The Complete El Paso Shooter’s Manifesto, With Ethics Commentary, PART II [UPDATED]

[Before continuing with the Ethics Alarms commentary to follow, readers should take the time to read the entire El Paso shooter’s manifesto here, in Part I.]

Observations (cont.):

4. To be clear, the man is mad as a hatter. He is surprisingly articulate and thoughtful, however—more than many of the pundits that have tried to exploit his screed for their own purposes.

5. The basic inspiration for both the manifesto itself and the attack it preceded was the “Great Replacement,” a fevered  conspiracy theory posited by Renaud Camus, a French writer. The idea is neither novel nor complicated. It is like the “Invasion of the Body Snatchers,” although it is more like the invasion of the culture snatchers. Unrestrained immigration by an alien culture allows the majority, predominant culture to be replaced before it knows what has happened.

In the introduction to his manifesto, the shooter says, “My motives for this attack are not at all personal. Actually the Hispanic community was not my target before I read “The Great Replacement.” For the record, President Trump has never said or written anything that echoes or references the  “Great Replacement” paranoia. Pat Buchanan, when he was the champion of the GOP far right in the 80s and 90s, espoused similar theories, but never Trump. The President has never attacked the concept of immigration, only illegal immigration. Tying the manifesto to the President is another despicable example of representing opposition to illegal immigration as a variety of xenophobia or racism.

6. The manifesto is not partisan. “The inconvenient truth is that our leaders, both Democrat AND Republican, have been failing us for decades,” it states early on. This is true, incidentally, regarding illegal immigration. Like most conspiracy theories, there are elements of truth in the shooter’s arguments; the problem is the extreme and unwarranted conclusions they lead him to adopt.

The shooter does finger the Democratic Party as the greater culprit, because 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.” Again, there’s nothing crazy about that theory, which has been posited by many for decades by non-crazy people, and it still seems more likely than not. Again, it contains elements of truth, and there is nothing about objecting to such strategy or finding it cynical and unethical that makes the argument racist. Still, “the Republican Party is also terrible,” the shooter writes.

7.  Most of the shooter’s ideological positions could hardly be more contrary to Trumpism (whatever it is) or conservatism:

  • “[Both parties] are either complacent or involved in one of the biggest betrayals of the American public in our history, the takeover of the United States government by unchecked corporations.”
  • “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.” He approvingly cites universal health care and guaranteed income, and suggests that the government must reduce student debt from college loans.
  • He is an environmentalist, who seems to believe that the government needs to do more to  save the environment:

[O]ur lifestyle is destroying the environment of our country. The decimation of the environment is creating a massive  burden for future generations. Corporations are heading the destruction of our environment by shamelessly over-harvesting resources. This has been a problem for decades. For example, this phenomenon is brilliantly portrayed in the decades old classic “The Lorax.” Watersheds around the country, especially in agricultural areas, are being depleted. Fresh water is being polluted from farming and oil drilling operations. Consumer culture is creating thousands of tons of unnecessary plastic waste and electronic waste, and recycling to help slow this down is almost non-existent. Urban sprawl creates inefficient cities which unnecessarily destroys millions of acres of land. We even use god knows how many trees worth of paper towels just wipe water off our hands. Everything I have seen and heard in my short life has led me to believe that the average American isn’t willing to change their lifestyle, even if the changes only cause a slight inconvenience. The government is unwilling to tackle these issues  beyond empty promises since they are owned by corporations.

This secion could have been authored by Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, except that it’s more coherent and less hysterical than her typical comments on the environment. When did you ever hear a conservative praise “The Lorax”?

  • The shooter is a pacifist. He writes,

People who are hypocrites because they support imperialistic wars that have caused the loss of tens of thousands of American lives and untold numbers of civilian lives. The argument that mass murder is okay when it is state sanctioned is absurd.

8. The shooter leaps to a series of rash, illogical, ultimately crack-pot conclusions from some barely defensible arguments. Simple statistical analysis shows that there is no way the current rate of immigration, even adding current rates of illegal immigration, is going to “replace” the culture. The United States is a lot bigger than France, and its a crazy argument for France.  Nor is anything, including periodic massacres, going to reduce the population and work force of the U.S. The shooter’s terroristic plan, if you can dignify such craziness with the term “plan,”,  that his attack will cause a mass exodus of Hispanic-Americans is as deluded as they come. (Although, ironically, groups like Amnesty International seem determined to make it work.) He’s wrong about demographics, he’s wrong about culture, he’s wrong about human nature, he’s wrong about his doomsday scenarios, he’s just wrong. He’s probably even wrong in his assumptions about where Hispanic-Americans will end up politically.

But he’s wrong in completely different ways than Donald Trump, who is optimistic, believes in America’s strength, and never speaks in apocalyptic terms, or raises fears that the nation is in imminent peril. It is Trump’s opposition that keeps claiming that the U.S. is headed for disaster—just as the shooter does.

9. Though the shooter claims not to be a white supremacist, this section is both the most obnoxious, contradictory and irrational in the document:

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.

He needs to read up on genetics. Race-mixing advances genetic diversity. It only creates identity problems if one is obsessed with tribal identity—you know, like progressives and Democrats. The underlying values of our culture holds that such identity is and should be artificial. It is the individual, not the race, gender or tribe, that matters. This section also undermines his central thesis. If the stronger, more beneficial cultures prevail, and they do, there’s no threat to the U.S. from immigration. The best parts of the diverse cultures enhance ours, that’s all. It is how the nation has thrived for centuries, and there is no reason to believe the system no longer works, even with the obstacles erected by misguided policy-makers.

