Anders Breivik and Brenton Tarrant: Christian Terrorists

After both the Utoya massacre and the Christchurch mosque massacre, the mainstream media rushed to explain both deeds as white supremacist terror. But in their haste to push the narrative that Anders Breivik and Brenton Tarrant were neo-Nazis, the opinion-shapers (deliberately or otherwise) only misdirected people from an understanding of the true motives of the killers. The reality is that both attacks were acts of Christian terror.

Breivik didn’t even try to hide the fact that he was a Christian. The cover of his manifesto prominently featured a Christian cross, and the text repeatedly emphasised his adoration for the Christian military orders that fought against Muslims in the Crusades and in actions such as the Siege of Vienna. It is apparent from reading Breivik’s manifesto that he saw himself as a knight crusader in the defence of Christendom against her enemies, one of a long line.

Tarrant was obviously inspired by Breivik. He followed closely Breivik’s methodology for carrying out a terrorist attack. Like Breivik, he also left a manifesto detailing his motivations, intentions and aspirations, in which he concedes that he took most of his inspiration from the Norwegian Freemason (and therefore Christian, as only Christians are permitted entry to the Scandinavian Rite).

Tarrant wasn’t the scholar that Breivik was, and his manifesto was much briefer and much less formal. However, Tarrant’s manifesto also made clear his Christian motivations, not least of which was a fervent desire to retake Constantinople for Christendom.

Tarrant visited Europe in 2017, and was appalled by its advanced state of social decay. One of the things that upset him the most was seeing “empty churches and full mosques” in every country. No white supremacist would care about empty churches, because they consider Christianity to be a religion for subhumans that was forced on their ancestors by violence and deceit. Only a Christian would take an empty church as a loss.

The Drottninggatan terror attack of April 2017, taking place among several other Islamist attacks in those years, triggered dark emotions in Tarrant, by his own admission. He considered these attacks to be “attacks on my faith”. This makes it clear that defending Christendom was a motivation he shared with Breivik. Those feelings might explain why Tarrant’s manifesto contains an explicit and direct appeal to Christians, referencing the Pope who launched the Crusades.

Before carrying out his attack, Tarrant claims to have asked for – and received – a blessing from a reborn version of the Knights Templar, the Christian soldiers who fought in the Crusades. His choice of target was partially motivated by the “desecration” of a church in Ashburton that had been converted into a mosque. The most telling, however, is that he rhetorically asks himself if he is a Christian, and finds himself unable to deny it.

Brenton Tarrant was a Christian, and his attack was an act of Christian terrorism.

The Christchurch mosque shootings can best be understood as the actions of a religious supremacist, one who seeks to strike a blow against a rival religion that he fears is ascendant. In this context, Tarrant was simply another Christian soldier marching on his enemies, little different to the dozens of Abrahamists who commit terror attacks every month.

The history of the Middle East, the Near East and Europe is replete with Christian vs. Muslim struggles. Ever since Islam was founded 1,400 years ago, the Middle East has been a battlefield for an intra-Abrahamic civil war that has claimed the lives of hundreds of millions. This war has periodically raged through the Near East and into Europe, leading to the threat of Muslim control of Europe on at least two occasions.

Breivik was aware of the Battle of Tours and of the Siege of Vienna, so he was aware of how close Muslims have come to conquering Europe in the past. The mass Muslim immigration to Europe of recent decades must have seemed to him like another conquest attempt. No doubt it fed into the persecution mania that he shared with Christians in general.

Breivik conceived of his action in the context of Islamic expansion into Christian territory. Norwegian socialists were holding the borders open for Islamic invaders in the same way that the Jews of Toledo had done for the Saracen invaders. They were therefore responsible for the loss of Christian territory and influence.

Tarrant followed a similar logic. The only major difference is that, instead of shooting up a Green or Labour Party gathering, Tarrant targeted Muslims directly. It seems that he could quite easily have chosen a Green or Labour Party gathering with little change of mindset. The only major difference, if he had done so, would be less appeal for the white supremacist narrative.

In reality, a white supremacist has no reason to target Muslims any more than to target Christians. White supremacist rage is usually directed at those who let the invaders in, on the principle that traitors should be dealt with before enemies. Examples of the usual white supremacist modus operandi are the assassination of Jo Cox in 2016 and the assassination of Walter Luebcke in 2019, both targets being pro-refugee globalist politicians.

A Christian, on the other hand, has plenty of justification to target Muslims. Like Muslims, Christians believe that Yahweh has commanded the whole world to submit to their cult, and therefore any action taken to induce that submission is divine will. Christians have murdered non-Christians everywhere the two have met – that one might do so in New Zealand would be nothing out of the ordinary.

