Tag Archives: anders behring breivik

Linder is Right

what_would_breivik_do

Linder Daily Commentary, 2017-05-14:

#HeroDylannRoof

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

might_is_right

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

inspiration

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.

beivik_in_court

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_says_breiviks_views_too_popular_crimps_reporting

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.

anders_breivik_trial_day_five

Breivik Trial, Day Five

Courtroom twitterers:

Paul Brennan (paulrbrennan) on Twitter
Helen Pidd (helenpidd) on Twitter
Trygve Sorvaag (trygvesorvaag) on Twitter

Selected twits from 20 April 2012, in chronological order.

@helenpidd: Breivik: “I am not a racist, I am an anti-racist.” Concerned with the “anti-European racism” in the Norwegian media.

@helenpidd: Breivik complains that “cultural conservatives” such as himself has no chance of having a letter published in a Norwegian newspaper.

@helenpidd: Breivik says he was influenced in a particular bomb making technique by Andreas Baader from the Red Army Faction/Baader Meinhof Gang.

@helenpidd: Breivik: “We consider the police our brothers, along with the military. if we are going to have a coup d’état, we are going to rely on them”

@paulrbrennan: “Starting point was not to kill as many as possible, but to send a message and ensure the compendium was distributed.”

@paulrbrennan: “If the building had collapsed, Utoya would have been unnecessary, and I could have driven straight to the police station…

@paulrbrennan: “I cannot claim to comprehend the suffering I have caused. If I were to try to comprehend the suffering I have caused, I wouldn’t

@paulrbrennan: “…have been able to sit here today, or even to *live* after July 22nd.”

@paulrbrennan: lawyer: how can you say that, but you cried when you saw your own film the other day (in court)…?

@paulrbrennan: says “What I love is not the same thing you love.”

@helenpidd: Breivik asked to describe Norwegian culture he wants to protect: “It’s everything in Norway ranging from door handles, patterns, beer…”

@helenpidd: “…The way we speak, act… school disciple, politeness, the way we address each other.” (Breivik’s idea of what is Norwegian culture)

@paulrbrennan: is being asked about journalists, and the fact he groups all together, but he differentiates between politicians. why so?

@paulrbrennan: says he differentiates between news and sports journalists….

@paulrbrennan: #Breivik is asked how he found out that 44 of his victims held leadership positions. #Breivik: “my assumption was that more than half would”

@paulrbrennan: After lunch, #Breivik will be asked more about the ‘categories of traitors’ which he outlined yesterday.

@paulrbrennan: MT @mmayson: Are you aware it’s Hitlers birthday today? Is that why #Breivik is dressed completely in black? Mike << I wasn't aware. Maybe. @paulrbrennan: #Breivik says he’s a third generation militant nationalist. Says he tried essays on internet, debate, “absolutely everything.”

@helenpidd: Breivik: violence was last resort: previously tried “everything that was possible through peaceful means until I lost my faith in democracy”

@paulrbrennan: #Breivik now to be asked about Cat A-B-C traitors.

@paulrbrennan: #Breivik is being shown an image of the badge he photoshopped onto his uniform: “Marxist Hunter: Valid for Cat A,B,C only”

@paulrbrennan: #Breivik is told that about half of those he killed were less than 18 years old. #Breivik says he assumed they were older.

@paulrbrennan: #Breivik psychiatrist asks him why he thinks they are lying. #Breivik “That is a good question, maybe you can tell me…?”

@helenpidd: Breivik tells psychiatrists that his meditation dulls all emotions – “from happiness to sorrow, despair, hopelessness, anxiety, fear”

@TrygveSorvaag: Prosecutor takes over and moves over to Utøya.

@TrygveSorvaag: #Breivik asks people to leave the room if they do not want to listen to this.

[Much twittering conveying Breivik's recounting of the attack omitted.]

@paulrbrennan: #Breivik looked at his notes for a second there. Says he shouted “You are going to die today, Marxists!” at the tent site.

[More twittering conveying Breivik's recounting of the attack omitted.]

@paulrbrennan: #Breivik says when he reached Lovers’ Path again he heard a helicopter in the trees above. Thought police must now be on island.

@paulrbrennan: #Breivik: “And I thought, do I really want to survive this? I will be the most hated man in Norway. And I looked over and saw my Glock…”

@paulrbrennan: #Breivik: “…and I thought about shooting myself in the head.” Says he remembered his compendium and the plan to face judicial process.

