Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
MisterSwig

Eco-fascist attack in New Zealand

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

What happened in Christchurch should not be filed away as just another mass shooting or example of far-right, racist terrorism, though that's probably how the popular media will label it. The event actually represents something much more fundamental than all that.

First, consider that the livestreamed assault video shows an organized, skilled, cold-blooded assassin carrying out his lethal mission and escaping from the first mosque. It has been circulating around the Internet since moments after the livestream ended. It serves as hard evidence of the violent race war. It is a chapter in the dark historical record. It will be nearly impossible to revise by future historians and "false flag" conspiracy theorists. The video, and its immediate global broadcast and re-distribution, speaks for itself.

Second, the assassin wrote a lengthy manifesto which also widely circulated on the web. It is now being selectively quoted by media outlets. You will probably hear that the shooter hates non-white immigrants and considers himself an ethno-nationalist. But you might not hear how he synthesized environmentalism with his racist and nationalist beliefs. Yes, he is a self-described "eco-fascist." He believes that because non-white immigrants have higher birth rates than whites, they are responsible for overpopulation, which is destroying nature. Thus, in this one militant action, he sees himself as fighting for both race and nature--blood and soil. Mere hours later, he is already mentioned as the lone example of an eco-fascist on Wikipedia.

634226863_Screenshot_20190315-1156492.thumb.png.7fbb8515f4fcde814f8e6fe550f1373f.png

He might be the first significant representative of the sort of new fascist philosophy we've been warned about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hilarious thing about that article is that it, itself, appears to be trolling readers. I doubt the author believes what she has written. The manifesto was clearly designed to spread a militant ideology and persuade its readers, not troll them. A few pop references and ironic jokes do not constitute the design (or purpose) for the manifesto. And pretending like the shooter's motivation isn't made explicit in the introduction and elsewhere smacks of dishonesty, or possibly pathological evasion. Besides, the meme that got the most media attention (Subscribe to PewDiePie) wasn't even in the manifesto, it was in the video. 

The article's final sentence is interesting.

Quote

The darker corners of the internet are so fragmented that even when they spawn a mass shooting, as in New Zealand, the shooter’s words can be nearly impossible to parse, even for those who are Extremely Online.

I'm not sure how the darknet "spawned" this mass shooter. I guess if you ignore everything in the manifesto as "impossible to parse," then you'll have to invent your own origin story.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is disturbing is a world that looks at this staged event as something that can be understood on its own merits. If it is reason and rationality that are to be embraced, then ignorance and irrationality are the default conditions that represent the state of an unachieved human stature.

Even in a world where the embrace of reason and rationality are the norm, there will be aberrations from that norm. At the age of 29, Ayn Rand stated in her journal

As to psychology—learn whether the base of all psychology is really logic, and psychology as a science is really pathology, the science of how these psychological processes depart from reason. This departure is the disease. What caused it? Isn't it faulty thinking, thinking not based on logic[?]

By the age of 55, she had set up three essential categorizations for man dealing with the conceptual level of consciousness. The producer achieved this human stature. The stature she described of the other two categorizations in For The New Intellectual dealt with thinking, not as a means of perceiving reality, but as a means of justifying their escape from the necessity of rational perception.

The Churchchrist shooter's manifesto is hardly a man writing the Constitution of the United States as protection against the actions of the irrational that may violate the rights of those living peaceably.

In medicine, diseases are identified as a means of organizing, conceptually, the various ones that exist, and further identifying which are treatable by what means.

When a malignancy such as Brenton Tarrant develops in the "body of humanity", until a cure or a method of preventing such a malady from occurring in the first place exists, the approach need be one to excise or isolate the anomaly in such a way as to protect the "body of humanity" from the ravages of such a disease.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My top reaction on becoming aware of this story was to wonder why it is that in a city called "Christchurch" there are multiple mosques.  What exactly is the malignancy here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

When a malignancy such as Brenton Tarrant develops in the "body of humanity", until a cure or a method of preventing such a malady from occurring in the first place exists, the approach need be one to excise or isolate the anomaly in such a way as to protect the "body of humanity" from the ravages of such a disease.

We need a dual approach. We can try to isolate the malignancy as best as we can, to slow down the spread. This, however, seems practically impossible given the ease and the speed at which information spreads these days. More importantly, in my view, we need to examine and expose the problem honestly in order to identify the underlying cause and come up with a cure for the disease. Those who lie about or evade its true nature do more harm than good. They are the teachers of deception and evasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Grames said:

My top reaction on becoming aware of this story was to wonder why it is that in a city called "Christchurch" there are multiple mosques.  What exactly is the malignancy here?

