Thursday, September 6, 2012

Factions within the European Resistance - Part 2

It's important to have a good overview of the various factions that are compatible with militant and non-militant ultra-nationalism.

I previously discussed political dimensions, which is a confusing subject because political dimensions tend to blur into each other. Based on a line of thought that embraces hereditarianism, realism, and rationalism it's possible to create a political platform that most European Nationalists can support.

1. The rejection of supremacism because it's an irrational position. Though the White race is accomplished, this doesn't make every White individual deserving, or undeserving for that matter.

European indigenous rights are of course strongly supported, as well as the indigenous rights of all other races, including the right of Jews to Israel as their ancestral homeland.

2. The rejection of the oppression of homosexuals. This because those who want homosexuals back in the closet support a Marxist form of social engineering. Like people who are blind or deaf, homosexuals deserve to not be ridiculed for their disability.

Most homosexuals do support multiculturalism, but there are notable examples of homosexuals who support European indigenous rights after radicalizing under the threat of Islam.

3. The rejection of the multiracial and multicultural society because it's impossible to preserve our cultural heritage without our racial heritage. Europeans won't become minorities in their own nations.

The ultimate consequence of a multiracial society can be witnessed in modern day South Africa. South Africa used to have a White majority two hundred years ago, nowadays South African Whites have been turned into a disarmed slave class living under Marxist rule.

4. The Counter Jihad movement typically doesn't support European indigenous rights and views Islam as a threat to the multicultural experiment. The Counter Jihad movement should not be confused with the European indigenous rights movement. Alliances should be made with ultra-Zionists who support Jewish as well as European indigenous rights.

5. This doesn't mean that there shouldn't be cooperation with White Supremacists, Homophobes, Anti-Semites, or Counter Jihadists. It's impossible to get everyone to agree on every issue, but nationalists should set aside their differences as we all support a common cause, namely to avoid the genocide of the European people.


This will be a group that desires the end of feminism and the return of patriarchism. Breivik suggests that men be given custody in the case of a divorce. Alternatively the laws that force men to pay child support can be repealed.


Conservatism is problematic because conservatives tend to have a rigid hierarchy of authority making them very resistant to change. As such conservatives have attitudes that go back 50-100 years, and ultra-conservatives have attitudes that go back 100-200 years.

It's not always clear what these attitudes are, some conservatives will have compatible attitudes, some will not. Conservatives tend to reject anything new and different, and this rigid hierarchy of authority can make conservatives difficult allies. A few conservatives are likely to appoint Breivik as their divine leader and wait for further instructions, which of course will never come because Breivik is in jail under strict censorship. Meanwhile these conservatives will reject everyone who isn't a puritan, or is viewed as a danger to Breivik's authority.

This is not an attack on conservatives, as without conservatism there would be no hierarchy, and without a hierarchy there would be no culture, just a random selection of opinions and attitudes. If a culture was viewed as an organism, conservatism would be its DNA, designed to evolve slowly but surely through natural selection. Like all products of natural selection, a culture's main purpose is not only to make it's people thrive, but to make it's people survive.

The question is whether the current conservative culture is capable of meeting the current challenge, and failing that, if the ultra-conservative culture is capable of doing so. Looking at European history it becomes obvious that Europe has been in a downward spiral ever since the enlightenment, though there are positive aspects as well.

Traditional Nordic Christianity was most likely a combination of Odinism and the New Testament, over time Odinism was eradicated and replaced with the Old Testament. The enlightenment, a period in which the Bible was translated and became widely available to the masses, resulted in a radical new interpretation of Christianity which inspired the liberal, egalitarian and humanist movements which dominate the political landscape today.

In theory it is possible for Nordic Conservatives to mix Odinism and Christianity to create a hybrid that can be described as Crusader Christianity. This would be an attempt to rediscover the roots of Germanic Christianity, which would make it a form of ultra-conservatism. Breivik researched the Viking era as he carved the names of Norse gods into his guns using the rune script, and he considers Odinism an important part of his cultural identity and heritage.

Alternatively hereditarianism can be embraced with a stronger emphasis on realism and rationalism. Breivik partially adopted this strategy by using meditation to overcome his fear and become a cold and merciless opponent.

In 2083 in chapter 3.149 - The Bible and self-defence - Breivik gives an overview of the most radical elements of the Bible, and this is definitely worth reading.

Ultra Conservatives

Ultra conservatives are likely to embrace Crusader Christianity to fight against Islam and have been opposed to Cultural Marxism for decades. They will likely mobilize by themselves in tight knit church communities. It's unlikely they will fully agree with 2083, but they will find the idea of a Cultural Christian identity and anti-totalitarian attitudes more appealing than Multiculturalism.


