Category Archives: Terrorism (state and retail)

Embassy Protection Collective: We’re Still Here And We’re Staying

The Embassy Protection Collective formed on April 10, the day after the Trump administration manipulated the Organization of American States (OAS) to change the rules so they could recognize their puppet, Juan Guaido, as president of Venezuela. The OAS could not get the required two-thirds vote to recognize a government so they changed the rules to a mere majority and barely got that. By then, the US had allowed their Guaido coup forces to take the Venezuelan military attaché building in Washington, DC and three diplomatic offices in New York City.

The Trump administration is allowing extreme violent right-wing Guaido supporters to blockade the embassy. Despite a standoff in the last week, we had a series of victories over those forces and remain steadfast protectors of the embassy.

Surround the embassy with love and resistance

We adopted a theme song for the Embassy Protection Collective, “We’re Still Here” by Holly Neer. The chorus begins with:

We’re Still Here
Choosing Love Over Fear
When the Lines Are All Drawn
We’re Still Here

Challenges and Victories

We woke up on April 30 to the news that Juan Guaido was going to attempt a coup again, which made us wonder why he needs to conduct a coup if he is the “president.” We were alerted by our Venezuelan allies that this second coup attempt would be easily defeated, which it was, but to expect coup-supporters in the US to protest at the embassy.

In fact, the extremist Venezuelan coup supporters showed up that morning and tried to take over the steps in front of the building. A team of embassy protectors took a stand on the steps and stopped them from taking over the entry. More violent extremists showed up throughout the day, causing police to erect a barricade between us in front of the embassy. We sang almost non-stop to keep ourselves from engaging with them while they blew sirens and other loud noises and insulted and threatened us shouting racist and misogynist comments and using lewd gestures. Police refused to pass food and water to us or to allow our allies into the space in front of the embassy. We held that space through the night by taking shifts.

In the courtyard behind the embassy, the pro-coup forces harassed, intimidated, threatened and assaulted our allies outside who bravely prevented them from entering the building while folks inside set up reinforcements to stop them from coming in the door. This lasted until 1:00 in the morning.

The next day, May 1, we agreed to cede the front steps if the police would protect the front porch and doors from damage. We moved inside to focus on protecting the embassy from within, thinking the police would honor their duty to protect the embassy from harm. That afternoon, Carlos Vecchio, Guaido’s fake “ambassador” showed up, with the intention of taking over the embassy.

We were ready for him to enter and be forced to remove us. As he came to the front porch to speak, we stood resolute behind him holding signs and chanting, ‘No Coup.’ When he began to speak, we cut off the power to his sound system and out-shouted him. Vecchio was forced to flee, chased by reporter Anya Parampil who asked him, “Where are you going next, the White House?”  A representative vaguely told the crowd they were “working on a process to evict us.” The coup failed in Venezuela on April 30, and failed again in Washington, DC on May 1.

Parampil

✔ @anyaparampil

Anya Parampil

✔ @anyaparampil

Watch @carlosvecchio’s staff fail to answer what they plan to do from within the Maduro government’s embassy, considering they won’t even be able to issue visas.

Also can’t answer why their colleagues attended a DC think tank meeting to plan for the invasion of Venezuela. pic.twitter.com/xHXWc7bRua

The coup supporters started setting up tents around the embassy that night and blocking our people from entering the building as police stood by and did nothing. When members of CODE PINK brought food the next day, surrounded by clergy, they were stopped from delivering it. Two allies, Ariel Gold of CODE PINK and Chris Herz tossed bread and other foods onto a patio to us. They were arrested and charged with “hurling missiles” at a building.

We pushed back at police for not allowing the food in, and they provided a blockade for our members to come down and get the groceries. Coup supporters stole hundreds of dollars worth of the food. We were also able to get some medications in that day for people who required it. Since then, we have struggled to get supplies. When we lowered a rope from a window and successfully brought up four bags of food, the coup supporters rushed a barricade and assaulted our allies. It was our people who were threatened with arrest even though they were the ones who were knocked to the ground.

An older gentleman from the neighborhood wanted to bring us toothbrushes and toothpaste. He was swarmed by the violent extremists. When he tried to pass between two people to get to the door, he was thrown to the ground violently and seriously injured. He was arrested, not the ones who threw him down. It has become common for police to arrest the victims of assault, not the people who committed the assault.

These seem to be US-trained regime change operatives who use violence, psy-ops and and intimidation against us. Some are Nicaraguans and Cubans, not Venezuelans. They have unlimited resources. They are constantly bringing in more supplies. From early in the morning, we are surrounded by them and subjected to their sirens, banging of pots and pans, loud music, taunts and threats of physical harm.

They have tried to break in numerous times. They drilled through a door to the garage and damaged the lift gate with a sledgehammer. On Friday night, they banged on the doors so hard for hours that they were damaging them. We had to fortify the old wooden doors so they would not break through. The Secret Service watched while they did it and not only let them but refused to say they would protect our safety. When we called them, they said we should ask the Venezuelan government for help. It took hundreds of calls from supporters to get them to stop.

The Secret Service is allowing them to do all they can to intimidate us very likely under orders from the White House. They want the extremists to frighten us so we leave the embassy. Their actions have had the opposite effect. They have united us in our determination to protect the embassy.

Despite being barricaded in the building and cut off from access to supplies, we are victorious. We are still here and there is little chance of eviction because we are violating no laws. We have built a powerful and united community that works together to protect the embassy and to keep the violent extremists and Trump administration out.

Surrounding the Embassy with Love and Resistance

The Trump administration realizes that entering the Venezuelan Embassy in violation of the Vienna Convention would set a precedent that could put US embassies around the world at risk. As a result, they are allowing right-wing extremists to harass and threaten us and try to starve us out. That is their only hope of taking over the embassy.

We refuse to give in no matter what they do. Our lawyers are making sure there is a record of the incidents, which we have in large part due to our embedded media, Anya Parampil of The Grayzone Project and Alex Rubinstein of Mintpress News. We also have to give a shout out to TeleSur, who was embedded with us until the pro-coup forces arrived and now is providing coverage from the outside. Allies outside are identifying the pro-coup actors. We wrote to the State Department and Secret Service about the violence and have told them we will hold decision-makers and police officers responsible for their actions.  But mostly, we have responded to these intimidation tactics in solidarity and have strengthened our resolve to protect the embassy.

A highlight of the week for us, after many difficult days, was to see hundreds of Embassy Protectors show up outside yesterday. They chanted with us and sang. We ended the night with revolutionary music blasting from the second floor embassy windows and dancing together even though they were on the sidewalk across the street and we were inside the embassy. The extremists’ banging of pots, strobe lights and blasting sirens at us only added to the festive atmosphere.

Today, more Embassy Protectors returned to show solidarity and express their love. We also started receiving many messages of solidarity and appreciation from individuals and social movements in Venezuela. This means the world to us. We are surrounded by violent, right-wing, regime change forces who are trying to wear us down. These are the same actors who held violent protests in Nicaragua and Venezuela. They are making death threats, threatening women with rape and mocking us, all in a posh Georgetown neighborhood. It is surreal.

We recall the mass mobilizations in Charlottesville, Boston and New York when right-wing, racist, misogynist hate-filled people came there and urge that mass resistance to join us now. This is a critical struggle. If the embassy is overtaken, it will set us on a path to war in Venezuela, and chaos and devastation to the region. If we can continue to protect the embassy, Venezuela and the United States will have time to negotiate with third countries to serve as protectorates for their embassies and this could begin a path to peace. Perhaps Trump will even see that the Bolton-Abrams-Pompeo team has misled him and reverse the disastrous policy course he is on. There is no reason to steal Venezuela’s resources, the US should respect Venezuelan sovereignty and negotiate agreements as has been done previously.

We are asking people to come to DC to surround this embassy with love and resistance. Let’s show that love will prevail.

If you absolutely can’t come to DC, please contact your member of Congress to make them aware of the situation. Tell them:

  1. The US is required to protect embassies under the Vienna Convention, but is allowing the Venezuelan Embassy to be damaged when the Secret Service could easily protect it.
  2. The United States’ coup in Venezuela has failed. Maduro is the legitimate elected President of Venezuela and is recognized by the United Nations and over 140 countries.
  3. The Secret Service is violating the human rights of the Embassy Protectors by failing to ensure safe passage in and out of the embassy and access to supplies. We are literally under siege.
  4. Review the Declaration of the Embassy Protection Collective and sign on to show your support.

And finally, please make a donation as we have incurred many unexpected costs for this mobilization.

Venceremos!

Islamic State Celluloid

Nothing turns on the charlatan class of terrorism expertise than a video from an elusive, unknown destination, adjusted, modified and giving all the speculative trimmings.  In reading, E.B. White suggested the presence of two participants: the author as impregnator; the reader as respondent.  In the terrorism video, the maker consciously penetrates the shallow mind of the recipient, leaving its gurgling DNA to grow and mutate.

When Islamic State began its gruesome foray into the world of terrorist snuff videos, experts resembled overly keen cinephiles seeking the underlying message of a new wave.  The burning of Jordanian pilot Muath al-Kasaesbeh in a cage in 2015 caused a certain rapture amongst members of a RAND panel.  Was this, perhaps, a celluloid standoff with rival al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, whose affiliates had just slaughtered the staff of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in their Parisian offices?

Senior Adviser to the RAND President, Brian Michael Jenkins, could not “recall a single incident in modern terrorism where terrorists deliberately killed a hostage with fire.”  There was “no religious basis for it this side of 17th century witch burning.”  Senior political scientist Johan Blank turned to scripture, finding “at least one specific prohibition of death by fire in the ahadith literature” on “the grounds that it resembled hellfire.”  The inspiration had to stem from somewhere, and Blank’s judicious offering was Ibn Taymiyyah, “fountainhead of much current jihadi reinterpretation of longstanding Islamic orthodoxy.”  Andrew Liepman, senior policy analyst, saw the video as a lucid moment of proof. “I wonder how much more evidence we need to confirm that ISIS is acting outside the norms of Islam.” Not modish, it would seem.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of Islamic State, has begun to resemble, in no small part, previous heads of franchise terrorist groups who have become reproductions and simulacra of themselves.  Terrorism is big business, stage sets and props, all tweeted for good measure; it is bestial theatre that draws out the voyeurs, the google-eyed analysts, and the lunatic converts.  Whether such heads are dead or not is of little consequence past a certain point: Baghdadi had supposedly been dead yet his corpse seems more than capable of putting together a presentation for audiences.  It is also incumbent on those seeking his capture or death to claim his general irrelevance.  Everyone did know one thing: the last time he gave a public performance was the al-Nuri Mosque in Mosul in July 2014.

The video, aired on the Al Furqan network, is filmed in appropriately Spartan surrounds, but that is neither here nor there.  Iraq Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi thinks otherwise linking, erroneously, the making of the film with the current location of the protagonist.  “Regarding the location of Baghdadi, we can’t give intelligence information right now but it’s clear from the video that he’s in a remote area.”  As is the fashion, neither the date nor the authenticity of the recording is verifiable.  All else is a wonder, and even the Middle East Monitor is careful to suggest that the speaker was “a bearded man with Baghdadi’s appearance”.

Baghdadi lacks complexity in his message, never straying from the apocalyptic line.  “Our battle today is a battle of attrition, and we will prolong it for the enemy, and they must know that the jihad will continue until Judgment Day.” He is mindful of the fruitful carnage inflicted by the Easter Sunday bombers in Sri Lanka, and thanks them.  Such acts, he reasons, were retribution for the loss of Baghouz in Syria.

The speculations duly form a queue, and talking heads have been scrambled into studios and Skype portals.  This video may have been a retort, and reassurance, before the potential usurping moves of another ISIS figure of seniority, Abu Mohammed Husseini al-Hashimi.  Hashimi had staked a claim in stirring up discontent against Baghdadi’s more extreme tyrannical methods.  Not that he is averse to the application of hudud punishments (stoning for adultery excites him), and the quaint notion that the ruler of any Islamic State caliphate is bound to be a successor to the prophet Muhammed.  Modesty is a drawback in such line of work.

Colin P. Clarke, senior fellow at the Soufan Centre, aired his views that Baghdadi’s “sudden appearance will very likely serve as both a morale boost for ISIS supporters and remaining militants and as a catalyst for individuals or more groups to act.”  It was a reassurance that he remained the grand poohbah, atop “the command-and-control network of what remains of the group, not only in Iraq and Syria, but more broadly, in its far-flung franchises and affiliates.”

The teasing out and ponderings on minutiae are not far behind.  Resting upon a flowered mattress, and leaning against a cushion with an assault rifle by his side (nice touch for the old fox), it was bound to have an effect. The expansive beard caught the eye: The Washington Post noted that it “has greyed since his only other video appearance”. Previously, the paper noted, it had been “tinted with henna”.  Then there was the AK-74 prop, a rather popular Kalashnikov variant reprised from previous showings in the video work of Abu Musab Zarqawi and Osama bin Laden.

Such superficial renderings, the stuff of terrorism kitsch, lends itself to fundamental fact that Baghdadi might be somewhere, anywhere, or nowhere, a nonsense figure, to a degree, in a nonsense medium.  The modern terrorist franchise is fluid and far-reaching.  Followers need not feel estranged.  They can use social media, cosy-up and wait for eschatological endings.

The pioneer of this terror mania (global yet local) was al-Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden, a figure who, along with his sparring counterpart US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, formed a perfect symmetry of simulative nonsense, the gobbledygook of post-2011 security.  Each time US forces and their allies sought to target the slippery Saudi, he vanished.  The raid and bombing of the Tora Bora complex in Afghanistan yielded no returns; the man was nowhere to be seen, having escaped, possibly, in female garb. Sightings, and rumoured killings, remained regular till the penultimate slaying in Abbottabad in May 2011.  The man, declared dead on numerous occasions, was Lazarus in reverse.

Rumsfeld, for his part, insisted on those known knowns, known unknowns and “things we do not know we don’t know”. Unwittingly, he had given the age its aptly absurd epitaph, and with that, much work and fare for the witch doctors of terrorism keen to gorge upon the next video offering from their beloved subjects.  Ignorance in this case, not knowledge, is power.

Sri Lanka: Candidate for a New NATO Base?

Sri Lanka, Easter Sunday, 21 April 2019: More than half a dozen bomb blasts shook the country killing from 250 to more than 350 people. Depending on who counts, the death toll varies. The devastation took place in several catholic churches and luxury hotels. Other explosions, including from – what they say – are suicide bombers, have since killed another several dozens of people. Many are children, women – christian worshippers. Why the luxury hotels? Western (Christian) tourists?

Yesterday, another explosion ripped through a suspicious building, killing 18, including children and women. Again, they, the ‘authorities’, say suicide bombers, who didn’t want their ‘cache’ to be discovered. Conveniently they are all dead – the “suicide bombers”. Nobody can ask them any questions.

There was a lot of confusion, and still is, all through Sri Lanka. Nobody claimed credit for the massacres. There were rumors that Sri Lanka’s President received warnings ahead of the attacks from foreign intelligence, but ignored them. The President denies these allegations. And the explosions continue.

Finally, the verdict is in. The culprits are an Islamic terrorist group, associated with ISIS. What else is new?

Sri Lanka’s population is composed of about 70% Buddhists, 13% Hindus, almost 10% Muslims, mainly Sunni, the Salafi version, and about 7% Christians. The New York Times reports that the accused mastermind of the terror attacks was strongly influenced by Wahhabism, the same extreme hardliners that control most of Saudi Arabia.

Hatred between religions seems on the rise. In New Zealand a few weeks ago a white supremacist assaulted a mosque, killing 50. This past weekend, a shooting in a Synagogue near San Diego, California, killed a woman. The murderer said he was inspired by the New Zealand massacre. Are these spontaneous, interreligious mini-wars part of a foreign directed ‘divide to conquer’ effort, a strategy that has been used by empires for centuries, but seems to be alive and well with the current Washington based empire?

