Aeschylus at Marathon. Are we Saved by Love or by Hate?

Aeschylus at Marathon.
Are we Saved by Love or by Hate ?

Once for all, let us clear our minds of cant. Let us rise to the noble honesty of the Greek attitude which faithfully reflected the sanity and the sanctity of Hate. Can we find a more faithful or more inspiring embodiment of this noble pagan position than in the beautiful, hate-breathing epitaph which Aeschylus wrote for himself? Here it is:

Athenian Aeschylus, Euphorion’s son,
Buried in Geta’s fields these lines declare ;
His deeds are registered at Marathon,
Known to the deep-haired Mede, who met him there.

We wish to offer a few observations on one phase of the opinions elicited by our Symposium. We desire to reason in the most patient manner possible with the most misguided beings who have ever obstructed human progress, we mean the well-meaning but deluded Tolstoyans. The Tolstoyans tell us that Love is the only remedy for social misery When the Tolstoyan stands before the victim of oppression and outrage, it is thus that he addresses the suffering man: “It is true that the oppressor has robbed you not only of the chance of a decent existence, but has condemned your wife to life-long starvation and your daughters to prostitution; nevertheless you are still more blessed than your murderer and exploiter because you have done no evil; and you must still love the instrument of your afflictions. You are far more prosperous than he is, although you are in this sorry light, because you have the approval of your conscience even while you are starving, and if you continue to love.him till you starve to death, you will be numbered with.the saints: in glory everlasting.” When the Tolstoyans, mock our miseries with such precious consolations (for I have but reduced their doctrines to their logical, conclusion) I am compelled to say to them that it is such unutterable imbecilities as these which drive us to despair of humanity. Against such stupidities omnipotence itself must contend in vain. While’ these, insanities meet us at every turn, progress, is all but impossible—our perpetual damnation is the only thing of which we can be certain. Tolstoyans tell us that social syncope exists because men do not love enough. We believe in the antithesis of this statement—we believe that, so far.as, it is not inherent in human nature, social misery exists because men do not hate enough. Love rarely inspires thought, and indeed its apostles tell us that with love no thought is necessary, that love is a substitute for thought. No apostle of Hate has ever talked such nonsense—it has never been alleged that Hate is- a substitute for thought, but we have abundant proof that profound hatred has inspired some of the most impressive streams-of thought, some of the most powerful intellects ‘of all time. Karl Marx, quoting George Sand, declares “On the eve bleach general reconstruction of society, the last word, of social science will ever be

“Combat or death ; bloody struggle or extinction,
“It is thus that the question is irresistibly put.”

H. M. Hyndman wrote: “It is precisely the hatred and disgust I feel for the misery, degradation and physical deterioration around me which had more influence in making and keeping me a Social Democrat than anything else.” William Morris, writing on “How I Became a Socialist,” says: “To sum up then, the study of history and the love and practice of art forced me into a hatred of [the existing] civilisation.”

In a world whose characteristics were prevailingly “lovely,” love would best become a man, but in a world whose leading features are to the last degree unlovely, hypocritical and hateful, hate is the only sentiment an honest man can entertain. Hence it follows that in this predominantly hateful world, men of hate leave their impress on every page of history, while men of love, with their pale and ineffectual negations, have their day and cease to be. Hannibal, Napoleon, Nelson, Danton, Mirabea, Byron, Attilla, Morris, Marx, Proudhon— these names stand as sublime coefficients of vast streams of Hate.

What are the greatest events in modern history, its most inspiring episodes? They are: Tell, Hampden, Milton, or Cromwell, hating and resisting the tyrant to the death; Nelson’s exploits with his middies, inspired to glorious deeds by their hatred of Napoleon and the French; Napoleon’s achievements with his Grenadiers, whose inspiring motive was hatred, first, of their own aristocracy, and then of the enemies of the Eagle Paris razing the Bastille, France liquidating eight centuries of misery, Patrick Henry exclaiming “If this be treason make the most of it”; the embattled farmers firing at the Bridge of Concord (Discord) rather the shot heard round the world, the shot of which Emerson wrote: “Their deed of blood all mankind praise, Even the serene reason says, It was well “done”; Victor Hugo pouring the vials of his hate upon Napoleon the Little. These are the inspirations of Hate and they are among the noblest chapters of human history.

