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!
I mean Tarrant described himself as an ethno-nationalist, and the white identity is fundamentally a Christian one. The concept of Christendom predates any concept of a European race, and the modern concept of white identity is inherited from the Christian identity.
He commented widely on race in his manifesto. Culturally he was part of the broader alt-right movement and he’s documented this influence himself.
He also reportedly donated money to identitarian parties in Europe.
Breivik said he aspired for a pure Nordic ideal, wanted to protect ethno-nationalists, and was part of western Europe’s fascist movement. He also stated he supported the creation of a Norwegian version of the swedish Nazi party.
He said he was a Christian but also said he was not particularly religious.
I think you’re right though. I think white supremacy is a branch of Christian theology.
Just as there is such a thing as western civilization, I think Islam is also a civilization. It’s just that western civilization no longer calls itself Christian because it has become widely secular.
I think modern so-called atheism is actually just a particular sect of Christianity, as is modern liberalism. Liberalism is the broader category and the standard version of modern atheism is a sub branch of that. White supremacy is another branch but distinct from liberalism.
These are analogous to the various different sub-sects and ideologies within Islam, or within Judaism. There are religious Jews who have no particular supernatural beliefs but merely identify with the religion, although they still practice. To them it’s possible to not be a theist at all but still be a Jew.
So I see the distinction between civilization, religion, culture and race as blurred at best.
> the white identity is fundamentally a Christian one
Most Christians live in Africa though.
> The concept of Christendom predates any concept of a European race
False. The term ‘Europe’ predates the Christian invasion of Europe by several centuries: https://www.etymonline.com/word/europe
> the modern concept of white identity is inherited from the Christian identity
White identity simply follows natural law and is based in blood. It has nothing to do with the Christian identity, which is based on creed. A Christian will always favour a non-white Christian over a white non-Christian, always.
Ok so the term Europe existed before Christianity but it wasn’t used to define the same geographic area it now is. That usage didn’t develop into the Carolingians in the sixth century ad at least.
You can confirm this by the fact the Peloponnesian isles are set ass distinct from Europe in the source you linked, i.e. whatever definition Europe had back then it excluded parts of Greece.
The idea that white identity follows from the blood is simply an appeal to nature which denies history. There was no concept of a white race prior to the early modern period because there was no scientific concept of race at all, not as we currently use it.
Your contention about christians favoring non-white christians over white non-christians is presented without any evidence and is simply you insisting on a point which can be easily disproven given the low rate of interracial marriages in historically Christian countries compared to the high rate of interfaith marriages. You can check this for yourself but in the US the rate of interfaith marriages is something like fifteen percent for marriages involving a Christian, whereas interracial marriages are something like three percent.
Lastly your point about most christians being African: doesn’t affect my argument. Category A and category B, where I say B is a subset of A, and you say “most members of A are not members of B” clearly doesn’t affect B being a subset. I didn’t say all christians are white, but, crudely, all whites are (historically) Christian.
You would think somebody with as much belief in his own intellect as yourself would have a more reliable grasp of basic logic.
When you die, God will show you that you betrayed your own people to worship Jews. You won’t enjoy how that feels, but you will deserve it.
Whites are historically Indo-European, i.e. our historical religions are the Greco-Roman-Norse pantheons as practiced before the Abrahamic invasions. The closest in today’s world is Hinduism.
Move to Africa if you want to be Christian, that’s where your fellows are.
Ok well I’m not a Christian, and you could say the same thing about indo-European religion, i.e. move to India of you want to worship the traditional pantheon
Also I’m no Curwen so correct me if I’m wrong but weren’t the semitic gods part of the Indo-European family tree? Yahweh and El emerged as monotheistic deities out of the older polytheistic tradition of the Canaanites, didn’t they?
Also weren’t the Indo-Europeans also invaders, from the steppe? Apparently the original population at least in southern Europe were the neolithic farmers.
It’s all pretty interesting so thanks for the discussion but I don’t think you really addressed my objections with “move to Africa” and “Homer said Europe.”
Surely you can agree that the historical concept of a white race is an early modern invention given that it’s not attested in any ancient sources and most European populations identified themselves with subnational groups like a tribe rather than as part of a pan-European race.
Also there are light-skinned people outside of Europe like in Iran and North Africa who if it weren’t for cultural differences would be considered white so it’s not a hundred percent natural category.
One thing that’s interesting to me is that the other foundational element of the western tradition apart from Christianity is the classical Hellenic and Roman world and their cultural artifacts.
What’s interesting about that is that those people weren’t invaders from the steppe but a Mediterranean population, probably descended from neolithic farmers.
Their pantheon and culture was clearly related to the Assyrian/Babylonian/Egyptian/Sumerian complex of civilisations around the fertile crescent, just like (ahem) the Jews.
So none of this seems as straightforward as your presentation.
The Greco-Roman World is the Western tradition. Christianity stands in relation to it as a cuckoo egg stands in relation to the warbler’s nest that it parasitises – it’s a foreign thing, one that doesn’t really belong no matter how long it’s been there for.
Yahweh may have been a Canaanite deity, but he wasn’t an Indo-European one. The whole idea of abandoning your ancestors to worship a foreign god is inherently anti-Indo-European.
When Christians destroyed the Eleusinian Mysteries, the West plunged into a Dark Age from which it has yet to recover. It’s more accurate to think of Christianity as one of the Adharmic religions that cause suffering to sentient beings, as opposed to the Dharmic religions that follow natural law and alleviate suffering. Christianity is then the yin element, in contrast to the yang of the natural European traditions.
Curwen can find evidence of traditions of religous violence even within Hinduism, so I have little doubt that he could describe in depth the long and bloody Christian history that inspired Breivik and Tarrant. Christians have murdered more people, on more continents, than any other tradition.
The white race is fundamentally a biological phenomenon, encompassing those whose ancestors evolved in (and adapted to) Europe. The term ‘race’ is shorthand for ‘population group that evolved in a particular continent’. Hence, if one’s ancestors evolved in Europe one is white, if in Africa one is black etc.
North Africans behave very differently to Europeans and not for cultural reasons (the average IQ in North Africa is about 80-85). They (like Iranians) are only considered white by the Muttmerican Government.
Plato was initiated into the Egyptian Mysteries and would have learned an immense amount from them. I agree that things are not straightforward.