Shooting of the Week

[Steve James]

I think I understand that you think that "white nationalism" was the cause of the shooter's actions and that it should be condemned. I think I did in the cases of the Charleston church and the Philadelphia synagogue. I do think the language is slippery because, as usual, there is a consistent denial that it is a problem at all. For ex.,

After a gunman inspired by the white nationalist ideas that fuel violence and attempted violence in the United States and elsewhere allegedly killed 49 people at mosques in New Zealand Friday, Donald Trump was asked whether he thought white nationalism is a global rising threat.

The United States president responded: “I don’t really.”

Steve Bannon is a white nationalist. Tucker Carlson is a white nationalist. When people condemn their rhetoric, the inevitable reply is that it is "the left." That is what I don't want to do. They all say that they'd never do such a thing, and then ... the left wants to take our guns, the left wants immigrants (from non-white countries) to inundate the country, etc. I.e., "see who the real victims are."

When the Congress made a resolution against all hate speech, some suggested that it should only refer to hate-speech against Jews. The president called the decision "disgraceful."

Anyway, I am sure we do not disagree.

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

I think that far right White Nationalist ideology is a major underlying element in these attacks. I really don't care if Trump says "I don't think so." I don't belive him, or perhaps he wasn't even trying to pay attention. I think he uses dog whistles and knows it often enough for it to be shameful. I know that he incites violence. I don't think he is Alt-Right, though. Just a racist prick who will pander to the basest of bases. I can separate Trump from these attacks, even if I think there is some connection. That's my beef with refusing to call these attacks right wing.

I absolutely think that people like Bannon and Tucker bring out the worst in people and, like Trump, can embolden people to commit heinous acts.

As for their claims: they are exaggerated, but not completely off base in terms of the left. Of course, only some of the left. By "take their guns" they mean sensible background checks, and by "inundate the country" people really want to share opportunities with the less fortunate and perhaps payback indigenous peoples for the things we stole/did to them. So, again, I don't really care what they say about that stuff, because they are full of shit.

I'm rather suspicious of the attacks on Ilhan Omar. We celebrate Hannuka and Christmas in our house, but I still found the backlash to be disingenuous and I thought the entire resolution was tainted and done in bad faith.

[Michael]

Tucker Carlson is a white nationalist.

My understanding of white nationalist is someone who wants an ethno state with an explicit and invariable super-majority for whites, or even a 99-100% white nation. I'm not interested in defending Tucker Carlson, but I want to know your and Ian's viewpoints, so Tucker's case is a good example. I watch him regularly and I don't think he's a white nationalist, except perhaps in the sense of maintaining status quo demographics. If that's how you define WN, then maybe he qualifies. Anyway, what's your definition and why do you think Tucker is one?

I'm rather suspicious of the attacks on Ilhan Omar. We celebrate Hannuka and Christmas in our house, but I still found the backlash to be disingenuous and I thought the entire resolution was tainted and done in bad faith.

The attacks on Omar for her comments were excessive, as were the repercussions for Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney of Georgia when she refused to sign a pledge of allegiance to AIPAC about 15 years ago. She stated then that her allegiance was to her constituency and the US Constitution. She was primary'd.

H.Res.183 - Condemning anti-Semitism as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values and aspirations that define the people of the United States and condemning anti-Muslim discrimination and bigotry against minorities as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contrary to the values and aspirations of the United States.

[grzegorz]

There are reports that this man dodged bullets and chased away the shooter. If so he's a bad ass!

[Steve James]

Trump describes himself as a nationalist, so does Carlson. When they say that, they mean white nationalism. They don't mean diverse nationalism. They consider the US an ethno state, and they are trying to keep it that way by limiting "demographic" changes. When Trump spoke about encouraging immigration from Norway, we know what he meant.

No matter. It's way older than you or I, whatever you call it. It has led to the same sort of mass murders throughout US history. I was trying to explain to Ian that the views are common. I only worry about what a person is willing to do based on his views. I feel it safe to assume that what a "nationalist" will do to someone else, he will surely do to me.

[Trick]

could this shooting be more out of islamophobia than racism in the form of white supremacy ?. as i understand there have been a presence of east asians in NZ for quite some time, and of course the maori.

[grzegorz]

From what I hear he was targeting immigrants but I also hear that he references the Europeans fighting back the Turks. His goal was clearly "propaganda by the deed" but I don't think Muslims were his target being that he also praises the American who shot African Americans in a church.

Clearly these types are inspiring each other to violence.

One positive thing I see coming from this is that NZ isn't turning the shooter into a celebrity. The NZers are not posting photos of the shooter, mentioning his name, showing his trial etc... If this happened here he would be a celebrity by now like the younger Boston bomber appearing on Rolling Stone magazine.

I hope others follow this example. I understand the need to what to know more but I don't need to see these killers glamorized.

[grzegorz]

According to this the shooter clearly makes references the Serbian massacre of Bosnian Muslims in more ways than one.

The New Zealand mosque massacres revive old wounds in the Balkans

https://news.yahoo.com/zealand-mosque-m ... 40614.html

[Michael]

No matter. It's way older than you or I, whatever you call it. It has led to the same sort of mass murders throughout US history.

I'm optimistic, so I was hoping for a political angle/solution.

[Steve James]

could this shooting be more out of islamophobia than racism in the form of white supremacy ?. as i understand there have been a presence of east asians in NZ for quite some time, and of course the maori.

It's interesting that you say that. Malcolm X gave up his "white devil" rhetoric after he met blond, blue-eyed Muslims. In fact, there's no Saudi or Arab "race," they're Caucasians. Hitler's Nazis had no problem with Muslims, but there's a whole Aryan mythology. But, Americans don't see Muslims as white people; nor do Americans consider "white" the same thing as "Caucasian." (See "Singh v US" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ingh_Thind). Or, take a Google image search for "Tamil people."

