FRAMING THE CHRISTCHURCH HORROR

by Colin Liddell

How should the Affirmative Right and the wider Dissident Right respond to the New Zealand mosque slaughter? 

This is not as simple as it sounds because none of more obvious courses are at all satisfactory.

It is easy to condemn any act of violence outright, but condemning violence can sometimes be akin to pissing in the wind or castigating the tide for coming in. In short it can seem like futile moral signalling or just naive pointlessness. Let's face it, ever escalating diversity-related violence is baked into the multicultural open-borders cake that the globalist system has prepared for us all.

Likewise, approving of the violence in some way does not work either.

Sure, reading the killer's manifesto, you can find lots of plausible arguments for what he did. Western countries are being colonized by higher-breeding population groups who also represent a humanity increasingly out of whack with the environment. These problems are also being totally ignored by our governments, themselves keen to morally signal to each other how "superior" they are by allowing in hordes of Third Worlders, while also priding themselves on their "liberated stance" to women, even at the cost of genocidally low birth rates.

The writer of this manifesto, whether it was the killer himself or some shady handler, was not stupid, and the document is larded with many good points designed to get already radicalised young White men nodding along, even if some of the points turn out to be clearly contradictory.

To my mind, the document is written as a load of loosely connected or even non-sequitur "thought-bites," each one designed to appeal to this type or that type of angry young guy.

While the manifesto criticises diversity, it also extols it, at one point even claiming that the action was in defence of true diversity:

Was the attack anti-diversity in origin? No, the attack was not an attack on diversity, but an attack in the name of diversity. To ensure diverse peoples remain diverse, separate, unique, undiluted [and] unrestrained in cultural or ethnic expression and autonomy. To ensure that the peoples of the world remain true to their traditions and faiths and do not become watered down and corrupted by the influence of outsiders. The attack was to ensure a preservation of beauty, art and tradition. In my mind a rainbow is only beautiful to due its variety of colours, mix the colours together and you destroy them all and they are gone forever and the end result is far from anything beautiful.

Quite obviously the person behind this is not an idiot.

But the key thing to remember here is that associating oneself in anyway with this kind of violence is a total losing strategy, no matter how well it might play in certain echo chambers you happen to be a member of.

 Brenton Tarrant

Most people will be quite simply repulsed by this act, which, in case you need reminding, was the slaughter of unarmed civilians. They will respond in this way only partly because they have been brainwashed to accept the globohomo state. A large part of their revulsion will be simple human dislike of bloodbaths—an emotional negative—while for some, Christians or post-Christians, say, there will be a moral dimension to this as well. Therefore, to associate oneself, however, tenuously with the emotional and moral negativity this generates is to be viewed in the same terms as a negative.

These people, by the way, the normies, are the people who need to be reached if the globohomo state is to be curtailed in any meaningful way.

The key thing then is not to embrace the violence in either a negative or positive way by condoning or condemning it, but to keep one's distance from it.

The Christchurch Mosques Massacre should not be seen as an act of "understandable" revenge for the acts that the manifesto mentions:

Why did you carry out the attack? To most of all show the invaders that our lands will never be their lands, our homelands are our own and that, as long as a white man still lives, they will NEVER conquer our lands and they will never replace our people. To take revenge on the invaders for the hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by foreign invaders in European lands throughout history. To take revenge for the enslavement of millions of Europeans taken from their lands by the Islamic slavers. To take revenge for the thousands of European lives lost to terror attacks throughout European lands. To take revenge for Ebba Akerlund...

No, instead of falling into the trap of choosing sides that this invites, the correct approach is to simply equate Christchurch with the attack in Stockholm that killed 12-year-old Ebba Akerlund as yet another instance and harbinger of further "diversity malfunction."

Diversity is inherently about division. And division, when expressed on a social, ethnic, racial, and religious level, almost always leads to violence. This is what we have history for—to demonstrate this simple truth—and also why the world has always been divided into hundreds of different polities, with any overriding unity being merely the expression of tyranny and conquest.

To take this stance is patently moral in that you are sympathising with all and expressing enmity to none, while still doggedly sticking to your point that mass immigration and multiculturalism is wrong, destructive, and deadly.

Holding this point on any other basis—for example on the basis of Islamophobia—is simply unsupportable under the present moral architecture. Even though there is nothing pathological about any emotion, the fact is that basing your views on "hate" today simply weakens them morally and politically. This has been the mistake that Nationalists have made in the past, with the result that the common sense part of their views have been largely consigned to the dustbin of history, with the sad results that we see today.

In this sense even the amazingly brave response of the Australian senator Fraser Anning to the shooting, leaves something to be desired. One of the quotes from that statement runs as follows:

"The entire religion of Islam is simply the violent ideology of a sixth-century despot masquerading as a religious leader, which justifies endless war against anyone who opposes it and calls for the murder of unbelievers and apostates. The truth is that Islam is not like any other faith. It is the religious equivalent of fascism. And just because of the followers of this savage belief were not the killers in this instance, doesn't make them blameless."

While this may be objectively true, it fails on a moral basis by needlessly making enemies. It essentially implies the need for a global crusade against Islam—over a billion and a half humans—as a precondition for saving the West, when all that is required is a mutually beneficial policy of civilisational cohabitation with Muslims in their countries and Westerners in theirs.

Fraser Anning

Also, guess which of these two approaches is more likely to unite Muslims and divide Westerners—the call for what is essentially a crusade against "religious fascism" or the peaceful scaling back of multiculturalism? Also, guess which of these approaches has more potency? Yes, the moral approach, which makes it the more truly "based" one.

The other weakness with Anning's approach is that it blames the symptom without bothering too much with the disease, as Islam in the West is only one form or expression of the multicultural chaos leading to ever increasing conflict or extinction. There are many others as well.

So, to sum up, never take sides in the diversity wars, as the diversity wars and the dislocated diversity that generates them are the true enemy, and not just the enemy of White countries but the enemy of all humanity. After Christchurch we can now say, "stop mass immigration to save the lives of Muslims."

Become a Patron!