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?

A post I put up earlier today on the BNP Section of British Democracy Forum.

Peter Oborne redeemed his reputation somewhat in his piece in the Telegraph today on yesterday’s fateful step towards fiscal union in the eurozone. (By redeemed, I mean one might perhaps now look past what he thinks about the soon-to-be-fired Baroness Warsi and Islamophobia.)

Because his take on the future for the EU is very clear-sighted indeed and undoubtedly accurate:

The faith of leading European politicians and bankers in monetary union, a system of financial government whose origins can be traced back to the set of temporary political circumstances in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, and which was brought to bear without serious economic analysis, is essentially irrational. Indeed, in many ways, the euro bears comparison to the gold standard. ... European politicians have developed the same superstitious attachment to the single currency. They are determined to persist with it, no matter what suffering it causes, or however brutal its economic and social consequences.

... it is almost impossible to overestimate the importance of the decision which European leaders seemed last night to be reaching. By authorising a huge expansion in the bail-out fund that is propping up the EU’s peripheral members (largely in order to stop the contagion spreading to Italy and Spain), the eurozone has taken the decisive step to becoming a fiscal union. So long as the settlement is accepted by national parliaments, yesterday will come to be seen as the witching hour after which Europe will cease to be, except vestigially, a collection of nation states. It will have one economic government, one currency, one foreign policy. This integration will be so complete that taxpayers in the more prosperous countries will be expected to pay for the welfare systems and pension plans of failing EU states.

This is the final realisation of the dream that animated the founders of the Common Market more than half a century ago – which is one reason why so many prominent Europeans have privately welcomed the eurozone catastrophe, labelling it a “beneficial crisis”. David Cameron and George Osborne have both indicated that they, too, welcome this fundamental change in the nature and purpose of the European project. The markets have rallied strongly, hailing what is being seen as the best chance of a resolution to the gruelling and drawn-out crisis.

It is conceivable that yesterday’s negotiations may indeed save the eurozone – but it is worth pausing to consider the consequences of European fiscal union. First, it will mean the economic destruction of most of the southern European countries. Indeed, this process is already far advanced. Thanks to their membership of the eurozone, peripheral countries such as Greece and Portugal – and to an increasing extent Spain and Italy – are undergoing a process of forcible deindustrialisation. Their economic sovereignty has been obliterated; they face a future as vassal states, their role reduced to the one enjoyed by the European colonies of the 19th and early 20th centuries. They will provide cheap labour, raw materials, agricultural produce and a ready market for the manufactured goods and services provided by the far more productive and efficient northern Europeans. Their political leaders will, like the hapless George Papandreou of Greece, lose all political legitimacy, becoming local representatives of distant powers who are forced to implement economic programmes from elsewhere in return for massive financial subventions.

READ MORE...

As enquiries go, “why we fight” is a popular one.  Frank Capra gave it to his propaganda films made between 1942 and 1945.  Stephen Spielberg took it for the Band of Brothers episode given over to Holocaust propaganda, and Eugene Jarecki took it for his 2005 documentary on the evil conjunction of war, business and American geopolitical hegemony.  More apposite to us, Guillaume Faye wrote a book with that title.  And then David Lane, while he never posed that precise question, wrote a precise answer in just fourteen words.

Well, what is our cause?  It is simply preservationist?  Or is it distant, glorious and aspirational?  Something else?  Why do we struggle?

Today I started a thread with the same title at British Democracy Forum.  The usual suspects rushed in with buckets of cold water to douse any expressions of real nationalist feeling.  They need not have worried.  The BNP leadership election, which Griffin will win, has the full and undivided attention of the forum members.  There is less thinking going on than ever.  It would be a pleasure to encounter a few considered opinions here.

On 6th April this year Katerina Kitidi and Aris Hatzistefanou released their documentary Debtocracy into the gathering popular protest in Greece.  Public viewings were organised in the central square of most Greek cities, and the film has played its part in educating Greeks to the nature of the neoliberal project and its system of credit, debt, and endless payment.  It contains some damning commentary.  But it is shot through with the hypocrisies of the socialist left.  It does not visit the destruction of personal freedom and the end of self-improvement which debt-slavery implies, these not being issues of interest to radical left intellectuals.  In the same vein it does not venture an opinion upon neoliberalism’s sister project of the Third Worldization of European peoplehood.  Even with a partial political analysis, though, it is plainly the left which will gain when the demos withdraws political legitimacy from the current political class.  Nationalism is not competing at this heavyweight level.

The film is 1 hour 14 mins, but it bowls along at a good pace and will repay your time.  Its message, in the end, is simple: don’t pay.