Dutch Roll with a slice of Rogan - free speech is inherently unstable (part two)
Contrast two conversations with a state and its people
David Amess MP
Sir David Amess MP (voting record here) was murdered, supposedly, by one man acting alone. The murder has been classified an act of terrorism.
Amess’ death might have big ramifications for UK citizens, but does it actually deserve to?
Despite the Met Police’s statement that there is a link to Islamic extremism, they also stated that they are not looking for anyone else in relation to the crime.
So that’s a lone wolf terrorist potentially inspired by a wider network centred around Islamist extremism. A possible parallel might be Anders Breivik, the Norwegian self-confessed murderer of 77 people who wrote a 1500-page manifesto (some parts lifted from Ted Kaczynski) and who reportedly described what he did as motivated by the notion of a cultural war between Christianity and Islam.
The Amess murder shares the same dichotomy with the crimes of Anders Breivik:
The event itself (its reasons and method) that is supposedly subject to a fact-based “fair trial” that drives societal understanding of the event, relayed to most via media outlets and so subject to the “quality" and selectivity of that reporting;
The wider impacts on society where they can be reasonably investigated and established set against any narrative statements that tell society what the event’s impacts and meaning are, often manifested in subsequent changes to society through, for example law and policy.
Why is the above relevant to “conversational Dutch roll” and Joe Rogan?
The contrast between the UK’s total treatment of the Amess murder and the Norwegian’s total treatment of the Breivik murders are a direct insight to how societal conversation is conducted in both societies as chaired by each society’s authorities and media.
Morgoth’s Review presents one man’s observations on this that are worth your consideration. I will not summarise him directly. I leave it for you to interpret but I shall explore the above dichotomy in a similar but independent vein.
The (nearly completed) conversation about Anders Breivik
Breivik confessed before trial to his crimes and was tried in open court as a terrorist. His testimony and that of his victims was not broadcast but public access to the proceedings was not blocked, which is a counterbalance on the accuracy of reporting of the trial. He was convicted and was held in solitary confinement.
I recall at the time that there was a reported sentiment that despite the gravity and horror of the crimes, Norwegian society would not seek to impose significant reactive changes upon itself through legislation or policy for two reasons:
to do so would be disproportionate to one man’s extreme crimes;
for Breivik to render such force of change on society would be for him and his agenda to have scored some kind of victory over a society that rejects him and his agenda.
While this is likely an inadequate recall on my part, that was the major takeaway that I carried from the event: Norway seemed to have processed and coped with the event maturely and sensibly.
One year after the crime, this BBC article1 ends by telling the readers that, based on a poll, an entire nation was subseqeuently more worried about where they go on holiday, politics, crime, violence and natural disasters than a year ago. Who took part in that poll? Where is the source? The BBC did not link to it.
What does Anders Breivik, a lone wolf operator, have to do with widescale political unrest, crime, violence and natural disasters? If you had fears about these issues a year before this poll, then you couldn’t have thought that your nation was invulnerable, unless you literally did not think any of those things were of any concern a year ago. To me, this is all nebulous nonsense using a single crime in a foreign nation to create generalised fear in the mind of the reader.
Two years after the crime in 2013 the Norwegian Police Security Service was worried about lone wolf threats2. Meanwhile, Theresa May and Matthew Feldman spoke with certainty that a crime committed by a single person acting alone under some form of right-wing ideology would happen “sooner or later”. Quelle surprise. It’s happened many times before. Whether you make a massive and disproportionate thing of it or not is the real question. Whether the media whips it up, reports it factually, plays it down or ignores it is another question.
Allowing Norwegians to analyse for themselves the perpetrator’s agenda and motivation lead them to reject Breivik and allow their society’s status quo to persist. Would that have been the case if the trial had been conducted in secret and the public only had second-hand media reports to go off? That would leave them vulnerable to manipulation by the media and enable the media to wield unchecked power through the information they put out.
Song: This Mortal Coil - Song to the Siren
Transparency of the legal process and public access to it is public discourse that serves the national interest of processing and coping with a major, possibly crisis, event3. It allows the public to evaluate for itself two sets of ideas and values: those of the perpetrator; those of the democratic nation where they took place. Norwegians generally seemed to pick the side of their nation and determined that it was sufficiently strong and balanced as to need no direct bolstering.
