Normale Version: Terror in Neuseeland
Sie sehen gerade eine vereinfachte Darstellung unserer Inhalte. Normale Ansicht mit richtiger Formatierung.
Seiten: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Christchurch mosque shooting: A masterclass from New Zealand in responding to terror

Exactly a week after a gunman opened fire in the Al Noor Mosque, the ancient call to Friday prayers echoed out over police tape, and drifts of flowers, and over the thousands of New Zealanders gathered in central Christchurch's Hagley Park to honour the 50 slain.
The haunting strains travelled across the nation, via simultaneous radio and television broadcasts.
"It used to be that you had to go into the mosque to hear the beauty of Islam. Now look at this," said Omar Nabi, gesturing at the sea of people. His father Haji-Daoud Nabi was among the first worshippers killed on Friday, a week ago.
"You may have chosen us, but we utterly reject and condemn you," she said of the gunman during her first address to the nation after the attack, determined that that there would be no "othering" (as Carroll puts it) of the victims.
Ardern's repeated "this is not us" is a phrase that has caught on. It appears on the cards which accompany the floral tributes spreading around the city: around the mosques, along a wall outside the botanical gardens by the hospital, and ringing trees in Hagley Park in the city centre.
In her actions and her rhetoric, Ardern has first and foremost emphasised solidarity with the Muslim community.
Within hours she had identified the attack as an act of terrorism and was in Christchurch to meet survivors and the bereaved. Wearing a headscarf, she mourned with them at a refuge centre established at Hagley College, and wept with them. Meanwhile her government fast-tracked visas for families wanting to attend funerals and provided immediate financial assistance for victims and their families.
In another powerful symbol, when Parliament met for the first time after the shooting, leading imam Nizam ul haq Thanvi was invited to open proceedings with a prayer.
From Edwards' point of view, all of this suggests that beyond her genuine compassion Ardern has been acting with strategic pragmatism. Her goals, he believes, are manifold.

Christchurch shooting demonstrates how social media is used to spread violence

Friday's slaughter in two New Zealand mosques, like mass shootings before it, had its seeds in one of the darkest corners of the internet, a chat room where anonymous people appeared to talk openly about the attack before, during and after it happened. But technology played a more visible - and arguably more troubling - role in publicising the violence itself and, by extension, the hate-filled ideology behind it.
And yet again, the biggest players in America's rich, massive and sophisticated technology industry - YouTube, Twitter and Facebook - failed to rapidly quell this spread as it metastasized across platforms, bringing horrific images to internet users in a worldwide, dystopian video loop. The alleged shooter also released a manifesto denouncing Muslims and immigrants, police said.
More than eight hours after the shooting at one of the mosques was live-streamed on Facebook - apparently by the man who killed 49 people in a mosque in Christchurch - the video still was getting uploaded and re-uploaded continuously by other people onto YouTube. A simple search of obvious keywords for the event, such as "New Zealand," surfaced a long list of videos, many of which were uncensored and extended cuts of the massacre.
The world's biggest video site, which for years has automatically flagged nudity, copyrighted music and other types of questionable content, has repeatedly struggled to combat violent content, sparking a series of scandals over the years.
The incident and its almost instantaneous spread online also underscored how deeply entwined social media platforms have become, with savvy users moving content back and forth across platforms faster than the platforms themselves can react.

The Christchurch massacre video, which appeared to have been recorded with a GoPro helmet camera, was announced on the fringe chat room 8chan, live-streamed on Facebook, reposted on Twitter and YouTube and discussed on Reddit. Users on 8chan - known for its politically extreme and often-hateful commentary - watched in real time, cheering or expressing horror. They traded links to the alleged shooter's hate-filled postings and to mirrors of his videos, while encouraging each other to download copies before they were taken off line.
Even hours after the shooting, the social-media giants Facebook, Twitter and YouTube continued to host versions of the shooting video, even as New Zealand authorities said they were calling for it to be taken down.
YouTube tweeted Friday morning, "Our hearts are broken over today's terrible tragedy in New Zealand. Please know we are working vigilantly to remove any violent footage."
Our hearts are broken over today’s terrible tragedy in New Zealand. Please know we are working vigilantly to remove any violent footage.
— YouTube (@YouTube) March 15, 2019
When a shooting video gets uploaded to social media sites, the sites often use that video to create a marked copy, known as a hash, that they can use to build an automatic blacklist for when it gets posted again. The years-old algorithmic technique, first popularised as a tactic to combat the spread of child pornography, has now been used to automatically block copyrighted material, porn and other content that violates the social-media sites' rules.
But the algorithms remain critically flawed, experts say. Those uploading videos can sidestep the rules by altering the clips in small ways, such as attaching a watermark, distorting the music, or skewing the video's size, editing or speed. Several of the shooting videos reposted to YouTube appeared to have those alterations, though it's unclear whether those changes contributed to their remaining online.
Friday's massacre in New Zealand is the third time Facebook has been used to broadcast video of a murder. In 2015, a gunman uploaded smartphone video of him shooting two television journalists from a station in Roanoke, Virginia. In 2017, a gunman posted video of his fatal shooting of a bystander in Cleveland, then went on Facebook Live to talk about the killing.
"Shock videos - especially with graphic first-person footage - is where reality television meets violent gaming culture meets attention-amplification algorithms," said Jonathan Albright, research director at the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University. "The modern internet has been designed engagement-first, and this works in opposition to quickly halting the spread of harmful material and ideas - especially for sensational ultra violent terrorism footage."
Facebook and YouTube have said artificial-intelligence algorithms will help them patrol the onslaught of content posted on their platforms every minute and that early successes have helped crack down on explicit video and terrorist propaganda. Both companies in recent years also have made major new investments in human and automated systems for detecting and removing problematic content, collectively hiring tens of thousands of new employees to help.
But critics have said that even powerful automated systems lack the context or precision to properly assess many types of inappropriate content, such as hate speech and violent videos. Critics also have questioned how highly the companies have prioritised content moderation, as opposed to algorithms for search, discovery or advertising optimisation - all operations that contribute large chunks of the platforms' revenue.....

