisemitism” charge. Something that immediately shuts the attackers up without an argument.

    Furthermore, White Europeans need to feel that they have a mission in the world. The Jews survived these centuries because their religion taught them that they have been sent by God to “correct” the world. This is what drives them, psychologically. It’s their will to power. They believe a world without their tribe is fundamentally evil, backwards, and worthless.

    White Europeans need an equivalent of this. The chief differences between Europeans and Jews is that while Europeans do in fact improve the world through science and objectivity (what is the scientific method if not the pinnacle of European thought?), Jews resort to abstract ideologies (Freudianism, Marxism, etc.) that are inherently destructive.

    Whites need to feel that they MUST exist, as Whites. Not for their own sake; that would be greedy. But for the sake of the world. Whites need to feel that a world without Whites is barbaric and violent, because it most likely will be without Europeans feeding the third world and trying to solve environmental problems.

  40. TabuLa Raza's Gravatar TabuLa Raza
    August 6, 2011 - 2:12 pm | Permalink

    “What’s so great about white people?”

    Just because a question is asked doesn’t mean it must be answered.

    “We have a right to survive. If you try to stop us you will be killed.”

  41. Cary's Gravatar Cary
    August 6, 2011 - 1:27 pm | Permalink

    A theme that emerges in the comments is that the diverse white Americans need to defend their actions or to take other substantive, affirmative steps.

    Not at all. Just attack the person who speaks ill of us as carrying the Anti-White Narrative which covers up the bad deeds of non-whites and the good deeds of the diverse white Americans. Here’s an example.

    The mayor of Chicago, a loathsome person it is true, was interviewed by a Chicago reporter recently and she compared the mayor to a thug and a bully. He instantly replied that she was the thug and the bully, and that ended that. We need to learn that Jewish trick of never defending or explaining, and always attacking the person who insults us and our children. It’s that simple.

  42. Jj's Gravatar Jj
    August 6, 2011 - 12:02 pm | Permalink

    . . . so evocative of the depths our elites have sunk.
    Precisely! But Charles Dodgson you have missed an opportunity, here. It’s understandable. When one is attacked he immediately moves to defend, but by doing so he justifies the attack. Stephan Walt’s position can be summarized in an often quoted cliché, one that many American students ape whenever discussions of European ethnic interest arise. It is this,
    “What’s so great about white people?”
    If we fall for this Marxist trick we sound like an ethnic supremacist, boasting of our achievements. Rather, we need to recognize what this argument is. “What’s so great about white people?” begs the question; do people have to be great in order to desire their existence? Or, put another way, are all people who are not “great” marked for genocide?

  43. Denys Picard's Gravatar Denys Picard
    August 6, 2011 - 10:28 am | Permalink

    A funny thing happened to me on my way to a genocide…

    Charles,

    Never surrender. This means never surrender to the thought of fearing the violence that may come your way, and never surrender to the thought of putting violence aside permanently. In both cases you lose.

    As cruel and cold as some of the conversations surrounding the Oslo events may be, one must not allow himself to feel a guilt that is not his responsibility to ware; this being permeable to media strategies that want you to conform “absolutely”.

    We are in a cultural war, we cannot change that reality. I personally am against violence, but I will never admit that I will never have recourse to it. It is always an option; it must always remain an option, even if it is absolutely distant. I dislike violence, I dislike gratuitous cruelty, but we are in a war, and we must not surrender psychologically.

    I am of those who cannot identify with Breivik’s actions, I have qualified him on the day as the events as a Zionist and an imbecile.

    Yet, not a soul will make me feel guilty, because it is not what should be required of me, especially by a western leadership which should have much more on its conscience than Breivik.

    For me, they are solution which are peaceful, and effective means, by which the white majority can take repossession of their democracy. Re-Instate Glass-Steagall provisions; bring back the pre-1980s FCC framework which prevented excessive concentration in the media; Increase tax rates on income and on capital gains; maintain the current tax rate on corporations, use protective tariffs for strategic manufacturing sectors; lower defense expenditures by half; get out of the wars around the world. Encourage the federal government to transfer all health and education responsibilities to the States, with the appropriate tax adjustment transfers from the federal authority to the States; a gradual, but not total, transfer towards a hard currency system. These are just a few propositions.

