Counter-Currents
Brenton Tarrant
1,618 words
Here we go again. It happens now with depressing regularity: a white man who is alarmed at white ethnic displacement goes to a place of worship used by non-whites and starts shooting.
- On Saturday, October 27, 2018, a 46-year-old white man, Robert Bowers, was arrested for entering the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, killing eleven people and wounding six others, including four police officers.
- On Sunday, January 29, 2017, a 27-year-old white man, Alexandre Bissonnette, entered the Islamic Cultural Center in Quebec City, Canada, killed six Muslims gathered for prayer, and injured eight more.
- On Wednesday, June 17, 2015, a 21-year-old white man, Dylann Storm Roof, entered the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, killed nine blacks gathered for Bible study, and injured three more.
- On Sunday, August 5, 2012, a 40-year-old white man, Wade Michael Page, a racist skinhead, opened fire at a Sikh temple near Milwaukee, killing six worshipers and wounding three others. He then shot and killed himself.
And now it has happened again:
- On Friday, March 15, 2019, a 28-year-old white man, Brenton Tarrant, reportedly entered the Al Noor Mosque and the Linwood Islamic Centre in Christchurch, New Zealand, killing at least 49 people and wounding 40 others.
Because these shootings all follow the same basic pattern, I have created a boilerplate article responding to them:
- “Understanding the Pittsburgh Synagogue Massacre“
- “Understanding the Quebec Mosque Massacre“
- “Understanding the Charleston Church Massacre“
- “Understanding the Sikh Temple Massacre“
The basic argument is always the same. I just need to change a few of the particulars.
As a white person, I look down upon the criminals among us. I do not reflexively defend and glorify them. This was a terrible act: immoral, illegal, and politically damaging to white interests. I hope Tarrant receives a fair trial and just punishment, but that seems unlikely given the racially charged atmosphere in New Zealand today.
We obviously don’t know all the facts yet, but based on the manifesto attributed to Tarrant entitled “The Great Replacement,” Tarrant believes that whites are being replaced in our homelands by fast-breeding non-whites, including Muslims. This is absolutely correct.
But why did he go on a killing spree? Apparently, he wanted to increase tensions between whites and non-whites, and between treasonous white elites and white populations slated for replacement, in the hope that through a sudden explosion of ethnic violence, white demographic decline could be halted and reversed.
I am sure many more facts will come to light in the coming months and at Tarrant’s trial. But still, I can say three things with confidence.
First, this could not have happened in a homogeneously white society. It could not have happened if the Al Noor Mosque and the Linwood Islamic Centre were located in the Muslim world, for instance. I have no desire to absolve Brenton Tarrant, much less blame his victims. But he would not be a killer, and his victims would not be dead, if New Zealand were not pursuing a policy of multiculturalism and race-replacement, and if Moslems had not taken a leading role in invading and colonizing European lands, committing heinous acts of terrorism and mass sexual assault.
When different peoples are forced to live together in the same system, frictions are inevitable. These frictions give rise to misunderstandings, distrust, alienation, and long-simmering resentments, which flare up into hatred, violence, and social upheaval. Tarrant’s actions are predictable consequences of multiculturalism. Sadly, we will only see more such violence until white nations regain their sanity and reverse multiculturalism.
Thus the New Right stands for the principle of racial divorce. It is time for whites and non-whites to go our separate ways and pursue our own destinies. We stand for the creation of separate racially homogeneous societies, through the peaceful and humane process of redrawing borders and shifting populations.
In the case of recent immigrant populations, the best solution is for them to return to their homelands. I also think that is the best solution for groups like Jews, Japanese, and Chinese who have been in New Zealand for a long time but still maintain strong ties to their homelands. In the case of the indigenous Maori, territorial partition or semi-autonomous reservations would seem to be in order.
Second, we should resist dismissing Tarrant with the all-too-easy claim that he was “crazy.” Yes, Tarrant did something evil and stupid. But Tarrant’s underlying motive — fear of white race replacement — is not irrational or insane. It is a healthy reaction to objective facts. All white people have innate ethnocentric tendencies, wired deep in our brains. We love our own and we fear strangers. As diversity increases, all of us will bear increased psychic costs, even those who pursue wealth and status by selling out their own people in favor of foreigners.
Tarrant and people like him may be nothing more than canaries in a coal mine: the first to sense the presence of a threat to the survival of us all. Tarrant may have just been abnormally sensitive to the terrible psychic consequences of losing control of our society to aliens: stress, alienation, anger, hatred, rage, etc. This heightened sensitivity might also go along with a whole suite of other abnormal traits. But we dismiss people like Tarrant at our own risk. For in the end, all of us will feel the same effects — unless we heed the warning signs and turn back the rising tide of color.
Third, Tarrant’s “solution” to his rage and alienation — killing innocent people — just makes the racial situation worse rather than better. We will surely learn a lot more about Tarrant’s ideas and affiliations in the coming months. But based on what we know now, we can say that his actions certainly resemble those of racially-motivated spree killers like Robert Bowers, Dylann Roof, Anders Behring Breivik, Wade Michael Page, and Frazier Glenn Miller, all of whom are products of what I call “Old Right” thinking.
By the “Old Right,” I mean classical Fascism and National Socialism and their contemporary imitators who believe that White Nationalism can be advanced through such means as one party-politics, terrorism, totalitarianism, imperialism, and genocide. Tarran’s manifesto denies that he is a National Socialist but affirms that he is a fascist, specifically a follower of Sir Oswald Mosley. He also calls himself an eco-fascist.
Today’s Old Right scene is rife with fantasies of race war, lone wolf attacks on non-whites, and heroic last stands that end in a hail of police bullets. Intelligent and honorable people have emerged from this milieu. But there have been more than a few spree-killers as well.
This kind of violence is worse than a crime. It is a mistake. It does nothing to advance our cause and much to set us back.
Given that reason, science, and history are all on our side, and the greatest apparatus of coercion and brainwashing in human history is on the enemy’s side, doesn’t it make sense to attack the enemy at his weakest point rather than at his strongest? This is why the North American New Right pursues White Nationalism through intellectual and cultural means: we critique the hegemony of anti-white ideas and seek to establish a counter-hegemony of pro-white ideas.
Only a fool picks a battle he cannot win, and we cannot win with violence. Fortunately, we don’t have to. The Left lost the Cold War but won the peace through the establishment of intellectual and cultural hegemony. We can beat them the same way.
Furthermore, the only form of violence that even has a chance to be productive in halting multiculturalism and non-white immigration would target the people responsible for these policies, not random innocents.
Moreover, killing innocent people (at a place of worship!) has entirely predictable results. First, such violence creates sympathy for the victims. (Even I feel sympathy for them, and I would deport them all tomorrow if I had the power.) Second, it plays into the establishment narrative of evil, crazy, intolerant whites whose freedom of speech and weapons must be taken away.
According to his manifesto, Tarrant actually wanted his attack to trigger the denial of First and Second Amendment rights halfway around the globe in the United States, in the hope that the resulting tensions will spark some sort of revolution. Every spree killer has the same fantasy. But the results are always the same. We lose more freedoms. But the revolution never comes. Anyone who supports the further erosion of our freedom to change minds is my enemy. I don’t care what side he claims to be on.
So Tarrant’s choice of targets, and his overall vision of how this might improve the chances of white survival, were frankly stupid. Was he even thinking about the greater good of our people? Or was he merely indulging in blind, self-destructive spite? And how exactly does praising repugnant killers help White Nationalists establish ourselves as representatives of the long-term best interests of our people?
I wish I could erect a wall between myself and the kind of unstable, undisciplined people who go on killing sprees, but you can’t change the world from a bunker. Thus responsible white advocates need to adopt the next best course of action: (1) we must be alert to the signs of mental instability and inclinations toward violence and rigorously screen out such people, (2) we need draw clear, unambiguous intellectual lines between New Right and Old Right approaches, and (3) if anyone talks about committing such acts in our circles, we need to be the ones to call the police.
The goal is to persuade our people that White Nationalism is the solution to ethnic conflict not the cause of it. Spree killers and the people who celebrate them are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
77 comments
Thank you, Greg.
Frankly, I was stunned at the amount of gloating at some places like 4Chan and hope we don’t descend into this kind of mindless street warfare. I shudder to think what happens in the next economic crisis however.
Hope we are wise to find better solutions.
The masses can’t be counted on to act sensibly. If they could, democracy would actually work. God forbid this type of impulsive physical warfare, and not constructive political warfare, become the new fad among dejected whites. If so, we are well and truly done for.
It remains an ever present likelihood that opposing forces manipulate or actively cause events which work against the interests of white people. This is why it is so important to think about what works for and against the pursuit of an ethno-state. I think this is also the origin of so much internal community conflict. Different visions about what works doesn’t stop at friendly disagreement. It leads to different ideas about who is an enemy and who is a foe, and the deplorable nature of the enemy means that good faith is nigh impossible to afford, because they odds are they have and will continue to infiltrate white positive groups.
“White Nationalism” will never work. It’s also really bad optics. As you hinted at in your article, the solution is partition. But obviously there is no longer the will to deport anyone, so it cannot be the pipe-dream of reforming the system through elections and deporting immigrants. The only solution now is a European homeland for Europeans modeled on Israel. I would suggest advocating partition of some US state from the Union. Afterwards, since we know that political persuasion is partly heritable, we could invite a few million cream-of-the-crop white conservatives and have a permanently stable country our own.