10. Finally, the manifesto leaves the rails entirely, with this nonsense:

Racial diversity will disappear as either race mixing or genocide will take place. But 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 one 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 territory(s).

Okaaaaay…we have a nice padded room for you now, just take these pretty pills.

But again, this doesn’t ring of Trump: it is more similar to the resurgent racial segregationists among black students on college campuses.

In summary and conclusion, the assertions by pundits and democrats that the rhetoric of President Trump did or could have triggered this articulate lunatic is a complete and vicious fabrication, enabled in part by efforts to make it as difficult for members of the public to read the document themselves. The shooter, like the sniper who shot Rep Scalise, is more philosophically aligned with Democratic and progressive talking points than anything the President says, believes, or advocates. He just believes that killing people is a terrific policy, and neither the Democrats nor the President advocate that.

Addendum: Yes, it is true that both President Trump and the shooter use the term “invasion,” and to many critics this single convergence is sufficient to claim that the President is “responsible” for the El Paso shooting. “Invasion” is a word, not a theory or a philosophy, and the two apply it differently. President Trump has used it to describe illegal immigration, for which it is a defensible, if inflammatory, description.

Describing legal immigration as an invasion is not defensible—invasions are not legal—and is materially different. Ironically, it is the President’s foes, who intentionally refuse to distinguish between the validity of illegal and legal immigration—just like the shooter!—who have spread the lie that the President has called immigration itself “an invasion.”

40 thoughts on “The Complete El Paso Shooter’s Manifesto, With Ethics Commentary, PART II [UPDATED]

  1. I will admit parts of the beginning seemed reasonable, but my head hurt after a while and my eyes glazed. I think I listened to too many language teachers about being clear and concise. I suspect a good manifesto should fit on one page in a reasonably sized font. They are not getting paid by the word here.

    If ‘your focus is your reality,’ this has so little focus. Pick one cause, you can help one cause better with a hundred dollars, than a hundred causes getting one dollar. (bank fees for transfers would eat up too much that way) This manifesto and shooting will do nothing for his causes, in fact, it may hurt them by associating them with other causes.

    • I imagine that Time Magazine will eventually feature a heavily redacted version of this crazy manifesto to support the party line version of evil Trump crypto-Nazis and environmentally hostile Corporations causing this massacre.

    • Many, many people’s rhetoric would be improved immensely by a good editor. But yes, there’s generally a limit as to how much of a manifesto one can take in before chucking it in the bit bin. Sadly, that’s one of the problems I have with Alizia’s posts on this blog — she may (or may not) have some good points, but I am very unlikely to find them because I’m not willing to read a six page thesis every time she posts. If that’s a failing on my part, well, mea culpa.

      This guy seemed to be more influenced by the New Green Deal than by Trump.

      • To arrive at understanding of the things going on in our present requires a real commitment. You will not be able to gain understanding through a merely superficial approach. If you take the topic of ‘ethics’ seriously, and all other important topics, you will have no choice but to undertake a great and wide reading. It will take years.

        The alternative is to deal more or less in ‘idea-tweets’. Mere opinion with no solidity.

        Everyone so far — Jack included — show that they only intend a superficial analysis of this man’s ‘manifesto’. It is interesting from my perspective to observe you-plural come in contact not with the rhetoric of the cold-blooded killer or innocent people in a Walmart, a deranged act by a deranged man, but fail to understand that the ideas this man is dealing with (sic) have precedents in European ideation about which you remain ignorant.

        Why is this? Well, you do not want to or you will not make a commitment to study and to think. Through this failure you will (I suggest) remain locked in ‘opinion’. And that is a position where people are always manipulated.

        This man’s ‘manifesto’ can only be seen as a fast sketch by a very young person (that seems clear) who superficially glossed ideas that are ‘floating around’. He is not a spokesman of those ideas and should not be taken as such, and he is not a philosopher, nor has he, let us say, dedicated years of his life to specific study as have Alain de Benoist, Jared Taylor and Sam Francis, who certainly have.

        If you want to understand the Dissident Right, you must read. If you wish to be spoonfed distorted opinion . . . don’t bother to read. It is that simple.

        You are free to criticize me all that you wish. My response is simple and direct: you can hardly be taken seriously because you remain totally on the periphery of understanding because of lack of seriousness.


        My critique of you is far more contundente. What a shame that you remain in such a shallow zone. I regard it as irresponsible.

        • Correction: remove a ‘not’:

          It is interesting from my perspective to observe you-plural come in contact with the rhetoric of the cold-blooded killer or innocent people in a Walmart, a deranged act by a deranged man, but fail to understand that the ideas this man is dealing with (sic) have precedents in European ideation about which you remain ignorant.

        • The purpose of posting is to communicate. Knowing your audience and their attention span is important. No holy book could be addressed in a significant way in tweets, the scope is wrong, Aside from a few stalwarts, most simply do not have the time or inclination to wade through War and Peace over all things here like bartenders and drunks and lying politicians.

          But just because people don’t elect to spend time on long essays, does not justify insidious comments about intelligence or commitment to any causes. Condescending, intellectual, footnoted lectures will never convince the people you want to reach with your views, it will do the opposite. Hence the importance of good editing.

