Kay on Breivik on “The Jew”

The mainstream reporting on Breivik’s thinking has so far neglected to dig into his opinions on “the jews”. Perhaps that’s because it would be difficult to describe that thinking faithfully without either embarassing or infuriating “the jews”. Jonathan Kay at the National Post seems to think he has found a way.

Kay has skimmed Breivik’s book, 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence, and sees similarities with the William Pierce’s 1978 book, The Turner Diaries. Kay sums up the former as a “rambling and disjointed manifesto” whose “bigoted and paranoid worldview” seems to have originated with the latter, which he describes as “badly written and tedious”. Never fear, you needn’t read either work yourself. Kay is an expert in such things and he’s very eager to explain how it’s all about “the jew”:

In a general sense, Breivik can be seen as a Norwegian, Islamophobic version of Pierce, McVeigh and the other right-wing hatemongers that populated the fringes of American life until the Clinton administration cleaned up the Midwest’s various White Supremecist quasi-Christian militia sects in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing. But there is also something very new in Breivik’s attack.

For one thing, he represents the first mass-casualty post-9/11 terrorist attack purportedly committed in the name of stopping radical Islam. In this sense, it is Europe’s equivalent to the 1995 slaying of Yitzhak Rabin, whose perpetrator, extremist Orthodox Jew Yigal Amir, also imagined that he could protect his nation from Islamic encroachments by staging a murderous terrorist attack on his own government.

Breivik’s sick mythology also shows another new post-9/11 element: the changing role of the Jew in the narrative of the West’s right-wing extremists.

The Jew traditionally has been the primary target of such extremists because it was imagined that his evil hand lay behind those forces — capitalism, Marxism, globalization, financial speculation — once deemed to be most threatening to the traditional Western order that Breivik says he wants to defend. The creation of Israel in 1948 added a new excuse for anti-Semitism: The Turner Diaries are full of references to American foreign policy being controlled by Israel (an accusation that, of course, has now been taken up by the left).

With 9/11, that changed: The greatest cultural and military threat now is seen to be militant Islam, with the Jew — and Israel — now instantly cast as a defender of the established Western order. To quote something I wrote in my recently published book, Among The Truthers: “The Jew [is now seen as] the perfect anti-Islamist, whose zeal and reliability in the war on terrorism was hard-wired into his political DNA thanks to six decades of Israeli warfare against Islamic terrorists in the Middle East. For the first time in the history of Western civilization, the Jew’s ‘foreignness’ and mixed loyalties-to the United States, Israel, world Jewry- became a source of respect and trust rather than suspicion.”

Thus, in Section 2.93 of Breivik’s manifesto, we get the sort of words that, pre-9/11, no one could ever have dreamed would be typed by a right-wing hatemonger: “We demand that all financial support to the Palestinian Authority should cease immediately. It is proven beyond any doubt that this has in the past been used to finance campaigns of Jihad terrorism against Jews in Israel and against Christians in territories under PA control. A public statement in support of Israel against Muslim aggression should be issues, and the money that has previously been awarded to Palestinians should be allocated partly to Israel’s defence [and] partly to establish a Global Infidel Defence Fund.”

In any other context, a reduction in right-wing anti-Semitism would be an unreservedly welcome development. But as we mourn the innocent victims of Breivik’s attacks, we understand that evil minds inevitably will channel their hate somewhere — if not toward innocent Jews, then toward innocent Muslims, or members of the political party that represents them.

The senselessness and tragedy of that hatred: this hasn’t changed, and never will — for all time to come.

The passage Kay quotes from Breivik’s book wasn’t written by Breivik. Here it is in full context:

There have been hundreds of attempts to forward and distribute demands (on behalf of the indigenous peoples of Europe) to Western European governments, political parties and media organisations since 1955. As with all attempts for dialogue, every single one of them has been rejected, ignored or ridiculed. One of these pleas was written by Fjordman in March 2007:

A European Declaration of Independence

We, the citizens of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Switzerland, Austria, Iceland, Malta and Ireland demand that the following steps are taken immediately:

We demand that our national governments should immediately and without delay pull their countries out of the European Union, which should be dismantled entirely. European citizens pay up to half of their salaries in direct or indirect taxes to their nation states. If these nations do not control their own borders nor their policies, and they don’t as long as the EU exists, those taxes are a scam. National taxes require national borders. If our national borders are not enforced, we have no obligation whatsoever to pay national taxes.
We demand that all documents regarding the Euro-Arab Dialogue and the creation of the Eurabian networks for “Euro-Mediterranean cooperation” between European countries and Arab countries since the 1970s, as documented by Bat Ye’or’s work on Eurabia, are published and explained in their full significance to the general public. Those chiefly responsible for this – one of the greatest betrayals in the history of Western civilisation – should stand trial, followed by a period of general de-Eurabification of our laws and regulations.
We demand that all financial support to the Palestinian Authority should cease immediately. It is proven beyond any doubt that this has in the past been used to finance campaigns of Jihad terrorism against Jews in Israel and against Christians in territories under PA control. A public statement in support of Israel against Muslim aggression should be issued, and the money that has previously been awarded to Palestinians should be allocated partly to Israel’s defence, partly to establish a Global Infidel Defence Fund with the stated goal of disseminating information about Muslim persecution of non-Muslims worldwide.

We demand that the ideology of multiculturalism should immediately be removed from all government policies and school curricula, and that the state should adopt a policy of supporting the continuation of the cultural heritage and traditions of the indigenous populations. Multiculturalism has never been about tolerance. It is an anti-Western hate ideology championed as an instrument for unilaterally dismantling European culture. As such, it is an evil ideology bent on an entire culture’s eradication, and we, the peoples of Europe, have not just a right, but a duty to resist it and an obligation to pass on our heritage to future generations.

We demand that all Muslim immigration in whatever form should be immediately and completely halted, and that our authorities take a long break from mass immigration in general until such a time when law and order has been re-established in our major cities. We will not accept any accusations of “racism.” Many European nations have for decades accepted more immigration into our countries in a shorter period of time than any other people has done peacefully in human history.

We are sick and tired of feeling like strangers in our own lands, of being mugged, raped, stabbed, harassed and even killed by violent gangs of Muslim thugs, yet being accused of “racism and xenophobia” by our media and intimidated by our own authorities to accept even more such immigration.

Europe is being targeted for deliberate colonisation (see demographic warfare) by Muslim states, and with coordinated efforts aimed at our Islamisation and the elimination of our freedoms. We are being subject to a foreign invasion, and aiding and abetting a foreign invasion in any way constitutes treason. If non-Europeans have the right to resist colonisation and desire self-determination then Europeans have that right, as well. And we intend to exercise it.

If these demands are not fully implemented, if the European Union isn’t dismantled, multiculturalism isn’t rejected and Muslim immigration isn’t stopped, we, the peoples of Europe, are left with no other choice than to conclude that our authorities have abandoned us, and that the taxes they collect are therefore unjust and that the laws that are passed without our consent are illegitimate. We will stop paying taxes and take the appropriate measures to protect our own security and ensure our national survival.

The above declaration was forwarded to many political parties of the so called “Multiculturalist Alliance” (MA100 political parties) and many “cultural Marxist/multiculturalist media organisations in 2007. As expected, no one ever bothered to comment on the demands as it was categorised as “right wing nonsense” and categorically ignored.

By the by, hate is one of Kay’s specialties. In his Oct 2010 article, A hate reaching back 1,400 years, Kay reviewed the many reasons, stretching back centuries, justifying “the jew”‘s hatred for muslims. And but of course, he hasn’t forgotten European crimes against “the jew” either:

It goes without saying that Muslim civilization has no monopoly on violent and systematic anti-Semitism: Spasms of murderous Jew-hatred were common all across Christendom during the 14 centuries of Islam’s existence.

85 thoughts on “Kay on Breivik on “The Jew””

  1. Norwegian Varg Vikernes comments on the Breivik shooting:



    Working for the Jews, are you Mr. Breivik, to unite all European right-wing extremists under your false banner? To make sure the focus on the Jewish enemy of Europe is moved to something else? Or maybe you don’t even know that you have been used by sinister Jews?

    So now not only Christians kill Muslims, and vice versa. Right wing extremists are supposed to kill left-wing extremists too – and vice versa I assume? Is that the plan? You did this to recruit and make even the right-wing extremists fight for the Jews?

    benefits from this? Israel does! The Jews do! None of our aggression will be directed at them – were it all should be directed. We will be fighting each other instead, whilst they move about in the background, out of the spotlight, and profit from our suffering, and in secret tighten the chains of slavery around our waists and ankles.

  2. Richard Cohen, enabled by the New York Times, Breivik and His Enablers:

    We’ve seen the movie. When Jared Loughner shot Representative Gabrielle Giffords this year in Tuscon, Arizona — after Sarah Palin placed rifle sights over Giffords’ constituency and Giffords herself predicted that “there are consequences to that” — the right went into overdrive to portray Loughner as a schizophrenic loner whose crazed universe owed nothing to those fanning hatred under the slogan of “Take America Back.” (That non-specific taking-back would of course be from Muslims and the likes of the liberal and Jewish Giffords.)

    Breivik is no loner. His violence was brewed in a specific European environment that shares characteristics with the specific American environment of Loughner: relative economic decline, a jobless recovery, middle-class anxiety and high levels of immigration serving as the backdrop for racist Islamophobia and use of the spurious specter of a “Muslim takeover” as a wedge political issue to channel frustrations rightward.

    . . .

    Breivik has many ideological fellow travelers on both sides of the Atlantic. Theirs is the poison in which he refined his murderous resentment. The enablers include Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, who compared the Koran to “Mein Kampf” on his way to 15.5 percent of the vote in the 2010 election; the surging Marine Le Pen in France, who uses Nazi analogies as she pours scorn on devout Muslims; far-rightist parties in Sweden and Denmark and Britain equating every problem with Muslim immigration; Republicans like former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Representative Peter King, who have found it politically opportune to target “creeping Shariah in the United States” at a time when the middle name of the president is Hussein; U.S. church pastors using their bully pulpits week after week to say America is a Christian nation under imminent threat from Islam.

    . . .