Guys like this shooter do this kind of thing because they’ve lost hope but don’t know where to channel their energies. This is seen with many white males desperately embracing Andrew Yang, the only candidate that has talked about their interests openly. Why not steal the guy’s thunder? I might suggest you give them something both productive and realistic to pour their efforts into: a separate homeland, one where they could replace violence with political activism. “White Nationalism” is a dead end. Not only are whites too diverse for that to ever work (whites have lots of competing loyalties), but too many whites desperately need the social approval of Leftists and fear social ostracism if they associate with your group. The nihilism of WN probably contributes to violence because it doesn’t provide an outlet that short circuits this dynamic.
Here’s a much better solution: pick a Southern US state and pour all your efforts into having one of them secede. There’s your homeland.
“But aren’t they black?”
Alabama has a racial composition similar to the US in the 1990s and is slightly whiter on average than the US as a whole. The inclusion of just a few million white conservatives would make it a whitopeia. Over 70% of whites there vote republican. That’s WAY higher than Trump’s ~59%.
“What about New England? or the NW Front?”
A BS pipe dream. Those areas all vote democrat and are filled with Leftist Millennials. They’ll never break off and form any kind of ethnostate.
“Why the South?”
This area has some residual white solidarity not seen in other areas of the United States. Many whites there consider themselves of a separate ethnicity – of a sort. Therefore, it would be easier to piggyback on their identity and follow them out of the Union by exploiting grievances the left exacerbated by attacking Trump voters and threatening to destroy Southern symbols than to convert millions of whites to White Nationalism, a scary-sounding word associated with Nazis; that dynamic exists nowhere else in the US.
“How could this work?”
After Trump goes down in 2020 and the radical left contemplates revenge, there may be consideration of some third way. It will become clear in 2020 that the demographics have changed to the point where republicans can no longer win the White House. Exactly this happened after Romney lost in 2012: some internet conservatives openly floated the idea of secession. TYT covered it and its founder made bizarre threats of violence against proponents. It will happen again, so why not be ready to exploit it? Put it on a ballot or start fielding candidates that propose it. How exactly could this hurt you?
“Why would they go for this?”
They care about things like guns and culture. The left wants to destroy both (and everything else). Also, recent events – Amazon book burnings, fake news, divisive social media, the GOP betrayal on the national emergency, the failure of Trump, media consolidation and censorship, the Colorado Christian baker harassment – have discredited this system. Since Americans pride themselves on “freedom”, secession (freedom and independence) would be a logical extension of that.
“What’s your plan?”
Offer them a deal they can’t refuse: conservative populists win every election; no more left-wing hate; gun rights; no more wars; they control their own destiny; no divisive immigration; a sense of belonging and hope for the future; the development of a unique cultural identity exclusive to their (our) group … and a host of other things they won’t get otherwise or will have taken away by the democrats after 2020.
“How realistic is this?”
Honestly, it’s not good. But it does play into Johnson’s David and Goliath reference. And your chances of this occurring are far greater than saving the US via White Nationalism. Why not try this?
“Why independence?”
There is something sexy about creating something new – a new country, a new constitution, a new culture, new laws. White guys love that kind of stuff and would welcome something like this to pour their efforts into.
“Remind me of the advantages of this again over WNism”
Think Israel. Jews everywhere support it, even if they don’t live there. Embrace the same logic. Similarly, if you make a campaign promise to let “republicans” move there from outside after independence, you might attract lots of support from a broad range of whites across the US. Who wouldn’t want a safe space to go to just for their kind in case the US later goes down? Or a place to retire to?
“Symbols?”
The South already has lots of symbols of Independence that can be used as a wedge the way other groups don’t. Take the Confederate flag, a ethnic symbol, redeem it and use it. If they shout “racism” retaliate by going on the offense and claiming the same of their flag. This will harden opinions and make attacks on you beneficial because the native population will come to resent them as attacks on them personally. This isn’t true of White Nationalists. Attack them and you are merely attacking deplorable people who had it coming anyway. That’s why you’ve lost so far.
“Divine Providence?”
Well, it was prophesied the South would rise again.
“How do we get attention and would anybody care?”
Imagine the kind of attention this might get if Johnson and a few others devoted detailed coverage of this running up to Trump’s 2020 loss – the perils, the pitfalls, the plan, the prospects, the new constitution. This would ensure huge numbers of people have a ready home for them up and running after Trump’s poor showing.
“What would economy look like? It would be Mad Max, right?”
Louisiana has an economy larger than Portugal’s. You’ll be fine. Additionally, it might be possible to secure some foreign aid from a country like China. The US pays Egypt. SouthExit and maybe the Chinese (or the EU) pay you a couple billion annually in exchange for a base or two. The Gulf is well situated for future Chinese (or European) ambitions in central and South America.
“But they’ll smear us like they did WNs.”
True. But like I said, such attacks have an air of “I may make fun of my family but you may not” to them. I think such attacks might horrendously backfire, uniting Southerners of diverse political persuasion against the attackers. That won’t happen WN’s.
“Why not WNism, again?”
White Nationalism requires MANY victories for it to work over a long period of time. That’s not likely to occur. Southern Independence only needs to win a single time and you’ve won forever. Afterwards, you win all elections.
“Stable forever?”
There are relatively fewer toxic American Jews in the South. Without their toxicity, we are free from the element that destroyed the US around the turn of the 20th century.
“Is this inevitable?”
What is inevitable is the end of the US petrodollar and global hegemony. That means a lower standard of living and rising racial resentments. Turbulent times are coming regardless. Why not quit while you’re ahead?
I could go on with this all day. There is an opportunity here if one wants to see it.
No, the old WN dream of colonizing Idaho is still the best. I have semi-Southern relatives (Carolinas and Florida), but no way I’m going to Alabama. Too culturally “thick” for outsiders to feel comfortable. The only place for true 21st century pioneering such as you advocate is the Pacific Northwest, or maybe NH and ME (provided enough move there) (or Alaska – umm, not for me). Idaho and Wyoming could so so so SO easily be taken over by pro-Whites, just as nonwhites have colonized CA. There are only a few million people in ID, WY, MT, and ND + SD combined. Imagine if several million WNs and MAGA Whites relocated there. We could de-elect the current RINOs, and put in Hard Rightists in up to 10 Senate seats very easily. Could be done in a dozen years.
These states are much Whiter than any Southern one, yet are still relatively free from the in-bredness deriving from deep roots. If 200,000 Whites would relocate to Idaho, we could take power away from the Mormon RINOcracy there, and really get hardcore.
I wish Neo-Confederacy all the best, but that will always be a “Southern thing” only.
“No, the old WN dream of colonizing Idaho is still the best.”
The alt-right is infested with government disinformation agents. It’s funny. Your entire comment is nothing but a disingenuous rebuttal, a bait and switch – a very plausible option replaced with an unlikely one. Idaho? Please. As pointed out, those states are all cucked and landlocked. Not going to happen. That area, Utah, also elected Romney as senator, so there is ZERO chance they’d ever secede. They lack the ethnic solidarity. You offer that option specifically because it cannot work. You want to drain away attention from what really can work. The fact that people actually seek out websites like this one in order to shoot down the option should tell you all you need to know about what the Deep State thinks of it (they fear it, and rightly so).
“but no way I’m going to Alabama.”
Speak for yourself. Alabama >>>> Idaho.
“The only place for true 21st century pioneering such as you advocate is the Pacific Northwest, or maybe NH”
Like I said, “disinformation agent”. As pointed out, all of those places routinely vote democrat. That’s a pipe dream, buddy.
“Wyoming could so so so SO easily be taken over by pro-Whites, just as nonwhites have colonized CA”
Nobody is moving to Wyoming. More likely, Wyoming is taken over by California transplants just like Colorado was. Further, no one needs to move to Alabama, Mississippi, or Arkansas etc. for those areas to secede. They already have the votes now, theoretically (unlike the Pacific Northwest front – a government front for draining away right wing angst and directing it into something that will never work). Any population transfers would only happen afterwards. This makes that area of the country ideal – whiter than people think with huge majorities of whites voting republican along with white ethnic solidarity not seen elsewhere.
“These states are much Whiter than any Southern one…”
But zero ethnic solidarity. Romney in Utah barely got 60% of the vote = zero chance of independence, ever. Further, those areas are probably smaller than most Southern states in terms of population. There are more whites in Mississippi than in Wyoming.
“I wish Neo-Confederacy all the best”
No, you don’t. Tell your caseworker at Langley you guys need some more training.
“but that will always be a “Southern thing” only.”
It could easily be a “white” thing if someone like Greg Johnson recognized its potential. Think Israel. Jews who don’t live there support it. In exchange for public support for – let’s say Louisiana’s – independence, such a state promises to let any supporter vacation, move to, or retire to it whenever they want. That promise would immediately engender tremendous white support from all around the country because every white who supports independence would potentially benefit from the effort just as diaspora Jews benefit from Israel’s existence.
To reiterate, the South is your perfect place for partition: states as large as some European countries, coastline and naval ports, whiter than people think, white ethnic solidarity, large majorities of whites voting republican, ethnic resentment over their treatment by the radical left (easily exploitable), lots of guns, lots of people brainwashed into “liberty and freedom” dogma (also easily exploitable: “liberty is more important than geography”), lots of military … all amid the potential election of a divisive racist like Kamala Harris as president and left wing attacks on their cultural symbols. This area may indeed secede once the republican party is no longer a viable national party due to immigration. Why would Arkansas want to be inundated with millions of block voting Mexicans who’ll vote for a radical party that has already proved it will steal away their religious liberty and gun rights, their very dignity? Push a few buttons and you might very well find yourself whistling Dixie in a separate country. It won’t be easy, but it is plausible unlike both White Nationalism and North West Front pipe dreams.
