Posts Tagged ‘anders breivik’

On Ethnic Violence

Saturday, July 1st, 2017

There are many things that will soon be part of our daily reality that we do not necessarily like, but when they become necessary, we will want to know the finer distinctions among the different varieties of them.

One such thing is political violence. It is necessary as self-defense and powerful as an attention-getter (sorry, “raising awareness”) which is the primary way to get anything done as a minority group in a democratic time.

It makes sense to see what we think of the different types of political violence. We could compare Dylann Roof, Columbine, Tim McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, The Holocaust, Anders Breivik, the 16th Street Church bombing and for kicks, The Terror.

Dylann Roof and Columbine strike me as very similar. Both are essentially exaggerated suicides with a final strike against society at large. Columbine may have in fact been more ideological than people think: it was a rejection of the modern world and its weak social morality. Roof on the other hand was in the early stages of a racial awakening, which happens when one realizes that race and ethnicity are the root of culture, and that other groups are trying to eliminate your own.

He struck back, but did so by victimizing the surrogate of the problem, a group of African-descended Christians, instead of doing something like useful like shooting a bunch of pro-diversity Leftists or conservative cucks who insist on “compromising” with them. Columbine was closer to a classic “disturb the bourgeois middle class” by harming its sleeping members terrorism, and probably more effective; while it killed (relative) innocents, it did not victimize groups traditionally seen as disadvantaged and persecuted, so might be seen as sociopathic but not bullying.

The 16th Street Church bombing presented the worst optics that an anti-diversity action can have because it killed four children who were, like Roof’s targets, engaged in an activity most of us find defensible, which is attending church. Not only that, it was unclear what it hoped to achieve as political violence, since when one attacks weak points one looks weak. If it had blown up a group of Black Panthers, that might have made more sense, but not really since they are working toward the same nationalism — ethnic and racial separation — that white nationalists desire. Again, it would have made more sense to target those advocates within one’s own race who were working toward diversity.

The Holocaust™ is one of my least favorite acts of political violence as well. Instead of doing something sensible, like rounding up all Other and dumping them all in North Africa, the Nazis used them as labor and later helped finish off what American bombers, starvation and disease did not. Most of the outright killings occurred in Eastern Europe before the Nazis arrived, but strong signaling to the effect of “hand us your Jews and we’ll relocate them” could have staved that off. The Holocaust™ comes across as nothing but bullying and a pointless, symbolic quest against Judaism, when always with the West, Die Ewige Jude is within our souls and came onto us when we threw out monarchy for a mercantile, middle class egalitarian system.

Similarly, while Ted Kaczynski targeted industrialists who he saw as polluting the planet and advancing technological civilization, he blew up an awful lot of secretaries. He got some good targets as well, but the random nature of bombs made this less of a decisive victory than lying in wait with an M14 and popping them as they got their morning lattes in disposable cups. His terror was absolute, however, because so many people were potentially in his target group. Maybe some of them reconsidered their evil ways. Probably not; they just had their secretaries open their mail instead.

Columbine at least took the terror to those self-satisfied middle class families who are oblivious to everything but their stock portfolios, and therefore oppose long-term sensible policies in favor of short-term advances for the mercantile aspects of society. If we have a group that we should probably enslave, it is the middle class, who are just bright enough to be self-congratulatory about getting basic functions to work, but not intelligent enough to make a functional society in the long-term or understand the qualitative dimension of function and aesthetics. In fact, the middle class strike most of us as simply crass, doubly so at the upper middle class level, where a more refined taste still does not reach the level of appreciating the eternal and transcendent aspects of life. Even their religion tends to be materialist and functionalist.

Like Columbine, Tim McVeigh and Anders Breivik took the fight to the groups they identified as the source of the problem. Responding to a government that had, through incidents like Waco and Ruby Ridge, become a bully, Tim McVeigh threatened not the seat of power but its everyday employees, or the people who were ignoring what government had become in order to get a paycheck. He took out 168 bureaucrats who were proud of their role in expanding the power of government, and so unreflective were they that none even reconsidered their role in government, but others did. Since that time, fewer people of good family and ability have been going into government, which means that it now requires fifty idiots to do the work that one person once did. Democracy as usual, unfortunately. Breivik targeted Leftists, and strikes me as the most effective example of political violence in the raised the cost of being Leftist, most notably to parents, ensuring that future generations back off of being Leftist as a social convention. It is like knowing that there is a fox in the raspberry patch; the parents of good little squirrels no longer let them play in there, and this gradually removes the raspberry from the squirrel diet.