    The first step in rebuilding white Christian hegemony is rebuilding the white Christian middle class. A strong economic middle class will bring a lot more revenues and prevent the infrastructural collapse of the nation. It will prevent the US in permanently slipping in a banana-republic political model.

    These actions will do more, and by peaceful means, in re-establishing a system in which the white majority regains control of its destiny, ambitions, visions and hopes.

    Yet, among white nationalism, many believe that an authoritarian regime is the solution, which means a more elitist system than we currently have. On this, I wrote a comment which was not printed in Counter-Current because I had slip reading a concluding line by Greg Johnson which had me misunderstand his position in terms of possible alliance with the Jewish community in rebuilding white America. It was my sincere mistake; I though Greg was commenting on Zionist and Jews of Israeli origins only, but his article was more encompassing, and on this I share the same perception.

    I will put part of the comment here because it describes my perception of the appetite for Fascism among White Nationalists which I believe is the wrong road to take. This is what the Oslo events should have us reflect on, which future model of society we want for our future.

    …Greg, I have been reading some of your articles (and of your colleagues) on fascism, and I am surprised that none have underlined the close relationship between Fascism and Narcissism. I personally do not believe in Fascism; and I prefer to understand the current geo-political battle as one for the European-American Western Christian Culture. You should know and I have observed, as little read as I am, that one of the fundamental characteristic of Fascism as distinct from other form of authoritarianism is Narcissism. I have formed my own affirmation around this which could probably have been expressed elsewhere: Fascism is the esthetical expression of power. In this sense it has a strong tie to narcissism and to homoerotism. Narcissism can be expressed materially but it also can be understood or become a psychological trait. In this fashion, Fascism has never offered political solutions that are very sophisticated or durable, it usually self-implodes within a generation; it has a level of arbitrariness which cannot make it optimal in a sophisticated society.
    This is why I am not surprised of observing Obama making gestures which are absolutely arbitrary and which consolidate unconstitutional powers to the Presidency which are directing us towards Fascism and this synchronous with a general social direction which is becoming increasingly homoerotic.
    So, do you like Obama and what he does except for the color of his skin? This may sound like a cheap shot, but believe me Greg, I know and appreciate they are things you understand better than the vast majority of people, yet they are others you just seem to miss completely. I appreciate your site, the commitment of you yourself and that of your contributors, but sometimes your solutions are too simple. Look in Africa, they are plenty of examples of Fascism, and leaders almost always are affected by a level of narcissism that makes them look ridiculous. Is that the kind of political system you want for your People?
    You know, Kevin MacDonald is a gift to us all, in some sense I think he shrinks the work of Nietzsche, because he brings scientific light on mechanism where Nietzsche had mostly intuitions. But we must put all efforts possible to understand him with all the complexity which his work unveils. …

    So thank you for Charles for your reflections, we need more like these,

    Denys

  44. Doug's Gravatar Doug
    August 6, 2011 - 9:59 am | Permalink

    Well said, Heather Blue. Well said!

  45. Spectator's Gravatar Spectator
    August 6, 2011 - 5:50 am | Permalink

    “My country right or wrong” was not “coined” by that German-immigrant-turned-opppressor -of-the-South Carl Shurz.

    It was coined decades earlier in a toast by Stephen Decatur of Barbary War fame: “My country: may she always be in the right, but–my country, right or wrong.”

  46. Gabor's Gravatar Gabor
    August 6, 2011 - 3:20 am | Permalink

    @meaningless. And what does the distinction between “artificial” and “natural” mean in a cultural or human context? I mean, all cultures are artificial by definition: that they are products of humans.

  47. Heather Blue's Gravatar Heather Blue
    August 6, 2011 - 3:13 am | Permalink

    Stephen Walt’s “Breivik’s World View” does not make sense. I don’t have Mr. Walt’s credentials, but I could do a better job than that. Does he not understand that white people are in a struggle for survival…..that the issue is not just a scrimmage over something, but an agenda to destroy the white race of people? That the course is set? That no negotiations are possible?

    Disputes can be settled, but not an agenda to rub out the existence of an entire race of people. White people are stunned. There we were ….minding our own business when we became aware of an agenda to wipe us off the planet. It took the breath out of us. It is madness.