            • One can extract and list his concerns.

              1) He asserts that an aggressive response (to say the least) is okay by him. (That he supports the Christchurch shooter and his manifesto).
              2) The invasion of the US by Meso-Americans. That there is an ‘invasion’ and that it is not being taken seriously.
              3) That he became ‘politicized’ as a result of reading a European philosopher. That is, that ideas have consequences and that what we read, and how we deal with ideas, views and history, will always have consequences.
              4) That ‘America is rotting from the inside’. This is not a unique view. It could be seen as extending from Spengler (The Decline of the West). Richard Weaver dealt on this theme. Many Christians deal on this theme. Many Conservatives too.
              5) He implies that ‘peaceful methods’ of dealing with the rot are ‘nearly impossible’. I have read people on this Blog who have said as much.
              6) That the failure is not exclusively the fault of the Ds or the Rs. That *we* (who is that we?) have been failed.
              7) That corporate interests — concentrations of private capital — have taken over the interests of the Nation. That is, of course, what ‘the Swamp’ refers to. Many many different people, from different perspectives, understand this to be true.
              8) That things are moving in the direction of a ‘one party state’. I think that that might mean a reference to a ‘deep state’. A basic power-structure that is little republican, and much corporate-military.
              9) That this ‘deep state’ or the democrat party is aware of its emergent power and therefore imports people en mass in order to have the demography necessary to carry forward its plan: a kind of ‘one party state’.
              9a) Recognition that there is an on-going demographic ‘war’ with definite repercussions for the nation.
              9b) That there is little to distinguish some Rs from some Ds. That they serve a similar process or outcome.
              10) Recognition of and concern about ‘automation’. That is to say, about the well-being of people and their work.
              11) That the influx of poor foreigners will clamor for universal health care and other socialistic modifications. Thus: they will modify the nation and perhaps one could say its principles.
              12) That ‘coporate power’ has specific designs about America, and often supports the influx of cheap labor (for obvious reasons).
              13) That the Nation has transformed into one in which people must struggle too much he seems to be saying in order to have a decent standard of living. He speak of the ‘quality of life’ and notices how it is affected adversely by various causes.
              14) Basic concern for environmental issues. A long-standing tradition among conservatives given that the conservation movement was begun by arch-conservatives concerned for species and region’s protection while at the same time showing concern for their own well-being and protection. (Again, Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard).
              15) The issue of economic migration vs genuine immigration.
              16) the incentive not to come, not to settle, and to perhaps stay in their own region and devlop their own region: “An incentive that myself and many other patriotic Americans will provide.”
              17) An awarness of not being in control of his destiny. That things look and seem futile. That ‘inaction is a choice’. That is a powerful statement even if it comes from a homicidal maniac. This provokes such questions as “What choices are best?”
              18) That America, if it is corrupted, has been corrupted be traitors: people not working for it and its people’s best interests.

              There is more but this is a good part of it.

          • Yes, exactly my point. If one is talking just to hear oneself talk, that’s fine. If one is attempting to communicate, it behooves you to know your audience and the situation. I have only a limited amount of time I am willing to devote to this blog, excellent as it is. I will allocate that time to get the most bang for my buck.

            • Then fine. But why make an issue out of citing what you are not interested in and do not have the time for?

              If you are talking to me — you seem to be — then I am going to answer your critique, which I did.

              I am not writing for people like you. Don’t ask me to adapt my discourse to what you can absorb or what interests you.

          • But just because people don’t elect to spend time on long essays, does not justify insidious comments about intelligence or commitment to any causes. Condescending, intellectual, footnoted lectures will never convince the people you want to reach with your views, it will do the opposite. Hence the importance of good editing.

            I did not speak of ‘commitment to a cause’ I speak of commitment to intellectual processes and endeavors. I cannot see how ‘ethics’ and everything that revolves around it could be seen as a lite topic to be approached superficially. The things that are brought out here have to do with the most important issues in this life and they have to do with the very base of value and meaning.

            I have no interest in insulting anyone. It is a mistake of perception if you think that, or ‘feel’ that when you read what I say. If what you ‘feel’ when you read what I write is that you are in a lower place being ‘condescended to’ I can only suggest that you choose, of your own accord and by your own willpower, to reject that silly, useless view.

            There are things of vast importance to be thought about and talked about.

            If people recoil away from the difficulty or the necessary commitment to fathom the difficulties of the day, then I do not want to ‘reach them’. I am not here to convince you or anyone. I am here to explore what is true and what is false.

            You-plural keep stumbling over this very basic point. Philosophy which encompasses all the really important things is not a child’s game, and philosophers do not adapt their discourse to your level of comprehension. They ask that you rise up to meet them. That is the demand that is placed on you. You either do that . . . or you don’t.

            If you stick with a debate of the ideas brought out, and avoid a diversion into structural issues, it will turn out better. If something offends you simply step over it.

            • “I have no interest in insulting anyone.”

              Bull shit.

              It would go a long way around these parts if you would simply stop talking about others here as if they are ignorant or incapable of learning, no matter what they say about you, and stick to the specific blog topic. If there’s to be a change then it’s got to start somewhere, why not let it start with you.

              • Things work much better for me, my toothy friend, if I have a somewhat adversarial stance. It is a trait of my personality that began when I was a girl in the strange environment I grew up in. That ‘fate’ has now become ‘my destiny’. I am after all a polemicista.