Muslims want everyone in the world to be Muslim; Christians want everyone in the world to be Christian. It’s inevitable that two ideologies of that level of arrogance will clash. The motivations of Anders Breivik and Brenton Tarrant are not easily understood in this age of pacified, infantilised and stupefied media consoomers. But their motivations were Christian, and shared with two millennia of Christian murderers before them.

If you enjoyed reading this essay/article, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2020 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis). A compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019, the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018 and the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 are also available.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!

If Anyone Deserves Reparations, It’s Working-Class People

A lot of noise is currently devoted to the question of reparations. Most of the talk is about reparations to American blacks, with the remainder to homosexuals or mental health patients. However, as this essay will examine, there’s one group of people whose claim to deserve reparations is stronger than that of anyone else: working-class people.

The working class has effectively been enslaved for millennia – and still is. In, fact, the entire societal infrastructure upon which all wealth rests has been built on the backs of the working class, and continues to be maintained by the working class. Without the efforts of people in this class, no-one else would live any higher than barbarians.

The entire essence of being a working-class person is that you don’t own land, and therefore cannot earn a living or an income from your own property. That means that you have to labour on someone else’s property, and that means you’re forced to accept whatever terms they lay down. As there are no commons to hunt anymore, the alternative is starvation.

Our entire economic system is built on the idea that the owners of the land also own all the productivity that takes place on it. Those who do the producing have no say, because the landowners employ police and security services who will use force to destroy the workers if they try to keep their productivity. The end consequence of all this: the workers are dependent on those owners for a wage.

This wage is the only difference between the worker and a slave. In theory, the worker gets enough of a wage so that, if they save diligently, they too can become a landowner one day. A slave, by contrast, is incapable of improving his position. In practice, the modern Western worker cannot improve his position either, as his wage only covers tax, rent/mortgage, food and a few other necessities.

So even though the worker is given a wage in lieu of being left to starve, his savings are so low that there’s little practical difference between him and a slave. The three lions of profits, taxes and rents take away the vast majority of his productivity, leaving him with only just enough money to keep him alive.

Even worse than the loss of productivity has been centuries of anti-working class prejudice that has seen countless people driven to the wall.

This prejudice continues today. In Britain, some 19,000 girls are raped every year by foreign grooming gangs. But because the vast majority of those girls are working-class, their suffering is ignored by the authorities. In Rotherham, official contempt for the suffering of the working class was so great that the Police covered up grooming gang rapes of working-class girls so as to keep racial tensions down.

This transparently unjust state of affairs has existed for centuries already, in some form or other. Because slavery is more profitable than paying a fair wage, the landowners have always sought to reduce the working class to a state as close to slavery as possible. And they’ve always succeeded to some extent. The working class has never, at any point in history, got a fair deal.

Perhaps the worst deal the working class ever got was to be forced wholesale into the slaughterpits of World War I and World War II. Working-class men comprised the vast majority of the soldiery in both wars, suffering most of the trauma, both physical and mental. The intergenerational consequences of this trauma persists today in a higher-than-baseline level of most mental illnesses among working-class people.

All this historical exploitation explains why landowners are so wealthy today, and workers so poor.

This reduction to penury has only been possible because of power differentials. As mentioned above, owning land makes it possible to own an enforcer class, which can then be used to take all the productivity away from the working class. If the working class tries to get a better deal through e.g. strike action, the enforcer class will break the strike up. Effectively, then, the working class has been robbed of most of its productivity for centuries.

If anyone deserves reparations, it’s the people who have had most of their productivity taken off them under threat of starvation for hundreds of years. The same group who has performed most of the hard labour but which has the least of the wealth.

The majority of the world’s wealth has either been produced by, or made possible by, the labours of the working classes. Despite that fact, the working classes of the West continue to languish in poverty. The average Western working-class person today, not having middle-class parents to inherit from, has almost no chance of gaining enough money on his wage to buy a home and raise a family.

If reparations are to be handed out, it should not be on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation but on the basis of need. This means that reparations ought to target working-class people.

The ideal reparations would come in the form of a universal basic income funded by a land tax. The land tax would hardly impact the working class, who can’t afford property on their wages anyway, while the univeral basic income would make it possible to both heal intergenerational trauma and to negotiate wages from a fair position.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!

Sheeple Are The Weapons Of Kings

It’s natural for children to fight. Children fight in all times, all places and all classes. Some children grow up to become obsessed with weapons, and learning how to assert themselves using those. A small minority of children come to realise that they can put a wall of fighters between them and their enemies. This small minority grows up to become the magicians of the realm of silver.

The lower a man’s rank in the great dominance hierarchy that is our society, the more he will use himself as a weapon. Most men fall within the realm of iron, in which whoever can personally kick the most arse is the most highly ranked. But the leaders of men, those who can distinguish themselves above the herd through the demonstration of some merit, soon gain the loyalty of multiple arse-kickers. In doing so, they enter the realm of silver.

The realm of silver is all about directing the men of iron. If the men of iron are the tools, the men of silver are the hand that guides them. Every man of iron eventually realises that kicking arse is far easier than figuring out whose arse needs to be kicked. That latter task requires a great deal of mental energy, and so it’s outsourced to the man of silver.

In order to maintain his position in the realm of silver, the silver magician needs a unifying narrative. This is a story or myth that serves as a rallying call to those under his influence. It is the metaphysical equivalent of a standard. This unifying narrative imposes order upon a mass of people by regimenting their minds in the same direction.

Those who adopt a narrative from above, without thinking about it, become the sheeple. In this context, it doesn’t matter what the narrative is. In any case, the narrative will always act as a call to solidarity on behalf of some group that considers itself under attack. This group, brought to order under the narrative of one or more silver magicians, is the herd (of sheeple).

The sheeple get milked and fleeced by their ruler, and, at the worst of times, they also get butchered.

As mentioned above, the higher a person’s rank in the great dominance hierarchy, the more they will use other people as tools. Those at the top of the system use people who themselves use people. The king will have a personal herd of aristocrats who themselves each control a herd of underlings. This makes the king a mercury magician, above the realm of silver but still subordinate to influence from the realm of gold.

The ruling class, then, use herds of sheeple against each other. The larger and more aggressive the herd, the more political power its master has. Political influence begins when a person can muster a herd. A gangbanger who can bring twenty loyal men together loses to the chieftain who can muster a hundred, who loses in turn to the warlord who can muster half a thousand.

Many of the clearest examples of this can be seen in religious conflict, such as when Hypatia was murdered by a mob of Christians enraged by a shit-stirrer named Peter. Any priest of true standing ought to be able to whip up a mob willing to destroy any blasphemer or heretic the priest points to. It was through wielding such mobs as weapons that the Roman Catholic Church enforced their 1,200-year reign of terror.

Cancel culture, as described in Clown World Chronicles, is just a modern version of this phenomenon. When New Zealand Human Rights Commissioner Paul Hunt used his platform in the mainstream media to encourage baizuos to contact TradeMe and tell them that the ‘It’s Okay To Be White’ t-shirts sold by VJM Publishing were racist, and succeeded in getting them delisted, it was little different to how religious leaders historically silenced wrongthinkers by stoking mobs against them.

The way to make people into sheeple is to control their minds. This can be achieved either quantitatively, through repetition and brainwashing, or qualitatively, through logical and rational argumentation, or both. In practice, the more a herd is organised by quantity the dumber and larger it will be, and the more it is organised by quality the smarter and smaller it will be.

The reason why the Jews have historically held so much power is that they have had a slave army of hundreds of millions of sheeple known as Christians, who believe that Jews have been chosen by God to enlighten the world. The average Christian will defend Jews at all opportunity, will promote Jews ahead of his own kind and will follow directions from a Jew as if it was the Word of God.

The beauty of modern representative techno-democracy is that you can build up a herd by mutual consent. It’s possible to talk to people online until some of them come to look up to you and, if this is done for long enough, you will sooner or later have your own herd. The degree to which this herd will obey you is a function of the degree of solidarity they have with you, but that’s a subject for another essay.

The ugliness of modern representative democracy is that building up a herd mostly comes down to control of the apparatus of propaganda, and that mostly comes down to television control, and that mostly comes down to money. Effectively, the more money you have, the more you can buy loyalty. All it takes is for you to pay a few dozen journalists to tell their sheeple that you are the next big thing, and that’s usually enough to make it so.

The simple way to protect yourself from becoming a sheeple is to ask yourself, every time a media figure tells you something, “Who owns this person?” Almost inevitably, the media figure turns out to be taking a wage from an editor who tells them what they can say, and that editor is themselves taking a wage from an owner who tells them what they can say that their journalists can say.

The more complicated way is to seek out gold magicians and take a narrative from them instead.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!

Why They Let Terrorists In (And Why They Keep Them In)

After the latest terror attack, this time involving a knifeman at an Auckland supermarket, it was discovered that the terrorist, Ahamed Aathill Mohamed Samsudeen, was born overseas and had been given a refugee visa to stay in New Zealand. Efforts had been made to deport him, but the New Zealand Government insisted he stay. Why? This essay explains.

It’s a grievous error to think that the kind of people who make up the Government are motivated to alleviate the suffering of the New Zealand people, or that the democratic selection process is some kind of meritocracy that promotes philosopher-kings. Such errors occur because that’s how people think things ought to be, and they naively conflate what ought to be with what is.

This line of thinking causes great confusion when people consider why Western governments allow mass immigration of people from violent, low-IQ cultures. Considering that certain immigrant groups (Muslims and Africans in particular) commit an enormous amount of violence and sex crimes wherever they go, why do our rulers keep letting them in?

The usual explanations involve economics, particularly references to the GDP growth imperative, or conspiracy theories about Jews. The reality is even more sinister – you could commit to a zero-growth economy, and get rid of all the Jews, and the Western ruling class would still hold the borders open to terrorists.

Explaining why requires accurately understanding the motivations of the people who comprise the government.

The main motivation of the people making up every government in the world is to stay in control. What gets politicians out of bed in the morning is the desire for control and power. They want to be in charge, usually because they are deeply afraid on a spiritual level, and that fear is assuaged by power, as most fears are.

Having terrorists run amok helps the New Zealand Government maintain control in two major ways.

The first way is that it spreads fear. When a person hears of a stabbing frenzy at a supermarket, the logical thought is that more terrorists might be out there, waiting to attack again. The resulting anxiety costs energy, because a heightened state of physiological arousal must be maintained. The Government wants you to waste your energy in this manner, because it keeps you down.

In this sense, Islamic terrorism has simply replaced fear of the Soviet Union, which replaced fear of the Third Reich, which replaced fear of scientific and technological advancement, which replaced fear of the Devil. It’s now The Big Fear, which the powers that be can stoke whenever they like, simply by devoting television time to it. All that was needed was for Muslims to kill and rape enough people, and then the ruling class had another demon to threaten the plebs with.

Our rulers have long observed, from the example set by Europe, that Muslim immigrants murder, rape and destroy everywhere they go. So those rulers deliberately opened our borders to those same immigrants, and moved them into working-class neighbourhoods, as a kind of biological weapon.

The New Lynn Countdown stabbing is just one example of the inevitable friction created – something our ruling class is insulated from, having long ago retreated to their exclusive neighbourhoods, where violent immigrants are not allowed.

The second way is that it wastes money. As George Orwell wrote in Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, a people with surplus wealth will inevitably seek to use that wealth to obtain more freedom. Maximising control means minimising freedom, and, therefore, maximising control means minimising wealth. In the world of 1984, wealth was wasted by neverending wars and intrusive regulation and surveillance – just like in our world.

Emil Kirkegaard discovered that there was a strong positive correlation between an immigrant’s net fiscal contribution to their new society and the IQ of their home nation. There was a similarly strong correlation, only negative, between an immigrant’s net contribution and the Muslim percentage of their home nation. Low-IQ and Muslim immigrants cost the societies that receive them a great deal of money – but that’s precisely why the ruling class lets them in.

Low-IQ and Muslim immigrants, like compulsory te reo classes, the War on Drugs and rolling coronavirus lockdowns, suck up all the surplus wealth created by society. This keeps people from enjoying the leisure time that might see them come together and share their dissatisfaction with the government. This shared dissatisfaction is what leads to popular revolution, so if the Government can make the people too poor to express such dissatisfaction, they can secure their position against those they rule.

The supermarket terrorist was followed around-the-clock by a crack unit of Police called the Special Tactics Group, which was why he was taken down in roughly one minute. But these elite law enforcement officers don’t come cheap. There are believed to be at least 30 suspected terrorists being shadowed by the STG. The total cost must run into the tens of millions.

Allowing mass Muslim and African immigration, and allowing the many terrorists among their number to stay in the country until they attack someone, directly increases the fear and poverty of the New Zealand people. In doing so, the New Zealand Government makes us much easier to control. Not only do we become more compliant to directions from authority figures, but we also become more willing to police each other.

Had the Government simply been mistaken about the long-term consequences of allowing mass Muslim and African immigration, they would deport people like Samsudeen as soon as they realised they were terrorists. But they don’t deport them; they keep them around. They would only do this if keeping them around served a deeper purpose. Fear and poverty is that purpose.

The New Zealand Government imports terrorists, and keeps them here, for essentially the same reasons the governments of Europe let so many Muslims and Africans in, and America allowed itself to undergo The Muttening. The more the masses can be set against each other along fracture lines within the wider population, the less energy those masses have left over to direct upwards at the ruling class. Diversity really is strength – but not for us.

If you would like to support our work in other ways, please consider subscribing to our SubscribeStar fund. Even better, buy any one of our books!