Of course, The Terror was even more effective because it announced to a whole society that you either got on board with the new ideology or could be killed as a family based merely on hearsay. Whole families were herded to the guillotine, spat on, tortured and killed in front of jeering crowds. If your neighbor had a business you wanted, you went to a magistrate and swore that he supported the aristocracy, and then they hauled him off and killed him and you could seize his business as payment for informing on him. It also made terror an instrument of control over the Left itself, since purity spirals ended up sending those who were insufficiently fanatical to the guillotine, creating a natural selection that favored extremists who were unconcerned with factual or logical truth. The Leftists really are the best at political violence, but maybe deporting a few million of their True Believers to Dubai or Brazil will form a new kind of political violence, one that is less violent but more intimidating.

White People Need To Realize That “The Enemy Is Within”

Wednesday, June 21st, 2017

Is It "Facism" To Send All Leftists To The Third World?

We live in a time of great upheaval and thus, great opportunity. Liberal democracy has died from an inability to govern. Our leaders and media say things that are obviously insane, but are not recognized as such by the herd, and so they are accepted.

But over time, claiming that “everyone thinks this is true” — rule by consensus, instead of rule by realistic thinking — falls apart when the results of those claims being put into action are consistently bad. In Europe and the US, not only are the results bad, but they are getting worse and accelerating.

We are seeing the failure of liberal democracy around us every day. Soon it will be replaced. If we are intelligent, we will skip over tyranny and move to a more sensible option.

In the meantime, however, we have to face our enemy: ourselves. If we are honest — and if we could be realistic about other races, we can do the same to our own — we will admit that most of us are incapable of making the complex decisions required for leadership. Most make bad decisions, the “educated” frequently make irrelevant choices, and in groups, the committee effect dominates and we act like domesticated cattle, shuttling between stampede-level panic and bovine-level insouciance. Committees make compromises based not on a realistic goal, but on the pragmatic choices required to keep every member happy, and so the compromises pile up until no one can act because all of our objectives are paradoxical and we have many, many illusions to uphold.

Right now, many people are talking about populism and how “we the people” are going to take back our countries from the governments… err… that we elected. Let us set the record straight: populism is not the people defending themselves against a monster. It is buyer’s remorse for having gone along with the liberal democracy sham and, upon seeing exactly where it was heading, realizing that it was a bad choice all along. People feel this in their guts, but will never admit it. To admit it would be to affirm the obvious truth that the voters screwed it up for centuries, that they did so because they got greedy, and that this is typical human behavior in groups — think of attendees at a carnival, all the litter on our roadsides, graffiti on every wall — because in groups, people do not face the consequences of their actions. They externalize or socialize the cost to the rest of society. When given power with no responsibility for the results, people tend to do just whatever, because we have replaced the goal of power with the need to maintain that power itself. Democracy, consumerism and social popularity are all manifestations of that transition.

The thing that ties these together is human social behavior. In a group, the way to win the game is to make everyone feel comfortable by including them. It is more important to have everyone get along than it is to reach any certain conclusion. In this way, the committee mentality arrives. When everyone at the table is invited to participate, someone balances all of their concerns and comes up with a solution that avoids inconveniencing anyone terribly. The result is that the original goal is long forgotten, and in the name of pacifism and making everyone feel included, a non-solution is erected. Repeat this by tens of thousands of times — in congresses, boardrooms, voting booths, bars and churches — and you get a civilization dedicated to keeping everyone together instead of cooperating toward any kind of sensible behavior. The problem is us because in groups, we behave like nitwits, no matter how educated or intelligent we are. The situation itself creates the bad results.

Human thinking is comprised of these two prongs: wishful thinking at the individual level, and socializing at the group level. The West encountered this problem not because — as the scientists say — the West is particularly altruistic, open or introspective, but because when a civilization gets powerful enough that it can forget its natural constraints and get by for awhile while ignoring its goals, people fall back on this type of social thinking and then use it to make their wishful thinking be accepted as real. We wish we were all equal, so we make it a taboo to deny equality, even though equality does not exist in reality. We then enforce that on each other, and out of pragmatism, it is accepted, and any who rise up and point out that this is insane are smashed, in the name of protecting the group consensus and the “good feelings” it depends on to keep everyone feeling chipper enough to continue their contributions. Such smart monkeys, we have manipulated ourselves into oblivion!

This disaster is not unique to Western Europeans, but a consequence of their success plus high IQ and a tendency to be social, since the more powerful a human is, the more benevolent and sociable they tend to be. In addition, it is lonelier at the top because with dominion over nature and want, there is no longer a need to cooperate as closely with others. The system does that. People know their roles, and do their tasks, and somehow everyone turns out okay. For the past couple millennia, the West has been in this state for the most part, especially relative to other groups.

