Analysis of a murder manifesto

WARNING: If you live in New Zealand, you may be committing a crime, punishable by years in prison, for reading this. The country's Chief Censor (that's the actual title, in a supposedly free country) has declared the document I am quoting "objectionable," which is New(Zealand)speak for "banned under the threat of draconian penalties."

If you're in New Zealand and don't want to take the risk, close this window immediately and clear your browser cache.

The rant in question is banned because it's supposedly so persuasive that people will read it and say, "Of course! What was I thinking? I need to go out and commit mass murder!" This is nonsense. It's the product of an evil mind trying to justify evil. Note that I didn't say "deranged." I don't offer that excuse.

Specifically, it's a clear statement of racial collectivism. The author is supposedly the person who killed dozens of people in New Zealand mosques, and his name is supposedly Brenton Tarrant. I don't know if they actually are the same man, but for this analysis, I'll assume they are. It's important to understand what kind of ideas people use to justify mass murder, so we can fight those ideas.

They are based on the doctrine of racial collectivism. In the author's philosophy, the individual is nothing, just a tiny fragment. The entities that matter to the author are masses of bodies tied together by alleged physiological similarity. The world, in this view, is a small number of multi-bodied entities locked in an eternal struggle for dominance.

Originally I'd intended to quote the whole manifesto and take it apart piece by piece. But it's ridiculously long, so I'll just quote relevant parts and analyze them. This is probably still enough for the Chief Censor to want me locked away, so I'll be careful not to travel to New Zealand.

Here's a link to the whole thing, if you have the patience.

The quoted passages from the manifesto are in indented and italicized quotes. The rest is my commentary.

It’s the birthrates. It’s the birthrates. It’s the birthrates.
If there is one thing I want you to remember from these writings, its that the birthrates must change. Even if we were to deport all Non-Europeans from our lands tomorrow, the European people would still be spiraling into decay and eventual death.
Every day we become fewer in number, we grow older, we grow weaker.
In the end we must return to replacement fertility levels, or it will kill us.

People are choosing not to have children. The author doesn't like this. Some people would encourage having more babies or altering the economic incentives. As we'll see, the author proposes a "solution" that wouldn't do anything to increase birth rates.

We are experiencing an invasion on a level never seen before in history. Millions of people pouring across our borders, legally. Invited by the state and corporate entities to replace the White people who have failed to reproduce, failed to create the cheap labour, new consumers and tax base that the corporations and states need to thrive.

The author uses the term "invasion" to denote peaceful migration. He isn't alone in this. The president of the United States has done the same to justify proclaiming an unwarranted "national emergency." I'm not saying Trump shares in the guilt for these murders, but it's important to recognize the common threads between mainstream anti-immigrant rhetoric and outright support of murder.

This is ethnic replacement. This is cultural replacement. This is racial replacement. This is WHITE GENOCIDE.
To return to replacement fertility levels is priority number one. But it is no simple task. There are myriad reasons behind the decline in fertility rates and the destruction of the traditional family unit.
We must inevitably correct the disaster of hedonistic, nihilistic individualism. But it will take take some time, time we do not have due to the crisis of mass immigration.

Here the author gives away the whole show. Individualism is the enemy. People's existence is justified only as part of a "family unit." Even the family unit is only a part of the machine for generating more quantity for the race.

His claim of "genocide" doesn't lend itself to any coherent analysis, even long enough to refute it. Genocide is mass killing directed at a population.

We must crush immigration and deport those invaders already living on our soil. It is not just a matter of our prosperity, but the very survival of our people.

By "invaders," the author means "people who move from one country to another." The implication is that peaceful travel to a country violates the rights of the collective which currently occupies it. He seems to think people are dying in the streets just of proximity to the "invaders."

Who are you?
Just a ordinary White man, 28 years old. Born in Australia to a working class, low income family. My parents are of Scottish, Irish and English stock.

Australia was originally inhabited by people descended from Asians. England then came in and took over. That makes the author an "invader." It doesn't necessarily mean hypocrisy, though. He never said that invasion was bad. His view is just that there is a struggle of collective against collective. Groups as such are incapable of moral reasoning; all thought takes place in the individual. The author is simply noting which of the warring collectives he belongs to.

I had little interest in education during my schooling, barely achieving a passing grade. I did not attend University as I had no great interest in anything offered in the Universities to study.

The author admits to being stupid. He takes pride in being stupid.

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.

If these are the reasons for the killings, they make no sense even on their own terms. His victims were about as far as you can get from Europe and live in a populated area. By his stated standards, he should have admired them.

Ebba Akerlund was killed in Sweden by a man from Uzbekistan who said his motive was revenge for the bombing in Syria. The motive was identical in both cases. Both killers regarded an ill-defined collective as responsible for a grievance, and both struck far away from any actual source, at people who did nothing but live peacefully.

I was surprised to learn that Sweden has sent troops to Iraq and Syria. It's even revived military conscription. But as far as I can tell, it has never conducted air strikes in Syria. When people think in collectives, injuring any part of the collective is a fair response. The fact that the individuals killed had no connection to their grievances is irrelevant to this way of thinking.

To directly reduce immigration rates to European lands by intimidating and physically removing the invaders themselves.

The sheer nonsense of this use of "invaders" is beyond further commentary, yet New Zealand's authorities consider it so convincing that they have to imprison anyone who comes into possession of this document.

To agitate the political enemies of my people into action, to cause them to overextend their own hand and experience the eventual and inevitable backlash as a result.
To incite violence, retaliation and further divide between the European people and the invaders currently occupying European soil.
... To agitate the political enemies of my people into action, to over extend their own hand and experience the eventual backlash.