The "white supremacy" you mean is a matter of economic and political power and maintaining them. "Race" can be used to create and define a necessary threat that can unite people who had been at war or had escaped the results of wars in their homelands. "Race," not being born here, determined whether one was American or not. But, it comes down to how one looks. If Obama had favored his mother, he'd be White.

So the NZ shooter, who was Australian, acted because he saw immigrant "others" as a threat to his "White homeland." Btw, Google that phrase. But, yeah, there were Maori people on those islands for thousands of years. Ok, demographics change. That's just what this shooter and other "nationalists" are trying to prevent. Except, for guys like this, that means wherever in the world they are, and we see what they are willing to do.

Anyway, in NZ, they're calling him a terrorist. I mean, he obviously was; but, the problem with using that term is that it implies using the same methods to deter and prevent it that we suggest for other terrorists. I.e., increased surveillance, water-boarding, preemptive drone strikes --without the need to report civilian casualties, economic sanctions, freezing bank accounts, etc, because these groups pose a terrorist threat at least as great as any other. However, that would mean saying that the ideology is wrong. Hey, Reagan said so; Bush said so.

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

I'm optimistic, so I was hoping for a political angle/solution.

I agree that there needs to be more discussion on a solution to these problems. I also feel that part of the problem is that there is such a vocal movement denying the existence and/or the nature of the problem that it is difficult to proceed until there is some consensus on this.

Here is a short (5min) interview that raises some important points, IMO:

"Prof. Kathleen Belew on understanding the Christchurch terror attack as part of a larger, transnational white power movement and the danger of viewing it as an isolated “lone wolf” incident."

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/17/70420967 ... AMM-kNkFE4

[Steve James]

I just had to feed my curiosity, so I went to Infowars to look at the comments about the NZ shooting. So, Jones complains that the msm is making too much of the shooting. He argues that when ISIS massacres loads of people, the msm doesn't cover it. But, when something like this happens, he complains, the media laments about Islamophobia. Of course, IS murders more Muslims than anyone else.

In any case, he'd never legitimize what the guy did. He just minimizes it. After all, Muslims have no regard for human life. Anyway, I'm sure some people listen to Jones. What does he say directly about the NZ shooter. We know that he called Parkland a false flag operation. He's already admitted that his shtick is just an act --so, he shouldn't be held accountable for what he says. That may be more dangerous.

[GrahamB]

In the aftermath of the NZ shooting Jordan Peterson posts something on Twitter about supporting oppressed Christians. This does nothing but confirm my opinion that he is a loathsome individual. He later deletes it. Maybe even he through it was a tad insensitive.

Not that there's anything wrong with supporting oppressed Christians, of course, but the timing is deliberate and he's sending a message.

[Steve James]

Not that there's anything wrong with supporting oppressed Christians, of course, but the timing is deliberate and he's sending a message.

MLK was an oppressed Christian. The prayer goers in Charleston were Christians. The message had been sent. He's just deflecting --and it's a good thing because it shows that he doesn't want to offend members of his audience who might be repulsed. So, he tells them --like Limbaugh-- that they are the real victims, and shouldn't be manipulated to feel sympathy.

I got this from media matters

The idea that there is far more crazed right-wing terrorism in America than there is any other kind is nothing more than a media narrative manufactured out of whole cloth, and it's just waiting for events like this to take place, and this is what happens, folks. I don't know, you probably get up and you see this news story and you just -- in addition to all of the emotion you have over the sheer shock, terror, and horror of it all, then you realize you're going to face a whole day of the politicization of it. You realize you're going to face a whole day of Donald Trump being blamed for it, or you being blamed for it, or things you believe in being blamed for it.
...
Another thing that happens here when these events happen, you have all kinds of speculation that erupts. And there is an ongoing theory -- Mr. Snerdley, correct me if I'm wrong about this. There's an ongoing theory that the shooter himself may in fact be a leftist who writes the manifesto and then goes out and performs the deed purposely to smear his political enemies, knowing he's going to get shot in the process. You know you just can't -- you can't immediately discount this. The left is this insane, they are this crazy. And then if that's exactly what the guy is trying to do then he's hit a home run, because right there on Fox News: "Shooter is an admitted white nationalist who hates immigrants."

https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2019 ... ear/223154

Um, the strategy is far from new. It's how gang members think about murdering members of rivals. It's desensitization to dehumanization right out of an old playbook. Anyway, it's much better to know that's how someone thinks.

I was going to do a btw until I read that last Rush comment. I was going to note how these guys don't end up getting shot by police for some reason. People have been shot in the back or choked to death for less than murdering a single person. So, Rush isn't right about that.

[grzegorz]

I just had to feed my curiosity, so I went to Infowars to look at the comments about the NZ shooting. So, Jones complains that the msm is making too much of the shooting. He argues that when ISIS massacres loads of people, the msm doesn't cover it. But, when something like this happens, he complains, the media laments about Islamophobia. Of course, IS murders more Muslims than anyone else.

In any case, he'd never legitimize what the guy did. He just minimizes it. After all, Muslims have no regard for human life. Anyway, I'm sure some people listen to Jones. What does he say directly about the NZ shooter. We know that he called Parkland a false flag operation. He's already admitted that his shtick is just an act --so, he shouldn't be held accountable for what he says. That may be more dangerous.

That's exactly how it works. An immigrant accidentally shoots a pistol and an American gets hit and we have to build a wall. Yet the Parkland shooter worships Trump and shoots up a holocaust history class and there's nothing to be seen here.



I mention Trump because he downplays his role as a hero to these people.