2,764 words
I fought in the Optics Wars. I was in there, man. I was in those 504-um mega-threads alongside Ricky Vaughn, Weev, and Andrew Anglin, debating the primary issue of the day (optics) against the members of the Traditional Workers Party, their malevolent wignat allies, and the odd well-meaning “us pro-whites have to stick together no matter what” useful idiot.
And I was there when the Treaty of Cuckbox was signed.
“The movement” (to such an extent that such a thing exists) was to be as it was always meant to be: only online. No goon marches, no waiting for the big collapse, and certainly no overthrowin’ the goddamn government. We had Trump, a MAGA movement, and a growing presence on YouTube. We had some tools we could work with.
By decree of the Treaty of Cuckbox, all LARPers, Siege-readers, costume-wearers, accelerationists, Dylann Roof-fetishists, and various humorless and irony-deaf wignats were to be banished from the land. They were to be exiled to the remote island of Gab, where they could dick-size their edgieness to each other and form a cult around Patrick Little. So let it be written. So let it be done.
But since then, we have seen two wignat shooting sprees.
First, there was the October 2018 synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh, where militant wignat Robert Bowers’ final social media post before embarking on his one-man pogrom actually referenced the Optics War: “Screw your optics, I’m going in.”
The phrase has become iconic in Dissident Right circles. Mr. Bond, the world’s premier Internet Nazi rapper, even named his most recent album after Bowers’ famous battle cry.
But the notable thing about Bowers’ famous last words was to whom they were directed. Before riding into battle, who did Bowers want to have one last dig at? It was not the Left. It was not the Jews. Nor was it to the “Establishment/DeepState/Cathedral,” “The Man,” or even those rich fat cats. His final parting shot was to people like me, Weev, Andrew Anglin, Greg Johnson, Millennial Woes, and Ricky Vaughn: the “optics cucks.” We are the “your” in “screw your optics.”
Then, fast-forward to last week. Trump has turned to the Dark Side, Brexit isn’t happening. The future of populism, already bleak, has been thrown into greater uncertainty. The YangGang starts looking like an attractive consolation prize for Dissident Rightists looking for something to continue fighting for.
Then there is another wignat shooting, this time in Christchurch, New Zealand, and now the world has been turned on its head. Nothing that has happened in the history of the Dissident Right has prepared us for this – not Hailgate, not Charlottesville, not Dylann Roof, not the synagogue shooting. Brenton Tarrant, an Australian man apparently extremely well-versed in chan culture, White Nationalist ideology, and esoteric Alt Right memes went on a shooting spree at two mosques, murdering fifty Muslims and injuring many more.
There’s something . . . different about this. Like something has changed, like a corner has been turned. It’s not as black-pilling as I thought it would be. People’s reactions have frequently been surprising. It almost makes one question what they think they know about politics.
Now, I oppose terrorism. I believe in the strength of our ideas, and that they would certainly triumph in a genuinely free-speech environment. I have not yet abandoned all hope that at least some beneficial change can be derived democratically – and yaada, yadda, yadda. But I would be lying if I said there were no silver linings to be found here.
Maybe I’ll feel differently when the big Deep State backlash really hits, but at the moment, just looking around at all the reactions, I’m left wondering, “Am I losing my mind? Have the wignats been right this whole time? Should I really go off into the woods and read Siege after all?”
This Christchurch massacre has done something that other public relations catastrophes such as Dylann Roof and Charlottesville did not do: it has actually sparked a dialogue favorable to our cause. You would think it would have the opposite effect – but so far, it has not.
There have been reports that Breitbart has been mass-deleting comments from people sympathetic to Tarrant, something you did not see in the wake of Dylann Roof. People as far away as the United Kingdom have been getting arrested for speaking favorably of Tarrant. And a man in New Zealand is facing ten years in prison for sharing Tarrant’s livestream of the massacre.
These are not all hardcore White Nationalists. Some are ordinary people. If the goal of the Christchurch attack was to force the establishment to overreach, it appears that they are now casting a wider net.
Consider the differences between the public reactions to Charlottesville and the Christchurch shooting. In both cases, the events were roundly denounced and disavowed by everyone on both the Left and the Right, but the difference in the level of cucking is conspicuous. Even supposed free speech advocates sided with the state and the Antifa against the marchers at Charlottesville who were trying to peacefully assemble. But then this Tarrant guy walks into a couple mosques, blows away fifty Muslims, and there are normies saying, “Well, he does have a point.”
The difference is that in the case of Christchurch, the mainstream Right has been holding firm that the problem of Islam in the West is still a legitimate issue, whereas they ran from white identity politics after Charlottesville. It’s . . . odd.
Look at this Paul Joseph Watson tweet:
That’s more than anyone ever did for us after Charlottesville. We didn’t even get the usual “I hate Nazis, but damn it, they have the right to the First Amendment” support that time. They denounced the event itself and all the underlying themes that Unite the Right represented. After Dylann Roof’s massacre, no one was saying, “Well, blacks do rape a lot of white women.” But with Christchurch, people are saying, “Okay, but that doesn’t mean that Muslims aren’t assholes.”
