War in Europe: Part I - Cui bono?

Posted by Guest Blogger on Wednesday, 27 July 2011 14:29.

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.

He is a Christian too. Now, in a sense that does make sense, but why does it make sense? The Jews created Christianity as a religion for non-Jews to follow, so that they too would become worshippers of their Hebrew false “God”, so that the unruly Pagan Europeans would become servants and a powerful tool for the Jews. Whether the Jews created Islam too, or whether they just saw an opportunity coming when it was created is not known, but we do know that the Jews have always promoted conflict between these two religions and indeed they still do. When the Christians grow too strong the Jews support the Muslims to weaken the Christians. When the Muslims grow too strong the Jews support the Christians to weaken the Muslims. They often support both sides too, if both sides are too strong, and they often do in secret. Christians then kill Muslims, and vice versa, whilst the Jews remain safely in the background, to profit from it all.

Mr. Breivik either went straight into the trap, like so many Christians have done in the past and still do, or he works knowingly for them, again like so many Christians have done in the past and still do. The Christians and the Muslims, ladies and gentlemen, are but soldiers/cannon fodder for the Jews in their mission to enslave us all under their rule.

What Mr. Breivik has said is largely true, in all except in what he doesn’t say; he doesn’t tell us that Jews are the origin to all these problems, and that they were created by Jews to hurt us. All we have to do to make this act of violence favourable to us is to make this clear to everyone; the Jews created Marxism, feminism, Christianity (need I tell you that Jesus and not least Paulus/Saul were both Jews?), so-called psychology, banking (“money lending”), the hippie-movement and all other ideologies and movements which are aimed to destroy and de-construct all nations in Europe. Behind each and every one of them you will find a Jew (or sometimes a Freemason)!

How could you miss that out, Mr. Breivik?

Working for the Jews, are you Mr. Breivik, to unite all European right-wing extremists under your false banner? To make sure the focus on the Jewish enemy of Europe is moved to something else? Or maybe you don’t even know that you have been used by sinister Jews?

So now not only Christians kill Muslims, and vice versa. Right wing extremists are supposed to kill left-wing extremists too and vice versa I assume? Is that the plan? You did this to recruit and make even the right-wing extremists fight for the Jews?

Who benefits from this? Israel does! The Jews do! None of our attention would be directed at them where it all should be directed. We would be fighting each other instead, whilst they move about in the background, out of the spotlight, and profit from our suffering, and in secret tighten the chains of slavery around our waists and ankles.

Oh, and by the way; true nationalists don’t kill children of their own nation, even if someone tries to brainwash them, like AUF did. They were not (yet) Marxist extremists; they were just children.

Varg Vikernes
Bergen the 24th of July 2011

Tags: World Affairs

Comments:

Posted by anon3 on Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:47 | #

A true Nationalist would certainly attack certain members of his own people—young adult future socialist leaders and Antifa members included—for the obvious reason that they are committing or intend to commit acts of cultural destruction, racial terrorism, ethnic cleansing, and genocide against his people.

A Nationalist would indeed target the people—the traitors—who allow, encourage, and facilitate the foreign conquest of his homeland.

These events do make sense, in this regard.

We are entering the ‘shooting phase’ of another European revolution and civil war. So of course Europeans will be targeting one another. That’s usually what happens in a civil war.

I don’t recall Franco’s Nationalists having the same concerns when they targeted Communist terrorists.

Breivik’s views on Jews are unremarkable for someone at his stage of intellectual development and awakening.

Give him a few years and he would have been a loyal MR reader, I’m sure.

Like most of us, Breivik was probably not born with innate understanding of the JQ.

Posted by Revolution Harry on Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:28 | #

“The Jews created Christianity as a religion for non-Jews to follow, so that they too would become worshippers of their Hebrew false “God””

What nonsense. At the very least it shows a complete misunderstanding of Christianity. The Talmudic and Sabbatean Jews that are involved in this ‘agenda’ loathe Jesus and everything he stands for. Remember it’s the Babylonian Talmud. Try this.

Pagan Rome was the inheritor of the ‘Babylonian Mysteries’. The Caesar’s were the High Priests or the Pontifex Maximus. In the Book of John we read.

14 And it was the Preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour, and he said unto the Jews, Behold your King.

