Written By:
advantage - Date published:
12:00 pm, April 28th, 2023 - 78 comments
Categories: class war, Deep stuff, International, Politics, uncategorized, us politics, war -
Tags:
I’ve worked my way through two books recently, both on extremist sects, one about New Zealand groups and one about those in the United States of America. It’s startling.
The New Zealand book is by Byron C. Clark called Fear: New Zealand’s Hostile World Of Extremists. It starts from the Christchurch massacre and the supporting cast around that, and becomes the author’s own journey through a variety of hardline movements operative here including the anti-vaxxer Parliamentary protesters, the deep hard right of Catholicism in Wargus Christi, the growth of women as a major presence within the alt right here, and in different chapters names many of the groups and their leaders from Action Zealandia, Voices for Freedom, Counterspin, QAnon, Groundswell, Hindutva, and many more.
It’s not to be considered an academic tome or a work with high researched rigour. It’s the author’s own engagement with the personalities that make for the compelling reading. And yes, they do track him down to his work and his home.
But there is no doubt the author is signalling growth and diversity in extremism in New Zealand and that we have not heard the last of it.
When you read it side by side with the American work you can’t help but be struck by the early-stage growth parallels.
Jeff Sharlett’s The Undertow: Scenes From A Slow Civil War, gets straight to the dark twist in US evangelical fundamentalism that brings up Trump as saviour and all the citation of scripture required to prepare for a civil war.
In this militarised version of the far right that led to a more specific attempt for seizure of power at Congress rather than New Zealand’s own longer Parliamentary encampment, their forty-fifth president is a focused lens of conspirational fears and fantasies. But even when the current lot are jailed as many already are, a new generation of this kind of leadership will now arise.
Sharlet also remembers and celebrates the courage of those who sing a different song of community, and of activists who work towards an America dedicated to justice and freedom for all.
The second book is a document in the gradual rise of a kind of fascism in the USA, one which I’ve found hard to recognise because I didn’t see the usual cultural accoutrements of uniforms, unifying songs, and orchestrated masses in serried ranks. I have to change my mind about what fascism in its early phase can look like.
It’s of course a trap to see the New Zealand book as simply the nascent phase of what’s on the rise in the USA. Neither signal a fixed destiny to the other. Fate is what we are on earth to make and not what we wait for like a Calvinist assuming deistic determination. Those we can uncomfortably engage with and bring into established political orbit will be hard work but it is a necessary work.
These worlds may never reach Parliamentary representation and so will be little exposed to discourse, but they are also real. Many of them will be watched by appropriate arms of state. I would encourage anyone with half a political brain to read Fear: New Zealand’s World of Hostile Extremists and check out how unlikely it is that New Zealand will return to its pre-Christchurch and pre-COVID peaceability.
It is not yet clear we can win them back.
Of course, the extremists with the greatest potential for death and mayhem, are those who were democratically elected. Like Roger Douglas or Rob Muldoon.
Fringe subcultures are interesting but their capacity for destruction is limited. Real problems arise when extremist ideas that appeal to the dark side of human nature infect wider society.
The dehumanising of out-groups, victimhood narratives, cancellation and violence are discourses of deception.
Can you point to the news story where those two gunned down 50 people?
Just because state sanctioned violence is legal, doesn’t make it right. These guys declared war on the working class. Do you think our terrible performance in poverty indicators, stagnant wages, and suicide stats comes from nowhere?
https://milfordasset.com/insights/how-muldoon-threw-away-nzs-wealth
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/culture/1981-springbok-tour
https://www.eastonbh.ac.nz/2012/04/rogernomics-and-the-left/
Extremists.
And now they are vilifying and criminalising the victims of their class war
The book "Fear" referred to is by Byron C. Clark (not Chris Wilson).
A dern it my bad.
fixed now
Fear by Clark (not Wilson) is a Polemic. See my review – https://djhdcj.substack.com/p/fear-and-hatred-books-for-our-time
I read it and saw it as a series of chapters about RW extermists, his definition So as a sort of dictionary/encycopaedia it is useful.