@paulrbrennan: #Breivik: remembers helicopter was very close, and wondered why, because new police had thermal cameras and didn’t need to be so close.

@paulrbrennan: #Breivik: said he thought ‘my mission is over’, had no intention of firing on the police because they are not the enemy.

The journalists covering the story are the enemy however. Here they are fretting about how twitting makes it harder to spin the proceedings their way.

Reporting the Anders Behring Breivik trial | Online Journalism Features | Journalism.co.uk:

As the court’s live TV feed is subjected to a ban on broadcasting any of Breivik’s, or his victims’, testimonies, many people across the globe are likely to choose to follow the Twitter feeds of journalists inside the court room for updates.

But free speech blogger Daniel Bennett told Journalism.co.uk he believes substituting reporting Breivik for tweeting his quotes leads to coverage fraught with problems. He also blogged about the issue for Index on Censorship.

“The problem for live-tweeting journalists is that it is hard to do any more than simply relay what Breivik is saying,” Bennett said.

“Live-tweeting is a time consuming exercise and it is difficult to consistently provide background information, context and challenge Breivik’s unsavoury evidence.”

He added that the “natural news instinct” is to repeat Breivik’s “most shocking” comments, “potentially causing additional suffering or inspiring extreme right-wing nationalists.”

As Bennett flagged up in his Index blog post, Guardian reporter Helen Pidd, tweeted on Tuesday: “Heading to Oslo today for the Breivik trial. Should I live-tweet proceedings? I’m thinking not. Loath to give Breivik the platform he craves”.

And she went on to discuss the ethics of live-tweeting the trial with her followers and colleagues.

“@pollycurtis Well, I think with a report you have context. With tweets I’d feel I was publicising his warped soundbites without criticism.”

Twitter users who replied to Pidd’s comments were divided over whether she was justified in this self-censorship. However, Pidd disclosed that her colleagues at the Guardian had agreed that it was “not morally wrong to live tweet the trial” and went on to tweet the proceedings in its minutiae.

Bennett believes that the only way to overcome the ethical issues surrounding live-tweeting is incorporating the tweets into liveblogs, and longer articles where there is more space for additional analysis.

“But even then”, he says, “there is a difficult balance to be struck between accurate reporting and providing a platform for an abhorrent ideology which led to the killing of 77 Norwegians.”

anders_behring_breivik_20120416_01

Breivik Trial Begins

Norway mass killer deemed sane in new finding, Reuters, 10 April 2012:

“We’re talking about psychosis, and we have found no evidence of it,” psychiatrist Asgar Aspaas told reporters after submitting the 310-page report based on weeks of round-the-clock observation.

Aspaas was one of two experts appointed to provide a second opinion after a previous team using different methods found Breivik to be a psychotic who also suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. The initial finding caused a public uproar.

“It’s a completely open question now,” said Jo Martin Stigen, a University of Oslo law professor. “I don’t think we can rule out that he will be considered legally sane in the end.”

The dueling psychiatric teams are expected to defend their diagnoses in court, which is unusual in Norway. The final ruling will be made by a five-judge panel as part of its verdict at the end of the trial.

SATISFIED

Defense attorney Geir Lippestad told reporters Breivik was satisfied by the new report and that Norwegians should brace themselves for “tough and demanding” testimony by the killer who espouses far-right ideology.

“Not only will he explain (his actions), but he will also say he regrets that he didn’t go further,” Lippestad said.

“The background for the killings are his paranoid psychotic delusions that he is a participant in a civil war where he is responsible for deciding who lives and dies,” the first report said. “His mission is to save the entire western world’s culture and genes.”

In a letter last week to news media, Breivik called the initial finding of psychosis a “humiliation” and said the experts seemed too traumatized by the killings to be objective.

Norway killer admits massacre, claims self-defense:

“I don’t recognize Norwegian courts because you get your mandate from the Norwegian political parties who support multiculturalism,” Breivik said in his first comments to the court.

“I admit to the acts, but not criminal guilt,” he told the court, insisting he had acted in self-defense.

The key issue to be resolved during the 10-week trial is the state of Breivik’s mental health, which will decide whether he is sent to prison or into psychiatric care. Anxious to prove he is not insane, Breivik will call right-wing extremists and radical Islamists to testify during the trial, to show that others also share his view of clashing civilizations.

