Bill Rhyes focused his 29 Jan 2015 Might is Right Power Hour program on Anders Behring Breivik, mainly based on information and links in a recent article, Anders Breivik Jewed the Jews, posted at The End of Zion.
Rhyes plays a snippet of William Pierce reading a passage concerning innocence from The Turner Diaries; reads Anders Behring Breivik letter 13-09-29 to International Press, written a little more than two years after the attack in July 2011; reads the analysis written by Alex Linder the week after the attack, here and here; and adds his own insights concerning polarization, means and ends, and more. Rhyes describes how his opinion of Breivik began to change when he learned more of what Breivik himself had to say.
I’ve spent a great deal of time reading, thinking, writing and talking about Breivik. I became familiar with what Breivik refers to as the Vienna school (a nexus of the counter-jihad) and its central exponent, Fjordman about the same time he did. I’m still not sure what Breivik’s true motives were, but I’m happy to find another racialist, beside Linder, who is interested in why Breivik acted and what he accomplished rather than reflexively looking for some excuse to disassociate from him.
I haven’t had anything to say about Breivik since his trial ended almost three years ago because nothing substantial has changed. The evaluation I formed was based on the portions of his compendium he had actually written (as opposed to the large sections he copied from others, like Fjordman, and which many readers mistook took for his), and especially his statement when his trial began. During the trial he clearly and apparently sincerely claimed to be an “ultra-nationalist” who feels a duty and loyalty to his people, in a genetic sense. Breivik is a racialist.
I summed up this evaluation in response to one of the more popular criticisms of him at that time:
“Breivik was a Zionist agent“
Based on what Breivik wrote, he did not understand the jews. His attitudes toward them, and vice-versa, are examined in some detail in the comments of Norway Attacks – Anders Behring Breivik and Kay on Breivik on “The Jew”.
At the moment I don’t think Breivik was acting as an agent for any larger organization. I understand him as a Norwegian/Nordic/European patriot who correctly perceived immigration and multiculturalism as harmful to his people. He aimed his attack at members of the treasonous political class (and their children) he deemed most directly responsible.
From the Kay link:
“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.”
Rhyes mentions that The Gates of Vienna published the letter. The two relevant articles are Breivik Repudiates the Counterjihad and Breivik’s “Double-Psychology”, published about a year ago.
Here’s why Bodissey crowed about it:
the Butcher of Utøya told the world that his purported admiration for Fjordman, Robert Spencer, Bat Ye’or, et al. had just been a ruse on his part, and that his real ideological commitment was to what he calls “ethno-nationalism” or “nordicism”. He had embraced the Counterjihad in order to damage it, and to draw attention away from his allies among white nationalists and neo-Nazis.
I didn’t bother to write about it at the time because the jewhadis had been condemning and otherwise trying to distance themselves from Breivik all along. Bodissey’s explanation of jewsmedia motives is typically distorted by his jew-blinders:
It’s easy to see why the MSM wanted to bury this half of the letter. It shows them up as gullible fools who took a shrewd psychopathic killer at his word, and parroted the exact line expected of them. Their case against the Counterjihad as “Breivik’s mentors” has been totally destroyed. As a result, they’re no longer interested in discussing the topic.
Media pundits, especially jews, immediately perceived Breivik’s attack as a threat to the jew-led multicult. From the start they tried to shift attention and demonize as broadly as possible all forms of “conservative”, “far-right”, nationalist, anti-islamization and anti-immigrant political expression. This is what they always do, regardless of the attackers or their stated motives.
Some pundits did sift through Breivik’s compendium. Jonathan Kay, for example, picked out Breivik’s references to jews and imagined his own connection to The Turner Diaries. Most pundits no doubt recognized or came to understand that the counter-jihad is kosher, and thus paid it no particular attention. One misidentified it instead as “white supremacist”.
The media was never interested in Breivik’s “real” views, and dropped even the pretense of interest during the trial. The most likely reason the prosecutors ultimately didn’t go after anyone but Breivik is because they believed he conceived and carried out his operation alone.
