Breivik Files December 2009 Part II
Name to me one country where Muslims have lived peacefully with non-Muslims without leading Jihad against Kafr (dhimmitude, systematic slaughter or demographic warfare)?
I could name 40 countries/areas where this has had CATASTROPHIC consequences for the non-Muslims. Can you please name ONE single example where one has managed to assimilate the Muslims? You seem totally naive. Of course, some integrate but it is the total result that counts (everything else is irrelevant).
How many thousands of Europeans must die, how many hundreds of thousands of European women should be raped, millions robbed and harassed before you understand that multiculturalism + Islam does not work?
Why do you think Norway will be the first country in the world over the last 1400 years in which this will succeed?
History always repeats itself.
Speaking of stubborn multiculturalists. I remember very well a story from Oslo newspaper Aftenposten approx. 6 months ago (unfortunately, I was unable to find it).
I can remember that it was a school in the City Center East, in a class where there was only a single Norwegian boy left (the majority were Muslims). Most others had taken their children out of school. The mother of this boy was, of course, a hardcore Marxist who for the life of it was to prove that multiculturalism and Islam would be functioning. She refused to move to another area or take him out of school. Her son would prove once and for all that Islamophobes on document.no and other cultural conservatives were wrong and that it WAS possible.
The poor boy was harassed for several years until one day he began to inflict injuries to himself. He told his Marxist mother that he wanted to die. Only after this the mother realized that she had been wrong. The result was that they moved to another neighborhood and changed schools.
So one should not underestimate how "hardcore" some of these cultural Marxists actually are. I'm sure some of these actually would have sacrificed their own children just to prove this sick Marxist theory.
But there is, after all, some justice in it all. The positive for us, the cultural conservatives, is that we are among the first to protect our children, we moved to safe areas where our children do not need to live in dhimmitude.
It is often the children of the boundless naive and Marxist kids who end up as victims. The irony here is that those who survive with psyche intact ends up as a dedicated cultural conservatives or even as ethnocentrics to the great frustration of their cultural Marxist or humanist parents:))
It is very important that we here in document.no we do not restrict our "political commitment" to this page. There are great political upheavals taking place in Western Europe at the moment (a subversion at grass root level). The culturally conservative movement is growing at record speed and there is a consolidation process going on in all Western European countries. ANYONE can contribute and every single contribution counts:) The best thing you can do in Norway is to support Document.no either financially or through volunteer work. Visit the various Norwegian debate forums and market articles on Document.no and with dedicated effort, I am sure that Document has the potential to become the new "Aftenposten".
Hans will soon present his ideas on how this can be done.
I recommend also strongly recommended you all to extend your Facebook networks, using the daily quota of 50 invitations to connect with Brits, French, Swedes, etc.. Join groups like SIOE - Stop *Islamization of Europe, Against Multiculturalism, join the Progress Party (FrP/Fremskrittspartiet), if nothing else:)
Watch the pages gatesofvienna, brusselsjournal, Jihadwatch, religionofpeace etc.
Read Fjordmann's work "Defeating Eurabia". This is e.g. the perfect Christmas gift for family and friends.
Add: Analekta Informatics on Facebook. This group communicates news articles that are unknown to most people. Very good news service that document.no can use if desired.
It is especially important that we, the Norwegian cultural conservatives make an effort. Norway and Sweden have some of the world's most repressive press censorship when it comes to a critical view of Islamization and multiculturalism.
The biggest mistake most people make is they assume that "someone else" *makes the work for them. There is no other, it's just us;)
Looking forward to meeting as many as possible of you on Thursday:). Let's hope Hans does not choose Blitz Café or Internationalen:)).
(To add me on Facebook please send an email to email@example.com)
It would have been strategically right, and a fun PR stunt, Hårstad:)
It is actually very interesting for us younger generations to learn about the Norwegian Marxist movement, the former power conflicts, etc.
I got the impression that the more "hardcore" Marxists have been denied key posts in the AP (Arbeiderpartiet/Labor) after WW2. They were instead given leading positions in various colleges/universities, newspaper managements and NGOs?
Can you confirm whether there have been some organizational incentives/assisting behind this or are simply Marxists exceptionally career conscious and able to climb in the cultural hierarchy?
I've always wondered what happened to the Norwegian fascist movement in Norway? Has it never existed or cut they are simply the politics and focused in business after WW2?
By the way, do you know exactly how Aftenposten was coup’ed and when that happened? They supported the NS during WW2. Was the leadership imprisoned or replaced immediately after the war?
You raise many interesting points. I've even made lists of these networks, which I will include in my book. It is essential to counter this by continuing the consolidation (have pasted into charts earlier, specific tasks and activities, annual plans etc. to systematically regain control of specific NGOs and strengthen the cultural conservatives of all 7 different political fronts. Another important task is to create a cultural conservative media outlet with national distribution. We are in the process with this.
Regarding your choice of an ideological basis. 50 years of efforts by ethnocentric organizations/movements (from 1960-2009) have failed completely. We know this, and further focus, illumination of these strategies will only be counter-productive and potentially very damaging to the current Norwegian and European cultural conservative movements.
Ethnocentric movements like BNP, National Front are NOT successful and will never be able to get over 10% support (BNP 5%, the UN has 7%). One can not fight racism (multikulti) with racism. Ethnocentrism is therefore the complete opposite of what we want to achieve.
We have selected the Vienna School of Thought as the ideological basis. This implies opposition to multiculturalism and Islamization (on cultural grounds). All ideological arguments are based on anti-racism.
This has proven to be very successful, something which explains why the modern cultural conservative movements/parties that use the Vienna School of Thought are so successful: the Progress Party (FrP), Geert Wilders, document.no and many others.
Ethnocentrism is contrary to the principles of the Vienna School of Thought which is why you have been censored in the past.
I have worked several years for the Progress Party (Fremskrittspartiet/FRP) and guarantee you that the Progress Party would have had less than 10% support if they had not chosen the Vienna School of Thought as an ideological basis.
Yes, we will defeat the multiculturalism/cultural Marxism ultimately (as this is very discriminatory and racist). But we must do it on the correct ideological grounds.
I strongly doubt that your theory is correct. The whole conflict between BNP and EDL started with a change of leadership in the EDL a few months ago. They threw out the racists and denounced the BNP. They instead chose SIOE's ideological basis, which is more or less the mainstream view of the right side in Western Europe now (Vienna School of Thought).
Nick was very offended and began to demonize the EDL. Although they are now attacking each other as they do not compete at all, since these are two totally different fronts. 90% of all votes in the EDL still vote for BNP (Since this is the only alternative against multiculti in the UK) and 90% of BNP support EDL regardless of what Nick might think.
Secondly, Labour rules in the intelligence service. They would never have supported the EDL as they create a lot of positive attention for the culturally conservative movements in the UK.
I have on some occasions discussed with SIOE and EDL and recommended them to use conscious strategies.
The tactics of the EDL is now to "entice" an overreaction from Jihad Youth / Extreme-Marxists, something they have succeeded in achieving several times already. The overreaction has been repeatedly shown on the news, something which has boosted EDLs ranks quite a lot. This has also benefited GDP. WinWin for both.
But I must say I am very impressed with how quickly they have grown, but this has to do with smart tactical choice by their management.
EDL is an example worth following, and a Norwegian version is the only way to prevent Blitz/SOS to harass Norwegian cultural conservatives from other fronts. Creating a Norwegian EDL should be No. 3 on the agenda after we have started up a cultural conservative newspaper with national distribution.
The agenda of the Norwegian cultural conservative movement over the next 5 years is therefore:
1. Newspaper with national distribution
2. Control of several NGOs
3. Norwegian EDL
The day Document.no will be launched as a national publication in paper/net edition with a circulation of 2000 +, the editors/management of the company should, of course, adjust themselves depending on the goal in terms of circulation and ideology. For example, one can allow oneself to be less moderate in an edition of 2000 than in 100000. This is obvious.
It is essential that editors act in such a manner that is appropriate for the company and its ideological goal (if document.no has any ideological goals at all). It must also be considered whether in the future (at 20, 50, 100K circulation) one should be allowed to comment on articles, in addition to specifying the limitations to expressing oneself in that way.
- Are only individuals who believe that the other party is "weak" to be allowed to express themselves?
- Are individuals who believe that parts of the other party are acting according to conscious ideological convictions to be censored?
- Are only individuals who have a humanistic view on news reporting going to be allowed to express themselves?
- Are those individuals who want to convey clear cultural conservative ideological convictions going to be censored?
These questions can only be answered when one clarifies one’s ideological principles. In all cases one should keep an open and honest line to oneself and to the readers as much as possible.
I think the editors of the future (soon) will have to look into themselves and specify their objectives (whether the goal is of humanistic nature or if clear ideological principles should be the basis thereof). I'm curious as to if the editorial staff does have a clear ideological conviction/goal at all (an ideological agenda such as other publications seem to have: Klassekampen, Dagsavisen, partly NRK, etc.) or if it is the goal of humanistic art?
Humanistic in the sense that it is a duty to examine the other side of an issue (where other publications certainly fail). Is it so that the basis for document.no should be driven by a "humanistic duty" and not driven by any kind of ideological ambition (culturally conservative or otherwise)?
This discussion should not be taken here, of course, but should be noticed by the editors, and, if possible, be discussed on Thursday:)
It is important to clarify these fundamental issues early, since a possible involvement of other parties, such as culture conservative political parties/NGOs/investors/voluntary contributors, will be depending on a clarification of this before they may be willing to give their financial/organizational support to document.no
It is well known that commercial publications (ranging from CNN, BBC, Dagbladet, Fox) have clear but often "unofficial ideological platforms" that employees are expected to follow. Such ideological principles are necessary in order to have an unofficial "ideological clause" that prevents unwanted future developments.
For example, Lou Dobbs of CNN was hit by the unofficial section, and he ultimately chose to go. It is not unlikely that he was forced out because he changed his ideological standpoint in the course of his career. He became more and more critical of Muslim mass immigration to the U.S. which was not consistent with CNN's politically correct line.
Document.no is at present relatively innocent, but the price one must pay for success is often loss of innocence:) For better or for worse.
All idealistic projects/individuals experience this identity phase/crisis as soon as they want to cross a more or less commercial barrier:)
Here is a nice overview - 10 reasons why the modern church will die:
I myself am a Protestant and baptized/confirmed of my own free will when I was 15
But today's Protestant church is a joke. Priests in jeans who march for Palestine and churches that look like minimalist shopping centers. I am a supporter of an indirect collective conversion of the Protestant church back to the Catholic. In the meantime, I vote for the most conservative candidates in church elections.
The only thing that can save the Protestant church is to go back to basics.
Article Series Ekstremistan I, II, III is one of the best that have ever been here. Incredibly well written, Hans:)
Well, I think one of our problems is that too many individuals (especially liberals) on the right side contribute to cannibalizing their own opinion allies. For some, it has to do as well with too many decades of cultural Marxist brainwashing. For others it may be due to cowardice or fear of contributing to create something that may one day evolve into an even worse alternative.
Many people who try to consolidate on the right side by presenting organizational structure, bulleted lists or ideological banners (and who push for specific agendas and deadlines to be followed to achieve the organizational goals) are being be criticized by individuals who wish to limit opposition to "essaying critique/criticism of the system". They probably hope that this alone will suffice for the cultural Marxist elites/hegemony to realize how stupid and bad they have been?
Before "we" can do anything, there must be a "we". Consolidation is the only option and resistance can not be limited to "essay critique/criticism of the system." The Progress Party (FrP) is already established. But it must work actively to ensure culturally conservative control over NGOs (old or new) and in addition help to create youth organizations (A newspaper with national coverage is obviously the most important but this is already on the agenda).
I know that Hans and Aesop disagree with me regarding this (because they are afraid to help create a monster which they later will lose control over) but in this we will prove you wrong :-)
And I hope you are tough enough to discuss this rather than to censor it out:).
Key words for discussion:
"Can dissidence, alone, save us, or do we have to finally start to consolidate the cultural conservatives on all fronts?"
I have never understood why the West focuses so disproportionately on Iran and so little on the Wahhabi Saudi leadership, which after all is the most dangerous and most powerful Muslim central power. We should, of course, as soon as possible blow up their suspect facilities but otherwise focus much more on Saudi. Could it have something to do with that Iran is not a major oil exporter?
Shias make up a relatively small proportion of Muslims and have absolutely no influence on the Sunnis.
I would actually argue that we undermine our own interests by unilaterally attacking the only relatively weak alternative to Sunni Islam. If Iran falls, the Wahhabis’ position will strengthened considerably, since they have no competitors.
We should not forget that Saudi Arabia and several other Sunni Muslim countries want to crush Iran. Nor is it Iran that has built 300-500 Wahhabi centers around Europe, and they finance only 2 out of 30 Jihad Fronts around the around the world.
The problem is that Europe lost the Cold War already in 1950, the moment they allowed Marxists/anti-nationalists to ravage freely, without restrictions regarding which positions they could have and what power positions they were allowed to obtain (teacher / professor positions in particular).
The result particularly in Norway and Sweden is that extreme Marxist attitudes have become acceptable/commonplace while the old-established truths like patriotism and cultural conservatism today are branded as extremism (by cultural Marxists and humanists). Anti-nationalist attitudes have, unfortunately, not only become mainstream but are now required as an attitude in order to climb in PC (i.e. Politically Correct) hierarchies.
There are not very many prominent cultural Marxists that actually admit to the purpose behind this anti-national and "Marxist grand scheme" but nobody can say it better than Thomas Hylland Eriksen:
"The main challenge is now to deconstruct the majority and do it thoroughly so that it can never be called a majority anymore"
"Something like that could contribute both to understanding and liberation."
This is CLEARLY extremist hate-speech. Here Eriksen admits, on behalf of many European cultural Marxists that the goal is to create a Marxist utopia, a world without borders ruled by the UN, an opinion which is the main doctrine of Marxist thinking. To achieve this, the people have been declared insane (racist/Nazi) and anti-democratic methods can therefore be allowed to replace the people by allowing systematic colonization from the developing world.
In a society where Marxist extremists like Thomas Hylland Eriksen are allowed to practice freely within the bounds of political correctness, other more moderate humanists / cultural Marxists (extremists), like Mads Gilbert and Erik Fosse will appear as liberation heroes (Nazis (Jews) should be crushed just like the Nazi Germany).
Had Western Europe and the U.S. decided to imprison all Marxists (Nazis and Marxists) after WW2 and to ban Marxist principles as hate ideology similar to Nazism, we had never been in the current situation.
But we learn at least as long as we live. I doubt that a future patriotic regime will make that mistake again, if we manage to save the West before it is too late, that is ...:-)
Supra, Aesop, Ira
There are only two basic concepts used by many to describe a cultural point of view.
Culture Conservative (from the word order preservation / patriot / nationalist / mono-culturalist) and culture Marxist (internationalist / multiculturalists / cosmopolitan / globalist).
Although the majority of humanists but also many liberals are anti-nationalists, and are therefore by definition culture Marxists. One promotes either multiculturalism (cultural Marxism) or monoculture (nationalist), there is nothing in between, even though most do not dare to admit this yet. Well, there's the multi-culture without Islam as a middle ground.
However, it is possible that IT does not meet the criteria for a Marxist/Communist all internationalists being nothing but cultural Marxists.
It's also a known fact that Gateavisa is an anarcho-Marxist newspaper and NOT an anarchist newspaper. Anarchism can be both Marxist-oriented and nationalist-oriented. Gateavisa is far from nationalistic as one can get;)
Old definitions often do not apply anymore. E.g. the British Tories who actually still dare to call themselves conservatives support cultural Marxism/multiculturalism and should be thus renamed.
One can not support cultural Marxism/multiculturalism and simultaneously call oneself conservative, although some might not agree with me:)
The majority on the right side have unfortunately not yet found out that one must defeat multiculturalism in order to defeat the Islamization; so many still see themselves as multiculturalists.
This will inevitably change, and become clearer to a greater extent for most people over the next decades, as the polarization will increase.
Sometime in the future, most will have to flag their point of view, one will have to make a choice: nationalism or internationalism.
Unfortunately, there is still much stigma attached to the word "nationalism" so I usually use the word culture conservative:)
"Globalization and modernity are irreversible phenomena."
Classical multiculturalism drug propaganda. What does globalization and modernity have to do with mass Muslim immigration?
And you may not have heard and Japan and South Korea? These are successful and modern regimes even if they rejected multiculturalism in the 70's. Are Japanese and South Koreans goblins?
Can you name ONE country where multiculturalism is successful and Islam is involved? The only historical example is in societies without a welfare state with only non-Muslim minorities (U.S.).
I expect everyone to understand this. It is truly elementary.
What I can never understand is why multiculturalists (who traditionally have consisted of and/or have been supported by the labor movement) have failed to understand that multiculturalism will destroy the future welfare (as social cohesion/confidence/willingness to be taxed) that falls in line with the spread of multiculturalism?
Best case scenario for Europe is that we end up with a super-capitalist system such as the U.S. with large sub-class/class differences.
That does not sound very humanistic:) But then we are certainly not goblins anymore?