Submission - an ironic title given that that is what Islam demands of every person on Earth. The form used by the Commission removes formatting and won't admit footnotes, so the appearance is somewhat basic.
SUBMISSION to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Attack on the Christchurch Mosques
Author: Chris Slater
Grateful thanks to the Royal Commission for permitting members of the public who were not involved in the attack to make a submission.
Author’s Perspective
I am an independent observer with no national, ideological or religious persuasion, and politics which are impartially centre-Left. However, I have had an interest in Islam and its expansion in the West for over 40 years, and have a measure of lay expertise in both the subject and the Western environment in which it is flourishing.
I take no position on state sector agencies, but consider it vital that the actors within those agencies understand not just Brenton Tarrant’s world view, but far more importantly, that of the religion he opposes.
I read and annotated Tarrant’s manifesto prior to its banning by the Chief Censor, and have since deleted the manifesto but kept the notes. References will be to those notes.
Perceptions
Tarrant’s act was so heinous that the greater narrative, one that encompasses both his extreme views and those of a majority of people in the West, was over-written and obscured. Unless this viewpoint is understood, the ‘widening gyre’ Yeats spoke of will persist until centrifugal forces break civilisation’s fragile bonds. It is my hope that the arguments I present here will assist in this understanding.
The narrative expression that I find best represents the broader situation in the West is through ‘ideology’, that is, a coherent, single-minded philosophical outlook or system of abstractions intended as much as a lever to change society as a description to explain it. [Bell, Daniel, The End of Ideology] The West had a brief ideology-free period having dispensed with Nazism and Soviet communism, which changed gradually in the mid-1970s when a socio-political split occurred whereby the Left gained control of social and cultural conditions in society, and the Right those of business and economics. This period was known as Rogernomics, Reaganomics or the Thatcher era. Ideologies, those of cultural Marxism and neo-liberalism respectively, took control of these processes through ‘cultural hegemony’ [https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/winning-the-culture-war/], formulated by the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci in the 1930s and described by German student leader Rudi Dutschke as ‘the long march through the institutions’, those of education, media and governance. The differences between these ideologies and their consolidation has hardened in the decades since, and rendered dialogue across their bounds all but impossible.
There is a greater split, between progressives and conservatives, best outlined by David Goodhart in his book The Road to Somewhere. It arises out of these ideologies and aligns with the benefits of economic and educational privilege versus those marginalised by the circumstances caused by them. The rise of political correctness and moral rectitude on the one hand, and populist reaction on the other, are direct consequences of this breach. The language used by both sides is now incomprehensible to the other; cooperation diminishes, and violence such as Tarrant’s ensues as the only means of expression when all else has failed. It is important to note that Muslims face a similar division within Islam, a rebarbative condition known colloquially as ‘the short beards versus the long beards.’
If we consider that the definition of civilisation is a state of continuous refinement, we can divide this further into those people who, at the extreme Left, want revolution, and those, at the extreme Right, who want either no change whatsoever or policies of reversion. But the vast majority of us are, in some form, conservative. At some point all of us will succumb to ‘nimbyism’; it’s simply a matter of how much change we will put up with before we protest. Tarrant’s protest was indefensible and counter-productive, but at least showed society that one person had reached his limit. Clearly his cause has struck a chord; unless this is noted and some effort made to reduce the impetus of cultural repudiation, it is possible more protest will follow. It’s ironic how Maori protests to defend its culture are met with acclamation; the equivalent from those defending European culture are met with derision and disapprobation.
World View
Broadly speaking, Tarrant’s world view is one opposed to Islamo-Leftism, defined by the French philosopher Pascal Bruckner as "the fusion between the atheist Far Left and religious radicalism". Mainly conceived by the British Socialist Workers Party which saw Islam's potential for fomenting social unrest, it promoted tactical, temporary alliances with reactionary Muslim parties. Bruckner considers that they hope to use Islamism as a ‘battering-ram’ (or more appropriately a stalking horse) to bring about the downfall of free-market capitalism. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamo-leftism] I would make the further point that communism has a record for failure in Western countries making it an unacceptable voter choice, whereas Islam is clearly capable of governance, albeit associated with conflict, and unproved in the West. Marxist revolution is still paramount for those on the extreme Left; Islam can be seen as an interim national authority while Marxism establishes its economic and social credentials.
If we remove the racist and extremist Right-wing polemics that Tarrant uses, his major and factually-based (i.e. non-conspiratorial) concerns are also those of a large minority, if not a majority, of ordinary Westerners. They can be summarised as the following:
1. Repudiation of Western culture
2. Failure of European fertility
3. Immigration and the replacement of Europeans by non-European immigrants.
4. The high visibility of Muslims, above average birth-rate and high rates of immigration into non-Muslim nations
5. Islamic conquest
6. Globalism
Each of these topics deserves an essay to give depth to the evidence, but if included may detract from the purpose of this account. The following summaries have copious evidential support which has been excluded for brevity.
Definition
Western: the definition I use is the Judeo-Christian Greco-Roman liberal secular democracies found in north and west Europe and its former colonies. Those established by Great Britain have benefited from ‘the Commonwealth Effect’ where 19th century British influence has delivered greater prosperity than the global average. [https://www.prosperity.com/feed/commonwealth-effect-free-markets-free-people-strong-society] There are compatible polities found elsewhere, particularly where Han Chinese migration has had a strong influence, and Israel as the only such state in the Middle East. Nations that do not endorse Western values rank lower on the civilisational indexes noted in Repudiation of Western Culture, with a tendency towards tribalism and strong religious and cultural adherence.
Summary of Conservative Concerns
1. Repudiation of Western Culture
Western culture has come under new and increasing attack (largely by anachronistic moralising which has not been applied to other cultures) as a racialised and oppressive product that cultural Marxism has defined. This view highlights the sins of colonialism, such as military violence and slavery, without the counterbalancing views, in these cases, the rule of law and slavery's abolition. Yet by any standard, the period of European colonisation was both brief and effective in raising global standards of civilisational values that at best existed elsewhere only in vestigial form. These include:
· The abolition of slavery and consideration of reparations
· Leading the fight against childhood genital mutilation, child labour, and child and widow sacrifice
· Abolition of the death penalty
· Human rights; rights of women, prisoners, animals, minorities and geographical features
· The creation of the nation-state allowing for defensible borders, equitable taxation for collective use, self-determination, increased levels of trust arising from shared national and cultural identity, and a contribution to a continuous decrease in warfare
· Religious tolerance and its balance with reason
· The scientific method
· The high value given to human life, occupational safety, and the increase in life expectancy
· The industrial revolution and the introduction of technological advances
· The green revolution, the control of famine, and ecological balance with respect to population growth
· Freedom of speech and association; the rule of law, habeas corpus, and presumption of innocence
· Universal suffrage and democracy, which allows for a continuous moral change and the avoidance of civil war
· Capitalism, the commodity cycle, and innovation.
· Enforcement as a monopoly of state agencies
Furthermore, there are many indexes that show the West leading in civilisational values. Even allowing for the issue of begging the question, in that the West sets these standards, few people or states will object to their aspirational status. It is worth noting that New Zealand is a consistently good performer in many of these standards. They include blasphemy laws, Christian persecution, competitiveness, corruption, credit rating, democracy, instability, digital evolution, economic freedom, economy, FGM, fragile state, freedom, GDP per capita, gender gap, Gini coefficient, girl’s opportunities, giving, global hunger, good country, human development, human rights, hunger, innovation, Islamicity, journalism’s dangers, life expectancy, literacy, migrant acceptance, moral freedom, Nobel prizes, passport acceptance, peace, peoples under threat, police corruption, press freedom, prosperity, quality of living, religious freedom, road fatalities, slavery, social unrest, terrorism, travel competitiveness, UN development, universities, well-being, and women’s progress. Happiness is the one index that does not correlate with any obvious culture or polity, other than negatively with being at war, for which Muslim states in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) are the worst offenders.
