Etter 22. juli ble det vans­ke­lig å bruke faren for vold og ter­ror som argu­ment mot økt mus­limsk til­stede­væ­relse i de norske sam­fun­net. Vi hadde fått vår egen ter­ro­rist, og han var kris­ten, ifølge både eks­per­ter og poli­ti­kere, for da poli­tiet mor­ge­nen etter ter­ror­an­gre­pet slo fast at Anders Behring Brei­vik var en kris­ten­fun­da­men­ta­list, var videre debatt umu­lig. Man var ikke så nøye med å sjekke hva han trodde på, det var nok at han hadde sagt at han ville redde kris­ten­he­ten.

Ska­den var gjort, kob­lin­gen til kris­ten­dom­men var etab­lert, og med det ble alle mus­limske ter­ro­ris­ter erklært tro­løse mus­li­mer. For alle var skjønt enige om at selv om Brei­vik ble defi­nert som kris­ten, var det klart at han hadde mis­brukt kris­ten­dom­men på samme måte som mus­limske ter­ro­ris­ter mis­bru­ker islam. Brei­viks bak­grunn gjorde en nøk­tern og sak­lig til­nær­ming til ter­ror vans­ke­lig, det ble umu­lig å si at en reli­gion er bedre enn en annen.

Men nå har Anders Behring Brei­vik gjort rede for hva hans tro går ut på, og beskje­den er klar: Han er ikke, og har aldri vært kris­ten. I et brev Dagen og andre inter­es­serte par­ter har fått tar han avstand fra kris­ten tro og Jesus Kris­tus:

ANNONSE

Nå sier Brei­vik at han «ikke er, og aldri har vært – kris­ten», i et brev han har sendt til «inter­es­serte eller berørte par­ter i forb. med 22/7» sam­men med to andre brev til blant annet Dagen. Han omta­ler seg selv som «en av de mer fana­tiske nasjo­nal­so­sia­lis­ter i nord-Europa»

Under et punkt kalt «Odi­nisme» avfeier han kris­ten­dom­men og Jesus slik:

«Det er få ting i ver­den som er mer pate­tisk enn Jesus-skik­kel­sen og hans bud­skap, og jeg har all­tid for­ak­tet den svak­he­ten og den inter­na­sjo­na­lis­men som kirken repre­sen­te­rer.»

Han under­stre­ker at han ber og ofrer til Gud, og får styrke av Gud, men at han kal­ler ham «Odin, ikke Jesus eller Jehova».

Øyvind Strøm­men sier i en kom­men­tar til Dagen at kob­lin­gen til nor­røn myto­logi ikke er eksep­sjo­nelt i høyre­eks­trem sam­men­heng:

Varg Viker­nes har vært på det samme spo­ret, også en del ame­ri­kanske høyre­eks­treme.

Han tror Odin-troen kan endre bil­det av Brei­vik som en «kris­ten ter­ro­rist», og sier til Dagen:

Men å se på han som en kris­ten eks­tre­mist har aldri vært spe­si­elt tref­fende. Det bil­det er feil på alle punk­ter og er pre­get av folk som ikke hadde satt seg inn i ideo­lo­gien han la fram i mani­fes­tet. Det var aldri en kris­ten ideo­logi.

Han under­stre­ker at Brei­vik i sitt mani­fest er opp­tatt av å for­svare kris­ten­he­ten og den kristne ver­den, ikke reli­gio­nen kris­ten­dom, mot islam, og sier videre:

Det er åpen­bart en del av hans ideo­lo­giske land­skap og ideer som frem­de­les er i utvik­ling, på sett og vis. I brevs form har han skre­vet mye om Quis­ling, og gått mer i ret­ning av tra­di­sjo­nell nyna­zisme enn før.

ANNONSE
Liker du det du leser? Vipps noen kroner til Document på 13629


  • Nor­ges­Røst

    Vi lever i en absurd tid.

    1. Den tid­li­gere lede­ren for human-etisk for­bund, Lars Gule, og alle hans like­sin­nede som ivrer for avkrist­ning av Norge, vil nå kunne feire at enda en har slut­tet seg til deres fold. Men noe sier meg at Lars Gule tvert imot vil blir svært skuf­fet fordi ABB ikke er en kris­ten… Hyk­le­riet er til å ta og føle på på alle bau­ger og kan­ter i vårt absurde gjen­nom-ideo­lo­gi­serte sam­funn.