This will be a group of eugenicists, social darwinists, transhumanists and related factions. The end of Cultural Marxism is obviously in the best interest of ideologies that favor the nature model. These groups will have to embrace nationalism to some degree as they tend to favor individualism.


Radicalization is a steady process that typically goes in one direction. Once someone discovers a forbidden truth this truth cannot be easily erased. Nationalists are likely to radicalize towards militant nationalism, and 7/22 has made enough of an impact that for several years nationalists will come to realize that they've lost faith in the democratic process and subsequently download a copy of 2083.

National Environmentalists

This is a movement Breivik largely ignored, but one of the most potent factions. The most radical environmentalists realize that immigration is the biggest threat to the environment and favor depopulation, an agenda the Cultural Marxists will never support. Many also realize that if native species should be protected, the same should go for the native human population. The environmentalist agenda needs to be given serious attention.

National Socialists

The platform described in 2083 is largely compatible with National Socialism. The rejection of supremacism,  totalitarianism, and expansionism are notable differences. 


As Christianity wiped out Germanic paganism there will likely be some hostile attitudes toward a Cultural Christian identity. A moderating religion like Christianity is a must though. Without Cultural Marxism Europe may be exposed to the same instability that led to the first and second World War.

Odinism should be given a more central role in the Nordic cultural identity, but this isn't a force that will result in pan-European unity.


  1. @"South Africa used to have a White majority two hundred years ago, nowadays South African Whites have been turned into a disarmed slave class living under Marxist rule."

    Wait a minute, South Africa belongs to the black Africans, thus it's absolutely positive that the invaders (here white) became a minority again.

    @"Looking at European history it becomes obvious that Europe has been in a downward spiral ever since the enlightenment"

    The Enlightenment is an era I really admire. Logical reasoning, pursuit of justice: how could someone abhor it? Even Breivik likes the logical reasoning and wants to hold off religion (not logical!) from the sciences, which, you can't ignore, flourished since the era of Enlightenment. Let's take a look on Breiviks view on this issue:

    "'Logic' and rationalist thought (a certain degree of national Darwinism) should be the fundament of our societies." (1386)

    "Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I’m not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic." (1404)

    "As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings. Europe has always been the cradle of science and it must always continue to be that way." (1403)

    @"The enlightenment, a period in which the Bible was translated and became widely available to the masses, resulted in a radical new interpretation of Christianity [...]"

    First of all, the bible was more than once translated much earlier (Enlightenment = 18th century). But during the era of Enlightenment the literacy among normal people began to improve what led to the ability to read the bible in translation. But does it led to a radical new interpretation of Christianity? No!

    Had the Enlightenment thus not even indirect influence on the new-interpretation of Christianity? Well, it did have! The Christian dogma changed as a reaction to the era of Enlightenment only because the church would otherwise have lost its power on society. Thus, it wasn't a new interpretation of the bible that led to changes, but the fear of the church to lose influence that made it (the church) give a new interpretation of Christianity, whereat "new interpretation" doesn't mean by default "wrong interpretation".

    @"If a culture was viewed as an organism, conservatism would be its DNA, designed to evolve slowly but surely through natural selection."

    What a nice metaphor!

    1. Regarding South Africa, it functions as an example of a multiracial society regardless of moral considerations. Breivik does support the creation of a White Nation in South Africa. There's an argument to be made for the withdrawal of Europeans from Africa.

      Regarding the Enlightenment, I'm not opposed to logic so you're creating a strawman there.

      I disagree that the church had much influence on the population once literacy, the printing press, and translations of the Bible resulted in a religious revolution. This destroyed traditional Christianity, and it's obvious that Breivik wants to restore pre-enlightenment Christianity without sacrificing modern insights.

    2. @"Breivik does support the creation of a White Nation in South Africa."
      Really? I remember having read he would like to support the Christians there,... mmh, I will look at it!

      You are right, the church hadn't MUCH influence after Enlightenment but nevertheless kept some of it on morality; and this little rest is now vanishing too. Because of literacy, education etc? No, since then many of those who left Christianity wouldn't become muslims.

      @"[...] it's obvious that Breivik wants to restore pre-enlightenment Christianity without sacrificing modern insights."
      That's my feeling too, he sees it as a joining factor for a fight where killing must be morally permitted and as moral-keeper after the fight. Why he chose to fight under the banner of Christianity instead of Enlightenment, I don't know. It would be easier to push the muslims out of Europe when pure Enlightenment - ratio not phantasy - would reign, don't you think?

    3. One problem of political correctness is that being anti-racist quickly turns into being anti-white. South Africa has a large coloured population as well, are those to be removed, or do 'only whites' have to leave?

      The rise of humanism and egalitarianism can be explained by millions of Christians reading the Bible. The rise of militant Islam can be explained by millions of Muslims reading the Koran.