Immediately after the crime, the Norwegian PM called for “more democracy, more openness, and more humanity.”?4 Was Stoltenberg speaking in Norwegian or Political Norwegian? He went on to run NATO. More research ten years after the crime shows the concerns of lone wolves increasing in number or managing to breed packs haven’t come to pass.
Song: Yonderboi - Milonga Del Mar
The (only just started) conversation about Ali Harbi Ali
On the day of the Amess killing Priti Patel, UK Home Secretary, declared it “an attack on democracy itself”.5 Why is an attack on an MP an attack on democracy itself? Without an explanation of why, this is pure bombastic assertion. An explanation of why would have to include reference to the killer’s motives. This is absent and impossible to know and communicate to the public on the same day that the crime was committed for obvious reasons.
If democracy exists in Britain, what does its survival look like? Like it did before, probably? There have only been 9 British MPs killed in 209 years, so odds of being killed in office are lower than dying from Covid.
If we’ve been here before, what was the effect of the last MP’s killing? Spending on MP security rose 26x in two years from £170k to £4.5m.
Everyone in society lives under a statistical threat of being a victim of crime. What proportion of women have been subjected to harassment in some form, or possible assault? Talk to women about their online dating app experiences and a significant proportion will report that they’ve been sent unsolicited forms of unpleasantness. Has spending on their real world or virtual safety increased 26x? Harassment and security concerns are not specific to politicians.
According to ONS statistics, UK homicide rate (most commonly from stabbings) “remains very low, with 11.7 (or 11.0 excluding the Essex lorry deaths) homicides recorded per million population during the year ending March 2020, a similar rate to the previous three years.”. Include David Amess in the 2021 count and it’s likely to remain “very low”. If the UK nation rate is very low, then the UK MP rate of 9 in 209 years (no idea how many politicians there have been in that time) must be incredibly low.
Two days after the killing politicians stated that changes could be made to MPs’ surgeries but should be proportionate.6 Therefore, they would have to take into account the historical odds of a British MP being killed in that environment, with reason being factored in as well. If only 9 have died in 209 years and one was killed due to a “lone wolf” in 2016, that’s almost random and possibly very difficult to detect. So what does a proportionate response to an extremely rare threat on a random basis look like? In most walks of life it looks like nothing. In aviation, it often does. Andrew Rosindell might agree, according to his words but as for this not being the “country that we’re used to”, I think it actually is according to ONS stats.
If Diane Abbot wants to be behind a screen, Covid gave her the pretext to do just that, so she’s a bit slow off the mark. I would be asking myself why people would want to stab me then start fixing that problem first, rather than just accepting that the only way to deal with an extremely rare risk is to install equipment that is the equivalent to legislating for an infinitesimally small minority (of both perpetrators and targets).
How is “the best… to come out of this hideous killing” defined, and by whom? Does that definition include the possibility of carrying on as there’s nothing to see here?
If protection measures are available and have been radically enhanced since 2016, then what needs to change other than Diane Abbot collecting her share of bullet proof screens and doing local business in a glass cage?
Three days after the killing the UK political establishment immediately puts pressure on the PM and starts a public campaign to enact “David’s Law” to remove anonymous internet access from UK citizens in order to somehow protect MPs better than they already are, with a heavy emphasis on anonymous abuse found on the social media channels.7
Youtube comments have existed almost since the start of the site and are filled with everything including hate and possible paedophilia timestamps. Why is this one man’s death the catalyst for sweeping internet access laws? How could “David’s law” have been drummed up in three days? The removal of anonymous internet access is a complex technical problem with far-reaching ramifications that demands a full public consultation process. “Enacting” a law suggests that this process may be curtailed.
The Patriot Act, a 300-page bill granting hitherto unknown powers to the US government and its agencies was passed just 45 days after 9/11. That means that those complex laws had likely already been drafted and were waiting for an politically opportune moment to be rolled out.
Coincidentally, the removal of anonymous internet access would require something like a Digital ID system in order to enact.