The great Haters are the great Lovers. Love Which does not hate the hateful as prpfoundly as it loves the lovely is mere hyprocrisy. Let us seriously ask the question, Do the predominant characteristics of the present age attract or repel an honest soul—in- other words, is our present age hateful or the reverse? We ought to base our answer upon the opinions of those whose honesty, capacity and experience entitle them to pronounce judg- ment on this issue. We present a series of such opinions in the sonde VIA HELLOROSA (see below). Those whom we have quoted are not journalists, statesmen, or Doctors of Divinity—but perhaps are not less trustworthy on that account. We believe that a consideration of the unbought opinions of Hugo, Heine, Lemennais, etc., will convince any free mind that-the world has now reached the most murderous, most hypocritical, most hateful stage of social evolution known to history.- Shall we love or shall We hate this horrible epoch which has been cursed by the united execrations of Heine, Hugo, Marx, Proudhon, Nietzsche, Shaw, Tucker, Morris, Redbeard, and Wallace? Surely, not to hate in the profoundest possible manner, such an era, which presents an apotheosis of legitimised assassination and worshipped hypocrisy) is to confess oneself a defender of assassins and a devotee of prostitutes and pirates. When one considers the systematic slaughter of the young and helpless, when one ponders the malign influence of our boasted institutions upon thousands of young men and young women, robbing them, as it does, of their unreturning May time and condemning them to lives of unescapable ignorance, bitterness and vice, institutions which murder thousands to give to a few, luxuries as maleficent as the evils they rest upon, when one has circumnavigated this continent and sub-continent of misery, then one asks oneself the question, How can I sufficiently bate and curse this frightful epoch with which I am fatally contemporaneous?

Let us then, like Aeschylus of old, go forth to meet the Mede which threatens the self-realisation of the Free, with a spirit of Hate as unalterable as his own laws, and in a mariner that he will be able to appreciate. If time permit, let us give our enemy a decent burial on the field of our vindication, and if time do not permit we shall leave the dead to bury their dead. But on our field of Marathon we shall erect, with due libations, a trophy of accomplished Hate and Love—of Love for ourselves and our own, of Hate for all that threatens us and ours.

JOAN ERWIN MCCALL, Founder of the Religion of Hate.

“No Man’s Land” – free ebook by Jack Donovan

It’s free, but there’s a donate link on Jack’s site. If you don’t donate, YOU SHOULD AT LEAST POST A LINK SOMEWHERE. Facebook, twitter, whatever.

Optimally, you should do both.

I paid $2. It’s a small amount, but I’m doing what I’m recommending others do.

The following three-chapter arc was originally intended to be part of a book project called “The Way of Men.” The Way of Men is not about feminism, but most popular writing about masculinity is written by feminists, or men who have accepted a handful of feminist assumptions. My intent here was to locate my own understanding of masculinity within the context of a larger discussion about men that has been happening for the past several decades. I wanted to engage the arguments of others in a comprehensive way and extract common themes. I wanted to “show my work.”

Together, these chapters form a short book about the way that masculinity has been maligned, re-imagined and mis-represented by others.

I have decided to make this book No Man’s Land available for free online, because I hope that this material will be useful to other men who are writing about masculinity, feminism, the men’s movement and conflicts between masculinity and civilization. While I have a stack of books on masculinity that come from the establishment—from university presses and from writers approved by the mainstream media—the most interesting writing about masculinity is happening online. You can cite a book, but you can’t quite link to it—not exactly, anyway.

 

Go to the site to download and donate.

WORD NERD :: my first urban dictionary definition :: offenditarian

UPDATE: A perfect example of the offenditarian at work: http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-coming-church-state-wars

… I was asked… what should be done about Muslim students at Catholic University demanding that the school provide them with prayer rooms, from which crucifixes and all other Catholic symbols that they found offensive had been removed.
After a nanosecond I replied, “Kick ‘em out!”

Looking further into the matter, that was a rush to judgment.
For it seems that not a single Muslim student at CUA had gone to the District of Columbia Office of Human Rights to file a complaint.
That complaint was the work of John Banzhaf, a professor at GW, perennial litigant, and longtime contender for the title of National Pest.
In provocative language, Banzhaf told Fox News,
“It shouldn’t be too difficult to set aside a small room where Muslims can pray without having to stare up and be looked down upon by a cross of Jesus.
“They do have to pray five times a day, and to be sitting there trying to do Muslim prayers with a big cross looking down or a picture or Jesus or a picture of the pope is not very conducive to their religion.”

ORIG. POST BELOW

Thanks for your definition of offenditarian!

Editors reviewed your entry and have decided to publish it on urbandictionary.com.