    2. Den kristne Gahr Støre burde ta denne mel­din­gen svært tungt, siden han nå har mis­tet en tros­søs­ken som han mente var kris­ten. Men noe sier meg at Støre ikke vil sørge over at ABB ikke tar imot frel­sen. Hyk­le­riet er til å ta og føle på på alle bau­ger og kan­ter i vårt absurde gjen­nom-ideo­lo­gi­serte sam­funn.

  • van­der­Gol­den

    Ska­den var gjort, kob­lin­gen til kris­ten­dom­men var etab­lert, og med det ble alle mus­limske ter­ro­ris­ter erklært tro­løse mus­li­mer.”
    Dette er et dypt­lod­dende poeng som mange nok har bagate­li­sert eller helt sett bort fra, eller ikke kom­met å å stille spørs­mål ved i det hele tatt.
    I de siste 1400 år har det vært nok av dis­ku­sjo­ner i den mus­limske ver­den om hvem som var sann mus­lim eller det mot­satte. Drap og mjham har vært legion og bru­ta­li­te­ten har ikke kjent noen gren­ser. Det samme har jo også vært til­felle innen “kris­ten­he­ten”, (som noen mener ikke har noe med kris­ten­dom å gjøre), men også mel­lom ulike grup­pe­rin­ger kristne som i utgans­punk­tet anså sin tro for den ene sanne og de anres tro for falske, men irnisk da basert på nær­mest iden­tiske tekste, bekjennes­ler (pluss minus tra­di­sjon etc).
    Innen islam bru­kes “tak­fir” som en metode for å kunne iden­ti­fi­sere hvem som er kuf­far eller vntro ellr ikke. Tak­fir er imid­ler­tid ingen “insti­tu­sjon”, slik f eks Inkvi­si­sjo­nen var det i den kris­tene ver­den. Tak­fir kunne der­for ikke “ned­leg­ges” som doms­in­stans, slik som inkvi­si­sjo­nen ble det. Tak­fir må der­for base­res på skrif­tene, dvs Kora­nen, sunna (sira) og hadith og på vok­ter­rå­dene, der disse var mulig å opp­rett­holde eller reetab­lere. Innen islam har man hel­ler ikke noe pave­dømme som kan gjøre krav på ende­lig eller øverste auto­ri­tet i lære­spørs­mål, i abso­lutt for­stand. Tak­fir har der­for vært mer seig­li­vet innen islam enne inkvi­si­jo­nene har vært innen kris­ten­dom­men. Dette desto mer som hver enkelt mus­lim – for­tinns­vis i møte med og d under­lagt mos­keen, madrassa­enes og ima­me­nes auto­ri­tet – i prin­sip­pet har rett til å bedrive nett­opp tak­fir helt på egen­hånd. (I prak­sis i sam­råd med tros­brødre, selv­sagt, som da i sin tur må basere seg på samme grunn­lag). Det gud­dom­me­lige grun­nag for en islamsk inkvi­si­sjo­nen er lett å pakke med seg i kof­fer­ten og ta med seg vidt og bredt, for å si det slik, i form nett­opp av noen få ned­skrevne bok­si­der ned­ks­re­vet på ara­bisk.
    Det under­lige og skrem­mende er at Brei­vik fak­tisk har trodd at han har vært i posi­sjon til å inneha abso­lutt auto­ri­tet hva angår å bestemme hvem som har rett tro eller ikke. Hans teo­lo­giske og til­rø­vede auto­ri­tet kan der­med minne om den fore­stil­ling enkelte mus­li­mer tar utgangs­punkt i når de i tak­fir døm­mer – og dre­per – andre tro­ende som påstår at de fak­tisk er mus­li­mer. (Jeg gir meg her med dette, temaet kan ikke utdy­pes på en til­freds­stil­lende måte på noen få lin­jer, men her kan lin­jene kan­skje invi­tere til i hvert fall noen sup­ple­rende og even­tu­elt kor­ri­ge­rende kom­men­ta­rer).

    • Naa­ti­den

      ABB, han som så for seg at han skulle bli slått til rid­der med stea­rin­lys og hode­skalle i sin feng­sels­celle av sin advo­kat? Stein gal.

