Due to the censorial nature of the manifesto, we will not be distributing the manifesto until decentralised alternatives mature, which are under way by the defi and decentralisation technological movements.
In the meantime, here is a description of what we will be covering:
This is an extension of our recent propaganda series, where instead of violence to opposition, we provide research and (counter-)arguments. In case that is not clear enough, this is not an endorsement of the content, it is a critique of it.
The alleged mosque shooter’s online and travel history has become the focus of an international investigation spanning at least four continents and several intelligence agencies.
But in the wake of the massacre, his social media accounts were wiped from the internet, leaving very little information regarding the connections he made with individuals and groups on the far-right that operate prominently online.
What remained were fragments and digital impressions of a well-travelled young man who frequented hate-filled anonymous messaging boards and was deeply engaged in a global alt-right culture.
Although the shooter claimed in a manifesto uploaded before the attack that he was never a member of any group, the archive verified by Background Briefing reveals an allegiance to a number of high-profile Australian far-right figures.
And while specific details remain murky, these revelations about Tarrant’s interactions with domestic far-right groups shed light on a young man captivated by white nationalism and its high-profile figurehead, Mr Cottrell.
A manifesto that seems to have more substance, more teeth, and is more commonly cited as inspiration, seems to be this one, as cited by Tarrant, as linked earlier:
With the effects of genetic similarity removed, children from the same family often appear no more alike than randomly selected strangers; yet, identical twins raised apart are nearly as similar in personality as identical twins raised together. These findings suggest is that shared family environment has virtually no effect on personality development, and that similarity between relatives is almost entirely due to shared genetics.
Over the course of an individual’s lifespan, the stability of their personality has been shown to be variable, although this variability levels out in adulthood. Behavioral genetics can account for the variability experienced across the lifespan. This is highly evident in the transitions between childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. From childhood to mid-adolescence, the rate of individual differences in personality increases, primarily due to environmental influences. However, genetic influences play a larger role than environmental influences in adulthood, resulting in fewer individual differences in personality between individuals who share similar genetics.
Which is a companion to other things I’ve read, where big 5 personality traits positively correlate with biological preferences for different hormonal regulation: oxytocin (agreeableness), dopamine (extraversion), serotonin (conscientiousness), cortisol (neuroticism) - with intelligence (openness) being the other contributing factor.
ISIS Techniques & Progress
Condemnation is not helpful in counter-arguing and deterring those sympathetic to his experiences and perspectives.
Fascism is a competing ideology to free-trade, but that is a different axiom to hedge a perspective on. Largely, this manifesto is an anecdotal perspective, which is where a large segment of the population operate, or all, to a significant extent, which critical thinking only serves to counter-measure. His worldview seems to be: He identifies as a warrior, facing an immediate invasion (influx of competitive culture, dwindling population, and increased crime), decided upon without his autonomy, which he then decided to act to protect his society and his people are being raped, when the majority won’t, by doing what he can as a warrior, and calling on other archetypes to do their part too. It is a coin-flip of the tactics of ISIS, which in large part serve as counter-defences to each other’s forms of pillaging of the weak and innocent.
What the fascists seem to want, is an army that resembles what ISIS already has.
Tarrant takes his ideology seriously, killed for his ideology.
The manifesto, besides a few lines of satire, does serve to communicate that ideology somewhat - in prison, he is in more or a less a communication lock down - so hard to expound further.
The manifesto is somewhat rushed (he views violently stopping his opposition, the immediate invasion (his words), as more important for him to do, as the warrior archetype he identifies with, than say writing, which would be another archetype - his weapon was the gun, however he implores those whose weapons are other tools to also take action, say the pen as a weapon).
I searched twitter and youtube and duckduckgo for counter arguments to it - I could find dismissals, insults, and only calls to censure. That is a quarantine of a memetic virus, not a vaccination or immunity or treatment.
So by Bevry covering it publicly, we are doing something pretty new.
What is our goal?
What was the character development arc for him? [white community in nature, personal trainer, early crypto investor, use to be a leftist, traveller throughout Europe (I couldn’t find anything reliable on him travelling outside of Europe, say to Asia), during his travels came across many assimilation issues and local proximity to a few foreigner attacks, contrasted this with the history of europe, wondered why no one was doing anything, felt the apathy and decline was a flaw of democracy (fascism vs democracy), felt he needed to act].