Briefly, this is also an option the left might go for as well. If they thought independence would advantage them electorally by removing odious social conservatives, they might be tempted to support it. In fact, I could imagine partition having broad-based support: progressives who want to rid themselves of social conservatives, anti-war types who think the US could no longer be global cop, populists who might want to take advantage of the situation to push socialism to keep things together, religious conservatives worried about their religious freedoms, the alt-right for obvious reasons …
Reply to “Breen”:
People who disagree with you on tactics are all government disinformation agents? What an idiotic statement – and mindset. I have no connection to any government.
I would love to see Southern secession. Why would I oppose that? My life’s political goal is to see a White-separatist state carved out of the dying carcass of the USA (and to myself live there). I merely pointed out that the South is saturated with diversity, indeed, highly race-conscious and politically activist black diversity, and that few White Americans who aren’t Southerners, including non-Southern WNs, will ever move there. Deal with it. Maybe I’m wrong. I have various WN or WN-sympathetic/MAGA family and friends. I very, very seriously doubt ANY of us would wish to relocate to the Deep South. But hey, if you fellers can get it done, yes, you would have my vicarious support.
Not sure I want to say more, as your comment is so confused. Hmmm ….
“the South is your perfect place for partition: states as large as some European countries, coastline and naval ports, whiter than people think”
Are you joking or just ignorant? MS and LA are “whiter than people think”? OK. I have never been to MS, and only to New Orleans in LA, but those states are two of the blackest in the country. GA just almost elected a radical black bigot/Hard Leftist to the Governorship! What the hell are you talking about?!!??! Alabama alone, maybe? Those states, with their huge black populations, are going to … secede … from the Union?! I don’t know how a secession workout might actually happen, but I’m pretty sure it would require titanic state-majority support (90%? 95%?) to even get a hearing from Congress.
Or are you thinking about de facto secession at a time of national crisis and perhaps Federal impotence? Well, even if 65% of the Southern population wanted it (and given the large black populations, as well as liberal Whites, GOP as well as Democrat, and now sizable other minority populations {how else did that black GA Democrat come within a couple of percent of winning the governorship?}, I totally doubt you could even get a bare majority for secession), I think the 35% opposed would be sufficient to stop it (and this is assuming a national breakdown; without such, that 35% would tie the secessionists up in legal challenges for the rest of the century).
Southern Whites may have more ethnic solidarity than Whites currently in the Northwest, but the whole point is about WN relocation and eventual secession. I never mentioned Utah (so your comments about it are irrelevant). But I know Idaho well, and have some general knowledge of the other states I mentioned: WY, MT, SD, ND. What is important for a real ethnostate is that there is 1) limited on the ground diversity already present (as is not the case with the South); 2) a small enough population so that masses of pro-Whites relocating there could have a serious impact, esp wrt supporting secession; and probably 3) a relatively good resource base to support a burgeoning population (ports are important, but less so in determining economic feasibility than a lot of untapped or renewable resources). In each of these considerations, that ID/MT/WY/SD/ND belt is superior to the South.
“lots of guns, lots of people brainwashed into “liberty and freedom” dogma (also easily exploitable: “liberty is more important than geography”)”
WTF? All that is to be found in the states I have mentioned – without millions of militant blacks.
If WNs are serious about the Ethnostate, their only hope is the belt of states I mentioned. Unless maybe enough want to go up to Alaska, take it over through sheer colonist numbers, and secede …
For all similar arguments, and yours, I read of a recent move by some states of your U.S.A. to make ‘we throw all of our electors behind the natural popular vote’ a state rule. From my small knowledge of U.S. constitutional minutiae, they can’t really do it *now*.
However, I did read some explanation that they *can* do it, if enough other states pass similar measures.
This would seem like a good wedge issue, to lead at least some of the states into secession (sure, I know what long tall Abe did the last time it was attempted, and the presence of many nuclear weapons in many of precisely those states that may want to secede makes it more difficult).
I would recommend that readers here who don’t know, check up on the states that have passed legislation to change from Electoral College to national majority, and what it means.
I am not the expert, just a sympathetic outside observer, but the move, on the part of those states (mainly New England, Californicatia, Colorado), to my mind does present a nice wedge issue for anyone from other places.
As a Southerner, this plan is nearly exactly the stuff my dreams have been made of since I was in high school and really got started on the path we are all, in one way or another, on today. Although I am not so sure that, barring some kind of catastrophic failure of the system, say an imminent financial collapse, ecological disaster or massive country-wide riots like the yellow vest protests but worse and bloodier and such, there will not be sufficient motivation even among those so inclined in all various subsets of “this thing of ours” to push for any kind of separation. I guess that’s what makes your proposal all the better, because steps could presumably be done well before then that could prepare for something passably good-to-genuinely great in the future. At least it’s something nice to think about. Either way, God Will Vindicate us more and more everyday.
Largely a sound, reasonable, well-presented, and thought-provoking argument. But this?:
“Additionally, it might be possible to secure some foreign aid from a country like China. The US pays Egypt. SouthExit and maybe the Chinese (or the EU) pay you a couple billion annually in exchange for a base or two. The Gulf is well situated for future Chinese (or European) ambitions in central and South America.”
This is unbelievably naive and flatly ridiculous and insane. After you give the Chinese a foothold in your territory, they will inch on you, take more of your land and resources, and send more people of their own to gradually colonize and conquest your land without fighting an actual war, and by fighting an actual war if they deem they overpower you militarily. This is largely the pattern of the Chinese conquests and annexations of other people’s lands throughout history, all the more patent, intense, and thorough-going than even the Islam.
The vast ambition and bottomless greed of the Chinese certainly is beyond your comprehension. The Chinese believe in “得寸進尺” (when you are given an inch, you move ahead to take a foot). You surely know a lot about US and western matters, but almost nothing on China.
Overall a sound, reasonable, well-presented, and thought-provoking argument. But this?:
“Additionally, it might be possible to secure some foreign aid from a country like China. The US pays Egypt. SouthExit and maybe the Chinese (or the EU) pay you a couple billion annually in exchange for a base or two. The Gulf is well situated for future Chinese (or European) ambitions in central and South America.”
This is unbelievably naive and flatly ridiculous and insane. When you give the Chinese a foothold anywhere in your territory, they inch on, take more land and resources of yours, and send more people of their own to occupy your living space incrementally and colonize and conquest your land eventually without fighting an actual war, or by fighting an actual and swift war if they deem they can easily overpower you militarily. This has been the staple pattern of the Chinese expansion, invasion and annexation of other peoples’ lands throughout the history, which is no less stark, intense, and thorough-going than the Islam. By allowing the Chinese to enter your doorstep, the aspiration of and attempt at securing an independent and self-governed White homeland will end essentially in a pipe dream.
The vast ambition, bottomless greed, and unparalleled ruthlessness and craftiness of the Chinese are certainly beyond your comprehension. The Chinese believe in “得寸進尺” (when you are given an inch, you move ahead to take a foot). It seems you know quite a bit about American and western matters, but practically zero on China.
I don’t agree with ideas of partition and separation: everything in old and new world Europa belongs to us and no one should ever agree to give it up. If you think it’s ‘pragmatic’ to take up separation and secession, it is not – because once you start running (and that’s what it is) you will never stop.
Even if however, partition were a good idea t still absolutely demands some powerful identity as a prerequisite (more so even than taking back the present system). Whether this is white nationalism, pan-europeanism, neofascism or some new transformation religion, there must be a potent European identity as the basis for the partition.
On what basis would you make the division of people otherwise? What would define you from them? Perhaps taking for granted there will be some purified, ‘America lite’ culture to fall back on where you can be ‘real amercians’ again.
What you are comes first by definition, and all possible politics follow on the strength of that. And when you finally know who and what you are, you wont concern yourself with ‘optics’.
Basically your point is that once we have power, we can dispense with concerns about optics or morals.
How do you propose to get power, though, while flouting the morals and tastes of the very people we wish to save?
Not at all.
Having a new identity is almost a change in state of being, a transformation, and must preempt politics. Without it I don’t know where the strength to succeed would come from.
On the contrary to disregarding ‘right and wrong’, or ‘good and evil’, these become even more essential once you have found out who you are – but it must be according to the code you follow and not that of your enemies. I am not trying to imply this as some brutalist philosophy by a Nietzchean Ubermesch, but rather am recognising that a radical break with the modern liberal morality is an inevitable part of this process. Considering the sick world that liberal moral system is creating I don’t think people could say a radical rethink isn’t essential.
I condemn the obsession with optics because it always seems to become an obsession with what an already powerful enemy has decided is correct or permissible, with what it has decided is moral. It may seem trite but we should focus only on what we regard as right, and not compromise on that with the opposition. And in the end others are more likely to join if they know that you will always hold your own line.
Though he proved a dud in the end that’s why Trump managed to do the impossible, because he seemed like he wouldn’t yield. Almost because of that alone people rallied to him. He spat on all the conventions of the elite and to their amazement that didn’t disqualify him. He seemed to stand on what he thought was right and people found that compelling, even though that ‘wasn’t what they supposed to believe’.
I’m not trying to say, by the way, that one should take on aesthetics of jackboots and stahlhelms just for the hell of it, or anything like that (that’s also letting your enemy shape your self-perception). However I was only addressing principles here, not any tactical specifics.
As an added point it should also be said that every revolution or social transformation in history was pushed by a minority. In this context minority is a small segment of the population (but still larger than any individual party or movement). That isn’t cynicism, more a statement of fact. A significant portion of the population will never change and will always resist, but they don’t matter simply because there’s no point in heeding them.
However, one should not underestimate that potential minority which unconsciously wants change, because they may prove surprisingly ready to adapt a new weltanshuuang, once the stars are right.
Sure, elites drive history. But elites don’t achieve or keep power without getting the masses actively or passively to accept the legitimacy of their power.
I can’t imagine this attack made things any worse than they already were.
