[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Immigration See other Immigration Articles Title: New Zealand: the Criminalization of Dissent New Zealand is in a state of mass hysteria in the wake of the Christchurch mosque shootings, which even a few mainstream media pundits are starting to question, and some are calling for calm reason. A few honest liberals are also questioning the demand for the introduction of hate speech laws. Hypocrisy and unreason have flooded New Zealand more so than the voices of calm, however, as there is a large amount of political mileage that can be made. This has made some strange bedfellows, as imams have shared platforms with Trotskyites and rainbow socialists in condemning the bogeyman of white supremacy and Right-wing extremism as a global threat to mankind, in the view of one such imam. What then do Trotskyites, liberals, and rainbow socialists on the one hand, and Muslims on the other, really make of one another? The doctrines are incompatible, but hypocrisy submerges the differences. The slogan we are one; they are us, that has become as pervasive as something out of Maos Little Red Book during the Cultural Revolution, has become a mantra to prove ones commitment to the totalitarian atmosphere of liberal dogma. Cynical politicization of the tragedy is the unifying factor. Any who are reticent are looked on not merely as heretics, but as potential murderers. The atmosphere makes the dreaded McCarthyism of Left-liberal nightmares pale in comparison. Anyone critical of multiculturalism and issues such as the United Nations Global Compact on Migration is fair game. The term Alt Right is bandied about in association with white supremacy, Donald Trump, Viktor Orbán, ad infinitum, and into the center of this ever-expanding hit-list has been placed the Australian gunman, Brenton Tarrant. Heirs of Robespierre Analyzing two articles The growing white nationalist group with a harmful and violent ideology and White nationalists will re-emerge after falling silent over Christchurch mosque shootings by Dominion Post reporter Thomas Manch is instructive as to the mind-set of liberal totalitarians who perhaps aspire to become Robespierres heirs. Manch focuses on the Identitarian youth group, the Dominion Movement (DM), which I know something about. Dominion Movement recently celebrated its first year, when dozens of delegates from around New Zealand gathered for a convention and social. They were far removed from the stereotype portrayed by Manch and others. However, DM has withdrawn and apparently gone into hiatus because they could foresee from the first day that the atmosphere engendered by the Christchurch shootings would make an already precarious position as Identitarians impossible, and perhaps even dangerous, given the inflammatory language of journalists, politicians, and academics. Manchs articles indicate the extent to which those in privileged positions will go to impose conformity by taking advantage of the hysteria. Both articles begin by lauding a so-called peace rally at Auckland, organized by a group founded to oppose any expression of Right-wing opinions: Love Aotearoa, Hate Racism. This outfit seems to be focused on gay socialists, and the merchandise they sell includes rainbow-colored clenched-first t-shirts. Other groups which organized the event included Socialist Aotearoa, Unite, and Organise Aotearoa; the first is a Trotskyite organization, the second a union founded by Communists, and the third an undefined Communist organization. That an imam was willing to share a platform with such groups indicates the level of hypocrisy and the cynical exploitation of the deaths of fifty Muslims for political agendas that is occurring among those whose beliefs are antithetical. Nothing is ever said, however, about these extreme Left-wing connections. The Auckland peace rally was an anti-white hatefest, with Maori spokespersons using the opportunity to condemn colonialism. It was so politicized that Muslims and liberals walked out in disgust, and there has even been some mainstream criticism. Tarred with the same brush According to Manch, The alleged Christchurch mosque shooter outlined his motivation in a manifesto thats now banned. His racist views are aligned with those espoused by a group of young white supremacists who have, until now, openly campaigned against so-called immigrant masses.[1] The allusion is to the Dominion Movement, and nothing within the first sentence is a legitimate description of it. If white identity implies white supremacy, then any form of identity politics implies a xenophobic viewpoint, whether based on ethnicity or gender. However, the appellation of supremacy is only applicable to white identity. This is based on the doctrine that only white people can be racist. The association of Tarrants views with those of DM aims to show an ideological continuum that leads to violence. Indeed, the headline describes the ideology as harmful and violent: A leading member of the group identified by Stuff in some of its earliest published material, hung up when contacted last week and has not responded to further requests for an interview.[2] Given the hysteria and the attempts to vilify anyone with Right-wing views, the reporters attempt to out a member of DM is itself an act of dangerous provocation and intimidation. If the young DM member had been identified and targeted, would Manch have been held accountable for provoking violence? Of course not. The news media is not accountable. As all members of DM knew, nothing could be gained by communicating with reporters, and Manchs articles confirm that. They decided this policy from the start. But while the group publicly opposes violence and illegal activity, experts warn its white supremacist politics are inherently harmful. Professor Greg Barton, chair of global Islamic politics at Australias Deakin University, says the groups material follows the same European identitarian ideology it appears motivated the Christchurch mosque shooting suspect. They dont want to project themselves as being white supremacists but, of course, when you dig deeper thats what you get, Barton says.[3] Barton is using the same rationale as Islamophobes. Let us put it in those terms, using Bartons phraseology: But while the Islamic Federation publicly opposes violence and illegal activity, experts warn its Quranic beliefs are inherently harmful. The Federations material follows the same ideology that appears to motivate the Islamic State. They dont want to project themselves as being terrorist sympathizers but, of course, when you dig deeper, thats what you get. Professor Bartons likely assumption is that most New Zealand readers will not know what European identitarian ideology is, and will assume that an academic is trustworthy. The average New Zealander will not know that the youth movement, Generation Identity, is a revolt against the hedonism, puerility, and consumer rootlessness of the 1968 revolution. Because it is a European phenomenon, it is labelled white supremacy, because such a response does not require any depth of analysis, even from within the hallowed hallways of academia. The description is intellectually lazy, but perhaps also better explained as easily fulfilling a political agenda. Professor Bartons comment about when you dig deeper is precisely what will not be undertaken by liberal journalists or academics. The political activist scene in New Zealand is small, which leads Barton to believe the suspect would have known of the Dominion Movement. Given hes been around [New Zealand] the last [two] years, Im sure this is something the authorities are following up.