It should appear on this page in the next few days:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=offenditarian

Urban Dictionary

—–

offenditarian

A portmanteau of “offended” and “humanitarian”. It describes someone who has made a lifestyle out of finding deep offense in most any situation. Usually offense is found “on behalf” of other people who represent a definable group that the offenditarian themselves are clearly not a part of.
This is usually to make a display of “solidarity”, an important word in the lexicon of offenditarians.
There is a strict hierarchy of human value, with handicapable African American lesbian female gendered womyn taking the top spot, and white cysgendered males being “worth” only 1/16th of the former.
The irony of offenditarianism is that if one becomes offended on behalf of someone higher on the value scale, the person higher up can use that to then become offended by the “patronizing,” “colonialist” mindset of the offenditarian.

“Why is that girl running down the street and screaming at the ice cream truck?”
“The driver is wearing all white, a trademark outfit of early 20th Century eugenicists.”
“Is the ice cream man a eugenicist?”
“No, but the girl is afraid someone might think he is, she is an offenditarian.”

New edition of Richard Lynn’s “Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations” out now…

I’ve had Richard Lynn’s 1996 book on my wish list for years now, but they’re always priced at well over $100. I’ve seen copies as much as $400.

Hoorah-hooray, it’s been reprinted and updated and is available for a much more reasonable (to the average schmo like me) $39 for the US.

There’s even a free preview PDF available on the publisher’s website, if you’d like to take a peek: http://ulsterinstitute.com/

Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech

This is the full text of Enoch Powell’s so-called ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech, which was delivered to a Conservative Association meeting in Birmingham on April 20 1968.

Reposted from the Telegraph.co.uk website.

—-
The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.

One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.

Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: “If only,” they love to think, “if only people wouldn’t talk about it, it probably wouldn’t happen.”

Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.

At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.

A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries.

After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: “If I had the money to go, I wouldn’t stay in this country.” I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn’t last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: “I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan’t be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years’ time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.”

I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?

The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children.

I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking – not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.

In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General’s Office.

There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.

As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several parliaments ahead.

The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: “How can its dimensions be reduced?” Granted it be not wholly preventable, can it be limited, bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent.

The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping, or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party.

It almost passes belief that at this moment 20 or 30 additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week – and that means 15 or 20 additional families a decade or two hence. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancés whom they have never seen.

Let no one suppose that the flow of dependants will automatically tail off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 25,000 dependants per annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of existing relations in this country – and I am making no allowance at all for fraudulent entry. In these circumstances nothing will suffice but that the total inflow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures be taken without delay.

I stress the words “for settlement.” This has nothing to do with the entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this country, for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like (for instance) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than would otherwise have been possible. They are not, and never have been, immigrants.

I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so.

Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party’s policy: the encouragement of re-emigration.

Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent.

Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the prospects.

The third element of the Conservative Party’s policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no “first-class citizens” and “second-class citizens.” This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.

There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it “against discrimination”, whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong.

The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming.

This is why to enact legislation of the kind before parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is that they know not what they do.

Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the United States, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no discrimination between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment under the National Health Service.

Whatever drawbacks attended the immigrants arose not from the law or from public policy or from administration, but from those personal circumstances and accidents which cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be different from another’s.

But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.

They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. They now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by act of parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.

In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine.

I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak for me:

“Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.

“The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two Negroes who wanted to use her ‘phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates, she has less than £2 per week. “She went to apply for a rate reduction and was seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were Negroes, the girl said, “Racial prejudice won’t get you anywhere in this country.” So she went home.

“The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house – at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. “Racialist,” they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.”

The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word “integration.” To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members.

Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction.

But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.

We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population – that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.

Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man’s hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a Labour Member of Parliament who is a minister in the present government:

‘The Sikh communities’ campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.’

All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.

For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood.”

That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century.

Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.

Scene from the London race riots of 2011.

Response from Massimo Introvigne

I will be writing a blog on Breivik and the misinformation of connecting him to the Church of Satan as an organization. Until then, I have recieved permission to post Dr. Introvigne‘s response to my previous letter.

Response from Massimo Introvigne:

Thank you for your comments. If you are in contact with (inter alia) Jim Lewis, he can easily confirm to you that in all my publications (including a 600-page manual of Satanism used in a number of Italian and French universities) I have never indulged in slander or defamation of the Church of Satan – my quarrels have been mostly with anti-cultists and moral entrepeneurs promoting moral panics about Satanism.. My text was posted a few hours before your postings at http://www.cesnur.org/2011/mi-oslo-en.html and may have included some factual mistakes I will be glad to correct.