Establishing an equivalency between the relationship of the Christian moderates to extremists and the Islamist moderates to extremists is flawed and leads nowhere but to our demise. We curtail our extremists to a very large degree while the other side supports their’s.
How to get to this divorce?
1. Push the word “Partition” into the public space. Don’t worry about explaining it until it is seared into the neurons of all people. 2019.
2. Make 2020 a referendum on which side of the line to end up on. If Trump wins, the campaign for Partition continues as a way to keep him honest. If he loses, Partition will be a matter of immediate survival.
3: Pursue the following lawful paths to Partition: a) Supreme Court case re-legalizing secession. b) Convention of States c) Constitutional Amendment providing for secession d) Treaty between US Gov ratified by the Senate ceding land to the new nation e) UN Treaty invocation to the right of self-determination that has been used recently in Eritrea, South Sudan etc.
4. It is the organization and infrastructure of the campaign for Partition itself that will make the Unilateral Declaration of Independence possible; be under no illusion that the Enemy will grant a bilateral, honorable, respectful solution.
5. Form a Northern / Polar Alliance to protect ourselves from the majority of the world that is non / anti white.
6. Spread out into space.
Or would you rather lose? Because that is what is happening thanks to dithering and diversion. The “YangGang” brought us Charlottesville, and they have no intention of winning. But, my dear friend, nature abhors a vacuum. Fill the vacuum. Partition.
Over the past year there were just the glimmerings of a start of people waking up to immigration and multiculturalism, albeit at a very banal level, as in all things New Zealand. Now whatever glimmer there was will retreat into silence.
The Dominion Movement, which recently celebrated its first anniversary with 50 delegates gathered from throughout NZ, called it quits on the day of the shootings, stating that the atmosphere that will be generated will make their work impossible to continue. DM wasn’t merely a knuckleheaded grouplet; it had high quality membership to a man, was youth based, Identitarian, undertook community work, healthy living, and had a deep sense of history and ideology. There was never anything like it in NZ, and I firmly believe never will be again.
While one might say they must have lacked courage to self-obliterate so readily, their final message is right – inundation with liberal platitudes is the result. Probably a ‘hate speech’ law will finally be enacted. Nobody will raise a voice again.
Muslims were no problem in NZ. The problem is that immigration is an aspect of globalisation and this is the message that should have been the basis of any critique.; as well as the fact that Muslims have experienced brutality every day for 70 years thanks to US and Israeli policies in the Middle East.
Well said and agree on all fronts. Let’s hope that the demise of the Dominion Movement is temporary.
Your comment started off well, then veered into leftist garbage.
1. Immigration is not at all a NECESSARY aspect of globalization. “Globalization” is a process that has been going on since the dawn of human time, though one astronomically accelerated by the Faustian West itself. Globalization under Western auspices vastly increased planetary White power, while simultaneously making most Third World countries better off in countless ways (at a minimum – and this is obviously not an ecologically good thing – there are a lot more nonwhites because of it; the Third World population bomb was wholly a product, part incidental, part functional, perhaps even part intentional, of Western actions). Globalization is a GOOD thing economically, including for White nations. It has vastly increased global GDP.
The main problem with globalization is the attendant mass immigration of nonwhites into White homelands. But is this necessary? NO, it is not. It is perfectly conceivable, as Peter Brimelow long ago argued in ALIEN NATION, to have both free trade and immigration restriction. Why not? Indeed, if the world were to instantiate universal ethnonational separation and political self-determination there would likely be much less immigration – and much MORE international trade. A world of vast numbers of ethnically homogeneous small nations (500? 1000? 10,000?) would have to engage in much greater levels of international trade, given the complexity – resulting from the efficiencies – of global supply chains. The paleolibertarian anti-immigrationist Hans-Hermann Hoppe has been making this argument for a couple of decades.
New Zealand in particular is just the type of small, First World trading nation which greatly benefits from open export and import markets.
2. “Muslims were no problem in NZ.” What does that mean, considered along inter-temporal lines? Muslims are not currently sexually molesting White girls in NZ. Is that it? How long will that situation last? Perhaps Muslims are no problem in NZ (they have been and are one in Australia) because there aren’t enough of them to constitute the critical mass to form a threat. Hard White experience informs us that once that critical mass is reached, crimes will skyrocket, and Muslim guerilla war, er, “terrorist incidents”, will start proliferating. Perhaps the shooter didn’t like what the future held for NZ, and sought to awaken his people to their government-engineered conquest and impending enslavement.
3. I am not a Jew, and could not care a fig leaf about Israel (though, perhaps like Greg Johnson, I support the Zionist state in theory because it IS an ethnostate, and thus an easy rebuke to any Jew who would dare to deny us OUR ethnostate {the more ethnostates the better, not simply as an abstract ‘good’, but because their existence naturally makes our similar demands seem less radical}; also, I do have Jewish friends, and would want them to enjoy a safe haven somewhere in the event of any future trans-Occidental neo-Nazi explosion – something which may seem at present more farfetched than an invasion from Mars, but I don’t think it is; the White man is being driven to extinction, but thus far most Whites have not had to suffer overmuch the consequences of this “frog-boiling” policy; someday, however, that will no longer be the case, and a virulent and indiscriminate nativist reaction could easily occur …). But saying that “Muslims have experienced brutality every day for 70 years thanks to US and Israeli policies in the Middle East” is just sentimental leftist twaddle. The vast bulk of the brutality Muslims experience comes from their own lack of ethics, and generally barbaric behavior (is the brutality of the typical American ghetto also the White man’s fault?). Any White man traveling across the Middle East would much rather come into conflict with the authorities in Israel than with those of ANY Muslim nation, indeed, any Muslim nation. That is not Zionist propaganda, but plain fact. Israel adheres to First World codes of civilized conduct. The Muslims do not, anywhere.
Enough with this sentimentalizing of nonwhites. Time for serious pro-Whites to re-acknowledge our race’s ethical superiority, and to get on with asserting ourselves and preserving ourselves. Really, more and more I find myself pining for that discarded “Old Right”, which knew what was what, and was heroically prepared to act on that basis.
Lord Shang. I wonder about two ideas presented in your post.
1. The idea that globalisation is a good thing for Western nations because it benefits our economies, and
2. The notion that (I) globalisation and (ii) stricter controls on immigration are compatible.
I don’t accept that globalisation is – on balance – good for Western nations. Yes, it has reduced the price of some consumer goods for Western consumers. But at what cost? Global corporations have moved manufacturing jobs to Asia in massive numbers, resulting in job losses and a hollowing out of the skills base in our countries. The people responsible for this clearly favour the bottom line over their own workers. And if this is their mindset, it stands to reason that the same people who favour cheap labour abroad will favour cheap labour at home. If I’m making millions importing sweatshop toasters from Indonesia, will I also be willing to pay an illegal Mexican to clean my pool? It seems unlikely that a nation-state wide open to ideas (or culture) and goods from elsewhere will happily restrict the movement of people. Historically the UK and other Western powers did so, but in the long run their empires became liabilities – as empires always seem to.
Mark Krikkorian has written about the effect of cheap labour on economic development. He argues that globalisation – through its pursuit of cheap labour – has reduced the incentive for tech innovation. Why invest in robotics when it’s cheaper and easier to set up shop in Kowloon? You get a far cheaper workforce and you still get access to affluent Western markets.
Who can say how much this effect has already cost the West in lost productivity?
To be clear, I’m not in favour of totally shutting down international trade. It would be possible to develop trade agreements between similarly developed countries; agreements that exclude goods produced by coolie labour. Rather than working against technology, this would encourage its faster development.
Right wing globalists like Thatcher, the Bush’s and John Howard talked ‘patriotism’ and wrapped themselves in the flag, but ultimately harmed their nations because they couldn’t reconcile the communal nationalism of their voters with the naked mercantile avarice of their globalist sponsors.
I feel obliged to ask what a group was hoping to accomplish if it immediately self-dissolves as preemption in the face of some controversy (one which didn’t even directly concern it).
This is intended as a serious point, because if this incident hadn’t happened then what would have been the result when concerted opposition eventually came up? And actual opposition is utterly inevitable. Would they have immediately caved and left everyone who supported them completely demoralised?
Organising groups for activism and information is laudable, but only if the people involved are serious and have some conviction.
Dominion Movement: In the context of NZ, it could only refer to the old relationship with the U.K.
It is pretty retro., and not healthy. Why would N.Z. of now want to assert its status as a Brit. Dominion? Surely, that would likely only make things worse?
Some other groups, even some in the Beehive at times (Social Credit party, before my time, but they were major), some not (of course, old school, but NZ NF seems to have had some fun times).
As for bullshit hate speech laws, I may be wrong, but thought NZ already had them.
Moslems in NZ behaving relatively well? Well, their percentage of the population must be very low. Maybe it is just low in South Island of now? Don’t worry, Tarrant or no Tarrant, their ideal and goal is mayhem, just look across the Tasman or the Pacific.
It is a little like the ‘domesticated’ zombies in some of Romero’s films.
I’m sorry, but we really shouldn’t shed a single tear over this kind of bourgeois network… if they dissolve after the slightest push-back, just let them go. These people never changed anything, because they are not willing to sacrifice s**t. You don’t need to be a hardcore Hitlerist to agree on that issue, but he explained it quite well in his book.
As Mr. Khan would say: “Senseless acts of terror such as this one are part and parcel of living in a multicultural society.”
This reminds me of an article I recently read that mounted an impassioned philosophical argument against pedophilia….quoting actual philosophers and stuff!! Because pedophiles are so susceptible to dialectical Hegelian logic, right? It’s gonna work. It’s gotta work!