  • Ken­tReich­born­Kjen­ne­rud

    Etter at jeg kom over denne artik­len http://expo.se/2014/breivik-vill-deportera-illojala-judar_6336.html Ble jeg opp­merk­som på at den para­noid schi­zo­frene klov­nen i hjem­me­la­get Napo­le­ons­uni­form har sendt et brev til bla The Wall Street Jour­nal, Die Welt, Dag­bla­det, ABC Nyhe­ter og Eks­tra Bladet. Ori­gi­na­len fin­ner du på denne len­ken http://chromatism.net/fjordman/breivik-ideological.pdf

    For­uten at ABB ytter­li­gere stad­fes­ter dia­gno­sen gitt av de første psy­kiatriske sak­kyn­dige, pre­sen­te­rer han nye opp­sikts­vek­kende påstan­der (selv om jeg ikke tar dette for god fisk, men sna­rere et utslag av opport­u­nisme eller en ny vrang­fore­stil­ling i hans for­vir­rede sinn). 

    Han påstår å ha omfav­net det han omta­ler som ”anti-jiha­dis­ter” (Fjord­man, Robert Spen­cer og Bat Ye’or) for og skade dem. Dette for å trekke opp­merk­som­he­ten bort fra hans egent­lig alli­erte – nyna­zis­tene.

    Blant annet skri­ver han: “I know a lot of people will be dis­s­apointed when read­ing this, but my love for Israel is limi­ted to its future func­tion as a depor­ta­tion-port for dis­loyal jews”.

    Her føl­ger vrøv­let hans I sin hel­het:

    Expla­na­tions, cla­ri­fi­ca­tions and the peace pro­po­sal – NRK, TV2, Aften­pos­ten, VG and Dag­bla­det (<>),are refu­sing to con­si­der

    The ideo­logy known as <> has two wings; nor­dic supe­riority (NS) and nor­dic sur­vi­val (indi­genous rights acti­vism). Being a nor­di­cist of the lat­ter cate­gory; my pri­mary pur­pose is to con­tri­bute to secure the sur­vi­val and prosperity of the nor­dic eth­nic family (the nor­dic, race). Natio­nal socia­lists and hit­le­rists refer to the west-nor­dic people as the <>. There are three euro­pean races; nor­dic (phy­si­cal cha­rac­te­ri­s­tics: blonde/blue eyed/longer forehead/etc.), alpine (half nordic/half medi­ter­ranean – f. example the french) and medi­ter­ranean – f. example most people in Por­tu­gal, Spain, Italy, Gre­ece etc.). <> are aprox. 20 per­cent nor­dic and 80 per­cent asia­tic. The essence of nor­di­cism isnt to exclude or discri­mi­nate but to strive for the pure nor­dic ideal. Wiki Madi­son Grant for more in info. Whe­ne­ver a northern-euro­pean natio­na­list is tal­king about the geno­cide, decon­struc­tion or eth­nic cle­an­sing of his people, he is tal­king about the following (illust­ra­tion box):

    Over­view: The esti­mated time until extinc­tion for the nor­dic eth­nic family if our sur­vi­val is not secu­red: eth­nic com­po­sition-13 nor­dic countries in per­cent. Nor­dic vs. non-nor­dic. Over­view of the 13 largest nor­dic countries where nor­dics have sta­tus as an indi­genous people and until recently made out the majority: Ger­many, Eng­land, the Nether­lands, Sweden, Den­mark, Austria, Nor­way, Scot­land, Ire­land, Wales, Fin­land, Ice­land and Lux­em­bourg.

    The esti­mated time until extinc­tion for the nor­dic race occurs some time between 2050 and 2100. Pre­sup­poses todays non-nor­dic immi­gra­tion of 1% per year, todays fer­ti­lity rate, and that nor­dics are not gran­ted auto­no­mous indi­genous sta­tes. The biggest threat is neit­her afri­can nor asian immi­gra­tion, but in fact inter-EEC immi­gra­tion from mem­bers from the medi­ter­ranean eth­nic family and from the alpine.

    When dea­ling with media-psycho­paths

    And this is where it gets pro­ble­ma­tic. The <> and libe­ral media in gene­ral have over the last 68 years devel­o­ped mul­tiple supres­sion-tac­tics for <> nor­di­cists and other natio­na­lists. Pro­pa­ganda, or the use of false or exhagerated infor­ma­tion for the sup­port of a view or case, has been used for thou­sands of years to supress poli­ti­cal oppo­sition, and unfor­tu­nately its quite effec­tive.

