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?

What Donald Trump Can Learn from George Washington’s and John Adam’s Problems with the Press

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Donald Trump, as candidate and far more as the 45^th US President, has relentlessly attacked news media and individuals therein for reporting critically on his and his administration’s politics and policies.

Reporting that the president does not like becomes “fake” news in White House jargon.

Trump has threatened to change the libel laws, presumably having the Supreme Court overturn the New York Times vs. Sullivan ruling that makes it next to impossible for public figures to prevail in libel actions against news organizations.

Trump should read a history book to get some sense of previous presidents’ experiences with the press. He would first of all learn that some earlier presidents had a much harder time with the press than he ever could imagine.

A good time to look at would be the 1790s and the presidencies of George Washington and John Adams, both Federalists who were vilified constantly by the Republican presses of their times.

The most influential Republican (Anti-Federalist) paper was the Aurora in Philadelphia published and edited by Benjamin Bache, grandson of Benjamin Franklin, who hired writers like William Duane and James Callender.

Bache and his newspaper, more than any other Republican newsman and press, were constant thorns in both presidents’ hide.

Bache described President George Washington’s “comportment as ‘that of a monarch,’ his governance as the ‘apish mimickry of kingship,’ his ‘pompous carriages, splendid feasts, and tawdry gowns’ and his encouragement of the public celebration of his birthday.”

Since Bache’s Aurora was very influential in that it informed the content of many other Republican newspapers around the country, Washington war quite upset—but instead of publicly venting his feeling, he did so in conversations with and letters to friends.

In one letter, Washington wrote,  “If you read the Aurora of this city…you cannot but have perceived with what malignant industry, and persevering falsehoods I am assailed, in order to weaken, if not destroy, the confidence of the Public.”  

After George Washington died, the Aurora commented,

“If ever a nation was debauched by a man, the American nation has been debauched by Washington.

If ever a nation has suffered from the improper influence of a man, the American nation has suffered from the influence of Washington.

If ever a nation has been deceived by a man, the American nation has been deceived by Washington.”

The unpresidential President: Are there Limits to Trump’s Character Flaws and his Alternative Truth?

By Brigitte L. Nacos

When the man holding the highest office in our land displays publicly a deficit in basic human values and in positive character traits, this should not sit well with all of us—regardless of partisan and ideological preferences. While Donald Trump exhibits such a deficit day-in and day-out—particular in his Twitter feeds, he highlighted yesterday his ethical bankruptcy in the most regrettable ways:

As he celebrated the adoption of the "John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act" during his visit at Fort Drum in upstate New York, he thanked a number of individuals but never mentioned the US Senator of Arizona. Instead, he called the new law “National Defense Authorization Act” dropping the Senator’s name included by Congress in honor of McCain who is fighting brain cancer. Unable to forget his political differences with the old war hero, Trump attacked him at his next stop—a fundraising event—again without naming McCain. But everybody knew what he meant when he referred to Obamacare and said, "I would've gotten rid of everything, but as you know, one of our wonderful senators had thumbs down at 2 o'clock in the morning.” 

I can’t think of more unpresidential behavior—apart from his on-bended-knees performance at the Helsinki “summit” and the press conference with Vladimir Putin.

That the 45. President is a pathological liar is well documented. Yesterday, for example, he tweeted that “the very unpopular Governor of Ohio (and failed presidential candidate) @JohnKasich hurt Troy Balderson’s recent win by tamping down enthusiasm for an otherwise great candidate…” The truth is that the last available opinion poll of June this year showed a 52% approval for Kasich compared to a 43% approval for Trump!

More importantly, there seem to be signs that the one-time reality TV star and shock jock may not get away with murder (as he has bragged) forever.  

A just published CNN poll revealed the following:

55 percent of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of the Russia investigation vs. 34 percent who approve.

56 percent say Trump has interfered with the investigation, only 38 percent who say he has not.

70 percent say Trump should testify to Mueller, 25 percent who say he should not.

57 percent say Trump knew about contacts between his campaign operatives and Russians, only 36 percent who say he did not.

These results indicate that there are some cracks even in Trump’s base. Thus, there is now some hope that alternative truth and alternative facts cannot trump actual truth and actual facts forever.

Warning to Progressive Democrats: The Devil is in the Name

By Brigitte L. Nacos

When activists of the Netroots Nation met the other day in New Orleans  to discuss their strategies for the 2018 mid-term and the 2020 presidential elections, they heard from several potential presidential contenders of the Democratic Party—among them Senators Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren. But it was Cynthia Nixon, a challenger of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s reelection bid from the left, who addressed the controversial “s” word for socialist.

Nixon appealed to the progressive crowd not to shy away from the “democratic socialist” label or their agenda. “Republicans call us socialists no matter what,” she said.

The problem is, however, that the devil is in the name. And the “s” word for socialist does not sit well with Democrats and Independents either. While most Americans would be hard pressed to define the term, there is no love lost when it comes to socialism that tends to be equated with communism.

So, progressive leaders from Bernie Sanders to Cynthia Nixon and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and progressive activists everywhere drop the label “socialism” and replace it with a more benign and actually more fitting “s” word --social.  

Call yourself Social Democrats, call your agenda social, call your distinct partisan wing “Social Democrats of America” (different from your current name Democratic Socialists of America).

Your agenda is social—health care and education for all, living wages, environmental protection, human rights for asylum seekers and immigrants, and so much more of what you find in Western Europe’s comparable democracies. Most, if not all of what Progressives here fight for has long been adopted in EU countries—most of all a social safety net for everyone.

So, again, the devil is in the name. Keep the letter “s” but change the word to social!

The Damning Facts that Drive Trump’s Lies and the Hope for Truthtellers

By Brigitte L. Nacos

The facts are clear: Russian operatives controlled by Vladimir Putin interfered in the 2016 presidential elections with the intent to help Donald Trump to become president. The highest U.S. intelligence officials, all appointees of this president, and the U.S. Senate’s intelligence committee controlled by a GOP chair and majority, and Special Counsel Robert Mueller agree on this.

Today, Putin admitted that he wanted Trump to win while, not surprisingly, denying any wrongdoing.

Even as he stood next to Russia’s authoritarian leader President Trump attacked the facts, repeated the lies he tweets day-in and day-out, and attacked alleged foes at home, while his actual words and body language showered admiration on the autocrat he obviously fears.

In her essay “Truth and Politics” Hannah Arendt wrote that “truth and politics are on rather bad terms with each other.” Still, in spite of her claim that lies are in the tool box of most, if not all politicians, she was aware of the danger of lies trumping facts. Thus, she wrote, “The chances of factual truth surviving the onslaught of power are very slim indeed…”

That’s what Americans are faced with today: Will the truth or will lies prevail?

As the Mueller investigation moves ever closer to Trump’s campaign crew and perhaps his family, as the indictments multiply and the trial of Trump’s campaign manager Paul Manafort nears, the president fights the truth with lies. In her philosophical essay Arendt wrote, “Unwelcome facts possess an infuriating stubbornness that nothing can move except plain lies.”

Will President Trump manage to replace the unwelcome truth with lies?

What happened today in Helsinki was even in Trump’s dreadful playbook a new low for any president and worse yet than his bullying of NATO, the EU, and the British Prime Minister last week. The horror show was not an assurance of the Trumpian “America First” promise but rather a declaration of love to Putin and “Russia First.”  

Yet, just like Trump declared the meetings in Brussels and the United Kingdom as historical success stories, he already praised himself for his success he achieved in Helsinki “for the American people.”

Will his advisers, will Republicans in Congress, will his appointees in the intelligence community continue to support this president as they did after each of his many outrageous missteps in the past?

Or will one truthteller or a group of truthtellers finally step forth and confront the liar-in-chief and the community of his enablers and supporters in the White House, in the administration, in the Congress, in states, cities, and counties with the facts, the truth?

Hannah Arendt wrote, “Where everybody lies about everything of importance, the truthteller…in the unlikely event that he survives, he has made a start toward changing the world.”

We can only hope and pray for such truthtellers and their survival. Otherwise, God help America as we love it.

Call Them Asylum Seekers or Refugees—Not Illegal Immigrants or Migrants

By Brigitte L. Nacos

As I read this morning’s New York Times at the breakfast table, an op-ed article by Brad S. Karp and Gary M. Wingens, chairmen of two of the country’s most prestigious law firms, was of particular interest.

First, the authors provide a concise survey of President Trump’s violations of international and constitutional law in his administration’s inhumane treatment of asylum seekers at the country’s Southern borders. Second, the article reveals that the law firms Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and Loewenstein Sandler “sent a team of lawyers to represent parents detained near the border in Texas” cooperating with non-profit organizations that try to protect the rights of affected adults and children.

What struck me though was the article’s headline “An Army of Lawyers for Migrants.” The authors do not use the term migrants that would indicate people moving from place to place mostly to find work but they rather write of “families seeking asylum” and refugee laws about the legal requirements for the treatment of asylum seekers.

When I saw the same article in the online opinion section of the Times I noticed that it had the fitting headline: “The Law Did Not Create This Crisis, but Lawyers Will Help End It.” I bet that the wording was changed for the print edition simply to shorten the headline in disregard of the fact that the term “migrants” has a different meaning than asylum seekers.

Like the Times other leading news organizations use the terminology that this president and his supporters prefer. Whether supportive or critical of the administration’s policies and actions reports typically refer to illegal immigration and illegal or undocumented immigrants or migrants.

Thus, in today’s Washington Post an editorial critical of the crisis caused by the Trump administration carries the headline “The right way to respond to the migrant influx” and calls those crossing the borders “illegal immigrants.”

President Trump has his reasons for calling asylum seekers, refugees from dangerous places, “illegal immigrants” that “infest” or “invade” our country bringing us allegedly criminals, gangs, and rapists and prevent us to “make America great again.” Like all demagogues he utilizes the power of words to widen us-against-them and good-versus-evil divides.   

Editors and journalists, too, ought to know that language matters.