White Nationalists, European nationalists, counter-jihadists, immigration restrictionists, even the Tea Party are being smeared by being “linked” and “associated” with accused Norwegian spree-killer Anders Behring Breivik.
Most of these links exist only in the minds of dishonest leftists seeking to squeeze political advantage from the corpses of teenagers.
But some linkages are real — as real as anything on the internet can be. For instance, I immediately recognized the above photo of Breivik because I have seen it on Facebook a couple of times. (At the time of the attack, he had more than 7,000 Facebook friends.)
I remember him distinctly because of his photos, which look like professional modeling shots, not the typical candid snaps people use for their Facebook avatars.
I recall looking at his profile and deciding that he was not really in sync with the Counter-Currents agenda. He described himself as conservative and Christian (which are not necessarily red flags), but he aligned himself with Europe’s philo-Semitic anti-Islamic movement (which is a very big red flag, and often a Jewish false one at that).
Also, the second time I encountered Breivik’s picture on Facebook, I noticed that his name had been changed. After his picture appeared in news stories, I found it on Facebook under yet a third name (a name other than Anders Behring Breivik), but when I searched again a few minutes later, I could not find that profile.
This gave me an uneasy feeling: There are far too many ideological shape- and name-shifters in our milieu, and these behaviors are usually correlated with a high degree of narcissism as well as deeper psychological disorders. (I get the same creepy vibe from people who change their Facebook avatars a lot.) I have learned from bitter experience that nothing good for our race and cause comes out of association with the insane, so I prefer to err on the side of caution and avoid people who show signs of flakiness.
Initially, I held off writing about Breivik because his motives were not clear. Then Kevin Slaughter scooped the whole world of journalism by bringing Breivik’s rationale to light: 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, a 1,518 page manifesto outlining his worldview and the plans for his attacks. Breivik also created a very well-made video that summarizes his views and illustrates them with effective images. (These were published under the name Andrew Berwick. The book indicates London as the place of publication. The photos in the back, however, are of Anders Breivik.)
Although the crimes of which Breivik is accused bring to mind the Oklahoma City bombing, Breivik’s carefully worked-out manifesto is more in the style of “Unabomber” Ted Kaczynski (although Breivik is not as deep a thinker; nor, unfortunately, is he as concise).
Breivik is a European nationalist whose primary concern is Islamic colonization. He is a conservative, an anti-Communist and opponent of “cultural Marxism,” a Freemason, a Christian who sees Christianity as a cultural force for the unification of Europe against Islam (but obviously not a Christian fundamentalist as claimed by the mainstream media), a philo-Semite and pro-Zionist, an anti-racist, and an anti-National Socialist, who constantly uses Nazism as a paradigm for evil.
Although the North American New Right belongs to the same genus, Euro-Nationalist, I can’t imagine a more fundamentally different species than Breivik, for at the core of his thinking is an intellectual (or, more likely, moral) failing that makes it possible to embrace Jewry (and one of its tentacles, Freemasonry) while fighting its consequences (“cultural Marxism,” the Islamization of Europe) and maligning National Socialism and other forms of Euro-Nationalism that get to the root of the problem.
Breivik’s aim was, apparently, to spark a new crusade to drive Islam out of Europe. His model is the Knights Templar, one of the spiritual-military orders that rolled back Islam during the Crusades. Breivik’s photo of himself in masonic garb is clearly based on the Masonic claim of descent from the Knights Templar.
How, precisely, did Breivik think that he could resurrect the Knights Templar and spark a Europe-wide crusade against Islam by gunning down teenagers? Well, perhaps I speed-read right by it, but I did not see a connection. Breivik has erected a skyscraper of words, but the elevators do not go all the way to the top. He spent 300,000 Euros (!) preparing for his operation, but left a gap between his means and ultimate ends that you could drive a truck bomb through.
Breivik’s tome also includes tips for looking your best for photo shoots. Which makes we wonder: Was the disconnect between Breivik’s political aims and his actions bridged by the sheer narcissism of this smug but deadly dork?
Was Breivik so captivated by his logic, his rhetoric, and his snazzy uniforms that he thought that millions of European men would rise up to follow him after he splattered the addled liberal brains of enough high-school students? When the crusade does not materialize, do you think that he will merely conclude that he needed to kill just a few more people, or maybe spend more time in a tanning bed? Did all these people die because a wealthy, alienated nerd was consumed by his own fantasy world?
If Breivik is indeed the perpetrator of the Norway killings, then I have a very simple message for him: You have done far more, and far worse, than killing 90-odd Norwegians, as terrible as that may be. You have set back the cause of saving the white race as a whole from extinction. For the predictable consequences of this sort of pointless terrorism do not include the revival of the Knights Templar. Rather, they include (1) political crackdowns on dissenters, and (2) increased public resistance to our message by normal people, who are repulsed by mass murder, especially of cute blonde teenagers.
Yes, of course this climate of opinion is being manipulated by our enemies. Yes, our enemies get away with far worse crimes all the time. Yes, it does not have the be this way. But still, this is the reality of the situation. They have the power to smear us, so of course they are going to use it. Terrorism is a fight we cannot win, in the realm of politics or in the realm of publicity. And only a fool picks a fight he cannot win.
And why, in the name of Odin, did the killer choose to target teenagers? (Who are being spun by the media into “children” and “kids” for extra horror.) Yes, there was a certain logic to targeting a youth camp for the ruling social democratic Labor Party. Like all traitorous Western elites, the Norwegian Labor Party condemns ordinary Norwegians to being preyed upon by Third World thieves, rapists, and murderers, whom they import and coddle. Yet they shelter themselves and their families from the chaos the inflict on others. Breivik may have decided to show these hypocrites that they are not invulnerable, that they cannot insulate themselves from the consequences of their own actions.
If that was his intended message, then it was perfectly futile. The Oklahoma City bombing and the 9/11 terrorist attacks proved that the United States government and its functionaries are not invulnerable to the consequences of their actions either. But if these attacks produced one second of moral reflection in the citadels of power, a single moment of clarity about the evil and hubris of American policy, I have yet to see any sign of it. Instead, it produced just more domestic repression and foreign adventurism: more lies, more wars, more victims.
Yes, 9/11 did manage to wake up a lot of Americans, but the Oklahoma City bombing was a huge setback to the patriot and militia movements. Again, only a fool picks a fight he cannot win. If all you can do is wound a monster, then you are better off leaving it alone.
In the aftermath of the attempt to smear American Renaissance by linking it to Arizona spree killer Jared Lee Loughner, I argued (here and here) that armed struggle against our enemies is futile, because they are stronger than us, and unnecessary, because they are pursing policies that will weaken and destroy themselves in the long run.
I also argued that merely verbal condemnations of violence by White Nationalists have no intellectual or moral credibility. The only credible step we can take to avoid senseless and counter-productive killing sprees like Breivik’s is to stop coddling the insane among us. Elitism needs to begin at home.