- Counter-Currents - https://counter-currents.com -

Understanding the Halle Synagogue & Kebab Shop Shootings


Stephan Balliet

1,557 words

It happens now with accelerating regularity: a white man who is alarmed at white ethnic displacement — “the great replacement” — goes to a place frequented by non-whites, often a place of worship, and starts shooting.

And now it has happened again:

Because these shootings all follow the same basic pattern, I have created a boilerplate article responding to them:

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 Balliet receives a fair trial and — if found guilty — a just punishment, but that seems unlikely given the racially charged, anti-white atmosphere in Germany today.

We obviously don’t know all the facts yet, but based on Balliet’s livestream, we can say several things with confidence.

First, Balliet was definitely concerned with white racial dispossession.

Second, this shooting spree could not have happened in a homogeneously white society. 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. Balliet’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 [9]. 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 [10] of redrawing borders and shifting populations.

In the case of Germany, virtually all non-Europeans there are recent, post-World War II immigrants, and the best solution is for them to return to their homelands.

Third, we should resist dismissing Balliet with the all-too-easy claim that he was “crazy.” Yes, he did something evil and stupid, as well as downright embarrassing. But his 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.

Balliet 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. Balliet 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 Balliet 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.

Finally, Balliet’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 his 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 Brenton Tarrant [4] (whom he was obviously imitating), John Earnest [3], Robert Bowers [5], Dylann Roof [11]Anders Behring Breivik [12]Wade Michael Page [8], and Frazier Glenn Miller [13], 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.

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 [15] 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 [16]. 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 — even if they are racial invaders — has entirely predictable results. First, such violence creates sympathy for the victims. (Even I feel sympathy for them, yet 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.

Beyond that, Balliet is in a special class of moronic white spree killers who end up killing only white people. Frasier Glenn Miller murdered three people in the vicinity of two Jewish buildings in Kansas, but he managed to kill only white people. Balliet’s victims were two Germans. With defenders like this, who needs enemies?

As I argue in my essay “Against White Nationalist Terrorism [17],” White Nationalists are making tremendous progress by means of propaganda. We are converting people to our worldview. The more people we convert, the sooner we regain control of our homelands. This is why our enemies are hell-bent on censoring and deplatforming us. They use every shooting spree like Tarrant’s or Balliet’s as a pretext to further clamp down on our freedom of speech, which restricts our ability to change minds and delays the implementation of sane, nationalist policies. And every day we are delayed is paid for in white lives.

Stephan Balliet killed two people in Halle, both of them fellow Germans. But far more white people will die if his deeds lead to further erosions of freedom.

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 to draw clear, unambiguous intellectual lines between New Right and Old Right approaches [18], and (3) if anyone makes concrete threats of committing such acts in our circles, we need to be the ones to call the police.

My 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.