Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old July 29th, 2011 #1
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default Anders Breivik: Not a Hero

I originally posted this in a thread I later realized to be in the UK forum. I didn't want it there, so I deleted it immediately after originally posting.

I'm very interested in comments. I want to read where and why my reasoning is considered wrong or incomplete. I want alternatives and additions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy View Post
He was pro-Jew, unlike those of us here. A much better match would be Glenn Beck, who's a match with his values on 5 important issues:
Beck and Breivik are Zionists
Beck and Breivik are Conservatives
Beck and Breivik are anti-Muslim
Beck and Breivik are Christians (at least nominally)
Beck and Breivik are anti-Multiculturalism (Breivik more-so)

5 out of 5

In general VNN'ers are anti-Jew (to say the least) unlike Breivik
VNN'ers are not Conservatives (there's little we want to conserve) unlike Breivik
VNN'ers are not pro-Muslim, but are somewhat sympathetic to Palestinians resisting the Zionists (so long as they stay in Palestine)
Vnn'ers generally aren't too big on Christianity (Alex attacks the Christ Cult frequently)
Vnn'ers are in total agreement with Breivik on multiculturalism.

1 out of 5

So, what you have is an ultraviolent Neo-con, not someone that would fit in here on VNN.
Nice.

My interest in Breivik is similar to my interest in the Third Reich. I'm interested in learning from his successes and failures, where there is overlap with our situation. I'm not interested in making him out to be a hero or genius because he killed some adults that, frankly, deserved it. I'm not running from him, but neither am I running to him.

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'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. 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.

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.

And Breivik's target. . .

How was that helpful?

Imagine the electorate. Cow-like. Obtuse. That's who votes. That's who you're winning over.

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.

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.

What I've just outlined is the easy part. It's fantasy football. The gameplan writes itself. Hell, we've got nature itself on our side. Once the ball begins to roll, it won't stop.

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.

Stuff like a homeschool curriculum feeds into this. Not sexy. But part of it. Winning hearts and minds. Winning women. Winning children.

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.

Questions like this can go on.

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.

That's because a society poised to right itself in such a fashion would never have become so fucked in the first place.

Last edited by Leonard Rouse; July 29th, 2011 at 02:58 PM. Reason: dumb spelling mistake(s)
 
Old July 29th, 2011 #2
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default

There has to be many W's who understand who & why of non-white immigration.
If they don't know why anyone was killed, what could be accomplished?

Our overarching problem is censorship. Job #1 is busting up the information monopoly.

What fraction of White Europeans know what we know? How many know about planned White genocide? How many know that jews control 96% of Western media? How many know of full story of racial genetic differences? How many have ever heard of fractional reserve? How many know their central "banks" (wanks) are private and jewish?

Ex.: A question is asked- "What is the average IQ of dark Africa (blacks, not coloreds)?"

What fraction would say- "Oh around 67 to 70." (The correct answer)
 
Old July 29th, 2011 #3
Leonidas
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 92
Default

I found it interesting that Brievik's manifesto called upon Chinese Buddhists, Jews, and Hindus to contain the spread of Islam. His playbook might as well be taken out of the Mossad's global strategy.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-...u-nationalists

Quote:
Mr. Breivik’s primary goal is to remove Muslims from Europe. But his manifesto invites the possibility for cooperation with Jewish groups in Israel, Buddhists in China, and Hindu nationalist groups in India to contain Islam.
The Mossad has a big presence in India, to stir up anti-Muslim hatred, because they consider Pakistan to be their #1 national security threat. That could have been a reason for the similar false flag attack in Mumbai, which was hushed up now in the press, because they guy they caught turned out to be an intelligence officer for India.

That attack in Mumbai, which was very similar to this Norway attack, was very clearly a false flag attack, with no real clear purpose, other than to stir up anti-Muslim sentiment among the ignorant masses.
 
Old July 29th, 2011 #4
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Ronsavelle View Post
There has to be many W's who understand who & why of non-white immigration.
If they don't know why anyone was killed, what could be accomplished?

Our overarching problem is censorship. Job #1 is busting up the information monopoly.

What fraction of White Europeans know what we know? How many know about planned White genocide? How many know that jews control 96% of Western media? How many know of full story of racial genetic differences? How many have ever heard of fractional reserve? How many know their central "banks" (wanks) are private and jewish?

Ex.: A question is asked- "What is the average IQ of dark Africa (blacks, not coloreds)?"

What fraction would say- "Oh around 67 to 70." (The correct answer)
I agree with all that, and I should have mentioned it in the essay/response above.

However, the kind of direct, mass media influence we all want isn't coming anytime soon. That comes after the core. It's in the end-game, or maybe mid-game.

The core has to have its own culture. That's where our media is, in the meat grinder. When will it become mass? I don't know. You spot it after-the-fact, not before. Maybe never, as a continuous venture.

