Christchurch and the Weight of Responsibility

[Stavros]

In the immediate aftermath of the savage killings in Christchurch, much has been made of the fact that the kiler live-streamed the event, and that it was still available online on 'mainstream' platforms such as YouTube some time after the incident, and is probably going to be available on obscure websites on the dark web if not also 'above ground' on sites nobody has heard of.

But it is not just social media that has come under scrutiny, as the two factors I think worth thinking about are the concept of the 'lone wolf' or 'lone actor', and 'nudge' theory. If the two are related, it is in finding a connection between public statements, in particular by politicians that do not encourage violence but which, by relativising such acts, for the 'lone actor' can be used as a moral justification in addition to whatever the grievance is that causes the violence, the connecting argument being that an isolated or relatively isolated person simmering with hatred, must move 'beyond the bedroom' and into the street to put into practice what they have been developing over time: a need to kill. Did somethng or someone nudge them to do it?

Nudge theory has emerged form psychology and is not used here clinically as I have no clinical expertise, but take from Wikipedia=
A nudge makes it more likely that an individual will make a particular choice, or behave in a particular way, by altering the environment so that automatic cognitive processes are triggered to favour the desired outcome
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory

The reason I depart from the use of nudge theory in commerce (where supermarkets put their fruit rather than junk food) is that a 'lone actor' may be considering an act of violence, may even have acquired weapons, staked out locations, and written a-usually a long and turgid screed- justfifying and explaining the act, but must at some point be triggered into actualising what might have in fact have been a fantasy.

If one adds into this the claim by Paul Gill and others that in reality the 'lone actor' is not in fact alone, that there may be relatives or friends who are aware of their 'obsession', that the 'lone actor' often has an online presence and either visits without comment or participates in online forums, the 'permmissive environment' in which their actions become legitimate expands beyond their bedroom and becomes an acceptable course of political action with devastating consequences for the targeted group. If the President of the US says of the people involved in the Charlotteville marches, riots and murder that 'there were good people on both sides', the two words, 'good people' like cement can bring disparate threads together and offer a moral justification on personal terms: 'I am going to kill those people, but I am a good person'. To which they might add, 'I have to do this'.

If in addition to prominent individuals expanding the permissive environment in which language is weaponized, much as the President of the US regularly, indeed on a daily basis uses the language of humiliation, insult and abuse levelled at Americans (another attack today on the late Senator McCain, proving the President is obsessed with people who have beaten him and cannot accept it) - this reinforces the belief that the 'top man' is 'on my side', that he 'understand my anger and my pain' so that if the result is mass murder, 'he will understand' even if he doesn't excuse.

But, as it is causing more anxiety, legislators are wondering if social media can be controlled or regulated in some way, a) to limit if not ban content such as videos of atrocities, and b) target 'hate speech' without compromising free speech.

For as appears to be the case, online 'chat' could trigger, over time, a 'lone actor' determined to take direct action for a political end, however obscure or absurd the end might be, however bogus the theory (replacement theory, for example) or theories behind it.

Christchurch was not the first, sadly it will not be the last -can any practical measures be taken to prevent such acts, or limit them? Or are we condemend to catching up after the event to explain it?

And, is there not a great weight of responsbility on politicians at a senior level to choose their words, to limit, rather than to expand the permissive environment in which it becomes legitimate to refer to named individuals as 'liars' and 'traitors', in which entire nations are derided as 'rapists' 'drug dealers' or 'shitholes'? I fear we are living through an era when decency and respect are regarded as a weakness, but where power re-defined as brute force, or ridicule and humiliation has the opposite effect that is indended. And because it undermines democratic debate, replacing rational discussion with shouting matches without winners, but many losers.

Interesting examination of the 'lone actor' here-
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...X.2017.1419554

[filghy2]

One thing that needs to change is that security agencies need to treat right-wing extremism as being as much of a threat as Islamic extremism. It looks like the NZ authorities were focused mainly on the latter and the Christchurch shooter wasn't even on any watch list. There seems to have been a tendency to assume that people ranting about Muslims are just letting off steam, yet I'm sure the authorities are watching anyone ranting about jihad.

