Tuesday 17 May 2022

Describing The Katipo.

Poisonous! From a very early age New Zealanders are warned to give small black spiders with a red blotch on their abdomens a wide berth. The Katipo, we are told, is venomous: and while its bite may not kill you, it can make you very unwell. That said, isn’t the Acting Chief Censor’s decision to suppress absolutely mass killers manifestoes a bit like a parent telling his child that, yes, New Zealand does have a venomous spider, but, no, he is not going to give her any information about what it looks like and where it is most likely to be found?

THE ACTING CHIEF CENSOR’S decision to ban the “manifesto” of the latest hate criminal doubles-down on his predecessor’s error. Putting to one side the universal tendency of all forbidden things to stimulate popular interest purely on account of being banned, keeping the deranged, hate-filled ravings of Brenton Tarrant – and now Payton Gendron – out of New Zealanders’ hands has once again robbed us of the opportunity to gain some understanding of the tortured and fantastical world these individuals inhabit.

Since the ideas of these mass killers are extremely dangerous, and potentially fatal, it is surely in the interest of society to be provided with the means of recognising them when encountered. When a family member or friend starts spouting forth the sort of racist ideas that motivated Tarrant and Gendron, that is presumably a strong indication that all is not well. But, with the ideas of both men kept out of the reach of the public, how are those closest to potential offenders supposed to know what they’re looking for?

From a very early age New Zealanders are warned to give small black spiders with a red blotch on their abdomens a wide berth. The Katipo, we are told, is venomous: and while its bite may not kill you, it can make you very unwell. That said, isn’t Mr Rupert Ablett-Hampson’s decision to suppress absolutely Gendron’s manifesto a bit like a parent telling his child that, yes, New Zealand does have a venomous spider, but, no, he is not going to give her any information about what it looks like and where it is most likely to be found?

Ablett-Hampson’s news release justifies his decision to declare Gendron’s manifesto “objectionable” – thereby making it a serious offence to possess and/or disseminate its content – by referencing the harm it could do if accessed by the wrong sort of person:

We understand most people in Aotearoa reading such publications would not be supportive of these hateful messages but these kind of publications are not intended for most people. We have seen how they can impact individuals who are on the pathway to violence.

It is, however, extremely doubtful if declaring such documents “objectionable” will have the effect Ablett-Hampson intends. Those disposed to the arguments of white supremacy, for example, need only search for the topic on YouTube to activate the algorithms that will supply them with a great deal more information than is good for anyone’s mental digestion.

Moreover, if our white supremacist is persistent he will soon be in a position to move well beyond the material available on YouTube. There are places on the web where the red meat of murderous racism is served up blood raw and dripping. In these infernal regions of the Internet, the Acting Chief Censor’s writ simply does not run.

Another place the Acting Chief Censor’s writ does not run (at least, I hope it doesn’t!) is the past. History, sadly, is one long chronicle of human cruelty and suffering. The acts of injustice committed by our ancestors cannot be undone by the simple expedient of declaring them “objectionable”.

One could try, I suppose, but it would mean banning all material relating to the Knights Templar (who inspired the Norwegian mass killer Anders Breivik) and the Ottoman Conquest of South-East Europe (which played an important part in the formation of Brenton Tarrant’s worldview). All literature and films relating to the Ku Klux Klan (To Kill A Mockingbird, Mississippi Burning) would have to be proscribed, along with all histories of the Third Reich, and, of course, Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. A similar fate would, presumably, lie in store for the writings of the eugenicists and “scientific racists” of the early Twentieth Century. The thoughts of H.G. Wells, Beatrice and Sydney Webb, Winston Churchill – all would have to be declared objectionable.

The list of things one could be sent to jail for possessing and disseminating grows long!

And then there are the everyday conversations and personal rantings of ordinary New Zealand citizens. A fair proportion of these are bound to contain all manner of objectionable ideas and claims. Racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, transphobia and Islamophobia are to be found everywhere. Misinformation and disinformation are not restricted to social media, they constitute the daily subject matter of our national discourse. It is still possible to sit on a bus and hear the person seated in front of you regale his companion with the long discredited myth that the Māori, upon arriving in these islands, encountered the culturally less sophisticated Moriori people, and exterminated them.