Same thing here. We’re gonna have a civil and rational counter-hegemonic discourse with Blacks about a peaceful racial divorce? The author must not have much real-world experience with blacks. The one thing that African Americans absolutely must have in order to survive is access to White wealth and civilization. Separated from Whites, not one black in twenty would be alive after three months. And they know it. And they hate both themselves and us for it. Attempt all the rational discourse you want. You may as well make faces at the Sphinx. As soon as they figure out we would like to stop subsidizing them, they will go apeshit. Aided and abetted, of course, by their White liberal slave masters.
The philosophical discourse isn’t meant to convince black people. It’s meant for other whites not yet convinced.
Sure. Ok. The grownups are going to talk and decide on a united front.
But at some point you have to call the kids into the kitchen and tell them you’re cutting their allowance.
And there are tens of millions of these kids, and when they find out they aren’t getting dessert they burn down cities.
We really need to start focusing on creating our own white ethnostate. I don’t agree with this violence, but sadly it probably will happen again if we don’t begin implementing a peaceful, legal solution within a reasonable time frame.
You can’t have an white-ethnostate in US where you have the populations so mixed throughout the whole territory. There are many examples in the European history (19th-20th century) where trying to built an ethnostate in such mixed territories only led to civil-war, ethnic cleansing, genocidal massacres.
In US the strategy should be that of transforming US in a multi-national state where the identity of each group is explicitly acknowledged, legitimized, and where politics is done through negotiations between the leaders of each group. This will also legitimize segregation where possible (cultural and educational institutions, small communities) and where not possible a system of proportional quotas can be instituted.
In time, and due to the tendency of the Americans to be mobile and be willing to relocate in order to avoid conflict, it may result in a large scale geographical segregation which in turn will form the basis for a peaceful realization of an white-ethnostate. But it will take time and the first step should be the legitimization of the white-Americans as a political nation, and the changing of the type of politics.
US now is a nation-state and a presidential republic but in a multi-national state it is not good to have such a powerful presidency, and such charged presidential elections, since the president can not represent every ethnic group equally. It is better to have a parliamentary republic where the decisions are reached through parliamentary negotiations between the representatives of each group.
Simply breaking up the country is a good first step. After that, the part of the country with the Southern states will use sticks and carrots to get its Negro population on the move. Once that happens, racial sorting will intensify.
Terrible. I saw the part of the video where he was blowing up with two shots the head of a woman lying down wounded on the pavement and crying for help.
On the other hand, that is precisely what the masters of multiculturalism fear most and what they have always tried desperately to avoid : a violent reaction of the natives which in turn will lead to a counter-reaction of the immigrants and from then on the road ahead is only one of polarization along identity-lines, segregation, and clearly defined boundaries on both sides, that is explicit native-white identity as well.
That’s why they were so desperate after each Islamic terrorist attack to go on ‘praying for’, love and flowers not ‘hate’, worries about a ‘backlash’, and so on.
The multicultural utopia goes up in smoke if the majority begins to think about itself and act -which is to say to exist- as an identity group mindful of its own security and interests and respectively adversarial toward the immigrant/minority groups.
This escalating retaliation cycle is inevitable:
1. Migrants brought into nation, aided and abetted by elites, contrary to the wishes of the people
2. Small minority of people lash out at new arrivals causing resentment in the new group.
3. Simultaneously, small minority of new immigrants use the openness of their new home to their advantage (see Rotherham) and incur anger and animosity of native population.
4. Retaliations ensue from both sides.
5. Positive feedback loop of retaliatory cycles escalates until an all-out war breaks out.
This is just another escalation on the way to an all-out bloodbath. There is no solution except for a peaceful separation. Easier said than done, I’m afraid. It is a shame that these people, most of whom probably played no active part in the undermining of their host nation, bore the brunt of this young man’s righteous retribution. The real enemies of the people sit comfortably in their ivory tower. Hopefully their time comes before more pawns are removed from the board.
What possible incentive would they have to leave? I mean since we are absolutely committed to Pacifism and they aren’t? And the Elite are firmly on their side and against us and in control of the mind of the masses- it’s already over. Their victory is baked in the cake in the Anglo World and Western Europe.
Absolute future shock: a live-streamed first-person-shooter IRL attack, wherein the shooter curated his own live musical playlist (or “spraylist” as the chans will call them now) of meme-friendly songs, after dumping his meme-drunk manifesto PDF on 8chan tacked with a cheerful preamble alerting anons “thxs for the lels! tune in, enjoy the show!”
It’s difficult to parse what has just occurred, for whites and human civilization. The 17-min video will never be quashed online due to the Streisand Effect, millions of white male youths have already seen and shared it. No different from the CCTV footage of Columbine, or the “Zapruder film”? Or a bigger socio-cultural leap than the iPhone from landline/TV, albeit into the hellish techno dystopian abyss? Killing as couchy entertainment a la ‘The Running Man.’
Columbine’s shooters were fans of Doom, but this guy was operating inside Grand Theft Auto. His checklist calm was unsettling, his irreverent chan humor intact even cuffed in court yesterday, flashing the sarcastic “okay” handsign to drive the MSM into hysterics. Guys like this are disgusting in their sociopathy and disregard for innocent life, but I’ll admit, guys like this, and there will be more and more, of all races, are living in a different reality, not insanity, maybe a collective generational gear shift. (He was literally talking to the chans live during his rampage.) I’m not sure anything can be done to curb this shift. And that seems to be the shooter’s point: you’re in my world now. Toothpaste out the tube.
The last thing I noticed is how his magazines and firearns were scrawled in eye-catching white with the crusading names and dates of inspiration. This is new, viral marketing, reflective of millennials’ bottomless Internet access to centuries upon centuries of historic conflict. A gun magazine as a meta-baton of hyperlinks not found in public schools, an image passed around online possibly forever.
Someone joked that a fatwa might go out on Pewdiepie. And most people who saw that joke thought: wait, that could happen. Heck on this timeline it probably will.
I think it is important to understand the role of dysgenics in the larger picture before addressing particulars.
The dysgenic trend over the last 150/200 years cannot be reversed by a mass shooting. Not by 1, not by 20 of them. Since part of the dysgenic trend is a lowering of testosterone, society actually becomes more peaceful, as difficult as that may be to accept (just check the numbers). Included in the dysgenic trend is more tolerance for ‘diversity’.
This trend however cannot hold, as the general IQ falls, it will inevitably drift into group identity territory, and as the number of low IQ men increases, it will revert back to more violence as well.
Hence violence is certainly in our future, even if it is still one or more generations away. It will happen.
It is however impossible to incite widespread grassroots violence today. The current level of prosperity combined with the state of our DNA makes this extremely unlikely.
While violence like these shootings are likely to continue, the will not serve the case for white identity. On the contrary, they will strengthen the ruling establishment.
Accelerationists may want to claim that this will hasten the fall, but no, that is imo not the case. Since society is a phenotype our our collective DNA, it is near impervious to acceleration. In fact, I think the only real way to accelerate it may be to vote as left as you can in the next elections… that would speed up the dysgenic trend. However keep in mind that changing the dysgenic slope is an extremely marginal business. And thus not worth the cost imo.
Oh, nothing ever goes in a linear fashion, hence there will be fake-outs. Don’t fall for them. Keep building foundations for the future west, even if we probably won’t live to ever experience them.
I know I tend to repeat myself, but it’s not simply the testosterone, it really is the birth rates! Just as Tarrant writes in his manifesto. Having a lot of young boys creates a total different environment and completly different dynamic in your society, that was the reason why Europe became the owner of the world and it’s also the reason why it dissolves in such a pathetic way now.
This bloody atrocity will bring a terrible backlash. We should be be wise to the fact that all mass attacks in western nations, be they by jihadis or white nationalists are attributed a ‘root cause’ of white racism/islamophobia/hatred of brown bodies &c.
The authorities will not waste this opportunity to curtail internet discourse further and create a climate of fear in order to inhibit open opposition to mass afro-islamic migration into European majority ancestry nations. Indeed it will be contended that to express any concern or skepticism is tantamount to endorsing the slaughter that has occurred in New Zealand. The Guardian newspaper has already rushed this opinion into print and there will be more such ‘think-pieces’ sagely concurring in the the establishment outlets: BBC, CNN, NYT &c &c.
I predict that the consequences for ‘dissident right’ online media will be dire: 8chan will come under scrutiny and doubtless deplatforming will be attempted. The same will apply to any site that permits ‘vile’ or ‘hateful’ comments to be published. The posters also stand at risk of being gleefully ‘doxxed’ and harassed by mainstream media and their leftist auxiliaries.
So let us beware! Greg Johnson is absolutely right that the slaughter of innocents is not an acceptable way to further this movement’s cause and ideology: not in terms of realpolitik, nor, more importantly, morally.
“Morally”?
Is it moral to invade someone else’s country when your very alien presence is offensive, an existential threat to the inherited ethnocultural order, even if you yourself are bereft of harmful or aggressive intentions?
What is a “nation”?
What is an “invasion”?
What is “demographic aggression”? How should it be resisted, if the majority in one generation wishes to exterminate the work and inherited development of a hundred?
Are people going to sit still and have the shit bombed out of them and their families for generations at the behest of a bunch of scum in Washington, New York, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem? The migrant crises are entirely the result of these trash, and one can take it back to the Sykes-Picot Agreement which did not take into account any boundaries based on history or ethnicity. Perpetual turmoil was guaranteed, like the idiocy of Versailles. NONE of it can be traced in any way to a few hundred hapless Muslims at a Christchurch Mosque.
The latest liberal brainwave is a slogan – ‘They are us’. My only question is: why would a
Muslim or an Arab want to be identified as a complacent, gutless, stupid New Zealander? Muslims here have shown little propensity to assimilate – and good on them: assimilate into becoming what? – a rootless consumer moron like most Westerners.