Why Did the Christchurch Shooter Name-Drop YouTube Phenom PewDiePie?

Livestreamming the attack, the Christchurch shooter uttered “subscribe to PewDiePie” before gunning down worshippers at a mosque
On Thursday evening, it was reported that at least one shooter opened fire on congregants in two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, killing at least 49 people. As information on the attacks started to emerge, it became increasingly clear that the shooter or shooters were adherents of far-right extremist ideology, particularly after an 87-page manifesto surfaced articulating Islamophobic and white supremacist views.
Judging by the manifesto, which is littered with references to internet culture phenomena like Fortnite and Spyro the Dragon 3 and memes like Navy Seal Copypasta, many commentators speculated that those responsible for the shooting were, like many young people on the far right, ultra-literate on social media, or what many would refer to as “Extremely Online.” The fact that at least one of the shootings was livestreamed and uploaded to multiple platforms more rapidly than they could be taken down cements the impression that the massacre was “engineered for maximum virality,” Charlie Warzel, who covers internet culture, wrote in the New York Times.

Perhaps no detail is more reflective of that than the fact that one shooter name-dropped the YouTuber PewDiePie during the livestream; specifically, “subscribe to PewDiePie,” a reference to a meme about 29-year-old Swedish YouTube superstar PewDiePie, a.k.a. Felix Kjellberg.
Kjellberg almost immediately responded by tweeting, “I feel absolutely sickened having my name uttered by this person. My heart and thoughts go out to the victims, families and everyone affected by this tragedy.” But the reference to PewDiePie prompted some people who are less than Extremely Online to wonder why the shooter would bring up the YouTuber — and others to conclude that the shooter was, in fact, trolling us all.

Just heard news of the devastating reports from New Zealand Christchurch.
I feel absolutely sickened having my name uttered by this person.
My heart and thoughts go out to the victims, families and everyone affected by this tragedy.
— ƿ૯ωძɿ૯ƿɿ૯ (@pewdiepie) March 15, 2019
Who is PewDiePie, and where does “subscribe to PewDiePie” come from?
Born Felix Kjellberg, PewDiePie is a 29-year-old Swedish YouTuber with almost 90 million subscribers. He is primarily known for his relatively innocuous meme and video game commentary videos, though he “has flirted with if not endorsed the alt-right neo-Nazi movement and antisemitism,” says Evan Balgord, the executive director of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network. As recently as last December, he came under fire for endorsing YouTuber E;R, whose channel featured videos of unedited Adolf Hitler speeches and a gag poking fun at the death of Charlottesville protester Heather Heyer. As a result of the exposure from PewDiePie, E;R gained 15,000 subscribers, leading many to accuse PewDiePie of “flirting with alt-right culture and sending a dangerous message to his millions of followers, many of whom are teenagers,” as Vox’s Aja Romano put it.
For years, PewDiePie has had the most-subscribed channel on YouTube. That standing has been threatened, however, by the YouTube channel for T-Series, an Indian record label and film production house whose channel primarily features Bollywood movie trailers and music videos. As of this writing, T-Series currently has about 89,498,000 subscribers — less than PewDiePie, but only by a very small margin. (In fact, T-Series has unseated PewDiePie a handful of times for the honor of most-subscribed channel, albeit only temporarily.)
"[This] manifesto is a trap itself, laid for journalists searching for the meaning behind this horrific crime. There is truth in there, and valuable clues to the shooter’s radicalization, but it is buried beneath a great deal of, for lack of a better word, “shitposting”."

— Nathaneal Amos-Sansam (@NathanealSansam) March 15, 2019
Media: be careful with the NZ shooter's apparent manifesto. It's thick with irony and meta-text and very easy to misinterpret if you're not steeped in this stuff all the time (and even if you are).
— Kevin Roose (@kevinroose) March 15, 2019

weiter >

Warum das Innenministerium vor rechtsextremer Rhetorik warnt

Der Attentäter von Christchurch war getrieben von der Wahnvorstellung einer „Umvolkung“. Auch die AfD bedient sich dieser Sprache.