Breivik also announced he doesn’t recognize the authority of Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen, because he said she is friends with the sister of former Norwegian Prime Minister and Labor Party leader Gro Harlem Brundtland.

The anti-Muslim militant described himself as a writer, currently working from prison, when asked by the judge for his employment status.

He claims he targeted the government headquarters in Oslo and the youth camp to strike against the left-leaning political forces he blames for allowing immigration in Norway.

Breivik wants to be judged as a sane person and will call radical Islamists, and extremists on the right and left to testify to support “his perception that there is a war going on in Europe,” his defense lawyer, Geir Lippestad, told the court. Lippestad said Breivik wants to read a new document he’s written at the start of his testimony on Tuesday.

While Norway has a legal principle of preventive self-defense, that doesn’t apply to Breivik’s case, said Jarl Borgvin Doerre, a legal expert who has written a book on the concept. “It is obvious that it has nothing to do with preventive self-defense,” Doerre told The Associated Press.

Police sealed off the streets around the Oslo court building, where journalists, survivors and relatives of victims watched the proceedings Monday in a 200-seat courtroom built specifically for this trial.

Thick glass partitions were put up to separate the defendant from victims and their families, many of whom are worried that Breivik will use the trial to promote his extremist political ideology. In a manifesto he published online before the attacks, Breivik wrote that “patriotic resistance fighters” should use trials “as a platform to further our cause.”

After he surrendered, Breivik had told investigators he is a resistance fighter in a far-right militant group modeled after the Knights Templar — a Western Christian order that fought during the crusades. Police, however, have found no trace of any organization and say he acted alone.

“In our opinion, such a network does not exist,” prosecutor Svein Holden told the court on Monday.

In his manifesto, Breivik described the supposed group’s initiation rites, oaths and the “clenched fist salute” that he used in court, symbolizing “strength, honor and defiance against the Marxist tyrants of Europe.”

Norway killer admits massacre | Photo Gallery – Yahoo! News

Breivik may indeed suffer “paranoid psychotic delusions”, especially concerning the organization he purports to represent. That doesn’t mean Norway’s indigenous population, and for that matter European populations all over the world, don’t face demographic swamping, displacement and dispossession by alien immigrants, muslim and otherwise. Whites who speak out against any of this, never mind resort to violence, are demonized and pathologized just the same.

Speaking of delusions… According to multicultists their genocidal anti-White agenda is both a good thing, something we should all celebrate, and it’s not happening, it’s just a “psychotic delusion” that only exists in the minds of White “racists”. I think they’re just lying.

UPDATE 17 April 2012: Excerpts from Breivik’s statement in court April 17, 2012 « Attack On The Labor Party (based on a Google Translate of http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/22-juli/rettssaken/artikkel.php?artid=10065238):

A couple of questions that might be most important in our time and that all journalists, academics and politicians should ask about is the following:

Do you think it is undemocratic that the Norwegian people have never been asked through a referendum that was made into a multicultural state?

Is it democratic to do it without asking people about the law?

The second question is the following:

Do you think it is undemocratic that Norway welcomes as many African and Asian immigrants that they risk being made a minority in their own capital?

And then someone will say: No, there is no problem because there are free elections.

But then the next question: Do you believe that free choice is enough, and that the press has an obligation to communicate this to people? When the Norwegians, and Europeans have been displaced steering wheel, among other journalists.

That they will lose their culture, their land and traditions and Christianity. Many have seen on several occasions in Europe that (…) Our opinions are seen as inferior and we are seen as second-class citizens.

As it is now, there is no real democracy in Norway and Europe in the Marxist elite decide. The boycott democracy when they feel like it.

I’ll take an example from Austria a few years ago.
We can not allow a nationalist and cultural radical party takes power because their party is intolerant and inhumane.
National and international news agencies put much pressure on Austria, and called them racists and Nazis.

And the same happened when the Swiss voted against the conditions (…) Again, they spoke of them as intolerant and inhumane.

The same is happening now in Hungary, where the nationalist alliance is a victim of the same. (…) By calling them fascists and intolerant.

Swedish news agencies continue to do the same against Sweden Democrats and the Norwegian media has done the same for 20 years against the Progress Party. Here, too, boycotting the democracy and tries to push the Norwegians and Swedes by calling them racists, cruel and intolerant.

Norwegian and European politicians and journalists should ask themselves this question:

Have the Norwegian press ever driven campaign journalism against the Progress Party before the election? The answer is yes, they have been running a smear campaign against the Progress Party for 20 years and will continue to do so, and the same is in progress throughout Europe.