    All rese­arch, illust­rated by a report pub­lis­hed in <>, Jan/Feb. 2013, shows that the pro­fes­sions; “Media (TV/Radio)” and “Jour­na­lists” top the list over the most psycho­pat­hic pro­fes­sions, as they are among the most noto­rious mani­pu­la­tors, liars and dece­i­vers. When a jour­na­list in addition is a left­ist, who is tas­ked with making an <> cha­rac­te­ri­s­tic of a <>, you know that the result will be eve­rything but cre­dible.

    The edi­tors of Nor­ways <> are even more left­ist than their colle­agues in other countries, with excep­tions being Sweden and Ger­many. Most, if not all, of the influ­en­tial edi­tors are discip­les of the 68-revo­lu­tions ideals. F. example the chief edi­tor in Aften­pos­ten; Haugs­gjerd, is a for­mer mem­ber of AKP (Wor­kers Com­mu­nist Party), which used to make <> of right wing poli­ti­ci­ans, and seve­ral of Dag­bla­dets edi­tors are self-proclai­med com­mu­nists. Unfor­tu­nately, Nor­we­gian and northern-euro­pean edi­tors are such people. The most influ­en­tial edi­tors in Nor­way, f. example Stang­helle, Gie­ver, Strand, seve­ral in NRK etc., are so influ­en­tial that they, a small group of no more than 20 edi­tors, lite­rally define rea­lity, in Nor­way. The edi­tors in NRK, Aften­pos­ten and VG are referred to as <> by smal­ler media com­pa­nies, and are known for their con­sen­sus-deci­sions and left wing ori­en­ta­tion. The northern-euro­pean medias zero-tole­rance stance towards natio­na­lists the last 68 years has been our greatest pro­blem.

    Alt­hough the bri­tish cul­tural elite admit­ted in 2008/09 that nor­dic brits are in fact indi­genous to the UK, their nor­we­gian colle­agues are still refu­sing to ack­now­ledge the fact that nor­dic-nor­we­gi­ans are indi­genous to Nor­way. These 20 edi­tors are sim­ply refu­sing to discuss the issue, and if you try to stress the issue you will be labe­led as a Nazi and held accoun­table for the jewish holo­caust etc, an effec­tive supres­sion-tac­tic.

    22/7 was an attempt to force these 20 edi­tors, and their colle­agues in the other 12 nor­dic countries into dia­lo­gue with their coun­trys nor­di­cist-move­ments (you call them Nazi-move­ments). The com­pen­dium was an expe­ri­men­tal approach. I wan­ted to try a dif­fe­rent approach by making it impos­sible for the MSM in all 13 nor­dic countries to end the discus­sion, using the Nazi-tac­tic. I was obviously naive enough to think that this approach would lead to a sce­na­rio where there could be a serious discus­sion about the MSMs 68-year witch-hunt and about secu­ring nor­dic sur­vi­val.

    If I could say any­thing to the edi­tors in NRK, TV2, Aften­pos­ten, VG, Dag­bla­det, and their northern-euro­pean colle­agues, it would be; can we please just skip all the false pro­pa­ganda and B.S. and focus on sol­ving these issues through dia­lo­gue. You can start by announ­cing a for­mal apo­logy and declare that the nor­dics are indeed indi­genous to all 13 nor­dic countries. After­wards, you can accept the invi­ta­tion to dia­lo­gue with the nor­di­cist-move­ments. Lets start discus­sing <>. My book; <> descri­bes this peace-plan through 400 pages, but, it has been blocked by nor­we­gian pri­son aut­hori­ties since 11.07.13. Its also impor­tant to note that <> was devel­o­ped after 22/7 and has not­hing to do with the com­pen­dium. Secu­ring the sur­vi­val of our nor­dic race is an issue of utmost urgency. Con­si­der this a for­mal invi­ta­tion to recon­ci­lia­tion-talks, talks which should have taken place in 1945. I would have been able to con­tact the nor­di­cist-lea­ders in all 13 countries, if it werent for the let­ter ban. Whate­ver you choose, know that you, the edi­tors, have the influ­ence to decide wether this con­flict will end. Be smart, choose dia­lo­gue in stead of perse­cution, for the first time in 68 years.

