Saturday night, I went to bed, wondering if I would wake up the next morning to find my life’s work erased from the web because of the latest White Nationalist spree killer.
It happens now with accelerating regularity: a white man who is alarmed at white ethnic displacement goes to a place frequented by non-whites and starts shooting.
- On Saturday, April 27, a John Earnest, a 19-year-old white man walked into the Chabad synagogue in Poway, California, near San Diego and shot two people, killing one. Two others were injured by shrapnel.
- On Friday, March 15, 2019, a 28-year-old white man, Brenton Tarrant, reportedly entered the Al Noor Mosque and the Linwood Islamic Centre in Christchurch, New Zealand, killing 50 people and wounding around 40 others.
- On Saturday, October 27, 2018, a 46-year-old white man, Robert Bowers, was arrested for entering the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, killing eleven people and wounding six others, including four police officers.
- 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.
- On Wednesday, June 17, 2015, a 21-year-old white man, Dylann Storm Roof, entered the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, killed nine blacks gathered for Bible study, and injured three more.
- On Sunday, August 5, 2012, a 40-year-old white man, Wade Michael Page, a racist skinhead, opened fire at a Sikh temple near Milwaukee, killing six worshipers and wounding three others. He then shot and killed himself.
And now it has happened again:
- On Saturday, August 3, 2019, a 21-year-old white man, Patrick Crusius, walked into a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, and reportedly killed 20 people and injured 26 others.
Because these shootings all follow the same basic pattern, I have created a boilerplate article responding to them:
- “Understanding the Poway Synagogue Shooting “
- “Understanding the New Zealand Mosque Massacre “
- “Understanding the Pittsburgh Synagogue Massacre “
- “Understanding the Quebec Mosque Massacre “
- “Understanding the Charleston Church Massacre “
- “Understanding the Sikh Temple Massacre “
The basic argument is always the same. I just need to change a few of the particulars.
As a white person, I look down upon the criminals among us. I do not reflexively defend and glorify them. This was a terrible act: immoral, illegal, and politically damaging to white interests. I hope Crusius receives a fair trial and — if found guilty — a just punishment, but that seems unlikely given the racially charged atmosphere in America today.
We obviously don’t know all the facts yet, but based on the manifesto attributed to Crusius, he was worried about white demographic replacement. His manifesto begins as follows:
In general, I support the Christchurch shooter [Brenton Tarrant] and his manifesto. This attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas. They are the instigators, not me. I am simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion. Some people will think this statement is hypocritical because of the nearly complete ethnic and cultural destruction brought to the Native Americans by our European ancestors, but this just reinforces my point. The natives didn’t take the invasion of Europeans seriously, and now what’s left is just a shadow of what was. My motives for this attack are not at all personal. Actually the Hispanic community was not my target before I read The Great Replacement [referring to Tarrant’s manifesto, not the book of the saem name by Renaud Camus].
Crusius states the aim of his attack is to encourage non-whites to self-deport and to discourage the business and political elites that benefit from non-white immigration.
Statistically, millions of migrants have returned to their home countries to reunite with the family they lost contact with when they moved to America. They come here as economic immigrants, not for asylum reasons. This is an encouraging sign that the Hispanic population is willing to return to their home countries if given the right incentive. An incentive that myself and many other patriotic Americans will provide. This will remove the threat of the Hispanic voting bloc which will make up for the loss of millions of baby boomers. This will also make the elites that run corporations realize that it’s not in their interest to continue piss off Americans. Corporate America doesn’t need to be destroyed, but just shown that they are on the wrong side of history. That if they don’t bend, they will break.
Crusius states that if white demographic displacement is not halted, there will be negative effects in both the short and long terms.
In the short term, we can expect the political dispossession of whites and a Democratic one-party state:
Due to the death of the baby boomers, the increasingly anti-immigrant rhetoric of the right and the ever increasing Hispanic population, America will soon become a one party-state. The Democrat party will own America and they know it. They have already begun the transition by pandering heavily to the Hispanic voting bloc in the 1st Democratic Debate. They intend to use open borders, free healthcare for illegals, citizenship and more to enact a political coup by importing and then legalizing millions of new voters. With policies like these, the Hispanic support for Democrats will likely become nearly unanimous in the future. The heavy Hispanic population in Texas will make us a Democrat stronghold. Losing Texas and a few other states with heavy Hispanic population to the Democrats is all it would take for them to win nearly every presidential election.
Also in the near future, we can expect mass non-white immigration to clash with increasing automation in the workforce:
Continued immigration will make one of the biggest issues of our time, automation, so much worse. Some sources say that in under two decades, half of American jobs will be lost to it. Of course some people will be retrained, but most will not. So it makes no sense to keep on letting millions of illegal or legal immigrants flood into the United States, and to keep the tens of millions that are already here. Invaders who also have close to the highest birthrate of all ethnicities in America. In the near future, America will have to initiate a basic universal income to prevent widespread poverty and civil unrest as people lose their jobs. Joblessness in itself is a source of civil unrest. The less dependents on a government welfare system, the better. The lower the unemployment rate, the better. Achieving ambitions [sic] social projects like universal healthcare and UBI would become far more likely to succeed if tens of millions of dependents are removed.