A NZ Alt Right started to develop, very embryonically, but even at this early stage there were Israel-worshipers who saw Tommy Robinson as a role model. For the first time they started protesting in the streets , but for who and what? : Tommy bloody Robinson and his Zionist funders. To loosely paraphrase Lenin in another context: Islamophobia is an infantile disease of the Right.
Actually, I think Islamophobia (no, let us say “Islamorealism”, though all civilized men, not just White men, should be Islamophobes, whether Israel exists or never existed) can be a gateway ideology leading to a harder form of White Survivalism, which is all I care about.
I don’t think a bunch of Muslims should be randomly gunned down, in NZ or anywhere else, for basic moral reasons, as well as the strategic ones Greg Johnson elucidated. I also don’t think a single Muslim should be naturally (as opposed to diplomatically) resident anywhere in the West. Period.
I oppose the presence of all nonwhites in Europe, and all nonwhites except First Nations Peoples and, in the US, Negro Americans (the descendants of the antebellum black slaves only, NOT all current African-Americans), in the European diaspora-founded countries. I would prefer that White Americans and black Americans had their respective US-based ethnostates, though I also recognize that probably majorities of both White and black Americans would prefer to live in a racially integrated territory. The ideal is one in which both Whites and blacks have the option to live in homogeneous and racially-self-governing states (but NOT Latinos, Orientals, Muslims, etc – these groups have no large-scale historic-moral claims to any US presence, and thus should certainly not be awarded their own ethnostates; if thy must be here at all, let them live in the integrated territory). Native Americans of course should have their mostly-autnomous reservations.
My point is that calling out Muslim evil is indeed a very good place to begin the race and culture awakening process leading to eventual White separatism.
The campaign to place beyond the pale and criminalise even the mildest islamo-skepticism(*) is well underway now in the UK with tearful hijab wearing muslima commentators on the Guardian/BBC roundabout bleating for state protection against the very real and growing meance of ‘angry white males’.
The ‘independent’ charity (that is to say Trotskyist front group) Hope not Hate will soon weigh in with a ‘damning’ report on the extent of ‘rightwing hate discourse’ that is still being tolerated. Add to that the ‘hostile climate against illegal migrants’, the ‘islamophobia poisoning the Tory party’ and the ‘toxic racist malaise that led to Brexit’ and we must ask whether we as a diverse nation can afford the hollow luxury of so called ‘free speech’ when Muslim women and children are being cut down and drowning in the Channel and black teenagers are dying on the streets of our capital, blah blah quack quack etc etc. The copy writes itself!
In other words the usual cant, disinformation and spin will be intensively deployed to promote a new round of anti-white agitprop, third world immigration and islamification, delegitimising and stamping out the genuine qualms that even the most passive of ordinary traditional Britons have started to entertain.
(*) As is the case in all Islamic polities. The zenith of free expression in Britain was attained just before the ‘Satanic Verses’ fracas in the late nineteen eighties and the decay is now exponential. The goal of the Islamists, of course is, to attain or surpass the sacrosanct status of Judaism in public discourse,
Mr. Bolton,
Some of your comments there smack of someone who has disdain for his own people and who fetishizes the “other” a bit too much. Yes, these invasive desert rats are in touch with their “Tradition” and have not succumbed to Western decadence…..oooooooooo how exotic. They are also in touch with marrying their cousins, raping children, having very low IQs, and a host of numerous other problems. Regardless of how “Traditional” they are, and whether or not it is fully their fault that they are living in Western nations, the fact is that their presence is still an affront to our race and our civilization REGARDLESS. I am against using violence because it does more harm than good for pro-White causes, and I am not speaking in support of the actions taken by Brenton or any other gunmen….but there is absolutely no reason to be playing the violin over these savages being slaughtered like the ululating, warg-riding Orcs that they are.
Yes, we have our own shit to get together. We are in the Kali Yuga and such, I get it. But the muzzies within our borders are the enemy simply by virtue of being there, and the “gutless” New Zealanders are still your own family. This is not the time to wax poetic about how superior the enemy is because he does not eat McDonalds
One must never overestimate the brains of the security state, but they must have been paying a few happy campers to lurk on /pol, /b/ of 4ch., and 8ch., etc., for some years now. Or maybe they haven’t. Never underestimate the ineptitude (and at times, possibly secret sympathies) of *them*.
The livestreaming and comments on this, really a masterstroke.
8chan will come under scrutiny and doubtless deplatforming will be attempted.
1A all the way, and all due respect to 8chan, but it is a true sight to witness hundreds of /pol/aks there (at least!) avidly cheering/endorsing the shooter’s bodycount, far beyond meme laurels, a shooter who publicly thanked /pol/ and left his manifesto and stream-link there.
8chan is obviously compromised as of now by the Feds and Homeland Security, and likely the ADL and NYPD. Can we blame them for monitoring in this instance? The shooter tailored his massacre live for 8chan’s audience, surely a first in web history? (The proto-incel half-Jewish Elliot Rodger’s pre-recording doesn’t compare.) Taking in the worldwide userbase of 8chan, this is simply an unprecedented stare-down between anons and Deep State, resulting in the most active honeypot possible. The dawn of the global meme-warrior bodycount contest is upon us. All that’s missing is a Mean Gene Okerlund.
From Tarrant’s manifesto:
“The first event that began the change was the terror attack in Stockholm, on the 7 th of April 2017. It was another terror attack in the seemingly never ending attacks that had been occurring on a regular basis throughout my adult life. But for some reason this was different. The jaded cynicism with which I had greeted previous attacks didn’t eventuate. Something that had been a part of my life for as long as I could remember, cynicism in the face of attacks on the West by Islamic invaders, was suddenly no longer there. I could no longer bring the sneer to my face, I could no longer turn my back on the violence. Something, this time, was different. That difference was Ebba Akerlund. Young, innocent and dead Ebba. Ebba was walking to meet her mother after school, when she was murdered by an Islamic attacker, driving a stolen vehicle through the shopping promenade on which she was walking. Ebba was partially deaf, unable to hear the attacker coming. Ebba’s death at the hands of the invaders, the indignity of her violent demise and my inability to stop it broke through my own jaded cynicism like a sledgehammer. I could no longer ignore the attacks. They were attacks on my people, attacks on my culture, attacks on my faith and attacks on my soul.”
Hmmm.
“Monster”?
I admit that I’ve written some emotional comment seemingly in discordance with Greg’s sober and discerning piece here. The content of my writing sounds rather emotively driven. It is my (admittedly immature) reflexive response and my visceral feeling immediately upon knowing the incident, possibly from a instinctual catharsis, a release of pent-up anger, stress and frustration at the current status of a beloved White western civilization dying at the hands of colored invaders and White traitors. I am certainly aware of the main stance of CC of discouraging and disapproving armed street activism, let alone such appalling violence as this, and personally I also find the act unwise and hard to endorse wholeheartedly, but viscerally I still couldn’t help sympathizing with and condoning if not applauding the man and his action, a last-ditch move out of sheer desperation.
I fully agree with Greg’s trenchant and gimlet-eyed observation that “Tarrant’s choice of targets, and his overall vision of how this might improve the chances of white survival, were frankly stupid.”, and “the only form of violence that even has a chance to be productive in halting multiculturalism and non-white immigration would target the people responsible for these policies, not random innocents.” I still stand by CC’s belief that the New Right’s White Nationalism ought to focus on initially incrementally and eventually fundamentally transforming the collective mentality and value system of the White people through intellectual and philosophical education, but at the same time, I also can’t entirely dissuade myself from thinking that with the living surroundings of White folks in their own societies rapidly deteriorating and getting all the more acute with every passing day under the combined effect of unbridled mass non-White immigration and the increasingly totalitarian rule of their globalist political and economic elites, before the idea of White nationalism reaches the level of being accepted by a critical mass of White people for all our strenuous efforts so as to enable a substantial formation of pro-White political power and socio-cultural clout, it will be realistically inevitable that some “radicalized” and “desperate” White folks with lesser endurance and intellectual capacity and more of the fiery streak and brawn-flexing kind find it irresistible to take up arms and start butchering invaders or traitors in a spirit of perishing together with enemy. This is something imperative that needs to be carefully and sensibly weighed and handled.
I also noticed miscellaneous media outlets online reported the killer had claimed it is China (some said North Korea)’s racial and social ideas with which his personal views resonate the most. It is also true from my own reading of Internet comment sections of news reports on the incident in Chinese language such as the prevalent and widely popular WeChat circles in China that quite a few Chinese applauded and cheered for the killer’s action, presumably because China also faces a self-made ethnic Muslim problem in its Northwest territory. But this perception is wrongheaded and seriously flawed as the vast Northwestern region currently under Chinese administration was originally not an ancestral land of Han Chinese but has inhabited by Uyghur Muslims from ancient time. After the current Chinese regime’ takeover in 1949, the land was annexed by China and forcibly placed under its rule with iron and blood. China had since shipped in large numbers of Han Chinese into the region to alter perhaps irreversibly its ethnic structure in favor of Han Chinese and conducted ethnic cleansing backed by brute force. Hence the situation here is quite different from, and actually opposite to the Muslim immigration into the Western countries.
It is also worth noting that the various Chinese online news reports I have read have invariably used terms such as “White supremacist” and “racist” when referring to the NZ mosque attacker Brenton Tarrant. Obviously, the Chinese failed to do justice to people like Tarrant for, however inadvisable and counterproductive their acts might be, they are merely defending their own land and lifestyle by force and intending to eject all Muslim and other non-White immigrants from White countries, an exercise of sovereign right ordained by Natural Law, not proposing to go into traditionally Muslim countries to kill Muslims over there. Tarrant and his likes do not, in my belief, necessarily think Whites are absolutely supreme across the globe but only supreme in their own ancestral lands, which is just and justifiable, and does not make one a White “supremacist” but only a White “nationalist”.
