As the fallout from the Christchurch terror attack becomes ever more pronounced, it is clear there are a number of matters that are important to state regarding what we know now but did not know at the time of the horrific incident on March 15.

In any sociological analysis of the causes of extremism and radicalization, it is a matter of fact that the background of the individual is scrutinized. In exploring patterns of socialization, identity formation as well as issues relating to alienation and exclusion, it is possible to get a handle on the development of an ideological perspective that leads an individual to pursue acts of horrendous violence in the name of some greater cause.

We have come to terms with the fact that the primary suspect, Brenton Tarrant, is a self-identified white supremacist, who viewed the world in Manichean terms. He regarded Islam and Muslims as a combined category of a movement and its people who are not merely a blot on the landscape, but who deserve to be depopulated. This is because, for Tarrant, they somehow present a risk to the survival of the white nation itself.

Of course, there is no perspective on the nature of this whiteness; that is, its own internal diversity or the historical legacies of class formation, colonialism, orientalism, Eugenicism or white nationalism that have defined the space occupied by whiteness. But this perspective is also an odd combination of it: There is palpable fear presented in relation to the ‘other,” whose motivations are to seemingly take over through population expansion. At the same time, there is a decrying of these “others” for their primitive, backward and hateful natures, thus seemingly legitimizing ethnic nationalism and white supremacism.

Islamophobia, Globalization and Multiculturalism

Some would regard this as a reality of Islamophobia. They would be accurate in this instance. Islamophobia is not merely a response to a sense of cultural dilution at the hands of some regressive other. It extends into notions of ethnic cleansing of these groups.

There is much to expand on the nature of the motivations of Tarrant, which align with the activities of other individual actors apparently acting on their own. All have carried out an act of ultra-violence in the name of defending against the loss of privileges associated with whiteness at one level, but also the fear of being overtaken by hordes of primitives. These kinds of ideas have motivated far-right extremists over the last few years in a number of places, including Norway, , and now New Zealand. The reasons for these are structural, cultural and political.

Over the last two decades in particular, men have faced considerable challenges to their positions in society, especially in the labor market and in educational terms. This is the result of the improving positions of women in these settings. But it is also because globalization means the average young white man has to compete far harder than ever before and where his privileged, urban, post-industrial patriarchy can no longer be sustained in the light of an increasingly interdependent world. The rage against the loss of supremacy results in the venting of a certain fury against these now significant others.

There was a time, well before the events of September 11, 2001, where multiculturalism and diversity were seen as assets that contributed to the wellbeing of nations, where differences among people result in an enriched lived reality that benefits all in the pursuit of human values. But multiculturalism became distorted when the political and media classes began to shift attention away from these notions because they associated the concept with a risk of polarization, radicalization and, ultimately, terrorism.

It is not beyond the realm of many who have a classical education to think that too much diversity can lead to the fragmentation of the nation itself. Alas, the experiment with diversity was over before it began, which has led to further polarization and entrenchment in various physical concentrations within urban spaces.

What social scientists will explore as the nature of downward social mobility, housing policies and gateways that limit access to certain forms of accommodation as explanatory factors in what leads to patterns of residential clustering, certain opinion makers and political voices would argue this outcome is solely an example of self-styled segregation.

This is a blatant falsehood and a deliberate misdirection. It ignores history, past public policy and ongoing patterns of social economic inequalities that affect all. And in the final domain, the question of politics has become far more pervasive than ever. Populism, nativism and ethnic nationalism go hand-in-hand as a ruse to mask the failures of domestic policy and the shenanigans of interventions in faraway lands — ones in pursuit of some greater foreign policy objective that routinely leads to catastrophe and destabilization in those spaces.

In the pursuit of attention-grabbing headlines, sensationalist messaging presented as newsworthy items and the bold ideological motivations of certain press barons, Islam and Muslims are demonized on such an extensive basis that to be Islamophobic is to be normal. It takes a critical mind to distance oneself from what politicians and media outlets are actually saying, but for the less-thinking individual, such words are gospel.

The attacks in Christchurch were not the result of a random mental health victim on a rampage. They were calculated, cold and clinical. Brenton Tarrant had a clear agenda — as he identified himself in his own writings. He aimed to sow fear and discord by broadcasting his actions all over the world. He alluded to eurocentric heroism, which borders on ethnic cleansing  —  i.e., a “.” The air, thick with Islamophobia, gave him the license he felt he could legitimately mobilize into political violence and terrorism. The sympathetic voices embolden some while radicalizing others. And, thus, the circle is complete.