In the long term, Crusius expects that continued non-white immigration will destroy racial and cultural diversity:
I am against race mixing because it destroys genetic diversity and creates identity problems. Also because it’s completely unnecessary and selfish. 2nd and 3rd generation Hispanics form interracial unions at much higher rates than average. Yet another reason to send them back. Cultural and racial diversity is largely temporary. Cultural diversity diminishes as stronger and/or more appealing cultures overtake weaker and/or undesirable ones. Racial diversity will disappear as either race mixing or genocide will take place.
Even though Crusius wanted to kill non-whites to encourage immigrants to return home, he did not envision either killing or deporting all non-whites in America:
. . . the idea of deporting or murdering all non-white Americans is horrific. Many have been here at least as long as the whites, and have done as much to build our country. The best solution to this for now would be to divide America into a confederacy of territories with at least 1 territory for each race. This physical separation would nearly eliminate race mixing and improve social unity by granting each race self-determination within their respective territories.
I am sure many more facts will come to light in the coming months and at Crusius’ trial. But still, if this manifesto is indeed his work, I can say five things with confidence.
First, Patrick Crusius was definitely a White Nationalist by any reasonable definition of the term.
Second, this shooting spree could not have happened in a homogeneously white society. When different peoples 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. Crusius’s actions are predictable consequences of multiculturalism. Sadly, we will only see more such violence until white nations regain their sanity and reverse multiculturalism.
Thus the New Right stands for the principle of racial divorce . It is time for whites and non-whites to go our separate ways and pursue our own destinies. We stand for the creation of separate racially homogeneous societies, through the peaceful and humane process  of redrawing borders and shifting populations.
In the case of recent immigrant populations, the best solution is for them to return to their homelands. I also think that is the best solution for groups like Jews, Japanese, and Chinese who have been in America for a long time but still maintain strong ties to their homelands. In the case of American Indians and the descendants of black slaves, territorial partition or semi-autonomous reservations would seem to be in order.
Third, I blame Crusius’s shooting spree on President Donald Trump. Trump was elected on the platform of building a wall on the Mexican border — which is right next to El Paso — and ending massive non-white immigration. Trump has had more than two-and-a-half years to keep his promises, and he has done virtually nothing. I am sure Patrick Crusius, like more than 60 million other White Americans, had high hopes for Trump. But those hopes have been dashed. If Trump had actually kept his campaign promises, Crusius probably would not have been driven to this desperate act.
Fourth, we should resist dismissing Crusius with the all-too-easy claim that he was “crazy.” Yes, Crusius did something evil and stupid. But Crusius’s underlying motive — fear of white race replacement — is not irrational or insane; it is a healthy reaction to objective facts. 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.
Crusius 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. Crusius 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. Crusius’s manifesto, in particular, is dominated by a tone of depression and hopelessness:
My whole life I have been preparing for a future that currently doesn’t exist. The job of my dreams will likely be automated. Hispanics will take control of the local and state government of my beloved Texas, changing policy to better suit their needs. They will turn Texas into an instrument of a political coup which will hasten the destruction of our country. The environment is getting worse by the year. If you take nothing else from this document, remember this: INACTION IS A CHOICE.
These are the words of a man who feels he has no future, a future stolen from him by race replacement immigration and the massive betrayal of Donald Trump, who promised to stop it. This heightened sensitivity might also go along with a whole suite of other abnormal traits. But we dismiss people like Crusius 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.
Finally, Crusius’s “solution” to his rage and alienation — killing innocent people — just makes the racial situation worse rather than better. We will surely learn a lot more about Crusius’s ideas and affiliations in the coming months. But based on what we know now, we can say that his actions certainly resemble those of racially-motivated spree killers like Brenton Tarrant  (whose example he explicitly cites), John Earnest , Robert Bowers , Dylann Roof , Anders Behring Breivik , Wade Michael Page , and Frazier Glenn Miller , 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.
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 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 freedom of speech and weapons must be taken away.
As I argue in my essay “Against White Nationalist Terrorism ,” White Nationalists are making tremendous progress by means of propaganda. We are converting people to our worldview. The more people we convert, the sooner we regain control of our homelands. This is why our enemies are hell-bent on censoring and deplatforming us. They use every shooting spree like Tarrant’s or Crusius’s as a pretext to further clamp down on our freedom of speech, which restricts our ability to change minds and delays the implementation of sane, nationalist policies. And every day we are delayed is paid for in white lives.
Patrick Crusius killed 20 Walmart shoppers, most of them non-white. But far more white people will die if his deeds lead to further erosions of freedom.
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, (2) we need to draw clear, unambiguous intellectual lines between New Right and Old Right approaches , and (3) if anyone makes concrete threats of committing such acts in our circles, we need to be the ones to call the police.
My goal is to persuade our people that White Nationalism is the solution to ethnic conflict not the cause of it. Spree killers and the people who celebrate them are part of the problem, not part of the solution.