This advanced state of civilisation in the West is under threat of cultural entropy and loss of identity that is not occurring in other parts of the world. The focus elsewhere – Russia, African states, the Arab world and the Middle and Far East is to maintain and reinforce their cultures. But for the West it is to dilute it. The apparent lack of awareness and concern for consequence of this process clearly worries many, hence the rise of populism. That someone like Tarrant feels compelled to defend it with violence is a sad indictment of the effects of cultural Marxism.
2. Failure of European Fertility
Western states’ substitution of religious compensation with its welfare provisions has improved confidence in the future, the ability to plan with a measure of certainty, trust in fellow nationals, and the high level of security and safety needed in which to raise children. However, women’s choices and rewards have increased hugely, diminishing their natural and traditional role of child bearing and raising. The effect of this is greatest on the more intelligent, creative, and able of the countries’ women who have fewer children, often none at all, and there is wide concern about future generations. While the necessity for large families to provide for future security has diminished, it has not for the state, which needs continuous population growth to ensure support for the increasing numbers of those reliant on welfare, particularly the elderly. Interventionist pro-natalist policies by governments have not been particularly successful, and the religious impetus is the more powerful.
Tarrant’s view is that Western nations should encourage native population growth to avoid change of cultural character. The policy of Western nations is that of hetero-cultural immigration and active support of multi-culturalism. This will lead to permanent change in national nature, but only for Western nations since no others have adopted this policy.
3. Immigration and the replacement of Europeans by non-European immigrants.
Europe’s history of immigration since the second world war (ignoring internal resettlement) began with subjects of former colonies given rights of entry for work purposes, sometimes with citizenship. Strong objections ensued, with Enoch Powell’s 1968 ‘rivers of blood’ speech encapsulating the conservative mood under a Left-wing government of the time.
New Zealand’s immigration policy of preference for European nationals and those of compatible cultures changed under the Labour government of 1987 to one favouring skills. This reflected changes in many other Western countries and brought with it an uneven mix of languages and cultures which provoked fierce debate. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_New_Zealand] Moral reframing of immigration policy led firstly to bi-culturalism, then multi-culturalism and now diversity as virtues of our culture. This was reinforced by positive concepts of political correctness and cultural safety. This process was unsuccessful at encouraging support for the policy, so had to be reinforced by negative epithets such as racism, white supremacism, xenophobia and ‘Islamophobia’. This resulted in increased alienation, particularly of those who have paid the price of job insecurity, low wages, unachievable home ownership, and reduced social support.
The word ‘replacement’ has gained undue polemical currency through the politically neutral French novelist Renaud Camus’ The Great Replacement. His concern was the loss of French culture and civilisation to Islamic influence, which combines points made in the sections above, as well as in the reference made to Islamo-Leftism. This fear is factually rooted in history; Islam’s supersessionism and supremacism displaces the history and culture of states it conquers and can be seen across the states of the Middle East and North Africa. Afghanistan’s ancient Hindu and Buddhist legacy is all but eliminated; Assyrians, Zoroastrians and Copts are minorities in their own countries and overwhelmed by Muslims. The fear is also rooted in the knowledge of Islam’s scriptural doctrines. Hasan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, sums up the Islamic goal: “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.” The misappropriation of ‘replacement’ by Right-wing and white supremacy extremists have turned it into an unfounded anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, yet the basics outlined by Camus are veridical.
For people with conservative values, living as they see it in the best of all possible worlds, the threat of alien cultures eroding the values and virtues of Western civilisation is very real indeed. The populist reaction throughout the West is proof of this and even Left-wing parties are belatedly modifying the more extreme aspects of their immigration policy.