Another two weeks later and an agenda for the UK to adopt a definition of “Islamaphobia” is rolled out by MEND.8 This article:
never refences the known name of Amess’ alleged killer and adopts dehumanising terms of reference;
doesn’t acknowledge that no verdict has been reached or a case even commenced thus Ali is not the killer, he is the alleged killer (I appreciate this is a technical point);
repeatedly states that Amess’ killer is that man, rather than may be that man, of Somali descent;
criticises the British press for stating that the alleged killer is a “British man of Somali” descent but then itself repeats the same thing over and over;
repeatedly demands a definition that would have parity with “anti-semitism” so that the police can essentially deal with a problem that is “rooted in racism”.
Have political agendas been attached to a man’s death?
How can and why should the state speak with bombastic assertions about a killing before any investigation has taken place? How can it then use that uninvestigated killing as a segway to justify and demand, even excuse, the enactment of draconian national legislation for the 9th event of its vague kind in 209 years while at the same time saying that reponses “should be proportionate”? Up to this time, there have been plenty of issues that affected possibly majorities of citizens which did not necessarily result in such levels of knee-jerk pressure. The law in question may already be drafted, waiting for a choice moment to be rolled out. How can the BBC and The Guardian spin so quickly into a narrative overdrive in line with the political establishment?
Why is the timing of this opportunism seemingly a coincident re-bolstering of the deployment of formal domestic Digital IDs, just when the Covid-19 Vaccine Passport justification is finally crumbling?
Why is MEND justifying its calls for a definition of Islamaphobia off the back of this when it is the UK and US governments who, by illegally invading multiple Middle Eastern countries, have radically grown the phenomenon of Islamaphobia around the world and created enemies in global Islamic communities who did not necessarily exist before we started bombing and drone-assassinating those communities? Why does a distinction between “racially motivate crime” and “Islamaphobia” need to be made, if the latter is borne out of racism?
Why is the UK government’s and media’s instant response to the killing of one man seemingly so disproportionate and radically different to Norway’s far more measured response to the mass murder of 77 people on racial and cultural grounds, the subsequent research into which demonstrated that the Lone Wolf threat was practically a nothingburger? Individuals commit crimes for a variety of reasons all the time. Corporations commit bigger ones more egregiously and on an ongoing basis and get away with them.
Why would any nation default to a “legislate hard and quick based on the absolute minority” stance at the earliest opportunity and why is the timing of this event rather convenient in the bigger picture of the G3P’s published agenda of Digital ID and CBDCs, which need to interlink to drive a social credit system that is also openly mooted by the state e.g. food spend monitoring, Digital Health and Care and the intent to use devices to directly monitor citizen’s vaccine and health status, all of which require individual “identification”?
Beware those who render instant and disproportionate judgement
To me, the MO of the British state is almost woefully transparent.
In this case, the full context of a man’s death is being warped and obfuscated. He was a citizen first and foremost. UK homicide rates are low and stable. Second, he was an MP. Being killed in office is, on average a one in every 23 years event. That’s nothing as an event rate. There is no evidence of a linked and concerted network plot to kill British MPs. The police have stated as much.
Positioning and conditioning media reporting and political commentary commenced instantaneously in almost immediately segued into an explicit political objective of draconian internet controls for a problem which is not necessarily related to one man’s murder and is not confined to MPs. “David’s Law” may well in itself be grossly disproportionate, given that there are pre-existing mass surveillance systems that fully enable internet users to be identified provided there are legal justifications to do so.
By way of direct parallel, within hours of the MH-17 shootdown over the Donbass region of the Ukraine, the UK government and others openly and directly blamed the Russians with no evidence. The next day, all corporate press was repeating that message (The Times literally had a graffiti’d photo of Putin with Statanic horns on the front page). Over time, these accussations and assertions have been cast into serious doubt aided, oddly enough, by the incompetence of both state and media actors. The conduct of the Ukraine and Dutch authorities in accessing the crash site and conducting an investigation were suspect, as was the final report which, if memory serves me right, used the word “probably” an excessive number of times when asserting blame on Russia. Various forms of “intel” and at least one “analyst” who was put on a pedestal by the media, Bellingcat, was shown to be highly suspect as well.
It seems to me that the political opportunists might be using the Amess killing in exactly the same manner as they tried with the MH17 shootdown. This time, there are fewer independent and powerful entities to stick up for themselves and push back with counter UK narrative. In this case, it’s one British man who has entered a plea of not guilty.