15 But they cried, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate said unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The high Priests answered, We have no King but Caesar.

Of course the present day ‘High Priest of the Babylonian Mysteries’ is our very own Pontifex Maximus the Pope. Every one of the Protestant reformers in the 16th century pointed at the Papal system as being Antichrist and the Pope as the ‘man of sin’ and the Catholic church as the ‘woman riding the beast’ with the words ‘Mystery Babylon the Great, Mother of harlots’ written on her forehead.

To counteract this the futurist interpretation of prophecy was created by the Jesuits. This involves the antichrist appearing in the future where he will sit in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem and make a covenant with the Jews and call himself God etc. This is the context in which the ‘holocaust’ and the current destabilisation of the Middle east needs to be seen.

The point I’m making is that it is a mistake to focus only on the Jews. No doubt there are many ‘elite’ Jews involved but the apex of control is the Vatican in conjunction with the blood line royal and aristocratic ‘elites’, mainly of Europe. Ordinary Jews are every bit as much a target as the rest of us.

If anyone created Islam it was Rome.

http://www.veoh.com/watch/v18541459WFBmd65q

Posted by Hasbara Detector on Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:46 | #

anon3 wrote:

Give him a few years and he would have been a loyal MR reader, I’m sure.

This phrase struck me as familiar. Where have I seen it before? Ah yes, in a comment at Counter-Currents yesterday, posted by “WG”:

Give him a few years and he would have been a loyal CC reader, I’m sure.

“WG” has appeared out of nowhere in the last few days, and has been aggressively promoting the idea that Breivik is a WN and that his actions are justified. Both the nature of his message and the fact that all his posts appear to be following a template strongly suggest he is a hasbara agent.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:23 | #

“As of this date, July 27, 2011, the military action carried out by Anders Behring Breivik in Norway has altered and shifted drastically the socio-political and cultural struggle of Occidental White Europids (WE™) to retake their ancestral territories, heritage and future history from Globalist-sponsored incursion, colonization and possible genocide. There will be serious setbacks. There will be serious blowback. There will also be considerable and, what was unimaginable opportunity prior to July 22, 2011, to exploit, at a sophisticated and dangerous level, for those White Ethno Nationalists with the political imagination, courage and resolve to do so….”

More here

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 27 Jul 2011 17:53 | #

Why does anyone think it is a useful thing to post commentary supporting murder? The left liberalism which exercises those who do harm to us should be murdered. Murdering ideas is all that is required. Murdering people is absolutely not required, and I wish those who suppose it otherwise, sincerely or not, would comprehend the difference, and restrict their commentary accordingly.

Posted by anon3 on Wed, 27 Jul 2011 18:52 | #

Hasbara Detector wrote,

This phrase struck me as familiar. Where have I seen it before? Ah yes, in a comment at Counter-Currents yesterday, posted by “WG”

Congratulations, Sherlock, fantastic detective work. It was me wot did it guv and that’s no lie.

Honestly, if people like you would apply themselves to serious business at hand instead of wasting time rumour-mongering and playing games, then we might get somewhere.

Then again, perhaps it is you who is an ‘hasbara agent’?

“WG” has appeared out of nowhere in the last few days,

Wrong. I’ve been here for years.

and has been aggressively promoting the idea that Breivik is a WN and that his actions are justified

Wrong again. I’ve not said Breivik is a WN.

And whether or not his actions are justified, grown men can certainly disagree as to their efficacy.

What you detect in my writing is a refusal to submit and offer apologies.

That’s what has your panties in a twist.

Posted by anon on Wed, 27 Jul 2011 19:09 | #

I would wager that the sudden timidity and backing-away on the part of certain WNs is because they recognise something of themselves in Breivik—and it terrifies them.

The folks at CC have long written in support of HAC’s books. And yet the real thing horrifies them.

So, are we to assume they don’t mean it? Are they joking? Is this just a game to them?

This is separating the men from the boys, hobbyists, and kostume klowns.

Posted by Mouser on Wed, 27 Jul 2011 19:28 | #

If I were Mossad this is how I would arrange it.

I would have about 20 fully camoflaged Mossad special forces in the grass and trees with sniper rifles filled with dum-dum bullets aimed inwards all around the perimeter of the island.