Norway can be called a democracy for 100 percent of the news agencies supporting multiculturalism and systematic censoring of individuals that support ethnic and cultural protectionism?

The answer is no. Norway can not be called a democracy as long as this systematic censorship is taking place.

More and more kulturkonsevartive realize that the democratic struggle is no point. It is not possible to win when there is no real freedom of speech. When more realize this in the coming decades is a short trip to the weapon.

When a peaceful revolution impossible done, a violent revolution, the only possibility.

All those who advocate multiculturalism and kulturmarxisme should expect to be liable in the future.
It is not difficult to foresee when Europe is controlled by multiculturalists. It is the price we pay.

You try to save your people, when the majority chooses propaganda and say that you are a murderer and terrorist. All this we know in advance, so we do not complain. I wrote in the compendium before the surgery that I would be demonized.

To die as a martyr for his people’s survival is the greatest honor in a man’s life.

This is not only our right but our duty. Knowing that I will not scare imprisoned. I was born in a prison and has lived all his life in a prison, where there has been freedom of speech.

A prison where there is no freedom of speech and where I have been forced to look at, but my ethnicity is being deconstructed by kulturmarxister.

In this prison are not allowed to resist, and it is even expected that I should applaud my people.

In this prison management has decided that if you criticize it is not that good.

Demonized ridiculed. This prison is called Norway. It does not matter if I’m locked in Skøyen or Ila.

This is as urgent matter where you live in Norway, because you’re sitting there with a certainty that the country will eventually be deconstructed to the multicultural hell we call Oslo.

And you sit there with the knowledge that democratic struggle is useless because it is controlled with the use of undemocratic methods. The latest report from Statistics Norway show that immigrants will be in the majority in 2040 is very misleading.

It tells very little about the relationship between ethnic Norwegians and non-Norwegian. The reason the report is worthless is that they have deliberately omitted a number of other immigrant groups.

They have also dropped 3 generation immigrants, illegal immigrants and children where one parent is from another non-Nordic area.

The report was commissioned from the multiculturalists, where they try to hide the fact that ethnic Norwegians will be a minority in Oslo in a few years.

This is going to happen. In addition, statistics from the (…) that 47 percent are born to Norwegian sykeshus non-ethnic Norwegian.

It is today’s Oslo and Oslo in 28 years. SSB should be renamed the Labour Party sentralbyrå.

Many have claimed that ultra-nationalists like me want to build a terrorist regime. It is a mistake. I support the Japanese and South Korean model.

Nothing more, nothing less. Is really Japan and South Korea as terrible regimes?

No, they are not. They are high-tech nations. And saying no to multiculturalism and mass immigration in the 70s. They are living besviser that no to mass immigration is successful.

Discipline, æreskodekser and the pride of their own heritage is essential in Japan and South Korea. Women have a secondary role in the workplace. It is therefore absolutely wrong that people like me would like to introduce a vicious terrorist regime.

Today’s most successful nations are Japan and South Korea, which has used ethnic protectionism.

This model is currently the most perfect of all political models. In Europe, the alliance between Marxists and liberals after World War II, in principle, destroyed Europe.

Ethnic Norwegians, and Europeans have been subjected to cruel acts, since our doors opened for immigration in the 60 – and 70-century.

Since Norwegian and European multiculturalists opened to immigration has poured in about 30 million Muslims into Europe. More than 90,000 of my Norwegian sisters have been raped since 1960 until today.

Against the people’s will. It is primarily Labor held responsible for my brothers and sisters.

More that these have been gang raped. More than 300,000 have been physically and mentally harassed, been beaten and robbed by Muslims since 1950 and 60

Several have committed suicide as a result of these atrocities. Hundreds of Norwegians have been killed by Muslims in recent years, including Martine was killed and raped by a Muslim in England.

All these atrocities are crimes against the Norwegian people and it is the Norwegian Labour Party including the AUF that are responsible for this because they’ve invited them here and continue to invite them here.

As a result, we see that ethnic Norwegians.

(If interrupted by the judge asking him to come to a conclusion)

Sitting Bull is and was a hero who was feireret of America’s indigenous peoples. He fought on behalf of his people against General Custer.

Crazy Horse and Chief Galen were other military leaders of the American indigenous people. Were they terrorists, or were they heroes?

Were they evil or were they heroes?

