There's been a major shooting in Christchurch, New Zealand, where at least one gunman attacked two mosques and killed several people. Check the media for up-to-date details, e.g. here. We're ok, I've got family locked down in multiple locations as a precaution but they'll all be fine too.
What is very interesting is that a man who appears to be one of the shooters actually published a manifesto explaining why he did it, that is rapidly being removed from the internet. I have archived it as an attachment to this post, NOT to promote it in any way, but simply to aid understanding. This is a very nuanced event and will be greatly simplified by media and politicians.
(EDIT: The manifesto has been removed from this post, as it has now been retrospectively made illegal to possess or distribute in New Zealand, punishable by up to 14 years in prison - and yes, people are actually being arrested for this. If you are not in NZ and want to read it, search for lists of sites that have been blocked by NZ ISPs and you'll find it on one of those).
Bear in mind that this manifesto may not be genuine, it could be an entire fabrication intended to deceive, so hold everything from it with caution. As usual in such events, initial eyewitness reports suggest multiple shooters, but this manifesto supports a "lone-wolf" narrative, so could easily be part of the intended narrative if there is anything deceptive going on. However, keeping that caution in mind, it's worth having a look at to see what the shooter (or his handlers) wanted us to think his motivations were.
Key points to note from this manifesto:
1) He deliberately intended to cause a reduction in gun rights in both the USA and New Zealand.
So it's a real mishmash of ideas. His blend of environmentalism and racial purity is not dissimilar to Hitler's views, but is strange to read in a modern context.
Just remember - whenever this is used as justification for taking away gun rights further, which it will be, argue that this is exactly what he wanted. To do that would be to follow the wishes of a terrorist. And for government to further the desires of a terrorist would be a great evil.
What is very interesting is that a man who appears to be one of the shooters actually published a manifesto explaining why he did it, that is rapidly being removed from the internet. I have archived it as an attachment to this post, NOT to promote it in any way, but simply to aid understanding. This is a very nuanced event and will be greatly simplified by media and politicians.
(EDIT: The manifesto has been removed from this post, as it has now been retrospectively made illegal to possess or distribute in New Zealand, punishable by up to 14 years in prison - and yes, people are actually being arrested for this. If you are not in NZ and want to read it, search for lists of sites that have been blocked by NZ ISPs and you'll find it on one of those).
Bear in mind that this manifesto may not be genuine, it could be an entire fabrication intended to deceive, so hold everything from it with caution. As usual in such events, initial eyewitness reports suggest multiple shooters, but this manifesto supports a "lone-wolf" narrative, so could easily be part of the intended narrative if there is anything deceptive going on. However, keeping that caution in mind, it's worth having a look at to see what the shooter (or his handlers) wanted us to think his motivations were.
Key points to note from this manifesto:
1) He deliberately intended to cause a reduction in gun rights in both the USA and New Zealand.
2) However the media portray him, he claims to
- NOT be a conservative. Or a xenophobe, islamophobe, nazi, neo-nazi, homophobe or antisemite.
- be BOTH left-wing and right-wing depending on the issue
- be unsure if he is a Christian (ie he's an agnostic, and his parting words are "I will see you in Valhalla" so not at all Christian)
- be a racist, facist, and ethno-nationalist (ie in favour of preserving white/European national/ethnic identity within traditionally white/European countries).
4) He also wanted to take revenge on Muslims for terrorism in Europe and elsewhere over both the past few years and ancient history, and particularly for the rape of Western women, hence why he singled them out over other immigrant communities.
So it's a real mishmash of ideas. His blend of environmentalism and racial purity is not dissimilar to Hitler's views, but is strange to read in a modern context.
Just remember - whenever this is used as justification for taking away gun rights further, which it will be, argue that this is exactly what he wanted. To do that would be to follow the wishes of a terrorist. And for government to further the desires of a terrorist would be a great evil.