              • It would go a long way around these parts if you would simply stop talking about others here as if they are ignorant or incapable of learning…

                It is really better just to keep on saying what we think and not to care how others take it.

                I am really interested in this question of being ‘ignorant or incapable of learning’. You must recognize that that is not where the issue resides. Because I assume you could for example master many different tasks if you needed to. It is not a question of ‘intelligence’ either. Though it is true that a person of little intelligence would not have interest in these conversations and exchanges.

                To be fair and realistic and honest I come from an orientation that is uncommon, new to you, contrary to the way you have been taught to see things, and contrary to the ‘temporal modality’. Many things that I say, or think, seem to you as ‘flatly wrong’ and also as unethical and immoral.

                When you encounter someone who is wrong or ‘evil’ it is not a question of ‘learning’ from them or being taught how to think also evilly or wrongly. No. You must immediately build defenses against their evil. You must oppose them.

                From the earliest moment here I was branded as ‘evil and wrong’. First by Spartan, then by Chris and Jack, and so on and so forth. Now, I understand all of this, and I understand the dynamic by which you-plural must automatically reject some or most of my ideas.

                And that is fine (and has been fine with me). I put up with a good deal of insult and hardly complain, do I?

                This is the nature of the time we live in, and the shift that I describe as ‘metaphysical’. Do you understand what I mean by using that term? You certainly don’t seem to. Over the next 5-20 years there will be trmendous shift in the general Weltanschauung but also in the specific one that has *ruled* in America.

                It is against your opposition to me that I always make the longest strides forward. But not with the intention of convincing you. Only you can do that work that convinces or un-convinces yourself.


              • I wrote: “I have no interest in insulting anyone.”

                You wrote: “Bull shit.”

                Then I realized it: the teeth thing! The left hand did what the right hand could not be allowed to do!

                Now, I tend to think of your smile as capable of lighting up the interior of a dollhouse, or to replace one of those press-a-button key fob flashlights! 🙂

                Förlåt mig! Jag är en lögnare!

            • Alicia Tyler: “I have no interest in insulting anyone. It is a mistake of perception if you think that, or ‘feel’ that when you read what I say. If what you ‘feel’ when you read what I write is that you are in a lower place being ‘condescended to’ I can only suggest that you choose, of your own accord and by your own willpower, to reject that silly, useless view.”

              Ah, so your critics misunderstand you, but…

              Alicia Tyler: “You-plural keep stumbling over this very basic point. Philosophy which encompasses all the really important things is not a child’s game, and philosophers do not adapt their discourse to your level of comprehension. They ask that you rise up to meet them. That is the demand that is placed on you. You either do that . . . or you don’t.”

              On the one hand, you presume to comprehend those around you enough to lump them into a recurring “you-plural,” but are misunderstood by all.

              Got it.

              And you are wrong about philosophy. Nietzsche described it as a play thing. And, while he may not have dumbed down his thoughts, he valued the aphorism. High word count is not a philosophical requirement.

              Kant, as obscure as his writings could be, wrote many pieces for popular consumption, including several works on ethics.

              Then, the Stoics wrote many accessible works about ethics, including numerous short meditations.

              Unfortunately, much of modern philosophy mistakes obscurity of thought for depth.

              If I were to presume your mindset, an inclination I try to avoid, you write long obscure posts because you don’t want to be understood. (Funny, I think Nietzsche said something similar about preferring to be misunderstood to being understood.)

              Having said all that, you might get a bad rap here, but I think your posts have value. At the same time, I don’t disagree with much of the criticism about your style; if you are fine being a Cassandra, fine. But, I am not as confident that you know what you are talking about as you are. But, that could just be me; I am not sure I see the world quite the ways that others do.


              • Thanks for that ambiguous post but can you select something out of it that I can furiously fight against? 🙂

                It is a curious metaphor:

                The Cassandra metaphor (variously labelled the Cassandra “syndrome”, “complex”, “phenomenon”, “predicament”, “dilemma”, or “curse”) occurs when valid warnings or concerns are dismissed or disbelieved.

                I go with ‘predicament’.

                Cassandra was said to spend a night in Apollo’s temple and the temple snakes were said to lick her ears clean so that she could hear the future. Not see it, hear it. Then later came the well-known curse: Apollo caused the gift that he gave Cassandra to be twisted, making everyone who heard her true and accurate foretelling of future events believe that they were instead hearing lies.

                ::: sigh :::

                “What Cassandra sees is something dark and painful that may not be apparent on the surface of things or that objective facts do not corroborate. She may envision a negative or unexpected outcome; or something which would be difficult to deal with; or a truth which others, especially authority figures, would not accept. In her frightened, ego-less state, Cassandra may blurt out what she sees, perhaps with the unconscious hope that others might be able to make some sense of it. But to them her words sound meaningless, disconnected and blown out of all proportion.”

              • Nice response, Jut.

                As for “you-plural”, I suspect it is because Alizia is from Venezuela (I believe) and Spanish is her mother tongue, if I remember correctly. In Spanish, the plural for a group of people is “ustedes”. We, in the lesser English speaking word, don’t have a universal word of similar value. It is more cultural than literal. The closest would be the Southern “y’all” In the Mid W”you guys” because of its gender specific reference to males, even when you are referring to a group women. So it goes.


              • Jut wrote: “And you are wrong about philosophy. Nietzsche described it as a play thing. And, while he may not have dumbed down his thoughts, he valued the aphorism. High word count is not a philosophical requirement.”

