View Single Post
Old July 29th, 2011 #8
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,335
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

You said you want critical responses, so here's mine.

And that's a big part of my beef with Breivik and other similar stunts. There's nothing to run to.

It's not scary if it's a one-off. Anybody can be gotten to. That's not news.
It most certainly is news. When was that last time anyone did in literally dozens of White enemies in two fell swoops - expertly planned, competently carried out? I've never seen it in my lifetime - and if you're going to mistakenly refer to OKC, please remember that was a government sting operation, produced by our enemy, NOT by our guys. McVeigh didn't actuate the plan, and McVeigh was never, at any point in his life, a racialist. All ZOG lies.

Remember Solzhenitsyn's quote:

To defend oneself, one must also be ready to die. There is little such readiness in a society raised in the cult of material well-being. Nothing is left, then, but concessions, attempts to gain time, and betrayal. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Breivik sacrificed his future to save his nation. He acted heroically. He had other choices, but chose the most difficult of them. He showed what is possible, not just technically but spiritually. He showed that despite everything we've learned from jewish sitcoms and public schools that sex, money and material goods are NOT what life is all about - at least not to some people. Because Breivik had it all - looks, money, youth, a shining future. Yet none of that mattered to him as much as the spiritual need to defend his own people. That is manly. That is heroic. That is Western. That is WHITE.

"Nothing new here." In a sense you're right. Something very OLD here.

Not everyone thinks "it's all good" and abandons his waking interstice to sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll.

It's not enough to kick somebody in the nuts today. You've got to be able to do it tomorrow, and the next day.

To get to the point where you can use tactical political violence with (relative) impunity, you must first have won the hearts and minds of some people.
To use tactical violence with impunity mostly requires keeping your mouth shut. Watch "First 48." Very few niggers, even, could be convicted if they stopped talking. The real danger of the age to the political assassin is ubiquitous tracking devices - video cameras, computers in everything, GPS devices, etc.

It doesn't have to be the entire populace--maybe 5%, maybe 10%--some threshold. Within that percentage, you are recognized as legitimate, despite the shit hurled against you by your opponent. You can't win hearts and minds by first blowing people away--even people who deserve it. You haven't at that point established any accepted opposition.
You're talking about Mao's guerrilla war tactics. It makes no sense to judge Breivik by that standard because he wasn't part of a cell, to all appearances, no matter what he said.

I would separate the discussion into two parts: 1) what was Breivik's intent, and what did he achieve, by that measure? 2) how would hypothetical 'hardists' be wise to act if they want to rid the west of the judeo-communist elite murdering our nations?

First you establish your core. It's unassailable. Then, perhaps, one could use political violence--to establish among the fence sitters that you do in fact mean business. But you can't do that until you can't be quashed, until your core is large enough to withstand the blowback. Surviving that, you expand the core with the influx of fence-sitters who are now believers. It's a feedback loop to your favor.
Sure...but this is obvious, and you're discussing it at a level that's too abstract to be useful.

"Establish your core." Yeah, ok. What does that mean? Not in theory, but in actuality. How are you going to do that in an age in which virtually all communications are collected and analyzed; and seemingly most actual physical movements are videotaped?

Forming a physical core seems a rather difficult thing to do, if there is any outward sign this core is bent on phyical fighting (or really, anything more than virtual whining). We know the history of the White movement in the 20th century. It's nothing but a history of being set up and infiltrated and destroyed. Do you know how to change this? Do you have the technical solution, or the organizational solution?

Isn't it possible that all you need are people operating in the ways they see best, based on a common ideology, a common idea of what/who is good and bad, and what generally needs to be done? Why need these individuals come together until such time as that makes logical sense - ie, they can actually protect themselves from infiltration and strike actual reprisal blows, as a team or party, against potential enemies -- and advertise what they are doing to bring in recruits and intimidate the opposition?

And Breivik's target. . .

How was that helpful?
That's been answered. Apparently you don't agree with the answer, but if you have a better one, you haven't stated it.

Norway is a country of 5 million. It is run by socialists bent on doing in the Nordic nature of the country and turning into another third-world shithole. A good portion of the rising generation of leaders of its main party has been taken out in a single calendar day. "How is that helpful?" I should think the answer is pretty obvious.

Imagine the electorate. Cow-like. Obtuse. That's who votes. That's who you're winning over.
Ok, so you're driving off the usual "we have to appeal to people, we have to win them over." But that is wrong. The way to look at it is what I said in my post above: assume the people are with us, based on the fact that, well, they are. The reason they don't FOLLOW us or VOTE for us is because they quite rationally FEAR the consequences of loss of status and livelihood. What will get rid of that fear? Eliminating the people who are causing it: the corrupt elite who will not allow their political monopoly on power to be voted out of office.