    The rea­son I chose anot­her <> in the com­pen­dium was among other things to pre­vent them from imme­dia­tely ending the ideo­lo­gical discus­sion with their <>- bashing stick. I know a lot of people will be dis­s­apointed when read­ing this, but my love for Israel is limi­ted to its future func­tion as a depor­ta­tion-port for dis­loyal jews. I am aware of the sad fact that all avai­lable sta­ti­s­tics con­firm that only aprox. three per­cent of euro­jews oppose mul­ti­culti (but from an anti-isla­mist per­s­pec­tive), and that only aprox. 0,2 per­cent sup­port nor­dic indi­genous rights. I wish it wasnt so. The rea­son why so cal­led <>, at least the great majority, seemingly <> Israel, is to avoid the above descri­bed supres­sion-tac­tic. How­ever, there is in fact a strong anti-nordicist/ethnocentrist wing wit­hin the coun­ter-jihad move­ment, repre­sented by Fjord­man and his Jewish network, the EDL-lea­der, the SIOE-lea­ders, Wil­ders, Farage etc., but their orga­ni­sa­tions are so heavily infil­trated by nor­di­cists and eth­nocen­trists that its hard to say which wing are actually con­trolling them.

    When dea­ling with media psycho­paths, a good way to coun­ter their tac­tics is to use double-psycho­logy, or at least so I thought. The com­pen­dium was, among other things, of a cal­cu­lated and quite cyni­cal <> (the 2+?+?=6-approach), created to strengt­hen the eth­nocen­trist wing in the con­tra-jihad move­ment, by pin­ning the whole thing on the anti-eth­nocen­trist wing (many of the lea­ders are pro-mul­ti­culti social democrats or libe­ra­lists), while at the same time pro­tec­ting and strengt­he­ning the eth­nocen­trist-factions. The idea was to mani­pu­late the MSM and others so that they would launch a witch-hunt and send their <> against our oppo­nents. It wor­ked quite well.

    I was never kicked out of Storm­front. In stead, I attacked them in the com­pen­dium in order to pro­tect them, as I knew the aut­hori­ties would use the fact that I fre­quented the site, against them, and that an army of left­ist jour­na­lists other­wise would strike hard. I tried to hint about this double-psycho­logy, by quo­ting <> x num­ber of times, but I couldnt make it more obvious, as it had to be cre­dible to the aggres­sive army of 2000 media psycho­paths (the MSM-rape-squad). The <>-tac­tic is one of the oldest in the book. The infil­tra­tion of the Free­ma­sons, followed by the pub­li­ca­tion of the Free­ma­son-pic, was in fact a deli­be­rate and cal­cu­lated attack against them.

    Obviously, none of the above would have wor­ked if it wasnt cre­dible. When I tried to pub­lish three essays descri­bing all of this, on 20.08.12, I was noti­fied about the <> which came into effect 08.08.12. Appa­rently, many people didnt com­pre­hend my deli­be­rate usage of double-psycho­logy, and this is my own fault. In any case, the Fjord­man-network figu­red it out quite early, which explain why they have attacked me so viciously. It wasnt my inten­tion to cause the outing of Fjord­man, with sub­se­quently he being bru­tally media-raped by 200 MSM-psycho­paths. But on the other hand, eth­nocen­trism gai­ned momen­tum at the same time as I mana­ged to pre­vent a sig­ni­fi­cant crackdown against the euro­pean and US nor­di­cist move­ment.

    There has been an active power-struggle between the two factions wit­hin the con­tra-jiha­dist move­ment for years, and the rea­son why its so cri­ti­cally impor­tant to domi­nate and influ­ence this move­ment is because it acts as a <> to mode­rate euro­pean natio­na­list par­ties with a base con­sis­ting of tens of mil­lions of euro­pe­ans. The battle wit­hin the <>-move­ment is in many ways a battle for the future con­tent of northern-euro­pean natio­na­lism. This makes it even more iro­nic that many nor­di­cists and eth­nocent­ric natio­na­lists, Storm­front inclu­ded, still dont know that I sys­te­ma­ti­cally used double-psycho­logy in order to pro­tect them, and in an attempt to pre­vent the mul­ti­culti MSM from using their <>.

    Did I serve the nor­di­cist cause more effec­tively by using this tac­tic, rat­her than using rhe­to­ric which would imme­dia­tely allow them to label me as a nazi? I believe so, but other than me should be the final judge of that.