    Nothing, however, can excuse the widespread condoning of an anti-Muslim racism once reserved for the Jews of Europe. Not on the weekend when Amy Winehouse, a Jewish girl from East London whose artistry would once have been dismissed by a racist and murderous European right as degenerate “cosmopolitan” trash, died. A good way to remember her is finally to confront the latest iteration of a European bigotry that kills.

    Cohen turns a mass murder of Norwegians into an opportunity to vent his concerns for the interests of his own tribe. He dismisses the demographic swamping of indigenous Europeans as a “spurious specter” and buries Breivik’s grievances, substituting his own. In Cohen’s mind the real crime is European (and American) “racism” and bigotry. The real victims are jews and muslims.

  3. Hi,

    I am new here. I just have to refrain from puking after reading Cohen’s take on this week end’s tragedy. I can’t refrain from cringing when the J angle is exploited.
    We know who the PM is here.

  4. TIME cites Breivik’s book without hosting or linking it. It’s not that they don’t want you to read what Brevik wrote. They’d just prefer you read only the parts they present and their spin on the rest.

    Norway Terrorism: Anders Breivik’s Interview with Himself – TIME:

    His beliefs recall neo-Nazi politics that continue to linger throughout Europe, freshened with a new, 21st century toxicity.

    As part of the manifesto, Breivik interviews himself, offering a highly personal Q&A in which he throws himself admiring questions and responds to them with disturbing calm. There is a singular creepiness to a person who will conduct and publish a conversation with himself — but it’s perfectly in keeping with the horrors he would eventually cause.

    TIME then quotes a long section of Brevik’s Q&A, leaving out the portions where Breivik actually shares his thoughts on nazis.

    For instance TIME overlooked this bit:

    Q: Can the mainstream media prevent a continued right wing consolidation?

    A: They will continue with their old strategies, labelling everyone who opposes the Islamisation of Europe/European multiculturalism as Nazi’s and racists.

    Fjordman illustrates it well:

    “The thinking seems to be that if you scratch any random European there is usually a Nazi lurking underneath, just waiting to get out. There are only two possible versions of Europeans: the surrender-monkeys and the Nazis. If we are not the former, then it follows by logic that we have to be the latter. This attitude betrays an all-pervasive hatred that demonises absolutely anything Europeans do to protect their dignity and heritage. “

    Breivik and Fjordman might not know, and upon being informed would probably refuse to believe it, but what they’ve noticed is a characteristically jewish pattern of thought.

  5. Q&A is used everywhere from selling products to customer support and so on.

    Q&A is not “having a conversation with yourself” as TIME ridiculously claims. It is answering potential questions that people will have when deciding whether to buy your products, trying to find help on a tech issue or in Anders case, a potential convert who is trying to make sense about what is going on.

  6. The agency recruits Nordic Aryan as patsy for it’s cause. What he represents is the epitome of the “elite’s nemesis”. Doesn’t Sirhan Sirhan come to mind?

  7. Don’t let Breivik poison our politics, that’s Jonathan Kay’s job:

    In his dark, deluded imagination, Norwegian killer Anders Breivik believed that his hideous shooting rampage on Friday would set in motion a military struggle that would cleanse his continent of Muslims. He accomplished the opposite: From now on, every pundit or activist who delivers even the mildest and most well-informed critique of multiculturalism and militant Islam will be handicapped by the taint of Mr. Breivik’s odious actions.

    The effect will be felt in the security apparatus of Western nations, as well: Islamist radicalism and murderous right-wing bigotry are both life-threatening challenges to open societies such as Norway.

    . . .

    Mr. Breivik’s evil cannot be undone. But by dismissing his twisted logic for the poisonous nonsense it is, we can act to ensure it does not metastasize into the marketplace of ideas.

    Judging by the contents of his book, Breivik was pro-European, pro-nationalist, anti-immigration and anti-multicult, in addition to opposing Islam. As anyone who shares any subset of these positions knows, it’s not necessary to kill anyone in order to find yourself the target of poisonous vilification. All you have to do is express your beliefs and the nearest Jonathan Kay will spring forth to pathologize and demonize you for your “murderous right-wing bigotry”. As noted above, Breivik was also well aware of this.

    A useful counterpoint to the Kay-like critics of Breivik’s beliefs, especially the ones who make comparisons to Timothy McVeigh, was brought up by a commenter at Mangans:

    I notice that the actions of Baruch Goldstein did not deal a fatal blow to Jewish nationalism. They did not deal even a minor blow to it. Israel did not renounce its frankly racist policies in reaction to that atrocity. It might be instructive to ponder the differences and simlarities between that case and this one.

    Breivik and the Vienna School that inspired him are linked and united by support for jews and jewish nationalism. They recognize as anti-jewish any notion that Israel must adopt multiculturalism or be an “open society”. Western media has so far hardly explored this aspect of the Breivik story, much less criticized it. For example, the New York Times didn’t mention jews or Israel in their “spotlight”: Killings in Norway Spotlight Anti-Muslim Thought in U.S.. Like Jonathan Kay and Richard Cohen their purpose is not to report facts so much as it is to poison “our” politics.

  8. Norway killer espoused right-wing philosophy, JTA – Jewish & Israel News.

    While the mainstream media goes about the business of mostly ignoring “the J angle”, directing attention and energy instead to pathologizing and demonizing White opposition to immigration and multiculturalism, JTA is aimed at a jewish audience and focuses directly and exclusively on “the J angle”. Here jewish support for jewish nationalism can be presented side-by-side with jewish hostility toward European nationalism without creating any guilt or cognitive dissonance. Some people were killed in Norway. That’s as good a reason as any to ponder the quintessential jewish question – what does it mean for the jews?

    In the discussion they matter-of-factly discuss Breivik’s pro-jew/anti-“nazi” White nationalism, and note how it fits within a larger trend.

    European right-populist parties increasingly have been waving the flag of friendship with Israel, as well as expressing vehement opposition to Europe’s multicultural society.

    The jews are not fooled however. Some see European nationalist obeisance to jews and jewish nationalism as a “new, great danger”.

    The words of right-wing populist politicians “are dangerous, it allows them to radicalize,” Hajo Funke, an expert on right-wing extremism in Europe and the Holocaust at Touro College Berlin and the Free University Berlin, told JTA in a phone interview.

    “It is a tactical viewpoint of the rising populist right-wing to use this kind of identification, or forced identification with Israel, to be accepted,” he said. “They say, ‘Our enemies are not any more the Jew … the real enemy as you can see all over the world is Islam, and not only Islam, but the Islamic person.’ This is the new, great danger.”

    Stephan Kramer, general secretary of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, told JTA that “in the recent years we have witnessed the phenomenon of radical rightists proclaiming their sympathy for Jews and their support for Israel, also in Germany,” adding that “In many cases, it is clear that this is no more than a PR maneuver to create an air of respectability.”

  9. The jews are not fooled however.

    This highlights a point which, when emphasized, should separate the jewish, cryptic jewish, and hopelessly jew-compromised members of these anti-jihad movements from the merely jew-unwise. Namely, have you f#ckers no pride?

    “If it should please your lordship, we, your humble servants respectfully beg that, with due consideration of our unconditional devotion to all jewish causes, your generous spirit shall vouchsafe to us the right to live in a nation of our own (where, of course, your tribe shall always be most welcome, to enjoy the droit de seigneur)”

    “Hmm let’s think about it. On the one hand, you help us deal with Muslims, but on the other hand, we kind of like that you have no ability to radicalize (i.e. procure for yourselves what we have for Israel). Then, this may just be a sneaky tactic: we doubt you really care about us in your hearts, and until further proof we deny your request, with no guarantees.”

    “Oh thank you your honor, we will continue to stand by Israel no matter what!”

  10. Tan,

    This “group” is the only one that’s poisoning our lives regardless of which creed we belong to.

    Pathological paranoia is what drives them, they have hegemony & are deathly afraid of losing it.

    They ” bought” themselves a soldier to serve their cause, it’s obvious. He was led to believe
    Muslems were the greatest threat when in fact they’re just a symptom. The ones with power are the engineers behind this.

    The “banner” displayed by many at the youth camp was the clincher!

    Breivnik was led astray in believing that “they” would work in concert with him for the good of his cause. They ONLY care about a favorable outcome for them, and ONLY them. He turned out to be the “perfect” patsy.

    I’d advise any one to steer clear from their deadly shenanigans.

  11. Despite his pro-Israel and pro-Jewish views, Breivik seemed to have entertained some dangerous thoughts regarding Jews that would have likely ultimately repelled Jews and made them suspicious no matter how pro-Israel/Jews he was.

    From his manifesto:


    “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.”

    “In any case; educate yourself and learn the difference. Today’s conservatives and wantto-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.”

    A lot of ex-neocon, “Jew-critical” right wingers have had similar thoughts and views on the Jewish issue right before turning away from neoconservatism and towards a more “Jew-critical” stance. Many Jews instinctively feel that noticing and thinking certain patterns and things like Breivik does above is a huge warning sign that no amount of pro-Israel/Jew feeling can absolve.

  12. To just add to my previous comment, it’s a huge warning sign to many Jews because for them it means either that the person with such views may be a secret anti-Semite despite ostensibly strong pro-Israel/Jews views, or that having noticed certain patterns and things already, he may be on the cusp of turning “Jew-critical”.

  13. Jews will never abide someone who says that 75% of international Jewry are “nation-wrecking”, “disloyal” or that “The US…with more than 6 million Jews…actually has a considerable Jewish problem” no matter how supportive of Israel and Jews he claims to be.

    To be on the Jews’ good side, you can’t ever notice them, count them, etc. And even then, you’re never completely on their good side and your status can change in an instant with one utterance.

  14. ” To be on the Jews’ good side, you can’t ever notice them, count them, etc. And even then, you’re never completely on their good side and your status can change in an instant with one utterance.”

    I would tend to agree with you. The way I see it is that we are a liability.

  15. What’s really gag worthy about articles like Kay’s is that he pretends there’s no downside to the holocaust he and his ilk are waging against white people. No racist mass rape, no ethnic cleansing, no mass murder, none of the 1.5 million + black-on-white assaults in America each year are motivated by racial hatred, etc. He and his ilk are bigger terrorists and murderers than Breivik could ever hope to be, a million times bigger.