Not sure if I can draw the connection to Christchurch, but I think this problem begins with anti-discrimination laws, like the Civil Rights Act. Ayn Rand called the Act "the worst breach of property rights in the sorry record of American history in respect to that subject." (The Objectivist Newsletter, September 1963) I bet New Zealand has similar laws, as does other Western nations. Anti-discrimination laws, in general, have become so oppressive that they now affect people with rational beliefs, such as Jordan Peterson, who doesn't think we should be compelled to use someone's absurd pronouns.

As property rights erode, everything else crumbles, because property rights make other rights possible. Anti-discrimination laws have disproportionately affected white people, so it should be no surprise that white racists have been victimized the most and are the ones most aggressively against governments and non-whites today.

The eco-fascist in Christchurch is not a crusader for property rights. Far from it--he is an anti-capitalist. But I think he's a symptom of the deterioration of property rights. As more property falls under the public's control, various identity groups will rise up and vie for power over the public. They will use whatever means available, including terrorism in order to spread their particular messages. Brenton Tarrant represents the white power group.

I don't know whether the Muslims in the mosques were politically involved, so I can't connect them to anything malignant, other than the religion itself. Also, New Zealand, like many countries, might have bad immigration policies, and that might be an issue here too. But I don't think we can fix the immigration issue without first fixing the anti-discrimination laws. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Ayn Rand called the Act "the worst breach of property rights in the sorry record of American history in respect to that subject."

I've always thought that Rand made wayyyyyy too strong of a claim here. I agree that it was a violation of property rights, but I think the overall violation of property rights against black people especially was reduced. The worst breach? Hardly. Besides, I don't think similar laws have become more oppressive. Perhaps more petty, but not more oppressive.

And anyway, I don't think it reflects an erosion of property rights. Rather, even though it doesn't reflect an improvement of property rights, I think it pushes people to think about property rights more. But it doesn't change the dynamics of anything. It's a confused notion of property rights (that the public should have a say with any property that interacts with the rest of the public), but it's nothing like actual erosion of property rights. 

I don't know what you mean that white racists have been victimized the most. The most I guess because they are the only ones being racist? I don't know what you mean that antidiscrimination laws have disproportionately affected white people. With affirmative action, sure, but that's not what you're talking about. 

Part of my thinking is that this is a symptom of fear that laws will necessarily get worse. Fear that the laws will get worse because of foreigners distorting the national culture. Except, it's not property rights they are reacting to. They are reacting to an implementation of public property rights that they don't like, but they would approve laws that violate the property rights of others. After all, people like this are anti-capitalists. Property rights aren't even on their mind. In a way, actions like this, murdering people, is a far greater erosion of property rights. 

I think property rights have gradually improved since the Civil Rights Act. So I don't think the erosion of property rights explanation works here. I think it's more about identity politics, which is the primary thing that will erode property rights.

You would be right though as far as laws that are created because of identity politics. But not all antidiscrimination laws are created for that reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vox just published an article on the manifesto. Some of the analysis is better than most, but it suffers from a reliance on the anti-concept "extremism," which might explain why the expert fails to address Tarrant's environmentalism, anti-individualism, and anti-capitalism. He probably doesn't think these are "extremist" viewpoints, and thus they aren't worth mentioning.

Since media has focused on some of the sick jokes, I have a few more thoughts on that. Tarrant has clearly used irony and memes strategically. The media senses that they're being manipulated. But fascist jokes and memes have a deeper, dual purpose. They amuse those who get it, and they trigger those who don't. Let's look at two examples, one from the video and one from the manifesto.

Tarrant said "Subscribe to PewDiePie" in his video. Now, the media thinks this was meant to get a reaction and coverage from the media. That might be part of it. But I think it was mostly intended to trigger PewDiePie and give the folks at 8chan a good chuckle.

PewDiePie has been relentlessly begging for more followers on YouTube so that he can remain #1 over T-Series. He has done all sorts of ridiculous things to gain fame and broaden his audience base, such as livestreaming himself playing children's games, including Fortnite and Minecraft. The guy is the biggest subscription junkie on YouTube, and he uses other celebrities and brands to gain fame for himself. So why shouldn't he want Brenton Tarrant's fans to subscribe to his channel?

Tarrant's video comment triggered PewDiePie into a response on Twitter.

754813498_Screenshot_20190318-0821462.thumb.png.8fe476311e14ed06a52627cc7b8774be.png

Too late, the joke is on PewDiePie. Not only is he the one being used now, but his response shows that he still doesn't understand. He reacted with his personal feelings, once again making everything about him. Oh, how PewDiePie suffers because a killer said his name! His tweet serves as evidence for Tarrant's position that "humans are guided by emotions."

Let's look at the Candace Owens reference from the manifesto.