I hate to say it, but it looks an awful lot as if people respond more positively to outright terrorism with good optics than to a peaceful demonstration with bad optics. I don’t want that to be true, but I’ll be damned if it doesn’t look like that at this moment.
Now, I’m certainly not saying that mowing down fifty praying civilians is “good optics.” But Brenton Tarrant is a character, and that counts for something. He’s a character in the same way that Al Capone, John Dillinger, or Bonnie and Clyde were characters, and they all became folk heroes despite being murderous criminals. Any sufficiently charismatic criminal will eventually acquire a fan base. Just look at the fascination around Charles Manson, or the love letters women send to jailed serial killers.
In this sense, Brenton Tarrant had better optics than Dylann Roof or Timothy McVeigh. It is Tarrant’s own personality which is one of the things that sets Christchurch apart: he stamped the event with his own personality.
As Roy Batty of The Daily Stormer put it, Tarrant “made RaHoWa seem laid-back and chill rather than tryhard or cringe.” Indeed, this is true, much as Al Capone made being a gangster look like glitz and glamour with a touch of excitement and danger.
On top of this, Capone, son of a bitch that he may have been, was flouting an unpopular program most people considered immoral (Prohibition). That was undoubtedly a mitigating factor in the minds of some of the public. Likewise, Tarrant is flouting another program (the Great Replacement) that is deeply unpopular with the masses. And that will likewise influence people’s view of him.
You still see cucking. Some. But no more than absolutely necessary. What you don’t see is a lot of is people rushing out to virtue-signal their love of Muslims.
Tucker Carlson addressed the issue on his show Monday night with the professional Islamophobe and totally-not-racist Mark Steyn. Mark Steyn is fairly woke for a normie, and was an immigration hawk even in his neocon days. He helped popularize the phase “demographics is destiny” in the 2000s. Steyn knows what’s up vis-à-vis Muslims. Tucker and Steyn spun Christchurch as an argument for free speech. Terrorism, argues Steyn, is the inevitable result of not allowing people to debate the issue.
In addition to Tarrant’s personality, the Muslim angle is a key difference in setting this apart from other high-profile White Nationalist events. Dylann Roof chose to kill blacks, which was destined to backfire because many people feel sorry for and/or protective of blacks. And the Jewish Question is too complicated for most normies who have been raised on Holocaust propaganda to grasp, so shooting up a synagogue was unlikely to wake anyone up. But no one likes Muslims. If anything, it’s actually amazing that it’s taken so long for something like this to happen. It’s astonishing that there weren’t twenty Christchurch-style shootings during the immediate post-9/11 Bush years, when Islamophobia was considered perfectly normal and the US government itself was raining down death and terror on hundreds of thousands of Muslims in their homelands.
Muslims are so unlikable that there are absolutely no positive stereotypes about them. Every other race will have some positive stereotypes. For example, blacks are good athletes and have a good sense of rhythm, Asians are good at math, Jews are good at comedy, Indians are polite and hardworking, Hispanics have good food, Native Americans are wise and in touch with nature. But what are the positive stereotypes about Muslims? Try to think of one. There aren’t any.
There used to be the stereotype that Muslims were conservative and pro-family. The idea that Muslims were brown-skinned Evangelicals was a popular Bush-era meme. But then we learned about the rape gangs and saw their aggressive behavior on the streets. The idea of Muslims as brown-skinned WASPS became ridiculous. And then the media began promoting “liberated” Muslim women – so there went that positive stereotype.
Even the greatest minds on the Left can’t think of anything nice to say about Muslims. The nicest thing anyone can come up with about Muslims is that they aren’t all terrorists.
The media’s coverage of ISIS is underpinned by deep-seated islamophobia.
If it isn’t, how come they never say anything nice about them?
— Titania McGrath (@TitaniaMcGrath) February 24, 2019
On top of this, white people feel no historical white guilt in relation to Muslims. We didn’t forcefully bring them here, and no one asked them to come – which makes manipulating whites into sympathizing with them much more difficult for our overlords. Whites don’t feel they owe Muslims anything.
Yet another factor in play is the location of the Christchurch shooting: New Zealand. New Zealand is a place that everybody has heard of, but no one has been to. No one really knows much about the place other than that it’s supposed to be Australia’s Canada or something (you know – basically the same, but technically not). Nothing much ever happens in New Zealand, and their only contribution to world culture has been the two–hit wonders, Crowded House, and the fact that the Lord of the Rings movies were filmed there. For most people, New Zealand might as well be in Narnia. Thus, the fact that this shooting happened on this far-off, semi-legendary island allows people to look at the matter in a more detached and dispassionate fashion.
And perhaps people are more red-pilled and battle-hardened than before. Since Charlottesville, we have seen anti-white canards such as the Covington and Smollett hoaxes. They’ve seen Alex Jones and Gavin McInnes deplatformed. People now know the media is not their friend, and bowing to them gets you nothing. People feel less of a need to carry water for a system that they know is coming for them next. Maybe the moderates are waking up to the anti-white agenda and realizing that the time has come to fight back. “Yes, terrorism is bad, but by golly, Muslims are still assholes!”