*[A version of this article was featured on the author’s , and his new book,Ìę,Ìęcomes out in August 2019.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

The post White Supremacism and the Christchurch Terrorist Attack appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

Very few people probably still remember William Luther Pierce. Even in the United States, he is largely forgotten, except perhaps on the fringes of the American extreme right — and among their detractors. Yet he continues to be one of the most influential points of reference for the ultra-racist right, largely because of his 1978 novel, The Turner Diaries. The book is available for download on numerous sites, including — nomen est omen — “Wrath of the Awakened Saxon.” And for good reason. The novel describes the (ultimately successful) attempt of a secret organization to provoke a race war that leads to the takeover of the US by white nationalists, followed by an all-out war of extermination of all non-whites on a global scale.

It is unclear whether Brenton Tarrant, who killed 50 Muslim worshippers at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, has ever come across the book. Nothing in his “” indicates that he has. Yet his monstrous actions on March 15 sprung from the same obsessive, paranoid, dystopian spirit that infused The Turner Diaries — and which, sad to say, has increasingly come to infect the spiritual situation of our times in Europe, parts of North America and, apparently, the Antipodes.

European Radical Right

It is hardly coincidental that Tarrant entitled his manifesto “The Great Replacement,” the English translation of a French book by the extreme-right writer Renaud Camus, which has proved highly influential among the Western European radical right. The idea is hardly new. Already in the late 19th century, French that the French nation was being suffused by “the foreign element” (Jews and, increasingly, migrant workers), which appeared “to force itself upon the indigenous element.”

In response, they advanced an ethno-nationalist creed (nationalisme ethnique), which made “belongingness” to the nation dependent on an individual’s “rootedness” in soil, lineage and shared history. With the rise of Jean-Marie Le Pen’s Front National in France, “rootedness” (enracinement) and, particularly, its opposite “uprootedness” (»ćĂ©°ùČ賊Ÿ±ČÔ±đłŸ±đČÔłÙ) became central to the national populist discourse of the political radical right. And with it, the discursive creation of an antagonistic frontier opposing ordinary people who are conscious of, and close to, their roots and a “rootless” cosmopolitan elite.

All of these tropes, in one way or another, can be found in Tarrant’s manifesto. From this perspective, the Christchurch massacre follows a certain logic as the violent eruption — coldly calculated and executed — of an ideational doctrine pushed to its ultimate limit. In his manifesto, Tarrant promotes himself as an ethno-nationalist, the massacre as the action of a “partisan” fighting against “an occupying force” of “invaders.”

Again, this is nothing new. The characterization of migrants as invaders intent on subverting and ultimately subjecting the host country to foreign rule has been a central trope in contemporary radical right-wing populist discourse for decades. What has given it new urgency are two developments of more recent past: the growing and increasingly visible presence of Muslim minorities in liberal democracies, and a growing awareness that the days of global white supremacy are inexorably coming to an end. Throw in stagnant if not declining birth rates throughout the West (reflected in the “white panic” in the US in the face of demographic shifts) — informed by, among other things, growing pessimism with respect to the future — and you come to appreciate the sense of malaise and moral panic that is, to a large extent, behind the widespread political disaffection that has infected Western liberal democracies.

Even a superficial perusal of the results of pertinent surveys reveals the depth of the malaise. In January, for instance, some 50% of that they feared that “our culture in Germany is getting lost,” that “the influence of Islam in Germany” was getting too strong” and that Germany was too rapidly changing.

is hardly exceptional. Throughout Western Europe, a significant portion of the population feels threatened by the growing presence and visibility of Islam in their daily lives. In Switzerland, for instance, between 2004 and 2017, the who said they felt threatened by the country’s Muslim community (400,000) increased from 16% to 38%.

Under the circumstances, the appeal of the radical populist right’s anti-Islamic message is hardly surprising. Promoted by nativist entrepreneurs such as the Dutch politician Geert Wilders and Austria’s Heinz-Christian Strache via catchy slogans like (the West must remain in the hands of Christians) and , anti-Islamic rhetoric has spread throughout Western and central Europe and beyond.

Not a Delusional Madman

It is hardly a coincidence that it was a white, Anglo-Irish Australian to commit the worst mass murder in New Zealand history. After all, the return of Australian onto the national political stage was, to a large extent, owed to her jumping onto the anti-Islamic nativist bandwagon. It was only logical that Hanson — draped in a burqa before the Australian Senate — would call for a “Muslim ban,” emulating her European allies who have called for numerous bans, ranging from the construction of mosques and the public display of burqas and niqabs to the Quran itself.

For the extreme right, the fact that none of these measures — with the notable exception of the burqa ban — has become national law is not owed to the fact that there are no majorities for them, but to the ill will of cosmopolitan elites conspiring to bring in as many immigrants as possible, for the simple reason that they despise the “native” population and have nothing but contempt for what “ordinary people” want (such as a dramatic limitation of immigration). It is telling that in his manifesto, Tarrant points to the defeat of Marine Le Pen in the second round of the French presidential election of 2017 as one of the events that convinced him that nothing could be expected from politics.