I would put patsy Breivik in a walk-about such that everytime any youth walked up to him they would be shot dead. Breivik would not have to fire more than one or two shots himself. The snipers hiddenin the grass and trees would kill everyone approaching or in the vicinity of Brevik like magic.

Then after the 1½ hour killing spree the Mossad agents would be picked up by preplanned boats and taken away leaving only patsy Brevik in his police uniform surrendering directly.

The labour youths were indeed sitting ducks to professional Mossad killers.

Breivik is only the patsy - like Oswald.

Mouser

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 27 Jul 2011 20:22 | #

So, er, the survivors confirm your theory?

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 28 Jul 2011 00:43 | #

Anon,

I would wager that the sudden timidity and backing-away on the part of certain WNs is because they recognise something of themselves in Breivik—and it terrifies them.

The folks at CC have long written in support of HAC’s books. And yet the real thing horrifies them.

So, are we to assume they don’t mean it? Are they joking? Is this just a game to them?

This is separating the men from the boys, hobbyists, and kostume klowns.

Why would a normal, sane man who is a nationalist, and who is, therefore, exercised by love for his people, recognise anything in this psychopath who has murdered so many of them? We are not only political beings. We are also men with the normal range of human feeling. More than that, we are European men with our particular traits of empathy and ethicisation. We cannot escape this and enter into some vengeful half-life in which vast cruelties can become acceptable if the end is just. We are not labouring under the paranoia of war. We are bound to put Breivik and his prostitution (in small part) of our cause totally outside our company and outside the company of all civilised men. We do not do this because we are forced by the outside world to deny Breivik in some way. We do it because we are not like him.

Posted by Peter1 on Thu, 28 Jul 2011 01:43 | #

I would have about 20 fully camoflaged Mossad special forces in the grass and trees with sniper rifles filled with dum-dum bullets aimed inwards all around the perimeter of the island.

Unlikely, but more likely than 10,000 Mossad agents carrying out the shootings at Utøya. More likely still is that there were 2 gunmen, based on accounts of shots heard coming from different directions on the island, and eyewitnesses describing a second gunman with dark hair, standing 180 cm, and carrying a rifle and a handgun.

Posted by Laconophile on Thu, 28 Jul 2011 01:54 | #

Is this satire?

Posted by Peter1 on Thu, 28 Jul 2011 03:02 | #

Witness accounts of a second gunman reported in the media:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/jul/23/norway-attacks-live-coverage
http://rt.com/news/utoya-shooting-oslo-blast/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2011/07/terrorism-norway

For those interested, more specifics can be found at non-MSM sites using a good combination of search terms, Boolean operators, and translation services if needed. Reach your own Bayesian decisions; obviously these crimes have yet to be fully investigated.

Posted by PM on Thu, 28 Jul 2011 03:11 | #

anon—

“I would wager that the sudden timidity and backing-away on the part of certain WNs is because they recognise something of themselves in Breivik—and it terrifies them.”

True. Maybe they are also terrified about the massive email trail and the contributions to comments boards they have been leaving everywhere for the last several years, and are hoping that M15 will look at their recent comments and realise that they were just kidding and didn’t mean any harm. ‘It wasn’t supposed to be a Racial Holy War…just some online Racial Holy Paintball….honest.’

Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 28 Jul 2011 04:01 | #

GW,

I responded to you (not yet to Graham, though I think I have addressed most of his queries previously) at the “Separating Wilders” thread.

There is an issue lurking about here that seemingly no one wishes to face, but it is the real one, apart from whatever Breivik might have thought, or WNs think:

What is one’s moral responsibility to one’s own genome?

This is an ecological question, one peculiarly fitting to an intergenerational ethics analysis. We all recognize now that one generation does not have the moral right to abuse natural systems such that they are rendered unusable by future generations (to the extent that we can speak of moral right, which I can as a Christian of sorts, though I wonder whether atheists can speak of ethics - to repeat my earlier question: is a predator animal behaving ‘immorally’ in eating its prey? what is ethics without God, but sentimentality attached to residues from earlier eras of thought?). This has constituted the one genuine improvement in the ethical consciousness of man in the modern era.

