Rule by Fear

In yesterday's off-the-cuff response to the Christchurch mosque shooting, I opined that the incident is an example of the inevitable violence we've predicted would arise in response to mass foreign immigration. Despite the assailant's intentions, and the likelihood of retaliation by Jihadis, I would reckon that the incident will not trigger a spiral of violence, so long as the economy remains stable. However, I did not venture a prediction for the media response. Common sense would suggest a monstrous reaction from both mainstream and social media platforms to graphic video evidence of a white nationalist acting viciously. Surely the noise should be deafening. And yet, I did not venture such a prediction, because I also hold on to a counter-intuitive theory that would make the opposite prediction. While NZ is the number one story, it's not being given the attention it deserves. At the time of this writing, CNN's major headline is about New Zealand's gun-control response, which is predictable. MSNBC doesn't even have a major headline on the event. A text search shows the word Zealand mentioned only twice in minor sidebar headlines, with Trump mentioned 14 times throughout the page, including the leading headline. Newsweek, the reigning anti-Trump outlet, runs a slightly tighter spread at 14 Trumps to 10 Zealands, but does include such incendiary headlines as White Europe is Imaginary. European Islamophobia is not and New Zealand's Hidden Problem of White Supremacy. (I don't advise holding your breath waiting for analogous headlines such as Black Nigeria is Imaginary. Nigerian Christophobia is not or China's Hidden Problem of Chinese Supremacy.)

The story is still getting strong attention, but not what the truly gruesome livestreamed footage of an actual white hate crime would be expected to receive. To put it in context, the energy level behind the slaughter of dozens of innocent Muslims in a mosque is significantly less that what was given to a group of Catholic high school students being disrespectful to an American Indian, which wasn't even true. So why the disconnect between expected versus actual media outrage? I'll provide a theory in a moment, but I'd like to swing by a couple other aspects of the incident first.

The response to the incident is even quieter on the mainstream right than the left. Fox News gives 6 Zealands to 24 Trumps. That may be expected, as the story is politically inconvenient to them. The far right is far more active, since we share ideological common ground with the sentiments of the shooter. Many even express praise and admiration, and agree with his policy of extreme accelerationism. There is a case to be made for it. I've often been baffled by the Islamic terrorism in Europe, such as the Bataclan massacre. If you're a Jihadi in France - with a Muslim population of around 15% - and you want to make France into an Islamic state, and the natives are foolishly permitting a strong inflow of Muslims into their homelands, why would you even consider engaging in such brutality? The strategic benefit should be to milk the high immigration rate for as long as possible before turning openly hostile. Accelerationism would seem to hinder the invaders, and benefit the nativists so long as they hold the numerical advantage, which seems to be an argument in favor of the New Zealand terrorist.

My retort is that righteous men do not shoot up crowds of civilians, especially in their place of worship. It is a cowardly act. Anyone with a gun can kill scores of unarmed people. Some might respond that patiently waiting for natural societal collapse, as advocated here, is merely an excuse for cowardice, as we remain docile while our demographic situation becomes increasingly dire. So the case can be made for cowardice on both sides. How do we choose one?

These kinds of dilemmas always have an answer. The simple heuristic is to pick the approach that is most honest and truthful. Accelerationism is inherently deceitful. It involves deliberately making the situation worse than it would otherwise be, with the intention of provoking a reactionary response in the preferred direction. It's just a form of lying. This blog often promotes passive accelerationism. I advised, when Hillary Clinton was the likely future president, that her disastrous reign might actually be preferable to Trump getting some reforms in place which would delay (and thus amplify) the inevitable. I still voted and advocated for Trump. Passive accelerationism means doing your due diligence to improve things, while also managing the downside of defeat. When Trump was elected, liberals cried and screamed. If Clinton had been elected, I would have laughed and doubled down on bracing for collapse. It's the stoic approach. Do what you can, and handle realty as it comes. Active accelerationism means tricking or abusing your own clan into action. Treachery is never patriotism. My advice to any would-be assassin: just have some kids. The order of loyalty is God -> Family -> Nation. If the white nations must be tricked into defending themselves, then fuck em'. They don't deserve to persist. You can't save anyone who doesn't want to be saved. Your more primal loyalty is then to family. Ensure that your children's children will have children. And short of that, there's a fundamental duty to God. Shooting up a place of worship, unprovoked, is the opposite of godliness. It's evil.

I'd suspect that the shooter had no family. No wife, no kids. Nor was he a regular at any church. Based on his trolling humor during his savage act, referencing insides jokes from 4chan and 8chan, it seems his social life was largely constrained to the online world. The same is true of Muslim terrorists, who are normally young unattached men. I believe their high terrorism rate is partly a result of polygamy. A man with a beloved woman or child, dependent on his ability to provide, will be far less likely to willfully martyr himself for a creed. In the western world, feminism is starting to have a similar effect.

There is one other thing that we must honestly consider: gun control would have prevented the crime. His manifesto states that he chose to target New Zealand to demonstrate that Muslims were present even in the far corners of Christendom. That is bullshit rationalization. He went to New Zealand to access legal firearms for training. He remained there to commit his atrocity because he had no way to get his firearms over to Australia. Like it or not, the incident gives a strong case for tightening gun control in New Zealand. Many whites will not want Muslims to have legal ability to acquire firearms to commit retaliatory attacks on churches. (Of course, that logic does not apply in the US, where our porous border allows enough illegal narcotics to kill 70,000 Americans per year. But in New Zealand it's a different matter.)

Returning now to the initial question, why are liberal media outlets downplaying the atrocity? And why do Jihadis attack Europe despite the negative backlash it might cause on immigration policy? The answer is fear. Surely readers hear have noticed that liberals gleefully bash Christianity without a second thought, yet are careful to avoid offending Muslims. They'll drag a Christian baker all the way to the Supreme Court to force him to bake a sodomy cake, but not the Muslim. Because they know there is no safer a target than a Christian baker, whereas insulting Islam is flirtation with death. Christian bakers are harmless, so they are attacked. Catholic school boys are harmless, so they are attacked. Heavily armed murderous white vigilantes are not harmless, so some care is given. They certainly don't want to advertise that whites might resort to violence. The irony is this. The more violent the group, the less the left will tend to denounce them as violent. They denounce our speech as violence, but actual violence compels them to shut up. Muslims sense this, so they shoot up concerts and newspapers. The result is that the liberals in the west are terrified to criticize Muslims, who are largely permitted to continue their annexation of western lands. The media are afraid to run critical stories. Even the police are afraid to report the actual crime statistics! It's nuts, but it is the truth. Our society is permeated by unsophisticated weaklings, who crumble at the hint of violence. The west is regressing to a barbarian state, where preference is given to the most fearsome rather than the most adept.