      The rational element of the enlightenment might have its roots in the Bible as well, as it stresses the importance of truth, which in turn resulted in the paradox described by Nietzsche, that the truth and the Bible are mutually exclusive. This in my explanation explains the collapse of the church, most people do not buy it, at an intellectual level if not on an emotional level.

      Unfortunately pure rationalism doesn't provide a strong emotional motive. In my opinion we are in a nihilist era where rationalism inevitably leads to cynicism.

      So humanism, rationalism, idealism, and egalitarianism are all part of the problem. The only solutions I see is hereditarianism (with morality seen as survival behavior that transcend the individual level), or a culture that instills these values organically.

      In an ideal situation you want both, a society that both intellectually and emotionally maintains healthy attitudes.

      Fortunately hereditarianism and rationalism are not mutually exclusive.

    4. None of them have to leave, but a situation like in Australia where the Aboriginies are seen as inferior beings by the majority of white invaders is undesirable. It seems to be natural that when the indigenous people get the minority they are looked upon as scum as also can be seen in America.

      Basically rationalism, as religion, is nothing more than an intellectual construct without the claim of absoluteness. And without claim of absoluteness no idealism, no egalitarism as well.

      Both rationalism and religion are by default combinable with morality and phantasy and thus with emotions. The only difference is that religions tend to regard products of phantasy as divine truth whereas rationalism uses phantasy only to gain another perspective to approach (!) a truth - there isn't ONE truth, exclusiveness therefore is excluded. This does not apply to pure rationalism.

      PURE rationalism is as a dried chickpea that never is reached by any fluid (i.e. emotion, phantasy, humour): unchewable, undigestable and without any nutritive value.

      "Strong emotional motives" - these are the worst advisors and the best comrades in war and love you can come across. And indeed, they tend to flee when Ratio enters the scene!

      I would really like to agree with you concerning the combination of rationalism and hereditarianism, but unfortunately I'm not sure what do you mean by the term "hereditarianism". Could you explain it to me?

    5. Australian Aborigines have an average IQ of 65, which implies they have 12% smaller brains than Europeans. Chimpanzees have 65% smaller brains and I don't advocate the extermination of Chimpanzees any more than I advocate the extermination of Aborigines.

      Obviously a multiracial society with Aborigines and Europeans is going to be a total disaster, and no amount of social engineering will make the situation desirable. Aborigines ought to be given their own territories and live however they want to live. Tasmania comes to mind as a reservation.

      Breivik avoided these subjects, but I refuse to debate these issues using a politically correct egalitarian worldview that I know to be false.

      We could give Aborigines all of Australia, but China or another nation would move in sooner or later.

      I define hereditarianism as the view that morality is survival behavior that transcends the individual level.

      I also view hereditarianism as supporting natural law, making it an ideology that favors realism and rationalism over idealism and humanism.

      As a father readily sacrifices himself for his child the same kind of biological loyalty is favored for the nation, requiring close genetic ties. Loyalty in turn has honesty and honor as crucial components.

      It's a fairly complex subject matter, but I agree that rationalism needs to be supplemented by emotions that support moral behavior.

    6. There is indeed a biological component that determines the intelligence of a person, meaning the basic prerequisite for interconnection and synapse formation. But in my opinion education is more important for the development of intelligence and also morality. For morality and intelligence are two sides of one medal, that is coined through education by a nation/society depending on its view on humans in general combined with the aim/needs of a nation/society: does a nation needs more clerics, more soldiers, more cheap workers...? The education as well as the definition/arrangement of IQ-tests will be adjusted. Intelligence is what serves the needs of a nation/society.

    7. The heritability of IQ is around 80%. Intense education can raise IQ by around 5%, but those gains are typically lost when intense education is stopped.

      Morality itself seems pretty flexible to me, people will believe anything and do anything if the state scares or rewards them into doing so. A culture should promote honesty, honor, loyalty, and integrity, but there's only so much a government can do, I'm not sure if these traits can be reinforced genetically.

      It's one of my worries that genetic deterioration will continue until the only way to maintain the nation is through totalitarian rule. A people driven by nothing else but fear.

      This in part makes me weary of totalitarianism. Given the complexity of large nations the government will have to rely on a market economy to some degree. This may include letting companies educate most of their workers rather than getting the government involved.

  2. Angus Thermopylae: "We could give Aborigines all of Australia, but China or another nation would move in sooner or later."

    You are so right.

    And I am afraid that the Danish government is making the same mistake concerning Greenland.

    Greenland; a vast country with possible enormous reserves in oil, gas, gold and rare minerals, has a population of only 50,000 Greenlanders (Inuit - Eskimo).

    They have enormous problems with alcohol, violence, incompetence etc. about the same way as many other low IQ native people who live under civilized European rule. But so far the natural resources have not really been exploited yet (except as a base for the US military), and Denmark (5.5 million people) subsidizes the whole country - Greenlanders are Danish nationals, can move freely to Denmark (which they do, and many become drunks living on welfare) free hospitals and medical treatment (as all Danes), free education (like all Danes - not only free, but they even get paid to go to school or university).

    Of course native Danes in the past, stood (and probably still stand) for most of the higher professions and the politics.

    Now there are all these promises of enormous profits in the future, and of course the native simpletons consisting of 40,000 full time drunks 9,000 part time drunks and a thousand sober but not too smart individuals (I am exaggerating to make the point) will want to be independent the minute the international exploration parties strike gold.

    Russian, American and Chinese delegations are waiting to jump the Eskimos for contracts and close "cooperation". Most likely the country (almost a continent) will fall to the US, who already has a military presence there.

    The logical thing for Denmark, and obviously the most profitable for the Eskimos in the long run, would of course be not to allow independence of 50,000 mainly low IQ and incompetent people, who would be outsmarted within a very short time, and protect the Greenlanders from these greedy international companies and imperialist governments.

    Everybody realizes this, but nobody has the balls to act accordingly. The Danes loose a lot of money which rightfully belongs to them (including the Greenlanders who more than equal rights as Danish citizens) and the Greenland will become an Americanized US colony in stead, their new masters not being at all concerned with the real interests of the indigenous people and their culture, but only in corporate interests. They'll probably buy the whole country for some shares in an Inuit casino, which the poor suckers will loose again in the next poker game.

    1. The Inuit have an average IQ of around 90 and are as big a victim of multiculturalism as anyone else.

      Their problems with alcohol are known, and quite tragic.

  3. I am a libertarian (close to anarcho-capitalism) who agrees with philosophy of Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand. However I see enormous danger for freedom due to actions of european politicans who turns European Union into old Soviet Union. The biggest problem for me is lack of capitalism. Groving number of immigrants (especially muslims) is just consequence of welfare states so in my opinion such policy should be our main enemy. We don't need to fight with muslims or marxists... just don't feed them and let them die or run away to their arabic countries. (btw. I would really like to see typical european marxist in, for example, Saudi Arabia ;))

    I can't agree with all yours or Breivik's ideology but I clearly see which way leads to freedom of Europe, so that I wish KT much luck and success in spreading awareness of native Europeans. We had our enlightenment period, most of Africans and Asians still need to grow up to it...

    Best regards,
    Martin from Poland

    1. You're still adhering to the Marxist worldview here, though Darwinistic Marxists believe that rather than uplifting the social underclass through love and education, tossing them into the swimming pool and screaming 'swim' at them is going to do the trick. Regardless of the approach, it's still based on the false assumption that everyone can swim, or in other words, that every human and every race is equal in potential.

      Immigrants will still come in the Libertarian Utopia, and they won't die of starvation because the only people out on the street are people with severe addictions and emotional problems. Second and third world immigrants with their smaller brains will live like cockroaches if they have to, but they will thrive unless exterminated, which is why closed borders and relocation are the only solution.

      Africans aren't going to be enlightened because they lack the genetic potential. Islam isn't going to be enlightened because the Koran doesn't allow for it. The Japanese and Chinese with their 105 average IQ are doing just fine.

      Not to mention that capitalism is ruining the environment and turns mankind in the equivalent of a run away virus. It's unsustainable in the long run and a collapse is inevitable. I view consumerism as one of the many diseases of the West.

      Trust me, if libertarianism was truly enlightened it would be a forbidden ideology.

    2. I see nothing wrong in second and third world cockroaches living there until they act like natural slaves for us. However, immigrants who are breaking our law should be punished in hardest possible way.

      Environment is still much stronger than mankind can imagine, so it will protect itself without our help. I would rather say that marxists from Europe are breaking our economy by closing factories and blocking investments. These factories and investments just will be made in China or other well ruled country. (not really well, but still better than EU)

      Real problem is rising population of the World, but it wouldn't be our problem if european politicians stop blocking natural way of decreasing population of Europe by social care and immigrants. Technical progress eliminates more and more professions (especially physical ones occupied by immigrants - we don't really need them). We need smaller group of intelligent, well educated people, not more and more illiterates. That's one point I don't agree with Breivik. Few hi-tech tanks and helicopters are worth more (during the war) than 100k of soldiers with ak-47s or machetes...

      Libertarianism is forbidden ideology, because most of its postulates are against the law. In our communist European Union only marxists and socjalists are really free.

    3. Reducing the size of the population will benefit the environment, and if the quality of the population increases as well the nation should be stronger technologically and militarily.

      Freedom first though.

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.