Jacinda Ardern is a national treasure. I hope she stays in government for a long time over there.

This was an activity that was more common in the 90's - or so I thought. Perhaps they were just more open with it back then. My comments on organizing for violent actions might have been misinformed in that case. However, have we seen any evidence of the actual perpetrators having been involved in camps such as these? My picture of the white supremacist terrorist type in the past few years has been that they are introverted people, often involved in some sort of gaming culture and never really involved in organizations or political parties. Basically loners and not the military camp type persons.

And as I reasoned before these must be very hard to track down for any government since there probably is little to no communications to others to indicate what they are planning on doing. Security forces have stopped Islamist terrorism several times because they have been able to listen to their calls or look in on their chats etc. But how does one stop a loner type person?



That's weird, who has friends that tries to send one videos of people getting massacred? That's just tasteless.

I've seen a link to the video on another forum and of course we won't be able to stop it spreading altogether (free sharing of information is both the internet's blessing and its curse). I've seen some still pictures from it that they've used in news reports (obviously not showing any of the victims or such which of course makes a difference) and what hit me was that it looks so much like any first person shooter video game. Again reflecting on that we, or at least I, are quite numb to seeing images like this.
I reflect in much the same way when I see helmet videos from different war situations (for some reason that seems to be ok to show in news reporting). The video games are so realistic that when I see the real thing it has less of an impact. I don't mean to get into any discussion about video games being bad for you but its just a reflection that even though we haven't been anywhere close to actual combat or terror we still know what it looks like.

The reason I jumped down your throat so quickly, InnesI is because I thought you were painting the classic boilerplate "Islamism is more dangerous than white nationalism because it's better organized, better trained, has recruitment methods, is more coordinated, its members share a coherent ideology and fully believe what they say, etc. Their zealotry is inspired by their faith so the religion must be scrutinized. Neo-nazi slayings, on the other hand, are usually committed by lone wolf atheist mentally ill social pariahs who will always exist, so we'd be better served focusing on Islam and Islamic extremism instead."

If that's really not what you were trying convey, if you see white supremacy and white nationalism as essentially identical to ISIS, then I apologize. But if that's so, what was even your point to begin with?

There's a lot of things that I hate about the CC massacre, but the thing that grinds my gears the most is that, yknow, if you hate extremist islam so much, why not go over and fight ISIS head on? There's a real cowardice to the whole concept of getting a gun and massacring a bunch of unarmed civilians. Go and shoot at a military target ya mincing little twat.

I feel this, and various other far right acts of violence the last few years, do a great job of driving the point home that the best way to deal with the far right wing is with a pair of steel caps and a curb, not "rational debate" or whatever horseshit the liberals want to serve up.

I absolutely agree with all of this. Rational debate only works with rational people, and these cunts are anything but. They're pissy cowards with a thin veneer of machismo. Just simple terrorists, even if media is too scared to call them that.

And AGAIN.


This:
https://twitter.com/fbnewsroom/status/1107117981358682112


People is COMPLETELY fucked up and FEEL they're at war.

But I never said that which is why I didn't understand the attack (and the laying of words in my mouth). And the language used was appalling. I don't mind being criticized but only if it is done in a nice and civil manner.

It was certainly not about painting a picture that one is more dangerous than the other, or make excuses that one is more right because they got provoked. On the other hand I do disagree with what you write above that white nationalism is "essentially identical to ISIS" because it clearly is not. It doesn't mean its not dangerous if/when sympathizers take to weapons. But if we take them as the same thing and think the same medicine will work in both instances I think we are very wrong - and plainly I don't think we can successfully deal with white nationalism and extreme islamism in the same way and be successful.

My point about the loner as the perpetrator in right wing terrorism (in the past 10 years or so) was more of a reflection of the people who has committed acts like these or similar. As far as I know not one of them were active in a terrorist cell (or a group supporting terrorist acts). All of them seem to have acted alone. Doesn't mean there is not a network of ideas that supports them but it seems like most (or all) of them act alone. And on top of that are loners in general in society. Don't know about psychological diagnosis though (you mention "mentally ill social pariahs"). Breivik was not decladed as mentally ill I believe (although it might have to do with penal law not wanting to sentence him to treatment of mental disorders).

If I'm wrong here feel free to present evidence to the contrary, I'm man enough to change my opinion if there is evidence I have been wrong.

Yeah at this point it's more like Al Qaeda pre-9/11, and when people tried to sweep the threat under the rug things went as they went.

This.