Berlin. Mit einer Schnellfeuerwaffe hat der mutmaßliche Attentäter Brenton T. am vergangenen Freitag mindestens 50 Menschen in zwei Moscheen im neuseeländischen Christchurch getötet. Zuvor hatte er ein „Manifest“ mit dem Titel „The Great Replacement“, zu Deutsch „Der große Austausch“ veröffentlicht.
Extrem rechte und „neurechte“ Gruppen meinen damit den angeblich durch die Politik gesteuerten „Austausch“ einer „angestammten Bevölkerung“ durch eine „fremde“ meist muslimische Zuwanderung. AfD-Politiker bedienten sich in der Vergangenheit einer ähnlichen Rhetorik: Beatrix von Storch twitterte im Mai 2016: „Die Pläne für einen Massenaustausch der Bevölkerung sind längst geschrieben.“
AfD bedient sich rechtsextremer Rhetorik
Der AfD-Fraktionsvorsitzende Alexander Gauland veröffentlichte im Zuge der Debatte um den Familiennachzug im April 2017 eine Presseerklärung in der es heißt: „Der Bevölkerungsaustausch in Deutschland läuft auf Hochtouren“ und der AfD-Bundestagsabgeordnete Petr Bystron nennt den UN-Migrationspakt im Oktober 2018 ein „Abkommen zur systematischen Umvolkung“.

Jetzt warnt das Bundesinnenministerium vor rechtsextremer Rhetorik. Politische Äußerungen wie „Umvolkung” und „Austausch des Volkes”, seien „grundsätzlich geeignet, bei gewaltbereiten Rechtsextremisten tatinitiiernde Impulse auszulösen oder zu verstärken”, sagt ein Sprecher des Innenministeriums unserer Redaktion. Im Klartext: Rechtsextreme Rhetorik kann radikalisierte Menschen zu Gewalttaten anstacheln.
Hohe Gewaltbereitschaft in der rechten Szene
Gleichwohl liegen dem Bundeskriminalamt keine Erkenntnisse darüber vor, dass solche Äußerungen tatsächlich ursächlich für die Begehung konkreter Straftaten waren. Direkte Konsequenzen aus dem Attentat zog das Bundesinnenministerium für die deutschen Sicherheitsbehörden den Angaben zufolge nicht.
Dennoch hob der Sprecher hervor, dass trotz des Rückgangs rechtsextremistisch motivierter Gewalttaten in Deutschland seit 2017 die „die Gewaltorientierung in der rechtsextremistischen Szene nach wie vor unverändert hoch” sei und „sinkende Gewalttatenzahlen nicht über das anhaltend hohe Gefährdungspotenzial im Rechtsextremismus hinwegtäuschen” dürften......

weitere Stimme:

Neuseeland: Warnungen vor Neonazi-Anschlag wurden ignoriert
Von John Braddock und Tom Peters
21. März 2019
Nachdem letzten Freitag 50 Menschen bei Anschlägen in zwei Moscheen im neuseeländischen Christchurch getötet wurden, nahmen zehntausende Menschen an Mahnwachen teil, um ihre Trauer und Empörung zu zeigen und ihre Solidarität zu erklären mit der muslimischen Gemeinde, die Opfer dieses schrecklichen faschistischen Terroranschlags wurde.
Doch während die Bevölkerung versucht, das Massaker zu verarbeiten, wird versucht, von seinen wirklichen tieferen Ursachen abzulenken. Das politische Establishment in Neuseeland und der Welt versucht, die Verantwortung dafür zu vertuschen. Angesichts des Niedergangs der sozialen Bedingungen, wachsender Ungleichheit und Armut hat das Establishment weltweit anti-islamischen Rassismus und Fremdenfeindlichkeit geschürt, um imperialistische Kriege zu rechtfertigen und die Arbeiterklasse zu spalten.
Etwa 12.000 Menschen nahmen an der Mahnwache in Wellington teil
Der Attentäter von Christchurch, der 28-jährige Australier Brenton Tarrant, wird fälschlich als geistesgestörter Außenseiter dargestellt, dessen Taten im „friedlichen“ Neuseeland nicht vorhersehbar waren. Premierministerin Jacinda Ardern von der Labour Party erklärte nach der Tat: „Die Person, die diese Gewalttat verübt hat, ist keiner von uns.“
Der bekannte Kommentator Christ Trotter schloss sich im Labour-nahen Daily Blog Arderns Aussagen an und bezeichnete Tarrant als einen „Einzelgänger und Terroristen“, der „alles ausgenutzt hat, was an Neuseeland gut ist“ und erklärt, man hätte ihn „nicht aufhalten können“. Dieselbe grundlegende Botschaft wurde in allen Medien wiederholt.
In Wirklichkeit ist Tarrant das Ergebnis der Propagierung von extremem Nationalismus durch die etablierten Parteien und Mainstreammedien überall auf der Welt, darunter auch in Neuseeland und Australien.
Trotter und die meisten Medien erwähnen nicht, dass die Labour Party und die Grünen jahrelang mit der offen rassistischen und immigrantenfeindlichen Partei New Zealand First zusammengearbeitet haben. Diese Partei spielt mittlerweile in der derzeitigen Labour-geführten Koalitionsregierung eine wichtige Rolle.
Der stellvertretende Premierminister und Vorsitzende von NZ First, Winston Peters, hat immer wieder gegen Muslime und die „Masseneinwanderung“ aus Asien gehetzt. Seine Wortwahl unterschied sich dabei kaum von derjenigen im „Manifest“ des Attentäters von Christchurch. Trotter und das Daily Blog haben eine besonders üble Rolle als Unterstützer der rassistischen Politik gespielt, mit der Labour und NZ First die chinesische Bevölkerung für die soziale Krise im Land verantwortlich gemacht haben.
Die Behauptungen, Tarrant habe alleine gehandelt und „hätte nicht aufgehalten werden können“, halten keiner ernsthaften Überprüfung statt. Trotz der offiziellen Erklärung, Tarrant sei den neuseeländischen und australischen Behörden nicht bekannt gewesen, wurden Polizei und Geheimdienste vor der Gefahr durch anti-islamischen Extremismus gewarnt, haben aber die Augen davor verschlossen.
Am Dienstag gab der für die Geheimdienste zuständige Minister, Andrew Little, gegenüber dem New Zealand Herald zu, dass der Geheimdienst Security Intelligence Service (SIS) erst Mitte 2018 begann, „sich gezielt mit der Alt-Right-Bewegung zu befassen“. Zum Zeitpunkt des Anschlags in Christchurch gab es noch keine vollständigen Pläne für den Kampf gegen Rechtsextremismus. Little erklärte nicht, warum der Geheimdienst erst seit letztem Jahr daran arbeitet.
Laut Tarrants 73-seitigem faschistischen „Manifest“ plante er seinen Anschlag über einen Zeitraum von zwei Jahren in Neuseeland und stand in Kontakt mit nationalistischen Gruppen auf der ganzen Welt. Er behauptete, er habe für das Massaker den „Segen“ des islamophoben Terroristen Anders Behring Breivik erhalten, der im Jahr 2011 in Norwegen 77 Menschen getötet hat. Es ist darüber hinaus äußerst wahrscheinlich, dass Tarrant Kontakt mit Neonazis in Neuseeland hatte. Ein nicht benannter Achtzehnjähriger befindet sich momentan noch in Haft; er soll zwischen dem 8. und dem 15. März ein Foto der Moschee in der Deans Avenue mit dem Text „Ziel identifiziert“ gepostet und in Mitteilungen zu extremer Gewalt aufgerufen haben.