It has always been difficult to take what Breivik has to say about his motives at face value. He admitted to deliberately lying to trick others even in his compendium. He could very well be lying even about some of his lying. Maybe his story shifted over time simply because his understanding deepened over time. Perhaps his claim that he was just trolling is a way to make himself look clever rather than ignorant or duped.
At any rate, here’s the “out-jewing the jews” portion of his letter:
The reason I chose another <<sales narrative>> in the compendium was among other things to prevent them from immediately ending the ideological discussion with their <<6-million-omg-nazi-enough-said>>- bashing stick. I know a lot of people will be disappointed when reading this, but my love for Israel is limited to its future function as a deportation-port for disloyal jews. I am aware of the sad fact that all available statistics confirm that only aprox. three percent of eurojews oppose multiculti (but from an anti-islamist perspective), and that only approx. 0,2 percent support nordic indigenous rights. I wish it wasn’t so. The reason why so called <<counterjihadists>>, at least the great majority, seemingly <<praise>> Israel, is to avoid the above described suppression-tactic. However, there is in fact a strong anti-nordicist/ethnocentrist wing within the counter-jihad movement, represented by Fjordman and his Jewish network, the EDL-leader, the SIOE-leaders, Wilders, Farage etc., but their organisations are so heavily infiltrated by nordicists and ethnocentrists that it’s hard to say which wing are actually controlling them.
When dealing with media psychopaths, a good way to counter their tactics is to use double-psychology, or at least so I thought. The compendium was, among other things, of a calculated and quite cynical <<gateway-design>> (the 2+?+?=6-approach), created to strengthen the ethnocentrist wing in the contra-jihad movement, by pinning the whole thing on the anti-ethnocentrist wing (many of the leaders are pro-multiculti social democrats or liberalists), while at the same time protecting and strengthening the ethnocentrist-factions. The idea was to manipulate the MSM and others so that they would launch a witch-hunt and send their <<media-rape-squads>> against our opponents. It worked quite well.
It may have worked to some degree, but only at the cost of creating confusion about his true purpose. I think Whites are more likely to be heartened by clear, unambiguous blows against the anti-White regime, minus any such dubious attempts to “out-jew the jews”.
UPDATE 2 Feb 2015: I’ve already made this more about my own analysis of Breivik’s letter, so I might as well add more. In this portion Breivik explains his rationale (which I suspect he constructed after-the-fact) for his shifting narrative:
Apparently, many people didn’t comprehend my deliberate usage of double-psychology, and this is my own fault. In any case, the Fjordman-network figured it out quite early, which explain why they have attacked me so viciously. It wasn’t my intention to cause the outing of Fjordman, with subsequently he being brutally media-raped by 200 MSM-psychopaths. But on the other hand, ethnocentrism gained momentum at the same time as I managed to prevent a significant crackdown against the european and US nordicist movement.
There has been an active power-struggle between the two factions within the contra-jihadist movement for years, and the reason why it’s so critically important to dominate and influence this movement is because it acts as a <<supplier of terms>> to moderate european nationalist parties with a base consisting of tens of millions of europeans. The battle within the <<counter-jihad>>-movement is in many ways a battle for the future content of northern-european nationalism. This makes it even more ironic that many nordicists and ethnocentric nationalists, Stormfront included, still don’t know that I systematically used double-psychology in order to protect them, and in an attempt to prevent the multiculti MSM from using their <<I-win-button>>.
First he says his intent was to cause the “media-rape” of the jewish Fjordman-network. Here he says he didn’t intend that Fjordman be “media-raped”. This is incoherent.
I have seen no evidence of the struggle within counter-jihad that Brevik describes. These two wings he describes – anti-ethnocentrist and ethnocentrist – do not exist within it, but instead distinguish it from the kind of racialist nationalism Breivik says he sides with. CJ is very much a jewish intellectual movement in that it puts the concerns and interests of jews above all others. Fjordman is one example. Takuan Seiyo is another. Those who disagree are purged.
Beyond lacking the courage of their convictions, the Fjordman-network attacked Breivik because they realized, like I did, that his thinking, as stated even in his compendium quoting them, did not match their convictions. They do not support any fundamental opposition to the basic liberal, anti-“racist” premises of the multicult agenda – certainly not with deadly force. However, like the jewsmedia, they do oppose “nazis”, and for the same reasons. Their opposition to islamization is motivated by their main, underlying priority: keeping Israel, Europe, the US, Australia, the whole world really, safe for the jews.
Regarding his “real” motive:
But everyone should know that 22/7 happened in order to try to force a dialogue between the chief editors in the <<big five>> in all 13 nordic countries, and the so called <<fascist movements>> in the corresponding countries.
I remember there was at least one journalist during the trial touching the core of this issue, as he stated; <<The only thing that could prevent the extinction of nordics are racial hygiene-programmes on a full scale, something which is impossible in today’s multiethnic and multicultural societies. Therefore, it is pointless to enter into dialogue with “these people”. We simply cant co-exist with them>>. First of all, we are of course fully aware of the fact that you feel you have no other choice than to suppress us, due to this reason. And you have been brutal the past 68 years. This harsh suppression and persecution has driven thousands of nationalists in northern-europe to suicide, something which explains why these editors don’t like to admit to being responsible for these acts. However, if only more than one out of 5000 nordic journalists could be this honest, 22/7 and approx. 500 annual nationalist and <<racist>> attacks could be avoided in the future.
Of course we understand that full scale racial hygiene-programmes are difficult in today’s societies. But if they had just stopped their bigotry for one second and listened to what we have to say, they would have learned that we can coexist. First of all, one of the reasons the first- and second-generation nordicist leaders have failed with entering into dialogue, is because of their <<all-or-nothing>>-strategy. From a “third-generation” point of view, considering that we lost the european civil war (WW2), the <<all-or-nothing>>-approach has been a complete failure, and continuing this path is counter-productive, irresponsible and may lead to extinction of the nordic race.
Here also Breivik seems to be trying to sound like a mastermind, citing statistics he is pulling out of his ass. With regard to the nature of the jews and the media he comes across as naive. The journalist he quotes has a better understanding of the situation. There will be no dialog or compromise. There is no turning back. They know it. They have chosen their side. They are far more aware of the monstrous crime that has been committed than the general public. They use what power they have to transfer blame for the harm to racialists and nationalists.
The all-or-nothing approach has not failed. It has worked spectacularly… for the jews. The failure has been on the White side. This is where the “it’s not the jews”/”it’s suicide”/”we just have to play the jew-rigged game harder”/”those damn nazis” spirit of “conservative” denial and compromise have prevailed. As this is the mindset which prevailed, this is the mindset which is culpable for the consequences. This is the mindset which is discredited and will be replaced, one way or another.
16 thoughts on “Rhyes and Linder on Breivik”
Linder likes what Breivik did to wake people up. Why has Linder not acted in this way as well to wake Whites up?
Where is Linders or Rhyes groups or lone wolf action besides a forum? Are they using this lone wolf idea as an excuse for their non street action?
I see the benefits of this lone wolf idea. I just don’t see the action from these two who promote it’s usefulness using it. Maybe I missed it?
Unless what they are presently doing is enough for them but not enough for others in their eyes?
Why is it many known proWhites who rightly decry the actions of past groups and their non successful actions, haven’t done more than Internet typing, knowing the mistakes made in the past? Maybe I missed this as well?
Is it to provoke others to do what they will not? Or is it to force to the surface, resistant lone wolves to silence them?
These are honest questions. Not that you, Tan, can speak for them or to assume you know or can talk on their objectives, beyond talking about Whites. Maybe you can offer general answers?
Possibly Breivik was trying to be too clever? Adopting really jewy propoganda thus weakening his target and it backfired, maybe? Leaving all, especially Whites, his target of awakening, simply confused on what he really is/was about and trying to accomplish.
Good article, thanks. I didn’t follow Breivik’s story much when it came out because I wasn’t even a racialist back then, but the more I read of his compendium and think about what he did, the more I could see why the anti-White system would just want to ignore him at all costs regardless of what he says.
He really is their worst nightmare. 10 self-less years of intense training and planning leading up to an event that would guarantee him death or life imprisonment. I doubt they want too many more like him running around Europe.