[4] Bugger this Professor Barton is here being as reckless as Mr. Manch. Both are attempting to criminalize a group of young people, possibly with dire consequences. There is no reason to suppose that Tarrant had any contact with DM. The organization vetted its contacts rather well, and eschewed anyone with sociopathic tendencies. You would expect a group thats operating above ground, at least until recently, would by definition profess to be non-violent; thats part of the challenge for the authorities. They profess to be standing up for victims, they see themselves as victims of a grand conspiracy . . . but of course you then have off-shoots going off and doing violent things. Thats part of the challenge for authorities is to spot somebody who says, bugger this waiting around . . . Im going to go do something.[5] Again, applying an Islamophobic critique and using Professor Bartons rationale: You would expect the Islamic Federation would by definition profess to be non-violent; thats part of the challenge for the authorities. They profess to be standing up for victims, they see themselves as victims of a grand white supremacist conspiracy . . . but of course you then have off-shoots going off and doing violent things. Thats part of the challenge for authorities is to spot somebody who says التافه هذا في انتظار
أنا ذاهب للقيام بشيء What justification does Professor Barton have for assuming that every such group is latently violent, and that any claim to non-violence is nothing but a façade? He asserts an implication that all who profess Rightist views are paranoid types who believe they are victims of a grand conspiracy. Professor Barton should have stuck with Islamic studies. Ironically, Muslims, more than any other group, are often stereotyped as being prone to conspiratorial beliefs.[6] Yes, the young chaps at DM did say, Bugger this waiting around . . . Im going to go do something; they educated themselves; wrote articles at a scholarly standard; trained physically; tramped, camped, and cleaned beaches; removed graffiti; and put up posters and stickers. Their focus was on self-development on the premise that a healthier society starts with the will of the individual. Their raison detre was to get young people motivated to transcend the liberal-consumer society and reach for values from out of their own heritage, while liberating themselves from the induced guilt of colonialism. Naturally, Mr. Manch and Professor Barton see a nefarious façade in all of this; a violent latency inherent in the ideology. The groups website, closed to those without a log-in on March 15, initially displayed a message saying it in no way condoned the attack, would cease operations immediately, and never had any communication or association with the perpetrator.[7] The first page of the DM Website from the start had a permanent message, and a warning: Disclaimer: We do not condone or promote violence of any kind. Anyone promoting violence or illegal activities of any kind will be promptly removed. We seek change through education and self-improvement. But it was just part of a cunning plan, to promote violence by claiming to eschew violence. Maybe it was being dialectical? Eco-fascist One might begin to suspect that Mr. Manch and Professor Barton are seeing a grand conspiracy: The dedication to environmentalism and personal betterment is strongly reminiscent of views expressed in the Christchurch shooting suspects manifesto. The suspect described himself as a [sic] eco-fascist, was said to have obsessively worked out at a Dunedin gym, and encouraged violence against drug dealers.[8] Here, at least, I must concede that Mr. Manch has finally provided some material that really is plausible. Not only did DM share Tarrants horrendous views on politics, but they had a common interest in physical fitness, personal betterment, and a clean environment. To paraphrase Professor Barton, part of the challenge for authorities is to spot those who attend gym and tidy up beaches. Quite often, school children are sent to clean rubbish from the beaches. This implies a sinister conspiracy to inculcate extreme Rightist, white supremacist ideas in children. After all, Hitlers Germany enacted pioneering environmental laws. There might also be something suspicious about vegetarians, given the Führers diet. Already, New Zealand has been subjected to Nazi health laws, when the Labour government banned smoking in public places: pure Hitlerism, and indeed one Member of Parliament, Peter Dunne, commented at the time that they were health Nazis. As for the Labour governments alliance with the Green Party, what are we to make of that? The creeping menace of eco-fascism is occurring at the highest echelons of government. The security intelligence agencies which, according to Prime Minster Jacinda Adern, the princess of world peace and future General Secretary of the UNO, now have a special interest in the Right, should prepare a watch list that includes: ecofascists, including Green Peace and the Green Party; Health Nazis, including vegetarians and anti-tobacco campaigners; teachers who impose forced labor on their pupils by making them clean beaches; everyone who owns, staffs, or attends a gymnasium; anyone who works out using fitness programs, publicly or privately; and all trampers and campers. These categories are each indicative of latent fascism, and hence of potential terrorism. They have been active on the website of prominent white nationalist group the National Front, and have earned the support of a senior figurehead of New Zealands nationalist movement.[9] DM was not associated with the NZ National Front (NF), and had no wish to be; this is simply a fact. They were not active on the NF Website. This is pure bunk. As it happens, the NF went into liquidation in the wake of the mosque shootings. The NF had no policy, ideology, organization, or strategy. It existed primarily as a Website critical of immigration, and frankly, many of its forums comments were banal. The leader is a man of particular intelligence and capability, but the organization he worked with had no potential. I posted a couple of times within the past few years on the NF Website to criticize the Islamophobia that was reminiscent of the Zionist-funded Tommy Robinson type, and to try and point out that immigration is a symptom, not a cause, and the focus needs to be on causes. By contrast, while DM was critical of certain immigration policies, I do not recall any member ever expressing Islamophobic views. As for having earned the support of a senior figurehead of New Zealands nationalist movement, I guess that is myself, although I find the description meaningless. Senior figurehead of the nationalist movement . . . what does it even mean? Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|