Why does the UK government conduct conversation with dictate to its people in this manner?
If Joe Rogan is being openly hammered for conducting and sharing very human conversations with a wide variety of guests in unedited form, why should the UK government be able to conduct its conversations with its own people in a far worse manner? Why are the people of the UK being literally told what to think about Amess’ killing and what it must mean and subsequently justify, before any fact-based trial has taken place?
Never mind Rogan’s Dutch roll. The UK is in a national spiral dive of a conversation with itself. In fact, the conversation is between the UK corporate media and the government and it looks to me, again, as though it is totally manufactured, almost pre-scripted. This isn’t any form of conversation. It is manufactured consent:
1. A phrase originally coined in 1922 by the American journalist Walter Lippmann (1889–1974) to refer to the management of public opinion, which he felt was necessary for democracy to flourish, since he felt that public opinion was an irrational force.
2. For Herman and Chomsky, the acceptance of government policies by people in the USA on the basis of the partial picture of issues offered by the mass media, denying them access to alternative views which would lead them to oppose such policies. They present this as a propaganda model in which the mass media select material in relation to the values of those in power.
3. The concept found in Gramsci and Althusserian Marxism, in which the dominant class sustains its hegemony through engineering assent: see also ideological state apparatus.
4. (sociology) The notion associated with functionalism that society is dependent upon the engineering of a consensus: see also consensus; legitimation.
5. An allusion to the concept of ‘the engineering of consent’ defined in 1947, by the Austrian-American public relations pioneer Edward Bernays (1891–1995), as the art of manipulating people without them being aware of it. Bernays, a nephew of Freud, argued that people can be enticed to want things that they do not need if these are linked to their unconscious desires, a notion pursued by Dichter, the ‘father of motivation’.
One-way communication is the behaviour of dictators. Card-carrying and the removal of personal agency, personal privacy and freedom of speech are the tools of tyrants.
If this stuff, along with mass surveillance, wasn’t acceptable when done by the Stasi or the KGB, why is it acceptable at all when done by the British goverment to its own people, the vast majority of whom do not commit crime?
This is not a question of which face is in office. This doesn’t go away if BoJob and Co get shuffled. This is long term policy embedded within exising law, infrastructure and narrative of Covid/VPs/DIDs and pending law and burgeoning infrastructure that will cement the VP/DID system. All of which shall be integrated globally in the end.
June 2012
Norwegians vow to live their lives as they did before 22 July 2011. However, a recent poll found that more people than before now consider the risk of terrorism an important factor in choosing their holiday destination.
They are also more worried about political unrest, crime, violence and natural disasters than they were a year ago.
In her closing comments, Ms Bejer Engh emphasised that a trial rarely managed to answer all our questions. It might take more than a year and the closing of the Breivik trial for Norwegians to come to terms with the uncertainty still left, which continues to rock the nation's sense of invulnerability.
Source: BBC News Breivik trial's effect on the people of Norway
June 2013
Janne Kristiansen, former head of the Police Security Service – Norway’s domestic intelligence branch – said that Breivik represented a new paradigm… adding that the unconnected terrorist is “one of their biggest worries”. [UK] Home Secretary Theresa May and one of the founders of the Centre for Fascist, Anti-Fascist and Post-Fascist Studies at Teesside University, Matthew Feldman, highlighted the growing threat of a Breivik-style attack in Britain. May stated that there had been an “increased focus on right-wing groups in the last year or so, particularly since the Breivik incident in Norway. [...] It’s still the case that we’re likely to see a lone actor on the basis of right-wing extremism”. Feldman concluded that someone like Anders Breivik will be on the radar “sooner or later”.
