Is the New Zealand Shooter a “Christian Terrorist?”

I have seen several Tweets out there now asserting that the New Zealand shooter was a “Christian terrorist.”  While it’s obvious he is a terrorist, is there any evidence he is a Christian?  I can’t find any.  All the evidence indicates this act of terrorism was secular.

First, the killer didn’t shout any religious/theological proclamations as he carried out his murders.

Second, as for his manifesto, this is its cover:

Note the complete lack of any Christian symbols.  What Christian would completely omit a Cross among all those other symbols?

Third, the manifesto offers no Christian or theological justification or rationale.  There is no mention of Jesus.  There is no mention of the Bible.  The Bible is not quoted.  And when it comes to God, the killer is very careful to make sure that the word “God” does not begin with a capital G:

  • The truth that the West killed the notion of god, and proceeded to replace it with nothing. Brought forth two competing ideologies(communism and fascism)to replace this loss of god, then proceeded to allow both sides to slaughter each other to a standstill and then let corporate backed capitalists tear the survivor to pieces.
  • The idea that a Frenchmen need not speak the language, share the culture, believe in the same god or even more importantly be ethnically French is ludicrous in the extreme.
  • Conservatism is dead. Thank god.

What group of people are well known for refusing to use a capital G when spelling God?

There are two places in his manifesto where he deals with the Christian identity.

At one place, he asks, “Were/are you a christian?” and answers

That is complicated. When I know, I will tell you.

Huh?  It’s complicated?  When I know?  That is not the response of a Christian.

Contrast the weird uncertainty of that answer with the clarity of the following question/answer:

Were/are you a fascist?

 Yes. For once, the person that will be called a fascist, is an actual fascist. I am sure the journalists will love that. I mostly agree with Sir Oswald Mosley’s views and consider myself an Eco-fascist by nature. The nation with the closest political and social values to my own is the People’s Republic of China.

I think the best way to explain his answer to the question about being a Christian is that he is an atheist who recognizes that Christianity has long been associated with European culture.  “It’s complicated” because he doesn’t believe Christianity is true, but does believe it’s part of his White, European heritage.

The second place he comes close to addressing the Christian question is in Section 1, which contains “Addresses to various groups.”

Here it is in its entirety:

To Christians

 “The people worthy of glory, the people blessed by God Our Lord, moan and fall under the weight of these outrages and most shameful humiliations. The race of the elect suffers outrageous persecutions, and the impious race of the Saracens respects neither the virgins of the Lord nor the colleges of priests. They run over the weak and the elderly, they seize the children from their mothers so that they might forget, among the barbarians, the name of God. That perverse nation profanes the hospices … The temple of the Lord is treated like a criminal and the ornaments of the sanctuary are robbed.

“What more shall I say to you?

“We are disgraced, sons and brothers, who live in these days of calamities! Can we look at the world in this century reproved by Heaven to witness the desolation of the Holy City and remain in peace while it is so oppressed? Is it not preferable to die in war rather than suffer any longer so horrible a spectacle? Let us all weep for our faults that raise the divine ire, yes, let us weep… But let not our tears be like the seed thrown into the sand. Let the fire of our repentance raise up the Holy War and the love of our brethren lead us into combat. Let our lives be stronger than death to fight against the enemies of the Christian people.”


At first, I found this confusing.  Because he does sound awfully religious here.  But then I quickly figured out he was simply quoting from Pope Urban II from almost 1000 years ago.  In other words, he is simply trying to get the Christians to join his Crusade by appealing to some authority from their ancient history.  That’s all we have here.  And that he thinks quoting a Pope from 1000 years ago is going to motivate Christians to join him just shows how far removed from Christianity he is. 

So there is no evidence the New Zealand shooter was/is a Christian terrorist.  He had no Christian/theological motive, no Christian/theological justification, no Christian/theological agenda.

So what was he?

He claims, “when I was young I was a communist, then an anarchist and finally a libertarian before coming to be an eco-fascist.”  These are all secular ideologies.  As an “eco-fascist,” he believes overpopulation is THE problem and non-whites are responsible for it.  He then believes overpopulation is destroying the environment, so radical action is required.  He even spells it out:

Why focus on immigration and birth rates when climate change is such a huge issue?

 Because they are the same issue, the environment is being destroyed by over population, we Europeans are one of the groups that are not over populating the world. The invaders are the ones over populating the world. Kill the invaders, kill the overpopulation and by doing so save the environment.

This entry was posted in activism, Christianity, climate change, fascism, Secularism, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Is the New Zealand Shooter a “Christian Terrorist?”

  1. Crude says:

    While it’s obvious he is a terrorist, is there any evidence he is a Christian? I can’t find any. All the evidence indicates this act of terrorism was secular.

    Oh, I think it’s a little more interesting than that.

    Dude’s got the sun wheel right on his manifesto:

    Check the page. There’s overlap with neo-nazis… and the Church of Satan.

  2. Bilbo says:

    I agree with your interpretation, Mike. I would not call this guy a Christian. Just someone who is trying to appeal to Christians.

  3. TFBW says:

    Be careful about drawing conclusions from his manifesto. Substantial portions of it are deliberate misinformation designed to trigger a response from people. Some of it is pure meme, like the Navy Seal Copypasta. Attempt to sort the truth from the fiction, the ironic in-jokes, and the deliberately misleading at your own risk.

  4. Dhay says:

    As far as I can tell the Muslims murdered in New Zealand were not Islamic extremists, the murdered Muslims were religious moderates.

    So what vicious nutter’s got it in for not just extremists, but for religious moderates as well? Ah yes:

    OF COURSE, people of faith fall on a continuum: some draw solace and inspiration from a specific spiritual tradition, and yet remain fully committed to tolerance and diversity, while others would burn the earth to cinders if it would put an end to heresy. There are, in other words, religious moderates and religious extremists, and their various passions and projects should not be confused. One of the central themes of this book, however, is that religious moderates are themselves the bearers of a terrible dogma: they imagine that the path to peace will be paved once each of us has learned to respect the unjustified beliefs of others. I hope to show that the very ideal of religious tolerance—born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God—is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.

    [The End of Faith, P.13, my own emphases.]

    Beware the abyss. Doom, doom, and thrice doom. Act now, or else.

    I don’t read Harris as just railing against, say, the religious tolerance that Christian moderates typically display towards Muslims; he’s against “the very ideal of religious tolerance”; he’s railing against any tolerance of any religion, against tolerance of that “diversity of religious beliefs.” (See next quote.)

    Sam Harris is outspokenly intolerant of religious extremists; he’s outspokenly intolerant of religious moderates; he’s outspokenly intolerant of religious tolerance; he’s advocating that others (“we”, below) should be as intolerant of religious moderates as he himself is; and as intolerant of “the very ideal of religious tolerance” as he himself is.

    How intolerant?:

    Given the link between belief and action, it is clear that we can no more tolerate a diversity of religious beliefs than a diversity of beliefs about epidemiology and basic hygiene. There are still a number of cultures in which the germ theory of disease has yet to put in an appearance, where people suffer from a debilitating ignorance on most matters relevant to their physical health. Do we “tolerate” these beliefs? Not if they put our own health in jeopardy.[22]

    [22]… it is not difficult to imagine a culture whose beliefs relative to epidemiology could systematically impose unacceptable risks on the rest of us. There is little doubt that we would ultimately quarantine, invade, or otherwise subjugate such a society.

    [The End of Faith, P.46 and Footnote 22]

    As I read it, “we can no more tolerate” is a euphemism for cannot tolerate; “a diversity of religious beliefs” is intolerable; specifically, the religious beliefs of Muslims — all religious beliefs of all Muslims, however moderate — are intolerable.

    Given “the link” between belief and action, which Harris alleges exists, it is clear that Harris believes that even moderate Muslims are a threat (he phrases it as if Islam is a virulent disease — germ theory rears it’s cliche again — which will wipe us out if we tolerate it, if we don’t get proactive.) Is it unreasonable to conclude that the beliefs of Harris (and his fans and any “we” who agree with Harris) support, provide cover and provide justification for the extremist actions of the New Zealand mosque murderer.


    Harris probably seems himself as a moderate opponent of Islam, and he probably sees himself likewise as a moderate opponent of moderation and tolerance. If, as Harris claims, moderates are as bad as or worse than extremists, that would mean that moderate opponents of Islam like Harris are as bad as or worse than any anti-Islamic extremist who goes on a murder spree in mosques.

  5. pennywit says:

    He’s an anti-Muslim bigot. That’s good enough for me.

  6. Crude says:

    He’s an anti-Muslim bigot. That’s good enough for me.

    Shooter confirmed for New Atheist I guess.

  7. Dhay says:

    pennywit > He’s an anti-Muslim bigot. That’s good enough for me.

    That’s good enough for me, too, albeit he’s a very alarming anti-Muslim bigot:

    There is little doubt that we would ultimately quarantine, invade [war upon, followed by military occupation, though later he moved towards pre-emptive nuclear war], or otherwise subjugate [threats, intimidation, mosque shootings as a means to intimidate(?)] such a [Muslim] society.

    My additions in [ ].

    It’s hidden in plain sight that Harris is a very nasty man indeed. Do Sam Harris’ fans actually read and try to understand what Harris writes and says?


    The argument I used against Harris is essentially Harris’ own argument. I am quite happy for anyone reading the response above, likewise any similar ones I have made before or will make in future, to judge them absurd or simply wrong. I am perfectly happy when they function as reductio ad absurdum proofs that the Harris argument (or set of claims) is absurd or simply wrong.

  8. FZM says:

    It’s hidden in plain sight that Harris is a very nasty man indeed. Do Sam Harris’ fans actually read and try to understand what Harris writes and says?

    I think what you have been quoting from Sam supports the idea that New Atheism was shaped and stimulated by 9/11 and subsequent events. Otherwise, it seems hard to explain why the simple minded anti-religious lunacy and appeals to violence that are in passages like this didn’t raise more questions.

  9. Isaac says:

    I think you could safely also call this shooter a part of the Christian Identity movement, but that is a (very confusingly named) atheist ideology.

    The Denmark mass shooter and the young moron who shot up the Charleston church (I won’t name these clowns) were also CI. Which is to say they were:

    1. Atheist/secular, evolutionist in every sense, and freethinking/secularist,
    2. Willing to accept religious symbology or to propagate some sort of religion to unify the masses, because they see it as possibly useful (although they disagree over whether to try to re-create Christianity as racist, go a vague New Age spirituality, or go with the less problematically Jewish Norse gods.)
    3. Sympathetic to Christians and Christian symbols as being associated with whites and European accomplishment, but not as something to actually believe in (that’s where the “Christian Identity” phrase comes in,)
    4. Disrespectful of people who actually believe in Christianity or follow Jesus, but also hopeful to convert them or use them as possible foot soldiers in a race war,
    5. Willing to wildly distort and misappropriate scripture and Christian concepts to try to get Jesus to conform to their political cause (the exact mirror image of progressive Leftists who do the very same thing.)

    In a less secular overall culture, many of these individuals would never become racists or killers, but with Christianity scrubbed from culture, and actual belief in Jesus no longer taken seriously, politics and tribal instincts are stronger than the urge to seek after God. Which is why I can confidently predict more and more of these cretins in future news cycles, no matter what gun laws pass.

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.