  16. ” He and his ilk are bigger terrorists and murderers than Breivik could ever hope to be, a million times bigger.”

    I would have to agree with you on that one. It’s so obvious, and that fact alone makes it utterly disgusting, because he & his ilk are going about it within the framework of existing laws.

  17. Norway Terror Accused Breivik on Israel and ‘the Jewish Question’ – Global Spin, Tony Karon, TIME.com:

    There was a time when a blond, blue-eyed nationalist looking to violently rid Europe of its “alien” immigrant population could be reliably assumed to hate Jews. It’s no longer quite that simple.

    . . .

    Even then, it’s worth remembering that the blood spilled by the Crusaders was both Muslim and Jewish.

    . . .

    Clearly, though, Breivik confines his philo-Semitism to Zionists, who he sees as fellow conservative nationalists in the war against Islam. As for the rest, adherents of multiculturalism, their fate should be the same as any other “traitors” to his Judeo-Christian Crusade.

    . . .

    The very reason that the majority of American Jews embrace multiculturalism, of course, is because they are its beneficiaries. Only the victory of American multiculturalism over American anti-Semitism made the United States safe for Jews. And, as Breivik himself tacitly admits, the reason there’s a taboo in the European mainstream on advocating open hostility to immigrants is precisely because the Holocaust taught the continent a brutal lesson in the horrific consequences that can flow from demonizing the “other”.

    Similarly, the revulsion prompted by Breivik’s acts of terrorism is hardly likely to rally Western citizenry behind his Crusade — any more successfully than Bin Laden’s terrorism managed to rally the Muslim world to war against the West. Breivik and Bin Laden may seem like polar opposites, but in the end they’re reading off the same “clash of cultures” script. It’s a script in which, Breivik acknowledges, the majority of Jews — and of Europeans — want no part.

    Another jew who doesn’t believe in the mythical judeo-Christian alliance, who sees himself and the majority of his tribe as having more in common with immigrant muslims.

  18. Here’s a similar evaluation of jew-first European nationalism as found in the JTA article linked above. It reaches the same conclusion, though it is stated more crudely and with more overt anti-European hostility.

    Breivik, the anti-Zionist, Liam Hoare, Jewish Journal:

    Thus it seems evident that any far-right support in Europe for the State of Israel does not appear to be borne out of a newly-discovered fondness for the Jewish people. (Indeed, in the case of [British National Party Nick] Griffin, he has spoken previously in favour of mono-ethnic states – Israel is presumably someplace for British Jews to go at such a time as when the far-right resumes the usual animosities towards them). Rather, they hope that, in the current climate of increased hostility between Israelis and Palestinians and the lurch to the right in domestic Israeli politics, they can forge some kind of dirty alliance in common cause against Islam and the Muslims of Europe.

    Just last month for example, German-Swedish neo-Nazi sympathiser and fundraiser Patrik Brinkmann met with Likud MK Ayoub Kara, the former reaching out in order to “establish a unified force to defend our basic Christian-Jewish values”. In this instance, the JTA reports that Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman wrote to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to demand that Kara be prevented from making further trips abroad, with Lieberman accusing Kara of meeting with neo-Nazis and causing damage to Israel’s image.

    Need it be said that this is entirely the correct response to such an approach. Israel’s standing in the world can only be diminished by rogue Israeli lawmakers attempting to make hay out of the European far-right’s temporary suspension of its usual pogrom. Any attempts at concord must therefore be rejected, for undoubtedly as Breivik as shown so bloodily, the far-right’s turn towards Israel is potentially as detrimental and as catastrophic for Jews as the movement’s previous overt anti-Semitism, which Israelis and their Friends alike has merely been substituted for a campaign against the Muslims of Europe.

    Another jewish voice opposed to any “dirty alliance” between jewish and European nationalists.

  19. Web of evil, Cover Story, Jewish Journal:

    These people may think they have an ally in the Jews and Israel. They think they have our back. But our job is to inform them, loudly and clearly, that they don’t. The Jewish reaction to all this should be this: Take your hate elsewhere. To paraphrase our prophet Groucho Marx, we don’t want to be part of any club like this that would have us as a member.

    But they’ll take our arms and money.

    “They use Israel because they are anti-Semitic enough to believe that Jews control things.”“”

    This explains why US political leaders pay homage to AIPAC.

    The ironies and fallacies of recruiting Jews to this cause are many.

    The hatred is partly a reaction to radical Islamic violence and increased Muslim population in Europe.

    It is also, as Ravi Shankar, executive editor of the New India Express, has pointed out, a kind of Jew hatred without Jews — an extension, I suppose, of the true meaning of “anti-Semite.”

    “Europe’s Muslim population of 15 million will become 30 million by 2015, while Europeans will shrink by 4 per cent,” Shankar writes at al-Arabiya.com. “Princeton academic and Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis famously said, ‘Europe will be Islamic by the end of the century.’ 
If Friday’s bombings in Oslo [are] a dark harbinger of troubled times, soon Muslims will be the new Jews of Europe. For all the old Jews are dead: murdered by fellow Europeans …

    “Now the reverse is happening in Europe. It is the presence of Muslims in Europe that is the source of social panic and anger. The fear of being overwhelmed and alienated in their own country by outsiders who they think will breed terrorists. All this makes a fertile breeding ground for anti-Islamic neo-Nazism.”

    And in this argument lies yet another fallacy, that Israel is against Arabs.

    Another resounding rejection of the mythical judeo-Christian alliance.

  20. Suspect admired bloggers who believe Europe is drowning in Muslims, CNN.com:

    The blogs and websites Breivik enthused about were pro-American and pro-Israel, extremely hostile to Islam and despairing that the European political elite would ever see the error of its liberal multicultural outlook.

    Another mainstream report shining a spotlight on the people Breivik cites as influential on his thinking – Gates of Vienna, Fjordman, Jihad Watch, Brussels Journal, TheReligionofPeace and Atlas Shrugs – with scant notice paid to their main point of consensus: unequivocal support for jews in general and for jewish nationalism.

  21. While most of the mainstream steers clear of the jew/nazi portion of Breivik’s thinking, Jonathan Kay continues to hype it, targeting the nazis he imagines contaminate society.

    Jonathan Kay on sex and slaughter: How Breivik’s STD-obsessed manifesto echoes Mein Kampf:

    When Adolf Hitler moved to Vienna as a teenager in 1905, he was not an anti-Semite. Or at least, so he reports in the opening chapters of Mein Kampf: “In the Jew, I still saw a man who was [merely] of a different religion, and, therefore, on grounds of human tolerance, I was against the idea that he should be attacked because he had a different faith.”

    But this attitude changed when Hitler had a chance to observe Vienna’s Jews, who were more distinct in their dress and habits that the Europeanized Jews of Linz. Hitler claimed that these Jews smelled bad, and seemed un-Germanic in their appearance. In time, he became convinced that Jews were inveterately foul and diseased — a metaphor for their effect on culture and politics. “Here was a pestilence, a moral pestilence, with which the public was being infected. It was worse than the black plague.”

    In these few words, plucked from Hitler’s recollections of teenage life, we can glimpse the three delusions that would guide his genocidal project more than three decades later: (1) That the germ theory of disease can be applied to whole societies as well as to individual bodies; (2) That Jews are a deadly pathogen afflicting humanity; and (3) That he’d been ordained by Fate to save human civilization in exterminating this pathogen.

    Millions of pre-war Europeans were ignorant enough to believe the first delusion, and hateful enough to believe the second. It was Hitler’s embrace of the third delusion, which is much more rare, that made him a malignant force in European history.

    This delusionary triumvirate — ignorance, hate, megalomania — is the calling card of all mass murderers and dark prophets who seek to rid society of some imagined contaminant — whether the targeted group is Jews, gays, blacks, “infidels,” Muslims, kulaks, feminists, or the mentally ill.

    It is a terrible irony that the ultimate evil can originate with men who believe they were delivering the world from evil. But that is the way the fanatic’s mind work. Purity and abomination are two sides of the same coin.

    Men who believe they can deliver the world from evil.

  22. “It is a terrible irony”

    The biggest irony is Hitler only got around 4% of the vote in 1928 but nearly 40% in 1932. A possible explanation for this difference is it was caused by the reaction to Jewish Bolsheviks deliberately starving six million Ukrainians to death in 1931-32 as revenge for past pogroms.

    Jews in the Soviet Union brought Hitler to power in Germany.

  23. Chechar,

    Is Charles Johnson correct to say Gates of Vienna links to your blog on its sidebar?

  24. The Holodomor taught the kulaks a brutal lesson in the horrific consequences that can flow from being demonized by the “other”.

  25. It’s jews speaking to jews in this article, so once again support for jewish identity/nationalism is coupled with hostility toward European identity/nationalism.

    Norway’s Jews Mourn and Worry About Future:

    Yet even as they mourn along with their fellow countrymen, some Jews here are quietly expressing concern that the attack by a right-wing xenophobe who apparently sympathized with Israel may further mute pro-Israel voices in Norway, where anti-Zionist sentiment already runs strong.

    . . .

    If the Norwegian public is looking for a larger villain than Breivik, Jews here are worried that Zionism and pro-Israel organizations may be singled out.

    “Can the average Norwegian accept that this is the one random act of one confused ethnic Norwegian?” Ring asked. “What I’m worried about is that in the Norwegian mind it will slowly attach an antagonism to Israel.”

    Joakim Plavnik, a young Norwegian Jew who works in the financial sector, said he’s already worried by news reports that have focused on the seemingly pro-Zionist parts of Breivik’s writings.

    “That can potentially have very negative ramifications toward the small, vulnerable Jewish community,” Plavnik said. But, he added, “We can’t be paralyzed by that fear.”

    Rachel Suissa runs the Center Against Antisemitism, a pro-Israel group that counts about 23,000 supporters and 10,000 subscribers to a quarterly journal. She said the Norwegian government’s general pro-Palestinian stance – Norway’s foreign minister, Jonas Gahr Store, recently said that Oslo soon would announce its support for an independent Palestinian state – makes Zionism difficult to promote here.

    “Anyone who dares support Israel is demonized,” said Suissa, a professor of medical chemistry. “The Jews need to know that they have a lot of friends in Norway, but the Norwegian politicians are not our friends.”

