Here’s Alex Linder’s take on Anders Breivik from his VNN Forum (source). No ellipsis added between unquoted sentences or quotations from other VNN commenters:
There’s a soft side and a hard side.
The soft side is VNN/F, all White websites, any kind of educational outreach, a potential White HS [home schooling] curriculum (that does not exist and no one shows interest in creating).
The hard side is killing the enemy.
* * *
The people agree with us but are scared of the consequences of being called haters.
Who calls us haters, extremists and the rest of the litany? The communists, socialists, leftists, illiberals, feminists, journalists. But who creates the terms and frames and entire ideo-structure? The jews do. They set the agenda. The determine the framework. They raise the issue and define the contestants. They define what is inside the pale and what is outside.
They cut it so everyone opposed to them is sick ‘n’ evil. There is no middle. You cannot be opposed to their agenda and retain your integrity in their eyes, and more importantly, in their mass media.
How do you fight this? On the hard stuff, you simply kill them off. If their technical prowess is such that they can break up cells by early detection, thanks to their owning the FBI and other spy agencies, then obviously those who would take them out must act alone or with one or two people they’d trust with their lives to keep their mouth shut, since their lives are indeed what’s at stake if they screw up, and very likely even if they don’t screw up.
Once a man is willing to risk it all, a lot can be done from the hard side. That’s what Breivik’s act demonstrates. It’s not part of a larger plan, obviously, for the reasons I just stated—the enemy is able to prevent enemy networks from being established, as far as we can tell, judging by what we’ve seen since WWII. So his act was propaganda of the deed. Ably executed, and with an ideological backdrop and context he made sure to circulate, so that all could see his actions as part of a wider strategy, waiting for others to pitch in and push along.
Rounder correctly said that the jews are all in while the goyim who serve them are mostly opportunists. That means, as he said, and I’ve observed the same myself, the goyim are more lightly guarded. Jews have been racial criminals, shifty-eyed parasites, for 2,000+ years. It’s what they know. It’s what they are. They don’t have another way to be. All their eggs are in one basket, and as Twain advised, they are guarding that basket. They don’t have any plan B fallback option. They expect to be attacked. After all, they know what they’re doing! Jews are some of the most detail-oriented, microscopically-observant, mini-movement obsessed people on earth. They not only know what they are doing to us, and know they obtain racial advantage from their tricks, they positively enjoy degrading our culture and torturing our people. That’s the psychological and political truth: jews obtain a near-sexual joy from torturing our people.
These jews must be exterminated at some point—all European-jew history screams with one voice that any other way of treating the threat they present will not work because it cannot work. Jews can no more change the nature of their race than termites can stop eating wood. Only the catholic christ cult dogma that jews are just men like any other defined only by their non-conversion to the One True Way keeps us from seeing what is obvious.
The point is for any hard-siders, the goyim serve the jews not because they like the jews (no matter what it’s in their interest to claim in public), but because they fear the jews and like the benefits that sucking up to and serving the jews gets them. All that means to those who don’t like the existing order is that if there were anywhere near equal and opposite pressure on these weaklings and sellouts—they would find some pretext to flee quickly to the other side.
Remember always the basic lie of the jews, their fundamental conceit: that they rather than we speak for our community. They can get away with this monstrous imposture because they have suborned too many of our elite; they have created and surrounded themselves with goypuppets; and they control the official voices that most white humans biologically incline to respect and listen to and follow. But if the loudspeakers are taken out of their hands, and a new voice comes over them—the people will follow that which in their hearts they genuinely prefer, and default to white normal with no small relief! And the jews well know this. If they were actually self-deceptive about what they’re doing, they would believe their own bullshit and not worry about “hate” and “extremism.” But they do worry about it, enough to lie about its existence, to turn white normal into hate, and to root out and scream down or set up anyone who dares to resist.
The jews are the ringleaders, but in pure numbers, most of their frontmen and lower-level servants are raceless, self-interested goyim. An example: Rush Limbaugh used to criticize homos. One time a bunch of homos arranged to show up at his late TV show, and when he started going off, they started screaming at him. After that, he basically never criticized homos again. He yielded to a pretty small bit of verbal/economic pressure.
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.”—John F. Kennedy. Breivik’s actions are a perfect example of what JFK was talking about.
You lying judeo-communists filling our clean, successful, calm Norway with violent stupid third-world rapists and murderers can call us “haters,” “extremists,” and “racists,” and all the other filth terms in your liar’s lexicon all day long—but you are the real haters, the real killers, and the real usurpers. And you are going to get exactly what you deserve. Itz coming.
You said you want critical responses, so here’s mine.
And that’s a big part of my beef with Breivik and other similar stunts. There’s nothing to run to. It’s not scary if it’s a one-off. Anybody can be gotten to. That’s not news.
It most certainly is news. When was that last time anyone did in literally dozens of White enemies in two fell swoops—expertly planned, competently carried out? I’ve never seen it in my lifetime—and if you’re going to mistakenly refer to Oklahoma City, please remember that was a government sting operation, produced by our enemy, not by our guys. McVeigh didn’t actuate the plan, and McVeigh was never, at any point in his life, a racialist. All ZOG lies. Remember Solzhenitsyn’s quote:
To defend oneself, one must also be ready to die. There is little such readiness in a society raised in the cult of material well-being. Nothing is left, then, but concessions, attempts to gain time, and betrayal. —Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Breivik sacrificed his future to save his nation. He acted heroically. He had other choices, but chose the most difficult of them. He showed what is possible, not just technically but spiritually. He showed that despite everything we’ve learned from jewish sitcoms and public schools that sex, money and material goods are not what life is all about—at least not to some people. Because Breivik had it all—looks, money, youth, a shining future. Yet none of that mattered to him as much as the spiritual need to defend his own people. That is manly. That is heroic. That is Western. That is white.
“Nothing new here.” In a sense you’re right. Something very old here. Not everyone thinks “it’s all good” and abandons his waking interstice to sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll.
It doesn’t have to be the entire populace—maybe 5%, maybe 10%—some threshold. Within that percentage, you are recognized as legitimate, despite the shit hurled against you by your opponent. You can’t win hearts and minds by first blowing people away—even people who deserve it. You haven’t at that point established any accepted opposition.
You’re talking about Mao’s guerrilla war tactics. It makes no sense to judge Breivik by that standard because he wasn’t part of a cell, to all appearances, no matter what he said.
I would separate the discussion into two parts: 1) what was Breivik’s intent, and what did he achieve, by that measure? 2) how would hypothetical “hardists” be wise to act if they want to rid the West of the judeo-communist elite murdering our nations?
First you establish your core. It’s unassailable. Then, perhaps, one could use political violence—to establish among the fence sitters that you do in fact mean business. But you can’t do that until you can’t be quashed, until your core is large enough to withstand the blowback. Surviving that, you expand the core with the influx of fence-sitters who are now believers. It’s a feedback loop to your favor.
Sure… but this is obvious, and you’re discussing it at a level that’s too abstract to be useful.
“Establish your core.” Yeah, ok. What does that mean? Not in theory, but in actuality. How are you going to do that in an age in which virtually all communications are collected and analyzed; and seemingly most actual physical movements are videotaped?
Forming a physical core seems a rather difficult thing to do, if there is any outward sign this core is bent on physical fighting (or really, anything more than virtual whining). We know the history of the White movement in the 20th century. It’s nothing but a history of being set up and infiltrated and destroyed. Do you know how to change this? Do you have the technical solution, or the organizational solution?
And Breivik’s target… How was that helpful?
That’s been answered. Apparently you don’t agree with the answer, but if you have a better one, you haven’t stated it.
Norway is a country of 5 million. It is run by socialists bent on doing in the Nordic nature of the country and turning into another third-world shithole. A good portion of the rising generation of leaders of its main party has been taken out in a single calendar day. “How is that helpful?” I should think the answer is pretty obvious.
Imagine the electorate. Cow-like. Obtuse. That’s who votes. That’s who you’re winning over.
Ok, so you’re driving off the usual “we have to appeal to people, we have to win them over.” But that is wrong. The way to look at it is what I said in my post above: assume the people are with us, based on the fact that, well, they are. The reason they don’t follow us or vote for us is because they quite rationally fear the consequences of loss of status and livelihood. What will get rid of that fear? Eliminating the people who are causing it: the corrupt elite who will not allow their political monopoly on power to be voted out of office.
That’s the whole argument, which you’re simply avoiding, defaulting to the typical WN [white nationalist] conservative view: that we’re just another electoral option, who must gamely persevere in a rigged game until we finally somehow win at 3-card monte. Breivik ain’t playing the rigged game. He’s not playing democratic politics, he’s playing the same game the totalitarians-pretending-to-be-democrats are: he’s playing ultimate politics. There are no rules. The battle goes to the winner, and no one asks how victory was achieved. And all that is life itself, which all operates on that principle, no matter what the religious fool, to be redundant, asserts out of his ignorant cowardice about god and morals.
How can “we” win if we’re called haters, thrown in jail for making arguments, and denied access to the main media on the same basis as the people occupying the government? There is no way. We cannot win. Breivik shows there’s a way that, potentially at least, we can win. Not one of those dead judeo-socialist nits will ever admit a Somali into Oslo; lead a campaign to normalize sexual perversion in Trondheim public schools; order the bailiff to seize the children from the parents who have taught it that Norway belongs to light-eyed, flaxen-haired Scandinavians. That is victory. However small, it is victory.
Humans are a profoundly imitative species. Breivik knows that. It’s why he did what he did. One reason anyway.
The facade of the System oppressing Whites is democratic. Deliberately is created the illusion that things-as-they-are be the result of neutral machinery, rather than a nasty dark tyranny inside a big-grinnin’ Richard Nixon bankrobbing mask. But when you try to get a little o’ that tasty democratic process (laws, courts, established procedures, mass media access) for your own White self to create fundamental change in favor of your people, the gigantic majority… why, you find that the works are jammed, and your call isn’t put through. No matter how many times you redial.
Breivik called the System’s bluff. He played not the game the oppressed are supposed to play, but the game the actual rulers of the country are playing: “Just win, baby!” as NFL jew Davis once put it. The System does not like that. It damages its facade, it shows it’s not invincible, it puts ideas in the heads of onlookers who just maybe are tired of getting mugged and harassed by the mud monsters the leftists keep bringing into the city centers. All bad for the jewish-left trying to nation-wreck Norway.
Now you go out and blow away a bunch of sitting ducks on an island.
What connection does Bjorg dipshit, out on his fjord, make of that? Nothing positive. “But they were the new cadre of destroyers!” Yes they were. “They deserved it!” Can’t argue with you.
But the vast majority of the white public does not and will never understand that. It’s intangible. It’s too intellectual. The crowd doesn’t get that, and never will.
The crowd understands exactly what it needs to: the reason Breivik did what he did. The fact that he killed a lot of enemy.
This, as the economists say, exerts downward pressure on the number of jusos (young socialists) who might want to be part of next summer’s fun-in-the-sun commie indoctrination camp, and it exerts upward pressure on any enheartened by the idea that, hey, maybe I could kill a few punk-ass hate-communists too!
If it were put to a vote whether Norway should open its borders to Africa and the rest of the Third World, would the majority vote to do that, or to retain Norway’s boundaries and character? The majority would vote for the latter. So the argument breaks Breivik’s way. The majority is made up of people who have to step lightly in their biggest cities; who have daughters and sisters and friends who have been robbed, raped and harassed by the monkeys the socialists let in. They are intelligent enough to grasp what Breivik meant by his act, whether they agree with it or not. That’s all that matters. Of course one act won’t win the population over into active resistance, no more than the first pickaxe blow splits the boulder. But it does make the public opens its eyes, look around, sniff the wind, wonder just what might be going on here. Put the first little shiver of doubt in the ruling party, and make the herd nervous that maybe, just maybe, there’s going to be a battle for authority.
Now, sink a ship of dusky invaders crossing the Skagerrak, and simultaneously blow away the immigration ministry where these “liberal” kids are working—even Bjorg can figure that out, and almost certainly applaud.
Except the whole problem is how passive whites have become, especially in the Nordic countries. If Breivik killed a bunch of niggers or muslims, they would fight back with great vengeance, which would be blamed on him. Instead he went after the whiteskin leaders of the passives—and all they will ever do is hold a candlelight vigil. Which they already have. Yeah, they’ll make noise about taking away butter knives and requiring a journalist license to use nouns and adjectives outside the Official Vocabulary List, but that means nothing. Norway already has no freedoms worth mentioning. Multiply zero as many times as you want, and the result is the same.
The most important right of all is the one that no man can rescind: the right to fight back against your enemy.
The hard part is building the core. You can’t begin to think of anything serious on the macro scale before you’ve accomplished this. You must win hearts and minds. There’s no equation (that I’m aware of). Maybe there will be after we’re through. It’s chaotic.
You’re confusing two different things. The need to have a base for a guerrilla war, per Mao’s doctrine, and the need for WN to spread their message. We can’t win hearts and minds in the mass way you’re talking about without control of tv, and that is the same thing as saying we’ve won the revolution. It simply doesn’t have anything to do with violence; they’re two separate considerations. We have to assume people are with us, which is biologically true, as we represent white normality, and work to reduce the fear that prevents them from associating and working with us politically. Striking physical blows at the enemy reduces their fear of ZOG, since they see right before their eyes ZOG elitists being blown away.
You think some Norwegian journalists and bureaucrats aren’t going to think twice after this event? Or after it happens a few more times? Of course they will. It’s human nature. If all the blows are struck by one side against the other, then who the heck wants to join the losing side? But if the blows begin to run both ways, why, then it becomes a much more interesting question. Joining with the pro-Norway forces, if they prove they’re serious, as Breivik has, begins to become a serious option in the eyes of the people. Who of course fall into the usual bell curve of cowardice/bravery. Bravery not only attracts the brave, it emboldens the less brave. It shifts the bravery curve to the right—it increases the amount of bravery, just as men literally generate more testosterone when they triumph at something. That’s how men are.
Our side is so bitchy and whiny because all we do is take take take blows and never deliver them, except in our cutesy little typings. Well, this guy, altho not technically one of us, did deliver a blow. ZOG/Norway has indeed been hurt by Breivik’s action.
Stuff like a homeschool curriculum feeds into this. Not sexy. But part of it. Winning hearts and minds. Winning women. Winning children.
Yes—it creates actual community, mental and physical. But it’s entirely a different and smaller order than controlling tv, which is the only real way to effect mass mind change. That means, you’re never going to build up a large enough community to get the support for violence through homeschooling, so it’s not part of that discussion. WHS is just something that should be done for its own sake, as part of the soft agenda. The average white is with us in the sense I’ve said many times. That is a political fact. But that “with us” doesn’t mean anything until we’re in position to leverage it, which means we have a political force that speaks for it cogently (offers it defense, racial aid, and a plausible new system to counter/replace ZOG’s). WHS is for growing a hard seedcore of people who aren’t just white but White—white not just racially but White politically, socially, consciously, organically and life-contextually. The parallel would be to conservative christians building HS networks and setting up HS colleges and law schools—they’ve created a full, if small, parallel culture to the ZOG mainstream culture, even if they’ve yielded (or never had opposed) the ZOG ideology on the central points (equalitarianism, loosely).
The first 5%: It’s a meat grinder. It isn’t pretty. For the vast majority who lead in this period, who play a role that will have been pivotal later on, there will be no glory, no accolades. That’s just the way it is.
So I really don’t want to read about Breivik being a hero or a genius. He isn’t. Smart guy? Generally… apparently. He gets a big mark for having balls, that I grant.
But so what? What base has he built? Don’t give me any brain-dead “starting a fire” crap. He wouldn’t have had occasion to recognize (to his immense credit) the imminent danger posed to Norway by non-white immigration if his society were amenable to righting itself by the act he committed.
You’re conflating two different things. There is a hell of a lot more than 5% of Norway that doesn’t want muds let in to ruin the country.
You’re saying that Norway can’t begin to physically resist until 10% are hard-core, ideologically solid, professionally and personally networked racial nationalists. My counter to that is you’re forgetting the size of the country, and the demographics. There’s 5m people, and about 500k mud invaders, and more coming daily. There isn’t enough time to do what you describe. The muds will overwhelm before any ideologically solid base can be built.
Rather, resistance must base on never having control of mass media, but being on the side of the Norwegian majority, which does not want Oslo turned into Lagos. Based on that unchanging passive support, others following Breivik must through their deeds and organization convert passive feelings into positive action. Taking out a bunch of the vile and murderous and nation-wrecking enemy seems to me a pretty darn good way to do that.
After all, as the Italians say, “eating makes appetite.”
21 replies on “Linder on Breivik”
Your formatting here is screwed up, every time a quoted section ends the font shrinks by one step, never goes back up. It screws up the rest of the blog too.
I use Mac and see nothing wrong. But I’ll fix it anyway.
P.S. I made some changes. Is it fixed?
“And then I realized they were stronger than we, because they could stand that these were not monsters, these were men… trained cadres. These men who fought with their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with love… but they had the strength… the strength… to do that. If I had ten divisions of those men, our troubles here would be over very quickly. “
Excellent comments by Mr Linder. Thanks for posting them here.
The opposition that is being raised up, represented by Mr Brevik, will be single men as he is and there will most likely not be any intentional networking between them. They will act independently of each other, but in a Spiritual unity, not knowing of each other’s existence. I hinted at this in a post of mine…
Thanks Chechar for your work here.
Saw that yesterday. The coffee suit doesn’t realize the import of what he said, as he’s only a stooge/usefulidiot, but what he said was actually an announcement of the future successful method of the destruction of the thought tendency that presently is reaching it’s exhaustion point in this country.
His use of prepared remarks and a telepromptor shows who and what he is. He’s empty. His words are someone else’s, not his own.
Brevik showed the way. He is the first of many to follow…
The entirety of Linder’s argument is balanced on this conclusion: that the resistance movement has failed due to the cunning of our opponents rather than the buffoonery of our leaders. If it’s possible to organize effectively in the current context, then the rest is irrelevant.
Buffoonery was tangential. What mattered is that after WW2 the Left dictated the narrative—which means that the White blunder came even before: since the French Revolution and later, the American courtesy of letting the Jews control the major newspapers. Otherwise Germany would have fought Stalin without having to fight on both fronts. IMHO this treason is the real etiology of the current mess.
Which “technical” or “organizational” solution could work if the dollar crashes within the Obama administration? If this happens meta-political structures (sorry Greg) won’t have time to build up.
I should like to add that Germany would have had no difficulty in destroying the USSR, had it not been for Lend-Lease. “American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character” by Diana West (who is not a racialist) has many hair-raising details about the degree of Bolshevist infiltration of the US government during WWII. This has had tragic consequences for Whites everywhere.
However, the American “anti-Communists” such as Diana West are superficial in their approach: They fail (or refuse?) to acknowledge the proto-Communist tendencies of the Puritans, the rise of Jacobinist “Democratic Clubs” on the East Coast of the United States (controlled by the French Jacobins, no less!), and the symbiotic relationship between the Forty-Eighters and Republicans, which was fostered by the Puritans’ New-England-Abolitionist descendants (the worst arguably having been the Boston Brahmins) during and after the American Civil War (Abraham Lincoln having corresponded with Karl Marx!). Similarly, the American “anti-Communists” generally do not acknowledge the complicity of New York bankers — including the Jewish banker, Jacob Schiff, who also funded the creation of the NAACP, as well as the race traitors of Morgan-Rockefeller and “the Bolshevik of Wall Street”, William Boyce Thompson — in the creation of the Soviet Union.
I agree with Linder that most Whites (and I!) would like to live in a prosperous, safe, culturally and racially White environment, but cannot say so because the Jews and their allies are simply too powerful. I myself see no alternative but to keep my mouth shut around most people (although I generally do not spend personal time around Jews), and in today’s America collaboration, whatever one’s personal sentiments, is the only viable option for anyone who does not intend to spend the rest of his life being gang-raped by Congoids, only to find himself asphyxiated by hydrogen cyanide (clearly far less inhumane and morally objectionable than the hydrogen cyanide supposedly used on Jews by the National Socialists — hah!), or perhaps to find himself slowly roasted to death in one of America’s not-cruel-or-unusual (hah!) electric chairs, etc.
P.S. Sorry for having written “American Civil War”, which is Newspeak for “War of Northern Aggression”.
Organization sets up a static target which can be inflitrated and attacked as can be seen. This is why the lone wolves will continue to be the only visible resistance. Structures are inherently defensive in nature, ideological or otherwise.
Defense implies defeatism, so the seeds of defeat are already sewn…Maginot line, Fuehrer bunker, Northwest Redoubt, “metapolitical structure” all lead to the same outcome. Your enemies are dynamic, they are a moving target.
Once the system collapses, chaos ensues to provide the “level playing field” and the opportunity for change. The fly in the ointment…it is impossible to control chaos.
Chaos is merely the beginning stage of the new creation. The parts which are to make up that which is new are flying around in seemingly disparate ways with no seeming purpose, but the MIND behind it all controls the chaos…
What Mr. Breivik did was to plunge all of us into a new arena of modern warfare (CoD 2 pun not intended): he have demonstrated the power of veto carried through means of violence. Our political elite isn’t untouchable any longer, just as the Roman emperors could have a knife on their backs at any given time.
He also demonstrated the power that internet can uphold in the coming years as a mean for indoctrination and training and not just for propaganda. You don’t need propaganda to publicize your cause when you can get a sufficient body count to get into world wide news, but you do need that those who are able and willing to follow your cues are capable of understanding the underlying strategy and prepare themselves to take it where you leaved it.
I always held that only cultural and political struggle was the only possible mean to victory, violence in the form of terrorist antics was out of the question. At the moment I still believe in avoiding lonewolf displays of violence against the system, but this Norwegian guy just shook my world, I cannot ignore the implications of this brand new rule of engagement, none of us can any more.
I am scared senseless, Breivik took me from my comfort zone in the ideal to the uncharted territory of the real. For now I’ll just wait and see, most of us will do that until new sufficient follow ups appears on the media to realize that this variable for the struggle is out there for us to use it, and we well be forced to make a binary choice: for it or against it. We will no longer be able to hold an ambiguous stand, if we are against it, it would mean to cooperate with the system (our enemy) and turn over those that choose to follow Breivik’s path and become, to their eyes, traitors and, accordingly, targets. Either way, we will be risking our lives, make no mistake about it.
Thanks for doing this. Most people prefer the formatting you have here rather than having to follow through hundreds of forum posts.
Are people aware of this?
I just found out about that and have never seen it referenced anywhere. Very interesting.
Indeed. But there must be a mistake on the date 13-09-29.
It has the year first (the letter is from 09-29-13).
[…] P.S. Alex Linder has made some interesting comments about Breivik. […]
Reblogged this on ElderofZyklon's Blog!