[istorical]

I saw the manifesto on Scribd and the video on some alt streaming site both within a couple hours of the attacks.

Didn't watch the video past the first 10 seconds which just showed a first-person-view view of a guy with a gun walking down a sidewalk, but the manifesto I skimmed maybe 5-10 pages and it was basically just a series of little essays / blogposts kind of deals about different topics (in the sense that he'd just use a new giant heading and switch topics after a page or two randomly), but they pretty much all were just standard copy-paste level arguments about how the white race is at risk of extinction due to birth rates and immigration, basically just different little pieces about standard white supremacist stuff, not particularly original.

He wrote about his personal experiences in France, seeing how many immigrants are there and how it shocked him, and he wrote about how he was motivated by seeing some white girl killed by a Muslim attacker on the news, and how he decided to take action personally.

Nothing particular new or interesting. And it's hard to understand how his reaction to things that troubled him was to just double down on violence. He was clearly bothered by certain acts of terrorism in the past, but somehow he justified his own.

Personally I understand why the video and manifesto are censored. I am very free speech but in this case I think we've seen enough studies about copycat terrorism and copycat suicide and copycat mass shootings to know that it's harmful to propagate a murderer's identity and message.