It's a chicken-and-egg issue. Perhaps it's better to consider media influence differently than most of us have until now. Instead of "if this, then that". . ."if we controlled the mass media, then we could right the wrongs". . .rather ask "is our media commensurate with the needs of our core?" That way, when the core becomes identical with the general White population (or the majority of it), the question will resolve itself.

I guess I'm thinking it's not exactly something you aim for independently. . .and then all these great things will happen.

Last edited by Leonard Rouse; July 29th, 2011 at 02:15 PM.
 
Old July 29th, 2011 #5
fossilator
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 388
fossilator
Default

Good to see that at least Leonard Rouse has thought about the various angles before issuing some knee jerk reaction. That event merits a lot more scrutiny and analysis before rushing to judgement.
 
Old July 29th, 2011 #6
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fossilator View Post
Good to see that at least Leonard Rouse has thought about the various angles before issuing some knee jerk reaction. That event merits a lot more scrutiny and analysis before rushing to judgement.
Thanks, but to be fair, my kneejerk a week ago was that it was a Mossad-type job. I don't think that's the case now, though I'm still open-minded to that and other possibilities.
 
Old July 29th, 2011 #7
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,333
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
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.

That's because a society poised to right itself in such a fashion would never have become so fucked in the first place.
There's a soft side and a hard side.

The soft side is VNN/F, all White websites, any kind of educational outreach, a potential White HS curriculum (that does not exist and no one shows interest in creating).

The hard side is killing the enemy.

The people agree with us but are scared of the consequences of being called haters.

Who calls us haters, extremists and the rest of the litany?

The communists, socialists, leftists, illiberals, feminists, journalists. But who creates the terms and frames and entire ideo-structure? The jews do. They set the agenda. The determine the framework. They raise the issue and define the contestants. They define what is inside the pale and what is outside.

They cut it so everyone opposed to them is sick 'n' evil. There is no middle. You cannot be opposed to their agenda and retain your integrity in their eyes, and more importantly, in their mass media.

How do you fight this? On the hard stuff, you simply kill them off. If their technical prowess is such that they can break up cells by early detection, thanks to their pwning the FBI and other spy agencies, then obviously those who would take them out must act alone or with one or two people they'd trust with their lives to keep their mouth shut, since their lives are indeed what's at stake if they screw up, and very likely even if they don't screw up.

Once a man is willing to risk it all, a lot can be done from the hard side. That's what Breivik's act demonstrates. It's not part of a larger plan, obviously, for the reasons I just stated - the enemy is able to prevent enemy networks from being established, as far as we can tell, judging by what we've seen since WWII. So his act was propaganda of the deed. Ably executed, and with an ideological backdrop and context he made sure to circulate, so that all could see his actions as part of a wider strategy, waiting for others to pitch in and push along.

Rounder correctly said that the jews are all in while the goyim who serve them are mostly opportunists. That means, as he said, and I've observed the same myself, the goyim are more lightly guarded. Jews have been racial criminals, shifty-eyed parasites, for 2,000+ years. It's what they know. It's what they are. They don't HAVE another way to be. All their eggs are in one basket, and as Twain advised, they are guarding that basket. They don't have any plan B fallback option. They EXPECT to be attacked. After all, they know what they're doing! It is a big lie that I will not allow neocons to circulate on this site that foolish MacDonald has helped them perpetrate that "self-deception" is involved in jewish attacks on our healthy nations. Jews are some of the most detail-oriented, microscopically-observant, mini-movement obsessed people on earth. They not only know what they are doing to us, and know they obtain racial advantage from their tricks, they positively enjoy degrading our culture and torturing our people. That's the psychological and political truth: jews obtain a near-sexual JOY from TORTURING OUR PEOPLE.

These jews must be exterminated at some point - all European-jew history screams with one voice that any other way of treating the threat they present WILL NOT work because it CANNOT work. Jews can no more change the nature of their race than termites can stop eating wood. Only the catholic christ cult dogma that jews are just men like any other defined only by their non-conversion to the One True Way keeps us from seeing what is obvious.

The point is for any hard-siders, the goyim serve the jews NOT because they LIKE the jews (no matter what it's in their interest to claim in public), but because they FEAR the jews and the LIKE the benefits that sucking up to and serving the jews gets them. All that means to those who don't like the existing order is that if there were anywhere near equal and opposite pressure on these weaklings and sellouts - they would find some pretext to flee quickly to the other side.

Remember always the basic lie of the jews, their fundamental conceit: that THEY rather than WE speak for OUR community. They can get away with this monstrous imposture because they have suborned too many of our elite; they have created and surrounded themselves with goypuppets; and they control the official voices that most white humans biologically incline to respect and listen to and follow. But if the loudspeakers are taken out of their hands, and a new voice comes over them - the people will follow that which in their hearts they GENUINELY prefer, and default to WHITE NORMAL with no small relief! And the jews well know this. If they were actually self-deceptive about what they're doing, they would believe their own bullshit and not worry about 'hate' and 'extremism.' But they DO worry about it, enough to lie about its existence, to turn WHITE NORMAL into HATE, and to root out and scream down or set up anyone who dares to resist.