It would be a grave mistake to dismiss the Christchurch carnage as the act of a delusional madman. The history of Nazism has shown that even highly-educated academics — professors and medical doctors — are quite prepared to commit the most horrific crimes, all in the name of an apocalyptic ideology. It has been pointed out that Tarrant did not even spare children. Against the background of the Nazi experience, this should hardly come as a surprise. After all, the Nazi butchers, many of them “ordinary Germans,” had no qualms to exterminate even Jewish babies, if only to prevent them from growing up to take revenge on their tormentors.

For terrorists like Tarrant, acting in the name of “racial survival,” human life has no value unless it is the life of their own ethnic group. Pushed to the brink for whatever reason, they will lash out, whether in the name of revenge or in the hope that their actions will trigger a violent response from the other side, leading to an all-out war between “natives” and “invaders.” One can only hope that the Christchurch massacre won’t serve as an inspiration for emulation. Given the rather gloomy atmosphere in much of the West, I am skeptical.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

The post Making Sense of the Christchurch Terror Attack appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

On March 15, 50 people were killed by a Christian, far-right, white supremacist when they were engaged in Friday prayers at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. More than three years ago, when gunmen killed 130 people in France, media had no issues calling the perpetrators what they were, Islamic terrorists, highlighting both the faith and the ideology of the attackers.

The whole world stood by France in its moment of grief, with social media feeds going through the roof as people embraced the French flag in their identity, especially on Facebook. There was no ambiguity in the grief expressed across the globe at the predominantly Christian lives that were lost at the hands of terrorist perpetrators belonging to the Islamic State group. While there is outrage expressed at the New Zealand massacre, it seems the world is more shocked at the fact that a terrorist attack happened in the small island nation, rather than the hate crime targeted at innocent Muslims.

Standing in solidarity with New Zealanders where worshippers were killed by an Australian citizen, Prime Minister described the perpetrator as an “extremist right-wing, violent terrorist.” It is remarkable that the Australian prime minister went as far as using the word “terrorist” to describe him.

In contrast, the irresponsible, indifferent and Islamophobic Australian senator from Queensland, Fraser Anning, had no qualms about blaming the attack on New Zealand’s immigration policies from the past that allowed Muslims to immigrate into that country. “The real cause of bloodshed on New Zealand streets today is the immigration program that allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand in the first place,” Anning said in a soon after the Friday massacre.

US President Donald Trump had this to of the tragic incident: “My warmest sympathy and best wishes goes out to the people of New Zealand.” Warmest sympathy? Best wishes? Even the tragic loss of lives could not move Trump to call out the Muslim identity of the victims and express at least some perfunctory sympathy for them and their families.

Trump has never hidden his disdain for Muslims while openly promoting white nationalism. It is farfetched to expect the president to call out the gunman for what he is: a , white, right-wing terrorist. In fact, when was asked if he saw white nationalism as a rising threat in the world, he doubled down on his core fundamentalist beliefs and responded: “I don’t really. I think it’s a small group of people that have very, very serious problems.”

It is no wonder that the Christchurch shooter’s 74-page lauded Trump as a “symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose.” Whether Trump acknowledges it or not, his hateful rhetoric following his ascension to power has had serious consequences, and his hands are tainted with the blood of the Muslim women, men and children who lost their lives while praying in mosques on that fateful Friday.

Why hate crimes against Muslims won’t stop

As long as there are leaders like Trump and Anning who unabashedly spread falsehood with their vile rhetoric against Muslims, the world will continue to see more incidents where innocent people are targeted with hate crimes.

As long as countries defend and accept hate speech as an individual’s right to freedom of expression, the world will continue to breed more of the likes of and — the terrorists behind the New Zealand massacre and the 2011 Norway attack.

As long as the world refuses to acknowledge that guns have no place in a civilized society and allow people to own weapons that can extinguish multiple lives in a matter of moments, the Christchurch attack will not be the last of its kind.

As long as the world media continues to paint Christian, white, right-wing terrorists as outliers and tries to “” them, Caucasians and Christians will never have to bear the brunt of the actions of people like Tarrant. They can offer their prayers and sympathies to those killed and move on with their lives without fear.

As long as the media continues to describe the actions of every Muslim extremist as a reflection on the entire Islamic population, every Muslim in the world will have to live in fear of bearing the brunt of those actions just because they share the same faith.