However, the most important goal the trial seemed to serve, in the eyes of the respondents and as supported by media reports, was the goal of closure, closely connected to the trial as a symbol for the defence of the Norwegian democratic system. One of the interviewees, Laila Bokhari, said:
“There has been a lot of discussion in the media whether Breivik’s trial was actually preventing or inspiring others and about the role the media has played. What words did they use to describe him, what pictures did they show etc. In a way, a lot of people argued that just by hearing his words, he would actually fall from his statue because everyone could see for themselves that his statements do not make sense. At the same time, there has been a rising awareness that we, as citizens, need to be engaged in that discussion, in the media, in political parties, in youth groups, to counter his principles. For example: he used the children’s song, the Rainbow Song, to show his disgust with multiculturalism and what was our reaction? Everyone met up in the square and sang that song. Maybe that is a crazy thing for people to do but I think it is also part of our coping mechanism and saying: ok, we have given him his platform but at the same time, that demands us to be active citizens and respond to his views.”.
Source: The Anders Behring Breivik Trial: Performing Justice, Defending Democracy
January 2014
Some have questioned whether a self-confessed terrorist should be given such a platform to spread his violent ideology, whilst others stressed the need to keep the trial behind closed-doors for reasons of public order and security. On the other hand, many feel that a trial of this magnitude demands public scrutiny…
Fair trial, no show trial
One advantage to the public nature of the trial is that it provides for an unprecedented view into the dynamics of terrorist trials and the (performative) strategies employed by the various parties involved – the judiciary, defendant, victims, media, society at large etc.
Accordingly, trials are viewed as the stage where the different actors adopt and act out strategies with the aim of convincing their target audience(s), in and outside the courtroom, of their narrative of (in)justice. Hence, there is more to gain than only a legal victory.
Trials can become a show run by the terrorists, but the stage provided can also be consciously used by the prosecuting authorities as an opportunity to demonstrate their respect for the rule of law and the potential for fair and just adjudication.
Factual and meticulous prosecution
The prosecution has chosen a factual, unemotive and highly-detailed approach to the case… In doing so, they seem to hope that Breivik’s actual actions on 22 July 2011 inform the outcomes of the trial and public perception, not the analysis of the media, comments of talking heads or Breivik’s own court room statements.
Some cautious predictions
With two conflicting psychiatric assessments, a defense that – uncommonly – pleads sanity, and a public that has not made up its mind whether it prefers to see Breivik and his actions as inhumane and insane…
Secondly, Breivik may shed more light on the secretive resistance movement known as the Knights Templar which he claims to be a member of. During the first day of trial, the prosecution said it had found no evidence of its existence and believes he acted alone. Was Breivik indeed a lone wolf, or did he act on behalf of a (imagined) group?
And thirdly, other actors such as the judiciary, media, victims and the (Norwegian) public at large may come to play an influential role… The media has extensive control over what (and how) they decide to broadcast and what they ignore. The victims are allowed to take the stand during the trial... And the judiciary has already demonstrated its aspiration to uphold the rule of law and remove every suspicion of partiality by replacing one of the three lay judges for stating last July that Breivik should face the death penalty. The way these groups analyse and reflect upon the proceedings and their outcome will determine whether the trial will be seen as fair and just, or as a farce or show trial.
Excerpts from source: Clingendael Netherlands Institute of International Relations - Anders Breivik: a terrorist on trial, 14 Jan 2014
Updated July 2021
2011: In a national memorial address at Oslo Cathedral just two days after the attacks, [then Norwegian Prime Minister Jens] Stoltenberg called for "more democracy, more openness, and more humanity."
2021: …Center for Research on Extremism (C-REX) published a series of analyses looking at Breivik's long-term influence.
The author of one of the reports, Dr. Jacob Aasland Ravndal, told CNN it appeared more limited than media coverage would suggest. "There was of course a lot of concern after the attacks that they would generate copycat attacks," he said. But "somewhat surprisingly," he said, there haven't been many clear-cut cases of direct inspiration from Breivik.
"The main finding, all in all, both when it comes to tactics but also for political, ideological support, is that it's been surprisingly little," he said. "It's been possible to find support, but fortunately less than one might have worried about initially considering the high death toll and all the attention these attacks got globally."
Excerpts from source: A far-right extremist killed 77 people in Norway. A decade on, 'the hatred is still out there' but attacker's influence is seen as low
October 15, 2021 (the day of Amess’ killing)
Ms Patel said the killing "represents a senseless attack on democracy itself", adding that "questions are rightly being asked about the safety of our country's elected representatives".
Sir Lindsay [Hoyle, Speaker of the House of Commons] said he went ahead with his constituency surgery as normal on Friday evening and said it was essential that MPs were able to retain their relationship with their constituents.
