White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy

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

/60 Comments/in , , , /by

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. Read more

The effect of Breivik’s actions on Geert Wilders and the PVV

/19 Comments/in , /by

The killings of Anders Breivik, although shocking by their sheer scale, are nothing new for Dutchmen: Holland is used to political killings since the murders of anti-immigration politician Pim Fortuyn in 2002 and Islam-critic Theo van Gogh in 2004. It has long since lost its innocence after a period of self-preceived tolerance. The meteoric rise of Wilders since 2004 is another dimension in which the discussion of Breivik’s killings is taking place, because Breivik has mentioned Wilders 30 times in his manifesto. What has been said in the mainstream Dutch media sheds an interesting light on the impact of Breivik’s actions.

The moment it was clear that the Oslo attacks were the work of Breivik, Wilders sent out a twitter-message: “That the fight against islam is abused by a psychopath is disgusting and a slap in the face of the global anti-Islamic movement. This fills me with disgust that the perpetrator refers to PVV and me in his manifesto.” The self-proclaimed intellectual newspaper NRC Handelsblad was quick to link the attacks with the right-wing intellectual discourse in their commentary on Monday July 25th: “Anders Behring Breivik is no fool, but an extremist. He knows his classics. The same philosophies that right-wing politicians craft their programs together.” The next day NRC and The Press stepped up their attack on Wilders by accussing him of ‘war-rhetoric’. Wilders replied by a new statement proclaiming: “We struggle in a democratric and non-violent way against further Islamization of our society and will continue to do that. The preservation of our freedom and security is our only goal.” Read more

Letter from Sweden: Fallout from Breivik

/54 Comments/in , /by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/166 Comments/in , , , /by

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

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

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

Anders Breivik as a Nordicist

/128 Comments/in , , , /by

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

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

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

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

/39 Comments/in , , , , /by

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

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

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

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

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

Breivik: Imposing Costs on Multicultural Elites

/97 Comments/in /by

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

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

Terrorism is propaganda, not just violence

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

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

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

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