No matter what he really believes (and I believe the 9-29-13 letter is it), I think he was right to lie about it because at this point if he was openly anti-Semitic, denying the Holocaust and/or praising Hitler, etc., this would have terrible for true White nationalists, and he was probably right that he would have never been allowed to get his opening and closing court statements after being pigeonholed as a “Nazi” and “racist” as well.
Sure it was at the cost of confusing many racialists of what he truly believed, but they seem to just all want to run a million miles in the other direction anyway, ignoring his underlying message, which clearly has never had much to do with Israel or Freemasonry or whatever at all. His underlying message has always been the same, with or without the recent letter: Moslems are going to take over Europe. We either fight, or we die.
I just added a lengthy update to the post with more of my own observations on Breivik’s letter.
Hosting a forum and educating others is action. The personality traits and aptitudes which enable effective soft action, versus effective hard action, to use Linder’s terminology, are orthogonal. The two forms of action still complement and inspire one another even though the Aryan spirit which pursues both, with success, has degenerated into more of an ideal than reality.
Rhyes and Linder most distinguish themselves from other pro-Whites by not decrying the hard actions of others. Many soft actors are far more prone to allow their pro-White premise to get lost in their arguments. Rhyes is especially good at always reminding himself and his listeners not only by reiterating the 14 words, but by always pointing out the practical consequences of that premise.
I think that’s his explanation in retrospect. Trying, yes, actually too clever, no.
On hard action planning and execution he was deviously clever. But a lack of it, a misunderstanding of the how and why of the system he opposes, is the main constant in his changing story. His compendium should have been a straightforward statement of his real beliefs. The media were not able to suppress that document. And they were not primarily influenced to behave as they did by its contents anyway. If he had simply stated his purpose he could now be hammering on that purpose, consistently, rather than trying to correct the confusion he created himself.
Even if Breivik had gotten exactly what now says he wanted, it would only have been to create a dialog with an enemy whose hostility and implacability he still does not fully appreciate.
Again, the desire for perfect philosopher-terrorists is a worthy ideal, but it is not a realistic expectation.
I can’t know how much of this letter can be trusted as truth, but for Breivik to have believed that the MSM would not have reported his trial and opinions extensively if he had openly been a nationalist or ‘nazi’ was quite a mistake! In fact the media quite predictably put the blame on nationalists and National Socialists even though Breivik explicitly stated his disagreements with us.
I only wish the hard actors would select more strategic and deserving targets. I find it suspicious they don’t. So many innocent White children among the victims of alleged perps Miller, Breivik, McVeigh and co., so few anti-White pols – hard to fathom.
That’s the trouble. It isn’t just muslims. Non-Europeans will be the end of Europeans. The fight has been raging for millenia. The jews are the first and foremost enemy. They have been leading (and misleading) all sides of the fight for most of that time.
Well yeah non-Whites in general, but Moslems in particular (led by the Jews) pose the most clear and present danger to Europe at this point.
He didn’t go all the way, but I still think he got a lot of good points out, especially in his opening court speech. As you say, we probably won’t find a perfect philosopher-terrorist, but Breivik sure gave it hell.
Whites in London protesting against mistreatment by Jewish police.
“Police are speaking to community leaders about a planned “anti-Semitic” demonstration in north London.
The “Liberate Stamford Hill” protest is set to take place on Clapton Common on March 22 and is described as being “against Jewification and anti-white oppression”.
Stamford Hill is home to one of the largest Orthodox Jewish communities in Europe.” [Continues]
From Morgoth’s Review:
“Who Controls America? Statistical Breakdown”
The places where Breivik used <<double braces>> were broken – I just fixed them.
“I only wish the hard actors would select more strategic and deserving targets. I find it suspicious they don’t. … Miller, Breivik, McVeigh and co., so few anti-White pols – hard to fathom.”
So few dead jews…
Its hard to believe that Breivik acted alone, he was a freemason and its know that the Mossad recruits helpers in Lodges around Europe, they’re called Sayanim.
Rhyes: Anders Behring Breivik 2.
We have to ask ourselves whether islamist fanatics, being prepared as they were both to die and to kill thousands of others in pursuit of their beliefs, would be classified as insane.
As is already stated , a terrorist has a clear set of demands that can be discussed or catered to,why are we not discussing whether Islam and Multiculturism may well be a problem ?
Comments are closed.