March 15, 2019, was a sad day not only because of the loss of 50 innocent Muslims engaged in prayers at the hands of a hate-filled man, but the world got to witness yet again the double standards in media reporting and the words of fanatics in positions of power like Trump and Anning.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

The post The New Zealand “Gunman” Is a Terrorist appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.

Following a week in in which the words “heroes” and “heroism” bobbed on a tsunami of raw propaganda, a tribute is due to two unrecognized heroes. The first is Ray Jackson, who died on April 23.

Jackson spoke and fought for a truth that the powerful and bigoted hate to hear, see or read. He said this was a land not of brave Anzac “legacies,” but of dirty secrets and enduring injustices that only a national cowardice could sustain. “Conformity is widely understood and obeyed in Australia,” he wrote to me, “freedom is not.”

I first met Jackson in 2004 during the indigenous uprising in Redfern, Sydney, that followed the violent death of a 17-year-old, Terence Hickey. Known as “TJ,” he was chased by a police car, lost control of his bike and was impaled on an iron fence. The police denied they had caused his death. Not a single Aboriginal person believed them, least of all Jackson, whose campaign for justice will not go away.

A Wiradjuri man, Jackson was stolen from his mother at the age of 2 and given to a white family. The experience taught him about Australian genocide. A lifelong socialist, his specialty was his unflagging investigations into police thuggery toward Aboriginal people, especially the multiple deaths in police and prison custody that routinely go unpunished. Australia incarcerates black Australians at a higher rate than that of apartheid South Africa.

When Prime Minister decimated indigenous institutions and funding, Jackson took his files and videos to his single-bedroom flat and founded the Indigenous Social Justice Association. He fought for the memory of young Kwementaye Briscoe, left to die in a police cell in Alice Springs, and Brazilian Roberto Curti, tasered to death by police in Sydney. He was the champion of countless locked-up Iraqi, Iranian and Tamil . “Never stop fighting for your freedom,” he told them. Shaming official Australia, the government awarded him one of its highest human rights laureates.

Jackson loathed warmongering and would approve of my second hero. This is Scott McIntyre, a young SBS soccer journalist who, in four now famous tweets, set out to counter the authoritarian sludge that demands Australians celebrate the centenary of a criminal waste of life in the British imperial invasion of a century ago — in which Australians and , the “Anzacs,” took part — rather than recognize unpalatable truths about the past and present.

© Shutterstock

Opportunistic politicians and journalists have turned this melancholy event into a death cult that puzzles foreigners. Federal governments have spent almost $400 million promoting it as a fake patriotism — more than Britain, France, Germany and Canada combined, countries that lost many more men in the 1914-18 bloodfest. Today, the military and venal militarism are virtually off-limits for real public criticism.

Why? Australia, a nation without enemies, is now spending $28 billion a year on the military and war in order to fulfill a tragic, entirely colonial and obsequious role, now as Washington’s “deputy sheriff” in the Asia Pacific.

This much we know, perhaps have always known. But watching a contemporary version of crude Edwardian jingoism consume the nation’s intellect and self-respect has been salutary, especially the cover provided by those paid ostensibly to keep the record straight. , a zealot, oaf and one of our cruelest prime ministers, “shone” at the Gallipoli Anzac service, according to Peter Fitzsimons, whose keyboard tomes on the subject show no sign of abating. In the Murdoch press — augmented as ever to promote war after war — Paul Kelly echoes Abbott that remembrance is not enough; that the Anzac death cult “is now the essence of being Australian” … indeed, “a quasi religious force.”

Young Scott McIntyre drove the Twitter equivalent of a five-ton truck through such maudlin, cynical drivel. He tweeted the unsayable about imperial Australia, much of it the truth; and all decent journalists — or dare I say, his freedom-loving compatriots — should be standing up for him. That Malcolm Turnbull, a pretender for prime minister who made his name unctuously shouting about freedom of speech, should connive with McIntyre’s employer, the state-funded TV network, SBS (which has sacked him), is a measure of the state of public and media life in Australia.

That a journalism professor of long-standing, John Henningham, can tweet weasel words that “freedom of speech meant that journalists had the right to speak without breaking the law but did not have the right to keep their job when offending others” is a glimpse of the obstacles faced by aspiring young journalists as they navigate the university mills.

Many young people reject this, of course, and maintain their sense of the bogus, and McIntyre is one of them. He offended in the highest tradition of freedom of thought and speech. Knowing the personal consequences would be serious, he displayed moral courage. When his union, the MEAA, locates its spine and its responsibility, it must demand he is given his job back. I salute him.

*[John Pilger’s articles and films can be found at .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔčÏ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:Ìę / /

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your Ìęis tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be aÌę.

The post The Message of Anzac: Put Out More Flags or Shut Up appeared first on 51łÔčÏ.