183637721_Screenshot_20190318-1028362.png.b36d0f52c39288b4569a758ee05dbb90.png

This is a quote from the Q&A. It isn't even part of the main body of the manifesto, which occurs in the later sections. Some of the Q&A contains jokes and memes, like this bit about Candace Owens radicalizing Tarrant. He appears to be testing the gullibility of the media and trying to trigger Candace Owens, which absolutely worked.

999857768_Screenshot_20190318-1106572.thumb.png.6d71c3e60dbe5afd9dd8403d4c08810d.png

146171710_Screenshot_20190318-1106112.thumb.png.2e31b323f7f161e8174903a981fee0f5.png

This was a strange way to respond, given the recent backlash over her Hitler comment and the current tragedy. Tarrant must have seen another easy mark here. Not only did she react with inappropriate laughter and emojis on Twitter, like some school girl, she also blurted out a truly absurd "fact" in her defense. A "fact," by the way, which didn't take long for people to disprove. Yes, another example of someone being driven by emotions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I don't know what you mean that white racists have been victimized the most. The most I guess because they are the only ones being racist? I don't know what you mean that antidiscrimination laws have disproportionately affected white people. With affirmative action, sure, but that's not what you're talking about. 

Yes, racists of any type are most victimized by laws against racists. I'm talking about nonviolent racists who don't want to trade with other races. Because there are more whites in the West, the white racists have been victimized the most by these laws.

I won't convince you of my theory if you disagree with Rand on the Civil Rights Act and believe that property rights have improved. Perhaps we can debate those topics on some other thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Grames said:

Just reminding everyone here that Islam is a religion not a race.   All comments about race in this thread are absurdly off topic.

Race is a big issue in the manifesto. So are Muslims. Both are fair topics. But we do need to be objective and recognize the difference. While the shooter closely associates race and religion, he does make the distinction at least once in the Q&A, where he talks about white Muslims. His reliance on the anti-concept "ethnicity," however, indicates real confusion surrounding these issues, particularly regarding race and culture. He uses some form of the word forty-four times in the document, often referring to his main theme and concern of "ethnic replacement."

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Part of my thinking is that this is a symptom of fear that laws will necessarily get worse. Fear that the laws will get worse because of foreigners distorting the national culture. Except, it's not property rights they are reacting to. They are reacting to an implementation of public property rights that they don't like, but they would approve laws that violate the property rights of others. After all, people like this are anti-capitalists. Property rights aren't even on their mind. In a way, actions like this, murdering people, is a far greater erosion of property rights. 

I can agree with some of that, though the last line has a contextual issue. Murder is a criminal erosion of rights. It's a criminal elimination of life itself, which obviously is horrible. However, I'm talking about an institutionalized, constitutional, legal erosion of rights. On a national, cultural scale, I think the legal disease should be our utmost focus.

That said, I agree that many people are motivated by fear of foreigners spoiling the national culture and making the laws worse. You hear that all the time, not only from violent racists, but also from nonviolent advocates of Western values. So it's important to maintain the difference between those with racist motivations and those with cultural motivations. Unfortunately the idea of "ethnicity" conflates these things and makes it virtually impossible to reason with anyone who accepts that concept as valid. If you're against Islam, then you're a racist, and if you're against white pride, then you're a traitor to your culture, which was created by whites. So, maybe this problem goes deeper than bad laws even. Maybe we need to root out these bad concepts first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Guardian has a good article on the shooter's eco-fascism. It discusses much of the history of the movement. The author does an excellent job of presenting a factual account, despite his own environmentalist beliefs.

Quote

 

Eco-fascists have lamented the despoliation of nature, which they associate with modernity and an industrial society which they feel has diminished the connections between race and territory. One of their principal concerns tends to be what they see as human overpopulation, and the tendency of migration and multiculturalism to move races out of their homelands.

This line of thought can ultimately be traced back to figures such as Thomas Malthus, who at the end of the 18th century claimed that population growth was outstripping the capacity for food production, and advocated population control as a solution.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2019 at 12:24 PM, MisterSwig said:

t said, I agree that many people are motivated by fear of foreigners spoiling the national culture and making the laws worse. You hear that all the time <. . .> from nonviolent advocates of Western values.

You can hear it from me right now.

Rights are a cultural construct.  Ethics and epistemology are also cultural constructs.  There are cultures which aspire to replace wholesale the ethical and epistemological underpinnings of Western civilization with alternative principles, and discard the concept of rights.  They do not plan to do so by winning debates but by moving into Western countries, reproducing and outvoting the prior population.  In the ongoing ideological civil war within the Western culture between the radical left and those who would defend reason, importing anti-western immigrants is seen as a tactic that will finally lead to politically outnumbering those resistant to socialism.   The immigration tactic is why the American state of California is wholly in the grip of a Democratic political machine now, and why the southern border of Texas is majority Democratic party registration.   But not all immigrants are equal, or equally dangerous.  The radical left's inherent nihilism will destroy us all by drowning us under a tide of Islamic bodies for the sake of temporary political power.  Temporary, because the muslims will not be tolerating their LGBTQ bullshit or bullying feminism or Marxist atheism.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2019 at 11:59 AM, Grames said:

What exactly is the malignancy here?

Wait, are you saying that Brenton Tarrant did nothing wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Grames said:

They do not plan to do so by winning debates but by moving into Western countries, reproducing and outvoting the prior population.  In the ongoing ideological civil war within the Western culture between the radical left and those who would defend reason, importing anti-western immigrants is seen as a tactic that will finally lead to politically outnumbering those resistant to socialism. 

Aren't you missing some other relevant factors? Even Tarrant recognizes that immigration is driven partly by the desire for cheap labor under capitalism, which is why he's an anti-capitalist and calls for murdering "anti-white CEOs" and raising the minimum wage. This is why we need to take the manifesto seriously and attack its arguments. Tarrant has taken some reasonable views, some you might hear from famous Objectivists, and twisted them into an argument for militant ethno-nationalism. If we are going to help capitalists, especially those on the right, resist this militant ideology, we need to comprehend it and undermine it with facts. And if we are going to appeal to socialists on the left, we need to more clearly differentiate our views from the radical right, who are coming for us too. Muslim immigrants, who make up less than 1% of the population, should not be our ideological focus. We need to patch the foundation of individual rights and capitalism, and defend reason from the enemies within. Non-religious manifesto-creators like Tarrant think they are the voice of reason. Islamists represent a dying religion, a dying faith. They only gain power because of the West's vacuous self-implosion.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/24/2019 at 2:21 PM, MisterSwig said:

Aren't you missing some other relevant factors? Even Tarrant recognizes that immigration is driven partly by the desire for cheap labor under capitalism,

There is no such thing as capitalism anywhere in the world.  The entire world is monetized by central banks and fiat currencies.  In every country the laws are for sale to the highest bidder, and the money makes its way to the ruling clique through multiple income streams (book deals, speaking fees, "non-profit" organizations such as the Clinton Foundation).  If some people think they can get some of that fiat money by using cheap immigrant labor and changing or circumventing the law to do so that has nothing to do with capitalism but corruption and perverse economic incentives created by central banks. 

Among the many lessons one could draw from reading Atlas Shrugged is this: not everyone who wants to have a big pile of money is a capitalist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/24/2019 at 11:36 AM, Eiuol said:

Wait, are you saying that Brenton Tarrant did nothing wrong?

Oh he was wrong.  I'm saying cause and effect still applies.  What was the cause of Tarrant?  Does it satisfy you to conclude "Tarrant was evil" and then close the case?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Grames said:

Oh he was wrong.  I'm saying cause and effect still applies.  What was the cause of Tarrant?  Does it satisfy you to conclude "Tarrant was evil" and then close the case?   

I see. It was a little ambiguous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Grames said:

There is no such thing as capitalism anywhere in the world.

Does this mean you reject the idea of the mixed economy, where some industries are socialized and some are privatized? That's all I meant. For-profit industries need to keep costs low, and that drives demand for cheap labor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Grames said:

What was the cause of Tarrant?

If you mean what caused him to shoot people, that would be himself, his observations, his ideas, his choices. It's all in the manifesto. He was real clear about that much.

Unfortunately, many people cannot look evil in the eye. New Zealand banned the manifesto. The media in general won't discuss it, and if they do, they leave out the parts that align with their own views. Both the Left and the Right are terrified of this guy, because he represents their dark fantasy. He is their evil spawn. And they can't control him.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Does this mean you reject the idea of the mixed economy, where some industries are socialized and some are privatized? That's all I meant. For-profit industries need to keep costs low, and that drives demand for cheap labor.

I reject the idea that a mixed economy is capitalism or a version of capitalism.  Fascism is also compatible with the pretense of private ownership of property, so you can't leap to the conclusion that "here's some capitalism!" because you find some private property there.  The perfect example of that would be China which is more fascist than communist today.  Slave labor, concentration camp labor and U.S. H1-B visa labor (work cheap for long hours or be deported) are all certainly sources of cheap labor but none of them are in principle compatible with individual rights and so are not products of capitalism.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

If you mean what caused him to shoot people, that would be himself, his observations, his ideas, his choices. It's all in the manifesto. He was real clear about that much.

He was clear about Ebba Åkerlund.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...