    We react in various ways – or not at all – but nothing makes the fact go away. How are we supposed to feel when we know another group is trying to kill us? How does anyone deal with a dilemma like this? It not exactly normal. We did not ask for it, nor do anything to deserve it, but we are confronted with it whether we like it or not.

    Breivik was a fool if he acted on his own. I cannot wrap my mind around a white man shooting a group of unarmed white kids of his own race. It is inexcusable. It has a Jewish smell. What is he – a homosexual (easy fodder for the Jews) who hates Muslims for their intolerance of homosexuals and wants to take revenge on weak, heterosexual men for allowing them in European countries? Well, whatever, I don‘t know. His awful crime does not seem to be something a normal white man would do. Reminds me of the two rabid young Jews (Harris and Klebold) who gunned down unarmed white kids at Columbine High School in Colorado.

    It is impossible for us to understand that kind of senseless hatred. We have never hated to the extent that we would go after the very existence of an entire race of people. But Jews are after ours. They are unique in that respect. I am not sure that other ethnic groups have that kind of mind set.

    The Jews want us dead – all of us. They developed a complex and brilliant agenda to get the deed done. They have brought it to us. We were not given a choice in the matter.

  48. Lonewalker's Gravatar Lonewalker
    August 6, 2011 - 3:01 am | Permalink

    This was probaly the best article I’ve read this year. I will keep a lookout for more work from Dodgson from now on!

  49. August 6, 2011 - 1:32 am | Permalink

    The most adaptive course for Westerners is to find a way to restore…ethnic consciousness…

    Yes. Positive and explicit White European ethnic consciousness. Speak up, stand up, be pro-White, and make pro-White media. Positive explicit White ethnic consciouness. Stir the pot. Some inspiration for those needing to get started:

    White People Are Cool 1

    White People Are Cool 2

    Nothing scholarly there, but heartfelt. Plus good music.

    Then some spiritual and metaphysical angles:

    All The White Things

    …to find a way to restore a sustainable birthrate…

    My little bit.

    Free astrological marriage compatibility opinions for White couples.

    =9o)=

    Now think what YOU can do!

  50. Greg's Gravatar Greg
    August 6, 2011 - 12:44 am | Permalink

    @fender_strat:

    Walt is a Harvard professor. Like other elites, he has turned his back any idea of his being European because any other viewpoint would be unacceptable.

    I don’t understand the argument that a country’s people shouldn’t be concerned if say, only 5 to 10 percent of the population is of Muslim or Mexican origin. First of all, Muslims and Mexicans have demonstrably lower IQs than Whites, on average. Second, they outbreed Europeans at a rapid rate, which means that with almost certainty their percentage of the population will grow. Third, regardless of Europe’s historical background, people are happiest with their own. Scandinavian countries consistently rank highest in terms of happiness. A large part of this has to do with their homogeneous nature, and the shared bond they have.

    Over all, I have seen absolutely no benefit to these cultures based on immigration. These immigrants have torn the social fabric, caused polarization of politics, burdened the welfare systems, and caused pain for people used to a certain way of life. This forced assimilation by the elite is a huge crime, and people like Walt perpetuate it without remorse. Tell me, how is immigration benefitting these societies?

    Walt does not care/observe the effect immigration has had on U.S. society, since he lives in the insular elite, most likely in a safe community. He most certainly would not move to an all black neighborhood with his children. I wonder why that is Walt? No doubt at the next cocktail party he is attending, I’m sure his professor friends will pat him on the back for the “thought-provoking” article he wrote attacking European people and its culture.

  51. fender_strat's Gravatar fender_strat
    August 5, 2011 - 9:14 pm | Permalink

    Same old crap. “It’s a social construct/it doesn’t exist/it’s not a fixed idea,” blah blah blah. Every excuse to try and delegitimize Europe. Is he aware that the royalty of the European nations intermarried with one another? Even in isolationist Russia, French was commonly spoken among the upper class.

    Japan, as a country, didn’t exist until around 1600. Before that the Japanese people were divided into small, constantly-warring states. I guess this means that Japan doesn’t exist, nor do the Japanese people. It’s all just a big ploy. I’m sure I’d never hear any Marxist say that.

    Nor would I ever hear a Marxist say that African Americans don’t exist as a people. Marxists say there are no European Americans because Europeans spent much of their history fighting one another. Well gee, what did the various African nations do for century and century? Africa is far less unified than Europe is today, yet no one questions the “African American” identity.