Bad decisions however have a way of coming back to haunt us. With each compromise, our options decreased. The voters, concerned only about the time between the day of the voting and the next paycheck, kept electing people who went along with the system. Over time, the system began to strengthen itself because it had not been rebuked. But even more, it was popular. Barack Obama was elected. Ruby Ridge and Waco did not lead to massive outcry. Nor did the increasing pollution, crime, racial antagonism, corruption, and unsustainable programs like the entitlements that make up 60% of our budgets. The voters kept rubber-stamping these bad ideas, or at least not opposing them enough. And so finally liberal democracy came to its endgame. Bankrupt, purposeless, self-interested and apparently clueless, our governments doubled down on their agenda again and again. This culminated in an attempt to replace the citizens themselves with third world newcomers who were designed to be permanent Leftist voters, keeping the system in power.

What is Leftism, however, but people power? The United States was founded on some Leftist ideas and some Rightist ones. But over time, the Leftist ideas always won out because they were simpler and they made “we the people” feel good about the free stuff we would be getting, how Mother Theresa like we looked for being open-minded about immigration and class warfare, and how we were all going to have good jobs and fat pensions by using the system for our own gain. The voters were greedy, and this made them select leaders who were greedy, and those promptly created greedy governments which came to want power for its own sake so that the graft could continue unabated. At that point, there was nothing left but failure.

If our time has heroes, history will find them in men like Anders Breivik and Timothy McVeigh. Instead of committing callow acts of violence against the newcomers, these men targeted the governments and the Leftists behind them. They recognized that what went wrong was that the voters had lost their moral compass, as most people tend to do when given power without responsibility, and had created this monster and sustained it with their interest. Left-leaning cinema, news, entertainment and academia remained wildly popular. People were only too glad to inform on others for having the wrong (Right) opinions. The herd wanted to believe that it was good, and so it chose poor options every time instead of tackling problems head on. People ran from looking at the actual needs and solutions that stood before them. Pretense ruled over common sense. These men knew that the government was not a thing of its own creation, but entirely created by the voters and the illusions of people acting in groups.

At this point, nothing remains but separation. Leftists — up to 40% of the population — want a different type of civilization than the rest of us do. We cannot coexist.

Breivik made his point by forcing people to be accountable. Those who agitated for communism and immigration were killed in order to show that them supporting these destructive ideas might have costs for them, personally, which had never happened before. McVeigh showed people that just because the system was there and paid good wages, there are costs for supporting that which is immoral and an abomination to logic. That spirit can be carried on without violence by physically removing Leftists. Half of our people are mental children, foolish and selfish, intellectually and morally broken, and the only solution is to move them on and work with the rest.

Since a big shakeup is coming, and the collapse of a system as surely as Communism and National Socialism collapsed, we will have this opportunity. Relocating all of those who are not of the founding group in the USA will leave us with maybe 150 million people, and removing the committed Leftists from among them will result in an America of 80 million people. This leaves us with enough competent people to do whatever we need to, but without the constant chatter and chaos from the Left. In fact, it will be a more productive nation, and there will be more room for nature, so our environmental problems will relax and so will the pressures of life. Jobs will no longer be a lifeline and jail sentence but places where people are rewarded for performance instead of attendance. Natural species that have been crowded out by the endless suburbs, roads, strip malls, warehouses and parking lots will come back to life. Oxygen will rise from our forests and our water will be cleaner. We will be able to actually live again, instead of subsisting at virtual gunpoint in order to subsidize a system that has been failing for a long time.

We the people are not good people. Some of us are good, and many are mixed degrees of good and bad, but in groups we make bad decisions. The individual and group act in parallel because both use social thinking, or the assumption that we the people are good and therefore that we must include everyone through the mental acrobatics required to support egalitarianism. People choose easy answers over complex truths. As a result, whatever is popular is a lie: the disgusting mass culture and pop art, the glib explanations of media, the details turned into grand theories of science and academia, and at the root, the idea that we the people have any legitimacy as rulers at all. Mob rule is still mob rule. Mob rule extends beyond the voting box to what people buy, the mental viruses they repeat as truth in order to seem intelligent to others, and the behaviors that are enabled by a permissive society and so become more degenerate, generation after generation. We the people prefer lies.

This tendency for human groups to self-delude is called Crowdism, and it forms naturally wherever success enables people to take their eyes off the ball for even a second. The only thing that opposes it is a hard realism that denies our human impulses to consider ourselves good and to be sociable by assuming the same of others. Under the illusion of the goodness of we the people, we have created an idiocratic society where the stupidest and most blatant lies triumph over everything else. And so now, a purge is coming. For society to survive, it must remove those who thrive in an environment of chaos and degeneracy, and replace it with those who want a realistic order that improves itself qualitatively so that it always has a goal, and never falls back into the self-congratulatory and self-referential circular reasoning of the herd.

