Anders Behring Breivik appeared before the Oslo City Court today.  He was remanded by District Court Judge Thorkell Nesheim for a further twelve weeks, for the first four of which he will continue to be disallowed newspapers or television, and for eight weeks he will be prohibited visits.

The police had sought tougher conditions, including a twelve week ban on letters (of which he has been receiving many, including some which are threatening).

The Daily Telegraph reported:

Anne Leer, a journalist in court, said Breivik looked his victims straight in the eye when he entered the court.

“I am a military commander in the Norwegian resistance movement and Knights Templar Norway,” Breivik said in a low and controlled voice. “Regarding the competence (of the court), I object to it because you received your mandate from organisations that support hate ideology (and) because it supports multiculturalism.”

It is still not established that Breivik can be held criminally responsible for the bombing in Oslo and the massacre at the Labour Youth League summer camp on Utøya.  If a psychiatric examination confirms that, his trial should begin on April 16.

The police investigation, meanwhile is scheduled to conclude in February.  No evidence of accomplices has been found.  The principle line of investigation, however, is into the question of radicalisation.  The police are interested in what happened in the period from 2002, when Breivik was “knighted”, to 2009, when he started planning the bombing.

Now, this assumption that the forms of dissent Breivik encountered are “radicalising” is very liberal-centric.  Breivik made the point in court that he admits his actions but does not take responsibility for them, that responsibility belonging to the elites who have visited multiracialism and its attendant “hate ideology” on Norway and Norwegians.  What, after all, could be more radical than the race-replacement of a European people with Africans and Asians - a process driven by a morally insular and socially insulated elite whose own familial future consists, apparently, in training their children to carry on their “work”?

Without this unparalleled extremism in Norwegian political life, Breivik would never have conceived the balancing idea that the elites were at war with Norway, that they saw the heirs to the cause in their own children, that the terrible costs they incurred on Norwegians were not paid by them, and bringing those costs home in the most brutal and absolute way was the logical response.

Obviously, the police are not going to stray from their liberal-centric mentality.  So they will look determinedly at Breivik’s online life and at his travels aboad for the mysterious “radicalisation”, making him a victim of some evil “out there” rather than the self-actualised historical fulcrum which he imagines himself to be.

Meanwhile in London the latest twist in the story of Stephen Lawrence has finally come before Mr Justice Treacy at the Old Bailey.  We now await details of the new forensic evidence which, it seems, places David Norris and Garry Dobson at the scene of the crime in 1993.  ITV News mentioned that the defence rejects this evidence vigorously, which makes one wonder whether it is as robust as the race industry would like.

And that, really, is what this trial is about now: the blind, implacable will of the race industry to finally justify all the millions of words written and spoken in the anti-white war it has generated over this death.  Norris and Dobson are doubtless not the most appealing white men one might meet, and the Metropolitan Police were a dubious bunch before the anti-racist disease ever caught hold.  But on to these slender foundations the moral worth of the English people was somehow manoeuvred, along with the proposition that only a repentance from our “racism” and a committment to “diversity” would make us fit for the modern age.

Frankly, I hope the new evidence is very weak, cross-contamination all too likely, and the jury are unable to convict.

So what is Max Keiser about?  OK, he’s the best in the media on the power and criminality of the banks.  No question.  But is he just a left-leaning enemy of the money-changers?  I think probably so.

Here is the latest offering of the Keiser Report, dated the 12th November.  Goes a bit wild over George Osborne.  Gives Mike Gravel and his Direct Democracy initiative an easy ride.

No to 70 million

Responsible department: Home Office

Over the past ten years the government has permitted mass immigration despite very strong public opposition reflected in numerous opinion polls. We express our deep concern that, according to official figures, the population of the UK is expected to reach 70 million within 20 years with two thirds of the increase due to immigration. While we recognise the benefits that properly controlled immigration could bring to our economy and society, this population increase, which is the equivalent of building seven cities the size of Birmingham, will have a huge impact both on our quality of life and on our public services yet the public has never been consulted. So we call on the government to take all necessary steps to get immigration down to a level that will stabilise our population as close to the present level as possible and, certainly, well below 70 million.”

So reads the immigration e-petition posted on the Downing Street petitions site by Sir Andrew Green of MigrationWatch.  It is doing a brisk trade.  Only two petitions so far have scraped together the 100,000 signatures that triggers a House of Commons debate. The government allows a full year for this total to be reached.  The immigration petition did it inside a week.

