One New York Times article described the shooter as “primarily driven by white nationalism.” Another argued that his manifesto was aimed squarely at the jargon- and inside-joke-laden internet subculture of white supremacy, and that this was the first “internet-native mass shooting, conceived and produced entirely within the irony-soaked discourse of modern extremism.” The word entirely at the center of that sentence twitches with anxiety.In the manifesto itself, the shitposting style and the Easter eggs are a delivery mechanism, a shared dialect, and a global race war is the goal, culminating in a renewed sense of security and purpose among white European ethnostates, a group to which the shooter believes Australia and New Zealand belong. One section of the manifesto has a question for a heading: “Was there a particular event or reason you decided to commit to a violent attack?
One New York Times article described the shooter as “primarily driven by white nationalism.” Another argued that his manifesto was aimed squarely at the jargon- and inside-joke-laden internet subculture of white supremacy, and that this was the first “internet-native mass shooting, conceived and produced entirely within the irony-soaked discourse of modern extremism.” The word entirely at the center of that sentence twitches with anxiety.Tags: New Courseworks SipaWritten Research Papers For SaleEssays On Minot'S LustDescriptive Essay Thesis Statement ExamplesBlank Paper To Write On The ComputerHow To Prepare A Research PaperDomestic Violence Research PapersThesis Essay ElectionResponse To Literature Essay On Tell Tale HeartAnxiety Writing Thesis
Moved by the expanse of “simple, white, wooden crosses,” he works himself up over the sacrifices these soldiers made while failing to note that the people who made them died trying to kill fascists like him.
“I broke into tears, sobbing alone in the car, staring at the crosses, at the forgotten dead,” he writes.
Not only may he wish you harm; he may force you to think and to act.” Then and there, he commits to violence, in the name of protecting what he sees as a civilization under attack. The last two quotations in the previous paragraph aren’t from the shooter’s manifesto.
They’re from Christopher Hitchens in December 2001, criticizing leftists whose response to terrorism he saw as insufficiently muscular.
“While attention was elsewhere, a deadly and irreconcilable enemy was laying plans and training recruits,” he writes.
This is a sobering realization, but it exhilarates him, toorather than cower in the face of this assault on his culture, he wants to fight back: “A lethal and remorseless foe is a troubling thing in more than one way.
I think: ‘They hit us at home and now it’s our turn.’” The 28-year-old Australian citizen who murdered dozens of Muslims in two Christchurch, New Zealand, mosques on March 15 made it clear that vengeance motivated him, too.
Sixteen years later, he is part of the coalition of the willing.
The rhetorics of white nationalism and the war on terror have an easy time overlapping because they share the same emotional architecture, a hysterical vision of civilizational conflict justified by exaggerated or false claims of victimization.
At the heart of the shooter’s manifesto is the lie embedded in his use of the word invaders to describe Middle Eastern immigrants.