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

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.”

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.

166 replies

Comments are closed.