Trotz der Meinungsmache von Trotter und anderen, Neuseeland sei ein „guter Ort“ und das Massaker von Christchurch eine Anomalie, gab es auch hier schon mehrere faschistische Anschläge. Im Jahr 1989 wurde der 22jährige Wayne Motz auf dem Cathedral Square in Christchurch von einem Neonazi-Skinhead getötet, der sich daraufhin selbst erschoss. Im Jahr 2003 wurde der koreanische Rucksacktourist Jae Hyeon Kim an der Westküste der Südinsel von zwei Skinheads brutal ermordet.
Es muss die Frage gestellt werden, ob die extreme Rechte ungehindert handeln konnte, weil sie die Sympathie der Polizei und der Geheimdienste von Australien und Neuseeland genießt und Beziehungen zu diesen unterhält.
Überall auf der Welt unterhalten faschistische Organisationen enge Beziehungen zum Staatsapparat, darunter in Deutschland, wo die rechtsradikale Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) die stärkste Oppositionspartei im Bundestag ist. US-Präsident Donald Trump, den Tarrant als „Symbol der weißen Erneuerung“ betrachtet, hat faschistische Berater ins Weiße Haus geholt und versucht, eine extrem immigrantenfeindliche Basis in den Grenzschutzbehörden, der Polizei und dem Militär zu schaffen.
Anjum Rahman, eine Sprecherin der neuseeländischen Vereinigung islamischer Frauen, erklärte gegenüber Radio NZ, ihre Organisation habe die Geheimdienste immer wieder vor der Zunahme von anti-islamischem Rassismus und von Drohungen gewarnt. Im März 2016 brachte eine Gruppe von Männern Kisten mit Schweinsköpfen zur Masjid Al-Noor-Moschee, dem Hauptschauplatz des Massakers vom Freitag. Die Männer zeigten dabei den Hitlergruß und riefen: „Fangt an zu keulen.“ Der Haupttäter Philip Arbs, der ein Wärmedämmungsunternehmen besitzt, veröffentlichte ein Video in den sozialen Netzwerken, in dem er erklärte, in den Kisten hätten „verdammte Molotowcocktails sein müssen“.
Rahman erklärte, ihre Organisation hätte dem SIS in den Jahren 2016 und 2017 „von unseren Befürchtungen, dem wachsenden Hass und dem Aufstieg der Alt-Right-Bewegung in Neuseeland berichtet. Wir fragten sie, welche Mittel zur Überwachung der Alt-Right-Gruppen eingesetzt werden.“ Im Mai 2018 fragte die Vereinigung, warum die Sicherheitsdienste „so viel für die Überwachung unserer Gemeinde ausgeben“, aber so wenig, um Gewalt zu verhindern.
Neuseeland ist Teil des von den USA geführten Überwachungsnetzwerks „Five Eyes“, das Millionen Menschen auf der ganzen Welt ebenso bespitzelt wie neuseeländische Staatsbürger. Neuseeländer, die in den Nahen Osten reisen, wurden überwacht, angeblich weil sie dem IS beitreten könnten. Muslime berichten, sie würden bei der Ein- und Ausreise aus Neuseeland routinemäßig durchsucht und wie Verbrecher behandelt.
Tarrant musste während seiner umfangreichen internationalen Reisen offensichtlich keine solchen Hindernisse überwinden. Seit 2012 reiste er nach Bulgarien, Ungarn, Serbien, Kroatien, Bosnien, Frankreich, Großbritannien, Spanien, die Türkei, Israel, Pakistan und sogar nach Nordkorea. Die türkischen Behörden erklärten am Montag, der Schütze, der um die ganze Welt reiste, obwohl er offensichtlich keine Arbeit hatte, sei wohl von einer „finanziell gut ausgerüsteten“ Organisation unterstützt worden.
Die Polizei hinderte Tarrant auch nicht daran, mehrere Schusswaffen zu erwerben. Im November 2017 erhielt er seinen Waffenschein, nachdem er eine Zuverlässigkeitsüberprüfung durch die Polizei bestanden hatte, und trat dem Schützenverein Bruce Rifle Club bei Dunedin bei. Der ehemalige Soldat Pete Breidahl erklärte, er habe der Polizei schon Ende 2017 von der toxischen Kultur in dem Verein berichtet und ihn als „den perfekten Nährboden“ für einen Amoklauf beschrieben.
Gegenüber Newshub erklärte er, die Mitglieder des Vereins würden „geifern“, in Dunedin müsste wegen muslimischer Terroranschläge das Militär mobilisiert werden, außerdem würden „zu viele Muslime hierherkommen“. Er berichtete von Mitgliedern, die Konföderierten-Flaggen besitzen. Ein anderer erzählte ihm, er habe ein Mitglied des Vereins zu Hause besucht und dort „deutsche SS-Uniformen“ gesehen. Briedhal erklärte, der Polizist, mit dem er gesprochen hatte, habe diese Bedenken abgetan und erklärt: „Machen Sie sich keine Sorgen über die, es ist alles in Ordnung.“
Die Regierung kündigte eine Untersuchung der Umstände des Massakers von Christchurch an. Dieses Vorhaben läuft darauf hinaus, die Mitverantwortung der staatlichen Behörden zu verharmlosen und zu vertuschen und die Tatsache zu verschleiern, dass mehrere Regierungen, einschließlich der Koalition aus Labour, NZ First und Grünen einen Großteil der nationalistischen und immigrantenfeindlichen Politik der extremen Rechten ebenfalls propagiert haben.....

