Tag Archives: anders behring breivik

Linder is Right


Linder Daily Commentary, 2017-05-14:

He’s a conscious martyr, similar to #HeroAndersBreivik. He refuses to accede in the diminishing of his own act, in the erasure of its significance. Which is what the court, the psychoanalsyts and his own defense, or some portion of the three, is trying to do. It’s the same thing as that article on the alt-right concerning Nagle’s upcoming book yesterday. The powers that be refuse to acknowledge the data (((their))) horrorshow called society has produced, and, in turn, refuse to admit that an honest, rational man could be driven to kill people to try to change things.

Linder Daily Commentary, 2017-05-15:

Racism: Whites Defending Themselves Is Worst crime of All
Far worst than gang rape, which the anti-White all-jew media call “grooming.” This is Rotherham. You probably remember what went on there. If you’re not noticing that other races are different…and threatening to your own…then you’re well down the road to not defending your own kind, literally your own sons and daughters. And this is a part of what the judeo-Bolshevik scam-conception of ‘racism’ means. If you’re not allowed to observe that X race is different from yours, and actually endangers it, then the flip side of that is you are forced to play make believe. Society becomes a form of charades. As I’ve said, it’s akin to being a kid forced to sing “Row, Row, Row Your Boat” by the madman who highjacked your schoolbus. The jew says: “You can’t call things what they are. That’s hate. And it’s a crime.” You can only call things what we say they are. This all changes when we kill the jews, and that is the only thing that will change anything – violent racial self-defense. It’s already started, it’s just infrequent. Anders Breivik, Dylann Roof and Tim Mair are three who dared defend their kind.

Linder Daily Commentary, 2017-05-19:

What’s the Cutting Edge for the White Movement?
Rallies have grown, and become better coordinated than in years past. That should continue. But ultimately, fine words butter no parsley. Alt-put, unapplied torches save no monuments. I believe the time for violence is here: Anders Breivik fired the starting gun for the Age of Killing the Enemy.

Linder Daily Commentary, 2017-05-22:

Liars Call It Suicide
It is murder by jew. Call it what it is. The libertarians won’t. The Takimag twinks won’t. White Nationalists must. Between 1997 and 2010, for example, the last Labour government allowed a staggering 2.2 million people to settle in this country, the equivalent of two Birminghams. Under David Cameron, the Tories promised to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands. Yet the latest figures show that annual net migration is about 273,000, roughly a city the size of Hull arriving every year. He observes immigration has always been “immensely unpopular.” Then why are you using the term suicide instead of murder? Someone directs this. Someone the political leaders are afraid of. They’re not really leaders, are they? They’re cucks doing the bidding of a superior force – Soros, Rothschild, et al. The solution is to exterminate jews and all who serve them. And that’s the bottom line. No one can gainsay that argument and conclusion. It is pure White gold truth.

Linder Daily Commentary, 2017-05-23:

The Latest Terror Attack: Manchester
What’s the point? To terrorize people so routinely they give up and accede to a world government in order to end the terror. It says this in the Protocols. The governments letting these ‘people’ in know exactly what will happen. They intend it. They seek an outcome. Until jews are exterminated, there will be more of these attacks. The jewish media are on the same side as the terrorists, and so are the jew-controlled nominally Western governments.

Many Whites are starting to realize that the proper response to the situation we’re confronted with doesn’t involve apologizing or cucking harder. And it’s starting to dawn on others, a bit farther along, that voting and demonstrating harder aren’t viable solutions either.

Thanks Trump!

Alt-jew types grudgingly acknowledge there is a war on “whites”. Alt-right types grudgingly acknowledge the jews are driving it. They’re all basically dragging their feet, looking for a way to avoid putting one and one together, or searching for some alt-answer.

Alex Linder has a singular knack for cutting through the bullshit, identifying the crucial dots, and connecting them – clearly stating the existential threat and the justified response. As he often puts it: WHITE GENOCIDE IS (((THEIR))) PLAN: COUNTER-(((EXTERMINATION))) IS OURS.

If you alt-feel compelled to argue whether every alt-jew is responsible this merely makes you an alt-nazi, your time and energy flowing into the alt-end moderates, gatekeepers, and entryists desire.

As the old saw goes, the beatings will continue until morale improves. The war will remain one-sided until Whites stop deploring those who fight back. The problem is moral fraud, not clarity, too few Linders and Breiviks, not too many.

Talking with Bill Rhyes


I’ll be live with Bill Rhyes this Thursday night, 2 July 2015, at 8pm ET (7pm CT) on his program, The Might is Right Power Hour. You can listen and call-in via TalkShoe. Chat via http://mightisright.net/. The mp3 download will be linked here when it becomes available.

