Earlier today, a cacophony of thoughtless invectives were again directed at Fraser Anning, this time for his controversial press release on the Christchurch shooting.
Since taken down from Twitter, the release read:
Speaking following reports of multiple shootings at two Mosques in New Zealand earlier today, Senator Fraser Anning has responded with strong condemnation.
“I am utterly opposed to any form of violence without our community, and I totally condemn the actions of the gunman,” he said.
“However, whilst this kind of violent vigilantism can never be justified, what it highlights is the growing fear within our community, both in Australia and New Zealand, of the increasing Muslim presence.”
“As always, left-wing politicians and the media will rush to claim that the causes of today’s shootings lie with gun laws or those who hold nationalist views but this is all cliched nonsense.”
“The real cause of bloodshed on New Zealand streets today is the immigration program which allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand in the first place.”
“Let us be clear, while Muslims may have been the victims today, usually they are the perpetrators. World-wide, Muslims are killing people in the name of their faith on an industrial scale.”
“The entire religion is simply the violent ideology of a sixth century despot masquerading as a religious leader, which justifies endless war against anyone who opposes it and calls for the murder of unbelievers and apostates.”
“The truth is that Islam is not like any other faith. It is the religious equivalent of fascism. And just because the followers of this savage belief were not the killers in this instance, does not make them blameless.”
“As we read in Matthew 26:52, ‘all they that take the sword, shall perish by the sword’ and those who follow a violent religion that calls on them to murder us, cannot be too surprised when someone takes them at their word and responds in kind.”
Now, does Anning’s terminology most suit the context we find ourselves in? Perhaps not.
But because Anning is the only Australian politician that acts on behalf of our people, he won’t be disavowed on this blog anytime soon. Moreover, given this shooting’s larger political ramifications, we ought consider the substance of Anning’s statements over their form–even if one utterly despises the man himself.
On the substance, Anning’s claim mass Islamic immigration causes violence, is correct. To be clear, this isn’t a matter of picking sides between Islam and the West. Rather, it is about acknowledging the truth of human tribalism: when groups compete for resources, and bring forth diametrically opposing views about religion, human tensions can flare. And when open debate is increasingly constricted, an environment transpires in which terrorists from both sides readily emanate.
These are the empirical consequences of ceaselessly forcing different strains of human biodiversity together; love it, like it, hate it, or otherwise.
To extend an olive branch, I don’t doubt some progressives sincerely wish to transcend old prejudices, and move into an egalitarian, multicultural utopia. But this is akin to wishing a layman was as equipped to design a bridge, as an experienced, ingenious engineer.
To walk across a layman-designed bridge, would threaten our lives–irrespective of any hopes, desires or dreams. Similarly, politicians allowing mass Islamic immigration for diversity’s sake, imperil our safety and civilisation.
Fraser Anning is not only right; responsibility for yesterday’s and all future terror attacks to be committed by Whites against Muslims, and Muslims against Whites, is beared by the political elites who ignore our reasoned pleas.