Varg Vikernes on Anders Behring Breivik

Browsing and perusing through the official website of Varg Vikernes, I found an article written by Varg Vikernes released on the 24th of July 2011, entitled War in Europe: Part I - Cui bono?. As a Norwegian citizen and self-proclaimed proponent of pre-Christian Germanic and Norse paganism, Varg has written this article critical of the Norwegian Judeo-Christian and Zionist terrorist Anders Behring Breivik responsible for the 2011 Norway attacks that took place on July 22. Varg is best know as the musician of the black metal band Burzum, the convicted arsonist responsible for burning several Norwegian churches, and the convicted murderer of Øystein "Euronymous" Aarseth. While I do not endorse Varg's anti-Jewish sentiment, I decided to post this entry to provide a contrast between two Norwegians with very different worldviews.

Here is the article:

Many argue that Mr. Breivik was in fact executing orders from Mossad, to punish the Palestine-loving Marxist-governed Norway, but first and foremost to create a false banner for misinformed right-wing extremists to unite under, and that what he was doing was a "false flag" operation.

His manifest is vast, some 1500 pages, and he is pretty thorough in both what he says and what he did. There are a few facts that doesn't make sense to me. How can he list all the problems caused by different Jews in our history and yet fail to mention even one of them with a single word in his manifest? He attacks the symptoms of the disease Europe is suffering under, but not the cause of the disease.

He is a Freemason too, and that certainly doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Freemasonry is international Jewry at it's worst; they too are working for a de-construction of all nations on Earth, and to build a global Hebrew temple, enslaving us all under the will of the Jews and their servants, the Freemasons. Well, this explains why he doesn't say a word about the creators of all the different religions and ideologies now set up to fight against each other.

He is a Christian too. Now, in a sense that does make sense, but why does it make sense? The Jews created Christianity as a religion for non-Jews to follow, so that they too would become worshippers of their Hebrew false "God", so that the unruly Pagan Europeans would become servants and a powerful tool for the Jews. Whether the Jews created Islam too, or whether they just saw an opportunity coming when it was created is not known, but we do know that the Jews have always promoted conflict between these two religions and indeed they still do. When the Christians grow too strong the Jews support the Muslims to weaken the Christians. When the Muslims grow too strong the Jews support the Christians to weaken the Muslims. They often support both sides too, if both sides are too strong, and they often do in secret. Christians then kill Muslims, and vice versa, whilst the Jews laugh safely in the background, profiting from it all.

Mr. Breivik either went straight into their trap, like so many Christians have done in the past and still do, or he works knowingly for them, again like so many Christians have done in the past and still do. The Christians and the Muslims, ladies and gentlemen, are but soldiers/cannon fodder for the Jews in their mission to enslave us all under their rule.

What Mr. Breivik has said is largely true, in all except in what he doesn't say; he doesn't tell us that the Jews are the origin to all these problems, and that they were created by the Jews to hurt us. All we have to do to make this act of violence favourable to us is to make this clear to everyone; the Jews created Marxism, feminism, Christianity (need I tell you that Jesus and not least Paulus/Saul were both Jews?), so-called psychology, banking ("money lending"), the hippie-movement and all other ideologies and movements which are aimed to destroy and de-construct all nations in Europe. Behind each and every one of them you will find a Jew (or some times a Freemason)!

How could you miss that out, Mr. Breivik?

Working for the Jews, are you Mr. Breivik, to unite all European right-wing extremists under your false banner? To make sure the focus on the Jewish enemy of Europe is moved to something else? Or maybe you don't even know that you have been used by sinister Jews?

So now not only Christians kill Muslims, and vice versa. Right wing extremists are supposed to kill left-wing extremists too and vice versa I assume? Is that the plan? You did this to recruit and make even the right-wing extremists fight for the Jews?

Who benefits from this? Israel does! The Jews do! None of our aggression will be directed at them were it all should be directed. We will be fighting each other instead, whilst they move about in the background, out of the spotlight, and profit from our suffering, and in secret tighten the chains of slavery around our waists and ankles.

Oh, and by the way; true nationalists don't kill children of their own nation, even if someone tries to brainwash them, like AUF did. They were not (yet) Marxist extremists; they were just children.