It should be noted that Mr. Tarrant put things in his manifesto and video solely for the purpose of making moderates the target of establishment retaliation. For example, Tarrant cited black cuckservative Candace “prison inmates are natural Republicans” Owens as the person who radicalized him, which is a ridiculous claim. Then there was the killer’s now-legendary shoutout to YouTuber Pewdiepie, which caused Pewdiepie’s subreddit to be closed.
Moderates know now that their speech can be taken away for reasons outside of their control even if they play by the PC rules and stay within the approved boundaries. All it takes is for some kook to drop your name, and bam, there goes your freedom of speech. Tarrant’s intention here was to force moderates onto the same side as the radicals, or at least to force them to become more active co-belligerents against the system.
But now, please allow me to break out the tinfoil hat for a moment.
I’m not saying this is a false flag. I am agnostic on that. Having said that, I believe there is probable cause not to rule out some sort of shenanigans. I’m not the only one. Rush Limbaugh is calling Christchurch a hoax. He thinks Tarrant is a Leftist trying to make the Right look bad. That’s miles better than outright cucking, because Rush’s theory at least presumes the existence of an anti-white conspiracy. At worst, he is right for the wrong reasons. So, because the theory is already out there, let’s look at the case for Christchurch being a false flag.
First, there is Brenton Tarrant, the man with the English boarding school-sounding name at the center of it all. This guy comes out of nowhere and says all the right things. He knows Dissident Right memes and ideology backwards and forwards, and yet no one in the Dissident Right knows or has heard of this guy. Maybe he’s been playing a very looooooooooooong game? Maybe he’s been planning this for years, all the while moving in our circles, but never making any close associations? It’s almost a little too perfect.
Second, Breton Tarrant has a sense of humor which no wignat actually has. This makes me question whether he is a real wignat.
Third, Tarrant had the money to travel the world, despite being a fitness instructor. He claims to have gotten rich on cryptocurrency, which is not impossible, but . . . convenient. If he was so independently wealthy, he should have been donating to outlets like Counter-Currents and The Daily Stormer, which are badly in need of funding. But I digress.
And where Tarrant chose to travel is also interesting, given that his destinations include Turkey and Pakistan, of all places. According to a hotel owner there who described him as a “regular tourist,” Tarrant was in Pakistan as recently as October. Then there is Tarrant’s nine-day stay in Israel in 2016. It’s interesting that a White Nationalist would visit these places rather than go to Rome, the heart of Christendom, for inspiration, or his ancestral homeland of Britain. Instead, he visited Eastern Europe and a bunch of non-white countries. This doesn’t prove anything, but it’s weird.
I have heard differing opinions on whether Tarrant appeared to have military training. I do not have it myself, so I am not qualified to say. But some found the fact that Tarrant was a little too cool under pressure suspicious.
Still others consider the lack of anti-Semitism in Tarrant’s manifesto to be suspicious. How can a guy so well versed in Dissident Right memes and ideas not be seriously woke on the JQ? It’s possible Tarrant had tactical reasons for doing this, of course. Had Tarrant made Jews a central part of his manifesto, Christchurch would have been a “Nazi shooting” rather than a “White Nationalist shooting.” If his goal was to rope moderates into the fight, this was the right move, since normies have a knee-jerk reaction to anything “Nazi.” They have been conditioned to it. But everyone knows that you can hate Muslims without being a Nazi. Hell, even some Jews hate Muslims!
Early reports also mentioned an accomplice (possibly two) being arrested along with Tarrant, although nothing has been heard of this fellow since. Who was that guy? I’d kinda like to know who that guy was before I put my tinfoil hat back in the drawer.
For more on the theory that Christchurch was a false flag, check out Johnny Monoxcide’s Paranormies episode on Christchurch. For the moment, remain agnostic.
However, if the Christchurch shooting was in fact some elaborate ZOG operation, they really didn’t think it through very well. Or maybe they were a little too good at their job, because either way, Christchurch is turning out not to be the public relations gift-from-God the Left may have hoped for.
33 Comments
But what are the positive stereotypes about Muslims? Try to think of one. There aren’t any.
They’re willing to die for their people.
Some people create great imaginary obsticles that, if real, would make it impossible to win. It is a form of passivity, where the world is tuned against you to such a degree that any action becomes pointless. Why organize in real life, if all organizations are run by the feds. Why vote in elections if they are all rigged. Why debate in online forums when everyone you talk to is secretly an agent or a robot. Taken to it’s extreme, qestioning everything becomes such a detatchment from reality that informed actions is then impossible.
Let me give you a contrasting example. Chess is the primary methaphor of strategical thinking, but contrary to popular believes, in chess there is no hard truth. Chess is an unsolved mathematical problem, that is, the correct play from start is unknown to everyone. You simply have to accept what you percieve as truth, make a plan, and stick to your plan. Sometimes, rather ironic, your strategy is to apply pressure against a single point on the board. But why do something as meaningless as this? How can you know that this is the right play? Do you know how the game unfolds? You don’t. You don’t know anything. But as you keep moving forward and eventually win the game, your opponent cannot even explain how it happened, because it is impossible for him to understand something so abstract as playing against an empty square.