weiter >
In Wake Of Mass Shooting, New Zealand's Ardern Calls For Global Fight Against Racism

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern returned to Christchurch for the second time since a gunman killed 50 people in an attack on two mosques last Friday.
Her first stop was at Cashmere High School, which lost two current students and one former student in last week's shooting, NPR's Rob Schmitz reported.
"I think any person who's been a former head of government or current head of government would feel that, if one of their own nationals was responsible for an action like this," Rudd said.
He pointed to a " media ecosystem of hatred" as responsible for the rise of far-right or alt-right ideology and "Islamophobic, highly racist" sentiment. The shooter wrote about a "white genocide" in a lengthy screed he published minutes before he carried out his attack.
In an interview with the BBC, Ardern said that while the attacker was Australian, "that is not to say that we do not have an ideology in New Zealand that would be an affront to the majority of New Zealanders."

She issued a global call to weed out right-wing nationalism. "If we want to make sure globally that we are a safe and tolerant and inclusive world we cannot think about this in terms of boundaries."

New Zealand Police Interviewed Mosque Shooter Before Granting Gun License

March 22, 2019

By Tyler Durden
(ZH) – New Zealand police revealed on Friday that they met with accused Christchurch mosque shooter Brenton Tarrant in October 2017 as part of a routine home inspection connected to his purchase of the guns used in the March 15 attacks that left 50 dead.
Australian Brenton Tarrant, a self-avowed white supremacist, applied for the gun licence in September 2017 and a police “firearms vetting team” visited his home in the southern city of Dunedin the following month, a police spokesman said.
“One of the steps to gaining a firearms licence is a home visit to meet the applicant in person and inspect the security of their property,” he said in a statement. –Channel NewsAsia

Tarrant was interviewed in October 2017 while the firearms vetting team carried out a “security inspection” of his home.
Following this, all the available information was reviewed and the license was approved in November 2017.
Two New Zealand residents were listed as references, who were also interviewed by police and “met the requirements of the process,” according to the spokesman.
Tarrant legally purchased several weapons in December 2017, including two semi-automatic rifles, two shotguns and a lever-action firearm used in the mosque attacks which had been inscribed with anti-Islamic writings.
On Thursday, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced the “first tranche” to reforms on gun laws – beginning with the immediate ban on the sale of semi-automatic and ‘assault’ rifles. 
“On 15 March, our history changed forever. Now, our laws will too,” said Ardern. “We are announcing action today on behalf of all New Zealanders to strengthen our gun laws and make our country a safer place.”
“The effect of this will mean that no one will be able to buy these weapons without a permit to procure from the police. I can assure people that there is no point in applying for such a permit,” she said, adding “In short, every semi-automatic weapon used in the terrorist attack on Friday will be banned in this country.”

