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.