The jews are the ringleaders, but in pure numbers, most of their frontmen and lower-level servants are raceless, self-interested goyim. Who are much more easily gotten to (1), and (2) much likelier to yield to threats and physical pressure - because they have other options. Just as Rounder said.

An example: Rush Limbaugh used to criticize homos. One time a bunch of homos arranged to show up at his late tv show, and when he started going off, they started screaming at him. After that, he basically never criticized homos again. He yielded to a pretty small bit of verbal/economic pressure.

How many of the goyish neocons do you think would keep pumping for war if there were even a 1% chance it would get them physically taken out?

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable." -- John F. Kennedy

Breivik's actions are a perfect example of what JFK was talking about.

You lying judeo-communists filling our clean, successful, calm Norways with violent stupid third-world rapists and murderers can call us 'haters,' 'extremists,' and 'racists,' and all the other filth terms in your liar's lexicon all day long - but you are the real haters, the real killers, and the real usurpers. And you are going to get exactly what you deserve.

ITZ COMING.

Last edited by Alex Linder; July 29th, 2011 at 03:21 PM.
 
Old July 29th, 2011 #8
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,333
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

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

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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).

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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 nationalists...my 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.
 
Old July 29th, 2011 #9
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
The jews are the ringleaders, but in pure numbers, most of their frontmen and lower-level servants are raceless, self-interested goyim. Who are much more easily gotten to (1), and (2) much likelier to yield to threats and physical pressure - because they have other options.
I pulled the above out from your first reply because it's something I've thought for a while. White traitors are, by far, in the worst possible position--if pressure is exerted upon them from below, from their own people. They aren't married to their position, being opportunists. And their benefactors are, to say the least, untrustworthy, and despise them even more than WN do.
 
Old July 29th, 2011 #10
H.B.
Senior Member
 
H.B.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Proud Republican
Posts: 4,126
H.B.
Default

I bet most of those traitor politicians would have far preferred Breivik killed them rather than their offspring.

Why the hell should Breivik have honored their wishes? They are fucking traitors. They are active participants in GENOCIDE of their own people. They should be grateful it wasn't worse than it was.

Fuck those politicians and fuck their stupid, brainwashed offspring.

But the offspring are sacred? Says who? That's thinking like a vagina. It's filth like this that cause bullshit wars and send other peoples' children to die in them so fuck them if their offspring get whacked every once in a while and they feel the pain.

If the ONLY thing we are concerned about is people being killed, we should be grateful that if the Norwegians actually LEARN something from this by closing their borders and deporting the Third World trash, then FAR more lives will be saved from immigrant crime in the long run.
__________________
Smash jewish supremacy. Smash globalism. Smash ZOG. Use ad blockers at all times to starve off the (((beast))).
 
Old July 29th, 2011 #11
ernst blofeld
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,139
ernst blofeld
Default

I don't have a clue about the legal system in Norway but if Breivik is allowed to speak in his own defense at his trial he could change a lot of minds, provided he gives a tour de force argument.
I wouldn't be surprised if some accident befalls him in prison before he is given the chance.
The powers that be know he is highly intelligent and articulate and may see he doesn't get a trial at all.
 
Old July 29th, 2011 #12
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
You said you want critical responses, so here's mine.
Thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
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.
No, I'm not. And I can't come up with another example--not one constrained by dozens.

But I can come up with The Order, which is the closest thing we have to this in the States, albeit by (a) a group, (b) from a different social class, and (c) by conscious racialists (which Breivik, apparently was not, and is largely beside the point).

I'm not against The Order, but do you consider their exploits to have been a success? I can spin them that way, but in my heart of hearts I do not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
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.
Yeah, he also had an over-active imagination where he was some sort of Templar Knight. If he had all those attributes (which I'm not arguing he did not), does it make sense for him to have spent himself killing a bunch of people who are going to be replaced when the next bus rolls around tomorrow? That's rhetorical. You think yes. I think no.

I mean, it's almost like a bloody (literally) version of Monty Python. The best plan he came up with was to dress up, go out in a blaze of glory, and then depend upon the good that resides in all men's hearts to validate him, to rise up in his stead? Good intentions. . .yeah, OK. That's not nuts, albeit well-intended?

You don't win a chess match by sacrificing your best pieces first.

Regarding OKC: Yes, that differed materially from this case up until the bomb went off. However, isn't it fundamentally the same result, albeit arrived at by a different path? Was OKC beneficial? Was it a net positive? There were (and perhaps still are) many who applauded what happened there and feel no sympathy whatsoever for those killed. They've got the story wrong, but still, why didn't/haven't they acted?

Ditto The Order. Was the aftermath of their activities a plus or minus? Did their activities ultimately matter, or was their strategy just a bump in the road? Whom did they inspire to similar action?

Maybe it's like starting a lawnmower: It'll catch, eventually, if you can hold-out to pull enough times.