Like a garden, a civilization can be renewed. The necrotic tissue must be cut off and burned, the unhealthy plants removed, and the health ones nurtured. If any plants are in the garden that do not belong, they must be relocated. This makes the garden healthier this year, healthy the next, and progressively healthier each year that we repeat the process. There is no other solution.

Right now most of our fellow citizens are busy looking for excuses and scapegoats. They want someone to blame for our failure, anyone but us. They complain about capitalism, government, the Rich and shadowy conspiracies, but really we have no one to blame but ourselves. The sooner we grow up, accept that fact and act on it, the sooner we can stop being failures and start doing something fun again.

The Guardian Doubles Down On Lügenpresse Narrative About LD50 Gallery

Wednesday, February 22nd, 2017

Based on past experiences with the biased and dogmatic lügenpresse, it made no sense to expect The Guardian to do any better, since it is well known as a Leftist mouthpiece that occasionally publishes useful environmental articles.

But The Guardian‘s recent attack on LD50 art gallery goes beyond even the usual flagrant violations of professional ethics and journalistic quality that are the hallmark of the lügenpresse:

This weekend, artists and campaigners will protest calling for the closure of LD50, in Dalston, east London, after accusations the gallery gave a platform to anti-immigrant, Islamophobic and “alt-right” figures and promoted “hate speech not free speech”.

Guests at LD50’s Neoreaction conference last summer included Brett Stevens, the white supremacist whose writing was an inspiration to Oslo far-right terrorist Anders Breivik, who murdered 77 people in 2011.

After Breivik’s attack, Stevens wrote: “I am honored to be so mentioned by someone who is clearly far braver than I, no comment on his methods, but he chose to act where many of us write, think and dream.”

The thing is, we need a term for what they are doing here. We understand what it means when Leftists virtue signal, which means to demonstrate their own goodwhite cred by acting symbolically, akin to politicians kissing babies or big business buying a herring snack for Shamu the whale so they can continue to pollute the other 364 days of the year.

But what they are doing here is something new, and it should be called taboo tagging, because you can tell that these journalists were typing away furiously to see how many terms that signal “socially unacceptable ideas” — a proxy for non-Leftist ideas, in our Leftist time — they can load into the article and associate with the gallery or this poor Brett Stevens guy.

Let us do a quick count:

  • Anti-immigrant.
  • Islamophobic.
  • “Alt-right” (the quotes mean something dubious, fraudulent).
  • Hate speech.
  • White supremacist.
  • Far-right.
  • Terrorist.
  • Murdered.

What a handy bundle of words to scare away the middle class and convince them that, whatever it is they are, they are not anything like these horrible people. A basket of deplorables, indeed. But that is not fact; it is innuendo. And if they had taken the time to review the data — cribbed mostly from articles by Leftist groups attacking art gallery LD50 (who responded magnificently) — they would have realized these are not facts at all, but politically biased defamation because their inaccuracy is so great.

Now, in their defense, much of this occurs because the news has been in a slow downward cycle over the past fifty years. When there were only magazines, newspapers and radio being a newsman was a pretty good gig. The money was not terrible and the respect was high. But then television, cable and the internet entered the picture and now the news is basically clickbait grasping for decreasing ad revenue. Somewhere in here the media opted to shift its focus to its most fervent consumers, who tend to be young and left-leaning, and drove the regular middle class away as a result, making its plight even worse. So an article like this was probably composed in under an hour with extensive borrowing because how else will The Guardian pump out enough clickbait to stay afloat for another quarter?

However, they get a few things wrong.

Let us dig deeper into this lügenmess:

Alongside the conference, the gallery hosted an art exhibition titled Amerika, which explored far-right and Nazi imagery and featured video works of far-right and neoreactive texts being read out by avatars. A pink swastika was graffitied onto the gallery front door last week.

Writing on his ultra-conservative blog, – which is directly linked to on the gallery’s website – Stevens said the neoreaction conference had been held behind a “veil of secrecy to prevent the usual suspects (Leftists and other neurotics) from attacking”.

Ultra-conservative… oooh, I really like the sound of that. This part is probably accurate; it is ultra-conservative, but not for the sake of being extreme, cool, whatever, etc. This is where looking into human psychology for several decades gets you. You end up realizing that history is a shuttling between order/sanity and disorder/insanity, and that the good years come when we accept that humanity is a problem best tamed by aristocracy, caste, nationalism and transcendental goals and that nothing else — especially neurotic liberal democracy — is going to work. The rest of the world has actually realized this, at a gut level, but they are afraid to admit the fall of illusions so there is a massive global tantrum at the dying of this now-aged order.

Will someone please say “ultra-conservative” again, perhaps with a sneering cosmopolitan accent and soft hands that have never cut wood? Yes, yes, that is wonderful. If you can just keep doing that, it is like a backrub to my soul.

For several decades, I have been interested in one question: how do I restore Western Civilization? I started from a center-Left perspective, then went toward deep ecology, and influenced by black metal, Nietzsche and Houellebecq, drifted Rightward and finally found a center there. I describe myself as a “moderate extremist”: someone who wants extremely practical answers, but on a ten thousand year scale and applied with zeal and verve so that they are actually effective instead of being merely symbolic.

If you had asked me back at the start of this journey whether I wanted to end up on the far right, my answer would have been quick and profane. Of course not! But when one follows logical facts, instead of relying on observations of details that are partially correct and labeled “facts,” and reads a bit of history and philosophy, it becomes clear that the picture is bigger than what we are being told. This means that our society has failed, the fools are in charge, and everything they say is a lie, so we must look beyond the taboo, and that is what I have done.

I have zero regrets. The individual has no power in this world except to think, gain clarity on what is actually happening, and then act toward a restoration of sanity and a society that can exceed all of our experiences and expectations so far, even if that act is merely writing. I realize this puts me on the wrong side of the power structure that exists now, but clearly it is failing, and not because people disagree with it but — on the contrary — because enough people agreed with it that it could act out its ideology, and the results especially for the past seventy years have been terrible.

So, good luck to you over at The Guardian in attempting to understanding this web of thoughts and their derivation. But you should take away one thing, and that is that when you try to create a bogeyman, you miss what is actually there. I am a person just like you, concerned about the same things, and possibly gifted of some insights, I have taken a different path than everyone else who is following the illusion of modernity into the (now deep) grave of Western Civilization. Buy my book. Listen to our podcast. Thanks for reading, and toodles.

Leftists Advance Illusory Narrative On Munich Gunman

Thursday, July 28th, 2016

How do you turn an Iranian into a white neo-Nazi?

With media spin, of course.

From yesterday’s The Local:

The 18-year-old gunman who killed nine people before killing himself in Munich on Friday, was proud to be born on April 20th 1998 and thus share a birthday with Adolf Hitler, the FAZ has been told by people close to the investigation.

David Sonboly, who was born to Iranian parents in Munich, was allegedly proud to be German and Iranian, which he considered to make him “Aryan,” people who knew him told investigators.

…Investigators are now looking into whether he intentionally killed foreigners. Seven his nine victims were Muslims and all nine of them had migrant backgrounds.

Here is how the lie is built:

He was already known to have an affiliation to the Norwegian far-right terrorist Anders Breivik, whose atrocity took place five years to the day before Sonboly’s.

Actually, we do not know that. We know he had at least one book about spree killers. That means it had multiple spree killers in it. That means it was unlikely he was fixated on Breivik unless he has said so. Did he? Can anyone tell us? Because so far, the only people making the Breivik comparison are white police officers who did not know him.

Next, we have this mysterious leak to the FAZ. One reason that old-school journalists distrusted leaks is that they force public institutions into the impossible position of trying to prove a negative. “X person said this, is it true?” can only be countered by telling a full narrative, which is almost always irresponsible at that point in an investigation.

But look how craftily this has been assembled. First they said he was a white shooter; then they said no, he was not white, but he was inspired by Anders Breivik; finally, since the previous lie went unchallenged by anyone in the lap-dog media, they spun out the narrative to include these dubious allusions to Hitler.

One way this could go down is a lot like it did at Columbine, where the shooters were also reported as Nazis until someone found out that one of them was in fact Jewish: disturbed person likes a lot of things, symbolized by say ten bookshelves. On those bookshelves are found books about Hitler, in addition to 200 other things.

The press will report only the Hitler link and overlook the other 200. This is called “cherry-picking” data and they get away with it because listing all 200 would probably bore their audience, so they choose the one they can build a story around, instead of getting the full story.

In the same way, Ari David Sonboly clearly had a lot of influences and conflicting impulses within him. The Left will filter these and mention only the ones that advance the Leftist narrative, and discard the rest as “details” and “miscellany.”

The Establishment Creates A Narrative Spin In Ali Sonboly Munich Shooting

Saturday, July 23rd, 2016


Mass shootings provoke an instinctive question: insanity or terrorism?

Some overlap exists, of course: the people most likely to carry out suicide missions are also those who have given up on life, usually from depression or other mental health causes.

In Munich, we saw a rare event: a German-born citizen of Iranian descent opens fire at a mall, and blames bullying that happened to him as a youth, but shoots (mostly) Turks, Greeks and other foreigners.

This looks more like a diversity stress shooting, where the sheer tension of being an outsider and recognizing the tenuous nature of that position drove an act of seeming insanity that was more of a protest than terrorism, much like the Columbine killers were alienated by the society around them and decided on a suicide-revenge hybrid.

