reflectivepundit

The Christchurch Terrorist: The Personified Evil

By Brigitte Nacos

After seeing the most gruesome ISIS videos that showed the meticulously staged executions of hostages, the beheading, the drowning, the burning of victims, I thought that I couldn’t see anything worse, nothing more inhumane.

This morning I was proved wrong.

The video that the Christchurch terrorist shot with a camera seemingly attached to his helmet or cap and streamed on the best known social media platforms during his killing spree is of unspeakable cruelty.

Not only did the killer shoot peaceful, innocent human beings as they were worshiping in a mosque, he aimed at the same people—dead or injured already—again and again.

When he was nearly out of ammunition, he walked back to his car shooting at pedestrians further away to his right and left. He took another handgun from the trunk of the car, walked back into the mosque, and aimed his shots again at the people lying in their blood on the floor.

What I saw was the personified evil devoid of any humanity.

And, no, contrary to the common but false narrative of our time, this terrorist was not a Muslim, not a jihadist affiliated with ISIS or like-minded groups.

He was a White Nationalist, an angry, hateful racist with an Australian passport who wanted to fire the first deadly shots in a war against “invaders” of different religions and races.

When I read the 74-pages of a tract that the mass killer posted online, I was hardly surprised. He expresses the same hate, the same ignorance, the same calls for defending the white race, the same appetite for all-out race war, and the same attacks on humanitarian leaders who opened their countries’ doors to non-white, Christian refugees. On this count, he attacks most of all German Chancellor Angela Merkel.  

These racist outbursts are nothing new; they are central to the regular discourse on white supremacy/neo-Nazi online discussion boards, web sites, and social media accounts. The resemble the message sent by the Alt-Right’s “Unite the Right” march in Charlottesville in 2017 that President Trump could not bring himself to condemn.

The mass killer of Christchurch is at home in the white nationalist online milieu. His primitive declaration that the news media characterized as "manifesto" celebrates among others the Norwegian white nationalist Anders Breivik (who killed 77 people to highlight his anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim agenda) and the American white supremacist Dylan Roof (who in 2016 killed 9 African Americans in a Charleston, S.C., church).

While Facebook and Twitter closed the terrorist’s accounts and thereby tried to block access to the horrific video and the terrorist tract titled “The Great Replacement,” both were readily available on White Supremacy sites.

That alone attests to the fact that the Christchurch terrorist did not think, plan, and act in a vacuum. He is part of a growing international front of White extremism that spans from North America to Europe and Australia and poses just as serious a threat as does Muslim extremism.

A fact that European governments have come to recognize contrary to top-decision-makers in Washington. 

If Howard Schultz Runs in 2020 as an Independent, Could a Boycott of Starbucks Stop Him?

By Brigitte L. Nacos

After the first two years of Trump’s presidency and the recent shut-down of the federal government the number one imperative must be is to vote the MAGA man in 2020 out of office.

I believe that the impeachment route would be merely another irritant and stall in the GOP dominated US Senate. Democracy is best served when the electorate decides.

The biggest hurdle to vote Trump out could well be the candidacy of independent or third party candidates. Think of Jill Stein of the Green Party who might have drawn enough votes in crucial states to deny Hillary Clinton and hand Trump the victory.

Yet, Howard Schultz, the founder of Starbucks, talks now publicly about a possible run in 2020—as an independent candidate.

What makes rich guys like Ross Perot in the 1990s and Schultz now think that they alone can heal all the ills of our political system? A good guess here is that it might be the same arrogance and hubris which motivated in the past and still motivate today the current occupant of the White House.

If Mr. Schultz believes that he is the best candidate for the highest office in the land, he should compete in the primaries of the Democratic Party given his liberal credentials.

Another business man and billionaire, Michael Bloomberg, who did a good job as Mayor of New York City, is not a pure enough liberal to have a chance to win the Democratic nomination.  He seems to recognize the pitfalls of an independent candidacy if the number one goal is to deny Trump a second term.