    This whole idea of “artificial constructs” is idiotic. It’s just a tactic to mangle any kind of European or White identity. Of course, White identity does exist for the bad things: past crimes that Marxists keep screaming about. But never for anything good. When Whites are praised for their accomplishments their White ethnicity is never mentioned. However, when Whites committed evil acts it was ALWAYS because they were White, according to Marxists. They’ve got a clever game going.

  52. mark's Gravatar mark
    August 5, 2011 - 8:59 pm | Permalink

    As in all wars, the number of “innocent” deaths exceeds the number of dead among the combatants. There’s nothing we can do about that. Oceans of blood are going to be spilled in the coming global racial conflict. I see that more White blood was spilled just yesterday at the state fair in Wisconsin by roving bands of Negroes. There will be much more White blood spilled until White men start killing their racial enemies.

    Why do you refer to Mr. Breivik as a psychopath? I haven’t seen any scientific evidence that he had any mental health issues. Why couldn’t he just be a White man, though having a little different set of political priorities than your average White racial nationalist, still had issues with race and who did what he thought should be done at the time. You are demonizing the White fighters who are going to be the ones who win this thing.

    If a White man killed a few rabbis or race-mixing White women, would you call him a psychopath, too?

    Mr. Dodgson, your writing with its pathetic handwringing indicates a weakness on your part and your thinking sets a very bad example for those Whites who are going to have to do the actual fighting.

    If you, Mr. Dodgson, are not willing and able to kill the enemy with your own hands to save your people then you yourself are not fit to live in a folkish White society.

  53. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    August 5, 2011 - 7:55 pm | Permalink

    It seems to be only the Right or Whites that are required to deal with this “moral dilemma” that arises with a violent person acts in the name of a cause you may support. For generations, people on the Left have used violence without it ever seeming to discredit Leftist causes. In our current age, various terrorists attacks have taken place on behalf of those that support Palestine, yet no one on the Left seems to spend much time hand-wringing over the issue.

    I don’t think we should buy into the idea that must “explain ourselves” when someone who happens to share some of our ideas, acts atrociously. It happens on all sides all the time.

  54. Cary's Gravatar Cary
    August 5, 2011 - 7:32 pm | Permalink

    “Perhaps ethnic nationalism is too emotive an idea to keep under control. Perhaps this ideology arouses such passions that it is, in a sense, too hot for politics to handle…”

    Not at all. Ethnic nationalism is the norm. Since the sixties & boomer rule, it has been suppressed forcefully. The return of the repressed is well said by the Other, and it applies to this situation.

  55. arrowhead's Gravatar arrowhead
    August 5, 2011 - 7:16 pm | Permalink

    After reading this I ask…

    If you’re standing in front of box with another person and the person says “No there is no box” and you’re like “Yes, there’s a box. I can pick it up, I see it” and the person is like “No. How do you know that’s a box? What is a box? It could be a fake box? A box was defined differently 100 years ago” etc etc etc

    Your article actually kinda proves that you can’t fight these people with intellectual arguments. It’s a waste of your time to argue with them. You can’t debate people who want to kill you.

    I think you just speak the truth outloud to all Fellow whites, and those that still Have Heart, Who still feel the basic desire for Self-Preservation, Will Follow.

  56. arrowhead's Gravatar arrowhead
    August 5, 2011 - 6:53 pm | Permalink

    Ahh, I know a better way of putting it.

    Intellectual versus the heart

  57. arrowhead's Gravatar arrowhead
    August 5, 2011 - 6:44 pm | Permalink

    A somewhat weird comment, you described it as a “Just Cause.” White people always have to have causes and then get all their ducks lined up in a row. Just cause implies that something could be an unjust cause. Which is false, because everything is a just cause after you win.

    But with me, I just Want It. And I want it more than anything else. So I don’t feel guilty at stuff that happens because it doesn’t impact my ultimate goal/desire.

3 Trackbacks to "Does the Norway Atrocity Make Nationalism Illegitimate? A Reply to Stephen Walt"

  1. on August 31, 2011 at 3:24 pm
  2. on August 17, 2011 at 10:32 am
  3. on August 6, 2011 at 4:44 pm

Comments are closed.