Objectionable? Of course it is. But what is the best way to finally put this white supremacist myth to rest? By jailing everyone who repeats it? – A solution which would require all of us to become government spies ready and willing to dob in our neighbours, relations, friends, lovers? Or, for New Zealand society to use its considerable educational and media resources to set forth clearly the anthropological and historical evidence revealing what actually happened – thereby equipping our children to move beyond the myth and embrace the truth?

Would there still be some, diehard racists all of them, who still peddled the Moriori myth? Yes, there would. The point, however, is that when we heard them spout their racism we would be well placed to assess whether or not we were listening to nothing more alarming than a bore in a bar, or, to an individual “on the pathway to violence”.

Hate speech is jarring, distressing, and potentially indicative of murderous intent. After the Christchurch Mosque Attacks it was completely understandable that many of us made the leap from the terrible events of 15 March 2019, to the terrible idea that another such event might be prevented by banning the expression of objectionable ideas – on pain of imprisonment.

But, the actions of the Acting Chief Censor notwithstanding, we cannot incarcerate our way to virtue, we can only arm our fellow citizens with a reasonable description of vice. So that, when they encounter it in the street, the pub, on the bus, or at a dodgy Coastal Otago gun-club, they will recognise it and contact the appropriate authorities – who will do something about it.

Like the blood red blotch of the Katipo, the manifestoes of mass killers must be allowed to acquaint us with the offensive smell and the bitter taste of ideological poison.


This essay was originally posted on The Daily Blog of Tuesday, 17 May 2022.

22 comments:

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Unfortunately, the mad ravings of the racists have more effect than the considered – and generally boring – debunking of their theories. So you have lost traction in the marketplace of ideas before you even begin.
And of course, they argue with emotions, you might argue with reason. Another reason why you won't be listened to. The left used to entwine reason with emotion, and it seems to me that's when the greatest gains were made. Pity they don't do it anymore – I blame the focus groups. :)

David George said...

"The left used to entwine reason with emotion"
But do they know the difference between the two? Does anyone?
Much of what you hear presented as the product of reason is born of emotion with reason used as it's justification.
Hitlers manifesto is a classic example, his resentment, his aversion to filth and disease, his hate given justification. The facts distorted to present the Jews as cockroaches, vermin and parasites. Marx gave moral justification to that most deadly of sins; resentment and tens of millions perished and suffered as a consequence. Not too dissimilar to what the likes of the appalling Mr Waititi are peddling really.

There is only one weapon against the wholesale adoption of the attractive lie: not the censor, not the mob but a commitment to the blessed truth.

Brendan O'Neill: "Is Robin DiAngelo to blame for the Waukesha massacre? You remember that horror in Wisconsin in November last year, when a black man named Darrell Brooks ploughed his SUV into a Christmas parade, killing six white people. Brooks really hates white folk. He had written on social media about the scourge of ‘old white [people]’ and of his urge to ‘knokk dem tf out’. Is this down to Ms DiAngelo, who has pumped out books and speeches on the problem with white people? All whites have racist tendencies, she says. ‘All white people are invested in and collude with the system of racism’, apparently. The white population ‘fundamentally hates blackness’, she argues. And this is a woman who is rarely off TV. Whose book was an NYT bestseller. So, she bears some responsibility for the anti-whiteness of Mr Brooks, right?"

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Been thinking. None of youis absolutist free speechers seem to consider the fact that speech has consequences. Particularly lying in public, which you would tolerate if not approve of. For instance the guy who just shot 10 people in the US was apparently inspired by the idea of the "great replacement" put about by Tucker Carlson on Fox News among others. People have died because of his lies. I just don't see how you can shrug that off.
I would like to hold people accountable, you don't seem to care. If someone convinces a number of people not to get vaccinated and some of them die you seem to think that either it's okay. Or - well it's their fault because "individual responsibility" something something.
What do you do about someone who says for the sake of argument – Pasifika people "have a capacity for mindless violence" if someone takes a gun into a Pasifika church and shoots people? As has happened in the US. Do we only hold the shooter responsible? Or should the actual liar get to bear some of the responsibility? In which case – how? Just askin'.

David Stone said...