American history books describe them as heroes, not terrorists. Meanwhile, nationalists in Europe are described as terrorists.

Is not that hypocritical and very racist? An individual or group that fights against foreign colonization is not terrorists as history illustrates.

We are no more terrorists against the native Britons who fought against those who fasciliterte the Roman invasion. Norway has an indigenous population. Are Norway’s indigenous ethnic Norwegians?

Did the indigenous people lived here over the past 12,000 years?

The answer is yes, Norway has an indigenous and ethnic Norwegians are Norway’s indigenous people.

There is no difference between the battle being fought in the Soviet and autonomy in Bolivia, and between struggle for us who are fighting for nationalism in Europe.

In 2009, Parliament decided that the indigenous people in Bolivia should have autonomy if they wanted this. There is no difference between the Norwegian people and the Bolivian indigenous people.

Why be treated Nordic and European indigenous worse than other indigenous peoples. Why is the Norwegian Indigenous activists branded as rasisier and Nazis, while indigenous activists in other parts of the world will support and acceptance?

It is extremely unfair and it is unacceptable. Our ancestors have lived in this country for 12,000 years and we, as Norway’s indigenous people, do not accept that our country is colonized against our will.

We like all other indigenous peoples have special rights in this country, and this is something we will continue to fight for. I know that the information that I represent are difficult to understand. When one is taught to believe otherwise.

It is difficult to fight against the multi-cultural flow when the media pumps out to multicultural propaganda all the time.

Thomas Jefferson said: “Tree of Liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of tyrants.” When national governments are destructive, the people have the right to abolish them.

It is their duty to overthrow such a government. And then to establish new guards for their future security.

It is 100 percent certain is that there is a war between nationalists and internationalists in Europe. We, the first militant nationalists, the first drops of water that realizes that there will be a big storm.

There will be a gradual escalation and polarization in society and we will see further attacks. The multukuluraismenn government is forced to fight an imagined against us on one side and militant islamsisker on the other side.

My European nationalist brothers and sisters will prevail, which will declare the end of a venstreekstremt board that has lasted since the Axis powers fall.

His conclusion:

Multiculturalism is an anti-Norwegian and European anti hatideologi. Multiculturalism is an evil ideology that pushed forward.

We, the indigenous people of Norway, is now in a situation where we are losing our capital and cities. We are about 5-10 years a minority in their own capital.

The political elites in countries stretcher is so brazen that they expect us to applaud deconstruction. And those who did not applaud, are branded as evil racists and Nazis.

This is what is the real madness – they should be subject carried a psychiatric evaluation and labeled as sick, not me.

But the Labour Party’s parliamentary group and all other social democrats in Europe. And why is this the real madness?

This is the real madness because it is not rational to work to deconstruct his own group, their culture, their own religion.

It is not rational to flood his country with the Africans and Asians, so that our culture is lost. This is the real madness. This is the real evil. The universal menneskerettightene allows for the ethnic Norwegians have the right to defense.

Responsible Norwegians and Europeans who feel morally obliged to not see that Norwegians are made to a minority in their own country.
They’re not going to see that we are made to the minority in their own country, we will fight against multiculturalism in the Labour Party and others working towards the same goal.

The attacks were preventatives attacks in defense of the Norwegian culture and my people. I acted with the principle of necessity on behalf of my people, my religion, my ethnicity, my city and my country.

I therefore demand that I be acquitted of these charges.

farhakhaled_1000

Where Jihad and Counterjihad Agree

Farha Khaled’s Caroline Glick Cited As One of Israeli American Tipsters By Gates of Vienna Where Fjordman Appears To Be Back surveys and connects a good portion of counterjihadist dots, linking names with pseudonyms, blogs and photos.

Khaled describes herself as:

Freelance writer. Columnist for the Saudi based Arab News. My op eds focus on exposing Islamophobia.

Khaled begins her article by asserting that Gates of Vienna is a “white supremacist blog which published ‘Fjordman’”, “regularly publishing essays promoting white supremacism”. The bulk of the article goes on to associate various counterjihadist ideologues with GoV.

Here is one of the more meaty, lucid portions (links preserved):

Far right Islamophobic activists have forged alliances of convenience with radical Zionists and regard Israel as an ally, not least because they see Israel’s treatment of Palestinians as a role model for how Muslims should be treated. Hard line Zionists see it as an opportunity to lessen the growing Muslim influence in the USA or Europe which they see as detrimental to a greater Israel. Stooges like Geert Wilders are funded in the hope they can halt Muslim immigration and influence. Marginalised as they are, some European nationalist groups are willing to shed their traditional Jew hatred in an attempt to find allies, but as often happens in marriages of convenience, it doesn’t take much for cracks to appear.

