According to the mainstream press, on Sunday, January 29, 2017, a 27-year-old white man, Alexandre Bissonnette, entered the Islamic Cultural Center in Quebec City, Canada, killed six Muslims gathered for prayer, and injured eight more.
As a white person, I look down upon the criminals among us. I do not reflexively defend and glorify them. Muslims, of course, are commanded to deceive, torture, rape, enslave, and murder infidels. But such things are illegal in white societies. I hope Bissonnette receives a fair trial and just punishment, but that seems unlikely given the politically correct and racially charged atmosphere in Canada today.
We obviously don’t know all the facts yet, but apparently the killings were racially and religiously motivated. Bissonnette is said to have been a Right-wing internet troll. He is also, apparently, a “lone wolf,” unconnected to any White Nationalist or anti-Muslim groups.
Still, I can say three things with confidence.
First, the Quebec mosque massacre could not have happened if Canada had remained a European Christian society and did not import Muslims from Africa and the Middle East. I have no desire to absolve Alexandre Bissonnette, much less blame his victims. But he would not be a killer, and they would not be dead, if Muslims did not live in Canada. When different races, cultures, and religious communities are forced to live together in the same system, frictions are inevitable. These frictions give rise to misunderstandings, distrust, alienation, and long-simmering resentments, which flare up into hatred, violence, and social upheaval. Alexandre Bissonnette’s actions are predictable consequences of multiculturalism — as are the far more numerous religiously motivated hate crimes (terrorism, mass rape) committed against whites by Muslims, crimes which the establishment and media prefer to ignore. (Aedon Cassiel completely destroys  the claim, echoed by fake news outlets, that Right-wing violence is a greater threat than Muslim terrorism in the United States.)
Islam has been at war with the rest of the world for more than a millennium. Allowing Muslim communities to form in white societies is like bringing the Trojan horse within our gates. It has brought religious and ethnic hated, pedophile rape epidemics , barbaric mutilations and murders, and terrorism. If Muslim migration is not halted and reversed, Western civilization will be destroyed and replaced by medieval barbarism. Thus they must all go back.
Second, we should resist dismissing Alexandre Bissonnette with the all-too-easy claim that he was “crazy.” I am not going to simply disown Alexandre Bissonnette and label him “one of them”: one of those evil, crazy white racists who are fundamentally different from the rest of us, the “good,” “sane,” “tolerant” white people. For the truth is, Alexandre Bissonnette is “one of us.”
By “one of us,” I simply mean that he is a white man, and all white people have innate ethnocentric tendencies, wired deep in our brains. We love our own and we fear strangers. As diversity increases, all of us will bear increased psychic costs, even those who pursue wealth and status by selling out their own people in favor of foreigners.
Bissonnette and people like him may be nothing more than canaries in a coal mine: the first to sense the presence of a threat to the survival of us all. Bissonnette may have just been abnormally sensitive to the terrible psychic consequences of losing control of our society to aliens: stress, alienation, anger, hatred, rage, etc. This heightened sensitivity might also go along with a whole suite of other abnormal traits. But we dismiss people like Bissonnette at our own risk. For in the end, all of us will feel the same effects — unless we heed the warning signs and turn back the rising tide of color.
Third, Bissonnette’s “solution” to his rage and alienation — killing innocent people — just makes the racial situation worse rather than better. There is no evidence so far that Bissonnette was affiliated with or influenced by any white racialist group. But his actions certainly resemble those of racially-motivated spree killers like Anders Behring Breivik , Wade Michael Page , Frazier Glenn Miller , and Dylan Storm Roof , all of whom are products of what I call “Old Right” thinking.
By the “Old Right,” I mean classical Fascism and National Socialism and their contemporary imitators who believe that White Nationalism can be advanced through such means as one-party politics, terrorism, totalitarianism, imperialism, and genocide. Today’s Old Right scene is rife with fantasies of race war, lone wolf attacks on non-whites, and heroic last stands that end in a hail of police bullets. Intelligent and honorable people have emerged from this milieu. But there have been more than a few spree-killers as well.
This kind of violence is worse than a crime. It is a mistake. It does nothing to advance our cause and much to set us back.
Given that reason, science, and history are all on our side, and the greatest apparatus of coercion and brainwashing in human history is on the enemy’s side, doesn’t it make sense to attack the enemy at his weakest point rather than at his strongest? This is why the North American New Right pursues White Nationalism through intellectual and cultural means: we critique the hegemony  of anti-white ideas and seek to establish a counter-hegemony of pro-white ideas.
Only a fool picks a battle he cannot win, and we cannot win with violence . Fortunately, we don’t have to. The Left lost the Cold War but won the peace through the establishment of intellectual and cultural hegemony. We can beat them the same way, and we don’t have to all be rocket scientists to do it, since anyone of even moderate intelligence can make real progress by simply repeating Bob Whitaker’s talking points about white genocide.
Furthermore, the only form of violence that even has a chance to be productive in halting multiculturalism and non-white immigration would target the people responsible for these policies, not random innocents. Moreover, killing innocent people (at a place of worship!) has entirely predictable results. First, such violence creates sympathy for the victims. (Even I feel sympathy for them, and I would deport them all tomorrow if I had the power.) Second, it plays into the establishment narrative of evil, crazy, intolerant whites whose gun rights must be taken away.
So Bissonnette’s choice of targets was superficial and frankly stupid. Was he even thinking about the greater good of our people? Or was he merely indulging in blind, self-destructive spite? And how exactly does praising repugnant killers help White Nationalists establish ourselves as representatives of the long-term best interests of our people?
I wish I could erect a wall between myself and the kind of unstable, undisciplined people who go on killing sprees, but you can’t change the world from a bunker. Thus responsible white advocates need to adopt the next best course of action: (1) we must be alert to the signs of mental instability and inclinations toward violence and rigorously screen out such people, and (2) we need draw clear, unambiguous intellectual lines between New Right and Old Right approaches .
I just hope I don’t have to do this often. But apparently it will be often enough that this is the second time I have dusted off one of my previous spree-killer essays  and merely change a few particulars.