Commentary on the New Zealand Manifesto

The radicalization of young Western men is not just unavoidable, but inevitable. It should come as no shock that European men, in every nation, and on every continent are turning to radical notions and methods to combat the social and moral decay of their nations and the continued ethnic replacement of their people.  —from the manifesto

     My first exposure to the Christchurch mosque shootings of 15 March 2019 was in the form of actual video footage of the shooting itself on, beginning with the admonition, “Remember lads, subscribe to PewDiePie.” At first I thought the images were from a video game, or some similar Hardcore Henry type simulation; but before long it dawned on me that it was what it appeared to be: a massacre of Muslim migrants at a mosque. I may as well add that most of what I saw on social media was celebrating it, or making jokes about it, not condemning it.

     I was naturally curious about what happened and desirous of more information on the matter, so while it was still breaking news I checked some mainstream news announcements on YouTube. I had enough sense to avoid CNN and MSNBC, but still thought ABC (the American Broadcasting Company, not the Australian one) might still provide actual news instead of propaganda; so, the first video I watched was the ABC version. The announcement lasted only a few minutes, but by the time it was over both the announcer and the talking head with whom he was talking had twisted it around so that Donald Trump was to blame. So a side effect of the Christchurch mosque shootings was that it caused me to lose all remaining respect for even the less notoriously rotten mainstream news media. (I still refer to Fox News occasionally, however; at least they are not rabidly opposed to the President of my country, and do not attack him at every convenient opportunity.)

     I learned that Mr. Brenton Tarrant, the shooter, had posted a kind of manifesto shortly before launching his assault, as an explanation for his actions. So, out of curiosity, I looked it up and downloaded it, possibly even before it became illegal to do so in some feminized, authoritarian countries (especially New Zealand). I considered the manifesto, before reading it, to be potentially of anthropological interest, if only as a case history of the workings of a criminal mind. Case histories of psychopaths can be fascinating—just think of some of those Roman emperors.

     The thing is, I was slowly, slowly wading through a very dry, dense book, Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique (almost as taboo as Tarrant’s document), at the time, so the manifesto, “The Great Replacement: Towards a New Society,” was put on hold for a few months, up until recently in fact, before I settled down and read the whole thing. That may be just as well, because now I may be less likely to be prosecuted, or put under government surveillance (not that they’d find anything criminal or revolutionary), or to have this blog shut down for discussing it, or for including brief excerpts for discussion in the commentary which follows. I may as well add that banning the manifesto as “objectionable,” and punishing those who possess or distribute it, is typical of the authoritarianism of the weak, feminized new left (or of the old left of Marxism 1.0, or of fascism too, for that matter). I consider such censorship to be despicable. People should have the right to judge for themselves what is the truth, and what is right, even if they are wrong in their judgements. Seriously, if Mr. Tarrant was wrong, then his document should be clear evidence of that; and if he wasn’t wrong, then so much the worse for the people who want to censor and ban it.

     At this point I suppose I should address the idea, vehemently insisted upon in some quarters, that the whole thing was a hoax, a false flag perpetrated by the globalist Enemy, or Mossad, for some nefarious purpose or other. Obviously some fervid right-wingers (plus I’d guess some New Agers, because they can believe anything) who thrive on conspiracy theories and/or general paranoia, insist that the whole thing was a false flag operation of some sort, often spicing up their insistence with some mocking and sneering. But, unless such persons are able to provide some damned persuasive evidence backing up their ideas, I really don’t give a damn about their ideas, much less their mocking and sneering, any more than I care about their mocking and sneering at the idea that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated (at least in part!) by Muslim terrorists, or their mocking and sneering at theories of Darwinian evolution. All such mocking and sneering is essentially the same. So, I am taking the manifesto at face value, more or less, with some qualifications, until further evidence persuades me otherwise; I consider it to represent, for the most part, the sincerely held views of a man who really did walk into two mosques and gun down approximately 100 Muslims (51 of them fatally), as a revolutionary act of defiance, strategic accelerationism, and awakened Saxon wrath.