Probably because the perpetrators main point wasn't fighting ISIS. he also had other aims in mind (removing Islam from western countries altogether). On the contrary there is a Swedish soldier named Jesper Söder who did go down to the Levant to fight against ISIS. He never held any white supremacy type political views (to my knowledge) but felt he had to contribute in the fight against a horrible terrorist organization. That is brave and honourable. Murdering innocents isn't.



My point is not that they aren't both dangerous or that we should sweep one under the rug just that they aren't movements that are identical. We need to view them with all the differences they have because if we don't we will try to treat two diseases with the same medicine which rarely works.

InnesI said it above, but, well, it's not hating extremist Islam which guides his actions. Instead, like a lot of the dogwhistles you find with right-wing people (ex. "refugees" and "illegal immigrants") it's more about hating that a certain group of people are "infiltrating" and "corrupting" your own society. So from his point of view, why would you go and fight ISIS when the problem is at home?


He posted already, but man, I don't really think there was some grandiose point here other than to make an observation about the potential impact this event will have. And he's right about the impact.

I do sometimes feels folks on this forum are quick to jump on people, but that seems more to do with the fact that there's very few people who seem to disagree with the "norm" here anymore, and less to do with the people being jumped on having antithetical points of view. In other words, we've grown so accustomed to having such similar views writ large that if someone gives a take that deviates even a little from the norm, or which could be misconstrued as such, that we end up crucifying them. We should be aware of that, and try to avoid it.

i fear this is gonna happen more and more as the effects of climate change get worse and worse and the forces of global capital become more and more desperate to cling on to their old hegemonic power

Also worth checking out Brace Belden, he's a Jewish leftist from Brooklyn who joined the YPG to fight ISIS. He was profiled in an amusing segment in Larry Charles's Dangerous World of Comedy on Netflix, which I'd also recommend.

Derigin, the argument that political Islam is a more organized and coordinated movement than the "sad decentralized loners" on the right is as old as the hills and borderline saber-rattling propaganda laying the groundwork for a justification of any number of atrocities. I didn't believe InnesI meant it like that... but then he said he was informed on the matter! I read way way way too many right-wing and "enlightened centrist" articles, op-eds and posts, and this "let's draw a clear distinction" line after the wake of an incident like this is, to me, often reductive, inaccurate, offensive, and most of all dangerous.

I just realized that the reason the NZ killer travelled all over the EU and the middle east was to combat accusations of constructing his worldview through his computer monitor, that he radicalized because "he saw what was REALLY GOING ON in the world that the lying globalist media doesn't want you to know." He did this in hopes it would "red pill" the skeptics and also to give the character he's constructed motivation. Saying "you travel a lot" is a common bedroom nazi tactic to battle the painful truth that their perceptions on the world are, just like virtually any violent extremist group, preposterously narrow.

Yeah that's always why people travel. If Derigin was trying to tell you that you're apparently hoping everybody will echo chamber all your weirdest ideas then he was right. I agree with most of what you write in this thread since it's basically mostly common sense stuff, but moving on to the "let the dehumanising begin"-section and imagining people as ideology robots is where things get detached from reality. Nobody spends tens of thousands on travel to "pre-empt online criticism" or whatever you want to imagine, that's just tinfoil hat to the max.

As inhuman as the crime was in the end, even mass murderers eat, sleep, go to the toilet, watch movies, catch the flu, go to a pub, date, take walks, drive around and travel because ideology robots don't exist and humans do human things most of the time. The story is bad enough without outlandish fantasy conspiracy theories.

Dude, you need to stop trying to make him out to be a boogeyman. You're beginning to remind me a little of Earthcubed in that way. InnesI isn't wrong in Islamic terrorists being more organized and coordinated in the traditional sense. He probably is educated in this. That said, the guy who committed this atrocity wasn't just a "sad decentralized loner" or a "lonewolf" but a person who had access, support, and was enabled by a different organized online effort. Nobody is denying any of that, and nobody is saying otherwise. Beyond that InnesI was just talking about the impact that this will have, and that's valid. It's not meant to be reductive, inaccurate, offensive or dangerous; it's simply how people react when an atrocity like this happens -- they worry about what will happen next. Don't get me wrong, most of what you say is fine and clearly agreeable to me, but rest assured you probably won't find any of those "alt-right" takes or whatever among the regulars here. Most of those folks have long since left this community or they (almost always) stay out of discussions like this.

Also 100% agree with droneriot above. The terrorist in this case did what everyone else does (and should do) in their 20s: he traveled. There was likely nothing nefarious in his reasons for travelling. He apparently became wealthy (off of bitcoin, or so he claims), took advantage of that newfound wealth and spent that money going places and travelling abroad. A lot of people in their 20s do this. A lot of people from Australia in their 20s do this. I don't see this as an attempt to "pre-empt online criticism" so much as what others his age tend to do. And, like droneriot said, he's human and people do human things. We hate to humanize people like this killer because we don't like to admit that people who commit the crimes like him -- behave like him -- act just like the rest of us. But they do, they're out there, and they're your neighbors and in some cases even acquaintances and friends.

So if ISIS bombed CPAC, you wouldn't find it even remotely strange or suspicious if just hours later, people from across the web were wondering how the alt-right would retaliate... despite most of the so-called "alt-right" hating CPAC almost as much as the Dems do?

My point is that you very likely won't find that here among our regulars, darkeningday. The vast majority of people who astroturf in that way get shoo'ed out of this forum the moment they try, in large part because they're fairly obvious about it - at least to us - and because they're often not regulars. And the rest who are regulars and would try that do not often post because they know that it's better to stay quiet than risk being kicked out. So what we're stuck with are people who are mostly agreeable to us, except in some minor point that is inflated and exaggerated beyond what that person was trying to say... essentially trying to make something bigger and more nefarious and insidious out of something that wasn't intended to be.

But beyond that and back to the topic, yeah, I'm not at all surprised that people would suspect retaliation for this and that this would be used for recruitment efforts, because it seems to happen more often than not. As for your example, yeah, I also wonder when the next alt-right attack will be. People are scared, and it's normal for their reaction to be "what's next?"

My main point was that white supremacy type terrorists in the past 8 years or so have rarely been active in organizations, taken part in training camps or have taken orders from above in relation to commiting their terrorist acts. Islamist terrorists have been way more organized in this regard (if we look back at the same time span). The attacks in Paris, the Charlie Hebdo shootings and the Manchester arena bombing (among others) were all coordinated by a larger network of people (i.e. more centralized). The exceptions having been those who have used vehicles to drive into masses of people (these acts seem to be more decentralized).

This is not something we've seen with the white supremacist types. They have largely committed these acts alone (but as I've said of course there is a network of people that inspire them and give them ideological ideas but when they commit the terrorist act they tend to work alone). And again if you have proof of it not being so feel free to provide it.



Well, there's three dead in a suspected terrorist attack in Utrecht today. The media doesn't seem to have much information yet but if this is inspired or a reaction to the NZ shootings it happened a lot quicker than I thought it would.


And about being alt-right: to deny ethno-nationalism doesn't exactly make me popular in those circles

To be fair to darkeningday, and I guess criticism of your points InnesI, I don't really know if that matters too much here. As far as the impact that this incident may have on the recruitment efforts and retaliation by Islamic terrorist groups and organizations, sure, but in terms of how organized Islamic terrorism is vis-à-vis this event... I dunno, I find myself shrugging with indifference and questioning why it matters.

I guess what matters to me here is not that different individuals are radicalized in different ways, but instead how to stop and end that radicalization process no matter how organized or disorganized it might be. Ultimately, though, we've spent a lot of time in this thread talking about Islamic terrorism when really the focus ought to be on the perpetrator and the white supremacist support groups that propped him up. Not saying it's a bad thing to mention Islamic terrorism, just that, well, this wasn't an act committed in the name of that.

It wouldn't surprise me if white supremacist groups had rules against attacks carried out by multiple people. They may be in a more active recruitment mode these days but I imagine they don't want people tracing attackers back to direct group sources.

You are right. Perhaps I was harping on it too much since I felt I was being attacked for pointing out the differences in my original post. I feel no need to discuss it further and I agree that when we have the information clear to us the important thing is to find out how we can most effectively stop radicalization.

He just destroyed 70% of his life in hopes he'd spark an international race war, with the only clear goal being causing as many fatalities as possible. The names on the guns, the "subscribe to pewdiepie" remark, the first-person shooter perspective, the fact he livestreamed it on fucking Facebook, the fact he used firearms rather than bombs, the fact he managed one of the most efficient mass shootings in the history of the world (and easily the most efficient targeted mass shootings by a single perp, even outstripping the Orlando massacre), the fact he was an AU citizen yet picked NZ, the fact he was memeing while clapped in irons in a courthouse... and now you're trying to tell me "no one would be silly enough to have a travel itinerary to justify what he hopes will start a worldwide revolution." Are you kidding me? Do you have any idea the sheer volume of time, effort, money, labor and love these fuckers throw into protecting the integrity of their video games?

Calling internet Nazis perspectiveless, echo-chamber basement dweller gamers who know nothing of the "real world" is something that every single one of them has been described multiple times in life, and because it's mostly true, it's an area they're deeply sensitive to. If you want people to pay attention to what you say, you need to kick off with allaying their most prevalent hesitations. This is rhetoric 101.

THANKS.


Ok, so let them vanish in time so their efforts got NOTHING more than a better society for EVERYBODY. More light, no more darkness.

https://twitter.com/nzlabour/status/1107854957384859649

Yes and no. Yes, let's not give the killer anymore attention. No, let's also work to root out (not merely ignore) the elements that cause these sort of things.

Sure. So let's talk about how to erradicate hate and fear. And try to tell people they should NOT be used for politics.

Was going to post about what a piece of shit Erdogan is for trying to score political points off a tragedy like this is, but decided to go with something a bit more positive.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... ken-nation

10/10, wouldvoteinagain.

I liked John Key too (especially compared to AU's contemporary Tony Abbott), but Jacinda Ardern has really knocked it out of the park this time. Someone forge her birth certificate so she can be our next president.

Key was garbage dude. Just because someone's good compared to American presidents (..or Australian prime ministers) doesn't mean they're actually any good

Just to be that norm breaker (again) but most every politician tries to score political points based in tragedies. Any tragedy, not just this one. Generally when people critique Politician X for trying to score points on a tragedy it just means that the person who critiques it doesn't agree with Politician X. So I think the debate should be about what kind of point Politician X tries to to score rather than the fact that he/she tries to score a point i general (because everyone does it).

I still find this to be a really troubling idea, normally pushed by people who are really keen on repeating the 1930s, and I've yet to hear a convincing argument on how escalation of violence won't resort in, ya know, more violence.

It's a complex problem and the only way we'll solve it is if we use our brains (not saying I have the answers, mind).

I dunno about violence, but not treating these people like they have any legitimate points is a start. They're fringe lunatics and don't deserve to be interviewed, allowed to speak on college campuses, given feature articles in big papers, had on podcasts, etc. Everyone should be rejecting their books like Milo's from publishers, turning away from advertising with them. Social media platforms should take away their pages. Website providers should shut down the sites. That's at least one way to fight it. Nobody has a problem doing this for like, ISIS cells or whatever whenever that becomes an issue - so those spouting white nationalist "blood and soil" shit should be pushed down back into the underground.

See, that sounds good to me. Stomping on the heads of teenagers who've basically been groomed by far right groups does not sit well with me, however. To give an extreme example, that is. We don't need to create martyrs out of these types.

This this this

No one gives platforms to Islamic jihadists (even those who aren't terrorists) to spout their hateful trash, but somehow even mainstream publications continue to give attention and publicity to the likes of Milo. Infuriating.

Yeah it isn't even that I have an issue with these Nazis getting beat up, but if we're really talking about serious stuff then there are examples of it working already... the aforementioned Milo thing, Alex Jones getting de-platformed, Steve King finally being censured, Richard Spencer not being allowed to speak at college campuses. These people profit off of and fuel the flames of hate and shouldn't be treated like just more voices in a debate. It should just be the new normal for any blatant white supremacist speech on social media.

I just always think of how ludicrous it would seem for any news station to be like "and next up, we have this ISIS guy to tell us his side of what's going on over in Afghanistan..." People would lose their shit. But Alex Jones can go on Joe Rogan and everyone thinks it's a big joke, this fuckface who accuses parents of shooting victims of lying.

So what do you do about the chans?

Not sure about that I guess. There's always gonna be some kinds of places they can congregate. Not sure how they operate since I don't use them - surely there could be some way to report actual racist gatherings and what not on there too though.

LOL, comparing militant slave traders, rapists and executioners to a gay Jewish troll. Compelling.

Whole thing is depressing and the cycle isn't going to stop.

Which is why you make them too scared to congregate.

To immediately bring out the big obvious example, the nazi's weren't debated out of existence. Same with Mussolini.


Deplatforming is an OK idea but the free market is fairly useless at fixing problems. All it does is create incentives for people to create new platforms to grab a heap of coin from the alt-right. In that regard, it'll never be impossible for the right wing to organise on the net. Which gets back to my original idea of make them scared/keep them scared