    Talking about demonization…

    Norway, like practically every country in Europe, has a spotty history when it comes to the Jews.

    Jews were first allowed into Norway after the Inquisition, but were banned from 1687 to 1851. The first synagogue in Oslo was established in 1892. Some 800 Jews were killed during the Nazi occupation of the country, and many who fled to seek asylum in Sweden did not return after the war.

    Today, most of the country’s Jews live in Oslo, though smaller congregations do exist in other cities, like Trondheim, a seven-hour drive north.

    David Katzenelson, an Israeli transplant who has lived in Norway for 15 years, said Norway is not known as a particularly hospitable place for Jews. A high school math and science teacher who also runs the small Society for Progressive Judaism here, Katzenelson said he has had a swastika spray-painted on his mailbox and that Jewish students of his have been afraid to publicly disclose their faith.

    “There’s a feeling in the society that you have to be nice to everyone who’s in the room – and since Jews are generally a very small group who are usually not in the room, you’re allowed to speak nasty about them because that doesn’t discriminate against anyone present,” he said. “That can develop into very ugly things.”

    Europe is becoming an increasingly inhospitable place for Europeans, which has alot to do with the demonization of Europeans.

  26. The cherry on top comes from one of Breivik’s favored “cultural conservative” jews:

    While many Norwegian Jews interviewed by JTA were quick to say now is the time for grief and that soul searching should be put off for later, Rabbi Shaul Wilhelm, who runs the 7-year-old Chabad-Lubavitch center in Oslo, said the way to prove Breivik and his ideology wrong is to embrace tolerance.

    “What we should try to learn from all this is that multiculturalism isn’t just a thesis and a concept,” he said. “That would be the greatest revenge against this murderer and against people of his ilk: that we can actually practice tolerance in a very real way.”

  27. Yet another jew pushing an anti-White narrative at the National Post, again.

    Anne Applebaum: What the Norwegian killer and U.S. birthers have in common | Full Comment | National Post:

    Anne Applebaum opens by observing that the mainstream media has settled on the “familiar narrative of white racism and anti-Islamic fanaticism”. But….

    Aren’t we missing the point once again? Breivik was not, in fact, a killer of immigrants or Muslims. He was a killer of Norwegians. The particular set of obsessions that led him to madness and then to mass murder were not merely racist. They also sprang from an insane conviction that his own government was illegitimate.

    Nothing new here. Applebaum is just trying to add a new term of abuse to the same old anti-White narrative, extending the demonization of European “nazis” to American “nazis”.

    In contemporary America, we also have people who are — and I am inventing this word here — illegitimists: They believe that the president of the United States is illegitimately elected, or that the country is ruled by a cabal that is in turn controlled by some other sinister force or forces.

    Illegitimist, birther, racist – different perjoratives for Whites who have noticed that their government does not represent their best interests.

    More recently, right-wing illegitimism has taken the form of birtherism. The attempt to prove that Barack Obama isn’t American-born was, at base, an attempt to prove that he is illegitimate and that he therefore deserves to be removed from power — somehow. Birtherism is also linked to other forms of illegitimism, such as the belief that Obama is a Muslim, and is thus controlled by international jihadists, or the belief that he is “Kenyan” and thus motivated by anti-colonial hatred of white people in general and Americans in particular. It is not accidental that the one note of sympathy for Breivik in the U.S. media came from the lips of birtherist and illegitimist Glenn Beck, who helpfully compared the young Norwegians murdered by Breivik to “Hitler Youth.” Presumably if they are Hitler Youth, then they deserved to die?

    That’s right. That’s presumably what we’d be hearing from jewish pundits and the jewish media if that happened. We know the rationale they’d deploy: Multiculturalism and immigration and tolerance and open societies must be defended from the evil “racists”.

    The premise behind all mainstream contemporary politics is that extremism in support of nationalism for jews and multiculturalism for Whites is no vice. Say otherwise and you’re ejected from the mainstream. Likewise extremism against nationalist Whites in defense of jews and multiculturalism is no vice. That kind of view can be found everywhere in the mainstream. Beck knows this is the political climate just as well as Obama does. What makes jews uncomfortable with Beck is that his over-the-top love for jews makes the anti-White standard a little too obvious.

  28. ouhttp://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/07/27/3088729/foxman-be-wary-of-anti-muslim-israel-lovers

  29. Debbie Schlussel equates Norwegians now to Nazis then.

    Karma?: Norway Camp Breivik Shot Up Celebrated HAMAS, Jew-Hatred:

    Funny how Glenn Beck has come under attack for comparing the camp to a Hitler Youth camp. Based on these pics, seems like he’s spot on, though he should have added, HAMAS Youth camp, too. As we all know, Nazis boycotted Jews and were Jew-killers. And these hateful, privileged brats at the camp boycotted Jews and sided with Jew-killers. I don’t condone violent massacres on innocent civilians, and I condemn what Breivik did. He is a terrorist just like the 9/11 hijackers, Hezbollah, HAMAS, and Nidal Malik Hasan. But what goes around comes around. You support terrorists against innocent civilians in Israel, then you get attacked by terrorists who are upset with your support.

    For me, this is like Alien v. Predator. I’m not sad for either side. And I make no apologies for it. Now these kids’ families know what it feels like to be victims of the Islamic terrorists whose Judenrein boycotts and terrorist flotillas against Israel they support. We don’t live in a vacuum. I can’t feel sorry for those who support my would-be assassins. And I don’t get too upset when they face the karma that is their fate. HAMAS isn’t just against Israel, it’s against all Jews . . . and all Christians. Just ask the Christians who’ve had to flee Gaza for their lives. And read the HAMAS charter. I’ll bet that’s something these spoiled airheaded kids with their Boycott Israel signs and HAMAS flotilla re-enactment games never did.

    Frankly, the HAMAS charter and HAMAS’ behavior, all of which these kids at the Norwegian HAMAS youth camp cheered on, is a lot more scary than the screed and deeds of Breivik.

    My late grandfather, a Holocaust survivor, never shed a tear for dead Nazis. My late father, a Vietnam era Army veteran, never shed a tear for those who supported the killing of Americans and Jews. And I shed no tears for these HAMASnik campers with a Scandinavian dialect. Perpetrators are not victims. Sorry. HAMAS collaborators don’t get my pity. They never will.

  30. Thanks for the link Anon.

    Foxman: Be wary of anti-Muslim Israel lovers | JTA – Jewish & Israel News:

    Foxman e-mailed his comments to JTA in the wake of reports that Anders Behrin Breivik, the alleged gunman in last week’s massacre that killed 76 in Norway, counseled an anti-Muslim alliance between white Europeans and Israel.

    “Jews, Israelis and supporters of Israel must beware, must be careful, and cannot ignore or embrace those bigots who so much hate Muslims and Islam that they pretend to support Israel, Zionism and even Jews,’ Foxman said. “Likewise, those bigots and haters cannot immunize themselves by pretending to embrace Israel. We need to be very clear, as Jews and Israelis, that we separate ourselves from this kind of hatred, stereotyping and scapegoating. The Norway killer’s ramblings are a reminder that we must always be wary of those whose love for the Jewish people is born out of hatred of Muslims or Arabs.”

  31. Another take on the anti-White narrative form the director of the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security at Duke University.

    It’s time to confront the ‘counterjihadists’, David Schanzer, The Globe and Mail:

    While it’s true the “counterjihadists” aren’t calling for violence as a means to further their goals, there can be little doubt, as terrorism expert Marc Sageman has said, that “their writings are the infrastructure from which Breivik emerged.”

    Clash-of-civilization thinking has deeply penetrated American public opinion.

    . . .

    While these critics of Islam are not overtly advocating violence, they’re advancing the dangerous idea that Islam is a threat to America and traditional values. Mainstream endorsement of these ideas can be latched on to by an angry, politicized individual with a delusional view that he can make a difference by taking matters into his own hands. The vitriolic thinking that inspired Mr. Breivik is present in America.

    So, what’s to be done?

    • Security officials must take this threat seriously. Resources must be dedicated to the surveillance and infiltration of radical anti-Islamic groups that have expressed a credible potential for violence.

    • Political leaders need to speak out forcefully against anti-Islamic sentiment. They should explain that the conflict is with radical extremists who distort religion to justify violence, not with the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims.

    In other words, Schanzer recommends more of what is already being done – minimizing and pathologizing the political interests of the indigenous White population, and repressing those who attempt to pursue those interests. In contrast, Schanzer minimizes the threat from muslims. In an interview given before the Breivik attacks this contrast is even more clear.

    Q & A with David Schanzer | The Chronicle, 22 March 2011:

    TC: What is the current state of homegrown radicalization in the United States?

    DS: In our most recent study, the most recent data shows 161 Muslim Americans who have either engaged in terrorist acts, been arrested in terrorist charges or joined an armed fighting group. That’s 15 or 16 a year since 9/11 who have gone down the path towards violence. That’s not an insignificant amount, but it’s not a widespread or an overwhelming social phenomenon. During that same time period, there have been 150,000 murders and 13 million violent crimes. The [violence] from the 161 has accounted for 37 deaths in the United States and 62 individuals wounded since 9/11. I don’t dismiss that [domestic Islamic radicalization] is a serious problem, but I think you have to put it in some sort of context.

    Schanzer confines his attention to muslim terrorism. He fails to consider the muslim contribution to the murders and violent crime statistics he cites, and the demographic threat mass immigration can pose to the security of any country’s indigenous population isn’t even on his radar. With “experts” like Schanzer working in “Homeland Security”, we don’t need enemies.

  32. When populism kills, Anna Ekstrom (a journalist based in Sweden), Haaretz. Using Breivik’s book as a jumping off point, Ekstrom broadens her critique to populists (by which she means European nationalists):

    Likewise, members of the Sweden Democrat party and other populists express disappointment with the “ultra-liberal establishment Jews,” and Jews who protect “their” nation while they seek to undermine “ours” via their support for the ruling elites, especially politicians and the media. In the populist ideological drama, these elites are the primary enemies. Some populist sympathizers go as far as to openly call for punishing politicians, journalists and other “traitors.” As we know, Breivik went from words to action.