     The document itself, in the form in which I received it, was apparently badly scanned, plus Mr. Tarrant evidently wrote the original document in haste with minimal editing or proofreading, so I wound up editing the thing myself—not as a labor of love, mind you, but mainly because I’m fussy and want to fix typos, etc., whenever I encounter them. They’re a distraction when I read. My editing job includes some division of the mass of words into paragraphs, no doubt differing somewhat from what is in the original text, and fixing some spelling and some (but not all) messy punctuation and grammar (for some reason Mr. Tarrant didn’t like apostrophes, and was indifferent about capitalization of proper nouns). One odd editing issue is that there is no Part 3 in the copy I downloaded—Part 1 begins halfway through the document, followed by Parts 2 and 4—so I fixed that as best as I could figure it out by moving the heading for Part 1 to the beginning, immediately after the Introduction, and changing the original Parts 1 and 2 to 2 and 3. Part 4, the Conclusion and Benediction, remains Part 4. The author claims in the text that he had written a much longer manifesto and then deleted it “in a moment of unbridled self criticism,” and then hastily composed this one later, which may account for the sloppiness of composition contrasting with the occasional eloquence and coherence of his rhetoric.

     Despite the relative sloppiness of the composition, it is evident that Mr. Tarrant was and is relatively intelligent, lucid, and more rational than most of the people who consider him to be a raging psychopath. The document is a revolutionary tract, not the ravings of a maniac; it does not reveal some hellscape of a tortured mind, although it is a safe bet that the man was not a happy person when he decided to perpetrate the massacre, and that he is even less happy now. (Has anyone read Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment?) I would go so far as to say that Mr. Tarrant is even more or less sane, by human standards. The Wikipedia article on the Christchurch mosque shootings also states that the government of New Zealand judged him, after psychiatric examination, to be mentally fit to stand trial—that is, not insane. The document may betray a few manic interludes, maybe, or perhaps a few Colonel Kurtz type outbursts: particularly the odd Navy SEAL paragraph, in which he threatens to “shit fury,” and so on, on a hypothetical antagonist; which, however, was presumably intended as a joke. There is possibly some deliberate lying or trolling, for example where he declares Candace Owens of all people to have radicalized him more than anyone else, and then continues to say that even he isn’t as extreme as she is. A similar case of trolling or sowing confusion might be his recorded advice, before he entered the first mosque, to subscribe to PewDiePie. Maybe that also was just an attempt at black humor. But for the most part I think the manifesto really does represent the man’s reasons for committing the crime, or terrorist act, or counterstrike, or whatever one chooses to call it; and the reasons are, well, reasonable, arguably, even if his climactic act of mass violence was not.

     The primary theme that the author returns to again and again is, quite simply, European ethnic nationalism. He considered himself to be fighting against a very real existential threat to his race and his culture, which sometimes assumes the name of “white genocide” or “white replacement.” The title of the manifesto itself, “The Great Replacement,” reflects this same idea. The aforementioned Wikipedia article dismisses the idea of white genocide or replacement as a “conspiracy theory,” although to some degree, at least, it certainly is not, as there are plenty of globalists and Social Justice leftists out there actively striving for the abolition of the European race, and making no secret of it. Some of them publicly boast of it. So Mr. Tarrant justified his actions on 15 March 2019 by affirming that he was protecting his own homeland against “invaders,” or at least trying to protect it. He obviously was, and is, a white ethnic nationalist, and his arguments along those lines are fairly standard—the kind of stuff one will see on any number of alt-right websites and social media—and largely, methinks, straightforward, or at least based on rational argumentation and empirical information. The man appears for all the world to have sincerely considered himself to be fighting for his people; or, in his own words, “I am just a regular White man, from a regular family. Who decided to take a stand to ensure a future for my people.”

     Considering Mr. Tarrant’s stated position, and considering that this position is not entirely based upon fantasy or psychotic delusion, or even upon ignorant stupidity, it seems to me that a central question is not whether or not mass migration threatens the European race and the civilization it brought forth. The question is whether Europeans have the right to strike out in self-defense, for the sake of themselves, their families, and their civilization. Presumably most leftists and globalists would reply that no, they do not have that right.

     One point that Mr. Tarrant maybe didn’t consider is that the negative population growth of whites all over the world is not necessarily a total disaster for the European race, especially if non-European immigration into the west is reversed. First, as he himself admits, overpopulation is a huge problem for this planet, possibly even THE problem. If the earth’s population of humans were significantly lower, we wouldn’t have to worry nearly so much about deforestation, desertification, pollution of various kinds, etc. Also, low birthrates are not uniform across the board for white people: conservative traditionalists are having significantly more children than are liberals, so what could be happening is that liberals are dying out, causing the overall population to decrease, until their numbers are eventually recompensed by replacement from more prolific conservative traditionalists. For example, I have heard that in France 30% of the women—Catholic conservatives—are bearing more than 50% of the children. This is happening naturally, and relatively peacefully; “progressivism” is ultimately self-destructive. But still, as H. H. the Dalai Lama says, European countries are for Europeans, and the non-European (sometimes even anti-European) refugees, not to mention the economic migrants, should go back home and try to help rebuild the nations that their own customs and attitudes messed up in the first place.

     A point that receives much less emphasis in the text than ethno-nationalism and the threat of invaders, but which is interesting and discussed in some detail, is Mr. Tarrant’s stated rationale for using firearms instead of, say, just blowing mosques up with explosives. He claims he wanted to inflame anti-gun hysteria among leftists in the United States, for the purpose of accelerating civil strife and ultimately precipitating (presumably necessary) civil war between left and right in America, as right-wingers fight to defend their constitutional rights. He had already given up on New Zealand gun owners, though he might derive some hope from the alleged fact that the overwhelming majority of them have been refusing to cooperate with the new gun ban decreed by the politically correct New Zealand government. Nevertheless the situation is clearly indicative of how hysterical leftists always take the bait set out for them and do exactly what their enemies lead them into doing, because they lack the rationality and sense to do otherwise.

     As an aside, the Politically Correct Prime Minister (PCPM) of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, publicly wore a hijab after the shooting, partly, no doubt, to soothe the Muslim community and help keep them from going violently berserk. But would she have worn a crucifix if a Muslim had massacred white Christian church-goers? (You don’t have to answer that question. The answer goes without saying.) In future these same PC feminists may be wearing hijabs because they have to wear them, because they’ll be publicly beaten if they don’t. I may as well add that another public reaction to the shootings was that “progressives” began demanding that Christchurch’s local rugby team, the Crusaders, change their name to something less Islamophobic and “offensive.” We mustn’t have culturally insensitive rugby players.

     One of the most remarkable statements in the document, in some ways central to the manifesto’s ethical implications, is the following question and answer: 
Why do you believe you will be released from prison?
I do not just expect to be released, but I also expect an eventual Nobel Peace Prize. As was awarded to the terrorist Nelson Mandela once his own people achieved victory and took power. I expect to be freed in 27 years from my incarceration, the same number of years as Mandela, for the same crime.

Mandela was indeed a terrorist who won the Nobel Peace Prize, and he wan’t even the only one who did. The whole time he was in prison in South Africa, Amnesty International refused to support his case because he was a known terrorist legally arrested and fairly tried for his many crimes in a court of law; and he even pled guilty to more than 150 acts of public violence, including the planting of bombs in public buildings and on public roads. He was offered his freedom from prison if only he would renounce acts of terrorism, and he refused. So it appears that Mr. Tarrant does have a point, although I won’t hold my breath for his Nobel Prize. But in some respects, though certainly not all, Tarrant is not so different from Mandela, whose crimes are ignored, of course, because his cause was politically correct, and his violence mainly directed against white people. The victors write the history, and determine whether a person who fights ruthlessly for a cause is a hero, or a villain. Also, the liberal left is losing control over the official narrative throughout the west, and they are very worried about that. I consider it not absolutely impossible that someday Brenton Tarrant could be hailed as a hero in mainstream culture…though again, as I say, I’m not holding my breath for it.

     Some of the other significant themes in the document include: environmentalism, or rather “eco-fascism”; and his repeated statements, common to the alt-right, that western “progressive” civilization has become rootless, godless, narcissistic, and morally and spiritually bankrupt, and must return to an authentically European traditionalism. He freely endorses fascism, but of a sort that would be so appealing to the majority, that resonates so naturally with the primordial European spirit, that it does not require compulsion—an ideal shared by communists also, but not exactly achieved “in real life.” As he puts it: 

We cannot, and should not, rely on oppression to encourage the population to fit this new paradigm. Through our own actions and speech we shall show them a new path. A path focusing on nature and respect for the environment, traditions, families, workers’ rights and personal and racial responsibilities. We must excel, both personally and as a society. Whilst we may use edgy humour and memes in the vanguard stage, and to attract a young audience, eventually we will need to show the reality of our thoughts and our more serious intents and wishes for the future. For now we appeal to the anger and black comedic nature of the present, but eventually we will need to show the warmth and genuine love we have for our people.

There is surprisingly little mention of Donald Trump, ABC’s propagandism notwithstanding, and what there is is at least as much negative as otherwise. The only specific mention of Mr. Trump in the manifesto is as follows: 

Were/are you a supporter of Donald Trump?
As a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose? Sure. As a policy maker and leader? Dear god no.

     Contrariwise, the author’s claim that communist China comes closest to his ideals of government may have been an instance of trolling or deliberate misinformation. I definitely do not consider the man to be infallible, or even particularly reliable, with regard to his understanding of world history and politics. For example, he states in the manifesto that the USA is currently suffering the greatest polarization and civil strife in its history, thereby indicating some considerable ignorance of the US Civil War. And I still think that real, “hot” civil war is more likely to break out in Europe than in the USA, if only because there are more infidel-hating Muslims there to precipitate it.

     One interesting point which he touches upon towards the end of the manifesto, in the most manifesto-like third part, is the idea that capitalism, being ruthlessly competitive by nature, will outcompete other systems, including socialism, and including the European ethno-eco-fascism that he himself prefers. The only way to avoid the economic superiority of capitalism, especially globalist capitalism exploiting cheap labor and huge international markets, is not to play the game of trying to compete with it. Thus, protectionism and avoidance of free trade, maybe even any trade, with the non-European world. This implies the avoidance of an egoistic luxury culture as well, which may be an ideal too much in disharmony with foolish human nature to be really plausible. That would really take a revolution, inward as well as outward. Tarrant considered the capitalist desire for cheap labor to be the main purpose of mass immigration; it certainly is a factor, especially for neoconservatives, but this is one more of the rather many points with which he and I fundamentally disagree. The primary purpose of mass immigration in America, it seems to me, especially now that neoconservatism is on the wane, is to allow the Democratic Party to establish a perennial welfare class dependent upon a socialized welfare state, and voting Democrat en masse, thereby allowing the left to consolidate power once and for all. Overall, though, I consider the primary reason for mass immigration into western nations, and the insistence upon multiculturalism, to be a largely successful attempt to weaken any European nationalistic sense of identity, for the purpose of facilitating “equality” and a socialized world state—more or less to destabilize western white Christian capitalistic society in order to further neo-Marxist, and largely Jewish, interests. But Mr. Tarrant’s manifesto has little to say about Hebrews, aside from stating that he has no problem with Jews living in their own homeland of Israel.

     Of course another dominant theme of the document is repeated calls to action, even to revolution. This includes what is sometimes called accelerationism: the standard Marxist strategy of sowing discord and instability so that inevitable nature can take its course. As an example the author suggests putting up posters in public places advocating Sharia law, then a week later covering those same posters with other posters demanding the expulsion of all immigrants. The trouble is, of course, that the Marxists and the white nationalists are of differing opinions on what direction nature will naturally take after the status quo is destabilized. Judging from growing public sentiment throughout the west, I’d guess that the ethno-nationalist alt-right may be more correct than the globalist neo-Marxists on that point. Marxism certainly is not “natural,” although it may be that eco-fascism isn’t either.

     Mr. Tarrant claimed that two events, or maybe three, were seminal in his decision to resort to physical violence or counterterrorism (that latter in the sense of terrorism going counter to the direction it usually takes), all occurring in the spring of 2017 while he was traveling through Europe. First he mentions the death of Ebba Akerlund, a young Swedish girl who was deliberately run down and killed by a Muslim migrant in a stolen car, in Stockholm, Sweden, in April of 2017. It was just one of many abominations perpetrated against Europeans by Muslim migrants, but in this case, for Brenton Tarrant, it was the proverbial last straw. In the manifesto he provides a long but of course very incomplete list of some of the worst cases of Muslim migrants’ abuse of western women and girls, along with the obviously correct observation,

The true number of these events perpetrated across the Western world is unknown and certainly underreported, as both the state, the media and the judicial system work in unison to hide these atrocities, in the fear that knowledge of these events would enrage the native people of the West and damage the perception of our new “Multicultural Utopia.”

The second event that tipped the scales in his case was the most recent French presidential election, in which an elite globalist shill, Macron, won handily—indicating the depth of demoralization wallowed in by the French people, at least by Tarrant’s reckoning. And lastly, he mentions his travels through France that same year, the decisive year of 2017, which revealed to him that Muslim migrants were pretty much everywhere in that country, in some places constituting the majority of the populations of small towns.

     With all due respects to that terrorist Nelson Mandela, justified in his ruthless acts of insurgency because he was fighting for his race and his homeland, from an ethical perspective I consider this case in New Zealand to be more comparable, more or less morally equivalent, to, say, an American Indian in around the middle of the 19th century massacring a church full of white pioneers (let’s say he blocked off the exits and burned it down, considering that automatic weapons weren’t much of an option then), after the elders of his tribe had already sold out and signed a disgraceful and humiliating treaty with the paleface white devils. That would be more or less of a moral equivalent to the Christchurch mosque shootings; though of course a lot of lefties and globalists wouldn’t want to see it that way. (To anyone muddle-headed enough to believe that by not declaring Tarrant an absolutely inhuman monster I am tacitly endorsing his actions, and/or encouraging others to do likewise, I would remark that I disapprove of an Indian burning down a church full of white Christians also, and not just because of their whiteness.) Only Europeans are not allowed to defend their own ethnicity, culture, and homelands, it seems; whites are the new outgroup, the new universal scapegoat, and even a great many indoctrinated white sheeple have turned against their own ethnicity and civilization in favor of a future multicultural Brave New World, in which they and their children, if they have any, would be members of a despised and perhaps persecuted minority.

     But of course, lefties and globalists would prefer to consider Mr. Tarrant to be absolutely, monstrously inhuman, and Mandela and the native American tribes who fought against white invaders to be heroes, or heroic victims of the white devil. The same goes for Mr. Trump—they want to dehumanize him, too—despite the fact that he is less inclined to kill innocent people with bombs and drone attacks than was his predecessor, the Progressive Messiah Barack Obama. The left is reduced to showing pictures of brown children in cages from the years of the Obama administration in order to attack Trump. Hell, Harry S. Truman nuked two Japanese cities and was the favorite President of my father, a devout Democrat…but I digress.

     As a Buddhist monk I really can’t sanely encourage the deliberate killing of conscious beings, not humans, not even rats, for any reason whatever, though it does happen and will continue to happen in this (necessarily) harsh world. I may as well point out that Mr. Tarrant does make some calls for lethal violence against specific individuals, especially Angela Merkel (who may really have triggered more chaos and destruction in Europe than anyone since Adolf Hitler, though in a much more feminine, compassionate manner), and against members of NGOs in general, which from a militaristic, strategic perspective may make perfect sense, but which is abomination from a dharmic one. I don’t condone bloodshed but do consider this kind of stuff to be what history is made of; and I consider Mr. Tarrant to have been sincere in his convictions and his desire to fight for his people and heritage. Many people hailed as heroes have perpetrated equivalent or worse atrocities, as was already mentioned. He evidently regarded himself as a soldier on a guerrilla mission, or, using his own language, a “lawful, uniformed combatant” engaged in “a partisan action against an occupying force.” One could say that members of Antifa are somewhat similar in this regard, although without the balls.

     What we have here is a case of a person fighting ruthlessly, strategically, and violently for what he believed was a higher cause. His manifesto is a call to war, for the preservation of the European race and of western civilization. Until I see evidence to the contrary I do not see Mr. Tarrant as a psychopath who, for example, enjoyed torturing animals before switching to human victims, or who killed out of sheer blind rage and racial hatred. He is probably not clinically insane (though from a Buddhist perspective everyone who is not fully enlightened is insane to some degree); rather, he had/has the mind of a ruthless revolutionary willing to do whatever it takes to ensure victory, a fighter for a cause. Whether it is a lost cause or not remains to be seen.

