Haven't read the whole manifesto, so these are only some initial impressions. The premises he starts with aren't wrong. Western countries are being invaded by a historical enemy. Politicians seem to be glad to replace us (though I wonder if low birthrates isn't just an excuse; since politicians are very rarely concerned with the longterm well-being of their country over short-term outcomes and pandering to their constituencies). He must have been somebody with very little to lose. Because I'm sure there's other people out there who feel a similar revulsion to what's happening but don't do anything because they have family and loved ones to live for. He made a sacrifice most of us wouldn't. He committed an act of instrumental violence. Targeting people who had nothing to do with the terror attacks that inspired him. He tried to connect them through guilt by association with some facebook video post, but that doesn't mean shit. The problem with instrumental violence, people say, is you wouldn't want someone to kill you over something someone in your "group" did that you wouldn't even support. But this is already what's occuring in the case of muslim terror attacks against westerners, and he's banking on the escalation and encouraging that through his attack. Other shooters have believed their attacks would move the world toward a race war. Who knows. They've at least encouraged future attacks. Why wouldn't he target pro-immigration politicians instead of muslims? Maybe he'd be more likely to get taken out by a politicians' security personnel, whereas muslims in a mosque are undefended. Maybe also the ability to rack up a higher death count, and therefore incur more infamy and universal condemnation. I remember chatting pretty casually about Nasim Aghdam and the Killdozer guy on Mumble as unlikely folk heroes and why that was. This seems to be significantly harder to talk about. Why is that? Open to being corrected if I'm wrong about anything above. What are some of the things you don't like about him?