... all seventy-seven of them from both attack sites are pictured here.  Some additional biographical information is here.

At a quick estimate I’d say six are one kind or another of Asian, one African, three mixed-race.  One is Georgian, one Kosovan and the remaining sixty-five seem to be Scandinavian or certainly northern European.  Brievik’s three youngest victims were just fourteen years old: Johannes Buø, Eva Kathinka Lütken and Sharidyn Svebakk-Bøhn, a part-Maori.

Of the rest, seven were fifteen years old (four of them girls), eight were sixteen (five girls), and twelve were seventeen (six girls).  Of the seventy-seven, forty-one were female.

Like many Jewish websites and publications, JewishFederations.org is packed with examples of how Jews in America network and collaborate in their own ethnic interests.  There are entries here on women’s philanthropy, youth leadership, planned giving and endowments, lobbying in Washington, and a page of wider resources that leave no Jewish stone unturned.  European nationalists would do well to emulate one tenth of this industry.  Actually, beyond a few failing micro-parties, we in Britain have really nothing.

Over the last few days I’ve had some conversations with certain British nationalists - real ones, that is, enthno-nationalists - about this question:

If a political party standing in isolation as the nationalist vehicle will always struggle to tip the balance and actually win in a multiracial democracy, what additional vehicles/measures do you think the wider movement could bring forward to make the political win more possible?

I am thinking here about media and PR, cultural organisations, think tanks, fund-sourcing agencies ... all and anything that might advance the cause of our ethnic interests.  My conversations have been quite interesting, but this is such a rich area to consider I’m sure there must be many more strong suggestions that can be made - and some that will have been thought through pretty carefully.

I should add that this is not a purely speculative question. With the BNP leadership election concluded and the party, to all intents and purposes, locked up and bound to decline over the next four years - if it lasts that long - this is the moment when people are looking for fresh thinking.  That much is clear.  Perhaps we will even thank Nick Griffin for inadvertently forcing the development of an holistic and multi-faceted approach to the problem of the public mind, public discourse, and only then, the ballot box.

Is there a prospective literary editor with a bit of time on his hands out there?  Or, at least, someone who fancies shaping-up a translation from the German of the first volume of Alexander Merow’s Prey World series.

Prey World is a dystopian fiction series currently standing at three volumes with a fourth in progress.  To quote Merow, only a fool would think it nothing more than fiction.  The narrative opens in 2027 and concerns the efforts and sacrifices of people and peoples in Europe and the East to free themselves from a totalitarian new order - a global state sustaining an elite of a clearly Jewish and Masonic character above peoples bound to a life of kafkaesque greyness, poverty and official brutality.

Merow is a thriller writer, not a creative artist.  But he is not writing for the reader with a developed aesthetic taste.  He is writing for the mass audience.  Here is what the translator (I presume) has to say about his work:

“Prey World” is no ordinary book and no easy entertainment. There is enough “easy entertainment” in our times – far too much. On the other hand, there are not enough books like “Prey World”. Books that make you think about the world we live in. And it is important that people begin to think.
The author has found yet a lot of interested readers all over Germany, and we hope that he will find also some readers in the English-speaking countries. Furthermore, we would be glad, if a “real” mother-tongue speaker would edit this English version one day.

Editing the translation is, I feel, less than it really needs.  I found myself less offended by the translator’s understandable and admitted shortcomings than by the author’s evident refusal to pause and really finish each paragraph he has written.  At the close of this first volume there is a passage in which the World President dismisses his secretary’s concern over a brutally put-down rebellion in Paris.  I’ve corrected both the grammar and word selection and also completed the artistic portrait.  The latter, of course, is well outside the task of Anglicisation requested by the translator, and would probably ruffle the authorial feathers.  Nonetheless, it’s what the narrative needs to make it attractive to a game publisher and a wide readership - and it is a wide readership that the message deserves.

READ MORE...