     As I observe again and again, what is wrong from an ethical point of view may in some cases be practically necessary from a political point of view; and, based on a familiarity with world history, the survival of western civilization and the European race even in its ancestral homeland will almost certainly require a bloodbath, or series of bloodbaths at this point, complete with civil war, cities in flames, mass graves, and a multitude of atrocities directed in multiple directions, including ethnic cleansing. White genocide is not simply a myth or a “conspiracy theory,” although I think there are more accurately descriptive terms for what is happening to the west. Just because I’m a Buddhist doesn’t mean that I must close my eyes to empirical facts, and to what I consider likely to occur, regardless of its goodness or badness, and in the relatively near future, too. Race wars, in Europe or anywhere else, are unspeakably horrible, but probably inevitable at this point. Though I don’t condone it, I do realistically expect a hell of a lot more bloodshed over essentially this same issue of European self-preservation. And there are a hell of a lot worse things to fight for than self-preservation, and a future for one’s children. (And again, for the muddle-headed out there, there really is a difference between acknowledging something to be likely, and actually wanting it to happen and thinking it’s a good thing. Though in this case I may go so far as to accept the possibility, at least, that race wars and ethnic cleansing in Europa may be the lesser of two evils.)

     Things will almost certainly get a lot worse before they get any better; and woe to the feminized social eunuchs of western Europe, including Britain. Regardless of whether the European nationalists/fascists or the Muslim migrants/invaders win the final struggle for the land, the emasculated neo-Marxists, with their glorification of dysfunction and sexual deviancy, their racial self-loathing, and their demonization of manhood, are screwed, and good riddance to them. Brenton Tarrant’s attack is merely a foretaste of the inevitable, regardless of questions of good and evil.

     In conclusion I would say that I agree with Mr. Tarrant’s ideas that the European race and western civilization are both facing an existential threat, due mainly to “progressivism” and mass immigration, and that we should fight back to avert destruction; although as a practicing Buddhist monk I really can’t endorse the violent means of fighting back that he adopted. In my case “fighting the good fight” is simply a matter of speaking out, and refusing to conform to the cultural disease. Though I must admit, realistically, again, that large scale physical violence, i.e. civil war, is practically inevitable, thanks in large part to Angela Merkel and others like her.

     I considered posting the edited version of Mr. Tarrant’s manifesto on this blog, but I figured that would be really pushing my luck. Nevertheless, my “edition” of the document is available on request, as a philosophical study or historical document, to anyone in a country in which possession of it is not positively illegal. Of course it is pretty much useless as any sort of guide to perpetrating violence, since the author’s methods are scarcely mentioned; as for his European ethnic nationalism, that can be found in abundance all over the Internet, regardless at present of the left’s and the globalists’ fervent desire to censor and abolish it. The manifesto itself concludes thus:

Final victory is yours, if you have the will for it. As for me, my time has come. I cannot guarantee my success. All I know is the certainty of my will and the necessity of my cause. Live or die, know I did it all for you; my friends, my family, my people, my culture, my RACE. Goodbye, god bless you all and I will see you in Valhalla. EUROPA RISES

This section actually has some genuine Dharma to it:

Accept Death, Embrace Infamy
Death is certain, you may die in service to some grand crusade or pass away in a hospice, either way you will die. What matters is your actions during the brief time between birth and death. The worth of your life is not measured by the length of your life, but your actions during it. Ask yourself now, are you willing to shirk your racial responsibilities? turn your back to your people? ignore their demise? All in the hopes of a peaceful death? Accept death: as it is as certain as the setting of the sun at evenfall. Only when you embrace death and the only thing you will have left to fear is inaction. Embrace infamy: the enemies of your people will beset upon you, on all sides. The media will paint you as villains, the state will name you as traitors, the globalist forces will name you as criminals and the traitors amongst your people will name you as enemies. You will be infamous until victory is achieved. Take it with a smile. ACCEPT DEATH, EMBRACE INFAMY, ACHIEVE VICTORY


  1. the Navy Seal bit is an internet meme. there is some serious trolling going on in the manifesto.

  2. The Great Replacement pdf, you can download it from here


Post a Comment

Hello, I am now moderating comments, so there will probably be a short delay after a comment is submitted before it is published, if it is published. This does have the advantage, though, that I will notice any new comments to old posts. Comments are welcome, but no spam, please. (Spam may include ANY anonymous comment which has nothing specifically to do with the content of the post.)


Most Clicked On