This week, a twenty-something man in Christchurch, New Zealand chose to commit mass murder. He was radicalized by his embraced choice of hate in the essential tripartite including love and indifference; in his case, this metastasized into an ideology of white supremacy. True to form, he then targeted The Other as scapegoats for his dissatisfaction. A hundred Muslims in two separate mosques paid the price of his homicidal rage, half of those with their lives.
That something like this should occur in New Zealand is an anomaly, for the country in a given year usually sees a like number of homicides as a total. Times are changing, and we can only trace back through the foibles of human nature in an attempt to determine why.
To have such an event occur in a place called Christchurch is a mocking irony of the spirit who commands such things, as he is the enemy of Christ, the Father, and all the mission of heaven. The enemy is he who opposes a portfolio of life with inspirations of his own. Those manifest in works of death instead.
Multiculturalism is the rebellion against natural law now ravaging national identities across Europe. It purports to enhance the social fabric in places such as New Zealand through magical thinking invoked via its goddess Diversity … but diversity in itself is not a bad thing. Diversity of experience lends strength to a commonality of purpose. Diversity of perspective can enhance clarity, and through the gift of foresight produce wisdom in the ability to anticipate consequences. What diversity cannot do is promote harmony between incontrovertible world views. This, unfortunately, is the place where New Zealand arrived by importing Islam into the West under the auspices of charity.
Islam, properly considered a seventh-century warlord’s ideology of conquest and subjugation, seeks to control every aspect of its adherent’s life. This includes its founder’s twisted Muhammadan theology and proscribed system of worship, with doctrines in which one’s sense of humanity must be overridden in deference to decrees of its prophet. Shedding blood from the infidel and embracing zeal to the point of martyrdom in holy war are fixtures there, making the creed wholly incompatible with tolerance and self-determination comprising staples of Occidental philosophies of governance. Muslims may often be insular, arrogant, and supremacist themselves; their influx being targeted by a similarly afflicted personality is unsurprising, perhaps even predictable.
Secular governance, though, considering all religion as mindless superstition, failed to consider the cultural ramifications of allowing large-scale Islamic migration into the West. Faithlessness not only forgoes the wisdom available to a reverent perspective but fails to grasp, through an inattentiveness of understanding, the depth of the conflict its policies engender.
Attempts to navigate the resulting and ideologically inescapable series of conceptual traps follow, and run to an inevitable end of systemic collapse in the harsh reset of natural law. At best, the consequences of mixing Islam and western culture is friction between their divergent answers to essential questions. Friction produces heat, and as humankind has known since Paleolithic times, such builds into flame from tinder.
Multicultural emphasis is the tinder of authoritarianism. The ensuing cultural conflict is its spark, and incidents such as Christchurch comprise flame. Once a fire is burning out of control, opportunists acquire momentum they leverage to affect change.
Centralizing power requires its subject to cede self-governance to the authority of the state, and personalities who crave to be at the top of an organizational chart for just such an arrangement have few qualms over exploiting incidents such as the carnage of Christchurch. Opportunities, in their secular, inhumane, and pragmatic outlook, evoke opportunism. Already, the Prime Minister of New Zealand is assuming that further restrictions on civilian firearms ownership are a forgone conclusion.
Firearms ownership did not produce the massacres of Christchurch. Those were committed by an unhinged individual overstepping his authority, much in the same way freedoms in New Zealand could now be restricted through more refined parliamentary procedures. In both examples, we see transgressions conducted by those who presume they have the right to do such things.
The former act of tyranny was perpetrated in a homicidal outburst, while the latter would come about following a long, slow aggregation of centralized authority already presumed to be soon abandoned by a submissive citizenry. Those are differences in optics only, stemming from the same assumptive mindset. Should good people in New Zealand afterward insist on owning effective means of protecting themselves against illegitimate, large-scale, and emergent threats to life and liberty, they would then be dutifully shot down by responding units of heavily armed delegates. Iron-handed governance relishes nothing more than exemplary enforcement of its policies.
Secular government, unbound by a vigilant citizenry, excels at creating problems it then proposes to solve by granting itself more authority. Power accumulating in that construct attracts personalities more given to ruling than serving, and there is nothing in observations of human nature or the study of history to suggest otherwise. Modern implementations of the democratic process are a relative footnote in the history of governance, much of which was written in bloodier fonts set by the stained and callused hands of authoritarianism.
Those dark days of history may well recur, of course. The fallen nature of human beings, elevated in their own sight by the deceiving voice of God’s enemy, assures such times are always attempting to stage a comeback. The scale of past state-sponsored depredations makes the toll out of tragedies such as Christchurch pale in comparison.
Hopefully enough ears still listen to encouraging voices—such as mine—touting the benefits of courage, faith, and virtue over the embrace of degrading philosophies. Hysterical promotion of the theory that human beings really shouldn’t be allowed to run around unmanaged, unmonitored, and unsupervised is an attribute no rational person should seek to empower.
Lit by the lamp of valid faith, we can see ourselves cast in a more noble light: servants of a higher authority than any state: as messengers responsible for something more than ourselves and the state of our own souls. Every faithful person is a minister bound over to the edification of others not so far along.
Whether the inclination of those is to accept any lesser status promoted by secular perspectives of statists and collectivists, or submit to the assumptive dictates of theocrats, the exit strategies for avoiding servitude are the same. Question everything. Deconstruct the false premise. Dedicate intellect to determine the actual state of affairs, and nurture cultivated awareness, whose gift is the clear vision that results.
Most of all, hold to account those whom you elevate into positions of authority to operate within the bounds originally established. Insist your voice be given equal access to the public square in unrestricted speech, free of prejudicial, ideologically motivated deplatforming. Your individual autonomy, as well as the collective influence of the morally upright, will be preserved in no other way.
Choose to love, -DA