1,967 words
Many people have been talking about Anders Breivik in the wake of the recent jihadist attack during a concert in Manchester, England which claimed twenty-two lives and injured dozens more. Clearly, this was a premeditated act of terror similar to the thirty thousand-plus other premeditated acts of terror that have been perpetrated since 9/11 by the nihilistic, militant cult that is Islam. But who was Anders Breivik? This was a Norwegian man who, on July 22, 2011 at the age of 32, bombed government buildings in Oslo, Norway, killing eight, and then attacked the island of Utøya, where members of Norway’s liberal, socialist, pro-immigration Worker’s Youth League were holding their summer camp. He shot and killed sixty-nine people – many of whom were under twenty – before surrendering to the police. He is currently being held in solitary confinement in a prison in Norway, serving a sentence of twenty-one years.
The crux of the issue lies in whether or not Anders Breivik will be lionized in the long run for what he did, and also whether the Alt Right or White Nationalists in general should lionize him to begin with. Vox Day raised the issue on his blog and then expounded further on it in one of his Darkstreams.
The tongue-in-cheek meme he likes to push refers to Breivik as a saint:
- Where the Manchester bomber was following the orthodox, anti-infidel cant found in the Qur’an, and was in effect no different than any other suicidal jihadist willing to give his life and many others for their pork-free prophet, Anders Breivik was, in a way, trying to be a prophet himself (or at least a trailblazer). This alone makes Breivik at the very least . . . interesting.
- Breivik selected his arguably less-than-innocent victims for maximum political impact, whereas the Manchester bomber slaughtered perfectly innocent civilians at random just for the sake of terror.
- Breivik targeted people of his own race, whereas the Manchester bomber did not.
As is well known, prior to his attacks, Breivik compiled a document entitled 2083: A European Declaration of Independence and e-mailed it to over a thousand Right-wing and far-Right individuals. According to the information found in the Infogalactic entry on Breivik, the Alt Right today would find little in his Declaration of Independence with which to quibble:
Breivik blames feminism for allowing the erosion of the fabric of European society. The compendium advocates a restoration of patriarchy which it claims would save European culture.
In his writings Breivik states that he wants to see European policies on multiculturalism and immigration more similar to those of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan which he said are “not far from cultural conservatism and nationalism at its best”. He expressed his admiration for the “monoculturalism” of Japan and for the two nations’ refusal to accept refugees. The Jerusalem Post describes his support for Israel as a “far-right Zionism”. He calls all “nationalists” to join in the struggle against “cultural Marxists/multiculturalists”.
Furthermore, according to Infogalactic, Breivik “was concerned about race,” has been labeled a White Nationalist, and “considered himself a knight dedicated to stemming the tide of Muslim immigration into Europe.” The question of his sanity pops up a lot, with various experts offering various diagnoses. In either case, however, Breivik planned meticulously for his attack, pulled it off, and since then has offered remarkably consistent and logical rationales for his actions. Not only this, but he selected his victims because they were either part of the Norwegian globalist elite or were being groomed to be, in the case of the Worker’s Youth League. According to Vox Day’s sources, about fifty percent of the next generation of the Norwegian Labor Party’s leadership was wiped out in one fell swoop, and the Norwegian Left has still not recovered.
That’s a lot of achievement for one madman.
It seems to me that the question of whether Anders Breivik was honorable supersedes the question of whether he was (or is) sane. Vox himself seems to sidestep this issue and proclaims that future generations of Europeans will find Breivik highly honorable regardless of what we think about him today. In my opinion, this will only happen after the worst possible predictions of Europe’s future come to pass. Suppose, after obtaining a thirty-to-thirty-five percent minority in most Western European nations as well as key positions in government, law enforcement, the media, and the military, Muslims initiate their violent conquest of Europe while being safeguarded from afar by the nuclear arsenals of Turkey and Iran. Then suppose that after a commensurate and effective resistance on the part of European whites that a number of these nuclear devices are actually detonated on European soil, killing millions.
