Monday, August 1, 2011

Anders Breivik and Harpers Ferry - YouTube 1859

Many Nationalists are claiming that Anders Breivik was not a REAL Nationalist because he supported Israel. As such, the killings were really a Zionist inspired False Flag operation.

If you read the writings of Breivik, you will find the idea that he killed these people for Israel to be laughable. He clearly targeted a Marxist youth group because he was opposed to multiculturalism. His motive was to let the elite know that their anti-White genocidal actions can no longer be made without risk. But to suggest that this was a Zionist  plot is silly and insulting to Breivik.

Breivik's actions reminded me much of John Brown's raid in 1859. Both were violent actions motivated by politics. John Brown was opposed to slavery. Anders Breivik was opposed to multiculturalism. The leading abolitionists (such as William Loyd Garrison) called John Brown "crazy". The leading Nationalists now call Breivik "crazy." 

1859 John Brown - killed to oppose slavery

2011 - Killed to oppose Multiculturalism 


  1. Breivik did oppose multiculturalism, but he was also a Christian Zionist. He was a follower of the English Defense League, a Jewish front organization that encourages Whites to hate Muslims (so that they will continue to support wars against Muslim nations for Israel). While some Jews incite hatred of Muslims, other Jews pressure White governments to bring in more non-Whites in order to divide and conquer the population.

    I do not consider Breivik to be a good White nationalist because he's a child murderer and a hypocrite. White nationalists cannot support Zionists because Zionists are no friends of White nationalists. Also, how can a White nationalist support the Zionists, who deny Palestinians the right to their own nation, while at the same time say that White people have a right to a White nation? It's hypocritical.

    Non-Whites (regardless of their religion) should not live permanently in White nations, just like Whites should not live in non-White nations. It just doesn't work, and it incites racism and violence. BUT, who is it that is forcing the races together? It's not the Muslims! It's the Jews. Just like here in America, it's not the Latinos, it's the Jews.

    Who controls the media? Who controls the central banks? Who do the politicians fear most? Muslims? Blacks? Latinos? or Jews?

  2. Breivik specifically targeted Norway's labour party:

    There is a centre-left coalition in Norway and it was the Labour party that were trying to pull out of the (Zionist) war against Libya. They were also considering expelling Israeli diplomats, trying to recognise the Palestinian state and the camp where he shot the kids had been holding a ‘boycott Israel’ rally just the day before the attack:

    Why is it such a bizarre suggestion that the ultra-Zionist terrorist might really have been attacking for a Zionist cause?

    Here are some other anomalies: The (Zionist controlled) media reported him as a Nazi Christian fundamentalist, but he is heavily critical of religious Christianity and is totally opposed to National Socialism.

    How convenient for those who wish to demonise National Socialism that according to the media we have a National Socialist terrorist, but for anyone that checks they will find that in reality he is totally opposed to it? It’s a dual attack - first by the media, then by Breivik himself.

    The same goes for Christianity: Christians are smeared by the accusation of terrorism but when they look to Breivik it turns out he was talking about 'cultural' Christians and he welcomes 'atheist' Christians. He says that logic and evidence must always take precedence over biblical texts and accuses all religious Christians of being 'fundamentalists'.

    So Christians get the double whammy of being told that Christians are terrorists and also get to be insulted by the terrorist himself. The reason for this is that the Jews hate Christianity and are threatened by National Socialism, and this is all part of their attack.

    What is more is that he is aware of cultural Marxism and the Frankfurt school but somehow fails to recognise that these are Jewish entities. He also suggests bizarrely that the UN is dominated by Muslims. He then tries to claim that Freemasonry does not have Jewish origins but is somehow Christian - again more misinformation that just so happens to fit the Zionist agenda.

    Notice also that the Dept. of Homeland security released its first video insinuating that Whites are the new terrorists just a few days before the attack. At first everyone was amazed at the suggestion, and then hey presto - along comes Breivik at just the right time. So we are supposed to say that Whites are the new terrorists after all. What kind of incredible coincidence is that supposed to be?

    This is a Jewish deception. Breivik was a fool who was interested in Freemasonry and was manipulated into his actions during his many trips to Israel. The Jews are behind every inch of this, and they have used his video and his manifesto as an opportunity to spread lies that suit their aims.

    They have also succeeded in stigmatizing opposition to cultural Marxism, which was probably one of the main things they set out to do.

  3. "Also, how can a White nationalist support the Zionists, who deny Palestinians the right to their own nation, while at the same time say that White people have a right to a White nation? It's hypocritical. "

    Hypocrisy is underrated anyway, but that is besides the point.

    Lets follow that logic: how can White Nationalists support the Serbs who would deny the Bosniaks and Kosovar Albanians the right to their own nation? How can White Nationalists support Russians who would deny the Chechens their own nation? How can White Nationalists support White Nationalists who would deny the Chicanos their own nation in Aztlan?

    How can White Nationalists support the Arabs who would deny the Jews their own nation?

    Nationalist conflicts are nationalists conflicts. There is no need to be consistent, only to pick a side. And nobody has yet proven to me why the Arabs in Palestine deserve anything but a humbling march back to Arabia, or has answered the question of where the Jews would go if they lost Israel.

    And if you say Madagascar, you are again a hypocrite.

  4. He is a Freemason, this matter a lot.

    He cannot be a Nationalist, because he wrote everything in English. If he was a Nationalist, he'd have written something in Norwegian. But his audience was international because he is the opposite of a nationalist. That is to say, he is an internationalist.

    Are you a Freemason RamzPaul, or why didn't you point out that he was?