Many argue that Mr. Breivik was in fact executing orders from Mossad, to punish the Palestine-loving Marxist-governed Norway, but first and foremost to create a false banner for misinformed right-wing extremists to unite under, and that what he was doing was a “false flag” operation.

His manifest is vast, some 1500 pages, and he is pretty thorough in both what he says and what he did. There are a few facts that don’t make sense to me. How can he list all the problems caused by different Jews in our history and yet fail to mention even one of them with a single word in his manifest? He attacks the symptoms of diseases Europe is suffering under, but not the cause of the disease.

He is a Freemason too, and that certainly doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. Freemasonry is international Jewry at it’s worst; they too are working for a de-construction of all nations on Earth, and to build a global Hebrew temple, enslaving us all under the will of the Jews and their servants, the Freemasons. Well, this explains why he doesn’t say a word about the creators of all the different religions and ideologies now set up to fight against each other.

READ MORE...

Now that all the votes have been counted, we can announce that Nick Griffin MEP has been duly re-elected to lead the British National Party for a fixed term of four years. The winner, Nick Griffin, received 1157 votes, whilst Andrew Brons, the loser, received 1148 votes. Eleven ballots were spoiled.

So says the BNP website, following a very slow re-count at the close of leadership election.  Nick Griffin seems unabashed by the narrowness of his win, saying:

“The time for division and disruption is over; now is the time to heal. Now is the time to move on. Now is the time to get back to work. We have a Party to build and a Nation to save. Let us go forward together!”

But this follows a long period of internecene warfare in the party, during which the bulk of the activist base left in disgust or was suspended or expelled, and election results and the membership roll crashed.  Griffin’s surprisingly thin majority was delivered by means of the expulsions, and his victory is hollow.  The question which hangs over proceedings now is whether the reform group will accept the result.  That seems improbable.  The reformers have fought too long and too hard for the party, and for the people in whose interests it makes politics, to stand back and watch it die now.  Grounds for a legal challenge will surely be examined, and if they are there a petition to annul the result and order a re-election will surely be made.

The alternative is for the establishment of a new nationalist party.  Andrew Brons took the precaution of registering the name British Democratic Party with the electoral commission, in the event that the BNP is pursued by its debtors into liquidation.  A baggage-free party has some appeal, clearly.  But it would still take the dissolution of the BNP for any new party to enjoy a free run at the loyal English electorate.

For racial nationalists who think that Anders Behring Breivik’s political beliefs are meaningful and, therefore, a profound problem, a rewarding study of his internet activity has been undertaken by Mark Humphrys, an Irish right-liberal and fellow traveller of the GoV brigade.  Said brigade is, of course, much more disaccommodated by Brievik’s slaughter of innocents than we are.

Humphrys asks the question, “Should the counter-jihad feel guilt about this monster?”

Well, when he took part in public counter-jihad discussions up to Oct 2010, he seemed fairly mainstream. There is nothing that would make one call the police. He was right-wing and anti-jihad, yes, but he was not a neo-Nazi (he was pro-Israel) or a white supremacist (he opposed the BNP because they are racist). He was Christian, but not a fanatic (he was pro-gay). In fact he was apparently like me - liberal right. He was anti-racist, pro-gay and pro-Israel. So how on earth did someone like that become a terrorist against the West?

OK, so he can’t tell the difference between racial separatism and racial supremacism.  How many times have we seen liberals fail on that one?  Dymphna at GoV answered Humphrys’ last question with the words, “it.will.not.compute.”  But what Humphrys concludes is that Breivik went over to the dark side in October 2010, and darkness is identified not with racial nationalism or even with racial supremacism but with “the jihadists”:

The story of Breivik is ultimately the same story as that of jihadist revolutionaries. It is the story of the temptation of utopian totalitarianism and the cleansing power of violence. For all his protests, Breivik is no different to the jihadists, and should be treated the same as them.

This is a loop which leaves us out.  As a new poster to British Democracy Forum explains:

The bombings and shootings in Norway over the weekend have brought into sharp relief the differences in the broad spectrum of nationalism between those who follow the Geert Wilders type pro-Israel and anti Muslim liberal civic nationalism and those who strongly detest everything that this stands for.

