Anders Breivik Revisited

The campers on Utøya the day before Breivik’s attack.

3,452 words

My recent article, “Anders Breivik and the Manchester Bombing,” elicited such controversy and outrage among our readership that I felt an encore was necessary. The Breivik massacre is fairly unique in that it acts as a firecracker, causing explosive reactions in many different – and sometimes opposite – directions among those of us who otherwise share many fundamental values. It would certainly make the Alt Right a more cohesive movement if we could minimize such a scatter effect when reflecting upon such violent and conclusive acts as the ones committed by Anders Breivik. A good deal of controversy is certainly a good thing. But it is possible to have too much of it.

I noted that Breivik was a White Nationalist who advocated many policies also advocated by the Alt Right today, especially in terms of ending non-white immigration and the mass deportation of non-whites.

To condense the article’s themes, I posited that the way in which whites of the future will look back on Anders Breivik depends on how history plays out in the meantime. If the situation resolves peacefully for whites, they will look back on him as a deranged criminal. On the other hand, if we are plunged into war and bloodshed, they will see him as a hero.

This caused a backlash from several directions. One was a powerful objection to my best-case scenario, which was insufficiently best for many. In fact, several commenters expressed an absolutist vision of the future of Europe which involved no non-whites at all. So, bollocks to my “best-case” idea of non-whites assimilating and making Europe even a little bit browner. Best case means keeping Europe one hundred percent white, and that’s all there is to it.

When I abandon my historical perspective and reflect upon this as an individual, I agree. Europe for whites only. Let’s do it. Sure, non-whites would be welcome to visit and sightsee. They can live in Europe temporarily as students or as foreign dignitaries. Some exceptions might also be made for political or military reasons. But in general, we keep Europe white, keep out the non-whites, and abide by strict anti-miscegenation laws.

This is what Spencer Quinn wants. But who cares about what Spencer Quinn wants? I don’t matter. I don’t even live in Europe. If the recent elections in France and the Netherlands are any indication, my viewpoint is far to the Right of acceptable opinion in most areas of Western Europe. If I were appointed King of all Europe today, it’s undeniable that many European whites would vociferously oppose my “report-and-deport” platform, and not just the Left-wing ones. So when I previously forecast my best-case scenario, I was acting in a historical frame of mind and considered only likely scenarios for the near future, not Right-wing fantasies which at this point still seem fairly anachronistic (as welcome as they would be to many of us).

Like it or not, white people are an extremely generous people. We have big hearts. Although in the past this helped lead us to greatness, today it is threatening to destroy us. Nonetheless, people will not turn on a dime against their inner natures. It will likely require turmoil and bloodshed before enough whites finally do this and turn the tide of history. Since my best-case scenario includes relatively little turmoil and bloodshed, I based my prediction on the majority of European whites forcing change but still keeping much of their generous nature, hence the dreaded non-white assimilation.

The next waves of backlash involved Breivik’s choice of victims, most of whom were white. How can a White Nationalist hero slaughter white people, especially young, innocent ones? This is a difficult question. Some commenters found this to be wrong in all circumstances, and others mitigated, pointing to the fact that the Utøya victims were being groomed as the next generation of leaders for Norway’s Left. “Those children would have probably grown up to become the next generation of Merkels, Macrons, Sarkozies, Blairs, and Clintons,” as one commenter put it. Another called them “race traitors” and “antifa-in-the-making.”

Ah, but “antifa-in-the-making” is not the same as antifa, some argued. Which one of us didn’t flirt with destructive dogma in their youth? And how do we know these kids wouldn’t have been red-pilled at some point? So the disagreement stemmed from the identification of our enemies. If the victims on the island of Utøya had all been hardened, middle-aged Leftists who’d been occupying the highest rungs of power in Norway for the last twenty years, then there would have been no question of their status as enemies. And this, presumably, would have raised Breivik’s esteem at least a little for some.