    Elites and Jews have long been interconnected in European xenophobic and racist theory. Hence, Western Europe’s populists, who like to portray themselves as defending Jews from “Muslims,” easily drift back to anti-Semitism while claiming to be pro-Zionist. So does Breivik. But the “Israel” that he and other populists idolize is the same monoethnic, monocultural, anti-Muslim fighting machine that Islamists demonize.

    To Ekstrom, who has been living amongst Europeans for who knows how long, the concerns of European nationalists are just so much drama and crazy theory. Elite “establishment” jews like herself don’t really exist.

    Ekstrom’s concerns for her nation are deadly serious however. To her European nationalism is comparable to Islamism – both pose a threat to her nation. My emphasis:

    There are many similarities between populism and Islamism. Since its origins in the 1920s, Islamist ideologues have adopted elements from Islam as well as from pre- or non-Islamic Arab and Iranian culture in order to forge a vaster concept of a nation than platforms such as Arab nationalism would enable. The Muslim Brotherhood and others use the term “the Islamic nation.” Islamism includes anti-Christian cultural racism and anti-Semitism on par with Nazi theory, with the addition of resistance to “Holocaust religion.” Just as populism is hostile to non-populist members of its own nation, Islamism is hostile to non-Islamist Muslims.

    One major difference between Islamism and populism is that the former is pan-nationalist while ethnic purity theory is nationalist in the traditional sense. However, European populists from different countries are cooperating with each other, and Islamism can be used to reinforce both Iranian and Arab nationalism. For these reasons I would say that Islamism is primarily a nationalist ideology, as distinct from Islam, Arab culture and Iranian culture as populism is from European culture at large.

    Israel has thus become a central symbol in the tense relationship between two racism-based nationalisms. Real Israel, at the geographic center of what threatens to become a clash of neo-barbarisms, is both more multicultural than many other societies and has its own combination of nationalisms based on religious and ethnic identities.

  33. The Norway killer’s ramblings are a reminder that we must always be wary of those whose love for the Jewish people is born out of hatred of Muslims or Arabs.””

    We must always be wary of jewish people whose support for Muslims and Arabs is born out of hatred and fear of White people.

  34. Vaguely related:

    GoV is totally jumping the shark. In explaining why they aren’t re-enabling comments, they say “Except this wasn’t an accident: the monster fingered those he wanted destroyed and the mainstream media is simply carrying out his orders.” They’re saying Breivik’s target was the counterjihadist right. This is utter complete nonsense. Regardless of one’s position on the legitimacy of violence in general or in this particular case, it is blatantly obvious to anyone honest with themselves who Breivik’s enemy was and what motivated him to do what he did and why. The only questions (such as they are) about the matter are 1) whether it was moral, 2) whether it was effective, 3) what the consequences will be. To claim to be the true victims of this is the whiniest man-bitch behavior I have seen in a long long time.

    They close with:

    “To strangers who’ve arrived here out of breath, pick and shovel in hand to dig through our material looking for ways to blame others — and good luck with that — you have almost ten thousand essays through which you must wade. Given that you arrive as judge and jury rather than someone attempting to understand, I’m sure you’ll find whatever it is you need to believe about us.”

    My God, the SNARK. Yes, THAT will certainly win friends and influence people. I’ve done my share of arguing with hardcore leftists who’ll deny the sky is blue if it means agreeing with a conservative, but even at my worst I wasn’t this determined to cut off my own nose for sheer spite. Followed by:

    “Again, to our regular readers and commenters: at the moment, the sheer level of hits on our site meter (frequently running at ten times their usual rate) dictates the wisdom of closing GoV comments for the interim. When our traffic drops back close to its usual modest number of readers, then we’ll re-open the comments section.”

    Yes, that’s right, to the brave counterjihadists of GoV, PUBLICITY IS BAD. People interested in what they have to say is bad. A chance to present ideas to those who have not considered them and did not believe said ideas could motivate anyone to do anything is bad. They want to go back to the good old days when no one paid attention to them.

    I’m utterly, thoroughly disgusted.

  35. Very well said Rollory.

    I agree.

    What is the point to do all this research, writing and discussion if you are going to back down the moment you get the world attention.

  36. Obviously they do not believe in the idea of never letting a crisis go to waste.

    They want things to settle down first and then go back to their regular scheduled discussion in their echo chambers.

  37. Another perspective. The power of Jewish anti-Nordic race-hatred is strong with this one:


    Yeah, I’m all broke up about the little intramural tragedy at their little camp, full of Aryan youth planning to help more Jooooooos die. You sow the wind, you reap the whirlwind.

    Karma is a bitch, beeeyotches.

    PS: Another bit of remembering–Nowegian Deputy Foreign Minister Johansen is first Western diplomat to recognize genocidal Joooooo-hating Hamas regime, 2007.

  38. Oh, and that was from Jewish Odysseus.

    Hat tip to Pamela Gellar, who reminds us:

    Utoya camp was not Islamist but it WAS something not much more wholesome (by our standards, at any rate).

    It was a summer indoctrination camp run by Norway’s ruling Labor Party for up-and-coming children of the ruling elite.

    Glen Beck was not far off when he compared it to the Hitlerjugend or Young Pioneers.

  39. Another jewish pundit who takes Breivik’s attack on genocidal immigration and multiculturalism personally.

    The most chilling words Breivik uttered, Rick Salutin:

    Rage and hate do terrible deeds but they may falter. An idea that you know with certainty is true can be put into action no matter what your state of mind or feelings. You might even have tears in your eyes as you shoot.

    So the Nazis depended on dull-minded bureaucrats to implement their final solution for Jews. They weren’t seething with hate or emotion. It doesn’t matter whether the ideology is religious, anti-religious, left or right. The film clip from The Town that U.S. Republicans in Congress are showing each other to stiffen their resolve about killing off services that people need has the same quality.

    What ideology lacks is humility. You might have thought a thing through as best you can but what makes you sure you haven’t missed something, or even that a human mind is capable of solving this problem? And religion is no answer. You can believe you have the word of God to guide you but how do you know you’ve understood or, very often, even translated it properly? Non-ideologues do the best they can to reach a decision, then proceed with extreme caution.

    Another chilling phrase comes in his manifesto: “This does not mean that I oppose diversity. But appreciating diversity does not mean that you support genocide of your own culture and people.” It has an odd touch of the political correctness he deplores. It’s chilling because it’s so close to what respectable people keep repeating.

    Salutin lacks the humility to apply his critique to his own ideology. Uppity Whites talking about genocide gives him chills. That’s his people’s ideological turf!

    • We don’t have immigration because of a belief in multiculturalism. We have it due to workforce needs, a declining birth rate and an aging population. None of that will go away. Arguing over multiculturalism is a murky sideshow.

    • It’s murky because there are no clear definitions of multiculturalism or mainstream. Multiculti today is mostly code for Muslim and a clutch of scary stereotypes. As for mainstream, 50 years ago, this was a “Christian society.” The scary outsiders were Jews. Now it’s Judeo-Christian and Muslims are the threat. In 50 years it may be Judeo-Muslim-Christian with Hindus to fear. Or they’ll be added too and eventually it will all get silly. As for mainstream values, gender equality is often cited. But women weren’t legal persons here 80 years ago. Fifty years ago there were still no women in cabinet. Thirty years ago the mere mention of abuse in Parliament led to male hilarity. Mainstream values are up for grabs, otherwise we’d still have gender inequity and official anti-Semitism.

    • Diversity equals transformation. A more uniform society may mean a bit more cultural stability but we’ve got diversity due to immigration, so forget stability. Anyway, what’s uniform? Ukrainian and Italian used to be considered too foreign and Jewish was positively exotic. Now they (including me) are Us and Muslims are Them. Do you think that earlier batch just assimilated? They didn’t. Jews transformed American culture and American culture transformed Jews. Culture (or “civilization”) is an uncontrollable crapshoot. You can be optimistic or sour or just decide to deal with it. The latter sounds good to me.

    As with the other pundits cited above, Salutin clearly sympathizes and identifies more strongly with alien, immigrant muslims than with indigenous Europeans.

  40. Norway attacks spotlight far-right outreach to Jews, Israel, Uriel Heilman, Jewish Journal:

    Jewish leaders in Europe, who in recent days have taken pains to distance themselves from Breivik’s proto-Zionism, long have warned that even far rightists who do not espouse anti-Semitism are dangerous for the Jews.

    Far rightists “want a Sweden for the Swedes, France for the French and Jews to Israel,” Serge Cwajgenbaum, secretary general of the European Jewish Congress, told JTA last October.

    Those uppity Europeans. How dare they want for their people what jews have in Israel? Chilling.

  41. Now they (including me) are Us and Muslims are Them.

    Actually, no, many of us do NOT include you.

    The anti-jihadists wing of the far right includes you but since Breivik, they are losing credibility due to their running for the hills along with their so called “jewish conservative” allies.

  42. Yeah, I’m all broke up about the little intramural tragedy at their little camp, full of Aryan youth planning to help more Jooooooos die. You sow the wind, you reap the whirlwind.

    Karma is a bitch, beeeyotches.

    PS: Another bit of remembering–Nowegian Deputy Foreign Minister Johansen is first Western diplomat to recognize genocidal Joooooo-hating Hamas regime, 2007.

    Larry Auster has a similar attitude:

    “68 Norwegian terror supporters killed by terrorist”


  43. Salutin: “So the Nazis depended on dull-minded bureaucrats to implement their final solution for Jews. They weren’t seething with hate or emotion.”

    That is the old Jewish claim that the German administration used to meticulously and shamelessly document every atrocity they committed against Jews. It is also claimed by the likes of Salutin that the Germans killed a few million Jews in gas chambers. But for some reason, there is zero archive about that.

    According to Salutin, no exception was made by the dull-minded Germans in the case of the “final solution” (=gas chambers). The Germans just went ahead with their Jew-killing administrative work, without any hateful or emotional seething.

    The obvious question is: how come every trace of that has disappeared?

    If the Germans are really a chilling race of meticulous, dull-minded, emotionless, Jew-gassing bureaucrats, and if the Jews are not a race of liars, you would expect to find plenty of German official archives documenting the widespread use of gas chambers during the war (not to mention thousands of unofficial witness accounts by non-Jews).

    Sorry for the digression.

  44. According to James Petras:

    . . .