We plan to discuss A Personal Disclosure, my role and focus, the White network, White suicide vs genocide, The 14 Words, Breivik, Roof, and more. Join us.

UPDATE 02 July 2015: Bill and I spoke for a bit over 3 hours. Here’s the mp3.

Rhyes and Linder on Breivik


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.

Discussing Breivik on The Friday Show (with Mike Conner and Matt Parrot)

I’ll join Mike Conner and Matt Parrot on the Friday Show, live tonight at Voice of Reason, Friday, April 27th at 9PM ET.

In today’s Breivik headlines, Anders Breivik: Unraveling Violent Crimes and Mental Illness, at ABC News:

“When people struggle to comprehend what lies behind the mass murder of adolescents gathered for a weekend of discussions and campfires, the simplest response is that the killer ‘must be mad,’” Dr. Simon Wessely, head of psychological medicine at King’s College London’s Institute of Psychiatry, wrote in the commentary published Thursday in The Lancet. “The inexplicable can only be explained as an act of insanity, which by definition cannot be rationally explained. The act was so monstrous, the consequences so grievous, that the perpetrator had to be insane.”

We can say the same for those who favor genocidal immigration and integration policies in spite of the monstrous, grievous consequences – all together far more destructive and widespread than what Breivik has taken responsibility for. The perpetrators of these genocidal policies should be on trial, compelled to explain their insanity.

UPDATE 12 May 2012: The Friday Show: Tanstaafl on Breivik (mp3)

Enemy Media: Breivik’s Views Too Popular

In the wake of a very active first week, The Guardian’s Anders Behring Breivik page is relatively moribund today.

Anders Behring Breivik loses front-page power in Norway, published Friday, provides a hint why:

Silje Gloppen, a teacher, said however abhorrent Breivik’s views, lessons needed to be learned from him. “Norwegians and, I believe, the rest of the world have to consider the possibility that this man is speaking the truth when he says he believes our ‘Norwegian culture and ethnicity’ is threatened by multiculturalism,” she said.

Breivik’s outlook is shared by “too many”, she argued, citing the comment fields under articles on Norwegian newspaper websites, and a battle on Wikipedia pages related to the case between moderators and extremist writers trying to take hold of “the truth” on the internet.

“I am afraid the left side in politics have for too long failed to grasp that there are challenges with the new society that need to be discussed,” she added.

Paul Brennan (paulrbrennan) has been silent since court adjourned Friday.

Helen Pidd (helenpidd) twits today that she’s back in London where she will find it tricky to report further on the trial. She redirects those who are interested to Lars Bevanger (lbevanger) and Trygve Sorvaag (trygvesorvaag). She also cites Chris Elliott’s op-ed, Open door: The readers’ editor on … the problems of tweeting the Anders Behring Breivik trial, which in turn provides a reporter’s rationalizations about why reporting testimony directly from Breivik’s trial is bad:

A tweet goes straight from event to air – and stays there. It is a discrete package that may later form a strand of a larger, more complex, story, but which will, nevertheless, exist of itself, shorn of context.

It is an effective form of digital journalism and is increasingly first with the news – whether that comes from a journalist or a well-informed tweeter. However, it is reductive by nature. When the Guardian was planning coverage of the trial of Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian extremist who has admitted killing 77 people, the Guardian’s editorial team discussed whether tweeting was an appropriate tool.

Helen Pidd, the reporter who is covering the trial, was concerned beforehand that reducing “his justifications to a stream of 140-character soundbites” would be giving Breivik the platform he sought.

Pidd fingers the most important reason: Despite the reduction and distortion, she finds her enemy’s position still too potent.

Pidd said: “I would say I have had far more comments from people thanking me for the ‘grim but necessary’ reports on Twitter than those complaining I was giving Breivik the platform he craved. Two followers tweeted me to say they were ‘unfollowing’ until I left Oslo because it was ‘too much’.”

She has gained almost 3,000 followers in four days, a number of whom were angry when she said she wasn’t going to tweet everything on day one “because … they accused me of censorship”.

She said she wasn’t “completely comfortable with tweeting the trial”, not least because so much of Breivik’s ideology was formed online. But she felt it was important to engage readers, plus it does drive traffic to the website.

Breivik correctly identified the media and it’s pundits as enemies. Those pundits are less forthright about it, but reading them closely it’s clear they agree. They understand, at some level, that their multicult ideology is unpopular, that the verdict on it is already in. Now that they’ve gotten enough to reduce Breivik to “the Norwegian extremist who has admitted killing 77 people”, that’s the only context they want to provide.