After such a nightmarish scenario, yes, white Europeans will and should look back at Anders Breivik as a brave and prescient hero as they violently cleanse their homelands of all non-whites down to the last Arab, Asian, black, and Jew. And after all the radiation clears and the rubble is swept away, there should be statues of Breivik in every major European capital affected by the carnage. The Europeans would have learned the hard way that Anders Breivik had been right all along, and that if we had heeded his warnings on the day of his incarceration rather than fifty or so years later, Europe could have avoided the hell it had so obliviously stumbled into.
But this is only the worst-case scenario, which makes me a little suspicious of Vox’s prognostications. The best-case scenario is that, with a combination of favorable election results, a popular swing towards nationalism, and the continued self-exodus of Jews from Europe within the next ten to fifteen years (as well as a little luck), Right-wing, anti-immigrant, nativist leaders like France’s Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders of the Netherlands will gain power and staunch the flow of non-whites into Europe. They may not reverse demographic trends, but through common sense legislation and judicious uses of force they would at least keep them manageable long enough for many of the foreigners to either assimilate or self-deport. After that, Europe might get a little browner and its average IQ may take a hit, but it would survive and carry on, and be mostly recognizable to those of us alive today. Furthermore, the inhabitants of this future Europe would likely look back at Breivik as a deranged criminal who clearly overestimated the dangers presented by non-white immigration.
While being far preferable to the worst-case scenario (not to mention an outcome I strive towards every time I submit a piece of writing to Counter-Currents), I deem this best-case scenario as equally unlikely. As with bad science fiction writing, both predictions transpose cultural sensibilities from one time period into actual cultures from another without considering whether such a transposition could ever have evolved on its own. So, in the worst-case scenario, we drop the red-diapered, high-trust, racially-naïve white elites of today into the boiling cauldron of race relations in the future and watch with horror as they get obliterated. In the best-case scenario, on the other hand, we place the once-bitten, low-trust, race-savvy whites of the future into the still-tolerable melting pot of today and watch with gratification as they sort everything out.
Of course, both scenarios, while worth considering, ignore any natural evolution of European racial attitudes which would necessarily take place between now and Ragnarok. In an attempt to split the difference, I’d say that the likeliest outcome will entail enough whites in the next ten or twenty years feeling the temperature in the pot rise to prevent an all-out, civilization-ending war. But this will come at the cost of permanent changes in certain portions of Western Europe. After a few mid-level wars (civil or otherwise), some nations will become irrevocably Arabized, some will become true white ethnostates, and some will remain in the multicultural mud between these two extremes. After this, peace will prevail as much as it has ever prevailed in Europe whenever hordes of foreign armies sweep in for conquest and then get used to the place and decide to settle – which is to say, both not and enough, if that makes any sense at all.
In this future, would Anders Breivik be considered a hero? Yes and no. Yes in some places, no in others. And that’s exactly how it should be. I’m sure even Thaddeus Stevens wouldn’t have expected the Georgia citizenry to lionize William Tecumseh Sherman, just as General MacArthur wouldn’t have expected the surviving populace of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be big fans of Americans. I predict that the citizens of future white ethnostates will remember their dead and look back fondly at Breivik, while the citizens of Eurabia will remember their dead and look back bitterly at him.
It’s as simple as that.
Nationalism is by no means a catholic phenomenon and therefore does not exist to serve a single Truth. Nationalism (or nationalisms, really) can only serve one people at a time, or, in the case of America, one race at a time. Whites attempted to make nationalism more catholic over a century ago. This was called imperialism. It was an arrogant betrayal of true nationalism and, as a result, ended poorly for most of the whites. Either they left millions of their own people behind, vulnerable to their Third World host populations (as in the case of South Africa and Rhodesia), or they opened the doors for these same Third Worlders to come and despoil their homelands. Envisioning all of humanity as a single village or family may appeal to those of us with the best intentions, but it ignores the many and varied evolutionary paths that disparate peoples have taken throughout history. And these disparate peoples must have disparate myths and legends with which to justify their origin and continued existence, even if that means vindicating or omitting past sins committed against other peoples. As Vox astutely pointed out in his Darkstream, the founders and defenders of all nations are killers. This is the ugly truth which accompanies nationalism, but is still far preferable to the soft-minded mendacity of the one-world globalists who wish most of all to destroy nations.