Let the spooks be spooks. En Marche!
What is essential is Greg’s response to this.
Before Breivik, the Norwegian Progress Party was reguralily accused of secretly being racists. After the attack when someone tried to connect the political party to the mass murderer, for the first time, the media came to the party’s defense. A few months later the Progress Party entered government. A turning point in the political history of Norway.
In contrast: After Charlottesville, Richard Spencer held a press conference where he placed himself in the center of everything, effectively associating himself to the attack, and then, to top it off, he refused to acknowledge the attackers guilt. And let me be clear, it doesn’t matter if his car was attacked from behind or what other theory is out there. What matter is the video and the impression of the public. Charlottesville was an opportunity for the Alt-Right to distance themselves from violence. It was an opportunity to present themselves as moderates and take huge leaps towards normalization. The opposite happened.
Optics or not, how we respond to these events is most important.
“He knows Dissident Right memes and ideology backwards and forwards, and yet no one in the Dissident Right knows or has heard of this guy”
There are millions like this. On the chans, one of our biggest centers, almost nobody who is a regular is known. And for good reason – nobody as ordinary as Tarrant appears could continue an ordinary existence as a known alt right figure. It’s a big lifestyle Choice to be a public figure in countries that don’t have free speech. And its unlikely any friends in the alt right who knew him well will be keen to make themselves even more of a target to intelligence agencies who are already pouring through everything they’ve ever said.
” If he was so independently wealthy, he should have been donating to outlets like Counter-Currents and The Daily Stormer, which are badly in need of funding”
I’m not sure what the author considers wealthy but most retired boomers who travel the world have no more than a few hundred thousand dollars in total. Quite doable for someone who was in the cryptos early, which has a lot of overlap with chans.
Also I would rather not draw attention to it but he most likely did donate, as he claims to have donated to several unnamed organizations. This would blend well with his deflection of blame on to normie right and alt cuck culture.
”
Then there is Tarrant’s nine-day stay in Israel in 2016. ”
Definitely suspect, but in line with his claim to have been radicalized by the death of Ebba Ackerlund which was in 2017, and thus he would not have been of any note to intelligence or border security more than the tens of millions of other channers when he traveled. Odd choice in countries but not far out for a right wing normie in 2016.
“I have heard differing opinions on whether Tarrant appeared to have military training. I do not have it myself, so I am not qualified to say. But some found the fact that Tarrant was a little too cool under pressure suspicious.”
Not really. He man not have spasmed out and cried like a retard but he definitely panicked – failing to torch the place as planned, not even checking the closed doors or rest of the mosque, going back in and out to quadruple cap dead bodies even after the moaning stopped, dropping magazines, etc. He was far from cool under pressure though he did very well for a non-professional. Military friends have told me there is no way he had professional training, military or otherwise, based on his actions and behavior.
“Still others consider the lack of anti-Semitism in Tarrant’s manifesto to be suspicious. How can a guy so well versed in Dissident Right memes and ideas not be seriously woke on the JQ? ”
This was the key difference that made his attack so much more successful in disrupting the mainstream response. Attacking synagogues convinced noone and turned away many prospects for allies. But who can argue a mosque shooting is any more tragic than the hundreds of the reverse attacks? There is no argument, the only justifiable response under the existing norms is the same non response, #prayforX type, part and parcel of living in a big (western) city post diversity. That is why they aren’t arguing why this is worse than whites dieing, they can only shut it down.
Congrats on offering reasons that would differentiate between a false flag and other attacks, that’s far more than anyone else has offered when asked what a non false flag looks like in my experience. Usually just get vitriol and insults for not just believing them without question.
” For the moment, remain agnostic.”
Yup. False flags are a real tactic, but jumping on everything that ever happens as make believe gets you nowhere. Keep an open mind and a solid head.
Julian Langness wrote an interesting article on this site several years ago titled “Fourth Generation Warfare & White Preservationism”. He examined Breivik and Roof in the context of furthering pro-White goals through 4GW and concluded that both totally failed in showing that the system does not represent native interests and in gaining the moral high ground, while doing relatively little to spread revolutionary consciousness through education or undermine the public perception that the system can protect its citizens (although Breivik’s attack may be an exception here). He concluded (correctly, in my view) that these attacks were significant strategic failures.
I don’t think many people would argue that Ted Kaczynski was a net-negative for the anti-tech cause, despite massive system antagonism. Luca Traini’s retaliatory attack was so proximate in time to the voodoo-cannibal murder-rape of the 18 year old Italian girl that he had significant popular support, including from the victim’s mother. I believe Tarrant’s actions were tactically superior to Breivik and Roof by all 4GW measures. It’s also very easy to defend (Tucker Carlson and Senator Anning have been deflecting and equivocating) and normie rightists generally aren’t backing down either.
The online livestream, use of memes and music, linking it to public figures and his powerful, concise manifesto mean that educationally this is vastly superior to previous attempts and both the system and muslims have shown signs of retaliation, just as he planned. The location of the attack was also important along with the choice of target: the least popular group in the nation, racially and religiously distinct, coming from the ethnic group of men best-known for terrorism, oil and rape of children. All within the context of current invasions of White nations, historical Islamic aggression against Europe and various anti-White atrocities (Ebba/Rotherham).