It may be that both the psychos under discussion professed links to the Ukrainian Neo Nazis that Putin is engaged in trying to eradicate. This is a bit of a problem because they are supposed to be tha good guys in our polite soceity at the moment, and Putin the evil maniac .
D J S

Archduke Piccolo said...

I incline to agree with MR Trotter's argument here. It is better to have these so-called 'manifestos' out there to be read than not. It's all very well citing their deleterious effect upon the suggestible and credulous minds, but those hypothetical minds are just that: hypothetical. Somehow we like to doubt the agencies of others, but upon what ground does that doubt rest?

Having said that, Guerilla Surgeon is correct to point out that not all 'speech' (or expression) is speech only. You know the old tag about yelling 'Fire!' in a darkened cinema. But that is not mere speech; it is action. In my view some speech does constitute action.

In what category then do we place the 'manifesto' of a Payton Gendron or a Brenton Tarrant?
The 15 May 2019 massacres were pretty close to home for me. I was married in one of those places (back in 1990; before it was a mosque, it was Baha'i' community centre and place of worship). I used to take my daughter to playgroup there. It is 5 minutes' walk from my home. However lightly the event touched me, it still touched me.

But I chose not to read this guy's manifesto, even during the brief time it was readily available. This was not an act of self-censorship. I had a pretty fair idea of the sort of thing it would have said, and I had no interest in refreshing that acquaintance. I find myself wondering if the 'manifesto' was a species of 'justification' for a monstrous crime against people Mr Tarrant knew precisely nothing about; or was the crime intended to publicise/draw attention to the 'manifesto'? Either way, Tarrant's 'manifesto' was more than 'speech', more than 'expression' - it was action.

I have had in the past reason to examine the issue of censorship. I finally had to accept that, although I am opposed to censorship in principle, I accept it in practice. The question then comes down to where one draws the line. To what extent do we trust or doubt (other) people's agency? To what extent ought we to be allowed to trust our own? I would be inclined to approach a 'manifesto' of the kind being discussed here as though examining a phenomenon, perhaps as forensic evidence of a type of mind. But, man, it would sure lord be a trial to my patience!

(I am conscious of a certain inconsistency in this, my comment. But I reckon that goes towards demonstrating just what a murky and intractable issue is under discussion)

Cheers,
Ion A. Dowman

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"So, she bears some responsibility for the anti-whiteness of Mr Brooks, right?"

To the extent that he was inspired by her – yes. Can you show that he was? Did he leave a manifesto with her writings in it? But what's the proportion of black massacres to white massacres? Obviously Tucker Carlson and company are better at spreading their hateful message than Robin DiAngelo.
Anyway if you think that's generally true let's hear you say something about Tucker Carlson being responsible or Rupert Murdoch or anyone who inspires rightist violence. But you people always make excuses, for right-wing violence especially for white criminals, whereas you are quick enough to assign blame for violence at BLM rallies or something. Even though much of it has been shown to have been done by white agitators..

So David, you believe it's okay that because a country has some neo-Nazis you can invade them? Take that to its logical conclusion why don't you?

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Interesting. Apparently after the buffalo shooting Fox News' references to the actual incident were confined to very short mentions for some time. Then all of a sudden the whole idea of the great replacement disappeared from their screens. No reference to it being motivation for the shooter, hardly any reference to it at all, when every other news service was analysing it at length. I'd like to think Fox has a conscience – hahahahaha I can't believe I said that – but obviously they feel they had some responsibility and are possibly aware of the fact that they are being sued up hill and down dale lately? Couldn't happen to a nicer set of racists.

Shane McDowall said...

GS

Have you ever worked in a pub in Auckland? I have. Your rose-tinted view of Pacifica - and Maori - would soon dissolve if you did.

You really hold grudges, don't you?

Ever since I pointed out my disgust at the behaviour of male homosexuals you have tried to constantly needle me. You need to get out more. Perhaps you should take your gay nephew out to lunch. You should quiz him on why 70% of people in New Zealand treated for syphilis are gay men.

And Hitler was a talented painter. He earned a living for about five years selling watercolours.But of course among your many talents is that of art critic.

Next time you reply to my posts, just imagine I am standing three feet in front of you. I doubt you would be so cocky.

