Harvey » Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:28 pm wrote:Anyway, exploring possibilities is what RI should be doing, if anything. Delimiting them on principle is what it has actually been doing for the last few years. I thought this had stopped.
Am I stopping you? Or delimiting you? Who's doing that?
Speculate all you like.
Let's look at the case:
A single shooter broadcast a video of his own surprise attack, committed on civilians that he did not know, showing himself murdering a minimum of forty-two people in realtime. Apparently doing the livestream for the entertainment of a potential audience of at least a few million others on the planet who share in a certain racist persuasion, and apparently intending it as a call for copycat actions. Eight other people were murdered soon after at a second location, and the authorities say this was done by the same single shooter from the livestream video, continuing this action. A manifesto that included a purported background for the action and some general instructions on how to do such actions was simultaneously released.
As horrible as this is, it is a microcase -- a one-hour set of events not tied to an ongoing war zone or a war among criminal organizations. As an act, it is "retail terrorism," by which I don't mean to trivialize it at all, but to recall that much bigger terrorist actions are conducted as routine military business, for example by air forces and blockades in war theaters such as Syria or Gaza or Yemen. Or, increasingly, Venezuela.
Now, I think your repetition of an accustomed set of generalities about the world as you perceive it, composed of tenets that have varying degrees of certainty and importance to them, and your speculating (whether well or poorly) about motives and timing for actors presumed to be within that hidden web of connections, can be interesting and useful. As a general exercise. I do it too.
But in application to this microcase, it's unanchored speculation. Unless you can show the microcase
requires this particular web of connections to have been involved
for it to have been possible in the way that it happened.
Insisting that your general outline takes precedence as the default model for all microcases, now
that would be reactionary.
It's about as reactionary as to slap an automatic no-doubts lone-crazy-gunman don't-question-the-government-or-media-
ever bias on to every microcase murder "spectacular," since a few "spectaculars" have been shown to fit your preferred default. But still, outside of war zones and crime-gang business, the vast number of surprise retail mass murder events on this planet
do fit the autonomous action model of one or two or a handful of self-appointed heroes, whether they are ideological fanatics, clinically psychotic, or angry men killing their families or random scapegoats. Such people exist, in many milieux. The means for such actions are widely available. Christchurch is
not fucking 9/11. Or weapons-grade anthrax. Or refined uranium. It involves gear available at gun stores and retail arms markets around the world. And retail electronics. In this case it's also the money that a lot of people can have, and do have.
Is there empirical evidence linking this retail-terrorist mass murder to a state or intel-parapolitical operation run and motivated by the general principles you outline? Okay, that may not be visible, and after all it is not supposed to show. So you can always entertain the possibility. Go ahead. No one's delimiting you.
I think the main thing you mention so far, the sniper's convention down the street so to speak, has an undeniable sociological relation to rampage-killing and retail terrorism phenomena. But so far it isn't even circumstantially related to the terrorist events at the mosques. It's contextual. It's something happening elsewhere, nearby. Could it be used to hide agents participating in the attack, as you suggest? Sure. So could a random motel room for tourists. Don't give me "what are the odds?" unless you want to survey, or at least ponder upon, how many other special forces training exercises may be happening around the world on a given day.
Where's the killshot clue that renders impossible or displaces the default hypothesis I find pretty self-evident for this microcase, which no evidence currently available to us substantively contradicts?
Was there was a second-shooter at the other mosque who got away? Could be, but the mere cessation of a video signal doesn't establish that. Was the video taker talking on the phone to someone in the car? Sounds like it. In fact, I expect all kinds of other connections. And I expect them to be to the organized but intentionally decentral white-power fascist cell networks, who remain the self-evident default background. They exist. They publish, even.
Default hypothesis for motivation? The principle that it serves a noble cause to commit exterminationist murder against Muslim "invaders" in defense of the "white race." People who believe that exist. Even in St. Louis, MO. Very few of them have to take it into their own hands for such microcases to happen.
What about all this divide and conquer stuff you attribute to the higher-up spider webs of influence? Fascists can understand that too. They have a version of what passes for intellectuals. Fascists, the white-power "revolutionary" kind, can seek to polarize. Fascists can seek to inspire counter-reactions they think will ultimately benefit their cause, like bans on assault weapons that get the gun lovers enraged, which the manifesto mentions as a goal. Fascists have written about such techniques in "manifestos" long before the one from Tarrant. (Or "Tarrant" if you prefer. I don't. My preference is not limiting your free speech.)
What the posts here skeptical about the idea that a white power fascist with network backing and his own money could endeavor to do this is that they tend to radically downplay or simply ignore
the existence of these motherfuckers in the first place, let alone the idea that some of them can do things like this autonomously.
So, can you answer yes or no to these? You don't have to, no you don't!
1. Are there (white power) fascist networks and actors who are not simply made up and false-flagged by state agencies or "globalists" or other hidden worldwide spiderwebs? (Obviously autonomous ones can still be instrumentalized, but where's the decisive evidence for this microcase?) Are there such fascists who consider themselves revolutionary and who are capable of autonomous terrorist action? (Obviously I say yes. This is also true of Islamist radical terror actors, by the way.)
2. Can you show that this particular action was outside the capability of such an autonomous terrorist action unless it had the accompaniment of intentional neglect or facilitation or false-flagging from, say, official authorities?
I take fascists seriously.
.