Ultimately this kind of thing is inevitable in the context of messianic invade the world, invite the world policies, the 1984 police/surveillance state and the constant barrage of anti-White attacks we face from the system, even after Islamic terror attacks. Men following Tarrant’s example will only become more numerous in this climate.
Burgers burgers burgers. You guys love your stupid conspiracies.
Aus & NZ citizens regularly travel to turkey, usually at least to visit gallipoli, were an important chapter of the national character of both nations was formed.
Cricket teams and small numbers of supporters do travel to pakistan, a fellow member of the commonwealth of nations. It’s not common, but not suspicious at all.
A lot of Christians travel to Israel, and vice versa Israeli tourists often come here (Antipodes). (One group once told us it was to avoid the conscription.)
I didn’t even compute at first the mindset that would consider these destinations strange, This is probably an overlooked cultural difference between Commonwealth Anglos and Americans.
Some tinfoil antidote for consideration.
Anything could be a false flag or otherwise action by enemy agents, but the case Travis lays out has a few particularly weak elements.
1. “He knows Dissident Right memes and ideology backwards and forwards, and yet no one in the Dissident Right knows or has heard of this guy.”
That’s the case for the vast majority. We’re not just these little cozy communities who socialize in internet forums, pool parties, or book clubs. There are millions of anons imbibing this subculture. There are, what? a couple dozen writers here on Counter Currents? And you have a maybe a couple hundred people who will chime in on the comments now and again? And you look at your traffic numbers and see that the commenters are but a small fraction of the readership.
This is the rule everywhere, From Counter Currents, to 4-chan, to Youtube, and everything between and beyond in both directions. Even most people motivated to delve into ideological questions do not add their voice to the public discussion. And further, in this internet age, I would wager that most people who engage in the public discussion do so anonymously, and that is to say not only “hiding behind a screen name,” but also not even having a persistent online persona. For all we know, Tarrant might have been a regular poster in some dissident internet community or another. But more likely, he was just a guy who read and listened without engaging – like the vast majority do.
2. “, Breton Tarrant has a sense of humor which no wignat actually has. This makes me question whether he is a real wignat.”
He is absolutely not a wignat. A wignat is most appropriately understood as a person who doesn’t actually put his ostensible political motivations at the top of his priorities. I have summarized this insight as “the hardcore are not serious.” It is not a coincidence that the people who purity spiral and infight are the same people who offer defenses of outright enemy collaborators, that the people who throw a shitfit about Jack Donovan stand up and defend Chris Cantwell. There’s a reason that the guy who wanted to march dress-up brownshirts through a Jewish suburb in the 1970s was a Jew.
Tarrant is not a wignat. He is very clearly a socially competent man who is familiar with this subculture. A “wignat” is not defined by willingness to engage in physical battle.
3. As for the absence of JQ talk ,Travis gets it right. I would add what has become the common take in our circles, that Terrant did this with consideration and intent. I even submit that the fact that this man who obviously knows a large breadth and depth of contemporary pro-White dissident critique did not choose to make Jews the prime focal point is one of the best pieces of evidence for him not being a false flag operator. I have a very hard time imagining our enemies creating a “meme shooter” who would refrain from going full-bore on Jews in his meme manifesto.
I suspected a Mossad false flag from the start. The idea of a /pol/ack shooter targetting Muslims is not implausible, but I didn’t see any real /pol/ack writing a 74-page manifesto on immigration that doesn’t mention Jews in a negative light. It could well have been an operation intended to stir up conflict between Whites and Muslims and distract attention from Israeli interference in Western politics, which has been increasingly under the spotlight with the Ilhan Omar debacle.
That said, if it was such an operation, I think it has backfired badly. There has been a sea-change in the zeitgeist. The normies are rejecting the programming en masse and cheering him on. It’s evident that many Whites have now adopted a siege mentality and are preparing themselves for war, in which context he appears as a hero to be honored.
The Saxon is awake, and this can only be bad for the Jews and traitors in charge. Titling his manifesto as “The Great Replacement” was a brilliant way to meme this phrase into people’s minds, and dismissing it as a conspiracy theory doesn’t work when people can see the truth of it with their own eyes. It’s no wonder they are scrambling to shut it down, just this concept by itself is prima facie justification to execute our entire political class for treason.
Maybe Tarrant really is /ourguy/, planned his optics very carefully, and played a blinder on his Mossad handlers to strike an early blow for the neo-reconquista.
What is wrong with having a tin-foil hat? I wear mine everywhere, they make great music when it rains. It is disturbing that jews were not mentioned in his manifesto.