                The problem with what you said here is that Nietzsche didn’t and doesn’t define philosophy. Or those most important things about which philosophy is said to concern itself (and anyway I am trying to be a Christian and so my philosophy is essentially grounded in that). If you quote him in this way I would gather that you agree that ‘philosophy is a play-thing’. You certainly are welcome to hold that idea but — ultimately — it undermines the idea of philosophical pursuit and certainly, as was the case for Nietzsche, the sense that there are truth-solidities that can be defined.

                But there is another approach — the Platonic approach, if I may be so pretentious as to refer to it. For example what Plato wrote in the Seventh Epistle. That certain disciplines of approach to ideas lead to certain forms of revelation:

                “But thus much I can certainly declare concerning all these writers, or prospective writers, who claim to know the subjects which I seriously study, whether as hearers of mine or of other teachers, or from their own discoveries; it is impossible, in my judgement at least, that these men should understand anything about this subject. There does not exist, nor will there ever exist, any treatise of mine dealing therewith. For it does not at all admit of verbal expression like other studies, but, as a result of continued application to the subject itself and communion therewith, it is brought to birth in the soul on a sudden, as light that is kindled by a leaping spark, and thereafter it nourishes itself.”

                I have read certain of Nietzsche’s works and was most influenced by Genealogy of Morals, but in the end I do not have certainty about what to take away from Nietzsche. In any case, and back to the point: I cannot be wrong about philosophy because it would be impossible for you to declare that Nietzsche is ‘right’. You brought that out for no good reason. It was just a rhetorical ploy and really rather vain.

                My style may indeed be knotty, for this I apologize, but if I get general opposition here it is because the ideas I work with are not popular and are resisted. I have to battle all of that. And the reason as I have said numerous times is because I have been battling such things all my life. It is my ‘destiny’ to be involved in a wide polemics. It originates in psychological features. Those features were established in my early youth as I broke out of conventional restraints in a very controlling environment. Coercion at its best!

                What you may not understand nor wish to understand or appreciate is that I have the sense at times of taking on a whole multitude. In any case that is what it feels like. And definitely on this blog of pseudo-conservatives. The way I describe this is perhaps simplistic but if I didn’t reduce it I would have to engage in the ‘high word-count’ that you say obscures.

                The Dissident Right tries to locate itself on more solid philosophical, existential and metaphysical ground, and it opposes or rises up to contradict a mode of thought and perception I call ‘Hyper-Liberalism’. Is that paragraph so difficult to understand? I don’t think so. But I would go further: If we accept that Plato referred to something *real* (a ‘light’ or a ‘leaping spark’) would you condemn me for asserting that it is *this* that moves us? Meaning, that it is as a result of an interior revelation (of sorts, and in whatever degree this occurs) that motivates us to become animated in opposing Hyper-Liberal tenants.

                As you are criticizing me — and you and others feel you have all the freedom and all the right to do so — when I turn the criticism around what I get is *dynamic silence*. In regard to you — you who have a fine undergraduate background — I find everything you write to be nearly entirely devoid of ideas at all! It is almost weird. How could this be? You suggest that I should become more ‘aphoristic’ and you also imply that all of philosophy is a sort of game which really means vain pretension if you really take it down to the bone. Am I to understand that this is your attitude? Is this what happened to you as a result of exposure to the Western Canon?!? It really makes no sense to me.

                Therefore, what I begin to take away from this is that — please excuse me — you are spiritually dead. And it is true that given my polemical nature, and that I get so much unfair opposition that has noting to do with countering ideas but rather leveling insults, that I engage in the fallacy of stereotyping. And that is where the *you-plural* becomes necessary. Many of you, here, including Jack, indeed seem ‘spiritually dead’. So, I have to interpret this — what alternative do I have? Why is this? How did this happen? You belittle me (and I do little to stop you as yo do this) and yet I see myself as more engaged in the essence of the questions posed by the Blog: by what it asserts at the most fundamental level. I take it seriously and therefore, unlike you I gather, do not see it as a ‘game’.

                I opted when I first came on here to make the time I spent here the most productive for myself that I could. Since what interests me and ‘what I do’ is of little interest to *you-plural* (vosotros) what alternative have I but to make it the most advantageous to myself? Here’s an example: what I am writing here, to you now, if history is an indicator, will fall on deaf ears. It means nothing to you! So, who do you respond to? What are you learning here? Why do you participate? What is your purpose? What ideas strongly motivate you? None of this is clear. Why? I can only conclude: spiritual death.

                So, what brings ‘life’ back? I begin to speak and you simply cannot understand! If you were *serious about ideas* (and perhaps you are more serious than you let on, I really don’t know) you might share Waldo Frank’s assertion that the Occident is lively in its moribundity. As the unifying idea-structures fall apart, those cells previously joined together in organic unity, disunify and begin to die. But death in nature does not mean lack of activity: each cell lights up in autumnal vibrance, each cell turns around within itself in its agony.

                So you went to the finest school (an inadvertent quote of that famous Sixties song!) and what that school could only have taught is that, at one point or another, the soul is on its own as it struggles to ‘give birth to itself’. But do you take that as a joke?

                The people that I read and listen to are not taking any of this like a joke. It may be a futile struggle, and we may all be subsumed by mindless and even diabolically mechanical forces, but it does seem to me that you could offer me just a wee bit more encouragement and some support.

  2. Well, I wouldn’t call him a pacifist, exactly. He says that people who will condemn his actions are hypocrites because they support “imperialist” wars.

    • No, he refers to war as “mass murder.” That’s a pacifist trope: war involves legal killing, and legal killing is not murder. If one claims that war is per se mass murder, then one is a pacifist. Similarly, if one argues that abortion is murder, then one is an anti-abortion absolutist. Murder can never be right or ethical.

  3. For the record, President Trump has never said or written anything that echoes or references the “Great Replacement” paranoia. Pat Buchanan, when he was the champion of the GOP far right in the 80s and 90s, espoused similar theories, but never Trump. The President has never attacked the concept of immigration, only illegal immigration. Tying the manifesto to the President is another despicable example of representing opposition to illegal immigration as a variety of xenophobia or racism.

    The Great Replacement is not ‘paranoia’, or put another way its concerns are rational and ethical and upstanding but can become ‘paranoid’ depending on who is using the terms. This is true for most ‘hot topics’. The demographics of the US have shifted quite dramatically in 50-60 years. The effect of this is a sort of mirror of ‘replacement’ and a continuation of the dispossession Robertson wrote about. People when they confront the reality of these shifts — demographic, cultural — show that they do not know how to interpret what is going on as perhaps a sociologist would, so they use ‘tropes’ which are accurate or inaccurate in varying degrees.

    But the underlying concern is not and should not be describe as ‘paranoid’.

    Buchanan and many different people — like Ann Coulter — without any doubt at all hold to opinions and ideas that a process like a ‘great replacement’ is going on. Buchanan and Coulter not only may have had such ideas in the past, but they are actively holding those ideas today. And both of them communicate to audiences with greater or lesser familiarity with the larger picture of concerns about European replacement, Islamic ‘invasion’, the transformation of cities and also nations (quite marked in England and France), and what is coming to be seen as Occidental decadence and decay with complex roots in destructive and transformative social processes. There are serious, concerned people who are researching in these areas whose ideas are absolutely excluded from the larger conversation. Why and how this happens can be examined.

    The source of the notion of a ‘replacement’ is, as far as I have been able to tell and I only got aware of this book a month ago, to be found in ‘The Dispossessed Majority/a>’ by Wilmot Robertson. This pertains to an American context though and does not take Europe or the other former English colonies, nor of course the Southern Cone into consideration. (But there is a rising ‘identitarian’ movement in the Southern Cone it might interest you to know. I will link to an article in American Renaissance that deal on groups that are organizing to oppose ‘white replacement’ in countries like Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay and Argentina.)

    Because Trump is part of a political and social milieu, there can be no doubt that he absorbs ideas from the environment around him. Therefore it stands to reason that as he crafted his political platform, which has very strong populist notes, that he built into it subtle or overt references to ‘invasion’ and also ‘replacement’ either consciously, semi-consciously or unconsciously. Trump’s base seems to be largely of the country’s interior and not of its ‘coasts’. These people are more of the old stock of America than, for example, the coasts which are more metropolitan, more ‘liberal’, more perhaps under the sway of what I call ‘hyper-liberal currents’.

    I would suggest that this ‘base’ does not know precisely what it thinks, nor what to think and conclude. One must ask why. The answer to that question is complex and takes time. But the point I want to make is that this ‘base’ has a stronger sense of its own ‘identity’ and feels at a somatic level the need and desire to protect itself. Therefore, that base searches around for identity positions but is yet uncertain of what ultimate one to take, and then also which one is morally and ethically acceptable. Yet they feel that they are being manipulated and abused, and indeed they have been and are. But to speak about this, in the context of a patriotic, conformist ‘conservatism’ as most here seem to be, involves an involved critique of economic and political ‘elites’. At that point when the Dissident Right brings out its critiques of the American System its ideas clash with the Conventional Conservative who seem more often than not to avoid thinking in critical terms. If you were to take, say, Alain de Benoist as a point-of-reference, you would immediately notice that he locates himself neither in a cookie-cutter Left position nor a Right position. These people are ‘synthetic thinkers’. And they are profoundly critical of hyper-liberal systems.

    The Dissident Right, when the truth is told, has a difficult time with the policies of Donald Trump. First, no concrete action has been taken on his ‘wall’. Second he is, indeed, not opposed to third-world immigration, and may in fact support it (just as standard Conservatism does) if it is ‘legal’. If this is so, he does not show himself concerned to arrest or reverse the process of ethnic dillution of America (and thus of the core concerns of ‘replacement’ and ‘white dispossession’).

    But the typical American Conservative — a coward really, a servant of ‘progressive American ideals’ — cannot articulate such views. Or, they cannot do it openly. So many of them do it subtly. But the raw ‘base’ tends to see things more bluntly. And since they are closer to the ground, if you will permit the turn of phrase, they see that their interests are at stake, and they clamor in support of Trump and Trumpism even if they do not understand what Trump and his team are doing at executive levels.

    FYI: Greg Johnson is of the opinion that the slowish transformation of the American demographic should be and can be reversed peaceably over a similar time-frame. Limiting all non-white immigration, both illegal and legal. And establishing an environment where the ‘invading’ class is encouraged to go home (there is no other way to put it). This involves a real attitude shift, and it also involves confronting political and economic machines.

    It is a fact that in 1960 white European stock comprised 90% of the American demographic. It is also a fact that now European Whites stand at around 65% of the population (according to the sources that I have examined). Greg Johnson and hundreds of others like him make the case that both America and Europe are creations of people of a specific stock. They built it and they also maintain it. If their supermajority status is undermined, they argue, something very significant will be lost. So, the ‘white replacement’ is not fevered ideas but is sound analysis of the advancing present. But it is more complex than the term allows or implies.

    To understand it, it must be studied.

    • If you are interested — I think understanding the universality and the reach of the ‘identitarian’ movement’s ideas is important in order to be able to grasp it better at home in the US — here is an interview with White activists in the Southern Cone. There are similar activists in all the former English colonies, throughout Europe, and also into other non-white countries.

      • I wish to have it noted in the record of these proceedings that calling it, or anything, ‘nonsense’ is not an argument. It is just an opinion. Actually it is the light end of a ‘shaming argument’. 🙂

        The turn of phrase ‘buy in’ is interesting though, and people do buy in to Ponzi schemes of all sorts. So, I would not dismiss your view. In fact I regard suspicion about the ideas we hold and *cherish* as crucial.

        I believe it is to my credit that for years now I have been studying these issues. My perspective is unique. I try to communicate my understanding.

        There are two poles in my endeavor:

        One is what I understand others — those I write about — to believe. Take for example Alain de Benoist, Jared Taylor, Sam Francis and many others. One can have a conversation about that to the degree that such a conversation is allowed. One can explore what they think and believe and why. I can do that with, say, Thomas Jefferson, Adolf Hitler, CG Jung, the Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov, David Duke and many others. Because I try to read their words first-hand. They all have unique, perhaps lop-sided perspectives but each one has *integrity*.

        Two is what I myself believe to be true or factual. In regard to this I am uncertain if it is fair to say that I have ‘bought in’ to any particular view. That is how a Ponzi scheme works: you have to invest in it and you hope for a return. You cannot face the prospect that you made a bad investment and so you continue giving energy to the ‘false-belief’.

        If we are going to talk openly and truthfull about ‘false-beliefs’ and the many ‘Ponzi-schemes-of-the-mind’ that operate in our Present I think that is a wonderful and interesting conversation.

        You are just as susceptible as anyone — and perhaps more susceptible than some — because you do not recognize the possibility that you have ‘bought in’ to certain ideas that are fantasy-based.

        The value — and the fun! — of these conversations is to hash things out. To see what is left standing.

        • No, it’s nonsense. It’s as much nonsense as the film I referenced, “Invasion of the Body Snatchers.” At the point where a rebuttal has to begin with the laws of Gravity and Thermodynamics, and other well-understood facts that are part of general knowledge, it is a waste of time to go beyond “it’s nonsense.”

          Culture is not as fragile and changeable as Replacement Theory posits, especially American culture. It is a dishonest theory designed to create fear and paranoia among the gullible.

          • Naturally, I respect you view. I am totally in disagreement with you however and I have no doubt at all that I could defend my position against yours.

            My suggestion to all who read here is to examine the ideas that have influenced this particular man’s thinking. To do that one must read the writing of the people who make up the Dissident Right.

            There is a very good book out called Key Thinkers of the Radical Right: Behind the New Threat to Liberal Democracy (edited by Mark Sedgwick. Oxford University press).

            It outlines Oswald Spengler, Ernst Junger, VCarl Schmitt, Julius Evola, Alain de Benoist, Guillaume Faye, Paul Gottfried, Pat Buchanan, Jared Taylor, Alexanfer Dugan, ‘Mencius Goldbug’, Greg Johnson, Richard B. Spencer, Jack Donovan and Daniel Frieberg.

            If you-plural wish to understand the ideas that are now entering the picture, and beginning to show influence all around America and Europe, you must put aside the biases (for ‘bias makes one stupid’ I heard someone say, perhaps it was a dream?) that makes one reflexively cry out ‘nonsense’. One must put that aside and read their ideas first-hand.

            Doing so, one will have a much better idea. One either does this, or one does not. One either takes things seriously, or one does not.

          • No, it’s nonsense. It’s as much nonsense as the film I referenced, “Invasion of the Body Snatchers.” At the point where a rebuttal has to begin with the laws of Gravity and Thermodynamics, and other well-understood facts that are part of general knowledge, it is a waste of time to go beyond “it’s nonsense.”

            This is a bit abstract because I am not sure what exactly you are saying is ‘nonsense’ (but let us suppose it is the entire idea of ‘white replacement’ in Europe and in the US). I was just reviewing one more highly revealing and directed article in the Times: “Inside the Government, Addressing Domestic Terrorism Has Been Fraught”.

            The entire objective of the Times is, of course, to completely and absolutely discredit any of the points of the oppositional Right. Not only does this mean ‘Republicans’ generally, but certainly anyone any further right of the rather bland and typical Republican positions. The Times has been revving up its coverage of what it defines as the Fringe Right and the Extreme Right and now, with these tragic and unfortunate massacres it has at least some good reasons to link the Dissident Right, which it does not report on with integrity, only with absurd alarmism, with violent mayhem. This is an ‘idea war’ but it is also now evolving into a low-intensity para-military offensive. The Times is now talking about this all the time. What this means is what the political police will now begin to do to block those of the dissident right from having access to an audience, and influencing people. So, this is where things are going.