I regard gender ideologists as extremists. They assert that if you are a biological man you can assert you are a women and should be regarded as such. “Trans women are women”. There is no debate on this and dissenters are called transphobic, bigots and often are smeared as being alt right. This not tolerating dissent includes cancelation. If they can’t cancel you, then they use extremist tactics such as intimidation and actual violence as we saw in Albert Park. btw Ad do you condemn the violence against women in Albert Park?
did the book cover anything about trans rights activists extremists, both overseas and in NZ
Anker, you are voicing a narrative of the right. Posey Parker is too recent to be in Fear.
The "Trannish Inquisition" permits no heresy or apostasy.
Martin C, I am afraid you are incorrect.
The vast majority of gender critical feminists are from the left.
The modus operandi of the trans rights activists up till Posie involved shutting down debate, smearing and cancelling. Posie Parker showed us what happens if women say no we won't be silenced. The extremists use violence to stop free speech. Whenever has the alt right championed free speech.
To believe trans women are women is science denial
But are the majority of left wing feminists gender critical feminists?
The majority of women on the right support gender critical feminists, not that this has had any impact on NACT policy.
The majority of gender critical feminists e.g. in SUFW are left wing and many of these women are members of the Rainbow community i.e. lesbian. If you go to their website and click on about us, you can read about the left wing activistism of the SPFW women.
Where is your evidence that the majority of left wing feminists aren't gender critical SPC?
Where is your evidence that they are?
Polls show more of those supportive of gender identity rights are women, not men. And that does not come from right wing women. So if its not from left wing women, or centre-left, it comes from the majority that are neither, in the centre.
https://twitter.com/OxFeministUnion/status/1649690238472581123
Well the Oxford feminist Union support gender critical academic Kathleen Stock speaking at Oxford Uni.
Here's the link https://www.speakupforwomen.nz/who-we-are
I'm not sure I would call SUFW predominantly left wing. They strike me as old school liberals and centre lefties. Historically they've been centrist, willing to work with the right, not sure where they are at with that currently.
Women's Liberation Aotearoa are overtly leftist,
https://womensliberationaotearoa.org.nz/principles-of-womens-liberation-aotearoa/
SUFW did a survey of their membership and they were prodominantly Labour and Green voters (if you call that left wing, I do).
Many of these women now feel politically homeless.
Remember too the group that invited Posie Parker to NZ were Mana Wahine Korero, a group of Maori gender critical women. Hard to argue that they are alt right. Hard too to argue that they would invite a so called alt right speaker. The idea is ridiculous.
Labour are a neoliberal centre left party, have been for over 30 years and played a bit part in shifting the Overton Window in NZ to the right. They've actively resisted attempts to shift leftward again. Remember the ABCs? Anyone But Cunliffe. That's the centrists holding the party to the centre to stop it moving leftwards.
Voting for them doesn't make one leftist, although there are leftist people in the party and leftist people who vote for them.
Likewise in the UK. KJK saying she used to vote for Labour doesn't make her left wing, it means she voted for a Blairite, third way, anti-leftist party. She's shifted her politics since then, and I agree she's not alt-right or far right. She's a somewhat socially liberal conservative populist. She's also got the potential to become far right. Which is why she's comfortable with Tucker Carlson, or not automatically rejecting Nazis.
Left =/= liberal. Left means things like worker's rights, collectivism, egalitarianism, wealth sharing, looking after people, social and economic equality, but also being politically committed to those things.
I don't know what MWK's politics are outside of GC. But Māori politics don't sit exactly with the left/right spectrum anyway, they exist within their own right.
Weka : oh geez not the old "ABC" argument again. I was named as one and pilloried for it by people like you ; I had good reasons, which were proven in the disastrous 2014 election. Turns out the MPs I was supporting became PM and Finance Minister. You learn a lot about people you work with. Me, I go for authenticity and trust is also a big issue for me. I will admit DC makes a good management consultant.
I don't remember pillorying you Darien. I was mostly following the number of Labour members and those outside of Labour that were working for a more left position (I don't know your position or history on that).
Weka : you mean the Labour members on the Standard eh who saw DC as the second coming? One day I will tell the full story ; but I am of the Left, born Left, never sold out or compromised, stuck to my cause which is workers' rights. I was so Left DC dumped me.