Quote:
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.
I agree with all that. But we're not talking about random nigger violence or non-political crime, violent or otherwise. People who get pulled-in, after a point, are going to be out of the game whether they talk or not, whether they're proven guilty or not. You can't depend on kindled heroism in some sort of "lone wolf" scenario to sustain that effort. It has to be deeper than that.

Imagine if the D-Day invasion were plotted by one fisherman out in the Channel, with himself cast to storm the beach. That's not heroic, that's crazy.

I know the analogy isn't ideal--Breivik's message to the sell-outs is bound to make a bigger psychological dent. My contention is that the blow will be absorbed without fundamentally altering the trajectory of the sell-outs. If there were follow-up action--like a series of combinations in boxing--then maybe real change. But there won't be any follow-up action because there is no base from which to act. It is (or I suspect it to be) a one-off.

Isn't it like you're positing some sort of libertarian theory of insurgency, where "social actors" see the personal benefit (for their families, perhaps) of taking direct, independent action, which all somehow adds-up into a net huge effect--something from Adam Smith in the bizzaro world?

If so, that's just wishes and dreams. It's never happened. It doesn't matter if you're at the cave painting stage or streaming in 4G. It will never happen that way.

You can't win versus an organized, well-funded, etc, opponent based merely on vague support from the populace and a few mosquito bites.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
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.
No. To the extent they can be compared, it's because all insurgent strategies have to intersect at the same point, where the people are. Otherwise it's pie in the sky.

I'm not comparing him to Mao's (or another's) model. I'm simply asking, "Does Breivik's action substantially further his own stated cause?" At present (and I'm willing to come off this pending further info), I say it does not, and can not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
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?
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
Quote:
Originally Posted by LR
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.
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
"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?
You're right. It is obvious, which is why it should be addressed and not recognized-then-ignored, and there's no time like the present to start since barring an asteroid impact we're stuck with this set of conditions for the duration.

Ignoring it is laziness. No, I don't have the pat answer, but I recognize a vital problem to be solved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
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?
No. This is mis-applied libertarian ideal. It's fantastic.

From whence does this wellspring of commonality arise? Yes, the masses are on "our" side. . .but in the vaguest of senses. It's way too fuzzy, way too out-of-focus at present to be depended upon. If it were as strong as you opine, we'd have no occasion to discuss it.

You're arguing for the basic goodness/wisdom/ability of the crowd. You're arguing that they can storm the beach of their own independent volition, borne of fuzzy thinking, in ones and twos with something other than a bloodbath resulting. In the recorded history of the planet, this has never happened. It would never even get to the bloodbath stage because there won't be any beach stormers in that scenario. It's nuts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
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?
Getting to that point is the battle. It doesn't just happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
Quote:
Originally Posted by LR
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.
Sure, but it's a stupid answer. And I have stated one, as you yourself quoted later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
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.
Yeah. I hate these types, too. No tears here.

You don't declare victory after a single incident like this. It's fireworks, not a fire. Maybe in Norway it can be parlayed into something else, but that something else--if it be substantive--isn't going to be a few merely heeding the call in their hearts to act independently.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
Ok, so you're driving off the usual "we have to appeal to people, we have to win them over." But that is wrong.
No, no. Not CofCC. Not the MacDonald strategy or *shiver* Taylor, et al.

There has to be something binding a portion of the populace together (perhaps a very small portion)--something more substantial than taxes or dislike of niggers--or the larger segment of Whites--the ones you're trying to help (the Tea Party types and the neutral types)--will crucify you for the "left" and their jewish handlers. It doesn't matter that they're nominally anti-immigrant. There has to be a sustained effort. One guy here and there doesn't pronounce "Hey, they mean business!" It pronounces there's no they.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
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.
What "us"? That's my point. It's something that doesn't exist in the public mind, and it won't so long as one depends theoretically on "lone wolf" action saving the day. Lone wolves aren't revolutionaries in the public mind, they're just garden variety bandits. And their activities rarely amount to much precisely because they're acting alone.

I know that you must know how difficult it is for one person to do anything, other than maybe take a crap. It's as much a physical requirement of man's morphology that there be more than one if anything substantive is to be accomplished--other than a few one-off acts of violence.

As to the very real FEAR of the general public, you seem to think Breivik's action alleviates that. I do not. Guy kills a bunch of people to make a political point. Gets put under jailhouse. Life essentially over.

That--[i]by itself[/b]--doesn't alleviate the general public's fear, it confirms it.

Quote:
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.
No. I'm saying Breivik shot his wad before he even got in the snatch. Premature ejaculation. Couldn't wait. I guess that's a money shot, of sorts.

Quote:
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.
No winner has ever achieved victory from a one-off action. That's not ULTIMATE POLITICS, that's ULTIMATE STUPIDITY, no matter how well intended.

There's not going to be anyone asking how victory was achieved because there is no victory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
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.
Sure, agreed in principle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
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.
OK, it's a small victory. I'll grant you that!