More continuity errors take your pick?

Shooters car with no bullet holes in windscreen?

[Bild: 768663958.jpg?mw=1920&mh=1080&q=70]

or if you prefer Shooters car with bullet holes in windscreen

[Bild: car2.jpg]

(na ja ,Schußlöcher sind wohl auch im ersten Bild zu erkennen an der Stelle. Ist  etwas unscharf)
Christchurch Massacre Spurs Tech Totalitarians

But They Have Enemies Trump Could Work With, If He Would Focus

Needless to say, Journofa/ politicians are demanding more tech censorship following last week’s tragic shooting in Christchurch, New Zealand. The alleged killer, Brenton Tarrant, appears to have been a frequent 8chan user, he livestreamed his attack on Facebook, and his manifesto was quickly disseminated across a variety of platforms. So they must be shut down: “[T]he tech giants have a more profound responsibility than simply trying to censor offensive material after the event. They need to consider how the openness of their platforms allows the spread and reinforcement of racist hatred and violent ideologies,” editorialized the London Independent. [Tech giants must now use their power to fight racist hate online, The Independent, March 16, 2019]Big Tech censorship, combined with the rise of illiberal Cultural Marxist totalitarianism in the West’s intellectual elites, is the biggest threat to free speech, and immigration patriotism, in America.
It is imperative our politicians resist these calls to silence dissent. Rather than more tech censorship, we need less of it and we need our representatives to challenge Big Tech’s power.
Donald Trump Jr. apparently understands this. [Conservatives face a tough fight as Big Tech’s censorship expands, by Donald Trump Jr. , The Hill, March 17, 2019] But his father’s performance in an interview last week left much to be desired.
President Trump said Big Tech colluded with the Democrats against him in the 2016 election and that Republicans face a “tremendous disadvantage” in 2020 due to tech censorship and bias. He also acknowledged that patriots face terrible treatment by Twitter and expressed awareness of the numerous reports on tech censorship. But while Trump said “people are talking about breaking [tech giants] up,” he offered no serious plan of his own: “You fight it by just being good. You got to be really good. It’s much harder for a conservative Republican to win than it is for a liberal Democrat”. [Donald Trump Accuses Tech Giants of Colluding with Democrats, by Alexander Marlow, Matthew Boyle, Amanda House and Charlie Spiering, Breitbart, March 12, 2019]
“Just be good” is asinine and sends a disheartening message to Trump supporters. Big Tech does everything possible to silence conservative and Dissident Right viewpoints, a fact Trump acknowledges. He even knows Big Tech’s behavior affects elections. Yet, he just wants to “be good” in the face of this problem.
It’s not like Trump has no options in tackling tech censorship. Last fall, the administration had an executive order drafted that would have required federal agencies to “investigate/and or prosecute” tech giants for bias and censorship. But the White House backed off the plan, even though Trump had reportedly demanded an order on the matter, after it was leaked to the press. Since then, the White House has shown no signs of drafting a new executive order or legislation to deal with tech censorship.
But where Trump has disappointed, some Democratic presidential candidates show promise—because of their historic suspicion of corporate power. Three 2020 candidates have expressed a desire to challenge Big Tech power and force these corporate giants to better serve the American people.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren garnered much attention this month for her proposal to break up the tech giants: “Today’s big tech companies have too much power — too much power over our economy, our society, and our democracy. They’ve bulldozed competition, used our private information for profit, and tilted the playing field against everyone else. And in the process, they have hurt small businesses and stifled innovation,” Warren wrote in announcing her proposal. [Here’s how we can break up Big Tech, by Elizabeth Warren, Medium, March 8, 2019]
The Massachusetts senator’s primary focus on tech giants is their disproportionate control of the market and stifling of competition, not their censorship policies. But part of her plan may force Big Tech to better respect free speech. She proposes large tech services be classified as “platform utilities” and divided from one single owner. According to her plan as announced in Medium, “[p]latform utilities would be required to meet a standard of fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory dealing with users.”
That “nondiscriminatory dealing with users” part of her plan offers the possibility that Warren would crack down on censorship. Her proposal also empowers “federal regulators, State Attorneys General, or injured private parties” to sue tech giants that violate these rules. That potentially gives the victims of tech censorship the power to right their wrongs in court.
But of course this would be implemented by progressives. And anyone whose attended college know what that can mean.
Similarly, #MeToo’d Senator Al Franken (D.- MN) offered similar criticisms of tech power in 2017 op-ed and urged Congress to do something about it. But Franken also wanted Big Tech to do more to suppress “hate speech” and “misinformation.” State power was to be wielded to break up tech giants and make them more effective censors. [We must not let big tech threaten our security, freedoms and democracy, by Al Franken, The Guardian, November 8, 2017]
Warren herself has not expressed this opinion and she has previously stood up for free speech on college campuses, a rare opinion for a modern-day progressive. [Elizabeth Warren Says Campus Free Speech Means No Censorship or Violence, by Zaid Jilani, The Intercept, October 27, 2017]. But the rest of Warren’s party believes these corporations need to censor more. For instance, Democrats on House Energy and Commerce Committee announced last month that they plan to grill tech execs on why they haven’t done more to stamp out “hate speech and misinformation”. [Democrats vow Congress will ‘assert itself’ against tech, by Tony Romm, The Washington Post, February 26, 2019]
There are other exceptions to the party consensus though. Presidential candidates Andrew Yang and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard have both called for tech giants to protect free speech on their platforms [Tulsi Gabbard Attacks Facebook over Censorship, Defends Free Speech for ‘All Americans’, by Allum Bokhari, Breitbart, March 14, 2019]. Yang has a plan to do so by treating large tech platforms as public utilities. This would allow the government to regulate Twitter, Facebook, and others to ensure they protect free speech.....