Pamela Geller’s association with the EDL caused waves when Roberta Moore claimed they had Jew hating members and were not sufficiently pro Israel. In Europe, German newspaper Der Spiegel probed this alliance in ‘The Likud Connection‘ showing how some marginalized right wing populists are going the Geert Wilders way. This bizarre coupling has split the far right movement in Europe which has traditionally been anti-semitic.

The counterjihadist network Khaled analyzes is a jewish movement. It is dressed up as Westerners concerned with a defense of the West, but it is in fact dominated by jews and others whose first and foremost concerns are for the best interests of Israel and jews. There are no prominent counterjihadists who defend the best interests of Whites as a people, separate and apart from jews. While they readily distinguish jews and muslims for special consideration, positive and negative, they regard other distinctions between people as wrong, especially if race or “white” is involved. They regard any distinction of Whites from jews as roughly comparable to the threat to jews they see coming from islamization – unthinkably evil.

Khaled engages in similar doublethink, but to a different end. She blithely conflates counterjihadist bigotry in favor of jews with “white supremacism”. She carries on about “islamophobia” as if fearing or resenting being colonized and ruled by aliens is a mental disorder. Khaled has adopted and adapted characteristically jewish rhetoric. She paints her muslim Us as the helpless, blameless victims of a “hate”-filled Them, ascribing bizarre, pathological motives to Them, smearing Them collectively using guilt-by-association.

This rhetoric is fundamentally dishonest as well as bigoted. Counterjihadists see Us and Them as jews and their enemies, while Khaled sees the Us/Them divide being between muslims and their enemies. Both agree that Whites are not entitled to an identity of our own, much less to decide for ourselves who our enemies are.

Just as jews living amongst Europeans have done for centuries now, muslim intellectuals today excuse and direct attention away from their own group’s transgressions by finding fault instead in someone else. As with the apologists for jews, apologists for muslims zealously defend their own group identity and interests while moralizing against “hate” and “racism”, trying to guilt-trip Whites for expressing any kind of identity that excludes them.

Khaled finds it scandalous that Anders Breivik commented at Gates of Vienna. As it happens, Breivik took issue with Diana West’s “anti-sharia” strategy and more generally with the unwillingness of counterjihadists to face the demographic threat posed by immigration:

Why havent you or any of the other current authors on the Eurabia related issues/Islamisation of Europe (Fjordman, Spencer, Ye`or, Bostom etc.) brought up the “D” word? I assume because it is considered a fascist method in nature, which would undermine your/their work? Why would it undermine their efforts when it is the only rational conclusion, based on the above argument? As far as I know, it’s not illegal in Europe to suggest deportation as a future method when discussing future hypothetical World Orders (correct me if im wrong though, Im not 100% sure, lol)!?

The answer, as unwilling as Breivik was to face it himself, is that counterjihadism is about serving the best interests of jews. Thus the concern to not appear “fascist”, meaning “nazi”, meaning anti-jew, takes priority over the identification with or concern for the best interests of Europeans as a people. Should Europe be lost, oh well, the struggle against islamic jihad (in defense of jews) will continue elsewhere.

When Baron Bodissey republished Breivik’s comments he also linked Daniel Pipe’s apologia, Norway’s Terrorism in Context. To distinguish his position from Breivik’s Pipes quotes a similar statement from Breivik’s book:

The reason why authors on the Eurabia related issues/Islamisation of Europe — Fjordman, Spencer, [Bat] Ye’or, Bostom etc. aren’t actively discussing deportation is because the method is considered too extreme (and thus would damage their reputational shields). . . . If these authors are to [sic] scared to propagate a conservative revolution and armed resistance then other authors will have to.

The portion omitted by Pipes is telling:

This would un-doubtfully undermine their work and probably disallowing them to publish any future books. However, the warning about Islam has been repeated for more than two decades and it is apparent that 40 more years of dialogue, without action, would have a devastating effect on Europe.

Indeed. Like the other leading lights of counterjihadism, Pipes doesn’t care as much about the devastating effect on Europeans as he does about what’s best for jews.

(Thanks to Flanders for the link.)