The author is borrowing directly from Osama Bin Laden's strategy, which was tremendously successful. The destruction of the World Trade Center pulled the United States into a series of wars which shows no sign of ending almost eighteen years later. The author has already goaded New Zealand's government into making it a crime to read the very document you're reading now.

The similarities run deep. Bin Laden was angry at the presence and influence of Americans and Europeans in Arab states. In revenge he had Americans, most of whom had never been in an Arab country, murdered. It's the worldview of collective vs. collective.

To show the effect of direct action, lighting a path forward for those that wish to follow. A path for those that wish to free their ancestors lands from the invaders grasp and to be a beacon for those that wish to create a lasting culture, to tell them they are not alone.

I think the Maori, whose land in New Zealand was taken by invaders, have more sense than to accept the invitation to the kind of "direct action" he's talking about. By this manifesto, Maori should kill all other New Zealanders, Indians in North America should kill "invaders" of European extraction, Celts should kill people with Anglo-Saxon ancestry, and on and on and on.

To create an atmosphere of fear and change in which drastic, powerful and revolutionary action can occur.
To add momentum to the pendulum swings of history, further destabilizing and polarizing Western society in order to eventually destroy the current nihilistic, hedonistic, individualistic insanity that has taken control of Western thought.

The author hates individualism, believes in racial collectives, and wants people to live in fear.

Finally, to create conflict between the two ideologies within the United States on the ownership of firearms in order to further the social, cultural, political and racial divide within the United states. This conflict over the 2nd amendment and the attempted removal of firearms rights will ultimately result in a civil war that will eventually balkanize the US along political, cultural and, most importantly, racial lines.

The author is aware of how high levels of intolerance for disagreement has become in the US and sees it as a valuable thing, even hoping for a civil war.

My scroll bar isn't even a tenth of the way down this ridiculous document which the New Zealand authorities regard as dangerously persuasive. I'll just skim for one or two more points.

Did you carry out the attack for fame?
No, carrying out an attack for fame would be laughable. After all who can remember the name of the attackers in the September 11 attack in New York?How about the attack on the pentagon? The attackers in the plane that crashed into the field on the same day? I will be forgotten quickly. Which I do not mind.

The author's own words contradict the claim that he sought fame and thus must be denied the satisfaction of exposure to public view. He sought to kill. He acted on the idea of racial collectivism, specifically the idea that each collective must destroy the others in order to win the competition. He considers himself just a unit of a collective.

It's important to recognize how such a mind works and not just take the word of authorities.

Why did you choose New Zealand as a place to attack?
New Zealand was not the original choice for attack, I only arrived to New Zealand to live temporarily whilst I planned and trained, but I soon found out that New Zealand was as target rich of an environment as anywhere else in the West.
Secondly an attack in New Zealand would bring to attention the truth of the assault on our civilization, that no where in the world was safe, the invaders were in all of our lands, even in the remotest areas of the world and that there was no where left to go that was safe and free from mass immigration.

Many of the people killed were immigrants, so it's plausible that he targeted mosques as places where he could find a high concentration of non-citizens. If some weren't, they were mere individuals, collateral damage in his war of collective against collective.

But when he said he wanted to show "no where in the world was safe," he clearly meant no place is safe from mass murderers like himself. It isn't even plausible that after learning that a group of people was gunned down, people would feel threatened by the victims.

Did/do you personally hate muslims?
A muslim man or woman living in their homelands? No. A muslim man or woman choosing to invade our lands live on our soil and replace our people? Yes, I dislike them. The only muslim I truly hate is the convert, those from our own people that turn their backs on their heritage, turn their backs on their cultures, turn their back on their traditions and became blood traitors to their own race. These I hate.

Does this mean the author is really concerned about religion? That would be another similarity to Bin Laden. If he actually were concerned just about race, then a white would still be a white, regardless of religious belief. But remember, his thinking is totally collective-oriented. On that level, ideas aren't true or false. They're tools for binding groups.

Race loyalty requires belief in ideas to hold it together. Christianity just happens to be convenient. It was founded by people from the Middle East, of course. It's not the actual ideas of Christianity that concern him, but its utility for promoting conformity.

To care about whether ideas are right or wrong, you have to respect the individual mind. For the author, Christianity and Islam are just a means for collectives to assimilate their members.

Chief Censors act on a milder version of the same way of thinking. They don't want people to form their own judgments. Rather, they want to control what people can see and read, and they want to throw anyone who wants to read something else into a prison cell for years. They substitute armed force for judgment and analysis. There's a large difference between locking people away for the words they possess and killing people by the dozens, but that's only because mass killing is so outrageous that few things compare with it. The difference is one of degree, not kind.

OK, that's as much as I have the patience to deal with. If you've read this far, I hope you don't live in New Zealand or you're using a good VPN. The Chief Censor may have already sent the cops for you. But I hope you understand a little better how racial collectivism is a philosophy of contempt for the individual, one that regards personal lives as disposable for the sake of the triumph of one group over another, and how it inspired one person to kill innocent individuals.

This author envisions a world in which collectives strive to destroy one another. Such a world could resolve the conflict in three ways.

  1. One group would outlive all the others, holding on to some remnant of a ravaged planet.
  2. Humans would all wipe one another out.
  3. Eventually people would realize the utter stupidity of those actions and try for something better.

It's better not to try the experiment in the first place.

It's hard to imagine a less attractive idea, but some people are attracted to it anyway. Just identifying it shows how repulsive it is. The antidote is to value the individual human being and to reject violence against peaceful people as a way to gain dominance.

The Chief Censor seeks to prevent violence by ordering violence. Censors believe that bad ideas are more powerful than good ones and can be fought only by keeping them from being heard. But if you actually look at those ideas, you'll discover they're as small and contemptible as the doctrine of censorship itself.