Wednesday, August 3, 2011

A lonely wolf? Bullshit!

The media like to call Breivik a "lone wolf". But everybody who has read the book knows: That's absolutely not true. Breivik had more contacts than any other norwegian nationalist and was a member of several organizations.

In 2005 he became a member of the Oslo Pistolklub and went to Belarus three times (!) to get military training from the KGB (information from Michail Reschetnikow, head of the Belarus Fascist Party). In 2008 he tried to start a political party with people from, posted in their forums and befriended thousands of nationalists on Facebook. He posted on Stormfront, Gates of Vienna and had contact to the English Defence League.

Together with all the things he did in 2010 and 2010 (registering a farm that was earlier used to grow marijuana, going to the Czech republic to buy weapons, buying weapons and accessories in norway and over the internet, buying chemicals over the internet, acquiring tons of fertilizer etc.) one can only ask: Why do they still try to tell us that he was a "lone wolf"? To calm people? To divert from their failures? To cover the fact that there are far more people like Breivik on this planet than they want to admit? To jeopardize their political opposition?

I think a lot of pressure comes from the cultural marxist government itself. Their intelligence service failed horribly, putting right-wing extremism on a low threat level and predicting no actions for 2011. But Breivik was on their watchlists all the time,and he knew that something was keeping them from doing their work properly:

Feb 28th [2011]: The Norwegian Intelligence Agency (PST) just released its annual report on terror estimates in Norway. I have been waiting for this report for several weeks now. Apparently, it’s the same expectations as usual when it comes to Islamic terror; imminent danger. However, they then specify that the largest right wing threat in Norway is that a subsidiary of English Defense League (EDL); Norwegian Defense League (NDL) is in the process of gaining strength. They also state, between the lines, that both EDL and the NDL are dangerous and violent right wing extremists that adhere to racism, fascism and Nazism. They conclude that they will ensure that any attempt to further develop NDL in Norway will be harshly suppressed.
I am not surprised that PST makes statements like this as the report has been designed by the Norwegian Labour Party, and does not reflect the views of actual PST operatives. The head of PST, Janne Kristiansen has never even worked as an intelligence officer, and is nothing more than a planted Labour Party agent, placed to lead the PST, against the will of most PST employees.
Breivik already knew what the media don't want to admit even now: The cultural marxists themselves used the intelligence services for their own propaganda. To remove any opposition. Freedom of speech? Only for cultural marxists, thanks. Truth? Nah. Breivik knew:
I know that the above description is nothing more than vile lies, a part of their psychological propaganda warfare against all cultural conservatives. I know this for a fact as I used to have more than 600 EDL members as Facebook friends and have spoken with tens of EDL members and leaders. In fact; I was one of the individuals who supplied them with processed ideological material (including rhetorical strategies) in the very beginning. The EDL are in fact anti-racist, anti-fascist and anti-Nazi. They even have many members and leaders with non-European background (African and Asian). They have worked so hard, and continue to work hard, to keep National Socialists out of the organization, but yet they are strategically labeled as racist-fascist-Nazi-monsters by the multiculturalist authorities
I can only suggest: Read the book. Check the facts on your own, don't trust anybody, not even me. Breivik is not only right, he is a highly intelligent guy with exceptional insight.

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

Breivik and the media

Every time some "journalist" writes a piece about Breivik one reads the same things: "He is crazy. Stupid. Insane. He photoshopped his pictures. He beautified his resume." Et cetera. Why is that so? If our "liberal" media were worth anything, they would just care about his motivations, beliefs, actions and/or ideology. But this way Breivik debunks them for what they are: superficial and not objective. They can't oppose his ideology, so they have to attack him on the lowest level: By his looks and his "state of mind". The media currently PROVE that he is right. Actually there is a paragraph in Breiviks book were he predicts this in detail:

"I have been thinking about my post-operational situation, in case I survive a successful mission and live to stand a multiculturalist trial. When I wake up at the hospital, after surviving the gunshot wounds inflicted on me, I realize at least for me personally, I will be waking up to a world of shit, a living nightmare. Not only will all my friends and family detest me and call me a monster; the united global multiculturalist media will have their hands full figuring out multiple ways to character assassinate, vilify and demonize. They will possibly do everything they can to distort the truth about me, KT [Knights Templar] and our true objectives, and attempt to make even revolutionary conservatives detest me. They will label me as a racist, fascist, Nazi-monster as they usually do with everyone who opposes multiculturalism/cultural Marxism. However, since I manifest their worst nightmare (systematical and organized executions of multiculturalist traitors), they will probably just give me the full propaganda rape package and propagate the following accusations: pedophile, engaged in incest ctivities, homosexual, psycho, ADHD, thief, non-educated, inbred, maniac, insane, monster etc. I will be labeled as the biggest (Nazi-)monster ever witnessed since WW2."

Exactly this is currently happening! Did the media tell you that he had that much insight? No. Did they tell you about Buchanan or Borghezio speaking in his favour? No. Breivik is no idiot, the contrary is true!

Homosexual couple saves Utøya teens - so what?

Lesbian Couple Rescued 40 Teens During Norway Massacre: I wonder why they emphasize so much on their homosexuality. Breivik is pro-homosexual. What does their sexuality have to do with the whole story? Nothing. I bet they just included it into the article to prove to themselves how open and tolerant they are. If they were truly open and tolerant, it wouldn't even be important enough to make it into the article.

EU: "Britain, please just hand out welfare checks to everybody"

Eurocrats going crazy all over Britain:

As the law stands, people wishing to settle in Britain must demonstrate that they have the means to support themselves, either through work or through an alternative source of income such as a pension. The European Commission claims that this amounts to discrimination against EU citizens, who are supposed to enjoy the same rights as British nationals.
In fact, as so often happens, Eurocrats are disregarding the plain text of their own rules. Article 7(1) of the Free Movement Directive gives EU citizens the right to reside in another member state only if they have “sufficient resources for themselves and their family members not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State”.
In order to get around this clause, the European Commission is deploying a piece of sheer sophistry. It argues that, if immigrants were able to top up their income with British benefits, they would have “sufficient resources”.
In May, the Supreme Court ruled on the claim of a Latvian pensioner, who had just moved to Britain and had demanded Pension Credit on grounds that her Latvian pension was too small. Although our courts like to rule in favour of immigrants, the law here was so clear-cut that, by 4-1, judges turned her down. If the European Commission were to get its way, she would not only be able to claim Pension Credit, but also council tax and housing subsidies – despite not having paid a penny into the system. you don't even have to pretend to be looking for a job anymore. Great. If this law passes, Britain will probably be full of bulgarian gipsies in an instant. And it also means all other european countries have to do the same.

Utøya survivor: "Know that you failed, Anders Breivik"

16 year old Ivar Benjamin Oesteboe wrote on Facebook:
Dear Anders Behring Breivik,
You describe yourself as a hero, as a knight. You are no her. But one thing is certain, you have created heroes. On Utoya on that warm July day, you created some of the greatest heroes the world has seen, you united the people of the world.
We are not responding to evil with evil as you wanted. We are fighting evil with good. And we are winning.

"Maybe you think you've won. Maybe you think you've destroyed the Labour Party and people around the world who stand for a multicultural society by killing my friends and fellow party members. Know that you failed.
You have united us ... You have killed my friends, but you have not killed our cause, our opinion, our right to express ourselves. Muslim women have been hugged by Norwegian women in the street in sympathy ... Your act has worked against its purpose. We have created a community.
You deserve to hear how your plan worked. A lot of people are angry, you are Norway's most hated man. I am not mad. I am not afraid of you. You can't get to us, we are bigger than you. And we are winning.
This young man still has a lot to learn, but at sixteen your world probably still is small and coloured in black and white. In an additional 16 years, when Oesteboe reaches Breiviks current age, there will be more Muslims in Norway than there are Norwegians. He will be part of a MINORITY. And the muslim majority will most likely not think of it as a single community. Hasn't he noticed that his own Labour Party is already heavily infiltrated by muslims? Doesn't he know how many problems muslims already created for other countries in europe? Utøya was supposed to be a youth summer camp for the parties next "elite" members. If people like Oesteboe are the "elite" of Norways leading party, I'm afraid they're already completely lost. Breivik was right.