Quote:
Humans are a profoundly imitative species. Breivik knows that. It's why he did what he did. One reason anyway.
But nobody imitated The Order (at least not to any substantive degree). You can't depend upon the crowd, of its own volition, to send forth champions from the ether to further your cause. That's White Horse syndrome.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
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....
Agreed, agreed, agreed.

Quote:
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.
Breivik's action, spectacular though it be, is equivalent to throwing a brick through a window. Let's work on cracking the foundation before we throw the victory party.

Quote:
The crowd understands exactly what it needs to: the reason Breivik did what he did. The fact that he killed a LOT of enemy.
So what? It's a one-off (I suspect). He hasn't won anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
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!
Agree, agree, agree.

But to continue the economics analogies, what is the opportunity cost that Breivik has incurred? Was that really the best use of his life? He picked up a bunch of pennies. Great. There isn't a gigantic pile of kroner he could have accessed?

He daytraded. He should have invested. That doesn't mean you never ring the register, just you max out when you do. He took the minimum and seems content.

But without continued action, what's the likelihood of Breivik's activity sustaining? It's slim-to-none. That's why you can't bank on the kind of lone wolf-ism you're positing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
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.
Exactly. But there's nobody to continue the battle. Breivik is a one-off. I don't feel "shown the way." Maybe someone (and more than one) in Norway does. I hope so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
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.
YES! This is the belly of the beast, the white traitors. They are in the worst possible position, as all traitors are, so long as they receive pushback from their own people whom they've sold-out. I don't question Breivik's tactic so much as its implementation, the fact there appears to be -0- follow-through, and cannot be in the manner it was carried-out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
Quote:
Originally Posted by LR
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.
OK, I'm with you finally in that I agree I've way overstated the necessary percentage. But you yourself use the plural in the passage above, talking about "we." You've also talked about what amounts to a series of similar, isolated one-offs that somehow, miraculously, are to a) transpire and b) light a fire. I'm saying that it's never happened that way and it's nuts, albeit well-intentioned.

There has to be a group. A core. Dare I say a vanguard that continues the action. Otherwise it's just rainbows and puppydog tails.

Quote:
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.
Yes. But that's not going to happen because there will be no follow-up. And there will be no follow-up because no conscious infrastructure had been invested in. Breivik amounts to Don Quixote with a machine gun. That's nuts, no matter how well-intentioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
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.
They've been shelled for 60+ years. One guy, one time returning fire does not a counterattack make. That's my beef with Breivik.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
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).
You're right on the WHS. Thank you. I listed it and the other stuff to support a contention that's off-point.

The heart of my argument, though, is that we must get into a position where we can apply political leverage. You can't do that with one-off, lone wolf acts. There must be some kind of group.

Quote:
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.
Ditto. But ZOG's infrastructure isn't going to break down unless it meets an opponent that can muscle them off the court. My contention is that can't come from Breivik-style lone wolf-ism.

I mean, christ, that's why the feds are so hard up on infiltration. You can't do it alone, not sustainably.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
Quote:
Originally Posted by LR
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 conflating two different things.
No, I'm just wrong on the breadth necessary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
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 nationalists...my 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.
You're right. Spot-on. Thank you.

But Breivik's spray an' pray solution isn't the answer either. The implementation is botched. There is no follow-up. There can't be. It isn't possible because he has no base. You seem to think this solitary incident is going to light a fire in Lillehammer. I don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
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.
Agreed, agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
Based on that unchanging passive support, others following Breivik must through their deeds and organization convert passive feelings into positive action.
There is no organization. That's my beef. It is absolutely necessary, and it does not exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AL
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."
Let's not settle for a TV dinner. Let's have a four course fete.
 
Old July 30th, 2011 #13
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Default

A core is built on common belief and like intensity of belief. The most provocative comment on this external event belongs to JPSmith, who thinks anti-Zionism somehow offsets mass nonwhite immigration. I had understood that we WN demand sovereign borders and a sovereign foreign policy. Are we being unreasonable? Consider the people who’ve been kicking our asses for so long: neocons, cultural Marxists and Puritans cultists. They believe they’re in the right, that their causes in their most extreme form are fully just and worth killing for on an immense scale. Where are we at in comparison?
 
Old July 30th, 2011 #14
fossilator
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 388
fossilator
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard Rouse View Post
What "us"? That's my point. It's something that doesn't exist in the public mind, and it won't so long as one depends theoretically on "lone wolf" action saving the day. Lone wolves aren't revolutionaries in the public mind, they're just garden variety bandits. And their activities rarely amount to much precisely because they're acting alone.

Let's talk about the "public mind", if indeed the public has a mind.

The public mind will consume only what the public is fed. The public may be led to believe that this was not the action of a "lone wolf". Time will tell. The idea that there are/were more individuals involved than simply Breivik and that "they", however ellusive, pose a threat is more likely in this case (and will not be discredited as quickly as, say, "conspiracy" theories that claim Lee Harvey Oswold did not act alone) because the media wants to lump Breivik into the "right wing" slot as an excuse to further demonize the "far right" and enact laws to further restrict their activities.