I have no doubt that the shift in the political discourse into areas that were previously considered unacceptable is helping to trigger these people. But that won't change as long as some people think that they can make political capital out of stirring up concerns about 'the other'. They can always hide behind claims that they are just raising issues of public concern and they can't be held responsible for the actions of disturbed individuals (even though they never hesitate to link any violent act by a Muslim to Islamic extremism).

[Stavros]

I agree with your points, filghy2, and think also that there are practical measures that can be taken, the most obvious being gun control. I don't doubt determined people will find a way to obtain firearms, but it can be made as hard as possible through legitimate outlets.

The concern must be that in dealing with 'far right' or 'alt-right' hate speech online, governments will use the opportunnity to exert the control or regulation of the internet that they have wanted to do for some time, the imposition of age id verification on porn sites in the UK is one example of this. The problem is that it has always been the case that an open democracy offers free speech to those who wish to replace it with something else. Hitler, we are reminded, was elected, and was the legitimate Chancellor when appointed in 1933 because Germany had run out of alternatives. But, at various times before that Hitler could have had his career at least delayed, if not stopped, but found himself in a political environment where the judicial system preferred his kind of politics to the Communist alternative -Hitler was not a German citizen at the time of the Munich Putsch and could have been expelled from the country, but received a lenient prison sentence instead. It is in such environments that what at other times would be unacceptable becomes acceptable.

If the President of the USA bears some responsibility for Christchurch, it is in the sense that he does not, has not made a clear distinction between those who respect and are committed to democracy, and those who hold it up to ridicule, not least because that is his own position. How is it possible, one wonders, that the President of the USA when a candidate said in explicit language he might not accept the outcome of the Election, but was not disowned by his party? If Barack Obama had said that, the sound of protest would have been deafening.

But the 'issues of public concern' can be manipulated and have been, most notably by Rupert Murdoch, who for several decades has campaigned against government and through his newspapers and tv channels has done all he can to undermine the public's faith in politics, and polticians in particular -if he has lauded and promoted his friend from New York it is because the President of the USA has even before he entered politics, and certainly since, humiliated, insulted and abused politicians, and anyone else who doesn't agree with him or worse, criticizes him. Taken further on a website like Breitbart is the expansion of the criticism of issue such as race, immigration and multi-culturalism into global threats manipulated, even managed by the Jews, Muslims and Communists who at times appear to be part of a co-ordinated conspiracy to rob white people of everything they have worked for, and value.

It only takes one nutcase seething with rage to 'do something about it' to produce the bleak outcomes we have seen in Oklahma City, Pittsbugh, Norway and New Zealand. I suspect the genii is out of the bottle, that we have to live with the garbage associated with Murdoch and Mitchell McConnell, with Breitbart and UKIP, with the disgrace to humanity that is the so-called 'President of the USA' challenging them at all times, defeating them when possible.

Problem is that the one spirit that was left behind when Pandora's Box was opened, was hope.

[filghy2]

I agree with your points, filghy2, and think also that there are practical measures that can be taken, the most obvious being gun control. I don't doubt determined people will find a way to obtain firearms, but it can be made as hard as possible through legitimate outlets.

I'm amazed that New Zealand's gun laws allowed anyone with a licence to own military-style semi-automatic weapons, more than 20 years after they were banned in Australia. Surely it was foreseeable that something like this would happen eventually. Unfortunately it took a massacre to change the laws in both countries, but at least they were tightened.

[broncofan]

One thing that needs to change is that security agencies need to treat right-wing extremism as being as much of a threat as Islamic extremism. It looks like the NZ authorities were focused mainly on the latter and the Christchurch shooter wasn't even on any watch list. There seems to have been a tendency to assume that people ranting about Muslims are just letting off steam, yet I'm sure the authorities are watching anyone ranting about jihad.

There is also the issue that those affiliated with Isis or Al Qaeda or a similar group are subject to both domestic and international surveillance. Are governments coordinating to monitor the craziness that forms the worldview of white nationalism? It is a worldview that is built on paranoia and the idea of being replaced by those with darker skin, and almost always includes aspirations of violence. Those who subscribe to it are inspired by one another and in communication.

I don't know about whether New Zealand's law enforcement is monitoring violent white supremacists, but given the amount of coordination between individuals, encouragement of one another, and cross-referencing of each other's deeds and words, it deserves much more attention and monitoring.

