On Not Reading the Christchurch Killer's Manifesto

27 February, 1933.

“Democracy dies in darkness,” runs the new and much-mocked motto of the Washington Post.

Mocked not because it isn’t true, but because the Washington Post itself allegedly does not honour it.

In swift reaction to the shootings in Christchurch, the government of New Zealand has banned either distributing or possessing the killer’s manifesto. Offenders found with a copy face up to ten years in prison.

In the meantime, we read and see everywhere that the murderer was a “white supremacist.”

The problem is, he wasn’t, and the suppression of his manifesto serves to sustain this fiction and suppress this truth. I have myself criminally wordsearched his manifesto online for the term “white,” to confirm this. Nowhere does he express or endorse the idea that “whites” are, or ought to be treated as, superior.

Nor is the killer, as also often asserted, “right-wing,” let alone “far right”—according to his own statements. I wordsearched that one too. He says he is neither left nor right.

This government action in New Zealand begins to look sinister.

Imagine deliberately suppressing public knowledge of the causes of some deadly disease. Wouldn’t that ensure that the disease spreads, grows, and kills more?

Worse, falsely tagging this on the “far right” and on “white supremacists” seems likely to foment the very sort of tribal conflict and scapegoating that leads to more such massacres. Albeit presumably against “whites” and conservatives rather than Muslims.

Why would a government do this? Who benefits?

One possible reason is that such incidents are a convenient excuse for expanding government powers.

Misrepresentations of Godwin’s Law to the contrary, there is an obvious historical example of how this works: Hitler’s Reichstag fire. In the crisis atmosphere it evoked, he was able to seize absolute power. Without necessarily accusing Kiwi bureaucrats of ambition quite so naked, one can yet see how it all works to their advantage. As Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel reputedly once said, “Never let a crisis go to waste.”

A second possible reason is that the killer’s argument has too much truth to it. This is almost necessarily the case when anyone tries censorship. Things that are obviously false are no threat. When you think you can win an argument, you positively want the argument to happen. You only want to suppress a view or opinion when you feel you cannot respond to it.

I have not actually read the murderer’s long manifesto. The main reason is that I read copies available on the web have now been booby-trapped by someone with viruses. Not worth the risk. Also probably not worth the horrifying moral quandary of possibly having to agree to at least some extent with a mass murderer.

But you have to wonder. This has not happened with other manifestos from other mass murderers, which are generally pretty available online. No government ban, no booby-trapping. I recently read the long rant left by the 2014 “incel” killer. Mein Kampf, for that matter, is freely available, as it should be. So is The Communist Manifesto. The fact that either incites violence against an identifiable group is obviously not a vital issue. After all, awkwardly enough, so does the Quran.

There has to be something special here. Something smells wrong here.

Blowing in the Wind

A few days ago, I wrote about the slaughter in Christchurch, and that of course everybody is going to come out and say they are against murder and hate; but they always say that, and it does nothing.

Actually, this time, in Canada, not everyone has done so. And this looks significant.

Andrew Scheer’s initial statement seemed to avoid saying that the victims were Muslim.

“Freedom has come under attack in New Zealand as peaceful worshippers are targeted in a despicable act of evil. All people must be able to practice their faith freely and without fear.”

He was quickly criticized for this omission, and sent out a second statement that was more explicit. 

Maxime Bernier

Maxime Bernier did not. He first said nothing about the incident, and then, when challenged, responded that there was no call to issue a statement. He did not automatically issue statements whenever Christians or others were attacked either.

“Some journalists have no decency. Did this one harass me or anybody else when dozens of Christians were massacred in Nigeria and the Philippines weeks ago? Why not? As a rule I don’t comment on these horrible tragedies in other countries. Period.”

Bernier has a point. Islam has been given more consideration in Canada in recent years than Christianity or Judaism. Witness House of Commons resolutions consciously and deliberately condemning “Islamophobia,” without referring to other religions—religions that suffer more actual hate crimes.

But this reaction, by Scheer and Bernier, suggests that politicians are now no longer certain they gain politically by defending Muslims. Even at a time when one might expect natural sympathy. That’s chilling. They are making a careful calculation instead; fingers are to the wind. And the direction of the wind may be shifting.

Important moral for any minority in a democracy: do not trust government to protect you from a lynch mob. The same lynch mob elected them. 

There is a reason for the blindfold.

This is one of the great overlooked advantages of Empire. The authorities in London, and those they sent out to administer, were divorced from local factions and prejudices. They could view disputes with a disinterested eye, and so would dispense justice. Good news for minorities everywhere: Sikhs in India, Ibo in Nigeria, Hakka in Malaysia, French in Canada. This is always less probable in either a democracy or a local oligarchy.

Witness the very different experience of aboriginal people in Canada, under the Empire, and in the US. Thomas Darcy McGee found the same to be true for the Irish: Montreal treated them more fairly than Boston, where the signs went up that “no Irish need apply.” Witness the disparate treatment of Africans in the two countries. 

It was real.

In theory, liberal democracies also have checks and balances built in to restrain the mob. This is the point of the Senate, in either Canada or the US. This is the point of a constitution and a separate judiciary. To some extent, this is the point of a federation.

Unfortunately, we have increasingly politicized them.

While all the talk has been, for the past forty years or, about celebrating minorities, do not be misled. Our system is not set up for this, and this was never true. It looked true only so long as so-called “minorities” constituted a majority voting bloc, and some disliked minority—such as “cisgendered Anglo straight white males”—could be falsely presented as the majority. But the focus of the mob can just as easily, and abruptly, swing to another victim: the Jews, or white women, or the Muslims, and so forth. We are beginning to see this.

First they came for the cisgendered Anglo straight white males, and I said nothing, for I was not a cisgendered Anglo straight white male. Then they came for the Jews, and I said nothing, for I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Muslims …