That's the whole argument, which you're simply avoiding, defaulting to the typical WN conservative view: that we're just another electoral option, who must gamely persevere in a rigged game until we finally somehow win at 3-card monte. Breivik ain't playing the rigged game. He's not playing democratic politics, he's playing the same game the totalitarians-pretending-to-be-democrats are: he's playing ULTIMATE POLITICS. There are no rules. The battle goes to the winner, and no one asks how victory was achieved. And all that is is life itself, which all operates on that principle, no matter what the religious fool, to be redundant, asserts out of his ignorant cowardice about god and morals.

How can "we" win if we're called haters, thrown in jail for making arguments, and denied access to the main media on the same basis as the people occupying the government? There is no way. We cannot win. Breivik shows there's a way that, potentially at least, we can win. Not one of those dead judeo-socialist nits will ever: admit a Somali into Oslo; lead a campaign to normalize sexual perversion in Trondheim public schools; order the bailiff to seize the children from the parents who have taught it that Norway belongs to light-eyed, flaxen-haired Scandinavians. That is victory. However small, it is victory.

Humans are a profoundly imitative species. Breivik knows that. It's why he did what he did. One reason anyway.

The facade of the System oppressing Whites is democratic. Deliberately is created the illusion that things-as-they-are be the result of neutral machinery, rather than a nasty dark tyranny inside a big-grinnin' Richard Nixon bankrobbing mask. But when you try to get a little o' that tasty democratic process (laws, courts, established procedures, mass media access) for your own White self... to create fundamental change in favor of your people...the gigantic MAJORITY... why, you find that the works are jammed, and your call isn't put through. No matter how many times you redial....

Breivik called the System's bluff. He played not the game the oppressed are supposed to play, but the game the actual rulers of the country are playing: "Just win, baby!" as NFL jew Davis once put it. The System does not like that. It damages its facade, it shows it's not invincible, it puts ideas in the heads of onlookers who just maybe are tired of getting mugged and harassed by the mud monsters the leftists keep bringing into the city centers. All bad for the jewish-left trying to nation-wreck Norway.

Now you go out and blow away a bunch of sitting ducks on an island.

What connection does Bjorg dipshit, out on his fjord, make of that? Nothing positive. "But they were the new cadre of destroyers!" Yes they were. "They deserved it!" Can't argue with you.

But the vast majority of the white public does not and will never understand that. It's intangible. It's too intellectual. The crowd doesn't get that, and never will.
The crowd understands exactly what it needs to: the reason Breivik did what he did. The fact that he killed a LOT of enemy.

This, as the economists say, exerts downward pressure on the number of jusos (young socialists) who might want to be part of next summer's fun-in-the-sun commie indoctrination camp, and it exerts upward pressure on any enheartened by the idea that, hey, maybe I could kill me a few punk-ass hate-communists too!

If it were put to a vote whether Norway should open its borders to Africa and the rest of the Third World, would the majority vote to do that, or to retain Norway's boundaries and character? The majority would vote for the latter. So the argument breaks Breivik's way. The majority is made up of people who have to step lightly in THEIR biggest cities; who have daughters and sisters and friends who have been robbed, raped and harassed by the monkeys the socialists let in. They are intelligent enough to grasp what Breivik meant by his act, whether they agree with it or not. That's all that matters. Of course one act won't win the population over into active resistance, no more than the first pickaxe blow splits the boulder. But it does make the public opens its eyes, look around, sniff the wind, wonder just what might be going on here. Put the first little shiver of doubt in the ruling party, and make the herd nervous that maybe, just maybe, there's going to be a battle for authority.

Now, sink a ship of dusky invaders crossing the Skagerrak, and simultaneously blow away the immigration ministry where these "liberal" kids are working--even Bjorg can figure that out, and almost certainly applaud.
Except the whole problem is how passive whites have become, especially in the Nordic countries. If Breivik killed a bunch of niggers or muslims, they would fight back with great vengeance, which would be blamed on him. Instead he went after the whiteskin leaders of the passives - and all THEY will ever do is hold a candlelight vigil. Which they already have. Yeah, they'll make noise about taking away butter knives and requiring a journalist license to use nouns and adjectives outside the Official Vocabulary List, but that means nothing. Norway already has no freedoms worth mentioning. Multiply zero as many times as you want, and the result is the same.

The most important right of all is the one that no man can rescind: the right to fight back against your enemy.