I despise moral cowards like you who hide behind a nom-de-plume. Always have. Always will.

Grow up and get a life.

greywarbler said...

Shane
Thanks for bit about Hitler painting. He is worthy of an objective study for the complexity of human development and tendencies in the 20th century looking for major traits such as narcissism and especially the grandiose part of it. Has someone done that as a scholarly work already?
Anyway here is something - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paintings_by_Adolf_Hitler
It seems pretty good to me.

And Shane - you really hold grudges yourself, eg against people who use pseudonyms. GS is not using his to be a black art conspiritorist? or whatever they do online as hacksters and spreading fear and hate and threatening murder, He is just exercising his mind, seasoned with experience and observation, and trying to make some sense out of what is going on, without getting his family riled or similar. That is why I use one. And I don't want to be buttonholed by opposers and prejudiced in the street of my town.

So few people dredge the sludge in their minds, and resent it when others stir it, and it's hard work doing it with one's own sludge. Try Shane to be grateful that there are other people out there in society that you can talk to with your ideas as it's a minority 'sport'. I suggest you don't waste the precious time we have left before being presented with the next personal or national disaster where just coping is all that there is time for. Time for discussion is a luxury of the present, so going on about pseudonyms is a side issue when there is a broad stream of important complex matters to sift through to find the vital ones to prioritise in this 'moment in time'.

John Hurley said...

Remember Kate Hannahs poem Landfall in Unkown Seas Chris?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_0fn8K-v50&t=457s

I was trying to discover why he was such a radical way back then:


Landfall in Unknown Seas for string orchestra and narrator is set to text by New Zealand poet Allen Curnow. The poem, entitled Abel Janszoon Tasman and the Discovery of New Zealand is based on events 120 years prior to the arrival of James Cook. The poem is in three ‘movements’: the first sets a historical scene of setting voyagers into the unknown, in recitative style. The second recounts the landfall, the dramatic clash between Tasman’s crew and Māori, after which Tasman departed; and the third is a lyric meditation, and in Curnow’s words, ‘harmonizes the vision and action of the first two parts, and offering a possible meaning for the whole to our own age and nation”. Curnow wrote the poem in 1942 when the threat of Japanese ships entering New Zealand was very real.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/concert/programmes/resound/audio/201777395/douglas-lilburn-landfall-in-unknown-seas

David Stone said...

@ The Archduke...
I think that free speech has to be absolute or there is none. It's like being partially alive. There is an absolute quality to it. To graduate degrees of freedom requires someone to be making a judgement and a legal framework to operate in and this will always be politically abused.
The defence against saying the wrong things has to be revulsion in some cases and rational argument in others.
Free speech is only a danger when it is either difficult or impossible to mount an effective argument against. ie. it is the truth.
D J S

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Jesus Shane, I had forgotten you existed. I thought it was John Hurley that made that comment. :) Never mind, I probably have had more to do with Maori and Pacific people than you have anyway. Drunk or sober.
I have absolutely no memory of you talking about homosexuality at all.
I might not be an art critic, but I have read art critics – Hitler was pretty good at painting buildings. He basically sold picture postcards.

Basically I don't give a shit what you despise. Anyone who thinks the way you do is simply not worth bothering about. Continue to do it at your pleasure.

"Next time you reply to my posts, just imagine I am standing three feet in front of you. I doubt you would be so cocky."

Seriously Chris? I thought you were cracking down on this shit.

Brendan McNeill said...

"we cannot incarcerate our way to virtue", neither can we legislate for it.

The problem with legislating against 'hate speech' is 'who decides'? The PM, University academics? The Chief Censor? A government focus group?

We have laws against incitement and defamation, these are the only limitations we require on speech. Besides, unless Governments start to censor the internet (and they may attempt this) then censorship of the type imposed by the NZ Censor is virtually meaningless.

Have all the adults left the room?

John Hurley said...

Blogger Guerilla Surgeon said...
Been thinking. None of youis absolutist free speechers seem to consider the fact that speech has consequences. Particularly lying in public, which you would tolerate if not approve of. For instance the guy who just shot 10 people in the US was apparently inspired by the idea of the "great replacement" put about by Tucker Carlson on Fox News among others. People have died because of his lies. I just don't see how you can shrug that off.
........
It depends on your definition of replacement and whether you see race as real.