    5. The obvious question arises as to the degree to which ‘neo-fascism’ has penetrated the police and security forces.

    It looks a though the neo-fascists ‘influence’ the government.

    Important disinformation. Jewish paranoia knows no bounds.

  45. http://www.progressivepress.com/blog-entry/oslo-down-new-world-order

    Cui bono? Who did it? Fingers have immediately pointed at Mossad. Clearly blasting the Norwegian Palestinian- loving government out of the water would go down a treat in Jerusalem. But this may be to under-estimate the wider picture. The Norwegians have been getting on a lot of nerves for a very long time. They are wobbly on NATO. They refuse to open their protected oil, gas and fishing grounds. They two-finger the EU. The euro? Most people know what they would do that piece of paper. Their economy is successful, seemingly recession-proof. Wall Street cannot for all its efforts get its smutty mitts on Norwegian assets. Don’t even mention privatization. So taken overall its quite a list. Israeli intelligence is certainly in the frame but so is the much wider agency that we call the New World Order. Aside from the US and NATO, that’s the full gamut of globalised thugs like the IMF and the World Bank, plus for good measure the corrupted international bankocracy.

    I think this is an organized gang bang designed to take out the Norwegian government in its entirely, to cut the whole show down to size. The object is nothing less than to cannibalize the country (exactly like Libya). As Michael Ledeen is supposed to have once said, to ‘take a small country and slap it against the wall, just to show we mean business.’ Lets remember NATO is no longer a regional outfit. It is the global military arm of the US and through that the might and force of western interests everywhere. The latter-day secret soldiers of the New World Order responsible for the latest outrage are an uptake on the old Gladio: but even more to be feared, that’s for sure. Ask any Norwegian.

  46. Important disinformation. Jewish paranoia knows no bounds.

    Petras is not a Jew. Admittedly, his use of the term “neo-fascists” was silly, but it’s obvious what he’s referring to: the pro-Israel “nationalists” who constitute much of the European right. In any case, the rest of his article was good.

  47. Conspiracy nuts plague the far right and even parts of the progressive left. EVERYTHING, I do not care what the fuck it is, is either a CIA or Mossad “inside job.”

    People who pay attention to these quacks are useless and should be, for the most part, ignored

  48. I would suggest some of the people coming here pushing Breivik as another “inside job” read Tanstaafl’s entry about Gordon Duff.

    There was a great discussion there about these people who constantly point fingers at Israel’s mossad. Many of them have sinister motives and it sure as hell ain’t pro-White.

  49. I’m not sure where to post this, Tan, so it goes here until you decide differently.

    I’m sure you remember Lionheart, an old associate from when I was in the “anti-jihad business. He himself states that he is being accused by some of being Breivik’s handler and mentor. I must admit that he came immediately to mind when I read this account, based on a Telegraph article.


    After checking his site, this is the article in which Lion Heart acknowledges that he has been accused by some of being, “implicated in Breivik’s act”.


    I, of course, tend to believe Lion Heart and have always considered him to be a patriot who remained on a misguided path in some respects, though I still understand why he and so many, especially in Europe, are so keenly anti-jihadist and mistakenly consider that synonomous with giving jewish and Israeli support. I was unable to respond at his site due to restrictions on commenting confined to a core group, but I think I remember that he reads and comments at times at Age of Treason. If he were to read this, this is my response to him.

    A similar response would go to others who remain, understandably under the circumstances as they are known and recognized by them, anti-jihadists.

    All Whites need to recognize that jews are NOT White and that we WHITES have enemies whom we do not choose – because of who THEY are.



  50. The last link provided by Flanders links to the kind of commentary I’ve been gathering in this post. J.J. Goldberg breaks the news to the English-speaking jewish media about the anti-Norwegian/anti-European commentary in the Hebrew-speaking jewish media.

    Israelis Debate on the Web: Did Norway Get What It Deserved?

    The Norway massacre has touched off a nasty war of words on the Israeli Internet over the meaning of the event and its implications for Israel. And I do mean nasty: Judging by the comments sections on the main Hebrew websites, the main questions under debate seem to be whether Norwegians deserve any sympathy from Israelis given the country’s pro-Palestinian policies, whether the killer deserves any sympathy given his self-declared intention of fighting Islamic extremism and, perhaps ironically, whether calling attention to this debate is in itself an anti-Israel or anti-Semitic act.

    The debate seems to be taking place almost entirely on Hebrew websites.

  51. Petras is cut from the same disinformation cloth as Duff. They attract and supply inquisitive minds with omninous, authoritative-sounding wild speculations based on tenuous links between nonsense and truth. All of which leads nowhere but to other purveyors of the same “anti-racist” crap.

    Gordon Duff, Friend or Foe?

  52. In these few words, plucked from Hitler’s recollections of teenage life, we can glimpse the three delusions that would guide his genocidal project more than three decades later: (1) That the germ theory of disease can be applied to whole societies as well as to individual bodies….

    This is a simple scientific truth. And this is why Jews must abolish science.

  53. Breezy Steve the HBD citizenist on Breivik’s Brain:

    Having thought about this rotten person longer than I’ve wanted, I have finally grasped that Breivik only makes sense when viewed on his own terms, which are those of the bloody history of continental European ideology. Breivik, I’ve come to realize, is a Marxist heretic.

    . . .

    Hopefully, Breivik will remain an outlier.

    . . .

    This guy isn’t crazy; he’s evil.

    . . .

    Let me sum up, however, that I see no reason to believe anything Mr. Breivik says. I’ve read far more of his prose than I care to, and I still don’t know if any of these planks he endorses actually motivated him to commit his terrible crimes. He makes clear that he views stances as mere marketing. His repeated endorsements of dissimulation do not add to my confidence.

    . . .

    He appears to be a young man of some talents who failed to achieve lasting success in politics or business, plausibly because others around him could sense the rottenness of his character. He retreated to plot in solitude the enormities that would make him infamous or, at minimum, inflict pain on this enemies.

    Methinks Sailer doth condemn too much. What Svigor said about “The guilty flee when no man pursueth”.

    Sailer disliked and disbelieved Breivik so much that he wrote a 4,000 word article about him so he could brag that it “explains more about this whole horrible event than you’ll find elsewhere”.

    The following anonymous comment left on Sailer’s blog was more valuable than his 4,000 words:

    But if ANYTHING motivated Breivik, it was racial demographology. He wanted Europe to remain white, and Nordic countries to remain Nordic. All other ideologies were secondary(or strategic)to him, which is to say he would even prefer a white communist country to a multi-cultural capitalist country–not because he likes communism but because he’s for anything to save his race.

    He may have used methods and ideas of Leninism and Marxism, but his underlying obsession was racial survival. So, Sailer got it backwards. Breivik flirted with leftist ideas to save his race… just like many in the Third World adopted communism as a weapon of NATIONALIST liberation. This isn’t to say Ho Chi Minh wasn’t a communist. He was, but he gravitated to communism as the best weapon to resist French colonialism.

  54. Speaking of theories of disease…

    Something Rotten in Norway, Daniel Greenfield, FrontPage Magazine:

    The hatred and terrorist collaboration on display at Utoya was the symptom of a larger disease.

    Greenfield is talking about The Workers Youth League campers who were attacked, not Breivik. The Horowitzers, like the Austerites, see the people Breivik attacked as deserving it – not because they are traitors to their own kind, welcoming aliens, but because these leftist Norwegians oppose (however impotently) jewish nationalism, just as they would any other form of “white” “racism”. The “disease” Greenfield thinks they have is not their inability to distinguish jews from themselves, it is their inability to accept that jews are distinct and superior.

  55. RKU:

    Endlessly shouting “traitor!”—“extermination!”—“genocide!” at your political opponents has always struck me as being pretty ridiculous, and perhaps now pretty clearly unwise as well.

    Somebody should tell the jews.

  56. Unz is the publisher of the American Conservative, who presumably paid Sailer for his Breivik article.

    Unz is anti-White and favors genocidal levels of immigration.

    Commentary, November 1999 by Ron Unz, COVER STORY:

    Our political leaders should approach these ethnic issues by reaffirming America’s traditional support for immigration, but couple that with a return to the assimilative policies which America has emphasized in the past. Otherwise, whites as a group will inevitably begin to display the same ethnic-minority-group politics as other minority groups, and this could break our nation. We face the choice of either supporting “the New American Melting Pot” or accepting “the Coming of White Nationalism.”

  57. Good information about Unz, Tan. “American” “Conservative” has never seemed to be either, and has seemed deceptive since it’s beginnings.

    Greenfield, whom I understand to be an activist New York jewish lawyer, makes statements as if jews had nothing to do with the problems which were, in fact, experienced by the Germans and caused by jewry. He further implies that the jewish duplicities of that era had nothing to do with what happened during those times. He then goes on to turn that falsity into an accusation against any normal societial reaction when citizens of White countries attempt to deal with jewish deceits. Greenfield (aka Sultan Knish) engages in the classic time-honored (by them) jewish hasbarisms which are so despicable to Whites who are aware about jewish deceits, but which are ab-“normal”-ly SOP for jewry.

    “In the 1930′s, Germans were encouraged to blame their problems on the Jews. In this decade, Norwegians are encouraged to blame their problems on the Jews.”

    Greenfield has no problem criticizing the side most confined to jewish control, the communist and leftists, because either the “rightist jews” [the ostensible anti-immigrationists] or the “leftist jews” [the ones who consprire to import immigrants in the “name of equality”] will attack Whites for either stance so long as it fits jewish goals at the time, along with anyone who may criticize either Israel or jewish control over either and all ends of the dialectical spectrum. The Germans and Norwegians both have rightfully blamed jews because it is jews who cause the problems which those Whites have or had observed in the conduct of the jews, internally within those countries, and internationally (in the case of the Norwegians) through Israel’s actions.


  58. Yet another prominent jew who regards jews and muslims as allies against Europeans, Uri Avnery sees Breivik as the tip of an “anti-semitism” iceberg.

    The New Anti-Semitism, Media Monitors Network, 28 July 2011:

    He is the prototype of a Nazi anti-Semite of the new wave. His creed consists of white supremacy, Christian fundamentalism, hatred of democracy and European chauvinism, mixed with a virulent hatred of Muslims.