The hard part is building the core. You can't begin to think of anything serious on the macro scale before you've accomplished this. You must win hearts and minds. There's no equation (that I'm aware of). Maybe there will be after we're through. It's chaotic.
You're confusing two different things. The need to have a base for a guerrilla war, per Mao's doctrine, and the need for WN to spread their message. We can't win hearts and minds in the mass way you're talking about without control of tv, and that is the same thing as saying we've won the revolution. It simply doesn't have anything to do with violence; they're two separate considerations. We have to assume people are with us, which is biologically true, as we represent WHITE NORMALITY, and work to reduce the FEAR that prevents them from associating and working with us politically. Striking physical blows at the enemy reduces their fear of ZOG, since they see right before their eyes ZOG elitists being blown away.

You think some Norwegian journalists and bureacrats aren't going to think twice after this event? Or after it happens a few more times? Of course they will. It's human nature. If all the blows are struck by one side against the other, then who the heck wants to join the losing side? But if the blows begin to run BOTH ways, why, then it becomes a much more interesting question. Joining with the pro-Norway forces, if they prove they're serious, as Breivik has, begins to become a serious option in the eyes of the people. Who of course fall into the usual bell curve of cowardice/bravery. Bravery not only attracts the brave, it emboldens the less brave. It shifts the bravery curve to the right - it increases the amount of bravery, just as men literally generate more testosterone when they triumph at something. That's how men are.

Our side is so bitchy and whiny BECAUSE all we do is take take take blows and never deliver them, except in our cutesy little typings. Well, this guy, altho not technically one of us, DID deliver a blow. ZOG/norway has indeed been hurt by Breivik's action.

Stuff like a homeschool curriculum feeds into this. Not sexy. But part of it. Winning hearts and minds. Winning women. Winning children.
Yes - it creates actual community, mental and physical. But it's entirely a different and smaller order than controlling tv, which is the only real way to effect mass mind change. That means, you're never going to build up a large enough community to get the support for violence through homeschooling, so it's not part of that discussion. WHS is just something that should be done for its own sake, as part of the soft agenda. The average white is with us in the sense I've said many times. That is a political fact. But that "with us" doesn't mean anything until we're in position to leverage it, which means we have a political force that speaks for it cogently (offers it defense, racial aid, and a plausible new system to counter/replace ZOG's). WHS is for growing a hard seedcore of people who aren't just white but WHITE - white not just racially but White politically, socially, consciously, organically and life-contextually. The parallel would be to conservative christians building HS networks and setting up HS colleges and law schools - they've created a full, if small, parallel culture to the ZOG mainstream culture, even if they've yielded (or never had opposed) the ZOG ideology on the central points (equalitarianism, loosely).

Local level. . .er. . "private business". . . feeds into this. Not glamorous. Street stuff. Dealing with people you hate/can't stand--of all races. Taking care of your shit. Building your local network. Establishing yourself.

We need professionals on our side. That doesn't mean they have some goofy flag hanging out. It just means. . .they're on our side. The right thinks you do this by kissing ass to the powerless. I think you do it by establishing camaraderie between conscious Whites, who don't imagine themselves to live in some ivory tower, like conservative losers, to be redundant.

How do you go about establishing that camaraderie? That's what needs to be worked on.
All valid stuff - this is just ordinary networking. There isn't really anything that need be OVERTLY political about it. But this is not the same as the technical physical struggle we're discussing in the same breath. At least not until these hypothetical networks actually exist. And probably not until ZOG's infrastructure breaks down farther than it has.

The first 5%: It's a meat grinder. It isn't pretty. For the vast majority who lead in this period, who play a role that will have been pivotal later on, there will be no glory, no accolades. That's just the way it is.

So I really don't wan't to read about Breivik being a hero or a genius. He isn't. Smart guy? Generally. . .apparently. He gets a big mark for having balls, that I grant.

But so what? What base has he built? Don't give me any braindead "starting a fire" crap. He wouldn't have had occasion to recognize (to his immense credit) the imminent danger posed to Norway by non-white immigration if his society were amenable to righting itself by the act he committed.
You're conflating two different things.

There is a hell of a lot more than 5% of Norway that doesn't want muds let in to ruin the country.

You're saying that Norway can't begin to physically resist until 10% are hard-core, ideologically solid, professionally and personally networked racial counter to that is you're forgetting the size of the country, and the demographics. There's 5m people, and about 500k mud invaders, and more coming daily. There isn't enough time to do what you describe. The muds will overwhelm before any ideologically solid base can be built.

Rather, resistance must base on never having control of mass media, but being on the side of the Norwegian majority, which does not want Oslo turned into Lagos. Based on that unchanging passive support, others following Breivik must through their deeds and organization convert passive feelings into positive action. Taking out a bunch of the vile and murderous and nation-wrecking enemy seems to me a pretty darn good way to do that.

After all, as the Italians say, "eating makes appetite."

Last edited by Alex Linder; July 29th, 2011 at 05:18 PM.