So, in effect, one man’s Anders Breivik is another man’s Manchester bomber. This is a tolerable state of affairs when the first man lives in Norway and the second in Libya. This becomes intolerable when they both live in Norway in the same apartment complex, near the same school where both their children attend. Then we have problems that only history can sort out, one way or another.
But as for the question of Anders Breivik today, should the Alt Right praise him or demonize him? We must bear in mind that Breivik didn’t act out of pure hatred against perfectly innocent people the way Dylann Roof or Alexandre Bissonnette did, but instead struck a calculated blow for ethnonationalism against its true enemies (i.e., the white European Left) in a war that is being waged more and more inter cives rather than inter milites. Our enemies don’t wear uniforms and come at us across battlefields with mechanized weaponry anymore. They smile at us as they hamper our freedoms and crush our identities with political correctness and other globalist ideologies. Or they blow us to pieces when we go to a concert.
Either way, we don’t see them coming. The people in Oslo and on the island of Utøya did not see Anders Breivik coming. Should we blame him for that? Or them?
My answer right now is that it is too soon to tell.
26 Comments
“After that, Europe might get a little browner and its average IQ may take a hit, but it would survive and carry on, and be mostly recognizable to those of us alive today.”
Odin save us! If that’s your idea of the best case scenario then sign me up for Ragnarok. The “best case scenario” is enough to make me want fight for a Fourth Reich! Hail Breivik!
I strongly agree. What a pathetic future.
ABSOLUTELY ZERO COLORED PEOPLE should ever be tolerated in ANY PART of EUROPE!!! That should be absolutely NON NEGOTIABLE for ANY serious European Racialist! And a TOTAL BAN on all forms of interracial sex!! Period!
Nicely written, good insight.
I never realized what Breivik’s shooting actually meant in the grand scheme of things. I reckon that in the news they truncated it as “youth summer camp” to make it seem like he was killing children, and to minimize the political nature of it. I knew it had something to do with the socialists but I wasn’t aware it was one of those future-speaking-role student grooming affairs. I used to think Breivik was some kind of schizo, but now I see where the Hero comes in …
This. Killing children would only be justified under the most extreme circumstances, but those green-red “future leadership global governance” types? Fair game.
Anders Brievik’s choice of victims and modus discloses rather an exact parallel to the political intentions of the recent jihadists in Nice, Paris and Manchester: to further ethno-religious goals through the targeting of unarmed non-combatants, some women and children.
Whatever the casuistry this cannot be seen as a noble action: on the contrary it was and remains heinous.
Tolkien cautioned us against corrupting the purity of our intention by using our enemies’ methods to achieve victory — if those means are themselves base.
Completely agree. We are better than this.
I, too, second this comment. Precisely as we still hope for a resolution that does not degenerate into civil war and rank bloodshed, we cannot afford any action which employs such tactics in times of peace. Even were deeds like this effective—and they are anything but—they would remain dishonorable, and can do nothing but color all of us with the taint of vulgar extremism.
We should not underestimate the opacity of our public image, and how hard it can sometimes be precisely for the best of men outside our movement to see us clearly. To such men as that, the actions of a Breivik, so far from seeming heroic, appear as but confirmations of the lies that are spread about us on an ongoing basis by the media.
If his action was a tactical mistake, then so is seeking to justify it or attenuate it on moral grounds.
Just to complicate matters a bit:
The Social Democratic party, whose youth organisation was the target of Breivik’s shooting, were rather pro Palestine at the time. In particular the very youth slaughtered. They were actively pursuing a trade block of goods from Israel.