The Chinese media also failed to discern or deviously chose to ignore a patently hypocritical fact in reporting such similar events that while the much more frequently occurring and destructive terrorist attacks targeting native White people by Islamic terrorist elements within the Muslim immigrant communities across Western societies have customarily received only light coverage and a slap-on-the-wrist treatment from mainstream media often accompanied by an avid and vociferous reassertion of “diversity is our greatest strength”-like mantras, occasional White radicals rising up and rebelling against their outside invaders have always been singled out and endlessly scrutinized, stretched, amplified, condemned and pilloried, a luridly duplicitous, double-standard posture.
The Chinese are non-whites.
Political correctness is a shakedown technique that non-whites use against whites so why wouldn’t the Chinese call Tarrant a ‘white supremisist’ even if they do crack down on Uyghur Muslims?
That may be the case in English. Many of the sub-editors, or what pass as that now, are typical of, or able to copy, Western loony left Ps of V. Clearly, none of the media can laud an action like that of Tarrant. Who could?
However, the rhetoric in the Chinese media is, at times, quite similar to his.
This is also the case in conversation if one has educated mainland Chinese friends. They know the score. Often quite extreme, even beyond reason. Too much for me at times. That is not great, but I never object. it sure beats deluded ‘they’s all jus’ regluh peeps jus’ like you ‘n me’ types. In my heart, I agree with Chinese opinion on that.
Sure, true of many in Iran, also of many of the upper classes from Nth. Africa to Pakistan, is that they can be really nice people, not satanic. It is not true in general. Not true of most (sure, there are exceptions) immigrants. The stronger the Moslem emigre populations become, the more they feel free to force the more free-thinking or apostates back into the fold, through threat, violence, and if need be, murder. The latter is only needed on occasion, any first-gen. logical thinker (a.k.a. apostate) knows how to go through the motions if in a situation where it is required. I do not know Britain or France of now, but would bet that a huge portion of their Moslem populations are only seriously Moslem under duress, threat from other Moslems. The nuttier ones have influence, and they do chase down anyone they can identify as possibly Moslem, or, better still, anyone with ancestry in a 90% plus Moslem place.
It is a nightmare.
“By the “Old Right,” I mean classical Fascism and National Socialism and their contemporary imitators who believe that White Nationalism can be advanced through such means as one party-politics, terrorism, totalitarianism, imperialism, and genocide. Tarran’s manifesto denies that he is a National Socialist but affirms that he is a fascist, specifically a follower of Sir Oswald Mosley. He also calls himself an eco-fascist.”
Boooooooo, Greg Johnson! “Classical fascists and National Socialists” NEVER SHOT UP SYNAGOGUES to come to power. And neither did Mosley in his fascist movement. Shooting up random brown people has nothing to do with fascism or National Socialism, and everything to do with the jewish-created cultural indoctrination of Americans into a cult of hyper-individualism or “lone wolf” violence…the exact opposite of fascism or National Socialism. Further, National Socialism was not totalitarian, which is generally defined as “the state is everything”. National Socialism was founded on the principal that RACE is everything, and any state which is not serving the survival of the race of people it was founded to serve is illegitimate and should be abolished.
I agree with Greg, and with many of the other comments.
However, I read a commentary on the ‘manifesto’.
It was accurate, with screenshots.
The point that had me most incredulous was the passage on target selection.
He mentioned having considered a mosque in Dunedin, that such even exists was a huge shock to me, Dunedin is the main town of what New Zealanders call the ‘Southland’, the southern part of South Island.
I have been in NZ once. It was not too long (thirty-something years) ago and, it was an ethno-state, with the exception of Maori and a few other polynesians and, I have since gathered, jews. In Auckland, and country towns in the southern part of the North Island, the Maori were quite visible, but even the one time, in a country town, where an allegedly fearsome Maori bike gang was present, they didn’t make any trouble.
A bi-ethnic state, Maori and white, as it was, sure beats anything now, except some of eastern Europe.
I never had social trouble with Maori, even slept on the floor together, although I have friends who have.
In any case, they fought the British well, and won a treaty. It seems they, too (as from my reading and a couple met, many American Indians), would prefer if the whites would just leave it at them and the whites.
On the South Island, it was just all white (I have since read that jews then tended to live in Auckland, some in Wellington, the latter a very beautiful place at the time).
I was there with my then fiance.
Very impressed by N.Z. of then. It was supposed to be in a bad state, seemed good to me. Many old cars, a famously stalled construction project on the Wellington waterfront, but a nice place.
A mosque in Christchurch (let alone Dunedin) would have been unimaginable.
I have not seen the video, but can say that I felt only two things.
Since (long story), my former fiance and I never married, mainly thanks to a Moslem rape gang kidnapping her (in front of my eyes), and having several friends experiencing the same situation, at the time, among whom at least three (all white) subsequently killed themselves (and this is only from my direct friends and acquaintances at the time), knife attacks, threats, etc., to other friends, I was actually glad to hear of the incident. I understand that, and how, it was unwise, but have no feeling whatsoever towards the executed. I would not do it, but Tarrant did it with considerable style.
Sure, he was a cool and smart guy, so perhaps would have been better off to find a nice woman, have as many babies together as possible. How hard is it for one of his gen. to find a good woman?
It was hard enough at the earlier time I describe. I never found another marriageable white woman again, actually, I did at least once, but I was too damaged by the earlier experience and she was too damaged by her father’s suicide (for financial and temperamental, not multi-culti reasons). Such damage, unless gentle true love is found, will always cause trouble.
As for the meme crowd, this is easily the biggest since Sky King.
It is also interesting that news of his first court appearance was widely suppressed, I can see that it was not universal, but I found no direct reports.
I wanted to post far more detailed recall, but, though relevant, leave it there now, possibly already too much for Doc. Johnson to allow.
Finally, if N.Z. now has a big enough Moslem population to have a mosque in Dunedin, they must have pretty large Moslem prison populations, so it would not be hard to arrange for Tarrant to be in a situation where he is murdered, or badly beaten (I am no great fan of Yaxley, but that the gummint arranged very bad conditions for him is clear; he had all of his teeth beaten out, among other attacks by Moslem criminals).
I suppose N.Z. will not plumb those depths, but one cannot be sure.
I am sorry to read that you were not able to find a ‘nice white lady’ to marry and have children with, and it seems to be a common complaint nowadays. It is definitely something we have to work on in White Nationalism. The same thing happened to me, a woman, in 1970 when I was 30, and I also experienced medical problems then that precluded further child bearing. Find someone early, get married, have children and then work out the consequences. We really need to work on this! We absolutely need to save our race and civilization.
Well said. I want to write a detailed essay on it for Greg, some time, although it would be the first that he has heard of that.
Whether I write it or not, I think that I will. Words to the unwise, not that I am wise, but a little.
Cheers, Pat, and thank you.
There was some kind of video link to a video on the Facebook group of the Mosque he attacked.
It was titled ‘for Muslems only. Please do not share’. I typed in the address but it was already removed.
No doubt it was about how they need to maintain the status quo so that they can take over eventually through high birth rates, and that somehow this is all a part of Allah’s plan.
I feel like things are about to get much worse.
The blackpill is that there will be some serious government money spent on monitoring and infiltrating far right groups and that censorship will become more heavy handed.
But it could have been much worse. It happening in New Zealand means that it will be much less of a story than it happening in the US or Europe. That he exclusively targeted Muslims makes this less of a big deal than targeting Jews or blacks or some other minority since Muslims have committed countless acts of terrorism on western soil. There’s a lot less “cucking” out there than you’d expect from mainstream conservative figures. Rod Dreher basically said much of what was in the manifesto was factual(FWIW, I think it’s about the worst manifesto I’ve ever read). Ann Coulter brushed it off by comparing it to Muslim attacks. Trump brushed off the question on white nationalists.
But while I think the far right will be greater suppressed, I think this events adds to the milieu that immigration is something that must be done right or problems may arise.
But far right outlets need to get their shit together and defuse crazies before they go violent. I would love for all the popular far right media outlets to put up a statement of political non-violence. Frankly, far right politics attracts a lot of losers who should be told to go out and fix their lives and forget about politics. Some should be told to go back and take the blue pill.
Well said, soren. One of our first priorities should be getting an autonomous/breakaway state (or failing that, off-grid independent community) somewhere in the world that is pro-White so that those most easily spooked by impending demographic issues and globalist tyranny have somewhere to run to, even if it’s weak and marginal.
I totally agree with Greg Johnson in his post on the New Zealand shooting. He is the voice of reason, intelligence, and calm and clear observation on this shooting. I am new to White Nationalism but I think Greg Johnson and his books give the most intelligent analysis of the subject, and should be read by everyone who is bewildered by the continued cries from more and more immigration into Europe and the Americas. When our elected leaders refuse to listen to our voices of fear and consternation, these sorts of ‘explosions’ of violence are the result.
Violence breeds violence pal. The past few years the west and christian and supposedly tolerant and secular societies faced and were subjected to savage and brutal terrorist attacks under the auspices of Islam! Wow I am not surprised as the the media wants to believe the suffering the muslim communities in these countries are going through! I condemn all types of violence, but what goes around comes around, as the saying goes.
Doc Johnson is good, but far from the only good writer (even here).
Red pills and the JQ tend to break minds already weakened by indoctrination and pozz since birth. (Remember that Neo in the Matrix would’ve been classified as a mass murderer by his actions.) It takes immense spiritual and mental discipline to digest red pills and seek humane solutions.