Schultz should take a page out of Bloomberg’s political playbook informed by experience in an actual public office and common sense.

It is telling that Trump tried this morning to goad Mr. Schultz by posting the following tweet:

Howard Schultz doesn’t have the “guts” to run for President! Watched him on @60Minutes last night and I agree with him that he is not the “smartest person.” Besides, America already has that! I only hope that Starbucks is still paying me their rent in Trump Tower!

Obviously, Trump would love a third candidate in the race who could win enough votes from Independents and Democrats to keep him in office.

While Howard Schultz is no longer running Starbucks he is the single-largest shareholder of Starbucks holding 33 million shares directly and 1.7 million shares indirectly through trusts as of Jun. 26, 2018.

If he runs as an independent, a massive boycott of Starbucks might stop his candidacy.

The “Lone Wolf” in the White House

 

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Typically, I analyze the actions and motivations of “lone wolves” within my long research interest in terrorism and terrorists. But as I try to explain President Trump’s shocking and unexpected decision to withdraw all remaining U.S. forces from Syria, the analogy to “lone wolf” imageries comes instantly to mind.

After all, the commander-in-chief acted without consulting his national security advisers, including Secretary of Defense James Mattis, military commanders in the Middle East, and members of Congress.

According to his tweets, Trump is simply enacting his long-held withdrawal plan. Never mind the opposition within his administration and his own Republican party.

Research reveals that “lone wolf “ terrorists tend to feel being apart from and misunderstood by their respective social circles; they are angry about perceived wrongdoings against their secular or religious beliefs and virtual communities--a dangerous mixture that can eventually lead to what they perceive as revenge against their enemies—often in reaction to particular events.

So what was the trigger event for President Trump to announce out of the blue the cut-and-run decision concerning Syria?

First, there was the disastrous court appearance of General Flynn, Mr. Trump’s former National Security Adviser and the news that the Trump Foundation was forced to close down because of its unsavory practices. This was followed by the realization that Congress was rejecting the president’s multi-billion-dollar request to finance the WALL along the Mexican-American border, his campaign promise—albeit, according to Trump, with Mexico as payer.  

As the judge in the Flynn case and the New York State Attorney General in the shut-down of the Trump Foundation demonstrated, the judicial system still works as it is supposed to—even though our president does not like it. Moreover, even with the shut-down of the U.S. government looming, Congress did not give in to Trump’s WALL fantasies.

So, the “lone wolf” in the White House, rejected and angry, needed to show that he had the power to unleash a shocker with domestic and global consequences: Contrary to the truth, he claimed that the Islamic State (ISIS) was defeated. But he ordered the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. military from Syria in any way.

That rhetorical strike via Twitter assured him what all lone wolves strive for: They want to get attention: media attention, elite attention, public attention.

After the withdrawal bomb was dropped, there was no or little public debate about Flynn,  the Trump Foundation, or the failed WALL promise.

Instead the lone wolf in the White House got a big publicity win—just like lone wolf terrorists always win in terms of media attention.

What to Make of Last Week’s Shocking Violence: Hate Speech Radicalizes and Violent Words Beget Violence

By Brigitte L. Nacos

When leaders like President Trump describe the would-be mail-bomber Cesar Sayoc and the synagogue mass-shooter Robert D. Bowers as wackos or crazies, they conveniently ignore how domestic terrorists just like their transnational counterparts are radicalized and prompted to translate anger and hate into actual violence.

By all reports, both men were loners, social outsiders, in search for identities by consuming, spreading, and posting themselves right-extremist propaganda and conspiracy theories on social media platforms. Both adored one particular leader—Donald Trump in the Sayoc case and Adolf Hitler in the Bowers case--, both vilified those rejecting their idols and their admired leaders’ ideologies.

If you saw the images and slogans plastered all over the Floridian bomber’s van, you got an idea of the man’s obsession with MAGA Trump propaganda and his hate for those Democrats who are most often rhetorically attacked by the president. As revealed by the Sayoc family’s lawyer, Cesar was utterly apolitical until Trump ran for the GOP presidential nomination. From then on, he embraced everything Trumpian, most of all the divisive “us” versus “them” demagoguery.