For some reason, the critique of Israel’s policy in the Middle East has quieted a bit down amongst the Social Democrats since then.
Yes he killed white people. Do you honestly think those white people are not traitors. If not for the white power elite we would not have the minority invasion.
It was a youth movement, and they had no political power. You can’t slaughter teen agers on the grounds of what they might become in the future. For all we know some of them might have even ended up being red pilled later on in life. Not likely, but still possible.
People in our ranks that support ABB are either sociopaths, or they are so far removed from the incident (living on another continent) that they are not thinking clearly. Im from Norway and i wish to see ABB dead.
I have mixed feelings on the matter, honestly. Can’t say that what he did was definitely right or wrong.
Those children would have probably grown up to become the next generation of Merkels, Macrons, Sarkozies, Blairs, and Clintons.
If one is going to ask the question of “whom is to blame”, my reply, beyond the obvious of our faction/race-made contemporary context, is our own movement.
Both Breivik and Roof represent, I argue, the failure of our movement itself to better utilize those who are passionate and motivated, but who cannot conceive of any better avenue to goal attainment than by the most direct / least complex, most “tribal”, solution.
The “Alt-Right”, “White Nationalism”, etc., is as responsible for failing to organize these lone wolves into other avenues; as other avenues still exist, and are of no less value; yet, require far superior organization, …and far superior leadership.
The “Alt-Right” fails as a movement, to date, to even organize as successfully as passing era White advocates.
Our movement has arguably more human talent and perhaps capabilities among some of its adherents yet it is less organized than the KKK of either the 1920s or that of the post-Civil Rights eras; not to say that organization alone is sufficient, but I argue it is necessary.
Our movement is failing to organize in person, consistently, predictably, and regularly, and thus better channel and lead those passionate souls as Breivik & Roof. This failure, is due to the existence of websites like this one itself; or, more broadly, the impediments created in an era of the internet.
Lone wolves are us, now, with the sole exception of a small minority of movement adherents who have actually managed to meet one another in person; at a rare rally, or Forum, etc.
For the rest of us, we sit here as essentially lone wolves, each starring at our own computer or cell screen, despite being of an “online community”; which is essentially only as “deep” as the lit screen before our eyes alone.
So long as this movement fails to connect in person, as its primary, not secondary and ad hoc modality, lone wolves are likely to figure so prominently in characterizing White Identity’s response to its decline/decimation.
So, the more apt question thus becomes, how to make the web not exist, and thus compelling in-person organizing, for this movement; how to ween ourselves from the web, and back to brick & mortar?
No doubt, this is not exactly sanguine news to individuals such as Greg Johnson, and Kevin McDonald, who have committed substantially to the online, to date.
Yet, it remains difficult to become involved with this movement, if one can even use that term, despite the ease of simply surfing to this or other websites to leave some comments. Brick & mortar offers deeper connections / nexuses, it is necessary, if there is going to be a serious, significant, effort by Occidental races & their devoted advocates. It cannot be done by lone wolves; whether violent or not (e.g. Spencer), and it cannot be done by online avatar people/”communities”.
This, I encourage all lone wolves of the internet who have no in person networks, to contact me at [email protected], to achieve the brick & mortar potentially together, or for me to serve as a temp. agent / HR contact in assisting you in finding a local group; and vice-versa, to aim to build in your locale.
Both Breivik and Roof represent, I argue, the failure of our movement itself to better utilize those who are passionate and motivated, but who cannot conceive of any better avenue to goal attainment than by the most direct / least complex, most “tribal”, solution.
I see increasing number of White people who want to do something in the realworld. Many people are fed up with the indoctrination, the “antifa” violence, the attacks on traditional American history. Going to nationalist websites is one thing, but the Internet often can be an isolating experience and sooner or later these people drop their interest. Or you get a Dylann Roof who (if his published manifesto is accurate) decides one day to go “cowboy,” lock and load, and we know how that turned out. Obviously, had their been some organization which channeled his passions, things might have turned out quite differently. (Imagine him face to face with antifa at Berkeley or New Orleans!)