I agree with this entirely. The pressures involved in moving out of such a powerfully imposed worldview to see the depths of its active and intentional evil breaks people. My shift allowed me to understand the behaviour of Islamic terrorists, many of whom grew up in a blue pilled environment and then came to witness the wickedness of modernity. Extreme stubbornness is required to see through the mist of one’s legitimate hatred to clearly recognize what things are possible and what things are not without succumbing to cuckoldry. Its a real tightrope.
This is why he did it, you can’t look at this photo without being traumatized!
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fii.yuki.la%2Fb%2F22%2Fb7e3559f0c543fd6b9e40a5e52b4d087f83390e47deb87228f6e7abd8853c22b.png&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fyuki.la%2Fpol%2F127217542&docid=4IZW28mNHdVjBM&tbnid=1j9UDJ9V47f_0M%3A&vet=10ahUKEwju9Ijq3InhAhWWyIMKHcI6CIYQMwgtKAYwBg..i&w=840&h=512&bih=753&biw=1152&q=ebba%20%C3%A5kerlund%20dead&ved=0ahUKEwju9Ijq3InhAhWWyIMKHcI6CIYQMwgtKAYwBg&iact=mrc&uact=8
Never seen this before. Now I have seen it. And will never forget.
The Beast behind this is not living in the muslim community. It is “thriving” in the MSM, in the investment banks and in the corrupt governments and politicians of our own countries. There is The Beast and it is laughing at us, if we direct our actions towards muslims.
There is only one enemy. The Globalist Beast. And we all know who they are. They are thriving as our little girls are slaughtered.
since this is essentially blonde in the belly of the beast same cuckout Ill give you the reply google deleted on her chan
They feel cheated because they are cheated
Not a mass murderer, a counterrevolutionary. the same people/states condemning him are literally killing orders magnitude more muslims at the exact same time while also importing them to kill us as well.
He is a conservative he just rejects that those who pose as conservatives are conservative and hes obviously read moldberg, land, NRX altright paleos etc so get problems with capitalism not subordinated to the people, thinking jefferson and jesus are not leftists, that all men are not created equal, that multiculturalism is monoculturalism, that radical individualism leads to collapse so jordy is a cuck not a conservative etc
NO WE DEF CANT AGREE WE WANT TO PREVENT FUTURE VIOLENCE WHITES SURVIVE ONLY IF THEY CALL THE LEFTS BLUFF AND VIOLENTLY TAKE BACK THEIR NATIONS THERE IS SIMPLY NO PATH TO SURVIVAL WITHOUT VIOLENCE THE LEFT IS DESPERATELY TRYING TO MAKE US HOPE POLITICS CAN SAVE US UNTIL THE LEFT HAS ENOUGH VIOLENT POTENTIAL TO WIN- THIS IS WHY WOMEN SHOULD BE IN THE KITCHEN NOT THE SOAPBOX
Youre reading to much into parts that were simply humor
youre as bad as Jordy Peterson in the exact same way Peterson says hes an identitarian and that makes him far right Peterson is actually right its right wing to be identitarian rightness is building sorting discerning leftism is wrecking mixing denying difference. Again Tarrant doesnt actually says hes not rightwing hes says hes not a cuckservatist globalist, hes clear if you have a clue what he likes about china is hierarchy and order hes an eco-ist not becouse globohomowarming but because blood and soil and a realist recognition of our animal interdependence on the actual land of our homeland. your position is just more cuckservatism better to go down with the ship than be unseemly better to lose to the barbarian than sink to their level by fighting like barbarian- please bitch make me a sandwich better yet how many babies have you made so far?
you cant unwind nihilism this is the denouement of the slave morality nietzsche prophesied cuck christianity is dead we need to restore out heroic morality this happens through war out of the war patriarchy will be restored and a holistic ethnostate from an ethnostate a culture can emerge since we are europeans and post christcuck post enlightenment we can not go back to religions of superstitions it will be a dark enlightenment what the enlightenment would have been had their science been more advance, where we were heading before the jews had us destroy the germans and ourselves we will be the Gods of our new religion the ubermensch we will do what we were about before the judaic interregnum we will move planets terraform them reboot our dna transcend our physicality become Gods
They are not victims they were jihadis muslims do not belong in christ church new zealand or any nation outside saudi arabia we are not fools honey you are whats next a chorus of kubaya ? are you going to tell us violence ever solved anything? heres a bit of reality violence is the basis of all civilization and the very first step is to control your women until women are reigned in chaos. then you use violence to create order and enforce it by using it against outsiders and creating a safe space for your people to develop more complexity. usually somewhere in this process women get free faggotry sets in and idiots start saying violence doesnt solve anything and even stupider people believe it a really intelligent people never ever forgets violence is the very foundation of civilization and will always be because there will always be those who will be willing to use it against you.
Your post really scares the shit out of me and frankly should not have been approved. TBH, if I were in charge of making watch lists you might be on it. There’s no excuse for mass murder.
The far right as a psycho-silo problem(gab and /pol/) with people soaking up depressing news with rancid language. And the problem with the rancid language is that it internalizes labels in those who lash out which causes them to consider murdering a human at the same level as hunting a deer… or worst. It’s corrupting and breaking peoples minds. I just went to 8ch and was disgusted by the support this terrorist dumbass received. And the reason I was disgusted is that someone in the cheering section very well may take home the lesson that if they similarly lash that then they will also have a cheering section.
Work on your syntax, and use punctuation.
Boycott Moslem business, whenever possible. This means taxis, kebabs, and unless you are sure they are not Moslem, any south Asian food.
This should be complentary with boycott, divestment, and sanctions on their izzie buddies.
Seriously, the less of your money they have, the better you will feel.
I used to make two exceptions, a Bangladeshi restaurant and a Kemalist Turkish restaurant.
The operators of the former were, IMO, not responsible for the arson on the building.
The latter almost certainly were.
Great windfall profits for setting fire to your own building. It may aptly be called jewish fire, but the yakuza and turks (from my observation) are also pretty good at arson for profit.
I now (for some years, since the turks obviously burnt down their own building) boycott any shop that has a moslem employee. It is easy to do that here.
Great post — but in Los Angeles, we might starve! Seriously, half the restaurants are Hispanic, and ALL of them hire Hispanic employees. Not many ‘Halal” eateries here yet, but a few popping up. Not many Jewish restaurants either, other than “Kosher Canyon” on Fairfax in Hollywood. But I totally agree — BOYCOTT as many foreign restaurants as possible. Eat at home with family, to renew ties. Create a nice atmosphere for your own kids to get together with others ‘of like kind’. I am a big proponent of “Home Schooling” — 83% of home-schooled kids are White, in the U.S., according to a Wikipedia statistic.
Anyone is welcome to contribute to the Infogalactic page on the shootings here to provide a more accurate view than the mainstream: https://infogalactic.com/info/Christchurch_mosque_shootings
Mass migration is a small problem, compared with the passivity of our own people.
Look, a few thousand white men could control half Africa, with no worries. Now, hundreds of millions white people are replaced without resistance.
There is no need for “our own country”. These white countries are our countries.. That is it. No more, no less. They are our countries.
No “migrant” needs to be shot to keep them our countries. We just simply have to stop this nonsense.
And every time somebody does something the enemy is always there mealymouthing about the need “to be careful and avoid provocating them”. Yes, yes, be careful, boy, or we are gonne come and punish you…
Well, it is time to turn this around and start punishing those folks, who have brought this hell to us. And once we get that done, it is easy as Sunday afternoon. A few million muslims? Some africans? In our country, living amongst us. Hey, like Rammstein says ( a bit modified): ” You have a problem, I have a solution, so what’s the problem? Let’s do it quick!”.
Some years ago I met a New Zealander who worked for an international marketing company. We got talking and he mentioned that New Zealand was often chosen for the introduction of new products and advertising campaigns, the reasons being relative isolation and ease of monitoring the consumer response.
I believe this terrorist attack will be used to develop new ‘marketing techniques’ against White people even thinking about WN. From that observation it’s a short step to consider the attack may be part of a wider psy-ops program that required grooming and mentoring of Tarrant and others of a similar background.
It will be interesting to see what parts of Tarrant’s background and contacts are suppressed during his trial, if he survives and makes it to court.
A moral argument for racial separation and White nationalism from….the old Catholic catechism. Back in the 50’s, the nuns taught us a moral category called “occasions of sin.” These were situations which, while morally ambiguous or neutral in themselves, created conditions where people were more likely to break the moral law. It was also implied that create these conditions and thus increase the likelihood of sinning was in itself immoral. A small example from my history: a wealthy relative hired a poor single mother as a companion and then gave her use of the credit card, without close supervision, in order to purchase items for the relative. The young woman, no surprise, according to the catechism, used the card to buy $5000 worth of items for herself. She was charged, rightly. But the root fault lay with the imprudent relative for basically setting her up to transgress.
Thus, the whole story of “integration” and “multiculturalism” and “migrants.” And New Zealand.
If you place immemorially hostile and incompatible peoples inside a space where they must, in order to live, compete with each other for resources, status and power, then you create a massive “occasion of sin” because the likelihood of bad behavior skyrockets: assault, theft, rape, murder, political dislocation, societal breakdown, the tribal and civil wars. All preventable.
It is thus the height of charity and moral probity to prevent such inevitable disasters by keeping people out of “occasions of sin” and settling them apart from one another in their own homogeneous countries.
Human group competition will never cease. It is part of the tragic DNA of homo sapiens on planet Earth. But the post WW2 drive to force inimical groups into close quarters and to lie about it under the empty notion of “civic nationalism” is a sin of global proportions that far outweighs in gravity any of the local evils which must, by nature, flow from it.
We should repent of it and become White nationlists. By the logic of the old RC catechism, It’s the moral thing to do.
Well put!
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment