Another Perspective on New Zealand Mosque Shootings

Note: In the west, everyone is protected by the rule of law. The confessed perpetrators of the Christchurch outrages should be prosecuted and punished, promptly and as thoroughly as New Zealand law allows.

A Cultural Immune System

The media is awash in self-righteous commentary calling for western “reconciliation” with Islam and for a further disarming of the nations of Europe and the Anglosphere beyond what has been done.

But we should see this tragedy for what it is: A manifestation of the cultural immune system, with human antibodies fighting against perceived foreign invaders. We are familiar with such things when western journalists, tourists, missionaries, diplomats, and others are captured-tortured-murdered inside Islamic nations.

When such outrages occur within Islam, the perpetrators are often celebrated as cultural heroes. And in a sense, they can be seen as cultural antibodies doing their part to rid the “body” of the outside invader.

In the west, perpetrators who murder unarmed noncombatants are punished. In the US, they can be executed. But the workings of the criminal justice systems of the west often take on a secondary role to the workings of the media/political/academic complex of propaganda and attitude engineering.

The media/political/academic complexes have become deadly parasites on the host societies, but masquerade as part of the societies themselves — making themselves impervious to the immune systems of the culture and society. No matter how many mosques are built in Christchurch, they could never do the amount of harm that New Zealand’s own media/politics/academy are doing to the country and its future.

The perpetrators of the Christchurch outrage supposedly believed that they were acting to benefit the culture and society of New Zealand and the west. But their murderous actions are not likely to benefit New Zealand or those engaged in legitimate politics who are trying to limit the number of new immigrants that are unable to assimilate or contribute meaningfully to a productive society. These murders will have the opposite effect to what was supposedly intended.

Acts of outrage are used as excuses for further grabbing of power by governments, as excuses for further distortions of required curricula by universities, and excuses for further warping of media points of view — with the goal of kicking western societies further down the chasm of conformist groupthink and individual powerlessness.

This is what they want to do.

What they should do is to convict and punish the perpetrators as quickly and thoroughly as possible under Kiwi law, and then to publicly contrast how such “cultural immune system antibody” perpetrators are treated in the west, vs. how they have traditionally been treated in the Islamic world (Osama bin Ladn).

The legislatures and courts of every country have to decide where to draw the line between governmental power and personal power. Those who would like to see the balance more in favour of personal power should be willing to take more personal responsibility to see that their side of the issue has nothing to be ashamed of. What happened in Christchurch was shameful and obscene.


It is important to remember that most fatal mosque attacks are perpetrated by Muslims on other Muslims. It is also important to understand that fatal Muslim attacks on Christian churches in Egypt, Iraq, and elsewhere are fairly common. Muslim attacks on Jewish synagogues have been perpetrated with fatal result in countries around the world in modern times.

The Christchurch attack was an unusual, “man bites dog” incident. Still, it may be the harbinger of things to come as Huntington’s “Clash of Cultures” plays itself out in a world where virtually all cultures have grown corrupt and deformed.

This entry was posted in Crime and Punishment, Politics and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Another Perspective on New Zealand Mosque Shootings

  1. Will Brown says:

    According to the shooter himself (or at least to an essay widely posted in his name), what happened in Christchurch was a violent leftist’s deliberate ideological provocation to retaliate against islamic violence and instigate a second civil war in the US. Hopefully the NZ courts will highlight all of this on their way to convicting him to a life of tedium and respectable comfort at the tax payers expense.

    On a not-too-unrelated note, I wonder what the muslim population is in the NZ prison system?

  2. bob sykes says:

    Islam is utterly incompatible with Western Civilization and culture. It is overtly anti-Western in all its aspects. The recent Rashida Tlaib incident merely illustrates the basic truth. It is notable that in that incident every Muslim and every black member of the House supported Tlaib’s anti-Semitic statements and defended her history of anti-Semitism.

    All Muslims must be expelled from every Western country. That would include Louis Farrakhan and all members of his Nation of Islam.

    • alfin2101 says:

      Islam is both political and religious, essentially totalitarian in aspect. It smothers civil societies which would otherwise provide a source of vibrancy and innovation. Very few new books are published in Arabic every year, for example.

      Islam is a religion suited to the incurious person with a rigid mindset who is unable to tolerate other points of view or forms of lifestyle. It is manifested by true believing conformism with an unfortunate tendency to violence as a sanctioned method of religious enforcement and expansion.

      Weak Islam is compatible with all other similarly weak religions or ideologies, but Islam will always interfere with the secular and political sectors to some extent. Freedom of belief and separation of church and state are concepts that will always leave a sore spot and a bitter taste for Muslims.

      • painlord2k says:

        Any Jews attacking and killing nazis before WW2 would be classified as a criminal, probably insane, political extremist.

        If we consider the perpetrator of Christchurch as an “cultural antibody” we can not use categories like “shameful and obscene”.

        Calling for the punishment of the perpetrator is just an obvious way to avoid to be attacked by the western hijacked immune system. And it will not work. The immune system (the established one) is completely subservient at the needs of a minority of multiculturalist elitists. It will attack you the moment they perceive you as an obstacle to be removed.

        • alfin2101 says:

          Staging a mosque shooting of unarmed men women and children as a 1st person shooter video game live on social media? Yes indeed, it is quite possible to play the part of a “cultural antibody” in an obscene and shameful manner. And that athol did just that.

          Google deplatformed this blog 6 years ago, so I know how that works. But any person with an IQ above 50 can look beyond the cowardly attack in Christchurch for a moment and see how counter-productive (in terms of near term NZ legislation and regulations) this clusterfoque will turn out. The athol is on record stating that he wanted to trigger a civil war in the US by escalating the back and forth political tension already in place.

          There are ways to reduce immigration numbers of unskilled, poorly assimilating, culturally antagonistic and violence prone persons. Again, even a person living in a home for the mentally disabled can see that the Ozzie perp took the wrong road and scored an own goal.

          • painlord2k says:

            I don’t think he considered it a “video game”.
            You and many other see it as a video game because you saw it from your computer’s monitor and I suppose project your idea on his thinking process.

            All this Go Pro-ing and livestreaming is to get the informations out BEFORE the government(s) can suppress and control the narrative. Muslims do it all the time when Jihading around.
            In fact, as soon as the video was taken down by major corporations, the kiwi government threatened its own citizens with ten years in jail for possessing or sharing the video.

            Whatever you could have read (or being red) on his manifesto it is clear, to me, he played many people on many levels. Maybe consciously, maybe not. He played the government of New Zealand in threatening its own citizens. He played the press (and he wrote about it in the manifesto) in reacting hysterically blaming people like Candace Owens..

            The real problem, as often happens, it is not the problem; the real problem is how people react to the problem. And the reaction is very problematic and will amplify the problem, will not reduce it.

            It will become way worse before it become better. There is a lot of trash to dispose in our society. But, before or later, the economy will crater, like it cratered in Venezuela. Then every type of false tolerance will disappear. I call it “false tolerance” because it is just stupor fueled by a drug called “Welfare state”. When the drug stop coming, the withdrawal will be very bad. Yugoslavia will appear like a walking in the park.

  3. ddswaterloo says:

    When the government targets a population by race then pledges all its resources to find anywhere there are “too many Whites,” that is GENOCIDE. And it is a crime.

    Do you think there is a connection between active and coercive suppression of that issue, both in discussion and politics, and conflict??

    • painlord2k says:

      I think there is a connection;but the politicians are in the “here and now”.
      All their actions (minus some rare exceptions) are geared to gain power and keep power.
      So they will do everything and anything useful to preserve the status quo. Like the wife of an abusive husband is often willing to react to everyone else (children included) doing anything potentially upsetting their husband. Because their husband will react on her anyway.

      They will continue to suppress civil and peaceful protesting of the problems (the multifacet bundle of problems our society has) because it upset their seat of power. But this will never solve the problems. So they will grow, until something will happen.

      Usually, this abusive husband / beaten wife situation end in a few ways:
      1) one kill the other
      2) one leave the other

      The second is saner but you need sane enough persons to enact it.

      Every individual is a monster. If you know it and accept it, maybe you can prevent the monster from coming out outside of your control. But when people don’t prevent or can not prevent the coming out, it is a dire situation.

Comments are closed.