"We have got to make sure that democracy survives this," he said.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said it was a "dark and shocking day", adding that "we have, heartbreakingly, been here before" with the death of Jo Cox.
"We will show once more that violence, intimidation and threats to our democracy will never prevail over the tireless commitment of public servants simply doing their jobs," he said.
But, increasingly, the job has been accompanied by abuse, intimidation - and risk for MPs and their staff.
One member of the cabinet told me today: "Everyone has had a threat... everyone has had frightening moments."
Dealing with harassment, coping with security concerns and reporting those concerns to the police, is sadly routine in politics in the 21st Century.
After the murder of Jo Cox in 2016, the spending on MPs' security rose from £170,576 in 2015/16, to £4.5m two years later
Source: BBC News Sir David Amess: Conservative MP stabbed to death
Oct. 17, 2021 (two days after Amess’ killing)
Home Secretary Priti Patel said MPs had access to a "panoply" of security measures - many of which were put in place after Ms Cox's murder - but said changes could be made to constituency surgeries.
Any measures needed to be proportionate, she told the BBC's Andrew Marr show. "We're here to serve, we're here to be accessible to the British public."
Meanwhile, Tory MP Andrew Rosindell said the killing of his friend and fellow Essex MP "shouldn't change things in a way that stops us going about our democratic role".
"There's got to be some balance to this. I don't have an answer," he told BBC Breakfast on Sunday. "This is not the Britain I want, this is not the country that we're used to."
Labour's Diane Abbott MP said she would prefer to meet constituents behind a screen to prevent possible stabbing attacks.
Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle said he wanted to avoid a knee-jerk reaction but insisted "the best had to come out of this hideous killing".
He said security measures would be reviewed to improve MPs' safety and urged MPs to take up measures already available to them.
Source: BBC News - Sir David Amess: MP murder suspect held under Terrorism Act
18th October, 2021 (three days after Amess’ killing)
Boris Johnson is facing calls to enact “David’s law” to crack down on social media abuse of public figures and end online anonymity in the wake of the killing of Sir David Amess.
Source: The Guardian - PM urged to enact ‘David’s law’ against social media abuse after Amess’s death
1st November, 2021 (two weeks after Amess’ killing)
Sir David Amess MP was brutally murdered on Friday 15th October 2021 by a 25-year-old British man who happens to come from a Somali Muslim background. This has generated expectations of a spike in racially and religiously motivated hate crimes targeting British Muslims in retaliation to the killing. To avoid such concerns, more must be done to combat Islamophobic hate crimes targeting innocent Muslims in the wake of such incidents; the first step is to adopt a formal definition of Islamophobia.
In a statement released just hours after the murder, the Metropolitan Police declared: “the early investigation has revealed a potential motivation linked to Islamist extremism” and said the murder is being treated as a terrorist incident. Despite its admission that the attacker’s motives have yet to be identified, the media’s reporting of the killing highlights its propensity to emphasise the Muslim identity of the killer.
A 2013 study involving a discourse analysis of over 200,000 newspaper articles from 11 newspapers mentioning “Islam” or “Muslims” found that “Islam” and “terror” were simultaneously used in more than one-third (37.9%) of the texts analysed.
Focusing on the killer’s ties to “Islamist extremism” cultivates an “Us versus Them” narrative that implies a wider threat posed by Muslims to British society. Instead, the media and politicians, especially members of the Government, have a responsibility to emphasise solidarity rather than divisions during times of crisis to ensure the safety of Muslims and minority communities.
To prevent imminent backlash by the far-right following violent acts perpetrated by criminals that happen to be Muslim, a clear and robust definition of Islamophobia must be adopted.
To curtail retaliatory hate crimes against Muslims and Islamophobic hate crimes, in general, a definition of Islamophobia is essential. The APPG on British Muslims defines Islamophobia as “a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.” The racialisation of Muslims based on certain cultural and ethnic markers is evidenced by the targeting of members of the British Somali community – on the basis that Sir David Amess’ killer is of Somali descent.
Excerpts from source: Muslim Engagement & Development - David Amess Murder Generates Fears of Rise in Islamophobic Hate Crime