Was he a white supremacist, or white nationalist, or ethno-nationalist, or a combination? What’s the difference between them? What were his terms? How does he qualify them? [he self describes as a eco-fascist, his ideology is ethno-nationalist, informed by ethno-genetic-culture ideas] [nationalist vs supremacist is harder, Australia and New Zealand are not white homelands - is this the natural pecking order, aka supremacy (we can draw that correlation however he never correlated it) - or was the focus on Australia and New Zealand for increased publicly and instability (a reason he states)]
Are his fears real?
What data and experiences did he use to inform his beliefs and actions? Why did he consider his beliefs fair to the data? Are his beliefs fair? Are his beliefs the only avenue of conclusion? [his previous left-leanings, anti-capitalist, seems to have directed his catalyst to fascism instead of libertarianism or anarchy, all of which are critical of democracy]
Which alternative solutions are suitable and unsuitable to address his fears?
What are the alternative interpretative frameworks and countermeasures to what he experienced and discovered? [Urgency vs democracy] [Racial differences, correlation vs causative] [Fascism vs free trade]
For the the [race vs intelligence] narrative, this is the best balanced summary I’ve found so far, that isn’t just [yay racism vs boo racism]:
This also seems promising:
For the anecdotal side, Tarrant cites this:
One needs strong cognitive immunity against revenge if that were your family as victims, as evidenced by revenge movies like:
Park Chan-Wook’s Trilogy
Crimes by mental illness isolates the revenge to a single individual. However, ideological crimes invite ideological revenge [gang on gang violence, religion on religion violence, tribe vs tribe violence, etc etc].
I imagine a lot more of this ideological revenge crime will start happening against the “hate white people” meme and conversely the “hate black people” meme. Which seems to the goal of such political instability - throwing gasoline on the fire - escalating the abstraction of division - before it was economical, behavioural, or cultural, but as it distributes through crudeness of generalisations, it abstracts out to the most generic and thus superficial correlations: skin colour contentions - which is dynamite on public discourse, catalyses FUD to action - this is seen in some of the BLM riots - chants of “kill the white people” - which is the coin flip to the white-nationalist marches. However, such superficial hatred seems only instantiated under the protection of groups or anonymity, as it is too weak to survive in isolation.
If such blazes are the result of modern memetic warfare, by competing government and corporate intelligence agencies (china, russia, etc, and weapon manufacturers, drug and pharmaceutical manufacturers, etc.), it is working incredibly well.
Which makes me think that just how free-trade of drugs, takes drugs away from the cartel (while illegal, anti-competitive practices are not regulated out). So too would free-trade of firearms (3d printed guns), as it would turn the blue ocean market into a red ocean where profits go away, and it is no longer profitable to create catastrophe and fear to sell guns.
Added a question for his goal, and a research area to answer it. Found this, seems he was successful in inspiring others:
So we do need to focus on addressing audience members in the same mindset - calling them idiots won’t work - and even if some are idiots, then they are still idiots out there - such as this one:
youtube follow ups
Applying a search filter on youtube for videos over >20 minutes did show up these videos after going through dozens of pages of results. Interesting how the normal youtube search didn’t return them. They are probably all, eventually the quality of results went to poop. A few are by Yaron Brook, who is the Ben Shapiro of Objectivism. So I’ll add his stuff to my watchlist.
tangential follow ups
Just watched these as a follow up:
I think we can cover it in our own follow up, as the migrants are a symptom, not the cause.
As we keep getting youtube comments inquiring about distribution of the manifesto, I have sent the following email to the Australia Classification Board who determines what is censored in Australia:
I run an online philosophical study group called Bevry.
We have provided a critical analysis and rebuttal of the Christchurch Manifesto:
As well as another follow-up rebuttal of it:
Despite our commentary, we have refrained from distributing the manifesto from concerns of the legality in Australia:
I would like to distribute the manifesto with our commentary inline, as well as alongside our two rebuttals, as I feel this would better serve to eliminate its threat than ignoring its arguments, which only serves to radicalises opponents who are deprived from hearing the concerns of the supporters, which further radicalises the supporters, who can only access it via darknet acquisition which is free from critical commentary.
Please let me know if such distribution of the manifesto with inline critiques and included rebuttals would be permissible in Australia.