Yes let's not talk about how the current prime minister and current minister of finance were part of a group of mp's hellbent on destabilizing the Labour party leadership because they'd openly rather be in opposition than be in government led by someone they didn't like
Constantly leaking to the media and breaking ranks, mps like Curran and Co posting diatribes to destabilize the leader of a party in an election year is a disgrace not just to the labour's movement and the party membership who elected Cunliffe but also every working class and poor person in nz.
Let's not talk about how the same group of mps was also leaking internal polling in 2017.
Let's not talk about the fact that they were so frightened of the party membership, that they had to wait til the cut off period in 2017 where chosing a new leader wouldn't cause a membership primary because none of their candidates including Grant/Jacinda could win a leadership primary.
Let's not talk about the fact that this group so frightened of the labour party membership that they pretty much changed the leadership voting rules unilaterally so caucuses favorite robots didn't have to convince the membership to vote for then.
And sure the ABCs got some great cabinet positions, but what have they achieved? Absolutely SFA and ruled out and denied doing anything substantial.
With the exception of Jacinda the ABCs were a bunch of no talent political robots who actively hated the party membership and engaged in destabilizing skull duggary during an election campaign.
Hipkins would never have won a party wide leadership vote without the rule changes.
Cunlife would have made a great minister in this government with its shallow talent pool.
And for those who say membership chose bad candidates and caucus picks better candidates….
Caucus elected Goff and Shearer membership elected Cunliffe and Little , 2 failures each, Ardern herself would have been elected by membership, Chippie wouldn't, we'll see how the election goes
you might be interested in this too
https://thestandard.org.nz/where-is-new-zealand-extremism-going/#comment-1947743
Yes interesting quiz, but I wonder how valid the questions are.
Interestingly enough, I scored as mildly left and mildly libertarian.
No way of knowing so long as No Debate exists. Consider the Green Party, which has suppressed discussion of GC positions. No Debate means that people are too afraid to say anything, or they have left the party.
If you want to get a sense of how the general public feel about gender identity and the boundaries that GCFs keep banging on about, look at the Yougov polls in the UK, which show a broad tolerance for trans people, but that support drops when people understand that a trans woman wanting into women's spaces can be an intact male. Again, No Debate means that this hasn't been widely discussed.
I seriously doubt the majority of women int he right support GCFs. Many support GC positions, but that's not the same thing.
Most want to be inclusive of others, as to citizenship for all, regardless of difference.
It's more nuanced when it comes to practicality – safe spaces, fair competition etc. Especially if there is self ID.
Sure, the word feminist is one they run from. This may explain K-JK's care not to pose her campaign as a feminist one.
PP is actually a left winger not from the right. She belonged to the UK Labour party.
it is mistake i think to consider the latest concerns with women’s issues as being from the left or right. Many women are waiting to see party/ies meet their concerns before deciding who to vote for.
100% Shanreagh
It's led by someone of the left (but who never identified as a feminist) who sees others on the left as the main opposition to her campaign, so seeks support from the right.
SPC, Parker will talk to anyone willing to listen about womens rights.
where did you get that KJK never was feminist from?
She saw feminists supporting things she did not support, thus did not see herself as a feminist (they were prostitution and pornography). I'll link to that if I find it again.
Here, as to her current attitude.
Video 3min 30s "not a radical feminist".
Video 6 min 50s "feminism not the answer".
I know her current position, I'm asking why you think "but who never identified as a feminist". Past tense and ever.
UK Labour aren't leftist, they're centre left and those in power in UK Labour have actively resisted the party being moved leftward. KJK isn't left wing she's a centrist populist.
I agree with this. But that doesn't mean that left, centre, right, far right aren't meaningful.
there are flaws in this model, but it's still useful to understand relative political positions. If you haven't before, do the quiz to see where you sit.
This is the 2017 version
2020 version here https://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2020
Quiz here https://www.politicalcompass.org/test
I just redid the compass. My results plus NZ 2020
https://twitter.com/wekatweets/status/1651866876216229888
I'm a bit surprised to see ACT so far 'up' on the Authoritarian scale.
I thought their core premise was Libertarianism (small government, individual choice, etc.)
ACT has been dog whistling the fascist racist vote for some time .
Your definition of 'fascist' appears to depart rather markedly from the generally accepted one.
Perhaps you should share exactly what you mean, when you use the term.
ACT generally advocates for less involvement of government in regulating citizen's lives.
ACT are libertarian for Consumers and Taxpayers, aka wealthy people.
So the authoritarian/libertarian scale in this graph means something other than the usual definition of those terms.
Because, little as though the left may like ACT – their ethos is a libertarian party.
I was looking at the 2020 graph, where they're in the libertarian quarter. Afaik the positions in the graph are based on policy, so there must have been something in 2017 that made them more authoritarian.
I wrote this a few weeks ago,
ACT want to remove current benefit entitlements for most unemployed and solo mums and replace them with electronically monitored and controlled income. This is anti-libertarian, ACT's libertarianism if for well off people. It cements in beneficiaries as second class citizens. You can look at how this kind of scheme has played out in Australia to see the daily problems it causes.
https://www.act.org.nz/welfare
Agree Belladonna
Top look as far to the right as Act. Interesting.
probably a hangover from Gareth Morgan's days. They've made changes since 2020, my guess is they will be more centrist in the 2023 map, but they position themselves as working with either National or Labour so I wouldn't call them left wing. In some ways they are orthogonal to the L/R axis (the Greens are too, but for different reasons).
I have to admit I like their tax policy, i.e. a land tax
There's a big difference between authoritarianism as a means (like cancel culture) and authoritarianism as an end (like full on state-enforced racial and sexual hierarchies). The gender ideologists are more the former than the latter.
Much 'wokeism' is really just people like them, who may have a good cause—at least in some respects—but who are terrible human beings who lack the basic civic virtues required of reasonable citizens. One of our current problems is that a large percentage of people in the media and other positions of privilege are like this now.
The authoritarianism on both the extreme of right and left are regugnant to me. The trans rights activistists extremists are authoritarian.
Why do you think people get in to trouble in the public service if they don't use pro nouns (a mild example but part of the whole deal).
I heard an interview with Professor Grant Scofield who said free speech at the university is severely compromised and he doesn't mention transgenderism because he would be called before the Vice Chancellor.
If you are going to decree extremism then it needs to be all extremism especially if it is authoritarian.
This is extremism. The removal of the ability to even explore a contrary narrative.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/15/university-blocks-academic-gender-wars-research/
"Her final work has not been published, as it was derailed by complaints about an article for Times Higher Education in which she warned that “a culture of discrimination, silencing and fear has taken hold”.
Following this, she says, her line managers told her that the study had “become an institutionally sensitive issue” and that “City considers my data to be dangerous” and is “frightened of making it public”.
A research participant who “did not like the findings” and academics sympathetic to trans issues were among those who complained. One, Dr Sahra Taylor, a City lecturer, claimed it was an “attack piece on trans people [and] our existences” that has “clearly caused harm to many interviewed”.
Unfortunately I can't access that article Visu. Its behind the paywall.
archive version https://archive.is/Q5Mba
You think Universities would have learned following the Reindorf report – but obviously not.
https://sex-matters.org/posts/freedom-of-speech/the-reindorf-review-a-wake-up-call-for-universities/
"The Reindorf Review exposes a widespread phenomenon: accusations of transphobia deployed first to curtail academic freedom, and then to prevent people talking about the curtailment of academic freedom. It highlights unlawful university policies developed through processes captured by internal and external lobby groups, and cultures of fear for staff and students who disagree with gender identity ideology."
Anybody who reads what happened to this researcher and her research can't fail to conclude that an extremist group is at work here cancelling academics freedom of speech on the basis of hysterics.
The Press ran an article by Clark (and someone else? I can't remmber who) a few weeks ago suggesting that those who believe in biology and the reality that sex is more important than gender identity in certain settings (anywhere women are undressed – eg communal changing areas, prisons and in women's sports) are the true extremists. Thus I take anything by Clark with a huge dose of salt.
I have had more than a few discussions with Byron Clark on Womens issues, if that is the Clark you are meaning.
He has little knowledge of womens issues generally and seems out of his depth when discussing what happened at Albert Park as he has bought the media narrative of her being anti trans when she is pro women. An important distinction.
that's my impression of him too (from following on twitter), doesn't really understand feminism or women's perspectives.
That debate is radioactive and in the USA has been a factor in at least 2 mass shooting incidents. There are two groups that cannot stand each other; each viewing the other side as evil incarnate.
NZ doesn't have the same level of gun-toting religious fundamentalists. But the local trans rights movement is as toxic and paranoid as the parliament protests. Albert Park was just the tip of the iceberg. I think a more extreme campaign against women, child safety, religious freedom, etc is on the cards.
This podcast was recommended on RNZ a week or so ago – worth listening to. https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-presents-ultra
There have been various Nazi parties in the USA over the years . . .
Years ago I bought The Politics of Nostalgia. by Bruce Jesson and Paul Spoonley. An excellent book published in the early 90s. Histories of Hate updates it and Fear puts a recognizable face to it.
To understand the decay of modern NZ read, But Their Purpose is Mad by Bruce Jesson and The Fire Economy by Jane Kelsey will tell you how we got here.
No doubt Spoonley is the leading researcher on this.
But just don't agree that the origin of all our extremism is in economic restructuring.
They're now connected into the American alt-right propaganda network and some will be receiving funding – one that demonises anyone on the left globally (thus Charlie Kirk's obssession with Ardern).
What they will not have is the American adventism – a cult that believes that a right wing friendly God will eliminate from public life all liberal and left wing human beings via bowls of judgment (we are not in Kansas now – the Chiefs are based in a city of the state of Missouri). Thus the absurdity of Trump prophecy and right wing agency of God on earth.
Maybe we should be less concerned about our own citizens and more concerned about who is embedded in our security infrastructure. WTF is the GSCB up to?
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/488824/revealed-senior-ex-us-military-officers-land-nz-government-jobs
The one at GCSB is an assurance manager.
Hiring competent and security-cleared experts who enable better interoperability with our partners.
Paul Jay has done some great interviews on this topic.
That said, the reality is the wave of extremism will only get worse as we get closer and closer to extinction.
Only if we spend too much time bullshitting on social media. We tend to forget our differences in times of crisis and muck in together. Maybe earthquakes and floods are trying to teach us something.
Here's a beautiful tribute to the better angels of our nature. We can choose cooperation and sharing, instead of fighting and selfishness
The real Lord of the Flies: what happened when six boys were shipwrecked for 15 months
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/09/the-real-lord-of-the-flies-what-happened-when-six-boys-were-shipwrecked-for-15-months
I also found the post apocalyptic TV series "Station Eleven" really uplifting. Instead of violent criminal gangs and hordes of zombies, it shows communities of humans working together to survive. Because they aren't forced to live in the sociopathic system of capitalist exploitation that we marinate in
https://youtu.be/1rvYYD9mlac
Wow. Youngsters from a sharing, cooperative society survive by sharing and cooperating.
Yes. I am a fan of this aspect of Māori and Polynesian culture.
These ideas of leadership by empowering the people and diffusion of agency to a community of trust, would be a more democratic alternative to our western habits of hierarchy and control.
New Zealand has its own version of that, but this time two groups on the same subantarctic island at close to the same time, with vastly different results.
https://www.nzgeo.com/stories/a-tale-of-two-shipwrecks/
The Grafton and the Invercauld from John McCrystal's Shipwreck Tales.
Great link, thanks. Never seen that story before.
Big Hairy News interview with Byron Clarke
Longform discussion about Byron's interest in rightwing extremism, mis and disinformation around the NZ anti-vax movement, and other recent conspiracy-theory movements in NZ.
If you don't know much about the topic, it's a good intro.
This is as good a place as any to drop this 53min clip. It explores ideas around how family structure feeds into political ideology and history across various cultures. There is plenty to react to – both positively and negatively – but it does add a layer of nuance to the political debate we rarely discuss:
And in an era of rapid changes to family structure everywhere, it poses the question of what will be the consequences politically? Which in turn feeds into the OP.
Last one to leave please turn out the lights.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/restore-passenger-rail-protesters-block-traffic-near-parliament-in-wellington/IVAWU5EHAFFNXIEZ4BSAI2OAAA/
would people consider these protesters extremists? Especially in view of the Govts recent commitment to buying more trains for Wairapapa and Manawatu
the climate protesters are facing a backlash in he UK and it looks likely that this will happen here with one women shouting at them I am just trying to get to work to fed my kids