White Nationalism is getting there with organizations like Identity Evropa, which puts people into the streets and onto the campuses. The critical dilemma is reducing the costs for activism; i.e., loss of one’s job, friends, etc., when one openly declares for the movement.
Making the Alt Right the “cool” brand seems to be working along these lines, ala Richard Spencer. And we see The Right Stuff radio adding a counter-culture chic, sort of like what the Beats were c. 1960.
Still, there needs to be some legal backing. Perhaps a team of lawyers who can sue employers for wrongful termination when it comes to losing one’s job over being a nationalist. Or the formation of an activist guild which could provide mutual support in these cases.
Putin, Trump, Le Pen, regardless of their actual policies, have opened a very wide gap for populist-nationalism to exploit. There ought to be people within the Trump machine who could add their names, legal resources and a grant or two ($$$) to the movement.
How can anyone even support this jew loving counter jihadist who killed innocent white children with no political power? Disgusting!
The Child is the father of the Man.
In truth. But one must rightly interpret the child, to comprehend the man. It is not the “rational conclusions” of an adolescent incapable yet of mature reasoning which will govern his life, but rather the quality of his soul. Adolescents of quality might latch on to the most distressing and contemptible viewpoints while they are still callow, and this is often even the occult sign of their caliber.
I permit myself to doubt whether Breivik is capable judge of individuals he has never met.
If Breivik lived in the sort of society he sees as the optimum, he’d have been justifiably executed. How anyone can lionize this demented savage is beyond me. I had hopes that the “alt-right” would develop into a viable movement capable of achieving persuasive momentum among traditionalists, but then something like this piece appears and those hopes fade.
“It was a youth movement”
Nits make lice.
As much for ideas and actions as for men. Let us beware of sowing fanaticism.
And there you have it. Some cucked-out platitude meant to restrain us in face of the unremitting fanaticism of our enemies. Where’d you find that? Wikiquote? Here let me try: Moderation in the defense of liberty is no virtue. There, now we’re even. Yaaaaaawwwwwn!
So sorry to have bored, Old Bullion. But now that we have had done with this ping-pong of platitudes, perhaps we can try something more interesting for both of us.
I say that fanaticism in the face of fanaticism will get us no where. If you think otherwise, convince me of it. Perhaps you can begin by telling me just how many converts to our cause you expect there have been, due to the bloody acts of men like Breivik. Or how many fundamentally decent men, who might have had sympathy with our cause, have instead recoiled from such acts and condemned us all on account of them. Or where you expect our cause to finish, if it scorns the support of decent men.
Just for good measure, let me mention a few other platitudes with which we are all well familiar: our enemies control the press; our enemies control the “narrative.” The fanaticism of our enemies is publicly represented everywhere as moderation—and our enemies owe a great deal of their power to this torturing of perspective. If we insist on filling the role they have assigned to us, of being nothing but fanatical gun-toting vigilantes, then we will remain the fringe to their whole cloth.
And so I readily admit it: as matters stand today, I do counsel restraint—both in deed, and also in word. It seems to me but wise policy. To my mind, Breivik flattered his own conscience while offending and injuring the principles he claimed to serve. I call this vainglory, and I foresee that there shall be no victory from vainglory, not for any of us.
“I foresee that there shall be no victory from vainglory, not for any of us.”
LOL! Except that our enemies act vainglorious at all times and forever. And they are almost completely victorious. They act this way and get all sorts of converts. They instill FEAR on people and win, Win, WIN! Everything you criticize is used by our enemies to beat us and they have! Everything that you advise us to do we’ve been doing for 50 YEARS! And it hasn’t worked a bit. Time to be fanatics JUST LIKE OUR VICTORIOUS ENEMIES. Now go ahead and tell us again to be moderate. I could have SWORN William F. Buckley was dead. Oh and by the way I’m not interested in the support of “decent men” THEY are the ones who’ve created this disaster.