Norway stores pull violent games from shelves after attacks

Coop Norway director Geir Inge Stokke said in a Norwegian newspaper that the company moved to remove the games once “we realized the scope of the attack.” He added that it was appropriate at the moment to take the games down and mentioned the “negative effects of games like these.” Continuing, Stokke mentioned that the company will carefully consider when to put the games back on shelves, that the business involved is “of no importance,” and that he wouldn’t be surprised if other retailers followed suit.
 ...including games like Homefront, Counter-Strike Source, Call of Duty, Sniper Ghost Warrior and World of Warcraft. I just have two thoughts on this one:
  • It shows that Breivik is right. Cultural Marxism is so wide-spread that people start censoring themselves when the feel the "need" to do so. I bet dear Geir Inge Stokke doesn't really know why she feels the "need" to remove those title. Probably some small part of her brain, indoctrinated by Cultural Marxism over the years, just tells her it's "the right thing to do".
  •  Nicely done, idiots. Now all those apolitical Geeks are your enemy and some of them may even become politically active. Don't forget the success of the Pirate Party: It was formed entirely by people who didn't care about politics, but who couldn't stand it any longer.

Lars von Trier: Danish People's Party responsible for Utøya

Breivik listed Lars von Triers "Dogville" as one of his favourite films and was thus attacked by cultural marxists. To divert from his own problems, he just accused the Danish People's Party of being directly responsible for Breiviks attack on Utøya:
Von Trier pointed a finger squarely at the party’s leader Pia Kjærsgaard for her role in stirring up prejudice against Muslims and foreigners. It was not the first time in the wake of the July 22 terror attacks in Norway that the tone of Denmark’s politics was examined
"I think there is a direct line from Pia Kjærsgaard’s view of humanity to Utøya,” von Trier said. “One must demand that Kjærsgaard step forward and take her share of the responsibility for what happened in Norway.”
Thanks, Mister von Trier, you stupid piece of cultural marxist shit. Grow some balls and fight your own battles.

Borghezio: "Many of his ideas are good"

Italian right-wing politician Mario Borghezio in one of his speeches:

 "The ideas of Anders Breivik Behring are definitely shared positions, because the opposition to the ISAF, the accusation that europe has already surrendered before even starting a fight is exactly what we think. (..) Many of his ideas, the less violent ones, are good. I would even say: some are excellent. It's the fault of the immigrants if they get caught up in violence."
Source (translation via Google)

Buchanan: "Breivik may be right"

This is Patrick Buchanan. He is one of the most well-known conservative politicians in the USA, ran for president in 2000. Guess what he has to say? "Breivik may be right":

But, awful as this atrocity was, native-born and homegrown terrorism is not the macro-threat to the continent.
That threat comes from a burgeoning Muslim presence in a Europe that has never known mass immigration, its failure to assimilate, its growing alienation, and its sometime sympathy for Islamic militants and terrorists.
Europe faces today an authentic and historic crisis.
With her native-born populations aging, shrinking and dying, Europe’s nations have not discovered how to maintain their prosperity without immigrants. Yet the immigrants who have come – from the Caribbean, Africa, the Middle East, South Asia – have been slow to learn the language and have failed to attain the educational and occupational levels of Europeans. And the welfare states of Europe are breaking under the burden.[...]
As for a climactic conflict between a once-Christian West and an Islamic world that is growing in numbers and advancing inexorably into Europe for the third time in 14 centuries, on this one, Breivik may be right.

How it all began - Political Correctness is Cultural Marxism

From the book:

How it all began: Most Europeans look back on the 1950s as a good time. Our homes were safe, to the point where many people did not bother to lock their doors. Public schools were generally excellent, and their problems were things like talking in class and running in the halls.

Most men treated women like ladies, and most ladies devoted their time and effort to making good homes, rearing their children well and helping their communities through volunteer work. Children grew up in two–parent households, and the mother was there to meet the child when he came home from school. Entertainment was something the whole family could enjoy.

What happened?

If a man of the 1950s were suddenly introduced into Western Europe in the 2000s, he would hardly recognise it as the same country. He would be in immediate danger of getting mugged, carjacked or worse, because he would not have learned to live in constant fear. He would not know that he shouldn’t go into certain parts of the city, that his car must not only be locked but equipped with an alarm, that he dare not go to sleep at night without locking the windows and bolting the doors – and setting the electronic security system.

If he brought his family with him, he and his wife would probably cheerfully pack their children off to the nearest public school. When the children came home in the afternoon and told them they had to go through a metal detector to get in the building, had been given some funny white powder by another kid and learned that homosexuality is normal and good, the parents would be uncomprehending.

In the office, the man might light up a cigarette, drop a reference to the “little lady,” and say he was happy to see the firm employing some coloured folks in important positions. Any of those acts would earn a swift reprimand, and together they might get him fired. When she went into the city to shop, the wife would put on a nice suit, hat, and possibly gloves. She would not understand why people stared, and mocked.

And when the whole family sat down after dinner and turned on the television, they would not understand how pornography from some sleazy, blank-fronted “Adults Only” kiosk had gotten on their set. Were they able, our 1950s family would head back to the 1950s as fast as they could, with a gripping horror story to tell. Their story would be of a nation that had decayed and degenerated at a fantastic pace, moving in less than a half a century from the greatest countries on earth to Third World nations, overrun by crime, noise, drugs and dirt. The fall of Rome was graceful by comparison.

Why did it happen?

Over the last fifty years, Western Europe has been conquered by the same force that earlier took over Russia, China, Germany and Italy. That force is ideology. Here, as elsewhere, ideology has inflicted enormous damage on the traditional culture it came to dominate, fracturing it everywhere and sweeping much of it away. In its place came fear, and ruin. Russia will take a generation or more to recover from Communism, if it ever can.

The ideology that has taken over Western Europe goes most commonly by the name of “Political Correctness.” Some people see it as a joke. It is not. It is deadly serious. It seeks to alter virtually all the rules, formal and informal, that govern relations among people and institutions. It wants to change behaviour, thought, even the words we use. To a significant extent, it already has. Whoever or whatever controls language also controls thought. Who dares to speak of “ladies” now?

Just what is “Political Correctness?” Political Correctness is in fact cultural Marxism (Cultural Communism) – Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. The effort to translate Marxism from economics into culture did not begin with the student rebellion of the 1960s. It goes back at least to the 1920s and the writings of the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci. In 1923, in Germany, a group of Marxists founded an institute devoted to making the transition, the Institute of Social Research (later known as the Frankfurt

One of its founders, George Lukacs, stated its purpose as answering the
question, “Who shall save us from Western Civilisation?” The Frankfurt School gained profound influence in European and American universities after many of its leading lights fled and spread all over Europe and even to the United States in the 1930s to escape National Socialism in Germany. In Western Europe it gained influence in universities from 1945.

The Frankfurt School blended Marx with Freud, and later influences (some Fascist as well as Marxist) added linguistics to create “Critical Theory” and “deconstruction.” These in turn greatly influenced education theory, and through institutions of higher education gave birth to what we now call “Political Correctness.” The lineage is clear, and it is traceable right back to Karl Marx.

The parallels between the old, economic Marxism and cultural Marxism are evident. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, shares with classical Marxism the vision of a “classless society,” i.e., a society not merely of equal opportunity, but equal condition.

Since that vision contradicts human nature – because people are different, they end up unequal, regardless of the starting point – society will not accord with it unless forced. So, under both variants of Marxism, it is forced. This is the first major parallel between classical and cultural Marxism: both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness can be seen on campuses where “PC” has taken over the college: freedom of speech, of the press, and even of thought are all eliminated.

The second major parallel is that both classical, economic Marxism and cultural Marxism have single-factor explanations of history. Classical Marxism argues that all of history was determined by ownership of the means of production. Cultural Marxism says that history is wholly explained by which groups – defined by sex, race, religion and sexual normality or abnormality – have power over which other groups.