Dawkins says we cannot not see race anymore than blue.
The context here is that "we are trying to make a truly multiracial society" (David Lange to KR Bolton 1985), but everywhere in White Western countries (not South East Asian) (asymmetric multiculturalism)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe0OhQtMNKg

Time Magazine featured Unabombers manifesto as an introduction to evolutionary psychology ("there's a little bit of Unabomber in all of us")
...........
"In a statistical or social sense, there is no quintessential Kiwi community – except that communities in their makeup and views are all different."

Concerns about a loss of identity were common in other countries, he said.
"You see the same concerns around the western world as communities experience major social, cultural and economic changes.

"It is often a form of harking back to something that was seen as simpler and more unified period – but this is often little more than nostalgia."

Those who had added to increased diversity were often unfairly blamed, he said.


https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/107851506/housing-development-ad-selling-kiwiness-labelled-disrespectful

Nobody has an identity until they get the nod from Spoonley

John Hurley said...

Like the blood red blotch of the Katipo, the manifestoes of mass killers must be allowed to acquaint us with the offensive smell and the bitter taste of ideological poison.
.......
I don't think that is the answer: you have to give human nature it's due. Some people can pick and choose where they live and who they associate with others want a society with roots. Being related is the strongest guarantor of your well being in society.
As Eric Kaufmann says if majority ethnic groups are secure they welcome newcomers but when they suffer existential anxiety thanks to self-abnegating elites the result is populism.
As in Areo The Wide Mile between Douglass Murray and Brenton Tarrant" we can agree what is but like a detergent molecule have a much better plan that the murder of innocents.
Tarrant of course hatched his plan in a bubble.

David George said...

The influence of Fox & Co has been wilfully misrepresented. They have expressed concerns about electoral displacement caused by high levels of immigration, quite a different thing to ranting about racial replacement as has been claimed, and accepted by the wilfully gullible.

Perversely for the Dems, turns out the Latin American immigrants are quite socially conservative and, for example, not that keen on having trans ideology rammed down their kids throats. Nor are they big supporters of loose borders - they didn't leave Mexico to have Mexico come to them. They are swinging to the Reps as a consequence.

The US mass shootings stats by perpetrator's race show the majority are committed by European Americans. Pretty much what you would expect given they are the majority. In fact the statistics show an almost perfect correlation with percentage of the population - 54% Eu Am against 9% Af Am. https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/
Murders, violence and rapes are heavily disproportionate however. Wildly so as far as rape is concerned.

It's certainly not helpful when the left side of the aisle, Biden included, go about fueling the racist's conspiracies themselves.

“The End of White America”
https://archive.ph/HY74q

“We Can Replace Them”
https://archive.ph/syPxt

“Donald Trump and the Twilight of White America”

https://archive.ph/mPLAC

Rolling Stone:

https://archive.ph/BxF2T

It reads: “He was an adherent of what is called Great Replacement Theory, the idea that white people, in the United States and white-majority countries around the world, are being systematically, deliberately outbred and “replaced” by immigrants and ethnic minorities, in a deliberate attempt to rid the world of whiteness. It’s a conspiracy theory that has inspired terror attacks in New Zealand and Pittsburgh, San Diego, and El Paso.”

Interestingly, the author of this article, Talia Lavin, who above denies the existence of any Great Replacement, posted this gem to her Twitter account in 2020:

“raising a glass of farm fresh cultured buttermilk to the inevitability of white genocide”

https://archive.ph/v6ZN0

David George said...

Here' more of the incendiary replacement comments:

The Democratic consultant Patrick Reddy in 1998:

“The 1965 Immigration Reform Act promoted by President Kennedy, drafted by Attorney General Robert Kennedy, and pushed through the Senate by Ted Kennedy has resulted in a wave of immigration from the Third World that should shift the nation in a more liberal direction within a generation. It will go down as the Kennedy family’s greatest gift to the Democratic Party.”