[filghy2]

I don't know about whether New Zealand's law enforcement is monitoring violent white supremacists, but given the amount of coordination between individuals, encouragement of one another, and cross-referencing of each other's deeds and words, it deserves much more attention and monitoring.

They are having a Royal Commission that will look into these issues. As the killer was Australian and the Australian authorities also missed him it will hopefully prompt some rethinking here as well.

Unfortunately the biggest barrier to a greater international focus on this will be your President, who wants to deny that his most enthusiastic supporters are a problem.

[broncofan]

Unfortunately the biggest barrier to a greater international focus on this will be your President, who wants to deny that his most enthusiastic supporters are a problem.

I assume that's true. He can barely bring himself to mention it as an issue. An international focus is probably good for more than just the obvious reasons. The obvious reasons are: information sharing, learning from each other how to identify when a threat is imminent, and when to pursue a lead, including with sting operations.

Another reason is that it combats a tendency towards nativism, which along with Islamophobia explains the reluctance to treat it as a serious problem. Imagine people trying to split hairs and claim that the white supremacists don't have a coherent political ideology built on the idea of violence against civilians. In fact, there's almost no version of their beliefs that isn't built on the idea of sub-national violence, except that they'd like to be more entrenched and once saw Trump as their champion.

Another thought is that I wonder to what extent social stigma can play a role. Someone who is committed to become a murderer is not going to be shamed out of it. But what of the people who are apparently not committing a crime but cheering on someone who did or ho is openly espousing this ideology?

As you indicated in your first post there are hard-core proponents of these views and also those whose political positions are underpinned by the same priorities and who deny responsibility. Some claim it dilutes the phrase white supremacist to look at it as a continuum. My response is that there are certain views being espoused by the right that are entirely fictitious, and serve no other purpose but to feed this disease. Again, you can't shame the shameless, but the more we know about this ideology and treat it as a problem, the more those on the right peddling versions of it can be called out. Unfortunately, we have a far right extremist in this country at the helm, but it sounds like both Australia and New Zealand are taking a more responsible approach.

[Stavros]

There is also the issue that those affiliated with Isis or Al Qaeda or a similar group are subject to both domestic and international surveillance. Are governments coordinating to monitor the craziness that forms the worldview of white nationalism? It is a worldview that is built on paranoia and the idea of being replaced by those with darker skin, and almost always includes aspirations of violence. Those who subscribe to it are inspired by one another and in communication.

This is an important view that ends with the question: suppose goverments are aware of the problem but do nothing about it?
Tv in the UK is currently broadcasting the dramatization of The Looming Tower, the study by Lawrence Wright that like Ghost Wars by Steve Coll tried to 'join the missing dots' in the FBI and CIA surveillance of the terrorist network that created the atricities in East Africa and on 9/11. The nature of the problem then and now was staring them in the face: Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

There is a difference between the 'lone wolf' -if they really are 'lone'- and those groups based in the UK, Belgium, the Middle East or in Asia: quite often the groups are monitored, sometimes even infiltrated, as happened with the IRA during the Troubles, and as happened with the KKK in the US. Here is the problem: not only has the west known for decades that Saudi Arabia has been the headquaters of international terrorism, the west has been able to identify its principal modus operandi: education and financial support. In addition, the UK government has sat on a report that documents the role played by Saudi Arabia in the promotion of violent Wahabi ideas and their perversion of 'Jihad', thus the report (which aso implicates Iran) -

... alleges individuals and foundations have been heavily involved in exporting what it calls "an illiberal, bigoted Wahhabi ideology", quoting a number of examples.

In a minority of cases, the report alleges institutions in the UK that receive Saudi funding are run directly from Saudi Arabia, although in most instances the money appears to "simply buy foreign donors' influence".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40496778

In fact it goes beyond anything in the report. Most of us now know how the alliance between the US and Saudi Arabia funded and aided the Mujahideen and a cohort of grisly 'warlords' in Afghanistan in the 1980s to fight a proxy war with the USSR that is credited with so damaging the economy that by the end of the decade the USSR was on the point of collapse. And that out of that military experience al-Qaeda was born with all that implies on the road to 9/11.