Varg Vikernes
Bergen the 24th of July 2011

PS. You are free to send this article to everyone you know, and I hope you do. Translate it and publish it if you can. I claim no copyright or reproduction right to the contents of this article!

Noam Chomsky and William F. Buckley, Jr. Debate the Vietnam War

I finally snatched the full debate for your convenience.

And the War Has Only Just Begun

To the lost children

Political Discourse and the Burden of Proof

Stateless Socialism: Anarchism by Mikhail Bakunin

 "Anarchism is stateless socialism." —Mikhail Bakunin

Excerpted from "The Political Philosophy of Bakunin" by G.P. Maximoff:

The Program of a Free Society. Outside of the Mazzinian system which is the system of the republic in the form of a State, there is no other system but that of the republic as a commune, the republic as a federation, a Socialist and a genuine people's republic—the system of Anarchism. It is the politics of the Social Revolution, which aims at the abolition of the State, and the economic, altogether free organization of the people, an organization from below upward, by means of a federation.

...There will be no possibility of the existence of a political government, for this government will be transformed into a simple administration of common affairs.

Our program can be summed up in a few words:

Peace, emancipation, and the happiness of the oppressed.

War upon all oppressors and all despoilers.

Full restitution to workers: all the capital, the factories, and all instruments of work and raw materials to go to the associations, and the land to those who cultivate it with their own hands.

Liberty, justice, and fraternity in regard to all human beings upon the earth.

Equality for all.

To all, with no distinction whatever, all the means of development, education, and upbringing, and the equal possibility of living while working.

Organizing of a society by means of a free federation from below upward, of workers associations, industrial as well as a agricultural, scientific as well as literary associations—first into a commune, then a federation communes into regions, of regions into nations, and of nations into international fraternal association.

The Source Is Peripheral

1. "The source of information merely has peripheral significance."
2. "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."—Aldous Huxley
3. "Unquestioned assumptions are the real authorities of any culture."—Robert Combs (quoted by Derrick Jensen)

All too often I receive criticism for quoting or promoting a video of Alex Jones, Michael Tsarion, Robert Anton Wilson, Noam Chomsky, or Christopher Hitchens. Because some or all of these individuals have noticeable personality problems, abnormal mannerisms, or some strange views, their commentary on social issues sometimes typifies subjectively skewed perspectives. Consequently, referencing these individuals is usually stigmatized. Obviously, someone's personal dogmas and a priori assumptions can easily diminish their credibility, and for a philosopher or a mere news reporter with talking points, credibility is a very real phenomenon. However, what truly irritates me is when I upload a video of one of these individuals because I happen to agree with their particular talking points in that specific video, and I receive criticism because some of their views are clearly flawed. But usually their flawed views are not represented in the video I uploaded, which makes those flawed views irrelevant. I understand that individuals have varying degrees of credibility, but the source of information is relevant only in a peripheral sense. I typically agree with some of their talking points and disagree with others. I agree with Alex Jones when he says we are living in a scientific dictatorship ruled by elites, and when he says that the Left-Right paradigm is a false dichotomy. I agree with him when he says that proponents of globalization are implementing gradualism and incrementalism to create a police-state. However, I have difficulty aligning with his insistence on securing our borders. I agree with Noam Chomsky on many things, but I disagree with his insistence that "guns are too easy to get." Come to think of it, I have never met an individual with whom I have agreed with entirely. This is food for thought for you to chew on. Give it some time to sink in and take root.

The Relevance of Proportional Representation and Participatory Democracy

The purpose of this article is to explain under what conditions would a proportional representation (PR) electoral system be preferable to a Single-Member Plurality District (SMPD) electoral system and its characteristic disproportionality. If we agree that democracy is good and that a PR system is more democratic than SMPD, then we have determined at least one instance in which PR is preferable to SMPD. So why is proportional representation preferable? Proportional representation promotes decentralization of power in addition to strengthening political legitimacy, democratic values, and it compliments popular sovereignty. So to answer the question presented, I think that under any and all conditions, proportional representation is preferable to SMPD, and I will explain why.