Then in 2002, Democrats Ruy Teixeira and John Judis wrote “The Emerging Democratic Majority,” arguing that demographic changes, mostly by immigration, were putting Democrats on a glide path to an insuperable majority. After Obama’s reelection in 2012, Teixeira crowed in The Atlantic (which was then a magazine that people read, as opposed to a billionaire widow’s charity) that “ten years farther down this road,” Obama lost the white vote outright, but won the election with the minority vote — African-Americans (93-6), Hispanics (71-27) and Asian-Americans (73-26).

Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg’s 2019 book, RIP GOP, explains the coming death of the Republican Party as a result of … sucking up to Wall Street? Pushing pointless wars? Endlessly cutting taxes? NO! The GOP’s demise would come from the fact that “our country is hurtling toward a New America that is ever more racially and culturally diverse … more immigrant and foreign born.”

And these were the genteel, nonthreatening descriptions of how immigration was consigning white voters to the Aztec graveyard of history.

This week, the media’s leading expert on the crazies who believe in replacement theory is Tim Wise, popping up on both MSNBC and CNN to psychoanalyze the white “racists.” He’s been quoted, cited or praised dozens of times in The New York Times. This isn’t some fringe character, despite appearances.

In 2010, Wise wrote an “Open Letter to the White Right” that began:

“For all y’all rich folks, enjoy that champagne, or whatever fancy ass Scotch you drink.

“And for y’all a bit lower on the economic scale, enjoy your Pabst Blue Ribbon, or whatever shitty ass beer you favor …

“Because your time is limited.

“Real damned limited.”

Guess why! Wise explained:

“It is math.”

“Because you’re on the endangered list.

“And unlike, say, the bald eagle or some exotic species of muskrat, you are not worth saving.

“In 40 years or so, maybe fewer, there won’t be any more white people around who actually remember that Leave It to Beaver …”

“It’s OK. Because in about 40 years, half the country will be black or brown. And there is nothing you can do about it.

“Nothing, Senor Tancredo.”

After several more paragraphs of mocking white people, Wise ended with this stirring conclusion:

“We just have to be patient.

“And wait for you to pass into that good night, first politically, and then, well …

“Do you hear it?

“The sound of your empire dying? Your nation, as you knew it, ending, permanently?

“Because I do, and the sound of its demise is beautiful.”

Reasonable observations or deliberate, gloating, provocation liable to trigger an overreaction?

Chris Trotter said...

To: Guerilla Surgeon @ 14:45

Your complaint has been noted, GS. I will try harder to keep that sort of bluster and threat off the threads.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"They have expressed concerns about electoral displacement caused by high levels of immigration, quite a different thing to ranting about racial replacement as has been claimed, and accepted by the wilfully gullible."

Misrepresented my fat backside. You've obviously never listened to Tucker Carlson for very long – can't say as I blame you, because the man is a racist creep. But it's interesting that after the Buffalo shooting Fox went absolutely quiet on replacement theory for some time, and Carlson and the other main proponent Ingraham had obviously been told to STFU, because even if they use coded language it's obvious what they're doing.
Tim Wise? Is simply expressing the truth. White people are going to be a minority in the US relatively soon – immigration or no immigration. And as you conservatives keep telling us, you can't be racist if you're telling the truth. :)

The words "hoist" and "petard" spring to mind here.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"They want to grant amnesty and a path to citizenship to 8 million illegal aliens. Yes, there is definitely a replacement theory that’s going on right now. We are killing American jobs and bringing in illegal aliens from all over the world to replace them if Americans will not comply."
Colorado Congresswoman Lauren Boebert

David George said...

"Tim Wise? Is simply expressing the truth."
Simply expressing the truth? You didn't detect a note of offensive, provocative gloating?

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"Simply expressing the truth? You didn't detect a note of offensive, provocative gloating?"

And your point is? I tend to reserve my opprobrium for those who actually lie and thereby cause harm. Like Tucker Carlson and Jordan Peterson. Carlson in particular I hold responsible for hundreds if not thousands of deaths of people he has persuaded not to be vaccinated.
Both the above are gloaters is by the way. Did you not notice Jordan Peterson saying he's monetised social justice warriors, a prime example of gloating. Actually, he's monetised stupid young men but whatever.
Offensive? Free speech remember. Or does that only apply when your people are offensive?