Now look at the root of the catastrophe in Sri Lanka a week ago, because its root lies not in Sri Lanka, but Saudi Arabia. The 7% of the Sri Lankan population who are Muslim were, up until the 1970s, mostly Sufi, probably the most pacifist and spiritual of Muslims, yet by the 1980s this community was being torn apart by that easily identifiable curse: Wahabi ideology. Sri Lankan Muslims who went to work in Saudi Arabia when the economy went into overdrive on oil wealth, brought back to Sri Lanka an Islam many locals revolted against, but which also brought with them the funding of Mosques, Madrasas and businesses that the Saudis have always used as inducements to recruit support. The analysis in this link explains not just the root, but the tragic impact that Wahabi ideology had, and continues to have on Sri Lanka generally, and on its Muslims in particular-
https://www.colombotelegraph.com/ind...-of-sri-lanka/

But here is the key quote:
According to the Sri Lanka newspaper The Sunday Times of August 16, 2009, Muslim Home Guards recruited by the Sri Lankan government to fight the Tamil rebels had deserted with their weapons and joined Thawheed to fulfill its demand for “Jihad” against traditional Muslims. The newspaper described a significant influx of Wahhabi preachers and activists from south India and Saudi Arabia. Riyad S. Al-Khenene, counsellor of the Royal Saudi Embassy in Sri Lanka, denied that official Saudi support was granted to the Wahhabi interlopers, while admitting that “certain wealthy persons… are helping various religious groups in Sri Lanka to put up mosques. But this has nothing to do with the Government of Saudi Arabia,”.

Are we really expected to believe that the government of Saudi Arabia has no idea, and no means of knowing who those 'wealthy persons' are who have been sending money to places like Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Afghanistan, let alone London, Paris, Jakarta or the Philippines? And while it is true that bin Laden began in the Muslim Brotherhood (which al-Sisi wants the US to ban as a 'terrorist' organization), he rejected the 'Parliamentarianism' of the Brotherhood for the more violent Wahabi screeds of Qutb which, like the ideology of al-Baghdadi and Daesh are never more than a sword blade away from the official creed of Saudi Arabia, which in this last week, as hundreds were blown apart in Sri Lanka, beheaded 37 mostly Shi'a Muslims in the Kingdom of 9/11.

The UK's relationship with Saudi Arabia has been described as a 'national disgrace', the US President has in effect shrugged his shoulders when presented with the facts as known of Jamal Khashoggi's gruesome murder because we know he is locked into a supply of 'lovely dollars' just as his son-in-law has been 'purchased' by Wahabi allies in the UAE.

Right wing/fascist terror is a fact of life, whether it is found in 'lone wolves' or the perverts of Britain First, but surveillance and intelligence knows much more than we do, and I would not be surprised if someone somewhere in the FBI and the CIA has the documentary proof of Saudi Arabian links to the terrorists in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and parts of Africa and Asia -the crucial point is that as long as the official government position is denial, and as long as Saudi Arabia and the UAE have the money to spend in terms of billions of $$ on arms and the man, the US and the UK -to take two examples- will bend their knees to these men, and do their will. It is as if they are terrified of the consequences, even as they make public statements deploring the violence inflicted by their allies on innocent people.

What in the end, is innocence in a world saturated in blood and guilt?

Uk and Saudi Arabia
https://www.theguardian.com/global-d...d-saudi-arabia

First of three articles by the late Izeth Hussain -staunch opponent of Wahabi-ism in Sri Lanka-
https://www.colombotelegraph.com/ind...liberal-islam/

[filghy2]

Unfortunately, we have a far right extremist in this country at the helm, but it sounds like both Australia and New Zealand are taking a more responsible approach.

Fortunately, the mainstream conservative party here (actually called the Liberal Party) has not so far been too much infected by white nationalist ideas. Some elements of the party are sympathetic, but there is still a stigma attached to expressing it overtly. The Liberals recently dumped a candidate in the current election for making Islamophobic posts in the past. They do have a history of fear-mongering about asylum-seekers (who are mostly Muslim), but it seems the reaction to the Christchurch massacre has forced them to tone it down. Overt nativism is largely restricted to the fringe parties like One Nation who usually get only a few per cent of the votes, though they can still gain influence by winning seats in the Senate where the governing party rarely has a majority.