weiter >
Christchurch Revisited

by Israel Shamir

You don’t have to be a white nationalist to commit a mass murder in a house of worship like the one in Christchurch, though if you only read mainstream media you’ll probably associate them with the unique depravity of doing so. Without the slightest intention to wax apologetic for the crime and rejecting conspiracy theories, I want to contextualise the event and preclude political profit-taking and guilt-assigning by the liberals.
White nationalists are not exceptional. A Muslim can do it just as “well.” In Egypt, Muslims massacred in April 2017 45 Christians in two Coptic churches. There is a long list of attacks on churches in Egypt, Syria, and Iraq by Islamic extremists. They kill not-sufficiently devout Muslims, too: over 300 Muslim worshippers were slaughtered by Muslim extremists in a Sinai mosque in November 2017. The ISIS atrocities are on a different (worse) level altogether, though they go underreported in the media that prefers to demonise president Assad and his Iranian and Russian allies.
(Many Muslim attacks on Christians go underreported, for media follow the policy of keeping local native nationalists under pressure, and full reporting would undermine this goal. In September last year, a man poured out petrol and tried to ignite a fire on a subway train in Stockholm. He was stopped by fellow passengers, arrested, sentenced to four years in jail. It was hardly reported at all, and the only report does not give his name, for a good reason: it is a Muslim name. However, so-called hate crimes get a lot of coverage.)
A Jew can do it even better. A Brooklyn Jew, Dr Benjamin (it’s all about the Benjamins, baby!) Goldstein single-handedly massacred about fifty worshippers in the Ibrahimiye Mosque of Halil/Hebron in Palestine on the eve of Purim 1994. He also wounded about 150 Muslim worshippers – though it is said that Israeli soldiers present at the spot gave him an assisting hand. Perhaps they thought it was free-for-all.
Benjamin (or Baruch) Goldstein is considered a hero and a sainted martyr within his community, the fiercely chauvinist Jews of Hebron. They go to his grave and ask for his intercession before the Almighty. Young girls ask him to find them a suitor. Candles are constantly lit in his memory. A book was published in his honour, and his name is frequently mentioned among the settlers. They claim (without any evidence or factual base) that this massacre saved the Jews from being massacred by Muslims.
While white nationalist videos have been de-platformed, YouTube has no problem with this video exculpating and glorifying the Jewish mass murderer. Prime Minister Netanyahu (another Benjamin, baby!) decided to bring the party of Goldstein fans, Otzma Yehudit, into his government coalition, and it did not interfere with his triumphal progress to the AIPAC conference to be held on March 24, right after Purim.
Goldstein had his predecessors. On 26 July 1983, a Jewish terrorist group attacked an Islamic college with hand grenades and submachine guns; three students were killed and thirty wounded. The attackers were eventually apprehended, sentenced and quickly pardoned by the president of Israel after a big public campaign: over 70% of Israeli Jews demanded their release.
As Purim approaches, activity around Goldstein’s grave comes to a peak. A mystic could think that the NZ shooter had been moved to action by the Purim awakening of the Goldstein spirit. At the same time, the name of the Jewish killer is hardly ever mentioned in the Western media, and the Jewish American officials, while expressing their (justified) horror and indignation regarding the Christchurch murders, never refer to their coreligionist who preceded and inspired Tarrant. Some of them even said that nothing similar to the mosque shooting ever happened.
So, white nationalists are not exceptional. An unusual feature of Tarrant’s crime was that it was a hate-less hate crime; essentially a gamer’s crime. Apparently there is a game-acquired appeal in raining bullets upon “vermin”. If you played videogames you would know what I mean. A sort of FPS (First-Person Shooter Games) with your preferred enemy instead of a zombie. And now, make the next step – consider real people being zombies. You do not need hate for that; and Tarrant did not hate his victims, judging by his writing. He even wrote about the great friends he made in Turkey.
The border between videogame and reality became blurred by way of modern warfare. The video Collateral Murder, the first breakthrough achievement of Assange and Wikileaks, gives us the FPS of an American pilot killing innocent and unarmed people on the streets of Baghdad. Israeli girl-soldiers operate a remote-control killing system on the Gaza fence. It is called the Spot and Shoot system. They do what Tarrant did as their daily job. The same is done by drone operators sitting in faraway places and killing children. (To make it easier, they call their victims “fun-size terrorists”.)
Video games that train you to kill without feeling hatred are a substitute for this sort of killing. I’ve been to wars, and I’ve seen and experienced the real thing. Hatred is not necessary to kill your enemy. If you know who is your enemy, you can kill without feeling hatred, and that is what most soldiers do, most of the time.
It’s not something to be horrified about. We have to recognise aggression as a necessary element of our mentality. It is not “good” or “bad”, this is what we are, in the favourite expression of Mme Pelosi. We have an inbuilt drive for hunt and warfare, that’s why a little boy goes “bang bang” before he is able to talk. This is the way we are hard-wired. People like to shoot people; if they aren’t allowed to in real life, they do it in games. But they dream of doing it for real, to fight, to kill and perhaps, to die. This drive, like other destructive drives, is normally canalised, or sublimated. A boy’s hunting instinct and his drive for war have been transformed into heroic actions, into defence of one’s home and country, or into performing Herculean feats. Without it, we would be still sharing bananas in the African jungle.
However, we live in a feminised society where feats are against the law. A boy is supposed to behave like a girl; a girl, like a boy. Not only clothes and toilets are unisex, so is the indoctrination. The propaganda of gender-fluidity aims at killing masculinity at its root. A young working-class man has very few prospects in life. He can get a low-paid temporary job with no security, at best. And he can pour out his indignation and desperation in a video games saloon or in a fighting club. Or just use more drugs and alcohol.
Games, and shooter games in particular, are very popular, because they cater for basic needs – as pornography does. They are so popular that the Swedish gamer who was mentioned by Tarrant has ninety million followers: it is many times more than any article-writing journalist can ever reach. So there are many frustrated and dissatisfied men. Will the games provide a sufficient outlet for the pent-up tension? Perhaps; porno certainly influenced sexual relations by making so many men less interested in the real thing.
It is not in the best interests of mankind. For mankind, it is better for men to be interested in women and perform feats of courage for the best of the community to win their love. For the people who consider themselves our masters, there are other priorities. They want to have calm herds of many cows and oxen; bulls are trouble. This comparison is somewhat misleading: humans are not herbivores, and we are more rebellious, clever and strong-minded.
In order to quell the rebellious spirit, our would-be masters invent traps and fake vents. Greta Thunberg and her demonstrations against global warming provide such a faux outlet for the rebellion. The Yellow Vests of France are fomenting a real rebellion, and that is why they are being demonised by the mass media. Our society should be reorganised to allow young men to perform real feats. They want to save the world, and the only things they are being offered is to flip hamburgers or play video games.
This desire to save the world is evident in Tarrant’s Manifesto. He describes the world in which he and other working-class young men are displaced, and though his proposed solution (terror) is wrong, the problem is real. He sees the people he is being replaced with, the immigrants, and he seeks to deal with them.
The replacement is real, but the culprits are not the immigrants he is being replaced with. It’s people who organise the replacement, who bomb Muslim lands to create living hell in the once-prosperous Middle East and North Africa, who bring the refugees to Europe (and its extension in Australia-NZ), who indoctrinate against ‘xenophobia’ instead of denouncing greed.
Actually, Tarrant is aware of it. He wrote in his Manifesto:
The major impetus for the mass importation of non-Europeans into Europe is the call and want for cheap labour. Nothing drives the invasion more and nothing needs to be defeated more than the greed that demands cheap labour… In the end human greed and the need for increasing profit margins of capital owners needs to be fought against and broken.
He is definitely right on that, spot on. Greed of capital should be destroyed in order to save mankind, but killing Muslims is not the right way for it.
Tarrant’s concern about the low birthrate of Europeans is understandable, but for one reason only: he takes for granted this demand for cheap labour and more sales have to be satisfied. However, it does not have to be satisfied at all. If greed is controlled and defeated, and immigration blocked, the population can gently decline until a new sustainable level is found. For a while, the population will grow older, true; but this is a temporary effect. We are not doomed to ever-increasing population, ever-increasing profits and sales, ever-rising shares, endless expansion. It can be changed.
And we should, because if we don’t, our ‘masters’ will organise a giant bloodletting, a new great war to turn millions of deprived young men into Tarrants in their service, as they did in 1914 and 1939. Mankind will defeat greed and work for its better future, or will it turn upon itself. This is the main lesson of the Christchurch massacre.
Israel Shamir can be reached at
This article was first published at The Unz Review.
Seiten: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25