4. The high visibility of Muslims, above average birth-rate and high rates of immigration into non-Muslim nations.
It is difficult enough to acquire a dispassionate understanding of the Islamic world-view in New Zealand. Grasping the deeper concept of the Islamic Weltanschauung is next to impossible for those in the secular West since we have no basis for comparison. The depth of Muslims’ religiosity, adherence to rules, and dress and behaviour codes can only be compared with the likes of the West Coast Christian community of Gloriavale, with the principle difference, mutatis mutandis, that Muslims form part of the national and global community and do not isolate themselves in the same manner.
Muslims’ insistence of following religious rules sets them apart from the majority in the host nation. This produces religious intrusion into education; employer provisions; civic authorities in respect of burial plots and swimming pools; commercial sponsorship; changes to airport security; gender-separated seating; halal-compliant food in public places; freedom of opinion and speech, the necessity for cultural sensitivity around Muslims; marital issues including forced and child marriage, polygyny and violence; costs associated with Muslims’ high rates of imprisonment; and radicalisation, security and counter-terrorism issues. There are also costly cultural considerations highly correlated with Islam such as cousin marriages leading to genetic defects, honour killings, and female genital mutilation. There are innumerable minor social costs associated with Muslims in Western society which will, perforce, require the host society to change to prevent an aggressive reaction. I have copious evidence of these changes.
It is of great importance in understanding Islam that none of the compromises Muslims enforce on the host society apply to any other religion, with the minor exception of Sikhs who do not expect the host society to change, simply to accept males’ cultural appearance.
For New Zealand, there is significant pressure on the government to increase refugee immigration favouring Muslims from organisations such as Migrant and Refugee Rights Campaign, Refugee Council of New Zealand, Aotearoa Resettled Community Coalition, and World Vision. There are non-Muslim organisations which actively promote Muslim culture and values, such as the Auckland Interfaith Council, and the Global Schools Partnership Project. Many non-Muslim organisations in a position to influence government policy have or have had Muslim representation on their boards or committees, such as the African Communities Forum, Canterbury Refugee Centre, Human Rights Lawyers Association Aotearoa, Auckland Police Department, Immigration New Zealand, Manawatu Multicultural Council, Office of Ethnic Communities, Shama – Hamilton Ethnic Women's Centre Trust, and parliament itself.
5. Islamic Conquest
The key to understanding Islam’s goal for global conquest is that it is an overarching hegemony, a form of soft power with no law superior to Allah’s. It is a product of the Islamic doctrine of supersessionism, in that it is a prophetic religion of which Muhammad is the last and final prophet, superseding those of Christianity and Judaism. In this respect it is essentialist, that everything that the religion and its adherents require was laid down by Muhammad in the seventh century.
Bringing the entire world into submission to the will of Allah is axiomatic for Muslims. “The social order of Islam is universal, enveloping the whole of mankind without exception. By virtue of being human, of being born, every person is an actual member of the social order, or a potential member whose recruitment is the duty of all other members.” [al Faruqi, Ismail Raji - Al Tawhid, p105] With 1,400 years of experience, Islam’s ability to enforce its religion on non-Muslim countries exceeds all other ideologies. It has three main processes, proselytising, migration and violence. They are mandated by its scriptures which are the words of Allah thus cannot be debated, and are incumbent on every Muslim.
Proselytising (dawah)
“Call unto the way of thy Lord with wisdom and fair exhortation, and reason with them in the better way. Lo! thy Lord is Best Aware of him who strayeth from His way, and He is Best Aware of those who go aright.” Koran 16:125.
The oil shocks of the 1970s provided Middle East states with massive increases in revenues. For Saudi Arabia in particular it permitted active governmental support for the construction of mosques in the West, gifting converts’ visits to Mecca for the obligatory pilgrimage, and for imams to spread their particular brand of conservative Islam.