    When dea­ling with an angry mob of influ­en­tial jour­na­lists and edi­tors repre­sen­ting the worlds most advan­ced pro­pa­ganda machinery, youre fun­da­men­tally screwed no mat­ter how you choose to mane­uvre. Pro­pa­gan­dists will not waste a single second on people they do not view as threats. I could have easily avoi­ded exces­sive pat­ho­logi­sa­tion by kee­ping the mes­sage short and by clin­ging to the alre­ady estab­lis­hed ideo­lo­gical cliff of natio­nal socia­lism (its impor­tant to remem­ber that this was at a time when all right wing radi­cals were labe­led as nazis), but if they had been allowed to label me as a nazi, the ideo­lo­gical con­si­de­ra­tions and discus­sions would be over, and my court-speeches and pro­pa­ganda per­for­mance would never be broad­cas­ted world wide, during the trial. Furt­her­more, people would not be for­ced to seek answers in the com­pen­dium along the way. Regard­less of their efforts, I felt I mana­ged to make the best out of an almost impos­sible situa­tion, despite of the fact that I made a few mis­ta­kes during the process.

    As for my efforts to try to force the edi­tors and ruling poli­ti­ci­ans in each of the 13 nor­dic countries into dia­lo­gue with the nor­di­cist-move­ments, I fai­led mise­rably, not sur­pri­singly. It is after all a theo­re­ti­cal impos­si­bi­lity that a single sol­dier could manage to succeed where potent move­ments have fai­led for 68 years. But eve­ryone should know that 22/7 hap­pe­ned in order to try to force a dia­lo­gue between the chief edi­tors in the <> in all 13 nor­dic countries, and the so cal­led <> in the cor­re­spon­ding countries.

    I remem­ber there was at least one jour­na­list during the trial touching the core of this issue, as he stated; <>. First of all, we are of course fully aware of the fact that you feel you have no other choice than to supress us, due to this rea­son. And you have been bru­tal the past 68 years. This harsh supres­sion and perse­cution has dri­ven thou­sands of natio­na­lists in northern-europe to suicide, somet­hing which expla­ins why these edi­tors dont like to admit to being respon­s­ible for these acts. How­ever, if only more than one out of 5000 nor­dic jour­na­lists could be this honest, 22/7 and aprox. 500 annual natio­na­list and <> attacks could be avoi­ded in the future.

    Of course we under­stand that full scale racial hygiene-pro­gram­mes are dif­fi­cult in todays socie­ties. But if they had just stop­ped their bigo­try for one second and lis­te­ned to what we have to say, they would have learned that we can coexist. First of all, one of the rea­sons the first- and second-gene­ra­tion nor­di­cist lea­ders have fai­led with ente­ring into dia­lo­gue, is because of their <>-stra­tegy. From a “third-gene­ra­tion” point of view, con­si­de­ring that we lost the euro­pean civil war (WW2), the <>-approach has been a com­plete fai­lure, and con­ti­nuing this path is coun­ter-pro­duc­tive, irre­spon­s­ible and may lead to extinc­tion of the nor­dic race. Chan­ging this to an <>-approach is the only way to go. One bird in the hand is bet­ter than ten on the roof. <> is a very good solu­tion and a rea­li­s­tic com­pro­mise.

    I believe I will be able to sell in PY to the vast majority of nor­di­cist-lea­ders in all 13 nor­dic countries, as soon as you lift the let­ter ban. The mes­sage I would send to the chief edi­tors in NRK, TV2, Aften­pos­ten, VG and Dag­bla­det, is; I ask that you sup­port <> in Nor­way, con­tri­bu­ting to a situa­tion where we are allowed to secure nor­dic-nor­we­gian sur­vi­val in <>, a nor­we­gian-nor­dic indi­genous state located in Øst­fold, con­sis­ting of two per­cent of the nor­we­gian ter­ri­tory. Its also a very small price to pay in order to end a 68 year old con­flict. If an agreement is reached you will be free to trans­form 98 per­cent of Nor­way into your multieth­nic and mul­ti­cul­tural uto­pia, wit­hout the risk of facing the alter­na­tive. This model would succeed in northern-Europe, just as it would succeed on a purely poli­ti­cal level – secu­ring peace between <> on one side, and liberalists/social democrats on the other, in countries such as Egypt and Pakis­tan.