But since Breivik targeted young people who were not yet our enemies, the questions raged. Was what he did right? Was it honorable? Here is a question I would like to ask, given that some commenters were so concerned about what these young victims would have turned into as adults: supposing that in an alternate universe where the Breivik massacre hadn’t occurred, nine of the Utøya victims ultimately become red-pilled race-patriots, twenty would have lost interest in politics altogether, and the remaining forty would have become major players among the Norwegian and European liberal elite, helping to make whites a minority in many parts of western Europe by 2040. Never mind the questions of right or honor. With such a dreadful future in the offing, would the Breivik murders have been worth such a bullet dodged? One guilty soul damned to Hell and twenty-nine innocent people slaughtered for a shot at avoiding mass dhimmitude, slavery, or worse. Would it have been worth it?

Of course, this is an impossible question to answer, and a stomach-turning one at that, given that we’re considering not issuing our unqualified condemnation to a mass murderer. Yet I believe there is something important here that many of us do agree upon, and I hope that this will temper the scatter effect mentioned above. That something is that the greatest enemies of white people today are other whites. Since turning to the Alt Right, I have noticed how many of us have what I called “pet hates,” that is, a healthy (or sometimes not-so-healthy) fixation on one group of people whom they really don’t like. For some, it’s the Jews. For others, it’s Muslims or blacks. But without millions of educated white people willing not only to dance to the beat set by non-whites but to actually hold in contempt those of us who don’t, non-whites would not have the power they have today. Whites would still be lords of their own domains, exhibiting a healthy racial pride and doing great things, just as our forefathers had done.

From here, some commenters delved into deeper concerns: when is it ever appropriate to lionize a mass murderer? And in doing so, aren’t we encouraging the fanaticism which breeds future mass murderers?

One side of the debate described Breivik’s actions as malum in se, that is, evil for its own sake, and cautioned against extremism. It also painted them as damaging the Alt Right. One commenter claimed that Anders Breivik played into the hands of our Leftist overlords who control the media’s “narrative.” “If we insist on filling the role they have assigned to us of being nothing but fanatical gun-toting vigilantes,” he wrote, “then we will remain the fringe to their whole cloth.” Indeed, acts of such horrific violence can only be a setback to a movement which craves to one day bask in the sunlight of the mainstream.

As sensible as this is, a response to it is equally so. It says that “we are in a war for white survival,” and therefore “one’s philosophy of the nature and ethics of war” must dictate how we view Breivik’s actions. Do we have the luxury of doing what’s right when what’s right may get in the way of what’s necessary? As I pointed out in the original article, our enemies no longer come at us across battlefields in uniforms under the unfurled flags of their nations. They dress like civilians and smile at us as they allow our murderers and future oppressors to enter our countries against our wills. Or else they are these murderers and oppressors themselves, who, by the way, also dress like civilians. Both groups of enemies see ordinary whites as subhuman. Either we’re fair game in a fifteen-hundred-year-old holy war or we are worth expending in order to preserve the power of the Leftists currently running many parts of Europe.

How do we fight an enemy like this? Anders Breivik certainly had an opinion, and he had the guts and determination to carry it out. So, if one views this current war as inter cives rather than inter milites, then it will be hard not to appreciate the blow struck by Anders Breivik.

But the opposing viewpoint simply denies we are at war, in which case, Breivik comes across as nothing more than a twisted lunatic. Since I cannot improve upon one particular commenter’s lucid prose, I will present a large chunk of it below and let it speak for itself:

Your counter-argument is that we are at war. We often use this word “war” to describe our struggle, because it renders the moral and vital seriousness of our plight. But we must recognize that as of this day this word is still metaphorical, simple proof of which is that we are not generally forced to defend our properties, our families, our communities, with arms, each and every day. We live yet, in most places and in most circumstances, in a time of peace. I recognize that it is in some ways an intermittent peace, that some of us really are more embattled, and that this peace, thanks to the efforts of individuals like those that Breivik targeted, is preparing a future war – but none of this changes the fact this is still a time of peace. If we are not permitted to draw a clear line between what is right and what is wrong in a time of peace, between the strict rightness of arguing our position, and the strict wrongness of murdering individuals who have some taint of guilt, how do we ever hope to govern a truly peaceful society in some distant future? How can we ever hope to establish a state which is not merely dictatorial, and as coldly ruthless toward all dissidents as a Breivik would certainly be?