            Now, from my perspective as one who studies these things, I know — I know beyond any doubt, I know absolutely and certainly — that the ideas of the Dissident Right, though it is not a monolith, are sound, valid, grounded in good sense and logical argument. So your use of the blanket term ‘nonsense’ is not exactly meaningless but rather unfair: misleading.

            Yet what interests me more — and there is an element of concern — is that if you describe the people I have mentioned among the Dissident Right as ‘talking nonsense’, you are dis-invalidating them, and thus stating that their ideas have no merit at all. The point should be obvious: the powers-that-be (I use the Times as a general symbol) will not only dis-invalidate their ideas, but will use para-military action to take them out of the picture. Similar, of course, to the concerted efforts to neutralize the militia movement some years back.

            But you too have noticed, and you have suffered though in a mild form, that your ideas have been excluded as your Blog has been banned from circulating. Someone will say of your ideas that they are ‘nonsense’ or invalid . . . or even bad and dangerous. You might disagree — I assume you do — but they will not listen to you. Because you will have been ‘branded’.

              • Note that he wrote:

                A people was here, stable, had been occupying the same territory for fifteen or twenty centuries. And suddenly, very quickly, in one or two generations, one or several other peoples substitute themselves for him. He is replaced, it is not him anymore.

                It does not matter if it were 1-2 generations, or 2-3: it has happened in specific places, and it has ramifications.

                Paris and London — I assure you and with no doubt at all — are barely recognizable as French and English respectively, or in any case as they were just 40 years ago.

                Belgium Germany, The Netherlands, Italy, France: in each of these countries, and in specific cities or areas within them, are facing a never-before occurring ‘replacement’ process.

                My effort is not to defend or to explain the grand remplacement theory to you. The issues of the Dissident Right are many and they are complex and they are interrelated. People use the tools-to-hand to *interpret their world*. The concern — and also the paranoia — around demographic questions is not irrational, though it is described (for example by the Wiki page on the topic) as just that: lunacy and ‘nonsense’.

          • NYTs: “Shootings Renew Debate Over How to Combat Domestic Terrorism”.

            In May, Facebook evicted seven of its most controversial users, including Alex Jones, the conspiracy theorist and founder of Infowars, and Laura Loomer, a far-right activist.

            [Note: hundreds and possibly thousands of YouTube content creators were banned. Nine or more that I followed were deplatformed.]

            But critics say that is not enough. “White supremacy, at least at Facebook, was seen as a political ideology that one could hold,” said Jessie Daniels, a sociology professor at the City University of New York and the author of a forthcoming book on white supremacy. “It’s only recently that they’ve said they recognize white supremacy as an ideology of violence.”

            Ms. Daniels said there was an important lesson in what happened to Milo Yiannopoulos, the right-wing provocateur, after he was banned from using Twitter and Facebook.

            “Milo has ceded from view since that happened. I really think that’s an argument in favor of this strategy,” she said. “He lost a book deal. He’s bankrupt. It showed ‘deplatforming’ is a useful tool and we need to find more ways to adopt it in the U.S.”

  4. 5. In all fairness, there have been those on the left advancing some form of support for replacing Americans likely to vote Trump with immigrants.

    See Jennifer Rubin celebrating this piece by Max Boot:

    It also a key part of the theory behind John Judis and Ruy Texiera’s “The Emerging Democratic Majority” which was written in 2002.

    That’s 13 years before Trump took that fateful escalator ride to announce his candidacy for President. 13 years.

    As I said when Steve King’s comments were discussed – this is not racism. This is an accurate description of something that at least some on the left have championed.

  5. This is encouraging: the publication of the manifesto and the two posts reviewing it have attracted a lot of views, at least by recent Ethics Alarms standards, Imagine if Facebook wasn’t actively censoring EA, like when a post might get several thousand shares.

  6. (10) It seems the shooter has some common ground with the Castro brothers and La Raza Unida.

    What really strikes me is the despair and hopelessness he feels. He is most likely a leftist, because there is no hope for America, or anything of European heritage in current leftist thought. He can’t seem to give in to the self-loathing that is so typical of the left in Western society. What can he do when everything around him says he is horrible for who he is, and what he believes? If he won’t surrender to the self-loathing, he can either kill himself or fight back.

    The shooter would have been happier as a Trumper. For decades, both political parties have told us that the US economy can’t be saved. It is in permanent decline and there is nothing that can be done about it. Then, Trump said he was going to change that. All the experts laughed at him. They all said it couldn’t be done. Decades of economic theory and research said it couldn’t happen. Then, Trump started to do it. It started to work. He not only started to do it, he did it with the active resistance of Congress. He did it with the active resistance of the Executive Branch (that the Presidency used to control). He did it with the active resistance of the Judiciary. So, either Trump is the genius he tells us all he is, or it wasn’t really that hard. It means that one man with control of only a portion of the executive branch could turn the country around even with 75+% of the government actively fighting it. That means that anyone could have done this decades ago. ANYONE. We aren’t doomed. There isn’t only a future or inevitable decline and destruction. We can fix it and it isn’t even that hard. There is HOPE! That hope is why people voted for Trump. That hope is what the shooter was lacking. It is nowhere to be found in leftist thought.

    The Trump Presidency also tells us that the only reason America is in decline is because our leaders intentionally destroyed our economy and intentionally made the American people suffer. Trump was right that our government and elites are all anti-American traitors. OK, it doesn’t necessarily mean that. The other explanation is that Trump really is the genius savior he says he is.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.