Up until these attacks the usual approach was that the Geert Wilders civic nationalists would call the other nationalists extremist and suggest they stood for unpalatable and unpleasant views. They would say they are Nazi and they cannot be popular or electable.

What we are seeing now is that it is really those who are most influenced by the kind of brainwashing coming from the mainstream media on the “right” such as the Daily Mail who are more likely to be a terror threat. And they are entirely divorced from many of those who claim, as do the socialists in Norway who were so cruelly shot down, that the real problem lies with Israel/Zionism and far less so with Muslims/Islam.

The shooter is of a similar mind to John Cain type republicans but with confusing liking of homosexuals added - so this confuses American conservatives.

The civic nationalists who post on this forum, who wish to emulate the politics of Geert Wilders, presumably find nothing in the manifesto or philosophy of the Norwegian killer that they disagree with - other than any advocation of violence perhaps.

This morning I received an email from our Danish friend Balder.  He had been doing a little digging and found the on-line trail of the psychopath Breivik.  His subsequent post was reproduced whole in the body of the email - and I put a link to it on the earlier Breivik thread today.

The Balder blog, which many of you will have visited down the years and know well, and which I know was on-line at 9.00am GMT this morning because I visited it, has gone missing.  All that appears on screen now is a 403 “Forbidden” message.  Meanwhile, the line is going out from the media that Breivik is “far right” and “describes himself as a nationalist”.  A good deal of effort is going in to focus on violent neo-Nazis.  I reproduce the text of Balder’s post below the fold.  You may judge for yourself whether Breivik fits the profile for a nationalist, or whether someone has decided to put the fix in.

READ MORE...

In the immediate aftermath of the January 8th 2011 shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona, in which a dozen others were injured and six killed, the liberal media immediately assigned “right-wing” status to the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner. A big effort was mounted to pin responsibility onto the “cross-hair” image used by Sarah Palin and the “extreme language” generally of the Tea Party Movement. Loughner, it was eventually admitted, was registered as an independent voter. But more than that he was a psychopath. His hatred of Congresswoman Giffords was real but not rooted in reality. The liberal media did not apologise to Mrs Palin for its kneejerk display of hatred.

Now there is the Oslo bombing and the shootings at Utoya Island. The death toll stands currently at 84. The media has denounced the perpetrator, Anders Behring Breivik, 32, as “6ft tall and blond” with links to “neo-Nazis” - the links being a Stormfront account (obviously, the media thinks, or likes to think, that White Nationalism is National Socialism). It seems Breivik is actually a Christian fundamentalist who has posted “ravings” on SF against Islam.

But he did not bomb an Islamic building or shoot Moslems. He bombed a Norwegian government buildings and shot people associated with the governing party.

There is a major difference between an organised terror attack and the killing spree of a lone psychopath. Had the attacks in Norway been group-planned and executed by Islamic extemists the search for a political logic, however terrible and alien to our ears, would have had some validity. What political logic there may be, however, to the actions of the lone psychopath is strained through the filter of his insanity, and has no reference whatever to the world outside his head.

Breivik, of course, will be associated with “neo-Nazis” for evermore. There will be some deeply flawed people on the left who prostitute his name and the innocents he has killed to make a point about nationalism. Better than having to debate honestly. But ... no political meaning attaches to the actions of the classic lone psychopath.

Except perhaps this.

Psychopathy is always with us. The school bully, the overbearing boss, the neighbour from hell, the pub brawler ... the emotionally stunted and violently inclined exist everywhere, and always have. But why are there so many instances of psychopaths rampaging through schools or villages - or holiday islands - with a gun? Does the modern media create not their psychopathy but its expression in this form? Does the sundering of our connectedness and the loss of social capital - the fruits of liberalism - somehow increase the amount of harm a psychopath must cause to encounter his own coldness?

No, too difficult. Forget it. They’re all neo-Nazis, right?