I woke up to the news of the Christchurch mosque shooting and was deeply disappointed in my fellow "Whites", as I suppose the terrorist gang would identify themselves. The leader of the gang described his parents as being of Scottish, Irish and English stock. Add a splash of German, and that's my ethnic background, too. And since people call upon the Islamic communities to sort themselves out, it's only fair that "white people" or "people of European descent" should condemn mass murder carried out in our name.
No, this is not virtue signalling. This is responsible online journalism.
As long-term readers know, I never name mass shooters in print because one of the reasons they do what they do is get their names in print. They love the media. This Australian terrorist in Christchurch filmed his murders--which is exactly what Islamic terrorists do--to inspire the likeminded--which is exactly why Islamic terrorists do it, too.
Terrorists are almost always men and their subordinate female partners or relations, so I am really not sure what I could say to "White" guys in danger of shooting up a mosque or church of ordinary people. My hypothesis of influence is that the vast majority of women have a dramatic influence on only a very small number of men--usually their sons, grandsons, brothers, boyfriends and husbands. If you want to influence hundreds of thousands of young men, you're going to have to recruit men at least slightly older than them to do it.
There are exceptions, of course. Here in the UK Margaret Thatcher had an enormous influence on any number of conservative young Englishmen. But then Thatcher was exceptional. Middle-class Englishmen loved Thatcher whereas middle-class American men loathe Hilary Clinton. Discuss.
Anyway, as far as the majority of women are concerned, it is up to mothers, grandmothers, sisters, girlfriends and wives to have conversations with their menfolk about how they should respond as men to political and cultural instability. I suppose highly favoured aunties could have that conversation, too, if asked.
I haven't been asked, but if one of my nephews or courtesy nephews were to complain to me about the low white European birthrate, I would point out that siring, raising and educating five European babies would be the best and most effective way of fighting that.
Imaginary Monologue to At-Risk Imaginary Nephew
Obviously, the most super-effective way to raise the European birthrate would be to have as many babies as possible with as many willing European women you could find and then let the various European nanny states deal with their needs. However I cannot see the point of propagating a "race" for the sake of its genes. Skin cancer and light-sensitivity--whoo hoo.
I concede, Imaginary-Nephew-at-Risk-of-Whiteism, that white people of European descent number about 750 million, which is a tenth of the global population. So, yes, white people of European descent are indeed a minority.
However, what makes European descent at all interesting are the actual European cultures white people of European descent inherited, whose strengths rely on virtues that any human being of reasonable intelligence can adopt and indeed can be found to a greater or lesser extent throughout the world. The virtues depend on upbringing, and the cultures depend on education.
Please don't tell me any nonsense about IQ, Imaginary-Nephew-at-Risk, as the sort of people who study that sort of thing have discovered that the countries with the highest IQs are East Asian.
The Australian-in-Christchurch mosque shooter, I'll point out, testified that he didn't have much education. Possibly he had lousy teachers. Possibly the curriculum was at fault. Possibly local education ideology concentrated only on the needs of girls. All that said, if he cared that much about France (as his manifesto claims), it would have made a lot more sense to learn French and become, in however large or small a way, an Australian ambassador for French culture: French governance, French literature, French music, French horticulture, French cheesemaking, French viniculture, French couture, French cooking.
England's francophile Elizabeth David preserved thousands of classic French recipes. She didn't shoot up a mosque.
Me, I like the idea of distinctive, unifying, familiar European cultures. I grew up in Toronto, so I find relative monocultures fascinating. I dig a bit and discover slight variations in culture from geographical place to geographical place in a relatively ethnically homogenous country.
I'm a fan of geography-dependent cultural differences. I don't think every nation in the world should become as multicultural as Toronto. But the multiculturalism of Toronto is also, I've discovered, different from the multiculturalism of London and of Boston, so multiculturalism is not the McDonaldization of the world I used to think it was. I'm for cultures developing naturally but slowly. I am (somewhat) sympathetic to Quebec's heavy-handed mission to stay French-speaking, but I don't like social engineering.
Well, I guess I don't like liberal social engineering. Hungarian tax breaks for families and pensions for mothers-of-four resonate with me, but Wear a Hijab day does not.
Migration is a fact of life, but I think mass migration is inherently destablizing. I gave myself a terrible shock while speaking with a Free Presbyterian pal when I realised the extent to which Irish Catholic mass migration had destablized 19th century Scottish society. Scotland still feels the aftershocks to this day. But my ancestors were Famine Irish themselves: they went west to the USA with the thousands of other Irish Catholics who inadvertently destabilised Boston and New York.
Migration (particularly from east to west) is a human constant, and the speed and size at which it is happening today is one of the defining questions of the still-young 21st century. I don't think anyone has the solution as to how to cope with the inevitable fall-out.
Given the complexities of human migration, I suggest, At-Risk Imaginary Nephew, that you think about what it is that you want and what it is that you fear and then set about finding out as much as you can about both. One of the great gifts of Western Civilisation is that idea that anyone, no matter how poor or disadvantaged, can and should learn to read and then use his powers of reason to determine what is true.
Meanwhile, shooting unarmed people is always and everywhere evil and cowardly.
Update: This, about the rejection of Christianity by the alt-right, is important. More on this later, I hope.
Update 2: This, from Rod Dreher, is also insightful. I haven't read the entire manifesto--just a couple of pages I first found on Twitter. Don't miss the French Canadian song he links to. In an earlier edit I said I wished the Quebecois hadn't eroded their culture by moving en masse to the cities, going on the Pill and throwing their religious faith and traditions out the window.
Rod added an update by a deeply shocked and grieving Christchurch resident who, understandably, seems to believe this is the time for feeling, not thinking. I think that is true for Christchurch, but not for everyone else. Rod makes a good argument that just as we need to examine the ideology of Islamic terrorism, we need to examine the ideology of the Christchurch massacre.
Update 3: I found the manifesto and skimmed it. If I write more about this, I'll take the time to read it properly. It's disturbing because it's much different from the ranting of mass shooters of women. I've read documents left by two anti-women killers, and they revealed self-absorbed, mentally unbalanced nitwits seething with self-pity. The Australian shooter (who professes indifference for fame and believes his name will soon be forgotten) was willing to sacrifice his life because he thinks he is part of a war. Well, off to see what Jordan Peterson has to say.