Indeed. If we’re going to get loosey-goosey now with the ancient moral imperative against cold-blooded murder (to say nothing of mass murder), how are we ever going to create a state worth living in? Vox Day may claim that the founders of all great nations are killers, but that usually refers to killers killing other killers who were also trying to form great nations, or who were at least preventing them being formed. Sure, Julius Caesar slaughtered the Gauls in appalling numbers and Rome completely obliterated Carthage after the Third Punic War, but once upon a time both Gaul and Carthage were at Rome’s doorstep, bent on conquest. Just because they were weak and toothless when they met their ends doesn’t make them innocent bystanders in the game of empires, if you catch my drift.

Can we honestly say the same about the Anders Breivik and his young, unarmed, and unsuspecting victims?

***

So now we finally learn about what Spencer Quinn thinks of all this. Does he admire Anders Breivik or doesn’t he?

Before I respond, I would like to point out that no matter how I answer, I feel like I am sinning. If I take the hard line against Breivik, then I am squelching what amounted to the most successful act of insurrection against the Western European Left so far this century and telling whites that they should act like good citizens and place their trust in their Leftist enemies’ sense of justice. Basically, I will be encouraging them to do nothing as they are slowly displaced and herded closer and closer to extinction. This can only lead to bloodshed which will dwarf what happened on the island of Utøya.

On the other hand, an enthusiastic thumbs-up for Breivik’s will only encourage more fanaticism. Who’s to say who the next bomb-throwing, gun-wielding maniac will be? Or who his victims will be? Or what his agenda will be, if he even has one at all? This also says nothing of retaliation on the part of the rank-and-file Left, which may decide to start blowing up incipient Right-wingers. No nation can survive such internecine strife for long. This is why we have laws against murder and why we should stick to them. Yesterday it was young people on the island of Utøya. Tomorrow it will be your family or mine. Is this really what we want?

So my first response must entail real-world action. If I had been in charge when the murders occurred, I would have given Anders Breivik the death penalty. If possible, I would have hanged him from a tree so that people could see it for miles around, keeping him there for over a week as his body rotted and birds plucked out his eyes and organs. In fact, since Mr. Breivik is still drawing breath at the expense of the state, and I believe he relinquished that God-given right the moment he wasted seventy-seven souls on July 22, 2011, I call for his execution right now. Regardless of who his victims were, I’m sure their family members loved them. As law-abiding citizens, these people deserve closure. Further, the citizens of Norway deserve protection against demented outlaws who kill them and then sit in comfortable prison cells with three squares a day, playing video games for the rest of their lives.

So this is what I think we should do about Anders Breivik. But how we should feel about him is a much more difficult question.

I will begin answering it by relating something that happened to me on September 12, 2001.

Of course, I was shell-shocked over the attacks. Like many people, I was furious and in a nasty, unforgiving mood. And on that day, I had a conversation with a young woman that I will never forget. After explaining to her the biblical vengeance I wished I could bring down upon the heads of the perpetrators of the attack, she looked at me with soft eyes and said, “Yes, but they had their reasons.”

They had their reasons.

Think about that for a moment. The smoke was still rising from the ashes of the Twin Towers, the impromptu grave of three thousand murdered Americans, and this Leftist shill dares offer her qualified sympathy for the terrorists. I have never before or since wanted to punch a woman, but for a moment I felt the animalistic urge to get in her face and put her to sleep with a hard shot to the jaw. Of course, I did no such thing and never would. But I felt it then, and I still feel it.