Since he had no personal contacts with Trump, the would-be bomber cultivated what social scientists have called para-social interactions with his idol who was a celebrity media personality even before moving into the political arena. Apart from the mainstream media coverage of Trump the pseudo “interactions” occurred via social media.

While for most fans such para-social interactions take place side-by-side with actual relationships, for some individuals they become their sole social life. One should remember here that the term “fan” is related to “fanatic.” When fans become obsessed with their idols, they completely commit to their admired persons’ causes. If that embrace includes rhetorical hate speech, it can lead to hate crimes or terrorism against declared evil-doers, enemies of the people.

                                                     *

Yesterday, President Trump was eager to point out that the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter was not a supporter of his. True, but not the whole truth! Mass shooter Browers expressed in vile social media posts his complete devotion to violent Neo-Nazi/White Supremacy ideology that during Trump’s candidacy and presidency moved from the fringe closer to or even into mainstream GOP dogma. In the process, right-extreme violence increased in the last three or so years dramatically.

Where the Pittsburgh anti-Semite differs from the bulk of right-wing extremists was seemingly the timing of the endgame: Whereas some well-known neo-Nazis/White Supremacists consider Trump not a “pure” white nationalist but a convenient vessel to bring them closer to their ultimate fight for white supremacy, mass shooter Browers did not share their patience.  

We may never know whether the present atmosphere of hate and anger, stirred by the highest level of governmental leadership, contributed to the unspeakable massacre in Pittsburgh.

We do know that the Florida bomber’s targets were all singled out and attacked by President Trump.

We also know, if there ever was a time for President Trump to show real leadership, real empathy, and real commitment to counter partisan and ideological polarization, it is now.  

President Trump’s Rhetorical Support of Violence and the Mail-Bombs: Violent Words Result in Violent Deeds

By Brigitte L. Nacos

When President Donald Trump in the fashion of a populist demagogue celebrates a congressman who assaulted a reporter for asking a perfectly legitimate question;

When candidate Trump promised to pay legal fees for his fan boys who beat up protesters at his rallies;

When the President and his disciples call for jailing political opponents;  

When the Presidents calls opponents “evil,”

Nobody should be surprised that Trump and his GOP enablers in the Congress and other high offices incite and condone violence.

Yesterday, a pipe bomb was sent to financier George Soros who supports liberal causes. Today, there are reports of possible improvised explosive devices addressed to two other persons that Mr. Trump has relentlessly attacked since he declared his candidacy for the highest office in the land: Ex-Secretary of State und former U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton and  Ex-President Barack Obama.

Given the President’s daily dose of lies, alternative facts, and post-truth statements combined with his attacks on Democrats/Liberals as an existential threat to the America he and his equally reactionary supporters want to recapture, nobody should be surprised when more consequential violence will follow.

Under President Trump the United States has become more and more like a banana republic.

The old children’s rhyme, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me,” is simply wrong.

Rhetorical attacks on individuals or groups can and do result in great harm. Hate speech can and does encourage individuals and groups to resort to violent actions against the targets of violent rhetoric.

Take the example of Dylann Roof who in 2015 shot to death nine African-Americans at the end of a bible study meeting in a Charleston, S.C., church. In his online “manifesto” he described how posted words on White Supremacy web sites had awoken his racial awareness and convinced him to move from mere words of violence to actual deeds. Since others did not act, he wrote, he had to...

By declaring himself a “nationalist” the President spilled the beans. His ideology is the same as that of those alt-right ideologues, nativists, and racists that marched in Charlottesville. The President’s divisive propaganda at each of his campaign rallies emboldens the violent characters on the extreme right further.

Just think of the members of far right hate-group Proud Boys that brutally attack the political opposition and seem reminiscent of Hitler’s Brown Shirts and Mussolini’s Black Shirts.

What will happen on Election Day and thereafter?