We cannot talk about what constitutes the best government, but we can talk about what might be the least harmful form of governance. Comparatively speaking, proportional representation is less harmful than SMPD systems. This is partly due to the fact that more groups of the population get represented in PR electoral systems, so the interests of more people are being considered. This compliments what advocates of popular sovereignty want. In countries where PR is utilized, such as France, women make up a larger segment of the vote because national party elites choose who is nominated and who sits near the top of the party list on the ballot. In France, national party elites have chosen to use this power to put women towards the top of the party list on the ballot, and consequently, more women are elected. As a matter of fact, women make up half the ticket in most elections. However, women are only one example among others. More political ideologies become represented in PR systems, where ideas are allowed to compete more freely than they are in SMPD systems. SMPD systems, particularly in the United States, are primitive and prevent a diversity of philosophies from influencing not only political discourse but also the concrete world in which we live. In the United States, politically-mobilized (active) cleavages typically represent anti-concepts and false dichotomies, namely the Liberal-Conservative paradigm.

Neoconservative cheerleaders parade around campaigns championing slogans that promote limited government, but when limited government conflicts with their traditional values, they hypocritically go back on their word and favor traditional values over limited government. A couple examples of this include the War on Drugs and same-sex marriage. This false dichotomy prevents meaningful, sensible voting. This false dichotomy promotes inconsistency.

Democracy is a hot topic and buzz word striking the attention of most people, especially Americans nowadays. Much discourse in democratic theory fails to meet a consensus over what constitutes democracy. From the perspective of many, certain systems, especially proportional representation, are more democratic by nature than others. Thus, if we argue that a democratic system is valuable and wanted, we can proclaim that a proportional representation system is valuable as long as we agree that proportional representation is democratic. If we postulate that democracy is good, then a system exhibiting substantial traits of democracy is also good. Democracy is typically justified by its proponents as being fair, so the system that we should devise needs to be fair. According to its proponents, it is justified on the grounds of utilitarianism, which includes judging actions according to whether they offer the greatest benefit to the greatest number. The system we should devise needs to accompany utilitarian values and provide the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people. This also causes democracy to be criticized by its detractors for majoritarianism or mob absolutism. Most people would not promote democracy on the grounds that because the majority agreed on something, it has a higher truth value. An argument such as this is an ad populum fallacy. Instead, democracy is justified on the grounds that it is fair. If democracy is good because it is fair, and a proportional representation electoral system is fair, then proportional representation is good and desirable. The United States Government is an example of an electoral system constructed as a Single-Member Plurality District, which basically prevents third-party candidates, such as Green Party candidates and Libertarian Party candidates from gaining seats in the legislature, which also makes it increasingly difficult to win the presidency for third-party candidates. This is why some people argue that the United States is not really a democracy or at least not democratic enough. As an SMPD system, the Founding Fathers devised the United States to be a system that prevents radical change and make it difficult for changes to take place. This premeditated resistance to change caused the political activist Emma Goldman to say, "If voting changed anything, they would make it illegal." 

People have argued that America is not a democracy for various reasons. Citing the ideas of Robert A. Dahl, Noam Chomsky has proclaimed that the United States is a polyarchy, not a democracy. Most would agree that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. Whatever their reasons for arguing that the U.S. is not a democracy, I do not consider SMPD systems democratic because they fall short of the democratic ideal, which involves the election results being proportional to the voting of the election’s participants. Because I value democracy, I think the U.S. should become a PR system.

PR does a better job of exemplifying popular sovereignty, which I consider desirable because more people and more ideologies are being represented. I know this because I know that people do vote for third-party candidates who do not end up holding seats in the legislature. PR is democratic and therefore, is a much more participatory system meaning that the participation of its citizens has more impact on the government’s political future than an electoral system built on SMPD. Technically, because proportional representation is a variant of a representative democracy, it is not a variant of a participatory system. Representative democracies are not considered a form of participatory democracy. Nonetheless, PR lubricates the transition from representative democracy to participatory democracy a lot more than an SMPD system ever could.

Read Also:

Participatory democracy
Plurality voting system
Single-winner voting system
Gerrymandering
Proportional representation