The media will feed on the story like a lion feeds on a fallen gazelle, taking the prime parts and consuming them for its own strength, while we will be acting as the vultues, contenting ourselves with the carion and the bones. What the prime parts are in this event has not yet been determined.

This event has temporarily "stunned" the media and caused it to strategize longer than usual. In that time lag, the "public mind" is filling in the blanks on its own, and that is what is unique here, that the "public mind" has had a brief fling at independant thinking.

Code:
"Lone wolves aren't revolutionaries in the public mind, they're just garden variety bandits" (and) "Their activities rarely amount to much precisely because they're acting alone."
Ah! But that doesn't mean that bandits, lone wolf or otherwise, can be immediately discounted as irrelevant or unpopular in the "public mind", take D. B. Cooper for example. The average Joe tends to hope he pulled off his exploit, safely parachuted out of a plane with his ill-gotten cash, escaped to someplace tropical, bought a mansion and a yacht, fell in love and lived the good life. Had he been a bank robber who blew up a couple innocent bank tellers, he wouldn't have a cult following.

The "public mind" tends to think of Robin Hood or Billy the Kid as lone wolves, even if they were not. In these cases, "lone wolf" tends to be acceptible, even more romantic (after all, they aren't Robin and the Hoods, or Billy and the Kids).

They are thus because the "pubic mind" is led to believe that robbing from the rich is okay if that action helps those who otherwise face a grim life of hopelessness, despair and poverty. It's the fictionalization of real life. Nobody is asking, "but what if that leaves their rich victims in poverty, hopelessness and despair?" because the "public mind" is not allowed to go that far. Nobody is saying, "the poor can just go apply for welfare and food stamps" because the "public mind" is conditioned not to have that response.

The "public mind" is not of the same mind as many people here so it's somewhat irrelevant to many of us. We can only base our opinions and conclussions on the act itself and not how the "public mind" views it.

As for motive, in the case of D. B. Cooper, the general assumptions are fairly clear. Either his financial situation was so desperate that it was worth the considerable risk he took OR he was "a thrill seeker" who made the jump just to prove it could be done. Not many people have suggested it was because he was insane or because he was suicidal and wanted to go out in a blaze of glorious legend.

In the case of Breivik, the motives offer many more alternatives

http://www.presstv.com/detail/191439.html
 
Old July 30th, 2011 #15
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default

I haven't rested well since I wrote the above. I considered deleting my prior post an hour or so after posting, but that wouldn't be fair.

When I ask myself why I feel this way, the answer is that what I wrote is crap. It's an avoidance maneuver, avoiding the fact demonstrated a thousand times a day for years that you can't win by playing the rigged game. Genocide is legal. Life is illegal. That's the rules of the game. I didn't make them. There's really no way to get around it. These people want us dead and allow no quarter. They're maniacs.

I've short-changed Breivik, who acted under conditions worse than those in the United States, both in terms of the legal strictures and the race replacement. I wouldn't down an abortion protestor who offed a child killer. Why would I down Breivik for offing a bunch of scum who were going to harm exponentially more children (and adults)? That's nuts.

That aside, I do continue to think reliance upon Breivik-style one-offs as a continuing strategy is naive. Perhaps there are some in Norway already working to capitalize upon this turn of events.
 
Old July 30th, 2011 #16
Ravening Wolf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,638
Ravening Wolf
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard Rouse View Post
I haven't rested well since I wrote the above. I considered deleting my prior post an hour or so after posting, but that wouldn't be fair.

When I ask myself why I feel this way, the answer is that what I wrote is crap. It's an avoidance maneuver, avoiding the fact demonstrated a thousand times a day for years that you can't win by playing the rigged game. Genocide is legal. Life is illegal. That's the rules of the game. I didn't make them. There's really no way to get around it. These people want us dead and allow no quarter. They're maniacs.

I've short-changed Breivik, who acted under conditions worse than those in the United States, both in terms of the legal strictures and the race replacement. I wouldn't down an abortion protestor who offed a child killer. Why would I down Breivik for offing a bunch of scum who were going to harm exponentially more children (and adults)? That's nuts.

That aside, I do continue to think reliance upon Breivik-style one-offs as a continuing strategy is naive.
Perhaps there are some in Norway already working to capitalize upon this turn of events.
Unfortunately, both strategies are likely necessary. Would Hitler, for example, have gotten anywhere, if he had simply relied on talk, ranting to the people who would listen in a snow covered square (the equivalent of our modern computer forums), alone? Not likely!

The Brown Shirts, the Sturm Abteilung (Storm Section/storm troopers) (SA), especially their willingness to be violent, whenever or wherever needed, were necessary as well, because they made the power structure, the establishment, of the day quite aware that those opposed to Jewish communism would not go unheard. They made it impossible for the power structure (media, government, banking, big business, academia, etc) to ignore their ideas, and their cause.