    This creed is now sprouting offshoots all over Europe. Small radical groups of the ultra-Right are turning into dynamic political parties, take their seats in Parliaments and even become kingmakers here and there. Countries which always seemed to be models of political sanity suddenly produce fascist rabble-rousers of the most disgusting kind, even worse than the US Tea Party, another offspring of this new Zeitgeist.

    . . .

    OF COURSE, there is a real problem. Muslims are not free of blame for the situation. Their own behavior makes them easy targets. Like the Jews in their time.

    Europe is in a quandary. They need the “foreigners” – Muslims and all – to work for them, keep their economy going, pay for the pensions of the old people. If all Muslims were to leave Europe tomorrow morning, the fabric of society in Germany, France, Italy and many other countries would break down.

    Yet many Europeans are dismayed when they see these “foreigners”, with their strange languages, mannerisms and clothes crowding their streets, changing the character of many neighborhoods, opening shops, marrying their daughters, competing with them in many ways. It hurts. As a German minister once said: “We brought here workers, and found out that we had brought human beings!”

    One can understand these Europeans, up to a point. Immigration causes real problems. The migration from the poor South to the rich North is a phenomenon of the 21st century, a result of the crying inequality among nations. It needs an all-European immigration policy, a dialogue with the minorities about integration or multiculturalism. It won’t be easy.

    But this tidal wave of Islamophobia goes far beyond that. Like a Tsunami, it can result in devastation.

  59. Breivik and the Jews, 2 Aug 2011.

    Nothing about Breivik here. It’s pure jewish navel gazing.

    Left-jew Joel Schalit expresses concern about right-jews “[c]ondemning leftist Jewish pundits for publicizing Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik’s affinity for Zionism”, “concern about what’s safe to fight about in public, in earshot of the Goyim, for whom discretion, especially in Israeli matters, is always advised”, “the concern that Jews who speak openly about their political differences will only cause Jews more problems”, “simply admonishing one another to shut up, so that more gentiles do not learn that aspiring young Nazis like to read the work of Jewish conservatives”.

    And to think some goyim have the nerve to express concern about the influence these self-absorbed aliens have on culture and politics.

  60. Two weeks on and the jewish angle is finally trickling into the non-jew media – with “the jews” painted as Breivik’s real victims.

    Breivik and the Anti-Zionist Smear, Cathy Young, RealClearPolitics, 4 Aug 2011:

    In the aftermath of Anders Breivik’s terrorist rampage in Norway, a “blame the Jews” theme has emerged: assertions that Breivik was driven by fanatical devotion to Israel. Mostly, complaints about the media’s failure to identify Breivik as a Zionist zealot have been confined to fringe blogs on the left and the right — but they have also cropped up in more mainstream venues, such as the blog of prominent pundit Andrew Sullivan. Daily Beast columnist Michelle Goldberg has pointed to the Oslo killer as evidence of a convergence between right-wing Zionism and European fascism, united by hatred against Muslims.

    The recent phenomenon of far-right nationalists latching on to Jewish and Zionist causes in presumed anti-Muslim solidarity is real and troubling (especially given some of these nationalist groups’ anti-Semitic roots). But the trope of Breivik as a Zionist soldier is a smear — a gross distortion that plays into the campaign to delegitimize and vilify Israel.

    . . .

    Moreover, Breivik’s “Zionism” coexists with a virulent brand of selective anti-Semitism — one that sees Jews as likely carriers of cosmopolitan, nontraditional values and targets liberal Jews for special loathing. In his discussion of Nazism, Breivik agrees that most German and European Jews in the 1930s were “disloyal” — “similar to the liberal Jews today.” Hitler’s error, he believes, was to lump the “good” Jews with the “bad,” instead of rewarding the former with a Jewish homeland in a Muslim-free Palestine.

  61. Fjordman won’t be Fjordman anymore:
    (via Auster)

    Now, seeing as how I generally agree with what the guy has had to say in the past, there’s no need to make things more difficult for him by disputing his account directly to the police, but the fact is that I know I at least have made comments along the lines of “there’s going to be consequences for this current ruling class, and they’re not going to be pretty” and he, Fjordman, responded expressing agreement.

    Either he’s unable to face the reality of the situation, or he’s trying to cover his rear. Not being in his shoes, I can’t estimate the correctness of this course. I _think_ it is not one I would take.

  62. Michael Brull has a featured blog at Independent Australian Jewish Voices. Isn’t that special?

    Breivik and the Muslim question, Michael Brull, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 3 Aug 2011:

    When I read Breivik’s comments, manifesto, and watch his video, I’m struck by the seemingly obvious fact that it doesn’t feel particularly out of the ordinary.

    It also seems sane. Breivik does not seem to be a man who was told by the green fairy to kill and bomb things. Breivik’s writings present a coherent ideology, which if true could justify murder: Western Europe faces genocide from a coalition of cultural Marxists (multiculturalists) and Islamists, against which it needs to defend itself.

    If true. Brull never explains why, but it clear that he doesn’t believe it is true. His thoughts and attention turn immediately to the people he’s really concerned about. Jews and muslims.

    Plainly, it is not just America’s right wing which created a culture that could spawn someone like Breivik. Again, I am not saying that the Economist or Spencer in any way support terrorism. I am suggesting that there is an insidious demonisation of Muslims throughout Western political discourse. It features even in the more intelligent and progressive media outlets. We are told that there is something threatening about them, they are somehow not like us. They will impose their way of life on us, they will impose their alien values on us, they will force us to live under “sharia law”, they don’t respect women, and they seem to have some sort of connection to terrorism.

    . . .

    I imagine this next point may be misinterpreted or exaggerated, but I think it worth saying. Ian Kershaw is one of the leading experts on Nazi Germany and popular opinion in it, and his essays were collected in Hitler, the Germans, and the Final Solution. He wrote that “apathy and ‘moral indifference’ to the treatment and fate of the Jews was the most widespread attitude of all… This apathy was compatible with a number of internalized attitudes towards Jews, not least with passive or latent anti-Semitism – the feeling that there was a ‘Jewish Question’ and that something needed to be done about it.” While the Jews were being exterminated, the “vast majority of Germans had plenty of other things on their mind”. Yet there was a “widespread wave of revulsion” at Kristallnacht in 1938, even as the conviction spread that there “was a Jewish question”. Kristallnacht, of course, was a brutal and open pogrom, which was unbearable to watch.

    My point is not that critics of perceived “Islamisation” are Nazis, or even that Breivik himself is one (he seems to be critical of Nazis, in his own strange way, and opposed to anti-Semitism). It is that we in the West do not have a long descent to being the types of people who can quietly tolerate genocide. It seems to me beyond question there is a large population in many Western countries that believes in a Muslim question. I think the implications of this should be considered frightening.

    Today the most widespread attitude is apathy and moral indifference to the treatment and fate of indigenous Whites. Brull’s point is that genocide is only something “the jews” and muslims have any cause to be frightened about. In this he is completely in line with the anti-White regime.

  63. Brull: “Ian Kershaw is one of the leading experts on Nazi Germany and popular opinion in it, and his essays were collected in Hitler, the Germans, and the Final Solution. He wrote that “apathy and ‘moral indifference’ to the treatment and fate of the Jews was the most widespread attitude of all…”

    Kershaw’s book Hitler, the Germans, and the Final Solution was published in 2008. I found a review of it on JewishMag.com :

    “Kershaw is very clear — the German public knew, if not about the gas chambers which were a tightly guarded secret, then certainly about mass murders by firing squads.”

    Kershaw seems to be a mouthpiece for the absurd official Jewish narrative. Why did Hitler think it was alright to let people know about mass murders by firing squads but not by gas chambers? It sounds like a typically Jewish ad hoc explanation. It is the kind of response that we get when we ask Jews why the super efficient German exterminators used concentration camps equipped with hospitals in order to exterminate the Jews, instead of shooting them in the back of the neck.

    As a test, we should ask Kershaw for his opinion on the effect of Jewish activism today in Europe and in America. If he agrees that Jewish activists play a crucial role in today’s genocide of White people, his career will be over. If he lies and says that the Jews don’t play any particular role today, then there is no use reading his books about Hitler.

    Kershaw’s new theory is that the Germans “knew”…, except about gas chambers. I thought the idea of gas chambers was necessarily included in the question: did so and so know?

    The question we should ask is: did the Jews know? I think it is impossible that most of them didn’t know about the efforts of Jewish activists in the 1930s to start a war that would eventually exterminate tens of millions of non-Jews. It was all over the newspapers. How many Jewish Lindberghs tried to stop the war from happening? Millions of European lives might have been saved if, in the 1930s, the Michael Brulls of Europe and America had been sent back to Palestine, which they claim belong to them. Why did our grand-parents tolerate their war-mongering activism?

    Wikipedia : “Kershaw argues that in the period 1939-41 the phrase “Final Solution to the Jewish Question” was a “territorial solution”, that such plans as the Nisko Plan and Madagascar Plan were serious and only in the latter half of 1941 did the phrase “Final Solution” come to refer to genocide.”

    That is another of Kershaw’s tricks. He accepts the Jewish interpretation that “final solution” means extermination, but he says it used to mean something else in the beginning. He doesn’t sound as a serious historian at all. But at least, he seems to say that the Germans hardened their anti-Jewish policies because of the war. In fact, the Jews were ill-advised to push for war with Germany.

    JewishMag.com: “The biggest question is, who is responsible for the Final Solution? The author is clear — Hitler’s message of anti-Semitism fell upon people with a latent hate for Jews.”

    Instead of invoking the German “hate for Jews”, it would be more honest to speak of the German resentment over Jewish anti-White activities. I think that German anti-Jewish opinions had more to do with political awareness than with an anti-Jewish gut feeling. In spite of Hitler’s efforts to educate the population about the Jewish problem, the German population was probably much less anti-Jewish than Germany’s Jews were anti-White. In fact, Kershaw says the main problem was German indifference to the fate of the Jews. I wish the Jews felt indifference for White people too, but we know this is not the case.

  64. An unsigned, orwellian editorial at Morning Star (UK), Breivik was no lone wolf – now we must act, 5 Aug 2011:

    Breivik attempted to justify his crimes repeating arguments deployed by Adolf Hitler nearly a century ago.