Of course, it’s weak tea stuff.  Sir Andrew is involved in the balanced migration campaign, which only seeks to match immigration numbers with those emigrating.  But it’s a start, and the explosive success of the e-petition is not an endorsement for balanced migration.

Some time in the next two years the government will have to make time for a debate on the 70 million issue.  The debate itself will be no less controlled than the EU debate of a few days ago.  Nothing will come of it. It is inconceivable that there will be another large-scale rebellion among Tory MPs.  But the petition could easily be several hundred signatures strong by then.  It will feel very lonely in the “we love migrants” camp.

I have signed the petition.  Every loyal Brit should do so.

… against the pathological left, anyway.

I have spent a few days discussing golf and football with a dozen or so folk at the Telegraph online.  They were hardly committed sports fans, unless you count screaming “racist” at every slightly “incorrect” white man a sport.  Perhaps they do.

They are certainly not very sporting themselves.  They never answer questions.  With the more capable anti-racists who gather at British Democracy Forum to plague BNP members I always felt that the wriggling was at least partly strategic.  But now I think the lot of them are probably constitutionally incapable of answering anything.  The answers just aren’t there.

The same feeling that the multiracialist ideology can’t answer the questions of the present-day runs through this article in the Guardian today:

Far right on rise in Europe, says report

Study by Demos thinktank reveals thousands of self-declared followers of hardline nationalist parties and groups

The far right is on the rise across Europe as a new generation of young, web-based supporters embrace hardline nationalist and anti-immigrant groups, a study has revealed ahead of a meeting of politicians and academics in Brussels to examine the phenomenon.

Research by the British thinktank Demos for the first time examines attitudes among supporters of the far right online. Using advertisements on Facebook group pages, they persuaded more than 10,000 followers of 14 parties and street organisations in 11 countries to fill in detailed questionnaires.

The study reveals a continent-wide spread of hardline nationalist sentiment among the young, mainly men. Deeply cynical about their own governments and the EU, their generalised fear about the future is focused on cultural identity, with immigration – particularly a perceived spread of Islamic influence – a concern. ...

The rest of the article is worth a browse.  The original Demos report, which is less lurid in tone than the article above, is here.

READ MORE...

As some of our readers will already know, something odd happened at 7.00pm on Saturday evening when an article by Alasdair Palmer was posted at the Telegraph on-line.  I say an article, but in fact all that appeared was a headline reading “For overcrowded England, there is no turning back” and a picture of Oxford Street in all its usual, crowded vibrancy.

The semi-finished nature of the post plainly invited suggestion.  A sense of abandon spread through the right-wing badlands, and some extraordinarily plain-spoken suggestion followed, the great preponderance of it pointing out that, yes, there is a turning back.  It’s called repatriation.

The moderators snipped around the edges a little but they could not deal with the sheer volume of racial loyalty without turning it into a bloodbath.  They withdrew.

On Sunday morning Palmer’s article finally appeared.  It was about the National Office of Statistics report last week, which updated the immigrant numbers and brought home the full horror of the situation.  “Should we be worried by the prospect of 70 million people living in Britain in 2027?” wrote Palmer.  The answer had been there on the page for at least twelve hours.

The comment total at the time of writing this post is 1354, spread over 55 pages of Disqus format.  Too much to read in toto.  But I do recommend a quick browse just to get a feel for a freedom that exists nowhere else in the MSM.  It should now be possible to say anything content-wise at the Telegraph.  This is important.  To change public opinion, to lead public opinion, is going to require a great deal of such freedom.  It has to be worked at, routed out, made serviceable everywhere, eventually.

Drew Fraser speaking to an audience in Stockholm in August this year about his essay on “the bio-cultural evolution, present predicament, and future prospects of the invisible race.”

As conceived by Guardianoid.

From Nature Neuroscience:

How unrealistic optimism is maintained in the face of reality

Abstract

Unrealistic optimism is a pervasive human trait that influences domains ranging from personal relationships to politics and finance. How people maintain unrealistic optimism, despite frequently encountering information that challenges those biased beliefs, is unknown. We examined this question and found a marked asymmetry in belief updating. Participants updated their beliefs more in response to information that was better than expected than to information that was worse. This selectivity was mediated by a relative failure to code for errors that should reduce optimism. Distinct regions of the prefrontal cortex tracked estimation errors when those called for positive update, both in individuals who scored high and low on trait optimism. However, highly optimistic individuals exhibited reduced tracking of estimation errors that called for negative update in right inferior prefrontal gyrus. These findings indicate that optimism is tied to a selective update failure and diminished neural coding of undesirable information regarding the future.