New Zealand Shooter Opposed Trump, Wanted to Abolish 2nd Amendment in America
A.J. Cooke
|
The 74-page viral manifesto of the Australian-born shooter who killed 49 people in a attack against two mosques in Christchurch, NZ claims to be designed to embolden the radical Left, undermine democracy and spark a global race war.
True to form for a document attempting to sow division, it offers plenty of fuel for commentators on either side to blame each other for the massacre: the shooter claims to be both right-wing and left wing; fascist and Chinese-style communist; pro-Trump and anti-Trump.
“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.”
Some journalists have already taken the bait with headlines like New Zealand mosques’ attack suspect praised Trump in manifesto, New Zealand Shooter’s Manifesto Praises Trump and Does anyone doubt that Donald Trump inspired the New Zealand massacre?
It’s unclear how much of the manifesto is serious rather than trolling: the shooter claimed to have been radicalized by black conservative activist Candace Owens just before sarcastically claiming he was schooled in ethno-nationalism by Spyro the Dragon 3, a children’s video game. Owens responded on Twitter with incredulity – “FACT: I’ve never created any content espousing my views on the 2nd Amendment or Islam.” – and threatened to sue any outlet that attempts to blame her for inspiring the attack.
The document is littered with similar references to meme culture as well as open acknowledgements that the intent is “To incite violence, retaliation and further divide between the European people and the invaders currently occupying European soil” and “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.”
Falsely claiming common cause with a black conservative hated in white supremacist circles (for obvious reasons) would be in keeping with that theme.
Among the more bizarre pronouncements of ambiguous sincerity, “climate change is such a huge issue” and the solution is genocide: “kill the overpopulation and by doing so save the environment.”
However, the document is much clearer about core arguments that high immigration as well as low white birth rates are leading to a “White Genocide;” that the only solution is violent revolution and that similar terrorist attacks should be orchestrated to elicit a leftist crackdown in hopes of a violent white counter-reaction.
“Why did you carry out the attack?
… 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.”
“Why did you choose to use firearms?
… I chose firearms for the affect it would have on social discourse, the extra media coverage they would provide and the affect it could have on the politics of United states and thereby the political situation of the world. The US is torn into many factions by its second amendment, along state, social, cultural and, most importantly, racial lines. With enough pressure the left wing within the United states will seek to abolish the second amendment, and the right wing within the US will see this as an attack on their very freedom and liberty.”
All in all, nothing in the document suggests that any mainstream political movement is responsible for the shooter’s beliefs and almost everything suggests the opposite. The clear intent, expressed multiple times, is for the terrorist attack to be used as a divisive political football by disingenuous pundits and politicians so that more violence ensues.
Share: