So, just what was the Buffalo shooter's political ideology? [in his own words]

[NightHawkeye]

I put little stock in self-analysis without reasoning.

The only real argument here seems to be whether his beliefs were "right-wing" or "left-wing".

It seems clear enough that you're willing to accept his statements at face value when they agree with your perceived political perspective.

We know his beliefs (or at least what he says those beliefs are). Independent analysis shows those beliefs to be largely right-wing (at least with regards to the racial theories that prompted his attack).

Again, the quibbling here seems to be about labels, whether "right-wing" or "left-wing" is to blame.

Even disregarding the shooter's own self-characterization as "left-wing", we all know that political stances are far more nuanced that either the "right" or "left" which is far too commonly used on this forum. To facilitate discussion of the matter, I introduced the political compass earlier which conveniently showcased both the differences and similarities among a number of varied political perspectives.

His own analysis of them as "left-wing" is given without any supporting evidence and is therefore meaningless.

Except that it was not provided without evidence - a devout communist just a few years earlier, for instance. I can easily believe you have doubts about his "moderating" his extreme political stance by moving to national socialism though ... but a look at the political compass provided earlier shows that the two stances are not really so far apart as you imagine.

Curiously, it seems worth mentioning that the shooter apparently earlier had been under federal investigation for planning a shooting at his own high school.

Apparently, he was determined to shoot people and, unfortunately, the FBI couldn't figure out a pattern to his logic or motivations. He had an end in mind though, to shoot people, and may have just latched on to a convenient justification.

If I say that I support a woman's right to choose, gay marriage, trans rights, a strong social safety net, relaxed immigration restrictions, and strong international trade relationships, but that I identify as "right-wing", you'd probably doubt the "right-wing" bit, no?

LOL, it seems you understand why some Republican politicians are held in such low regard by their own constituencies.

In a political rather than economic sense, which is a pretty important distinction. There's a significant difference between "Lets collectively work together and share resources." and "Let's collectively work together for the good of the Party." Collectivism and "common good" can be used to promote anything, and are not inherently "left" or "right" philosophies.

A point of agreement to be sure ... but do feel free to argue otherwise.

There's certainly a lot of talk about minimizing government, but in practice, policies pushed by the political right over the last few decades have required Big Government. At best, they shift governmental control from the federal system to the states, but that doesn't decrease the size of the government - it just moves it around. It can also result in an overall larger government due to the redundancies between 50 separate state systems and a need to coordinate between them.

Regardless, the point is that neither side in US politics wants an authoritarian regime or total anarchy. Our disagreements about the size of the government are inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

Our disagreements about the size of government may be the most consequential matter involving politics in the grand scheme of things.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

The only real argument here seems to be whether his beliefs were "right-wing" or "left-wing".

It seems clear enough that you're willing to accept his statements at face value when they agree with your perceived political perspective.

I direct you to post #16 for my views on the matter.

Again, the quibbling here seems to be about labels, whether "right-wing" or "left-wing" is to blame.

No, the "quibbling" is over your insistence that he was motivated by purely left-wing beliefs while moaning about how people break things down into just two sides.

 

[JosephZ]

The only real argument here seems to be whether his beliefs were "right-wing" or "left-wing".

You quoted four sentences out of a 180 page manifesto in the OP. The manifesto overwhelmingly references rightwing ideologies and in many cases the shooter plagiarizes the writings of rightwing extremists. It has several pages of rightwing memes and graphics. He refers to Replacement Theory 28 times. There's no argument what his beliefs are.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You quoted four sentences out of a 180 page manifesto in the OP. The manifesto overwhelmingly references rightwing ideologies and in many cases the shooter plagiarizes the writings of rightwing extremists. It has several pages of rightwing memes and graphics. He refers to Replacement Theory 28 times. There's no argument what his beliefs are.

No rational, believable, honest argument, anyway.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I direct you to post #16 for my views on the matter.

Ok ... let's go there. It was a well-stated post.

Based on the bits and pieces of his manifesto that I've been able to read, he most likely comes out of one of those cesspits, which don't really conform to any sense of "left wing" or "right wing" ideology - they pull elements of both, then mix them with a special blend of hatred that's all their own.

Trying to blame one side or the other for this is just pointless and petty.

So, why are you taking issue with the fact that I push back against the idea promoted by the mainstream media, and some here, that the shooter was motivated by mainstream "right-wing" ideology? Clearly, his motivations were mixed and extreme. You've already acknowledged that.

No, the "quibbling" is over your insistence that he was motivated by purely left-wing beliefs while moaning about how people break things down into just two sides.

I don't believe I've said any such thing. What I have said is that national socialism has its origins in Marxist ideology. That's simply a fact. Because of those similarities it was easy for the shooter to gravitate from communism to national socialism.

 

[Robban]

What the Buffalo Shooter's Alleged Manifesto Actually Says

“When I was 12 I was deep into communist ideology, talk to anyone from my old highschool and ask about me and you will hear that. From age 15 to 18 however, I consistently moved farther to the right. On the political compass I fall in the mild-moderate authoritarian left category, and I would prefer to be called a populist.

But you can call me an ethno-nationalist eco-fascist national socialist if you want, I wouldn’t disagree with you.” He also repeatedly attacks capitalists, and rejected the conservative label because, he wrote, “conservativism is corporatism in disguise, I want no part of it.”​

Eugenics.

Is the culprit.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Eugenics.

The Nazi variety ... or the Margaret Sanger variety.

 

[Robban]

The Nazi variety ... or the Margaret Sanger variety.

The American.

 

[JosephZ]

Clearly, his motivations were mixed and extreme.

Have you read the shooter's manifesto in its entirety?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Ok ... let's go there. It was a well-stated post.

So, why are you taking issue with the fact that I push back against the idea promoted by the mainstream media, and some here, that the shooter was motivated by mainstream "right-wing" ideology? Clearly, his motivations were mixed and extreme. You've already acknowledged that.

His ideology as a whole was mixed and extreme - he was not a product of either the right or the left, but rather his own little cesspool of internet hatred. The specific portions of his ideology that motivated him to kill blacks and Jews, however, are firmly right-wing and have been promoted by right-wing political commentators in recent years.

I don't blame the mainstream political right for his radicalization, but it does deeply concern me that they're promoting the same ideas that drove him to commit mass murder.

I don't believe I've said any such thing.

You did:

Still, it's more than a little fascinating the number of times the media attempts to portray one after another as someone holding extreme right-wing ideology ... only for us to soon discover a poisoning left-wing ideological basis instead.

You're claiming that there's a left-wing basis to every supposed right-wing motivation for this. Seems like shifting the blame to me.

What I have said is that national socialism has its origins in Marxist ideology. That's simply a fact.

No, what you have said is that national socialism had its origins in socialist ideology. That is broadly correct. However, it is absolutely not Marxist. While Marxism rose to become the dominant socialist ideology starting in the late 1800s, not all socialists were (or are) Marxists, and socialism existed as a socio-political theory long before Marx was born. There were societies with socialist elements as far back as several hundred years BC, and modern socialist theory is generally considered to have sprung out of the revolutions of the late 1700s.

As the Wikipedia article you quoted said, Nazism was, in part, an attempt to create a nationalist, non-Marxist, redefinition of socialism - steering the movement away from Marx and his economic socialism. Notably, it wasn't the first nationalist socialist movement in Germany to attempt this - see the German Workers Party and other groups formed out of the Völkisch Movement. These groups were formed during Marx's rise to prominence and were explicitly anti-Marxist, much like the Nazis.

Because of those similarities it was easy for the shooter to gravitate from communism to national socialism.

Baloney. Nazis are rabidly anti-communist - the two are diametrically opposed.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

What I have said is that national socialism has its origins in Marxist ideology. That's simply a fact.

LOL. Where did you get this "fact" from?

 

[Aldebaran]

Ok ... let's go there. It was a well-stated post.

So, why are you taking issue with the fact that I push back against the idea promoted by the mainstream media, and some here, that the shooter was motivated by mainstream "right-wing" ideology? Clearly, his motivations were mixed and extreme. You've already acknowledged that.

I don't believe I've said any such thing. What I have said is that national socialism has its origins in Marxist ideology. That's simply a fact. Because of those similarities it was easy for the shooter to gravitate from communism to national socialism.

It would seem that in the end, the only real reason the popular narrative labels the shooter as "right wing extremist" is so they can then try to equate people like you and me with being the same as the shooter, and easy to demonize.
Too bad they're so willing to dance on the graves of 10 innocent people before they're even buried.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

It would seem that in the end, the only real reason the popular narrative labels the shooter as "right wing extremist" is so they can then try to equate people like you and me with being the same as the shooter, and easy to demonize.
Too bad they're so willing to dance on the graves of 10 innocent people before they're even buried.

Persecution complex much? Show me where anyone in this thread has equated "people like you and me" with the shooter.

I can tell you that the only thing you could say that would make me do so would be to espouse the same "replacement theory" that he used to justify his killing spree.

 

[Aldebaran]

Persecution complex much? Show me where anyone in this thread has equated "people like you and me" with the shooter.

I can tell you that the only thing you could say that would make me do so would be to espouse the same "replacement theory" that he used to justify his killing spree.

Perhaps. But far too often, the only thing it would take to be equated to this guy is to say anything negative about BLM, or even question those who support that type of violence.

 

[Bradskii]

Perhaps. But far too often, the only thing it would take to be equated to this guy is to say anything negative about BLM, or even question those who support that type of violence.

No. This guy massacred ten people because he thought that 'legacy Americans' were having their 'culture' and their 'political rights' taken away from them. Not just that they were losing them. But that they are actually being purposely removed.

Anyone who thinks like that can be equated to this guy. Anyone who pushes this garbage or chants it while marching with torches or writes or broadcasts such gutter level racist comments that seemingly passes for political debate these days can be equated to him.

Ah, but CRT! Ah, but BLM! Ah, but National Socialism! Marx! Illegal immigrants! Stronger borders! What? Just...what?

Why not just call out what he did and why he did it for what it is? Evil.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No. This guy massacred ten people because he thought that 'legacy Americans' were having their 'culture' and their 'political rights' taken away from them. Not just that they were losing them. But that they are actually being purposely removed.

Anyone who thinks like that can be equated to this guy. Anyone who pushes this garbage or chants it while marching with torches or writes or broadcasts such gutter level racist comments that seemingly passes for political debate these days can be equated to him.

Indeed -- does the phrase "You will not replace us!" ring any bells?

Ah, but CRT! Ah, but BLM! Ah, but National Socialism! Marx! Illegal immigrants! Stronger borders! What? Just...what?

When you can't denounce (because it would cost you your platform, never mind your base), distract.

Why not just call out what he did and why he did it for what it is? Evil.

Because no matter how much they condemn the what (with their strongest thoughts and prayers), too many people nod their heads when they hear the why...

 

[NightHawkeye]

His ideology as a whole was mixed and extreme

Agreed.

- he was not a product of either the right or the left, but rather his own little cesspool of internet hatred.

While he certainly had his own "little cesspool" of hatred going on ... he was a self-described product of communist and leftist ideology.

While some tend to view communism as a benign economic theory, its implementation has consistently left a bloody trail in its wake.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

While he certainly had his own "little cesspool" of hatred going on ... he was a self-described product of communist and leftist ideology.

He says that he was into communism in his pre-teen years, but from my own personal experiences with middle school and high school "communists", they don't really understand what they're talking about and are just using the label. Moreover, when someone says that they used to be something but they've changed, the idea of them being a "product" of their former beliefs is generally related to their disagreement with those beliefs.

The actual beliefs that he enumerated to support his plan for mass murder are right-wing beliefs. White replacement, immigrants as invaders, Jews controlling the media. These are not ideas espoused by the left.

While some tend to view communism as a benign economic theory, its implementation has consistently left a bloody trail in its wake.

Yes, due to the fact that implementing it on a wider scale requires a highly authoritarian government. That has no relationship to communism as an individual philosophy.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Agreed.

Really? Because so far, you've claimed that there's a "poisonous left-wing basis" behind every supposed right-wing extremist, repeatedly tried to paint Nazis as left-wing, and failed to acknowledge any right-wing element to the shooter's beliefs.

His preference for socialism as an economic system as well as his concern for the environment certainly reveal some level of left-wing influence in his beliefs. But the white supremacist, anti-immigrant, and anti-Semitic views that he used to justify his actions are pure right-wing extremism.

 

[JosephZ]

While he certainly had his own "little cesspool" of hatred going on ... he was a self-described product of communist and leftist ideology.

When he was 12.

From the shooter's manifesto at age 18:

“Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.” Leftists usually advocate for equality among all people. The problem with this is that we are not all the same. Take for example the common black man, on average he is 15 IQ points behind the average White man. Is it reasonable to allocate more resources and time just for him, so he has the chance of being equal to the White man? Through all the resources we’ve spent to try and allow blacks to be equal to whites, they will always be prohibited by their genetics. How many more trillions of dollars are we going to spend on blacks before we realize that it is futile? I think leftism will always have great intentions but as a result will slow progress down considerably, or even reverse progress made. Modern leftism aims to create problems that don’t actually exist, like patriarchy and white supremacy. Ask yourself what have progressive’s progressed? Teaching white children to hate themselves and their blood? Teaching non-whites to hate our people? Teaching that it’s OK for anyone to be anything, no matter the consequences? Leftism only brings down our society. LEFTISM RESULTS IN A DEGENERATE HATEFUL SOCIETY

...For too long we have allowed the left to co-opt the environmentalist movement to serve their own needs. The left has controlled all discussion regarding environmental preservation whilst simultaneously presiding over the continued destruction of the natural environment itself through mass immigration and uncontrolled urbanization, whilst offering no true solution to either issue.

To Conservatives

Ask yourself, truly, what has modern conservatism managed to conserve? What does it seek to conserve? The natural environment? Western culture? Ethnic autonomy? Religion? The nation? The race? Nothing is conserved. The natural environment is industrialized, pulverized and commoditized. Western culture is trivialized, pulped and blended into a smear of meaningless nothing, with the only tenets and beliefs seemingly held to are the myth of the individual, the value of work (productivity for the benefit of your capitalist owners) and the sovereignty of private property (to ensure none of us get grand ideas of taking the unearned wealth of our owners). Ethnic autonomy? Destroyed in the name of cheap labor, whilst they may publicly object to the illegal immigration of the third world masses, privately they push for as much migration as possible, anything to decrease the labor cost of production and line their pockets with the profits. They removed the Europeans peoples autonomy and sovereignty for their own lust for power and wealth. Religion? What remains? Empty churches and full shopping centers? Drive through confessionals and no fault divorce? Any religious ideal that stood between the wealthy and wealthy generation was downplayed, sidelined and quietly dismantled. All so that they could line their pockets without complaints or objections. The nation? What nations do we have to conserve? What are our own nations now based on? There is no shared culture, ethnicity, language, values or beliefs. Anyone can be a member of our nation, as long as they have the paperwork. They need not be born here, share our race, our language, our culture or our beliefs. Hear the conservatives cry, as long as they are willing to WORK, let them in! Let them earn our wealthy benefactors their second yachts and their fifth properties! The race? They don’t even BELIEVE in the race, they don’t even have the gall to say race exists. And above all they don’t even care if it does. It’s profit, and profit alone that drives them, all else is secondary. The notion of a racial future or destiny is as foreign to them as social responsibilities. Not a thing has been conserved other than corporate profits and the ever increasing wealth of the 1% that exploit the people for their own benefit. Conservatism is dead. Thank god. Now let us bury it and move on to something of worth.



“The truth is my personal life and experiences are of no value. I am simply a White man seeking to protect and serve my community, my people, my culture, and my race.”



Diversity is weak

Why is diversity said to be our greatest strength? Does anyone even ask why? It is spoken like a mantra and repeated ad infinitum “diversity is our greatest strength, diversity is our greatest strength, diversity is our greatest strength...”. Said throughout the media, spoken by politicians, educators and celebrities. But no one ever seems to give a reason why. What gives a nation strength? And how does diversity increase that strength? What part of diversity causes this increase in strength? No one can give an answer. Meanwhile the “diverse” nations across the world are scenes of endless social, political, religious and ethnic conflict. The United States is one of the most diverse nations on Earth, and they are about an inch away from tearing each other to pieces. Brazil with all its racial diversity is completely fractured as a nation, where people cannot get along and separate and self segregate whenever possible. South Africa with all its “diversity” is turning into a bloody backwater as its diversity increases, black on black, black on white, white on black, black on Indian, doesn’t not matter, its ethnicity vs ethnicity. They all turn on each other in the end. Why is it that what gives Western nations strength is not what gives Eastern nations (China, Japan,Taiwan, South Korea) their strength? How are they so strong, China set to be the world's most dominant nation in this century, whilst lacking diversity? Why is that their non-diverse nations do so much better than our own, and on so many different metrics?Diversity is not a strength. Unity, purpose, trust, traditions, nationalism and racial nationalism is what provides strength. Everything else is just a catch phrase.

The failure of assimilation

Expecting immigrants to assimilate to a decadent culture is laughable. Who would willingly leave their own strong, dominant and rising culture to join an elderly, decaying, degenerate culture? What culture would entice a man, one of traditions, beauty, architecture, art and prosperity, or a culture of decay, self-hatred, childlessness, disorder and nihilism? More immigrants are choosing to retain their own healthy culture, year by year, and even more telling, our own people are beginning to join them, looking outside their own watered down and deteriorating culture to look for purpose and guidance from outside sources. The weaker we become the more immigrants will refuse to join us, refuse to partake in the cultural suicide that we extol. That should surprise no one.

...For too long we have allowed the left to co-opt the environmentalist movement to serve their own needs. The left has controlled all discussion regarding environmental preservation whilst simultaneously presiding over the continued destruction of the natural environment itself through mass immigration and uncontrolled urbanization, whilst offering no true solution to either issue.

What you need to know

If there’s one thing I want you to get from these writings, it’s that White birth rates must change. Everyday the White population becomes fewer in number. To maintain a population the people must achieve a birth rate that reaches replacement fertility levels, in the western world that is about 2.06 births per woman...

Mass immigration and the higher fertility rates of the immigrants themselves are causing this increase in population. We are experiencing an invasion on a level never seen before in history. Millions of people pouring across our borders, legally. Invited by the state and corporate entities to replace the White people who have failed to reproduce, failed to create the cheap labor, failed to create new consumers and tax base that the corporations and states need to have to thrive. This crisis of mass immigration and sub-replacement fertility is an assault on the European people that, if not combated, will ultimately result in the complete racial and cultural replacement of the European people...

We must inevitably correct the disaster of hedonistic, nihilistic individualism. But it will take some time, time we do not have due to the crisis of mass immigration. Due to mass immigration we lack the time scale required to enact the civilizational paradigm shift we need to undertake to return to health and prosperity. Mass immigration will disenfranchise us, subvert our nations, destroy our communities, destroy our ethnic ties, destroy our cultures, destroy our peoples. Long before low fertility levels ever could. Thus, before we deal with the fertility rates, we must deal with both the invaders within our lands and the invaders that seek to enter our lands. We must crush immigration and deport those invaders already living on our soil. It is not just a matter of our prosperity, but the very survival of our people...

We must crush immigration and deport those invaders already living on our soil. It is not just a matter of our prosperity, but the very survival of our people.

Why did you decide to carry out the attack?

To show to the replacers that as long as the White man lives, our land will never be theirs and they will never be safe from us.

To directly reduce immigration rates to European lands by intimidating and physically removing the replacers themselves.

To intimidate the replacers already living on our lands to emigrate back to their home countries.

To agitate the political enemies of my people into action, to cause them to over extend their own hand and experience the eventual and inevitable backlash as a result.

To incite violence, retaliation and further divide between the European people and the replacers currently occupying European soil.

To show the effect of direct action, lighting a path forward for those that wish to follow. A path for those that wish to free their ancestors lands from the replacers grasp and to be a beacon for those that wish to create a lasting culture, to tell them they are not alone.

