You really scooped everyone yesterday by posting the manifesto even before the first news reports were coming in. How did you get hold of it? [LF: 8Chan]
The mainstream media is of course ignoring the substance of what Tarrant wrote. I heard one terrorism expert on CBS news this morning say there was nothing new in it, which I suppose is true, but it does give a comprehensive and coherent insight into his motivations.
It seems that Tarrant (and to a lesser extent Brevik, but not Dylan Roof) believes that (1) Western civilization is worthy of preservation and defense, (2) Western governments are not interested in preserving or promoting Western civilization with official and unofficial actions undermining traditional Christian beliefs, promoting immigration and favoring immigrants over natives, not inculcating immigrants into Western values, but promoting multiculturalism and preservation of loyalty to the immigrants’ home country. Tarrant subscribes to the oft quoted maxim that immigration without assimilation is invasion.
He is very focused on declining birth rates among those of European stock and the higher birthrate among immigrants of non European stock.
He clearly believes that the day is coming when whites will be a minority in countries in which they used to dominate and that as a minority they will find themselves in a situation where the majority discriminates against them, and discrimination may be the least of the problems if the immigrants and non-European stock do not accept and enforce western style protection of human rights.
Last night when I told my wife he had written “For Rotherham” on his rifle stock, she told me it sounded like I was saying his action was justified. I am sure that in his mind his action was justified. He thinks of himself as a modern John Brown (who hoped his raid on Harper’s Ferry would be the spark for the civil war that would end slavery).
These questions [about Western Civ] need to be asked of all politicians and leaders among the immigrants, and according to Tarrant, especially Muslims (he seems to think that the Turks are the worst, and of course they have been in Germany long before the more recent wave of refugees inundated the country).
Rather obviously, and I regret that I have to say this, but if I don’t what I write will be misinterpreted, what Tarrant did was commit murder under the laws of New Zealand. In the U.S. it would also be a hate crime. Since these are the effective laws of the country, Tarrant will have to answer for this criminally and if New Zealand had the death penalty he would be put to death. As it is he imagines he will be vindicated and released from prison after 27 years, like Mandela which would put him in his mid 50’s. I wonder whether Newsom would refuse to enforce the death penalty against Tarrant if he were convicted of 49 counts of murder in California and sentenced to death?
So I want to make it clear, I unequivocally condemn this action. Nothing that I write should be seen as in any way condoning Tarrant’s act. This analysis is however important in understanding his motivation.
The other side of this is what Tarrant hoped to accomplish. As Tarrant points out there have been and continue to be many terrorist acts perpetrated by Muslims in Western Countries. These range from the 9-11 attacks, to the Bataclan attack, to car attacks, the Charlie Hebdo attacks, to the sexual grooming of English and other European teenagers by Muslim gangs. As anyone knows, there have not been similar attacks on Muslim communities in the West. The Baruch Goldstein attack in Israel is one, and this is another, but that is about it. One can argue, as many Muslims do, that the West doesn’t need to engage in these sorts of attacks since military actions taken in many Muslim nations (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen (although not directly by Western powers there) and of course Israel against Palestinian areas, have killed and terrorized a far larger number of Muslims than what Muslims have done in the west.
I think that one of the things that Tarrant was trying to accomplish was to make Muslim immigrants aware that their position in Western nations is not secure and that unless and until there is full assimilation (which according to Tarrant is impossible absent abandoning Islam for Christianity) at any time they could be targeted. In this way he is trying to make them take the same mindset as Jews have in many countries in Europe with large and restive Muslim immigrant populations. I think the natural response to this is not to be terrorized but rather will lead to the employment of private security guards, training members of the Muslim community to defend the Mosques, and more police protection.
But it is important to realize how effective a series of terrorist attacks can be in undermining the psyche of the Muslim communities. Under the British Mandate in Palestine, there were many attacks by Arabs on Jews and this was most effectively dealt with when the Jews began terrorist reprisals against Arabs. This persisted throughout the war of Independence as a way of “encouraging” Arabs to leave areas the Jews wanted for themselves. This same pattern played out in the war for Algerian independence. It also was used after the breakup of Yugoslavia following Tito’s death. It was used by settlers against Native Americans, who responded in kind when they were able to.
We shall see whether there are in fact others who are willing to act in the same way. As the New Zealand authorities said, none of the suspects arrested were on any sort of watch list. The left plays up that there is some sort of huge secret underground neo nazi right even though there is precious little evidence of that. That Tarrant called himself a fascist will also be used to discredit him.
But when you look at the “principles” ranging from anti corporatism to pro environmentalism, I am sure that those aspects of what Tarrant espoused will be whitewashed and only his racism and fascism will be stressed.
The Christchurch killer: