Three years ago, on the 15th of March 2019, news came that Brenton Tarrant killed 51 Muslims and injured nearly the same number.
It shocked the Muslim world for many reasons, mainly because it happened in a supposedly peaceful area of New Zealand, itself a country reputed to be relatively “multicultural” and calm for all of its citizens.
What was also troubling was the way Tarrant carried out his terrorism: targeting Muslims in a mosque. Of course, the US government has destroyed hundreds of mosques in the Iraqi city of Fallujah alone. So why should Tarrant be singled out?
Tarrant’s innovation was to murder these Muslims execution-style and film it live as if he were in a first-person shooter (FPS) video-game.
As with many such “terrorist” attacks, there were many unanswered legitimate questions.
But if we accept the official narrative regarding this event at face-value, it behooves us to look at the ideology behind the act.
The Great Replacement
The main culprit was obviously White nationalism, mainly through one of its main ideas, that of “the Great Replacement,” the title of Tarrant’s supposed manifesto.
“The Great Replacement,” or “le grand replacement” in French (as its theoreticians are French), is about the “colonization” of Europe by “Third World immigrants.”
It finds its early roots in a novel by Jean Raspail (who died in 2020), Le Camp des Saints or The Camp of Saints in English, released in 1973.
It’s a dystopia about how Europe will be flooded by migrants because of its supposed unending generosity in welcoming immigration.
Interestingly, the migrants in his novel are Hindus from India.
The story is a product of a weird imagination fascinated with what we could now call incel-like ideas, with a preoccupation with women and sexual violence.
Read this particularly disturbing excerpt found in chapter 43:
The fact is that Lydie’s death was anything but heroic. She died in Nice, in a whorehouse for Hindus, disgusted with everything in general and herself in particular. At the time, each refugee quarter had its stock of white women, all free for the taking. And perfectly legal. (One of the new regime’s first laws, in fact. In order to “demythify” the white woman, as they put it.) By Easter Monday Lydie had been raped—on her famous white sheets, we might add—and proceeded, not unwillingly, in those first chaotic days, to tag after a troop of energetic Hindus, who had taken her over in a kind of joint ownership, since she was very pretty, and her skin was very white. Later, when things (and people) began to settle, they had clamped her away in a studio of sorts, in Nice, with a number of other girls similarly treated.
Anyway, later this conspiracy theory would become mainstream with Renaud Camus, a contemporary French writer who first gained notoriety in the 70s as one of the first French novelists to openly assume LGBT activism in his life and works.
Since the early 2000s he has turned to the far-right and pushed for the narrative that a “replacement” of the indigenous French population by non-European migrants was in progress.
These migrants are mainly Muslims, or as such people often put it, “Afro-Muslims” (considering Muslims in France are overwhelmingly from the African continent, from its North and its West.)
Of course what helped this idea becoming so popular was the 2015 migrant crisis.
Neither Raspail nor Camus really propose a violent solution to this issue (the latter talks of sending non-Europeans back home through “remigration”), as opposed to Guillaume Faye, a former pornographic actor who somehow became a figure of the French Right.
Faye, who died in 2019, wrote a book in 2000, La colonisation de l’Europe or The colonization of Europe in English, where he added to these anxieties about “the Great Replacement” the whole Islamophobia angle.
RELATED: The Danger of Fighting Islamophobia
In his last book, Guerre civile raciale – which means Racial civil war but has been translated as Ethnic Apocalypse for its English-language release – Faye says the solution for this “replacement” by Muslims has to be overtly violent, as the title suggests.
But Tarrant doesn’t mention Faye nor any of these French ideologues.
Instead, he calls himself an “ecofascist” more than once, writing in his (or supposed to be his) manifesto:
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
While White nationalism got its fair share of critical coverage, even though many White nationalists would themselves argue that they’re not necessarily proposing violence, ecofascism was barely touched upon by the media, despite Tarrant claiming this set of ideas more than once.
It obviously combines two concepts as the neologism implies, that of fascism and ecology, an ideology who’s most notable representative was Pentti Linkola, a Finnish ornithologist and fisherman who died in 2020. Linkola’s best-known book in English is Can Life Prevail? A Radical Approach to the Environmental Crisis.
In 1995, years before the rise of these lone “ecofascist terrorists” (besides Tarrant, the El Paso attacker also identified himself as such), American philosopher Michael Zimmerman penned an article titled The Threat of Ecofascism.
He begins by defining a type of “radical ecology,” the “deep ecology” school:
One type of radical ecology, “deep ecology,” claims that the consequences of human arrogance—manifest in rampant industrial technology and mindless consumerism—are threatening the integrity of the biosphere. According to deep ecologists, the longer democratic societies postpone making the difficult political decisions needed to solve environmental problems, the more drastic will be the political measures that may have to be taken later on to save remnants of humankind and the biosphere. One can imagine what such measures might entail: not only the seizure of private property, but perhaps also harassment, internment, torture, deportation, and worse, those designed to force people to comply with centrally-imposed regulations (in areas ranging from consumption to reproduction) purporting to deal with an “ecological emergency.”
Later, he says how when this “deep ecology” not only remains theoretical but becomes a practical solution, it emerges as “ecofascism”:
If ecofascism does emerge, however, it would probably occur in countries already possessing a long-term sense of national identity that could be construed as “racial.” In European countries, right-wing politicians have already been calling for a halt to immigration, and even for the expulsion of those aliens (principally, but not only non-white) who threaten the nation’s cultural identity, along with its social, political, and economic well-being. As hordes of desperate people from ecologically devastated and politically disintegrating Third World countries continue to pour into First World countries, some politicians will call for harsh measures to exclude immigrants, so as to prevent them from reproducing the same ecological and political crises that they (allegedly) created in their abandoned homelands. Ignoring the role played by Western colonialism in creating those crises, European neo-fascist leaders may argue that dark-skinned immigrants are not only destroying native soil, but are also polluting native blood.
This is interesting on many levels.
Firstly, it shows that ecology, an ideology promoted by the big corporations today, and which is perhaps the most “youth-friendly” ideology in the West today, mainly due to its supposed pacifism, can become “radical.”
Secondly, ecofascism takes roots in the European historical experience and politics, some would say civilization: it’s due to the racialist construct of its image as well its colonial and neocolonial projects in the Third World that this turn to ecofascism is possible.
Is that why White nationalism is blamed, so we forget ecofascism?
Is that why Tarrant (like others) is depicted as a “fringe White nationalist,” but not a particularly representative (and explosive) mixture of ecology and Western (not “White”) supremacism, which would thus expose both ecologism and the West?