To create an atmosphere of fear and change in which drastic, powerful and revolutionary action can occur.

To add momentum to the pendulum swings of history, further destabilizing and polarizing Western society in order to eventually destroy the current nihilistic, hedonistic, individualistic insanity that has taken control of Western thought.

Most of all it was to spread awareness to my fellow Whites about the real problems the West is facing, and to encourage further attacks that will eventually start the war that will save the Western world, save the White race and allow for humanity to progress into more advanced civilizations.

What do you want? We must ensure the existence of our people and a future for white children.

Who do you represent? Millions of European and other ethno-nationalist peoples that wish to live in peace amongst their own people, living in their own lands, practicing their own traditions, and deciding the future of their own kind.

Did you carry out the attack for fame? I carried this attack out so I can influence others into defending themselves from there replacers, becoming infamous was the only way.

Why did you target those people? They are an obvious, visible, and large group of replacers. From a culture with higher fertility rates and strong, robust traditions that seek to occupy my peoples lands and ethnically replace my own people. It would have eased me if I knew all the blacks I would be killing were criminals or future criminals, but then I realized all black people are replacers just by existing in White countries.

Did, or do you personally hate blacks? A black man or woman living in their homelands? No.

A black man or woman choosing to invade our lands, live on our soil, live on government support and attack and replace our people? Yes, I dislike them.

The only people I truly hate are the converts, those from our own people that turn their backs on their heritage, turn their backs on their cultures, turn their back on their traditions and become blood traitors to their own race. They are not completely hopeless however. I believe some can come back, so it’s important to welcome them when they are awoken instead of shaming and ostracizing them.

Did or do you personally hate foreigners or other cultures? No, many people and their cultures are great, but it’s important to note that they can only stay great if they are separated from each other.

Do you believe those you attacked were innocent? There is no non-white living on White lands that is innocent.

Was the attack anti-immigration in origin? Yes, beyond all doubt, anti-immigration, anti-ethnic replacement and anti-cultural replacement.

Are you a Christian? No. I do not ask God for salvation by faith, nor do I confess my sins to Him. I personally believe there is no afterlife. I do however believe in and practice many Christian values.

Are you a facsist? Yes, fascism is one of the only political ideologies that will unite Whites against the replacers. Since that is what I seek, calling me a facsist would be accurate.

Are you a white supremacist? Yes, I would call myself a white supremacist, after all, which race is responsible for the world we live in today? I believe the White race is superior in the brain to all other races.

Are you racist? Yes I am racist because I believe in differences of capabilities between races.

Are you an anti-semite? YES!! ...a Jew confined to Judea where he can’t spread his people or beliefs is of no concern to me. It’s important to note that with proper connection to the internet, that is impossible.

Are you a neo-nazi? I support neo-nazism but I am not a member of any neo-nazi groups, you decide what that makes me.

Are you a conservative? No, conservatism is corporatism in disguise, I want no part of it.

Are you a part of any political group or movement? I am not a direct member of any organization or group, though I support many.

Are you “right wing”? Depending on the definition, sure.

Are you “left wing”? Depending on the definition, sure.

Are you a socialist? Depending on the definition. Worker ownership of the means of production? It depends on who those workers are, their intentions, who currently owns the means of production, their intentions and who currently owns the state, and their intentions.

Did you always hold these views? When I was 12 I was deep into communist ideology, talk to anyone from my old high school and ask about me and you will hear that. From age 15 to 18 however, I consistently moved farther to the right. On the political compass I fall in the mild-moderate authoritarian left category, and I would prefer to be called a populist.

What are your views? I would prefer to call myself a populist. But you can call me an ethno-nationalist eco-fascist national socialist if you want, I wouldn’t disagree with you.

Who do you support? Those that wish for a future for white children and the existence of our people.

Won’t your attack result in calls for the removal of gun rights in the United States?
Yes, that is the plan all along, you said you would fight to protect your rights and the constitution, soon will come the time.

You’re a bigot, racist, xenophobe, nazi, fascist! Ok and?

Do you actually believe this garbage? Yes, I have never felt more sure about anything else.

Continued in the next post...