    Im quite sure that pro­ject ygg­dra­sil in Nor­way, and in the other 12 nor­dic countries, would solve a con­flict which has been unsolved during the last 68 years. I ask that Im allowed to pre­sent this peace plan to the lead­ing nor­di­cist voi­ces in Nor­way; Tore Tvedt, Varg Viker­nes, Erik Blu­cher, Nico­lay Kvis­ler and others (no need to tar­get them, as they are all non-mili­tant poli­ti­cal acti­vists). Secu­ring nor­dic sur­vi­val is the most impor­tant cause for all of us, and I believe they will be wil­ling to aban­don their <>-approach, for the sake of a small but sover­eign indi­genous state.

    If my assump­tion is cor­rect, then a peace agreement can be reached wit­hin a year, if the chief edi­tors in NRK, TV2, Aften­pos­ten, VG and Dag­bla­det decide to sup­port the plan, and the same could be a rea­lity for the rest of northern-Europe wit­hin two years, if move­ments in these countries follow.

    The for­ming of a par­lia­men­tary basis for the foun­ding of this auto­no­mous nor­we­gian-nor­dic indi­genous state in south-west Øst­fold will only be pos­sible with the back­ing of the edi­tors in these five com­pa­nies, as they define the poli­ti­cal agenda in Nor­way. Not a single par­lia­ment mem­ber in Nor­way will ever dare to back pro­ject ygg­dra­sil wit­hout the bles­sing from the edi­tors in these com­pa­nies.

    If these edi­tors con­ti­nue to refuse to have any­thing to do with me, the above men­tio­ned indi­vi­duals are all capable. They are the unof­fi­cial lea­ders of the nor­we­gian nor­di­cist move­ment, through example, per­so­nal sacri­fice and con­ti­nued effort, whether they like it or not. When the nor­we­gian MSM announ­ced that Fjord­man was my role model and idol, they couldnt be more wrong. These four indi­vi­duals, on the other hand, are all worthy of trust, respect and praise, due to their past and con­ti­nued efforts. Their advice and recom­men­da­tions should be lis­te­ned to by all nor­we­gian natio­na­lists. Furt­her­more, the can­di­dates they sup­port can be trus­ted. I hope they soon will con­tri­bute to take respon­s­i­bi­lity by uni­ting the nor­we­gian natio­na­list move­ment by for­ming an equi­va­lent entity to that of the Swedes Party. The rea­son Im say­ing all of this is because its likely Ill soon be <>, as I wont be able to sur­vive the SHS-pro­gramme for much lon­ger.

    Unfor­tu­nately but not sur­pri­singly, the response from edi­tors to the men­tio­ned infor­ma­tion will eit­her be total silence or even more ridi­cule and pat­ho­logi­sa­tion. After this let­ter Ill pro­bably have +2 con­ditions and +3 per­so­na­lity dis­or­ders, or per­haps the ima­gi­nary <> will end up being worse. But before these edi­tors reject <>, and of course they will; they should ask them-selves; are you 100 per­cent sure that dia­lo­gue and recon­ci­lia­tion-attempts isnt the way for­ward?

    In any case, their limit­less bigo­try and denial, until now, has at least been quite amu­sing.

  • Ole Østeby
  • Ken­tReich­born­Kjen­ne­rud

    Det er vel der­for dette ikke har blitt omtalt. For pres­sen er dette en Catch-22. Der­som kon­klu­sjo­nen til de første retts­opp­nevnte psy­kiatriske eks­per­tene ikke stem­mer, føl­ger det jo at man må til­legge bre­vet hans vekt.

  • Per Steinar Runde

    ABB har aldri vore ver­ken kris­ten eller kon­ser­va­tiv. Det går klart fram av ‘Mani­fes­tet’ hans, jmfr http://www.verdidebatt.no/debatt/cat1/subcat11/thread167530/?next=0

  • Hyse­nio

    For å opp­lyse: Det fins to typer høyre­eks­tre­misme. Den ene er reell og kjenne­teg­nes og best beskri­ves som ytter­lig­gå­ende libe­ra­lisme. Det er de som er mot­stan­der av alt som kan minne om tvun­get fel­les­skap og avvi­ser der­for grep som skatter. De avvi­ser endog begre­pet sam­funn. Det fins kun enkelt­in­di­vi­der og deres abso­lutte fri­het til å bestemme over seg selv. De er over­be­vist at man kan ha et land hvor det er enkelt­in­di­vi­der som av deres frie vilje som går sam­men for å finne løs­nin­ger som kan sikre tje­nes­ter, men sam­ti­dig beskyt­ter enkelt­in­di­vi­dets fri­het. Og for å til­føye: Selv­føl­ge­lig er ytter­lig­gå­ende libe­ra­lis­ter til­hen­ger av at situa­sjo­nen med fri inn­vand­ring blir en rea­li­tet. For hvis en per­son øns­ker å flytte til dette lan­det og bosette seg, så er det jo det eks på fri­he­ter for den enkelte

    Sym­pa­tiske tan­ker om abso­lutte fri­he­ter. Men som tota­li­tære ideo­lo­gier som sosia­lis­men så er det for teorien. Vir­ke­lig­he­tens ver­den vil det ikke fun­gere. For selv om man øns­ker at enkelt­in­di­vi­der kan hån­dere abso­lutt fri­het og være ansvar­lig, så vil det dess­verre være slikt at det fins de enkelt­in­di­vi­der som ikke er ansvar­lige. Da vil de ytter­lig­gå­ende libe­ra­lis­ter være av den opp­fat­ning at disse uan­svar­lige i ytter­ste fall burde ta livet sitt. 

    Dette er den reelle høyre­eks­tre­misme.

    Så har man den kon­stru­erte høyre­eks­tre­misme. Dette begynte med at tota­li­tære sosia­lis­ter av brun/svart type ble “vip­pet over” på mot­satt side. Mens høyre­si­den kjenne­teg­nes av en filo­sofi hvor man vil frem­heve enkelt­in­di­vi­det på bekost­ning av kol­lek­tiv. Og jo len­ger så for­ster­kes denne for­skjel­len hvor man ender opp ute hos de ytter­lig­gå­ende libe­ra­lis­ter som kate­go­risk avvi­ser alt av kol­lek­tiv som ikke er rot­fes­tet i frie valg hos den enkelte. Så skal altså en sosia­lis­tisk ideo­logi av svart/brun karak­ter som for­føl­ger alt og alle som ikke tuter med kol­lek­tive løs­nin­ger skal være “høyre­eks­trem”.

    Siden disse ideo­lo­giske akti­vis­ter som øns­ker å etab­lere slik falsk plas­se­ring har fått råde i sam­funns­de­bat­ten så har det blitt en poli­tisk kor­rekt sann­het. I nyere tid har nyere ideo­lo­giske akti­vis­ter videre­ført etab­le­rin­gen og “fylt opp” med ver­dier som over­ho­det ikke har noe med høyre­eks­tre­misme å gjøre, men som bry­ter med agen­daen til disse ideo­lo­giske akti­vis­ter.

    Disse ideo­lo­giske akti­vis­ter er av den opp­fat­ning:

    Hvis du er litt for glad i lan­det ditt= Høyre­eks­trem

    Hvis du er sym­pa­tisk til tra­di­sjo­nelle ver­dier= Høyre­eks­trem

    Hvis du er kris­ten i for­stå­else av at du avvi­ser poli­ti­se­ring av reli­giøse teks­ter= Høyre­eks­trem

    Hvis du er kri­tisk til udokumentert/overdreven klima­pro­pa­ganda= Høyre­eks­trem

    Den eneste for­nuf­tige respon­sen til de som frem­mer disse ure­de­lige frem­stil­lin­ger er: DU ER EN TOTALITÆR IDEOLOGISK PSYKOPAT. Nå er det tro­lig at det ikke blir sær­lig debatt i etter­kant, men med slike ure­de­lige pre­miss i utgangs­punk­tet så er seriøs poli­tisk debatt umu­lig

    • Kaffer­mann

      Jeg kan nok være enig i ditt reson­ne­ment. Men har du kil­der som støt­ter deg i denne frem­stil­ling? Eller er dette din mening?
      Mine kom­men­ta­rer her var bare for å slenge skyld og til­hø­rig­het til­bake til venstre­si­den etter deres egen logikk, nå som ny info fore­lig­ger.

  • Hvis det er det jeg mener de har til fel­les, så vil de ikke tri­ves i hver­and­res sel­skap.

  • Thor Peder­sen

    nå var jeg hel­dig, gitt. Selv om jeg søkte google på ’ygg­dra­sil’ for å sjek­ker om det var uplet­tet og inna­for før jeg brukte treet som meta­for sist uke – så er det altså et navn han bru­ker på noe han sys­ler med. ahhrgh’