The third parallel is that both varieties of Marxism declare certain groups virtuous and others evil a priori, that is, without regard for the actual behaviour of individuals. Classical Marxism defines workers and peasants as virtuous and the bourgeoisie (the middle class) and other owners of capital as evil. Cultural Marxism defines all minorities, what they see as the victims; Muslims, Feminist women, homosexuals and some additional minority
groups as virtuous and they view ethnic Christian European men as evil.
(Cultural Marxism does not recognise the existence of non-Feminist women, and defines Muslims, Asians and Africans who reject Political Correctness as evil, just like native Christian or even atheist Europeans.).

The fourth parallel is in means: expropriation. Economic Marxists, where they obtained power, expropriated the property of the bourgeoisie and handed it  to the state, as the “representative” of the workers and the peasants. Cultural Marxists, when they gain power (including through our own government), lay penalties on native European men and others who disagree with them and give privileges to the ”victim” groups they favour.

Affirmative action is an example. Finally, both varieties of Marxists employ a method of analysis designed to show the correctness of their ideology in every situation. For classical Marxists, the analysis is economic. For cultural Marxists, the analysis is linguistic: deconstruction. Deconstruction
“proves” that any “text,” past or present, illustrates the oppression of Muslims, women, homosexuals, etc. by reading that meaning into words of the text (regardless of their actual meaning). Both methods are, of course, phony analyses that twist the evidence to fit preordained conclusions, but they lend a ‘scientific” air to the ideology.

These parallels are neither remarkable nor coincidental. They exist because Political Correctness is directly derived from classical Marxism, and is in fact a variant of Marxism. Through most of the history of Marxism, cultural Marxists were “read out” of the movement by classical, economic Marxists. Today, with economic Marxism dead, cultural Marxism has filled its shoes. The medium has changed, but the message is the same: a society of radical egalitarianism enforced by the power of the state.

Political Correctness now looms over Western European society like a colossus. It has taken over both political wings, left and right. Among so called Western European ”conservative” parties the actual cultural conservatives are shown the door because being a cultural conservative opposes the very essence of political correctness. It controls the most powerful element in our culture, the media and entertainment industry. It
dominates both public and higher education: many a college campus is a small, ivycovered North Korea. It has even captured the higher clergy in many Christian churches. Anyone in the Establishment who departs from its dictates swiftly ceases to be a member of the Establishment.

Introduction - What is “Political Correctness”?

From the book:

One of conservatism’s most important insights is that all ideologies are wrong. Ideology takes an intellectual system, a product of one or more philosophers, and says, “This system must be true.” Inevitably, reality ends up contradicting the system, usually on a growing number of points. But the ideology, by its nature, cannot adjust to reality; to do so would be to abandon the system.

Therefore, reality must be suppressed. If the ideology has power, it uses its power to undertake this suppression. It forbids writing or speaking certain facts. Its goal is to prevent not only expression of thoughts that contradict that “must be true,” but thinking such thoughts. In the end, the result is inevitably the concentration camp, the gulag and the grave.

But what happens today to Europeans who suggest that there are differences among ethnic groups, or that the traditional social roles of men and women reflect their different natures, or that homosexuality is morally wrong? If they are public figures, they must grovel in the dirt in endless, canting apologies. If  they are university students, they face star chamber courts and possible expulsion. If they are employees of private corporations, they may face loss of their jobs. What was their crime? Contradicting the new EUSSR ideology of “Political Correctness.”

But what exactly is “Political Correctness?” Marxists have used the term for at least 80 years, as a broad synonym for “the General Line of the Party.” It could be said that Political Correctness is the General Line of the Establishment in Western European countries today; certainly, no one who dares contradict it can be a member of that Establishment. But that still does not tell us what it really is.

We must seek to answer that question. The only way any ideology can be understood, is by looking at its historical origins, its method of analysis and several key components, including its place in higher education and its ties with the Feminist movement.

If we expect to prevail and restore our countries to full freedom of thought and expression, we need to know our enemy. We need to understand what Political Correctness really is. As you will soon see, if we can expose the true origins and nature of Political Correctness, we will have taken a giant step toward its overthrow.

2083 video

For those who haven't seen it yet, Breivik uploaded a movie together with the manifesto:


Found these nice pictures on Flickr: