rationalskepticism.org

pinkharrier wrote; I looked and I didn't see anywhere where they stated they were white supremacist. Show me the link if I missed it. Otherwise it is just another smear and applying guilt by a (non existing) association.

Introducing The Occidental Observer
- Kevin MacDonald, Editor

The Occidental Observer will present original content touching on the themes of white identity, white interests, and the culture of the West. Such a mission statement is sure to be dismissed as extremism of the worst sort in today’s intellectual climate—perhaps even as a sign of psychiatric disorder. Yet there is a compelling need for such a site. A great many other identifiable groups in the multicultural West have a strong sense of identity and interest, but overt expressions of white identity and white interests (or European-American identity and interests) are rarely found among the peoples who founded these societies and who continue to make up the majority.
/snip/
Societies in Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand that have been controlled by whites for hundreds of years are the only ones to accept their own demise as a moral imperative. We view this outcome as the result of competition over the construction of culture in which the legitimate interests of whites have been compromised.
/snip/
The situation is particularly worrisome because present demographic trends, especially massive non-white immigration into Western countries, threaten to make whites a minority in these societies within the foreseeable future. Most whites have a gut feeling that the present trends do not bode well for their future and for the prospects of their descendants. We predict that whites will develop a stronger sense of their own identity and interests as a natural outcome of becoming a minority. We are simply ahead of the curve—an unsettling harbinger of things to come.
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/mission/

The Political Ideas of Anders Behring Breivik
July 23, 2011 - Kevin MacDonald

A quite clear picture of Anders Behring Breivik emerges from this collection of his online posts. I thought the following quotes were reasonably representative; they are edited slightly for English usage.

These snippets portray a Geert Wilders-type of cultural conservative, very opposed to ethnocentrism as a strategy, very positive about the Vienna School, staunchly pro-Israel (which he sees as beset by militant Islam), and very hostile toward Islam. Breivik sees Islam as eventually taking over Europe via differential fertility if nothing is done, noting historical data on other areas (e.g., Turkey, Lebanon, Kosovo). Based on his reading of history, he believes that the triumph of Islam would unleash horrific repression and violence against Europeans and against all manifestations of traditional European culture. It would be the end of European civilization based on Christianity and ordered liberty.

He also has a 1500-page book, titled 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, suggesting his actions were intended to call attention to himself as a way of publicizing the book and maximizing its impact. See also the (very powerful) video below which is based on the ideas of the book. The video images strongly suggest that he identifies with historical figures like Charles Martel who fought to prevent the Muslim conquest of Europe in previous centuries. Note the many photos of Christian knights battling Islam (suggesting he sees Christianity [correctly] as a historically powerful force for the preservation of Europe rather than mainly about religious faith) and (at the very end) photos of himself in military dress and armed with automatic weapons.

In general, it must be said that he is a serious political thinker with a great many insights and some good practical ideas on strategy (e.g., developing culturally conservative media, gaining control of NGOs. and developing youth organizations that will confront the Marxist street thugs). (Parenthetically, during a recent lecture tour of Sweden, I was struck by the elaborate security procedures that were taken out of fear of physical beatings by “Communists,” described to me as typically the children of leftist elites. It is no exaggeration to say that racially conscious Scandinavians feel physically intimidated.) It could well be that Breivik’s silence on Jewish hostility toward Europe and the West and his rejection of ethnocentrism (see here) are motivated by his strategic sense.

In the excerpts below, note his hostility toward the Frankfurt School which he identifies with cultural Marxism, but never mentions that the Frankfurt School is a Jewish intellectual movement; nor does he mention the anti-European, anti-Christian attitudes that pervade Jewish elites in the West—as noted in Paul Gottfried’s recent vdare article (http://www.vdare.com/gottfried/110720_j ... dition.htm) and repeatedly emphasized here. He notes the failure of “ethnocentric strategies” but ignores the role of Jewish intellectual elites in pathologizing expressions of ethnocentrism by Europeans since WWII (particularly the Frankfurt School) and in combating the scientific basis of the legitimacy of racial/ethnic interests (Boasian anthropology; the video identifies cultural Marxism with cultural relativism, one of the main thrusts of the Boasian school). He is also highly critical of the media (without noting that the Norwegian media is controlled by a Swedish/Jewish family). In my experience, racially conscious Scandinavians are quite aware of Jewish media control. Again, these may be tactical moves, although I rather doubt it.

In any case, he is certainly right in characterizing multiculturalism as an ideology of hate. Note particularly his anger at the action of the Labour Party (http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/20 ... te-britain) in England in opening the gates of immigration in order “to humiliate the right-wing opponents of immigration.” As he notes in several places, multiculturalism is hatred of Europeans and their culture masked by humanism.

It remains to be seen what the long term effect of his actions will be. There is certainly great revulsion at the murder of young people (1). However, I suppose it is possible that in the long run European elites will understand that the glorious multicultural future will not be attained without a great deal of bloodletting (including themselves and, as in this case, their children) and realize they will have to change their ways. Indeed, one of his insights is that in the long run “the multi-cultural neocolonial regimes will either have imploded or have become very Stalinist.” I agree.

The fear is that Breivik’s actions are more likely to result in Stalinism in the immediate future than to lessen the grip of the forces of evil.

(1)The Norwegian horror
Kevin MacDonald on July 23, 2011

The story line coming out of the Norwegian attacks is that the perpetrator, Anders Behring Breivik, was oriented to the political right. National police chief Sveinung Sponheim stated that the suspected gunman’s Internet postings “suggest that he has some political traits directed toward the right, and anti-Muslim views, but whether that was a motivation for the actual act remains to be seen.” There is also talk about links to Christian fundamentalism.

We’ll see. But what is shocking about this is the killing of at least 80 young Norwegians. As one analyst noted, “The tactics and actuality of these attacks would be quite striking if carried out by a domestic far-right actor — trying to kill Norway’s PM is one thing and not surprising from any extremist elements, but killing average citizens in this manner is very, very unusual indeed for far-right/supremacists, and certainly for ones in Europe.” (2)

Indeed. Killing people, and especially young people, of one’s own racial/ethnic group is not at all what one expects from someone who is motivated by ethnic nationalism. This is the case despite the fact that the victims were attending a youth camp for the center-left Labor Party. Such young people are simply not appropriate targets; their killing will not be seen by the vast majority of Europeans as legitimate. There is a natural revulsion against the killing of the young, particularly of one’s own ethnic group.

The bottom line is that if the right-wing connection turns out to be correct, this action will certainly not help the cause of those seeking to reclaim Europe for its traditional peoples.
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/20 ... g-breivik/

(2) Analysis: Questions over far-right link in Norwegian attacks
By William Maclean - Sat Jul 23, 2011

LONDON (Reuters) - A report that Norway's bomb and gun rampage may be the work of a far-right militant confronts Europe with the possibility that a new paramilitary threat is emerging, a decade after al Qaeda's September 11 attacks.
One analyst called the attacks possibly Europe's "Oklahoma City" moment, a reference to American right-wing militant Timothy McVeigh who detonated a truck bomb at a federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, killing 168 people.

Police forces in many western European countries worry about rising far-right sentiment, fueled by a toxic mix of anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant bigotry and increasing economic hardship.

But violence, while sometimes fatal, has rarely escalated beyond group thuggery and the use of knives.
That may have changed in Oslo and on the holiday island of Utoeya on Friday. Seven people were killed in a bombing in the capital -- Western Europe's worst since the 2005 London al Qaeda-linked suicide attacks that killed 52 people -- and at least 10 in a shooting rampage by a lake.

Independent Norwegian television TV2 reported on Saturday that the Norwegian man detained after the attacks had links to right-wing extremism.
Police were searching a flat in west Oslo where he lived, TV2 said.

"If true this would be pretty significant - such a far-right attack in Europe, and certainly Scandinavia, would be unprecedented," said Hagai Segal, a security specialist at New York University in London.

"It would be the European/Scandinavian equivalent of Oklahoma City - an attack by a individual (with extremist anti-government views, linked to certain groups) aimed at the government by attacking its buildings/institutions."
"The next key question is whether he was acting alone, or whether he is part of a group."

A report by European police agency Europol on security in 2010 said that there was no right-wing terrorism on the continent in that period.

GROWING PROFESSIONALISM
But it added the far right was becoming very professional at producing online propaganda of an anti-Semitic and xenophobic nature and was increasingly active in online social networking.

"Although the overall threat from right-wing extremism appears to be on the wane and the numbers of right-wing extremist criminal offences are relatively low, the professionalism in their propaganda and organization shows that right-wing extremist groups have the will to enlarge and spread their ideology and still pose a threat in EU member states," it said.

If the unrest in the Arab world, especially in North Africa, leads to a major influx of immigrants into Europe, "right-wing extremism and terrorism might gain a new lease of life by articulating more widespread public apprehension about immigration from Muslim countries into Europe," it added.

Public manifestations of right-wing extremism can often provoke counter-activity by extreme left-wing groups. Such confrontations invariably result in physical violence.
In May 2010, a far-right supporter was assaulted and knifed in Sweden during a demonstration staged by a white supremacist movement. An activist was arrested on suspicion of aggravated assault and attempted murder.

The Swedish Security Service says on its website that the so-called White Power scene is made up individuals, groups and networks with right-wing extremist views prepared to use violence for political gain.

In a speech in September 2010, Jonathan Evans, the Director-General of Britain's MI5 Security Service, cited a notorious far-right militant in a passage describing the security outlook for the country.

"Determination can take you a long way and even determined amateurs can cause devastation. The case of the neo-Nazi David Copeland, who attacked the gay and ethnic minority communities with such appalling results in 1999, is a good example of the threat posed by the determined lone bomber."
Copeland struck three targets in London with nail bombs. Three people were killed and scores were wounded at a gay bar in Soho. It followed attacks against the Muslim community in Brick Lane, east London, and a market in Brixton, south London.

In an unclassified 2011 national security outlook published by the Norway Police Security Service (PST) in February 2011, the service said it saw a picture of "increased uncertainty."
Part of that was due to what it called an expected increased level of activity in 2011 by far-right militants.

"Norwegian far-right extremists are in contact with Swedish far-right extremists, as well as with other far-right extremist groups in Europe. Contact also takes place between Norwegian and Russian far-right extremists," it said.
"An increased level of activity among some anti-Islamic groups could lead to increased polarization and unease, especially during, and in connection with, commemorations and demonstrations."

In Britain, police chiefs and Muslim groups are worried about a rise in attacks by far-right groups, and in 2009 one senior officer, Commander Shaun Sawyer, from London's counter-terrorism unit, told a meeting of the Muslim Safety Forum that senior officers had increased surveillance of suspects to monitor their ability to stage attacks.

"I fear that they will have a spectacular ... They will carry out an attack that will lead to a loss of life or injury to a community somewhere," he said.

An analysis by Michael Whine, the Government and International Affairs Director at the Community Security Trust, an agency of the UK Jewish community, said the willingness to employ extreme violence in defense of European 'values' is apparent in the ideology of several groups, among them the British Patriots of the White European Resistance (POWER), which emerged in 2006, and which claims supporters in Croatia, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Serbia, Switzerland, Slovenia, and Sweden.

Security specialist Segal said of Friday's bombing and shootings: "The tactics and actuality of these attacks would be quite striking if carried out by a domestic far-right actor - trying to kill Norway's PM is one thing and not surprising from any extremist elements, but killing average citizens in this manner is very, very unusual indeed for far-right/supremacists, and certainly for ones in Europe."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/ ... 9D20110723

Recognising the threat of far right terrorism
July 24th, 2011 by Dave Rich

The appalling and tragic events in Norway on Friday have served as an horrific reminder that Europe’s far right is capable of producing terrorists, who are just as willing to kill in large numbers as any jihadi terrorist group.

Previously, most attempts by neo-Nazis or other adherents of far right ideologies to perpetrate terrorist attacks have failed for logistical reasons, but there are enough examples that succeeded – for example, David Copeland here in the UK, or the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing in the United States – to dispel any complacency. The growing list of prosecutions and convictions in Britain of would-be terrorists from the far right in recent years shows that this is a real and growing problem.

CST’s Michael Whine has authored a chapter on the trans-European links of far right extremists for a forthcoming book, Mapping the Extreme Right in Contemporary Europe (Berghahn Books, forthcoming). The section of this chapter which addresses far right terrorism is worth repeating here, in particular noting the escalation from street violence to terrorism, and the focus on the Muslims and the state as preferred targets for violence:

"Street violence has always been part of the neo-Nazi scene: it provides a focus for hatred and thereby draws in new adherents, but the emerging trend involves a move beyond the anti-foreigner street violence of the 1990s towards a more focused violence, which includes terrorism, and which is spurred by different reasons (Merkl 1997: 17).

Tore Bjorgo noted in 1995 that the increasing support for xenophobic and radical-right parties enabled the growth of militant neo-Nazi organizations and networks which targeted asylum seekers and visible minorities within Europe. He further observed that groups perceived as ‘right wing’ or ‘racist’ often turned out to have no connections with extreme political organizations, and only a rudimentary idea of any ideology. He suggested that defining the essence of right-wing extremism in terms of one single issue, value or philosophical idea would prove to be a frustrating exercise. Rather, he suggested, that theirs ‘is an anger against perceived outsiders, or the state, which could take a violent path’ (Bjorgo 1995: 2).

At the same time, the late Ehud Sprinzak suggested that violent, extreme right-wing groups are organized around the belief that the object of their intense opposition is a priori illegitimate, that they do not belong to the same humanity as themselves, and should therefore be kept in an inferior legal state, expelled or even eliminated. He further observed that their violence may be directed towards the ‘inferior’ group, or it may be directed against the political authority which has allowed such a situation to develop (Bjorgo 1995: 4).

Evidence in recent criminal trials and security services’ reports suggests that elements within the extreme right are preparing and training for what they perceive to be a coming war for ‘white survival’. Few criminal justice agencies publish data on this specifically, or differentiate it from other forms of violent crime, but the exceptions are the Swedish and German security services (BfV various years; SAPO various years; for background, see Bjorgo 1995).
Their reports note that within established extreme-right bodies there are now individuals, or small groups, who are planning and preparing for acts of terrorism using firearms and improvized explosive devices that are more sophisticated than petrol bombs or other forms of missile previously associated with extreme-right violence. This new trend stands in stark contrast to earlier perceptions when several European security services reported an ambivalence towards the use of violence.

The move to terrorism is not perceived to be a substantive challenge to the state, but rather an attack on symbols of the state and a reaction to the influx of migrants, particularly Muslims. In Sweden, for example, four neo-Nazis were charged in early 2005 in connection with a terrorist plot to attack the parliament building and schools, but for evidentiary reasons were convicted only of causing criminal damage (SAPO 2005: 5).
The Swedish security police therefore noted in 2006 that -
Both the White Power scene and the autonomous scene contain actors who have shown that they are prepared to use threat, violence or force to attain their political objectives. In some cases their actions are directed against authorities or political parties represented in parliament (SAPO 2006: 23).

This new trend is neither widespread nor does it involve large numbers, but is the consequence of a small minority acting out their extreme ideology. It is, however, planned and coordinated at a national and an international level, and it is the Internet that enables and strengthens the processes.
A Europol report noted in 2006 that -
Although violent acts perpetrated by right-wing extremists and terrorists may appear sporadic and situational, right-wing extremist activities are organised and transnational (Europol 2007, p.4).

The inspiration for many is the ‘leaderless resistance’ model of small cells or single individuals (‘lone wolves’) using terror tactics to resist central government suggested by U.S. extreme-right theoretician Louis Beam, and the messages contained in The Turner Diaries and Hunter, two novels written by William Pierce, under the pseudonym of Andrew Macdonald. The former depicts a violent revolution to overthrow the U.S. federal government and to exterminate Jews and non-whites; the latter describes a targeted assassination campaign of couples in inter-racial marriages and civil rights activists carried out by a Vietnam War veteran who is drawn into a white nationalist group planning insurrection (Beam 1992; Macdonald (1978, 1989).


The murder of Theo van Gogh, and the 7 July London bombings galvanized neo-Nazi groups around Europe although the immediate reaction did not lead to the extreme violence that security agencies predicted. There was, however, an increase in low-level violence, and anti-Muslim demonstrations in many countries, especially in the Netherlands and the U.K. The Dutch security service and the annual Dutch Racism and Extremism Monitor both reported a discernible move by activists to ‘tougher, violence-prone neo-Nazi groups’ which are ‘just a fraction removed from terrorism’ (AIVD 2005, 2006, 2007; van Donselaar and Rodrigues 2006).
The acquisition of arms, bomb-making materials and military manuals has been noted in several states, although the degree to which they will use them is another matter, and their possession may be more apparent than their willingness and capability to deploy them.

During April and July 2005, the German authorities confiscated large caches of arms and explosives in raids on the homes of neo-Nazis, but commented afterwards that the intention appeared to have been to stockpile arms rather than use them immediately. They also noted that some right-wing extremists reject terrorist activity which could lead to increased surveillance by the state (BfV 2005: 50).

In the U.K., the police also foiled a succession of terrorist plots initiated by extreme-right activists. Nevertheless, the German authorities report that extreme-right activists are increasingly prepared to resort to violence, to obtain weapons and to engage in paramilitary exercises, as training for terrorism (BfV 2004: 39–41; BfV 2005: 49–50).

The willingness to employ extreme violence in defence of European ‘values’ is apparent in the ideology of several groups, among them the British Patriots of the White European Resistance (POWER), which emerged in 2006, and which claims supporters in Croatia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Serbia, Switzerland, Slovenia and Sweden.

The British police have reported that -
There is no intelligence to suggest that POWER is instrumental in influencing known or alleged ‘Lone Wolf’ operatives. However POWER is a relatively new group who are difficult to regionalise and who have links to continental Europe (Association of Chief Police Officers 2008).

The POWER website states that -
We began in Great Britain but are a pro European movement with members in all European countries … We were formed as a last chance movement to preserve our individual nations and to unify Europe and build the great nations and Europe we once had… We are not a Political party, and would consider ourselves freedom fighters, not the left wing version of the term freedom fighters, which are called Terrorists, we are defenders of the European culture. However we urge people to support National Socialism … We are firm believers in the policies of Oswald Mosley and strongly support all of his theories on the state of Europe. (http://www.14power88.com/vonherman/vwar/page.php?id=6).

POWER identification of the enemy is shared with like-minded groups:
The western world we feel is under threat from not only Jewish corruption but also from mass immigration, drug imports, religious divide, gun crime, Islamic hatred [/b]and multiculturalism in general[/b], we firmly support all of Europe but refuse to accept that we owe any African anything … We stand alongside every European nation that wishes to remove non whites from their land. (http://www.14power88.com/vonherman/vwar/page.php?id=6).

The Racial Volunteer Force (RVF) is a second trans-European group which emerged from the UK-based Combat 18, with branches in the UK, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands, and which declares itself to be an international ‘militant Pro White Organisation’, with its own European council. It hints that it will resort to violence and warns its members that they must think long and hard before joining (http://wwwrvfonline.com/house.htm).

The Dutch security service identified its members as ‘strongly ideologically developed’ capable of playing an important role in furthering and cementing contacts (AIVD 2006: 52). The terrorist threat is not perceived to be a substantive challenge to the state, but rather an attack on the symbols of the state and a reaction to the influx of migrants, particularly Muslims. It is not a widespread trend, nor is it coordinated and planned at any central point. Rather, it is the consequence of small groups acting out their extreme ideology.

The 2008 Europol report on terrorist threats within the European Union identified an increasing number of extreme-right terrorist plots in the U.K. during the past ten years by individuals classified as ‘lone wolves’ who share ‘an ideological or philosophical identification with an extremist group, but do not communicate with the group they identify with’ (Europol 2008: 39). They follow the models proposed by Beam and Pierce."


These trends have been apparent for some years. In 2001, just prior to the 9/11 attacks, Michael Whine wrote another paper about two new types of terrorism: far right terrorism and religious terrorism. Both types of terrorism tend towards seeking large numbers of casualties as an end in itself; and both increasingly involve actors who are not part of organised extremist movements, and are therefore much harder for law enforcement to identify and interdict. The shift in the rhetoric of the European far right towards a discourse of protecting their culture, rather than their race, does not change their underlying politics.

How to address the problem of lone actors who are prepared to kill in such large numbers, and who draw encouragement from a wider extremist narrative of grievance and self-defence through violence, is both a political and a policing problem and is not limited to any one kind of terrorism. Matthew Goodwin has some interesting observations here; Raffaello Pantucci’s typology (pdf) of lone terrorist actors is essential reading; Hope Not Hate addresses the wider political milieu from which far right terrorism emerges. There are no simple answers; but as events in Norway have shown, this is not a problem that can be ignored.
http://thecst.org.uk/blog/?p=2777

Second, we need to understand that while activists like Breivik act in isolation, they represent a set of ideas that are shared by many (even if most would not endorse the use of violence). If the internet posts left by Breivik are indeed his, then they reveal an obsession with issues that are of concern to many within what we might term the broader right-wing subculture: a preoccupation with the effects of multiculturalism; the perceived cultural (not only economic) threat posed by immigration and Muslim communities; criticism of a lack of effective responses to these threats from established main parties; and strong emphasis on the need to take radical and urgent action. These motives were similarly evident in cases such as Robert Cottage, a British citizen who was arrested after stockpiling chemical explosives. His move toward planned violence was described by his wife as follows: "He thinks there's a war going to happen with the culture, the Asian culture and the white culture and that Tony Blair and President Bush are scheming against people."


Some of the issues allegedly cited by Brievik have played a prominent role within Norwegian politics in recent years, and for this reason it is important not to examine lone wolves in isolation from the wider context in which they operate. Most voters in Europe go out of their way to distance themselves from violence, but large numbers also express concern over the same issues that are raised by lone wolves. They are certainly not all lone wolves, or would-be wolves. But there is clearly a wider pool of potential recruits should the main parties not respond to their grievances. To some extent, it is perhaps helpful to think of lone wolves as being located at the tip of a triangle. Further down, below the likes of Brievik and McVeigh, are citizens who are active members of anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim parties, then citizens who vote for these parties, then a broader mass of citizens who are sceptical of immigration and rising ethno-cultural diversity. Many of these voters and citizens reject violence, but they are still concerned over these issues and elites need to address their concerns far more effectively than they have been doing until now. We also need far more research on what 'trips' some citizens from expressing their concern via the ballot box into open violence.
http://www.matthewjgoodwin.com/2011/07/ ... we-do.html