    Hitler bracketed Jews and communism, suggesting that the categories were virtually interchangeable, while Breivik chose a new enemy, Europe’s Muslim minorities.

    In his fevered imagination western Europe is subject to Islamisation and Islamic colonisation, which cannot be halted “without first removing the political doctrines manifested through multiculturalism/cultural Marxism.”

    Times have changed, the scapegoat is different but the underlying enemy, people’s unity in diversity, is immutable.

    . . .

    Crude EDL propaganda against Muslims serves the same purpose as anti-semitism did previously – to set up scapegoats and splinter working class unity.

    The EDL intends to be up to its tricks again next month, planning to march in Tower Hamlets, one of London’s and indeed Britain’s most diverse boroughs.

    It has nothing to offer to the people of east London. Its message of hatred and violence is literally a dead-end.

    Yet another media voice placing jews and jewish interests at the center of the debate, seeing jews as having more in common with muslims than Europeans, and putting the interests of Them over Us.

    Of course “unity in diversity” is what you get when you demonize and ban anyone who dissents – which comes from those of us who aren’t “diverse”, who regard “diversity”, and all the rest of the dishonest happytalk that’s used to excuse the genocidal effects of immigration and multiculturalism, as a literal dead-end for us.

  65. I wish the Jews felt indifference for White people too, but we know this is not the case.

    Indeed. The general consensus of the broad sampling of jewish punditry here is not mere indifference to the genocidal effects immigration and multiculturalism has on Whites, but a more or less explicit recognition that resistance to these policies comes from a hostile or at least potentially hostile Other.

  66. It’s great to have truth on your side. E.g. in the recent GoV debate.

    Lies can last a long time in the mind but not on the battlefield. Aside from Fjordman’s true, cowardly nature (and potentially jewish ancestry) finally being forced out into the open, the real take-home is that this man-of-action Breivik did something other than pontificate like his hero, and the event has revealed more than years (or decades) of debate (or stifled debate, in Fjordman’s case) possibly could to anyone persuaded by his studied rhetorical gymnastics. Tan can say till he’s blue in the face and bruised with ad hominems –in fact he has been saying — that the majority of jews, especially the jews in media and in positions of real power, don’t give a shit whether the Fjordmans of the world bow at their feet; their sine qua non and core motivating value is to scuttle White racial consciousness by stigmatizing it psychologically and diluting it demographically, such that attacking multiculturalism without attacking jewish power is like attacking shit on the floor while ignoring the incontinent dog. For the overwhelming majority of secular jews, multicultural idiocracy in the West is an ecological imperative. Pointing this out is not “sickness” or “hate,” nor does it even necessarily imply one wants separation from jews (truth be told, I personally enjoy living among jews), much less violence directed at them. It’s simply an acknowledgment of fact, which jews have an interest in keeping buried. To let them get away with it is therefore venal or cowardly or both.

  67. Here’s a wonderful illustration of jewish logic.

    Breivik and the Jews, Lawrence Auster, 28 July 2011:

    As for everyone imposing on Breivik their own favorite theory, the anti-Semites think that he’s–yep–part of a Judeo-Israelite conspiracy, aimed at getting back at Norway for being pro-Palestinian.

    68 Norwegian terror supporters killed by terrorist, Lawrence Auster, 31 July 2011:

    It nevertheless remains an undeniable, objective fact that all of the people killed by the terrorist at the Utoya camp were themselves members of an organized group of terror supporters.

    One man’s conspiracy theory can also be that same man’s undeniable, objective fact – based on what’s best for “the jews”.

  68. From Caroline Glick’s article: “Norwegian anti-Semitism does not come from the grassroots but from the leadership – politicians, organization leaders, church leaders, and senior journalists. It does not come from Muslims but from the European-Christian society.”

    The question that concerns me is not anti-semitism in Norway, but the extent of Jewish influence in the country. Wikipedia says Norway has 1500 Jews. That would be 1501, if we add Fjordman. Oslo has both a Jewish museum and a “Center for Holocaust & Genocide Studies”. According to Wiki, “prominent Norwegian Jews include former president of Stortinget (the parliament), Jo Benkow“, whose main interests seem to be anti-semitism, Israeli politics, the Middle East, Human Rights, international relations, modern monarchy in Norway…

    A personal thought: we know there is heavy Jewish influence in Sweden through the Bonnier media group. Maybe it also has some influence in Norway if Norwegians are able to understand Swedish?

    John Derbyshire, who opposes immigration but is employed by Jews, said this in a broadcast from last month (July 29) :

    “(I would just note in passing here that there is a faction among American conservatives — a faction to which I have loud and often made it clear I do not belong — that blames Western white ethno-masochism on the Jews. Just for the record, there are about 1,500 Jews in Norway. That’s 0.03 percent of the population.)”

    Derbyshire is a smart man, but he talks rubbish whenever the subject is Jews. He seems to be implying that the race-replacement ideology is a natural phenomenon that has appeared independently in every Western country. That’s absurd. It should be obvious that we are dealing with an international phenomenon, whether or not the Jews play a crucial role in it. If the race-replacement policy didn’t exist in the USA, it wouldn’t exist in Norway either. But still, we must expect Jews who live in Norway to help the country accept the ideology that comes from American Jews.

    I like Kevin MacDonald’s point of view better because it helps make sense of what is happening. In an article published last month (July 29), he explained :

    “• 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; “

  69. I think recent history has strongly underlined the correctness of Kevin MacDonald and the weakness of alternative approaches.

    I think the most important idea he has is the simplest: in the face of a sustained attack, White interests can only be defended and must be defended by explicit White advocacy. “Implicit Whiteness” will not do.

    The counter-jihadist alternative approach has crashed and burned. It started with the idea that defending a key White interest, not being colonized by Islamic hordes, could best be pursued by never defining Whites as the group to be protected. Rather than risk defending Whites and being tarred as racist, the movement would be all about culture, and it would define Islam as an aggressive and bad culture that had to be stopped, and that would be sufficient, supposedly. Counter-jihadism proceeded quickly to Jewish and quasi-Jewish colonization. It went on to the EDL flying the Star of David and defining itself in terms of the defense of Israel but not the defense of Whites. It lead to splits, as allowing some Jews to set up their own power structure within the movement lead to branch-stacking and all the familiar games, and any resistance to this was defined as anti-Semitism. It lead to laughably inadequate, incoherent intellectual positions, that could only be defended by copious use of “shut up!”

    It’s not that the counter-jihadist approach wasn’t radical enough: even if you took it to the extreme, bloody radicalism of Anders Behring Breivik, it never got around to defending Whites as such. The whole thing was and is rotten at the root, and nothing good will come of it.

    We’ve got to stand by each other, explicitly and firmly, as Whites, from Tasmania to Canada and all round the world. Because we are all under attack.

    Anything that’s contrary to that, from Basque zealotry to Third Reich fantasies, I don’t support.

    Naming the Whites, in order to do what is good for the Whites, is much more important than “naming the Jew”. (And anyway, Kevin MacDonald is on top of that too.)

    And oh yeah: re: Derbyshire: what Armor said.

  70. When we fail to be explicitly pro-White, confusion results.

    Look at bonald here. He isn’t explicitly pro-White, but he supports a certain Christian religious order that historically is White. Like Anders Behring Breivik, he sees this order as under attack by both leftists and Islam. (Of course in many other ways he’s unlike Anders Behring Breivik: bonald is a true believer, sane, etc.. I only mean he sees the same facts and reaches the same theoretical fork in the road.) He takes the other branch from the counter-jihadists, that is he decides that conservative Christians must go into a “traditionalist” alliance with Islam, in which alliance Muslims will own the leadership role and Christians must be supportive. A little while later, bonald realizes that won’t work. In other words, he’s essentially running around in circles.

    Whether you choose to bow your head to the Muslim hordes in order to be spared the corruption of the Culture of Critique or whether you bow your head to the disproportionately Jewish establishment in order to be spared the rigors or sharia you fall into incoherence because you are imagining possible “allies” that are in fact implacably hostile.

    There is no “lesser” evil to choose. Dead is dead.

    No matter how bad the odds may be, to be pro-White is the only rational path for Whites.

  71. Excellent Daybreaker. I collected part of your above comments on counter-jihadism here.

    When in 2009 I was immersed in counter-jihadism I took notice of Robert Spencer saying that his movement should not relate to race matters in any way; and the “Baron” saying that he had a low impression of those who put race first in their agenda. IIRC the Baron once said that he has colored relatives, perhaps those who married his offspring, and that he lived in a colored neighborhood.

    The most grotesque saying was Dymphna’s. She once talked in high terms of a Negro neighbor and, in one of the threads, speaking about a pure white nation she stated, “How monochromatic!” Eric (Conservative Swede), who has used the “shut up!” tactic more than once against me, said something similar: that Sweden was “too Germanic” and that he wanted to miscegenate some Nordics with Mediterraneans. As a Mediterranean myself I dare to say that this is too risky a move. Mediterraneans consist of both the coarse type, that I would call geese (many of them in Spain, Portugal and Southern Italy), and the swans (the more delicate French or some Catalonians, where my forefathers come).

    Yesterday I read all Amazon reviews of Mark Steyn’s just released After America. No single mention of the JQ! And in Pat Condell’s latest video on the UK racial riots, no single mention of the blacks that attacked their own neighborhood.

    With these counter-jihad friends who needs enemies?

  72. Daybreaker: “I think the most important idea [Kmac] has is the simplest: in the face of a sustained attack, White interests can only be defended and must be defended by explicit White advocacy. “Implicit Whiteness” will not do.”

    Also, the explicit approach allows people to be honest. Our goal really is to protect White society from encroachment and replacement by non-Whites.

    It is much harder for Jews and leftists to be honest about their goal of destroying White society. Not that it matters to them. Unlike us, they are not bothered by cognitive dissonance. What they usually say is that immigration must go on because it’s good for the economy, because we need the diversity, because non-Whites are exactly the same as White people, because third-world people need a safe place to go, because White women no longer have enough babies, because it would be cruel to prevent family reunion, and so on – whatever silly rationalization comes to their minds. But they don’t believe their own nonsense. They don’t care about immigrants and don’t want to live near them.

Comments are closed.