When you cannot bear living any longer, and feel that your surroundings are to blame, the combination of self-destruction and world-destruction seems appealing. In this case, shooter Ali David Sonboly followed the classic pattern of shooting, then retreating to a solitary suicide.

The Establishment wasted no time in giving the Munich shooting the usual spin:

The attack came on the fifth anniversary of the mass shooting carried out by Anders Breivik – and police suspect the two events are linked.

Police chief Hubertus Andrae said: “This connection is obvious.”

The Norwegian terrorist killed 77 people and injured 319 in a bomb and gun attack in Oslo and a summer camp outside the city.

The connection is obvious? Only in this way: Anders Breivik warned that multiculturalism is killing Europe and was proven right: Ali David Sonboly is the multiculturalism.

In the poignant way that life makes most things bittersweet or at least complex and internally conflicted, however, part of what the multiculture did was kill itself, acknowledging that multiculturalism works for no one.

The killer was miserable in Germany. He may also have been miserable had he grown up in Iran, but there, he would not have been an outsider, or bullied by Germans, Greeks and Turks (presumably) for his outsider status.

As usual, the Leftist Establishment is relying on categorical logic to fool us:

Ali David Sonboly = {Terrorist, German-Iranian}
Anders Breivik = {Terrorist, Norwegian}

Ali David Sonboly ∩ Anders Breivik = {Terrorist}
∴ Ali David Sonboly = Anders Breivik

What is removed from here: motivation, and the other factors that inspired these shootings.

Anders Breivik shot Leftists as a means of kicking off a war between the forces destroying Europe and those trying to save it. The end result of his act was brilliant: it made people realize that there is a personal cost to being Leftist, and caused a withdrawal from the perception of Leftism as universally socially-accepted and beneficial to the individual with no opportunity cost. Instead, it identified Leftists as an enemy. This is a far more intelligent method than shooting the multiculture, which feels like bullying to most of us.

Ali Sonboly shot other multiculture and Germans because he hated being an outsider. His goal was the opposite of Breivik: he did not want to save Europe, but to destroy it, and may or may not have identified multiculturalism as part of his misery. Unlike Breivik, he killed himself and left no extensive manifesto, such that all we know of him is what he said at the shooting and what he left on social media.

The killer identified himself as “German” during the exchange, after an onlooker shouted: “F*****g foreigner!”

He replied: “I am German. Yeah what, I was born here. I grew up here in the Hartz IV area.”

Hartz IV refers to German unemployment benefits.

Ali Sonboly accepted the multicultural narrative that being born in Germany makes one a German (the “Magic Dirt” theory).

His rage may have directed itself at other multiculture, but he did not target multiculturalism itself. Instead he targeted Germany.

The Leftist Establishment took its first shots by reporting that the shooter was a white Caucasian with far right tendencies who was targeting immigrants:

There were early reports that the gunman in the Munich, Germany shooting spree may have been targeting foreigners or immigrants. Those reports had people asking: Was the gunman in Munich a Neo Nazi?

…CNN says police were initially calling it a terrorist attack, though, and that a witness heard the gunman shout, “Allahu Akbar” before shooting children in the face.

The reason for this is that the Leftist Crowd can be depended on to take a meme and hold onto it, believing that a vast right-wing conspiracy is trying to conceal the truth.

This is why the press rushes to claim every shooter as Neo-Nazi, so that they can advance the narrative through the acts of useful idiots who will hear what they wanted to, and then close their minds to anything else and beat down anyone who claims otherwise.

That this narrative disintegrated within hours does not matter. The Establishment got its cucked police in there to claim an “obvious” link to Anders Breivik based on the date of the attack, although so far no evidence has emerged of any ideological or motivational link between Sonboly and Breivik.

One of Us: The Story of Anders Breivik and the Massacre in Norway, by Åsne Seierstad

Saturday, September 12th, 2015


Anders Breivik continues to attract interest because he did what no conservative irked by multiculturalism will do: he blamed his own people, specifically liberals, and raised the cost of being a liberal to include the risk of death. Liberals now can preach full Communism wherever they want with zero repercussions; Breivik forever changed that in Norway, where parents now think twice about letting their children get involved with the Young Marxists. Typical of liberals, they are oblivious to the consequences of their actions until personal risk appears.

Åsne Seierstad, a somewhat typically neurotic journalist, does a fair job of chronicling the preparation and execution of the terror attacks at Utøya Island on July 22, 2011. Breivik executed 69 teenagers who were attending a far-left propaganda camp and killed eight more people in downtown Oslo with a Timothy McVeigh style ANFO car bomb. He explained his motivation as opposition to multiculturalism and leftism, which he sees as destroying Norway and Europe, and was sentenced to twenty-one years in a sentence that self-renews if he is still viewed as a threat to society, the equivalent of a life sentence anywhere else. He also raised eyebrows by giving the Roman salute during his trial. Seierstad chronicles all of these events faithfully and only goes awry when she tries to, in typical liberal fashion, provide a psychology that explains away Breivik’s concerns and acts.

He was rejected by those who mattered.
He did not fit in. He was patient and persistent, but he never it to the top of World of Warcraft. He was never among the Top 500 on the servers that matters, and thus was never ranked.
He acted like a king, when he was only a toy. (130)

One of Us: The Story of Anders Breivik and the Massacre in Norway runs over 500 pages; to waste space on conjecture of that nature is not only irresponsible, but self-impressed to the point of narcissism. If any psychology is being revealed here, it is Seierstad, and her unprofessionalism in this regard — while the norm — lessens the power of this book. However, it also has numerous strengths. For one thing, Seierstad does an excellent job of speaking through her characters because she uses original research and, when possible, their words. She gives plenty of page time to Breivik and his statements to police as well as excerpts from his 1500 page manifesto and bibliography (in which was cited). The latter half of the book seems almost sympathetic to Breivik, and in the former half, she acknowledges without blame the problems afflicting Norway, including first-world neurosis and boredom, immigration and failed multiculturalism, and the general ineptitude of government officials. Her description of the police response to the massacre could read like a Three Stooges episode, in parallel to the earlier incompetence of social workers trying to help Breivik’s mother, Wenche. Everywhere the utter instability of the Nordic Marxist-influenced society leaks out and provides a resonant backdrop to the motivation and ideological alignment of her central character.

The interrogation continued in the car on the way to Oslo. The officers asked Breivik to tell them honestly whether any more attacks were planned. He answered that: ‘If I give you that, I’ll have nothing.’

‘It’s important to curb people’s fears now,’ objected the police. Breivik retorted that it was up to the powers of law and order to make people feel safe.

‘It’s beyond our power to reassure the Norwegian people now, so you have achieved that effect.’

Breivik grinned.

‘That’s what they call terror, isn’t it? (375)

This book takes a long time to get to the massacre, thankfully rushes through the massacre because shooting unarmed people is not all that interesting, and makes the trial less than boring which is a feat since almost all trials are mostly tedium. Seierstad picks crucial passages from Breivik’s statements to use in his dialogue with police, the press and the courts, and will give a casual reader a good idea of where he was going. Unlike a Hollywood production, she does not dumb down the ideation behind the attack; like Hollywood, she inserts too much focus on people and emotions that while important to readers, are fundamentally disconnected from what should be the focus, which is the issues and the change in history. She writes moderately, using very similar language with trope-cliché flair in the form of dramatic chapter endings, linguistic flourishes, excessive metaphors and the like. These are all standard to NPR, Salon, The Atlantic and other mainstream media standards for what is “good writing,” but this is not good writing. It is adequate, and with that none should have a problem, but it frequently becomes pretentious and adorns itself with decorations when it should focus on being functional and finding a way to make that interesting, as Seierstad did with the trial. A good editor could cut several hundred pages from this book and lose nothing of import.

When an event of political violence occurs, people rush to label it a tragedy and to paper over it with moral platitudes so that no one looks into the motivations of those involved. If Seierstad has a triumph, it is that she reveals the origins of Breivik and what shaped him; if she has a shame, it is the 200+ additional pages of focus on the victims, attempts to psychoanalyze Breivik, and other not really relevant material. She may have included that merely to disguise her quasi-affection for her subject, or because people are cud-chewing bovines who need a certain amount of “human interest.” Those parts are worth skimming over in this book because they contribute nothing; there is not enough about these victims to make them really impressive, which may explain why they were leftists. The real story here is the breakdown of Norwegian society and how it produces highly alienated people, and how one of these decided to act, and changed politics in Norway as a result.

How to put the fear of God into liberals

Saturday, April 5th, 2014


On the heels of the recent politically-motivated dismissal of former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich, a number of thinkers have questioned the wisdom of this “soft totalitarian” approach toward quashing conservative values.

Of all sources, pro-gay-marriage writer Andrew Sullivan writes against the hounding:

It turns out that Eich might have saved his job had he recanted, like all heretics must. But given the choice of recanting, he failed. Hence the lighting of the fires:

Throughout the interviews, it was not hard to get the sense that Eich really wanted to stick strongly by his views about gay marriage, which run counter to much of the tech industry and, increasingly, the general population in the U.S. For example, he repeatedly declined to answer when asked if he would donate to a similar initiative today.

Instead, he tried to unsuccessfully hedge those sentiments and, perhaps more importantly, did not seem to understand that he might have to pay the inevitable price for having them. Thus, something had to give — and it did.

He did not understand that in order to be a CEO of a company, you have to renounce your heresy! There is only one permissible opinion at Mozilla, and all dissidents must be purged! Yep, that’s left-liberal tolerance in a nut-shell. No, he wasn’t a victim of government censorship or intimidation. He was a victim of the free market in which people can choose to express their opinions by boycotts, free speech and the like. He still has his full First Amendment rights.

Many conservative writers are suggesting a boycott of Mozilla in response. Some have even noticed the hand of a corporate monopoly behind it. But in my view, boycotts of one company for one incident of many that are part of an ongoing problem is not enough.

We are dealing with two issues here: (1) the persecution of conservatives via “soft totalitarian” methods and (2) the ongoing question of whether conservatives and liberals can co-exist in the same society.

Let us look at this from the perspective of a Realist, or someone whose bottom line is functionality and the design of things that work. In other words, we are not ideologues, nor are we politically-minded; we care what works, not what we can declare “should be” or “should work” and then go home.

The persecution of conservatives has steadily accelerated over the past sixty-nine years. Much as happened in Revolutionary France and in the Soviet Union, the official centralized authority has declared that any belief but its own is insane, morally wrong, and must be crushed. The difference with “soft” totalitarianism is that the crushing is done by our fellow citizens using legal methods like boycotts, ostracization, and so on. Looking back over American law since WWII, it seems that this was always the intention, which was to marginalize any viewpoint except that of the left.

While this process takes a leftist face, it is my opinion that what we’re actually seeing here is a universal tendency of human groups called Crowdism. When radical individuals gather, they form a Crowd based not on what they want, but on a desire for no obligations or values to impede their pursuit of personal desires. Once they’ve formed a lynch mob, they go on a witch-hunt for realists so that there will be no dissenting voices, so that the Crowdists can be as individualistic as they please. Society becomes dysfunctional at that point and collapses shortly thereafter, but Crowdists never notice this because narcissists (or as I call them, solipsists) are generally oblivious to anything but themselves. Reality is usually an unwelcome surprise for such people.

Looking at the process from this top-down view, it’s clear that no amount of compromise, reasoning, etc. is going to stop the hate-train. They will continue until they eliminate us and then eliminate themselves, leaving behind a burnt-out wasteland with third-world levels of corruption, hygiene, disorder and lack of public services.

This ties into the second question, which is whether conservatives and liberals can co-exist in the same society. Liberalism is a Messianic philosophy that, in order to suppress reality, has invented an alternate reality. Because that is a reality replacement, anyone who does not accept it is a threat. Thus liberal philosophies must crush dissenters (good parody here) or there’s a threat that someone might opt-out of the fantasy reality and people will see that the Emperor has no clothes and all will end badly for the left.

And with those two questions out of the way, we might ask ourselves: what should conservatives do about this?

We have tried live and left live, but as the above shows, that cannot work. We have tried compromise, but that ends up creating mainstream conservative parties that are half-liberal and thus lose their actual constituents and fail to gain any new ones, who’d rather have full liberalism instead because it’s easier and promises more freebies. We have tried making moral objections and calling for fairness, but to a Messianic belief system, the only fairness is in crushing our evil and replacing it with their “good.” So what to do?

I suggest we try the one thing we have traditionally refused to try: we become threatening. In particular, I think we should remind people that actions have consequences.

Right now, you can grow up in this society, adopt crazy liberal views, and go through your life with reasonable certainty that you will never suffer any real consequences for them. After all, conservatives generally play fair and view political views as separate from job performance, your fitness as a neighbor, and so on.

I suggest that we attack the weakest link in that chain, which is youth. Anders Breivik hit on one version of this by shooting young Communists, which encouraged parents across Norway to withdraw their children from leftist programs because suddenly — wake up call! — their kids are at risk from participating in such things. I suggest we do something similar here, which is to identify teenage leftists and find ways to exclude them from jobs, schools, and other opportunities. I suggest we hit them so hard that their parents realize that far from a harmless trend, leftism will damage their children’s futures. At that point, parents are going to stop supporting such things.

And what about the kids? Won’t this just encourage them to be more leftist, like smoking dope and listening to heavy metal? No, because unlike those two, the consequences here are real. A kid caught with small amounts of marijuana faces little actual legal action unless that kid has priors. There’s also little risk of being caught when everyone else is doing it and none of them are facing any consequences. That changes when it is no longer a question of law enforcement. Kids like rebellion that won’t really get them in trouble. They tend to avoid rebellion that does get them into trouble, like hard drugs or joining neo-Nazi gangs. If we can extend the same stigma to leftism, the next generation will drop it and bury the current ones as they age.

Leftists can’t object to this. After all, it’s their own strategy reversed onto them. Turnabout is fair play. And since it’s clear they intend to genocide conservatives as surely as the passenger pigeon, we should counteract this not with an impotent boycott of Mozilla, but with an attack on liberalism itself.

Recommended Reading