But what about ‘social ecology’? ‘racial ecology’? You are a leading theorist and opponent of race-replacement as it affects European peoples. Is there not something wrong with those individuals (or entire societies) who would pollute their national bloodlines, or destroy the integrity of their homelands, by allowing them to be colonized by those whose very presence will destroy the societies at issue?

What exactly is “treason”, what is its appropriate punishment, and what should the ethical man do if a majority of his fellows wants to commit it? Does one generation have a right to defile the past, and destroy the future of generations to come?

The ideology which supports this radical autonomy is called “liberalism”. Conservatives believe, with the Whig Irishman Burke, that society is a great chain, connecting the dead with the living as well as those yet unborn. English Catholic convert G. K. Chesterton spoke of the “democracy of the dead”, meaning that they, too, have interests which must be respected by the living.

I suspect we all agree that the present generation does not have the moral right to destroy itself with racial abnegation. What does it matter even if a clear majority of a nation’s voters wish to destroy their historic nation through allowance of an immigration colonization? Some things are not allowed, regardless of their level of current popularity.

The really difficult issue that Breivik poses has nothing to do with the murder of the youths, which I do not believe can be morally (let alone strategically) justified, but rather, whether a Breivik would ever be justified in specific, targeted assassinations of even legitimately democratically elected public figures, if those figures are actively colluding to impose alien colonization on their own countries.

Again, wrt the youths, they may have been brainwashed, but they hadn’t done anything morally culpable. They were too young to have politically imposed alien colonization on (that is, betrayed) their nation, and thus they were not guilty of anything. In having no coercive power, they were innocent.

But speaking philosophically, can we say the same about, for example, some immigration minister, determined to impose ‘diversity’? What if he is acting within his legal rights, and the majority support him? Does his majority support excuse his race-crimes (recalling the democracy of the dead and unborn)? Would any liberal today condemn an assassin of the elected Chancellor of the Third Reich?

The real issue is that liberals don’t perceive race-replacement to be a crime meriting punishment. Breivik held a different view.

Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 28 Jul 2011 05:00 | #

I would wager that the sudden timidity and backing-away on the part of certain WNs is because they recognise something of themselves in Breivik—and it terrifies them.

The fact that some of the victims were children *should* make people think twice. Even if an individual didn’t personally care about the moral consideration 99% of the people in any potential audience will make that distinction. Not recognizing and addressing that fact is a practical issue in terms of effective persuasion.

Also getting the psychopaths to discipline their salivation is important so as to not put off the reading audience.

Posted by anon on Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:29 | #

Also getting the psychopaths to discipline their salivation is important so as to not put off the reading audience.

Ah, that old canard, “the psychopaths”.

Also known as, the guys who actually want to fight and not bloviate.

Posted by Anonymous on Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:42 | #

anon,

Have you actually read the book? It might calm you down.

Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 29 Jul 2011 20:29 | #

Also known as, the guys who actually want to fight and not bloviate.

The army i have knowledge of constantly talks about being professional. The reason for that is they know from long experience that cool, level-headed, rational, non-macho, group co-operation is what destroys your enemies in the most effective manner.

Posted by Bubba on Fri, 29 Jul 2011 21:15 | #

The army i have knowledge of constantly talks about being professional.

Indeed. They talk a good game for bloviators who are quite selective in their observations.

Posted by Bubba on Fri, 29 Jul 2011 21:26 | #

I suspect we all agree that the present generation does not have the moral right to destroy itself with racial abnegation.

In practice the morality of racial abnegation is dual. How do we know? Its promoters are alive and doing quite well, thank you.

Posted by Bubba on Fri, 29 Jul 2011 21:35 | #

non-macho

LMAO!

First question heard in basic training:

So you pussies think you have what it takes to become the meanest, baddest, ass kicking-est motherfuckers in the world?

Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 30 Jul 2011 05:49 | #

First question heard in basic training:

basic training serves a distinct purpose

non-macho

Yes (relatively).

Soldiers have been slaughtering warriors for thousands of years for a reason.
Warriors are better one-on-one.
Soldiers are better group-on-group.

If you don’t understand that then you don’t understand violence.

Posted by air yeezy on Fri, 12 Aug 2011 09:32 | #

Right wing extremists are supposed to kill left-wing extremists too and vice versa I assume? Is that the plan? You did this to recruit and make even the right-wing extremists fight for the Jews?

Air Yeezy Shoes