Dawah includes the doctrine of dissembling, by which Muslims are expected to deceive infidels in order to advance the goal of Islam. These include such terms as taqiyya (dissembling), tawriya (double-entendre allowing creative lying to Muslims and non-Muslims), muruna and taysir (dispensation from the obligations of sharia in order to present an accommodating persona); talbis (concealment of one being a perfected servant of God in order to appear ordinary); and kitman and hifz-al sirr (secrecy). This is a highly successful approach for Western conquest and many Muslims give an impression of moderation and assimilation, which may or may not be true. It is notable that no other religion of significance advocates deception or has a vocabulary for it. (Those of the Bahai faith in Iran may have needed a denial of faith in order to survive in an Islamic environment.)
Islamic dawah in the West is heavily dependent on the academic world for its dissemination. Universities have been rather easily manipulated on two fronts. On the one hand universities in Europe and the United States gain lavish support from Gulf states in setting up various schools, and it has an influx of Muslim academics presenting a conservative religious perspective. This is causing concern in part because of the appalling standard of Gulf states’ civil rights, in part because of their extremely conservative religious views, and in part because their generosity creates dependency and inhibits any criticism or objective analysis of Islam. On the other hand, there is the influence of the extreme Left. Jonathan Haidt makes the point that in the Humanities departments of United States universities, the ratio of liberals to conservatives overwhelmingly favours the former
. He writes, “An academic field that leans left (or right) can still function, as long as ideological claims or politically motivated research is sure to be challenged. But when a field goes from leaning left to being entirely on the left, the normal safeguards of peer review and institutionalized disconfirmation break down. Research on politically controversial topics becomes unreliable because politically favoured conclusions receive less-than-normal scrutiny while politically incorrect findings must scale mountains of motivated and hostile reasoning from reviewers and editors.”
It will also affect funding of research that fails to meet ideologically-based criteria. [
https://heterodoxacademy.org/new-study-finds-conservative-social-psychologists/]
This has resulted in the
creation of an Islamic imaginary that bears resemblance to neither its scriptural heritage nor to its praxis in Islamic countries. This results in ignorance of Islam’s doctrines and their effects, despite the evidence, and in turn influences graduates who move into media, governance, and opinion-forming positions that have a disproportionate effect on the nation’s world view of Islam.
Migration (hijrah)
“And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many [alternative] locations and abundance. And whoever leaves his home as an emigrant to Allah and His Messenger and then death overtakes him – his reward has already become incumbent upon Allah. And Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful.” Koran 4:100.
The increase of migration to the West began in an era before Islamic resurgence and for such immigrants, religion was a personal matter. Changing policy in the West allowed many more immigrants, and this in turn created an expectation that migrating to the West was a personal right. Arab experience in the slave trade resurfaced as another industry of exploitation, exporting massive numbers of people north, only some of whom actually needed asylum and most could find it more legitimately in nearby countries. The consequences of the assumption of this right are now global, and a direct cause of disaffection that Tarrant expressed.
Violence (jihad)
The use of violence is indisputably an essential part of Islam’s DNA. The change of behaviour following Muhammad’s expulsion from Mecca is best described by the scholar Mark Durie [https://interfaceinstitute.org/2019/06/08/the-qurans-turn-to-violence/] as an eschatological crisis, resolved in the form of violence: ‘fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands’ (Koran 8:17). In contrast to the West’s power consisting of a monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force (Max Weber), Islam employs a policy of retributive subsidiarity, where it is the responsibility of each and every Muslim to defend the faith, with violence if felt necessary. Evidence for Islam’s extraordinary level of violence can be seen in the global statistics kept by The Religion of Peace website (thereligionofpeace.com). Since 9/11 there have been in excess of 35,480 attacks in the name of Islam. This averages out at 5.4 attacks every day, year in, year out. Hundreds of thousands of deaths, uncountable injuries and misery.
Islam does not need to apply violence; it needs to demonstrate that it is capable of it, it has the will to do so, and it is morally justified in its execution. This provides several advantages in terms of conquest.
· It is economical. Make one major hit on icons of American policy and business, and no other such demonstration is required.