Breivik has made both a speech (his manifesto), one heard by far more people than anything written on Stormfront or VNN, and took street action, which got the whole world's attention. I think our White Nationalist forums are necessary, but largely impotent (the equivalent of back room, smoke filled, meetings) without action, when made necessary by our opponent's refusal of serious open dialogue, and actual political involvement by White Nationalists and more traditional politicians willing to prevent White Genocide within our own White Nations.
__________________
"And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever."-Revelation 11:15, Holy Bible, (KJV)

Last edited by Ravening Wolf; July 30th, 2011 at 02:23 PM.
 
Old July 30th, 2011 #17
andy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: london
Posts: 12,833
andy
Default

This seems to be the main thread for the Norwegian Happening,this post from vnnireland has Buchanans commentary on the happening
http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=130713
__________________
The above post is as always my opinion

Chase them into the swamps
 
Old July 30th, 2011 #18
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Rick Ronsavelle
Default

Andy's link led to Human Events.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45100

These recent comments are very annoying for what is NOT discussed- the contribution of the SOCIALIST WELFARE STATES to the White Mans' problems.

Here we have a fully conscious Norwegian, Dag Aanenson. A few postings:

"I have lived and worked many years in both Norway and the United States. Proportionately, Norwegian culture ranks right at the top of contributors to the advancement of humankind in every way. For such a tiny country, Norway has had a surprisingly large number of its citizens contribute to literature, science, engineering, agriculture, mining & oil, finance, and yes -- religion and politics.

Norway unfortunately has also contributed disproportionately to advancing the Western World's slide into humanism, agnosticism, atheism, hedonism, moral relativism, socialism and statism.

The government has essentially insinuated itself as the parent of all citizens. Businesses exist but are regulated in everything and are restrained from making profits not deemed "morally acceptable". Employees are given so many "rights" that for all intents, the management works for the workers. Paid maternity/paternity leave is measured in months and years. Paid mandatory vacation days for the lowest entry level position rivals what senior management gets in U.S. firms.

Norwegians are the most brilliant and creative geniuses who are at the same time the most apathetic and anesthetized mob of zombies you will ever encounter.

Given the degree of pervasive schizophrenia that undergirds Norway's oppressive benefactor system of government, it's a wonder there are not incidents such as this one all the time."



"I am not segueing into anything at all.

I am offering thoughtful, objective commentary based on documented facts and first-hand experiences with the relevant people, places and institutions at issue from which readers can gain significantly accelerated insight to help them assess and explain this awful event.

You on the other hand, are spouting dogmatic rhetoric that is familiar and categorically unhelpful to informed readers and simply confusing to those who are new to the subject.

How many years have you lived, worked, paid bills, shopped at stores, attended multiple churches of many denominations, waved the Norwegian flag at parades and Olympics and how many hundreds of Norwegians have you spoken with about these things?

I'm guessing zero.

Well the scores of Norwegians I have discussed these things with are on board with my analysis: The so-called "Nanny State" has EVERYTHING to do with what happened."


"Shill? Diversionary?

You have to be out of your mind with some sort of red hot burning agenda if you think my comments about my real world experience and common sense analysis have something to do with an agenda on my part.

I have never posted to any forum on this or any other website about these topics. Who would I be "shilling" for? And why would anyone shill here?

And what's with "diversionary"? What a joke!?

Like, what are you implying?

I check out Human Events like once a month when there's a topic of particular interest (with statists running the world EVERY topic is of interest, I mean when a topic is of personal interest like this Norway nut job going off)

I mean, are you like lurking around forums posting little verbal bombs promoting your seruptitious strategy of ushering in the 12th Caliphate with your word bombs or whatever?

Diversionary!

Yeah, man I'm like whoa being Agent Rush Limbaugh 00007 and I'm going to secretly use my radio hypnotizer to make you think straight and to stop voting for statists who bleed you dry and enslave you.

Oh yeah and of course I'm flying a Star of David flag and saluting the Proctor and Gamble logo.

Dude, get a life."


"Thanks for the heads up on the troll.

As for Pat Buchanan, if the articles he posts here are indicitive of his commentary and analysis I've been catching from him elsewhere for the past decade or so, I agree he's a D+ or C- at best. From what I've read, he was a great speech writer and ought to go back to that profession. He's good at articulating the ideas of others but has the unfortunate impression that the ideas he generates on his own are equally meritorious.

As you say cliff2008, this article is the exception to the rule for Pat B."


"Bogus" you say?

The Norwegian nanny state "scenario" as you call it, is not something I made up. Many credible sources will quickly and easily confirm that Norway is one of the most if not the most nationalized, socialized and regulated constitutional monarchies in the world.

Rather than "bogus" I think you probably meant to fire off another of your unfounded contradictions asserting -- without evidence or argument -- that my well-founded analysis that a virulent bath of extreme socialiism contributes much to understanding what caused the murderous rampage of the sociopath Breivik.

And in response to your spurious assertion that rampant socialism could not be a contributing factor because Breivik did not mention rampant socialism I say, "Of course he did not mention it!"

That Breivik would not identify the oppressive-benefactor "nanny state" government of Norway as a contributing factor to his derangement proves he suffers from a true sociopathology.

If Breivik was able to rationally identify the cause and effect relationship of the variables that led him into the abyss he would either not have gone there or he would have committed suicide.

You are clearly lacking the education, training or experience to comment on matters regarding sociopathology and I do not have the time to fully educate you on the subject. But I will explain one fundamental characteristic of sociopathology that you must understand in order to make sense of this particular presentation of the disease. All sociopaths suffer from a fundamental lack of self-awareness in one or more essential functional areas.

Sociopaths do not understand what has caused them to arrive at their state of dysfunction anymore than someone with say, a true bi-polar disorder can understand why they keep emptying their bank account on irrational spending sprees.

That Breivik is unaware of the nanny state changes nothing about whether or not the rampant nanny state contributed to his dimentia."


"Hopefully you are supporting my point that Norwegians are an exemplary people.

Norwegians are exceptionally egalitarian and giving. I believe Norway ranks No. 1 in charitable donations per capita.

But Norway has been wrecked by their decision to plunge the country into the most extreme form of benevolent social statism that exists anywhere in the world.

There are no poor in Norway. Really. I have never seen a homeless person who was not homeless by choice (and not just because they did not take their medication).

But there are also no go-getters. Ambition is the sacrafice you must lay on the alter of guaranteed state financial security."

Last edited by Rick Ronsavelle; July 30th, 2011 at 03:45 PM.
 
Old July 30th, 2011 #19
fossilator
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 388
fossilator
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard Rouse View Post
I haven't rested well since I wrote the above. I considered deleting my prior post an hour or so after posting, but that wouldn't be fair.

When I ask myself why I feel this way, the answer is that what I wrote is crap. It's an avoidance maneuver, avoiding the fact demonstrated a thousand times a day for years that you can't win by playing the rigged game. Genocide is legal. Life is illegal. That's the rules of the game. I didn't make them. There's really no way to get around it. These people want us dead and allow no quarter. They're maniacs.

I've short-changed Breivik, who acted under conditions worse than those in the United States, both in terms of the legal strictures and the race replacement. I wouldn't down an abortion protestor who offed a child killer. Why would I down Breivik for offing a bunch of scum who were going to harm exponentially more children (and adults)? That's nuts.

That aside, I do continue to think reliance upon Breivik-style one-offs as a continuing strategy is naive. Perhaps there are some in Norway already working to capitalize upon this turn of events.
You are not alone. That's why the event merits a lot more scrutiny and analysis before rushing to judgement. Even today, I rethought my take on it after reading several posts here and elsewhere. Yet, I still hesitate to commit myself to any one conclussion because there may be more to it and I believe we have to watch the other global events and how they may or may not relate to it.

Part of that reluctance to commit to a conclussion may be a reult of the American media's near blackout of the event, which is way down there below the debt crisis, reviews of Cowboys and Aliens, and Zara Phillip's wedding. This is very unmedialike. I'm suspicious.

Another reason for reluctance to call this guy a hero, at least on my part, is an immediatly bad gut reaction, just a personal thing. It seemed to have violated the concept of fair chase, which some of you who hunt are familiar with. Fair chase is the cornerstone of hunting ethics and defines our personal honor and our ethical standards. Right or wrong, justified or not, whether his victims were scoundrels or idiots, something in what he did simply rubs against the grain to some of us because it was way too "shooting fish in a barrel".

Some of us personally would not enjoy killing an animal from inside a high fence but relish the hunt in the woods. Some of us personally don't like the baiting of bear but think tracking them and killing them naturally is an art. That code tends to transcend mere hunting. If we give that up and surrender it, we aren't worth saving.

Had he taken out just ten of the fat, bloated, rich Hollywood insiders who are poisoning millions of our children with their filth every day of their lives, or the fat, bloated, rich global bankers in whose clutches the whole world's economy is held, or our fat, bloated media giants who consistently pollute millions of human minds, I might not have this reaction. He might even have eluded capture.

Rationalizing his actions seems similar to the reasoning of the Allies in World War Two when they justified their incineration of thousands upon thousands of innocent civilian German woman and children by merciless and genocidal bombing because, after all, they would grow up and either become or produce more "nazis".
 
Old July 30th, 2011 #20
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

There are some really good points made above, kudos.

To my mind, he is a hero to his cause. I think he is misguided in much of his thinking, particularly where jews are concerned. But, that is another topic.

As Alex said, this guy had it all in front of him and chose to do the toughest thing he could have. That took deep courage and commitment.

Though he isn't as well informed as he should be, his acts give me hope that those who are very well informed can make the same kinds of sacrifices for the right reasons. That could have great impact on the juden.

Politics is a slippery eel, but these kind of retributions leaves no question in the minds of our enemies.

Kudos to him and encouragement to those who would follow his lead.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:39 PM.
Page generated in 0.24344 seconds.