The teachable moment here comes when we view this person as a microcosm of the modern Left and how it views the Right. They truly do see us as subhuman. They want us out of the way and marginalized until we have no political power with which to defend ourselves against their progressive nihilism. In the early Soviet Union, we were the Ukrainian kulaks or the political dissidents or the Czarist holdovers or the faithful Christians or the bourgeois middle class. In today’s America, we are simply the whites; that is, the whites who refuse to supplicate at the altar of political correctness as no other race is required to do. The Left, which always views a stark discrepancy between what is and was on one hand versus what will be on the other, despises any person or group that even appears to appreciate a status quo (I use the indefinite article here because for the Left, there is always more than one status quo).

For a recent example, when a white (or possibly Jewish) college professor dared to stand his ground against college students who wanted to evict all white people from campus for a day, he was excoriated in the harshest possible terms. So what if he was a Leftist like them? Didn’t matter. He was guilty of being white and of not praying hard and long enough at that PC altar. And for that, he might as well have been a kulak. When these college kids gain real political power in twenty years, I have no doubt they will apply the same awful suppression of unrepentant whites that the Soviets applied towards the kulaks and others. The main difference is that, in the Soviet Union, the Left had the virtue of doing its own dirty work. In America and Western Europe, they import or coddle Third World savages so they can do it for them.

So every time a gang of blacks rapes a white woman or a Mexican illegal murders a white child or a Muslim refugee blows up dozens of us at a concert, we really shouldn’t get too bent out of shape over it. They had their reasons, you see.

And what are those reasons? In the eyes of the Left, the reason is simply to destroy the enemies of the Left. And since these are honorable reasons, they must be taken into account when judging such base criminals, who, if you think about it, are not the real bad guys. This is exactly the attitude Solzhenitsyn ascribes to the Soviets in his Gulag Archipelago, and it is no different today. The Left has a history of manipulating real criminals (thieves, thugs, rapists, murderers) in order to stifle those who oppose their always-progressing political agendas.

How else can you explain the speaker at last year’s Women’s March in Washington, DC, who was a convicted rapist who had once sodomized a man with a steel pole? Only the Right-wing press uncovered that little news item.

How else can you equate the national media blackout that followed when two white kids, Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian, were raped and tortured for days by a gang of niggers (sorry, no other word) with the wall-to-wall coverage the media inflicted on George Zimmerman after he shot down a crazed, black amateur mixed martial artist who was trying to kill him?

How else can you explain the mainstream media’s reluctance to cover stories which link Hillary Clinton and her allies to the murder of “troublesome staffers” and to pedophile rings in pizza parlors, and to mentally-ill thugs who are paid to violently disrupt Trump rallies?

For that matter, how else can you explain the benevolence the Left has shown towards Barack Obama’s rather cozy past associations with anti-American terrorists?

The list goes on, trust me. The Ace of Spades, Ann Coulter, Steve Sailer, Jared Taylor, and many, many others have written it all down.

So when considering this war versus peace dichotomy, I tend to agree with the war faction, even though I don’t have to carry a semi-automatic rifle every time I step out my front door. Our enemies wish to destroy us; they wish to bury us under their rainbow-colored steamroller of progress. And, make no mistake, this hatred they have for us is primarily racial. This is why I joined the Alt Right to begin with. I lost faith that our existing conservative leadership would ever be able to view this war in honest, racial terms. Our enemies are now equipping themselves with knives and rocks and clubs, and we still think we can take them on with our fists. How can that result in anything other than honorable defeat?

Is this a somewhat jaundiced view of the Left? Perhaps. Are all Leftists actually like this? Perhaps not. I don’t care. I don’t care because the Left-vs-Right Race War model is simply the best descriptor of what’s going on in Western Europe and America today. No other model can explain the insistence with which our Leftist, globalist elites continue to bring Third World barbarians into our homelands despite all the demonstrable harm they cause.

I challenge anyone to come up with a better model.

In the meantime, I will take it easy on the memory of Anders Breivik. If the Angela Merkels of the world were to suddenly end non-white immigration and deport the vast majority of non-whites already in our ancestral homelands, then I might reconsider. Until then, however, I will neither praise nor renounce Anders Breivik.

After all, he had his reasons.

He had his reasons.