Anti-Islamic Terrorism

Two New Zealand mosques have been attacked, reportedly by a single gunman, causing multiple fatalities. While Islamic terror attacks against Europeans are fairly common - although it has been very quiet for a couple years now - the violence is rarely returned. To my recollection, this is the first mass shooting directed towards the immigrants, rather than the other way around. The shooter, now in custody, left a 74-page anti-immigration manifesto on social media, where he states that his quest for vengeance began with the murder of 11-year Ebba Akerlund, who was run down by an Islamic terrorist in Stockholm while shopping with her mom.

A single act by a lone gunman is not a trend, but my gut reaction has to be that this kind of violence was inevitable, and this will not be the last of it. The responsibility for any single shooting lies on the gunman himself, but a trend of reactionary violence - if indeed one develops - lies squarely on the western democracies and their almost total disregard for the nations over which they rule. The people routinely vote against immigration, against wars, against bailouts. Candidates makes promises but the results rarely show. The major idea of democracy is that, rather than having competing factions fight a war for political control, we instead take a head count to decide who would have won, and let them call the shots until the next election. This works so long as the people who win the headcount are normally the same people who would have won the war. If the strongest faction comes to believe that their votes are not actually relevant, eventually they will cozy up to the notion that they might be better off to go ahead and fight that war.

This man seems to have come to the conclusion that he was going to have to take defense of western civilization into his own hands. This blog takes a similar stance, in general, although that hardly amounts to advocating for such indefensible vigilanteism. Opening fire on random civilians - at prayer, no less - is not just savage thuggery, but also happens to be totally counterproductive to his own goals. An isolated incident is only likely to increase Muslim immigration, because it makes martyrs of them, gives the left a rallying cry, and associates anti-immigration sentiments with unhinged violence. My stance on punishment for terrorist crimes against random civilians is that the culprits be publicly tortured and executed. There's no reason I'd spare this criminal the same fate.

Our focus should be on survivalism, not vigilanteism. That means rejecting the materialistic culture in favor of family, and preparing for the collapse scenario. Violence will quite likely be a core component of the defense of our nation, whether we wish it or not. (When/if it comes, we'll wish it hadn't.) That is not the same as seeking it out, or being utterly reckless about it, as was this radical western terrorist. No, he's only given his political enemies a gift, and the response will be quite predictable. The idea that any one of us is going to single-handedly defend western civilization, like Brutus fighting off the Etruscans on the bridge, is maniacally delusional. If violence was to be applied, let's say, his approach was exactly the opposite of the right way to do it. If the goal was to terrorize Muslims into leaving, then it should be done with sustained, low-grade violence, not flash-in-the-pan spectacles which leave the instigators dead or imprisoned for life. If the goal was to rally his countrymen in defense of the homeland, shooting up an innocent crowd at prayer seems like the worst possible idea. And if the goal was to influence the elites and politicians to serve the interests of their own people rather than foreigners, then the violence should be directed at them instead. Liberals are easily intimidated by fear. The major reason they vote for high immigration is they're afraid of being called racist. If they were even more afraid of what nationalists might do to them, the invasions would stop pretty fast.

[Update: evidently the goal was accelerationism. The shooter wants a strong reaction against whites & right wingers, wants to begin balkanization now rather than later. It seems like an outlandish strategy, but it's not so different from the Iraqi insurgents baiting US troops into using excess force against civilians in the hopes of stoking popular revolt against the occupation.]

I don't suspect we'll see any copycat attacks, or a signifiant trend towards this kind of violence in the short term, although I'd expect retaliation from Jihadis. The long-term prognosis is armed ethnic conflict for most of the western countries, but it will concur with pronounced economic crises, those to the level of food and fuel shortages. In the short term, incidents like this only give the left leverage to disarm us, shut down our websites, and otherwise sabotage our efforts to prepare for the ongoing collapse of our civilization.