Whites and Muslims are the two groups of people that the rest of the world seems to share a genocidal hatred towards. I suppose it’s just a coincidence that these happen to be the two groups that the Jews want to eliminate. It’s amazing what you can accomplish when you control the media, governments, and foreign intelligence services like Mossad and the CIA. The Jews will get Whites to kill off ten of millions of Muslims for them so they can create their dream of Greater Israel. Then the Jews will return the favor by exterminating Whites with the help of all the minorities they’ve brainwashed to hate Whites. There’s also the chance that since most of the Jews will be living in Greater Israel that they could just unleash biological weapons on all the White countries. Remember the Black plague? In the end both of our groups will perish from the earth and the Jews will rule unchallenged until the end of time. I take solace in knowing that at least my side will not have fought on the side of evil.
I am agnostic on the whole Christchurch business. I don’t know what’s going on, or whether the shootings were real, but the ‘manifesto’ was pure absurdity hashed together by someone who didn’t care whether gimlet eyes could spot a hoax. Christchurch was conceived to stir up trouble.
OK, so a lot of people are annoyed that I suggested that the shooting might be a false flag. I get it.
I merely suggested that there may be “shananigans” (ie more going on than meets the eye) which can mean a lot of things. The chances of this being a “false flag” in the classic sense is very low but I would not put it at 0% with so little information to go on.
Look, I’m a folk singer and as a folk singer, I try to make whatever I write intelligible to the proles who do not spend all day debating this stuff on message boards. I was not endorsing a false flag theory: just presenting the arguments because they are out there and some people may not have heard them yet.
Whether you think it was a false flag or not, “the controversy” is still part of the story. So I put it in the story. But as I said, I am agnostic. At this point, it really doesn’t matter if it was fake or not.
I appreciate your addressing the “false flag controversy” aspect. In this case, it’s likely disinformation/misinformation that Mossad or a state actor was directly involved. The Israel FF angle snowballed when with a link appeared all over 4chan to a curious makeshift site called “Intellectual Observer” iirc, a faux news article, curiously tailored for screenshots. This site is worth more investigation, their “About” page is highly sketchy.
https://intellectualobserver.com/the-fifth-suspect-of-christchurch-shootings-has-defected-to-israel/
(In this case, the Mossad angle is likely being pushed to trivialize the nationalistic ideas in the manifesto, and further discredit non-MSM outlets. Attrition through decoy rabbithole construction.)
Even the well-circulating claim that Tarrant spent “nine days in Israel” is sourced solely to Reuters, who cited an *anonymous* Israeli intel insider. Israeli officials have not publicly verified the claim. The speed with which the unverified Israel travel news hit is odd, and I doubt any outlet follows up?
Mossad’s motto of “By Deception We Wage War” now blankets our entire zeitgeist, even when a shooting is streamed live. So if Oswald had worn a helmet camera, would we today firmly know and agree who killed JFK?
The reaction is (slightly) different to the Christchurch shooting among the center-right because the targets were Muslims. There is some mainstream room for criticism of Islam, and this mostly has to do with Zionism. Being anti-black or pro-white immediately associates one with the Klan and whatnot, and therefore the reactions to Dylan Roof and Charlotteseville were less nuanced.
A bit ridiculous to suggest it’s somehow proof of a false flag that he didn’t attend the movement with his real life identity beforehands, as that doing that would curb the FF-spouting. If some well-known white right figurehead did a similar attack, the false flag doomsayers would just say he was a fed and a mossad operative all along. The whole discourse that disregards anything and everything as a false flag is a discourse of demoralization and being afraid someone actually does something and people realize they DO have the power to change their fate. Really makes you think.
Excellent rundown on the difference in mass (semi-private) public perception to Tarrant’s crime. I’ve seen many millennials express worry they are “desensitized” after viewing Tarrant’s video, yet this too is expressed with the post-modern wtf smirk of detachment toward techno-globalism.
Tarrant is the first violent radical to utilize gamification in a mass shooting. Correct me if I’m wrong? Beyond having better figurative “optics” –his “chad” appearance, semi-sensible manifesto as thoughtful supplement– I’d argue he’s provided entertainment to tens of millions of males. Is he the first FPS IRL vigilante in history? Sci-fi has prepared older males for this moment, FPS videogames have literally trained themxfor it (Tarrant’s grandmother has confirmed he was addicted to Grand Theft Auto), and GoPro helmet cameras and live-streaming opened the gateway between killer and audience.
Tarrant’s macho physique and cool hand seem to give this taboo video a vicarious crossover curiosity beyond the chans, dads and sons and grandfathers, be it an discreetly emailed link, or short clips. Tarrant’s crime is horrific, but his medium was inevitable. First came the first-person video revolutionaries, then came the cybernetic soldiers, then the killer androids. The future is tech-dark, and so there’s less guilt checking this video out.
More alarming though, is LeBlanc’s point about Muslims being far down on the global empathy chain. And this too is made more extreme by FPS gamification; I was shocked by this and will not deny my reaction. One false flagger theorist’s bogus observation was that the Muslims in the video weren’t really shot, because they just stand around, stare at walls, then collapse in cornered piles. But there’s an unsettling, unfortunate NPC aesthetic parallel that few can deny.
the fact that the Lord of the Rings movies were filmed [in NZ]. For most people, New Zealand might as well be in Narnia. Thus, the fact that this shooting happened on this far-off, semi-legendary island allows people to look at the matter in a more detached and dispassionate fashion
Another deep point. To most young Americans, NZ is like a tropical island dotted on a videogame map in Far Cry or Resident Evil. Unlike Dylan Roof’s reprehensible breach of a Southern Christian black church in sleepy SC, we get sunbasked foreign streets juxtaposed weirdly with gold-domed frayed green-carpet mosques. It adds an adenalized open shirt aesthetic to a speeding auto getaway. I’m by no mean saying any of this is good, only pointing out a psychological techno-reckoning.
Separate from the gamification aspect, there’s Tarrant’s “English boarding school-sounding name,” and many white Americans in their CNN Fox BLM haze, definitely the young, forget we are bonded to a white UK and Europe. And that those whites too are simmering with unease, and singularly capable of big acts. Tarrant allows Americans to look out instead of in, with relief, but in doing so, zooms out so that whites seem bigger yet more vulnerable in the Big Picture.
Let’s examine the shooter’s plans from ultimate objective to proximate action:
5) “We must secure the existence of our people, and a future for white children.”
4) “the racial separation of the people within the United States ensuring the future of the White race on the North American continent.”
3) “a civil war that will eventually balkanize the US along political, cultural and, most importantly, racial lines.”
2) Left wing overreach on freedom of speech, association, assembly, religion and self-defense.
1) Go on a shooting spree in Christchurch mosques, with accompanying video, tune, and treatise.
Replace 1, 2, and 3 with an honorable, respectful, peaceful campaign for Partition. Nature abhors a vacuum.
Muslims have created some amazing architecture. Eminent authorities like Evola and Guenon have had a lot of positive things to say about the islamic tradition.
Part of the reason that so many people openly hate them is that our zionist establishment has given us leave to.
Oh, it’s not possible that Islamic behavior causes people to hate them? The seeming inability to NOT do spree killings every month; the penchant for gang-rape, stabbings, and acid-attacks; the pedophilic proclivities; the cousin marriage and dysgenic products of such; the sense of entitlement to migrant en masse to Western societies while simultaneously hating those societies and feeling no compunction to assimilate…
I would hope that if Evola and Guenon saw Europe today, they would get realistic about Islam and recognize that its existence within our lands causes thousands of times more harm than good. It doesn’t matter how much Muzz-rats read the Koran or maintain close-knit families. They are a pestilence. Our degenerates are better than their most pious.
This is one of the commonest misnomers about Julius Evola and René Guénon. If you go through all the tens of thousands of pages of Evola’s works, you might find perhaps 10-20 pages where he discusses anything having to do with Islam, and those mainly have to do with his appreciation for the concept of jihad. In Guénon’s writings, you will find only slightly more than that, entirely having to do with Islamic esoterism. Based on that, it’s quite evident that they did NOT have any particular appreciation for Islam over the other Traditional religions – if anything, quite the reverse. Moreover, you will not find a single instance, anywhere, of Evola or Guénon encouraging Europeans to adopt Islam or suggesting that Muslims should be living in Europe. Guénon died in 1951, and Evola died in 1974 – neither of them could have anticipated the onslaught of Muslim immigration into the West that has taken place since then, so it wasn’t an issue that either of them dealt with.
As for the “Muslim degenerates,” most of the ones coming to the West are not the religious types, and even in their home countries many of them are regarded as degenerates by their own people, which is surely part of what motivates them to leave and come here in the first place.
It’s quite clear, from reading Revolt, that Evola prefered Islam to Christianity, though he was by no means a wholesale supporter of the former or critic of the latter. To him, Islam had more of the warrior ethos, and in this he may have been correct. In Guenon’s case, he seems to have appreciated the esoteric elements in all of the great traditions. He wrote more about Hinduism than anything else, I believe.
“Comes out of nowhere.” What does that even mean? It’s suspicious that someone unknown did this? How many people on the DisRight do you know? Do you know their real names or just their online handles?
How many of us know the memes “backwards and forwards?” Why is that surprising?
Yes, the author’s premise that the current iteration of the right is something like an intimate initiate’s club when TDS used to reach as high as 120.000 listeners per week and Daily Stormer gets millions of hits is pretty laughable.
Level of content-vetting at C-C aside, this also rises question on a particularity of the conspiracy theorist’s mind. Many of them are so conditioned to believe in some alternate theory that they simply shut down whatever critical apparatus they might otherwise use in order to convince themselves of that possibility. They have an a priori assumption that something must be fishy and are willing to shut down reason in order to have it confirmed. It’s relevant how he’s using the term “agnostic” rather than assuming the most simple, straightforward, and plausible version of events to be true (until some strong evidence to the contrary is put forth.)
So your evidence of a false flag is his name, he wasnt known by his real name in alt-right circles, he took a rather far afield globe trotting vacation, and he didnt write more about the jews. This grasping at straws really makes us looks bad. So some leftist/deep state operative took it upon himself/was trained to kill 40 muslims to own the right? I always wonder in these conspiracy proposals how a false-flagee would ever sign up for such a thing, or is it an MK ultra brainwashing experiment?
This guy was obviously one of our guys we just have to accept it. I would hazard to guess 99% of the dissident right is behind a pseudonym so it is actually more likely he “came out of nowhere”. Most people on /pol know all the memes but have no real world connections. The other supposed smoking gun is his lack of a rant against them. But, he clearly states he has no problem with Jews in Israel, aka not in white countries, who are not engaging in subversion. That seems quite a reasonable position, almost like that of a certain political party in 20th century Germany. To the point that he seems a little too cool not to be professionally trained my friends in the armed forces suggest otherwise.
Tarrant comes across as being very much like most white Australian men. His language, style and sense of humour are typical.
I think this is quite confronting for Australians. Raised on a steady diet of American TV, Aussies have come to expect mass shooters to be ultra-intense, cross-eyed nut jobs gibbering passages from the Bible. Tarrant isn’t like that. He’s like your brother or your cousin.
The reaction to Tarrant here is strange. The media is behaving predictably of course, but even hipster civilians seem more angry at Fraser Anning than at Tarrant himself. No one wants to talk about him too much – or say his name.
I think there’s a bit too much of the Everyman in Tarrant – and it’s got people rattled.
I have no idea if FF or not either, but I would note that the word ” cobber” is not used nowadays, they would say “mate” . Cobber is very old fashioned, and sticks out a bit. It is like saying “kanga” instead of “roo”, which is what Aussies call kangaroos. Sven came up with a clever neologism: “Brenton Tarrantino”. There does seem a big disconnect between the media gorge fest and normie talk (ie practically non existent over the water cooler).
There does seem a big disconnect between the media gorge fest and normie talk (ie practically non existent over the water cooler).
Agreed, hardly anyone, normies, of my acquaintance talks about this at all, despite blanket MSM.
So empathy for muslims amongst the general White population seems very low.
Tarrant not addressing the JQ was clearly tactical.
“Were/are you an anti-semite?
No.A jew living in israel is no enemy of mine, so long as they do not seek to subvert or harm my people.”
That’s a very specific way to put it, and I have a hard time thinking it was accidental. Also:
“Why attack immigrants when “x” are the issue?
Because the “x” groups can be dealt with in time, but the high fertility immigrants will destroy us now, soon it is a matter of survival we destroy them first.”
It’s hard to guess how much blame he assigns to Jews, but I’m pretty sure it isn’t zero.
Much of my extended family resides in White Anglophone countries. Some have been there for the last four decades. And it had much to do with their Anglophilia and immense adoration for White culture. They have been law abiding citizens all their lives. They have kept their heads down and minded their own business. However, I understand that White patience is now wearing thin (and rightly so). Self-respect is not a sin. Race and racial tribalism are as real as sunlight. There are no two ways about it. White anger will only get intense from this point on as the political establishments aggressively cracks down on dissentient voices.
I can only hope my loved-ones pack their bags and come back to their ancestral lands. Multiracialism has never worked, and will never work.
I wish them the best. The layers of tension produced by insane top down utopian projects are not the fault of the people suffering the fallout.
I think any sane white nationalist knows that the millions of decent blacks, Arabs, Asians and Turks living in the west do not deserve to suffer violence. Their presence where they are is not sustainable. However, their presence in the West, and the conditions their presence has helped impose on white people, is not their fault either.
Good luck convincing them to find safety and to pursue a prosperous a future among their own people.
What the public reaction to the Christchurch shooting proves is that Muslims are not a sympathetic group. There is no wonder given that they have antagonized literally everybody of all races and creeds. Their all-encapsulating religious way of life makes them more foreign.
If they continue to attack us, presumably others like Brenton Tarrant will rise up again, and will probably feel encouraged to do so given how Tarrant’s actions have been received. If I were a Muslim I would be very, very scared and would be packing my bags.
I don’t think that Tarrant is a false flag. His trips to Turkey, Afghanistan, and Pakistan probably just emerge from a fascination with Islam. Often people who viscerally hate something end up being morbidly fascinated with it. I have often considered visiting Israel myself, for instance.
I’m not surprised that the shooting has been met with apathy, and I don’t think it’s just because the victims are Muslims. Look at the muted reacted to the Las Vegas massacre, and those were white Christians at a country music festival. The shooter was a white guy so there isn’t the racial or religious angle to get people fired up, but you’d think they’d be demanding answers. To my knowledge nothing has been revealed about his motives or how he managed to haul all those weapons and ammo past the casino’s security. Don’t they have vaults full of cash to protect? It seems like a major oversight to allow anyone into the building with that kind of firepower, doesn’t it? So what the fuck happened there?
I think we’re simply becoming numb as we internalize the scale and hopelessness of our predicament. We’re adopting the prevailing Muslim attitude that terrorism is “part and parcel of living in big cities,” as London mayor Khan succinctly put it. That apathy extends to other things, too. The democrats recently passed a motion that illegal aliens should have the right to vote, effectively announcing loud and clear that they’re a party of traitors. Where’s the outrage?
This is the succinct and normie-friendly response you should use in public if Christchurch comes up: http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2018/06/i-dont-care/
One Trackback
[…] And the Union of Egoists or union of I’s: not only the online community in general, but exactly the unique nature of the Dissident Right. As a commenter here at Counter-Currents has emphasized: […]