These comments are:
1) “was first made publicly available on the Internet by Kevin Slaughter, an ordained minister in Anton LaVey (1930-1997)’s Church of Satan which, by the way, has a sizeable following in Norway” which I will change into “was first made largely available on the Internet by Kevin Slaughter, who found it on Stormfront.org, a white supremacist forum. Slaughter is an ordained minister in Anton LaVey (1930-1997)’s Church of Satan which, by the way, has a sizeable following in Norway”

2) “In a way, it is not surprising that Breivik had friends even in LaVey’s Church of Satan. The latter became popular in Scandinavia by flirting with right-wing extremists with an anti-immigration agenda and, rather than occultism, emphasized a “rationalist” approach to a celebration of freedom and capitalism largely based on the writings of the Russian-born American novelist Ayn Rand (1905-1982). Rand is listed by both LaVey and Breivik among their favorite authors (of course, this is not to suggest that the Church of Satan had anything to do with the Oslo tragedy).” (note last parenthesis). I will change it into “In a way. It is not surprising that Breivig caught the interest even of a member of LaVey’s Church of Satan, although there is no evidence of any direct contact etc.”

Best regards
Dr Massimo Introvigne

 

Again, I will be writing more on the topic, but even with Massimo’s proposed changes he is still “poisoning the well” when it comes to the assessment of Breivik’s motivations. There is no evidence that he was familiar with Satanism as codified by Anton LaVey and represented by the Church of Satan, and even though the parenthetical statement says just that, there is still an implication that the affiliation of someone who found a piece of evidence and produced it freely has an implication on the person who produced that evidence. It may be interesting or even ironic that a priest in the Church of Satan found and made available the manifesto to all comers as an act of “amateur investigation”, but only on a superficial level, as it would have been just as interesting had it been a professional clown or Russian cosmonaut.

An open letter to Massimo Introvigne….

The following letter has been e-mailed and facebook messaged to Introvigne, and I have made and inquiry by twitter as well.

——

Mr. Introvigne,
It appears to me that you have claimed, or it is being interpreted that you’ve stated that I received Breivik’s Manifesto from him, and that he was in direct contact with either myself or someone else from the Church of Satan.
On my personal blog where the manifesto was first posted, and all the original news reporting has made it clear that I found the manifesto on a forum (Stormfront.org) after the terrorist acts had taken place and that I have not ever been in contact with, nor even hear Breivik’s name before the Oslo terrorism.

See:http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/07/23/what_did_the_oslo_killer_want , the author was one of the first people I contacted after I found the manifesto, and he states “The manifesto… was posted on Stormfront.org, a white supremacist website, and discovered by American blogger Kevin I. Slaughter”.

You can see by the date stamps on my personal blog and by my twitter history when I found the document and tried contacting someone about it.

In http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=52474&pageid&pagename you state “In a way, it is not surprising that Breivik had friends even in LaVey’s Church of Satan.”

What information do you have that Breivik was in contact with myself or another member of the Church of Satan? I have revealed everything I have related to Breivik on my blog, where is your proof of this claim, being repeated time and again?

Thanks,
Kevin I. Slaughter

Massimo Introvigne has never contacted me….

STATEMENT: It appears that Massimo Introvigne is fabricating and spreading unchecked rumors and making unfounded implications. It is being snatched up by various media online and off that are in turn interpreting his implications for their own ends.
It has clearly been stated that I have never heard of or communicated with Breivik before he committed his acts, and that I found the Manifesto while looking for information on a message board.
I am working to clarify what statements have been made by Introvigne and what has been embellished by the media.

Anders Behring Breivik | Is this the e-mail he sent to friends with 2083 Manifesto?

UPDATE, July 28th, 10am – It has started showing up, in the foreign press mostly, that Breivik was in contact with me. It was clearly stated multiple times where and when I found this document online. I had not heard of or been in contact with Breivik or this document before his terrorist actions in Norway. 

—————

4:35PM
Someone forwarded me the following, I don’t have a way to verify as the header information was stripped. As with the manifesto, CAVEAT EMPTOR!

Here is a .zip file of the docx from the email (since I only posted a PDF I’d made earlier:

2083 – A European Declaration of Independence

I don’t know if this it “out” already, but I can’t find it in the mess of links that now refer to him. Either way, here is the supposed email.

Copied and pasted directly from my e-mail, though my “blockquote” style puts things in italics it seems:

Subject: The Islamisation of Western Europe and the status of the European Resistance Movements
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 14:08:50 +0200

Western European patriot,

I’m hereby sending you my new compendium (3 books); “2083 – A European Declaration of Independence”, in Word 97 format, which includes the following main topics:

1. The ongoing Islamisation of Western Europe

2. The current state of the Western European Resistance Movements (anti-Marxist/anti-Jihad movements)

3. Solutions for Western Europe and how we, the cultural conservative resistance, should move forward in the coming decades

4. And covering all, highly relevant topics including solutions and strategies for all of the 8 different political fronts

 

The compendium/book presents advanced ideological, practical, tactical, organisational and rhetorical solutions and strategies for all patriotic-minded individuals/movements. The book will be of great interest to you whether you are a moderate or a more dedicated cultural conservative/nationalist.

After years of work the first edition of the compendium “2083” is completed. If you have received this e-mail and book, you are either a former Facebook friend or you are the friend of my Facebook friend. If you are concerned for the future of Western Europe you will definitely find the information both interesting and highly relevant.

I have spent several years researching and compiling the information and I have spent most of my hard earned funds in this process (in excess of 300 000 Euros). I do not want any compensation for the work as it is a gift to you, as a fellow patriot.

The content of the compendium truly belongs to everyone and is available to be distributed non-commercially in any way or form. In fact, I ask only one favour of you; I ask that you distribute this book to everyone you know. Please do not think that others will take care of it. Sorry to be blunt, but it does not work out that way. If we, the Western European Resistance, fail or become apathetic, then Western Europe will fall, and your liberties with it…  It is essential and very important that everyone is at least presented with the truth before our systems come crashing down within 2 to 7 decades. So again, I humbly ask you to re-distribute the book to as many patriotic minded individuals as you can. I am 100% certain that the distribution of this compendium to a large portion of European patriots will contribute to ensure our victory in the end. Because within these three books lies the tools required to win the ongoing Western European cultural war, the war against the anti-European hate ideology known as multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism (cultural Marxism/political correctness), as you might know, is the root cause of the ongoing Islamisation of Europe which has resulted in the ongoing Islamic colonisation of Europe through demographic warfare and conquest. This compendium presents the solutions and explains exactly what is required of each and every one of us in the coming decades. Everyone can and should contribute in one way or another, it’s just a matter of will.

I hope you enjoy this compendium. It currently offers the most comprehensive database of solution oriented subjects. As mentioned, I only ask one thing from you; that you distribute this book to your friends and ask them to forward it to “their” friends, especially to individuals who have a patriotic mindset. Please help us and help yourself, your family and friends by contributing to spread the tools which will ensure our victory; for the truth must be known… It is not only our right but also our duty to contribute to preserve our identity, our culture and our national sovereignty by preventing the ongoing Islamisation. There is no Resistance Movement if individuals like us refuse to contribute…

Time is of the essence. We have only a few decades to consolidate a sufficient level of resistance before our major cities are completely demographically overwhelmed by Muslims. Ensuring the successful distribution of this compendium to as many Europeans as humanly possible will significantly contribute to our success. It may be the only way to avoid our present and future dhimmitude (enslavement) under Islamic majority rule in our own countries.

I have been unable to send this compendium to many people, for various reasons, so I truly hope you will be willing to contribute.

This compendium is sent to you in the Word 2007 – docx format. If you do not have MS Word 2007 or newer you may get a “2007 Word Viewer” at no cost at the main Microsoft site or just get a trial version.

 

Opening a docx file

Microsoft introduced the .docx  file format in its 2007 Office and Word applications and wants it to replace the commonly used doc format. The problem with the change from doc to docx is that many users are still working with prior versions of Word (XP in particular) or no Microsoft product at all and face the problem that they can’t load the docx file because it is not supported in their application.

 

Older versions of Microsoft Office or Microsoft Word:

Older versions such as Office XP do not support the docx format because it was not known when they were developed and sold. A simple way to read docx and xlsx files is to select one of the following options:

 

1. For Word XP or older versions – install the Microsoft Compatibility Pack which adds support for the new file formats, or;

2. Download Word 97 viewer or newer, or;

3. You can use the Open XML Translator for Open Office to be able to read and edit docx files with Open Office, or;

4. The free online docx converter lets you convert docx documents. This is a pretty good solution if you don’t want to install the previously mentioned add-ons. Remember, gaining access to this compendium will be well worth your time!

 

For translation from English to another language I would recommend the Google translation engine as a short term solution.

Sincere and patriotic regards,

Andrew Berwick, London, England – 2011

 

Justiciar Knight Commander for Knights Templar Europe and one of several leaders of the National and pan-European Patriotic Resistance Movement

With the assistance from brothers and sisters in England, France, Germany, Sweden, Austria, Italy, Spain, Finland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, the US etc.