· It effectively employs the fallacy of argumentum ad baculum, (arguing with the cudgel), with the mere threat of violence being enough to encourage compliant behaviour, particularly for ‘dhimmis’, that is, Christians and Jews forced into subjugation under Islamic rule.
· The threat is used to obtain concessions from both the West and from Islamic or Muslim majority states’ governments.
· It forms part of the doctrine of ‘terror and lure’ (tarhib wal targhib) used widely in Islamic schools (madrassas) as well as more generally.
· By successfully but deceptively separating violence out from Islam’s ideology, it makes moderate Islam or Islamic states appear as examples of ‘peaceful’ Islam.
· It serves to disconcert and destabilise a populace, with the offer of the sanctuary of Islam by conversion, since Muslims are not permitted to kill other Muslims. Not that that works particularly well in the Islamic world, since ‘takfirism’, the ostracism of the insufficiently pure, renders them subject to death. Much violence in MENA states derives from this concept.
In a certain sense violence can be regarded as a good in itself. The practice of violence made one more serious and dedicated, more disciplined, more united, more given to self-sacrifice, and less egocentric, therefore lifting one to a higher kind of moral level. [Historian Stanley Payne, ABC Rear Vision, 4/3/2017.]
What is obscured in the criticism of Tarrant’s actions is that, while for the West it was morally abhorrent, for Muslims acting in precisely the same manner it is morally acceptable and a way to achieve instant access to paradise through martyrdom. That the West does not seem to understand this is reprehensible. In the clash of civilisations, Tarrant fired an early shot in a civil war that the extreme Left has created in order to achieve “the overthrow of all existing social conditions.” [Marx, Karl - The Communist Manifesto.]
6. Globalism
For the major ideologies active in the West, globalism is a common feature. Islam has been covered above; for neo-liberalism it is essential for the free movement of goods, services, people and capital, and it is axiomatic for environmentalism given its concern with climate change and the state of the oceans. For Marxism, “National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto. The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster.” [Marx, ibid. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm] This appears still to be paramount in the thinking of the extreme Left, even as events give the lie to it. Scotland, Catalonia, Flanders, Rakhine State, Aceh, Mindanao, southern Thailand, Veneto and Xinjiang are possessed with ideas of independence. Antagonism between different racial group is increasingly rife in almost every nation in the world. Only in the West, with its lower rates of violence and prejudice, is this blamed solely on Caucasians, perhaps because they are perceived as more compliant and susceptible to ideological blandishments.
Tarrant’s concern seems to be with the self-vindictive Western Weltanschauung as promulgated through media and academia, and he blames democracy, capitalism, Marxism, NGOs, Western culture and much more in a long list to shore up his feelings of victimhood. His solutions are violence, isolationism and Caucasian childbirth.
Conclusion
Tarrant’s cohort is growing not because of some ex nihilo ideology or resurgent Nazism, but because the extreme Left is marginalising, isolating and ridiculing them. This is in line with political activist Saul Alinsky’s thirteenth rule of his Rules for Radicals, “Pick the target, freeze it, personalise it, and polarize it” and his fifth rule, “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” Anything but engage with them on the level of ideas.
The extreme Right have neither a coherent ideology nor a means of disseminating it effectively. This is because it requires the cultural hegemony that Islam, cultural Marxism and neo-liberalism have mastered through the institutions.
For those who are aware of Islam’s scriptures, doctrines, policies, dogma, goal, history, world-view, narrative, rhetoric, organisations and actions, also its terrible record of governance, violence and restrictions, the concerns about its spread in the West are fully justified. Given that Islamic morality and consideration of the after-life puts a lower value on human life, the worst aspect of Tarrant’s action is not so much the terrible loss of life he incurred, but the extraordinary fillip it gave to Islam in New Zealand. The tragedy for New Zealand’s future is how few people understand Islam.
I consider it imperative that the members of state sector agencies involved in monitoring extremism understand Islam for what the evidence shows it to be, the most divisive polity ever. It divides the world into those who submit, Muslims, and those who do not, with whom Muslims are eternally at war.