MintPress News reports that “Sri Lanka Easter attacks are the handiwork of terrorists returning from fighting in Syria, practicing the Saudi-backed Wahhabi Salafist ideology,” adding, though not confirmed yet, they, [the attacks], are in keeping with the modus operandi of Saudi-sponsored Wahhabi terrorism worldwide. [The] Saudi sponsorship of Salafi Wahhabi dogma [is found] across the globe. From Boko Haram to ISIS, and from the Taliban to Al Qaeda, a common ideological thread runs through these terror groups. This is the Saudi-sponsored Wahhabi Salafi ideology whose South Asian counterpart is Deobandi.  For abbreviation purposes, it is becoming increasingly common to term this interconnected ideology as WSD (Wahhabi Salafi Deobandi).”

May we expect a wave of Saudi-sponsored WSD terrorism in the east too?  Is the horror Saudi government protected by the US, because it does its bidding? And this bidding leads to making gradually Islam extremism the justification for NATO bases around the globe?  Perhaps in Sri Lanka, tomorrow? So far Sri Lanka is clean from NATO. Sri Lanka has not even an association agreement with NATO.

Just look at the world-geostrategic location of Sri Lanka, linking the Arabian Sea with the Indian Ocean. Sri Lanka may also have a direct, open-sea connection with the small British island of Diego Garcia, in the Chagos Archipelago, north-east of Madagascar. Diego Garcia hosts the US’s largest Navy base outside the American Continent. Many of the drone killings in Yemen, Syria and other places in the Middle East originate from Diego Garcia. The “civil war” in Syria was (and still is) largely directed from Diego Garcia, as well as from Djibouti.

Wouldn’t it be logical for NATO to set up base in Sri Lanka to control South East Asia? Saudi guided WSD attacks would create the necessary chaos justifying all the AngloZionist secret services – plus NATO – to descend on Colombo to create further protests and anarchy, a never-ending internal strife, giving the war industry a new never-ending flow of profit, hence, further justifying the never-ending war on terror and thereby moving yet an inch closer to Full Spectrum Dominance over Mother Earth and her hapless spectators — what western humanity has become — a bunch of complacent consumers, drenched in turbo-capitalist market ideology, too comfortable to go on the barricades.

The key and engine to all of this is NATO, whose modus operandi is killing for a living, for dominance and for profit. If there is ever to be Peace, and that’s what the vast majority of the inhabitants of this globe wants – I’m not exaggerating pretending that 99.99% of world population wants to live in peace – then NATO must go. NATO must be dismantled.

So, Europe which has the largest membership in NATO (27 out of 29 nations) has to put the money where her mouth is: Europe calls for Peace, Europe claims to be Peace-loving – really? Then put your money into creating Peace – pulling out of NATO, refusing at once to fund this killing machine under the pretext of “protecting Europe”. Protecting Europe from what? From whom? Not from Russia, despite all the highly propagandized and highly corporate-funded Russiagate/Russia phobia, exacerbated by a new artificially implanted fear – China. These countries have no history of expansion, like the west.

They only seek friendly relations of trade, of transport, cultural and research interconnectivity within the supercontinent, Eurasia, and ultimately, they promote a multi-polar world. The best example is the Chinese President Xi’s ingenuity, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) that just finished its highly successful forum in Beijing, where more than 120 nations signed memoranda of understanding (MOU) and cooperation agreements with China for tens of billions of dollars equivalent. What a way of cooperating, instead of sowing western-style belligerence.

Europe and the rest of the world is not in danger, except in danger of itself for being a vassal of the US and for hosting 30-plus NATO bases which would be first in the line of fire, if the east is forced to defend itself from that permanent Pentagon-NATO driven aggression.

Europe withhold your funding for NATO, get out of NATO, dismantle NATO NOW, before NATO sets up yet another base in Asia, before NATO spreads more death around the globe.

• First published by the New Eastern Outlook – NEO

Lethal Bungling: Sri Lanka’s Easter Bombings

The number of dead is bound to rise, already standing at more than three hundred.  The bombs, worn by seven suicide bombers, struck at three churches during the period of Easter Sunday worship, and three hotels.  As the dead were counted and the wounded accounted for, the situation through the glass darkly was a troubled one.  Information relayed had either been ignored or discounted. In some cases, it never reached necessary recipients.

While the individuals behind the bombings were hardly forthcoming about their handiwork, there were suggestions as early as April 4 from Indian security sources that one group was readying to initiate various attacks.  National Thowheeth Jama’ath, an Islamic group, had piqued the interest of police enough to lead to the identification of members and their addresses on April 11.

One of the suicide bombers, it transpired, had also been arrested some few months prior on suspicion of vandalizing a statue of Buddha.  Such acts of serious desecration were not alien to the NTJ; the use of bombings on such scale was, however, not their forte.

On Monday, Health Minister Rajitha Senaratne, confirmed what had already been a fast held suspicion: even after the warning of April 4, the prime minister and his associates had been “completely blind to the situation.”

The picture painted by the minister seemed a gruesome admission of defiance in the face of detailed warnings.  Intelligence agencies had “informed, from time to time, starting from April 4, 48 hours before the attacks and finally ten minutes before the tragedy struck.  They gave warnings about a possible attack on April 4 for the first time.”  From then on, the National Intelligence Chief Sisira Mendis kept the Inspector General Police (IGP) abreast of the “imminent attacks” having “actually informed that an organisation called ‘Thowheed Jamath’ planned suicide attacks and had even mentioned their names.”

Scenes of confusion and dangerously comic dysfunction unfolded in the government.  Despite various organs being informed about the threat – the ministerial security division (MSD), the judicial security division, and security divisions of former presidents and the Diplomatic Security Unit, there was a failure, according to Senaratne, “to warn the Prime Ministerial Security Division (PMSD) and the Presidential Security Division (PSD) of the attacks.”  When the PM attempted to convene a security council meeting, no one turned up.  When the President had made a previous effort to do the same thing, there was a delay of 20 minutes.  He had to “sit in the State Defence Minister’s room for some time.”  Nor was the Tourism Minister, John Amaratunga, briefed.  “Unfortunately, I did not know anything about it.”

Efforts to minimise, contain and deflect have become standard fare, with blithe ignorance forming the central defence.  Rich lashings of blame are also in full circulation.  This gives the air of monstrous acceptance: we bungled, but haven’t we before?  Defence Secretary Hemasiri Fernando, on Monday, felt that the intelligence assessments had not warranted a serious, full security response, despite the level of detail supplied, and their frequency.  “Intelligence,” he stated disingenuously, “never indicated that it’s going to be an attack on this magnitude.  They were talking about isolated incidents.  Besides, there is no emergency in this country.  We cannot request the armed forces to come and assist as we can only depend on the police.”

Having claimed the received intelligence pointed to mere potential “isolated incidents” (the suggestion here is that a monstrous act, when seen as an isolated one, can be rationalised according to a security and ethical calculus; in short, more permissible), Fernando proceeded to normalise the entire episode.  “It’s not the first time a bomb went off in this country.  During the height of the war, when emergency regulations were in force and roadblocks installed at every two kilometres, bombs went off.  Why are you trying to isolate this unfortunate incident?”

At the highest levels, the Sri Lankan government has suffered political sclerosis.  President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, have been waging wars cold and hot against each other for some time.  When Wickremesinghe was re-appointed after being sacked by the cranky Sirisena in December last year, in turn replacing a cantankerous Mahinda Rajapaksa, the President extolled his own democratic credentials.  While he held a personal dislike for his appointee, he also respected “the parliamentary tradition”.

The post-attack reaction is also proving to be an unhinged affair.  Sri Lankan authorities immediately imposed a social media blackout.  Dazed and confused as officials are, the idea of not containing an agitated public as inquiries are conducted seemed a grave threat.  Besides, a country bathed in the blood of decades of communal violence continues to teeter before the next provocation, the next inflammatory message of inspired retribution.

There was little pride in asserting that the group was “a local organisation”, with all suicide bombers having been Sri Lankan citizens.  But not wishing it to be an entirely indigenous affair, Senaratne wished to speculate that, “there was an international network without which these attacks could not have succeeded.”  Another source of blame had been identified.

As Fernando surmised, it would be foolish to put too much stock in future efforts on the part of the government.  Yes, assistance was being sought from Interpol, the FBI and the Australian Federal Police. But he could not “take confidence with terrorism.  No country in the world can assure that it’s not going to happen.  But we are trying our best.”  A brutally frank response, though hardly a cleansing exculpation.

Rwanda: 25 Years on, U.S. Taxpayers Paying Millions for Homeland Security’s Sham ‘Genocide Fugitive’ Trials in Boston

April 6, 1994 – April 6, 2019

On 6 April 1994, the Hutu presidents of Rwanda and Burundi, their top military staff and six French crew members were assassinated when surface-to-air missiles shot down the Rwandan presidential jet on approach to Kigali airport. It is now well established that the assassination plot that decapitated the Hutu-led governments was executed by Rwanda’s now president and strongman-for-life, then Major General Paul Kagame, commander of the terrorist Tutsi-Hima army that invaded Rwanda from Uganda.

Now, 25 years later, while Kagame and the Rwanda genocide industry commemorate the 25th anniversary of the so-called 100 days of genocide, U.S. taxpayers continue to pay millions of dollars for yet another bogus asylum show trial targeting another genocide survivor and fugitive from the terrorist Kagame regime. Meanwhile, reporting on the trial in federal court in Boston, Massachusetts, the Boston newspapers have not challenged the vested-interests of their quoted sources or the machinations of the Department of Homeland Security and its Immigration & Customs Enforcement.

The wreckage of the presidential Mystere Falcon airplane, shot down on approach to Kigali airport on 6 April 1994, at rest after air-to-surface missiles caused it to crash into the presidential compound. Photo by Cranimer, New Vision newspaper, Kampala, Uganda.

Jean Leonard Teganya, 46, is a wanted man who has spent much of his adult life trying to start over and recover from the atrocities he survived in Rwanda.

Teganya was a medical student who volunteered at the hospital in Butare, Rwanda in the spring of 1994, treating the sick and wounded when no doctors or nurses were available (due to the large numbers of casualties).

Mr. Teganya was also a victim of the violence in 1994, rescued by fellow students after being attacked by an armed militia in Butare. He fled Butare around 20 June 1994, after killings intensified in the region in parallel with the arrival of the Rwandan Patriotic Army.

In June of 1994 Mr. Teganya fled Rwanda during the mass exodus of some 2 million Rwandans to neighboring countries. Mr. Teganya ended up in Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo) at Nyakavogo, a (mostly) Hutu refugee camp that in September of 1996 was attacked by Paul Kagame and the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA) in violation of international humanitarian law.

A trial in a federal court in Boston commenced against Jean Leonard Teganya on 11 March 2019. Photographs of the scars of his wounds were shown to the Boston jury by the attorneys from the public defenders office that are representing him.

Witnesses for the prosecution, flown in from Rwanda for the trial in Boston, swore under oath that Mr. Teganya wore the hats, shirts and scarves of the ‘extremist Hutu’ parties. Prosecution witnesses described in great detail the insignia that was on Mr. Teganya’s hat: a machete and tool. He helped commit genocide, the U.S. prosecutors and immigration agents in Boston said, then tried to claim asylum.

‘The defendant had a problem,’ Assistant US Attorney Scott L. Garland told a jury in US District Court in Boston during opening arguments in the trial against Teganya,’ reported the Boston Globe. ‘His problem was that his application for asylum would be denied if the US found out what he had done in Rwanda, because persecutors cannot claim asylum.’

More than two weeks of hearings later, witnesses for the defense described Mr. Teganya as an amicable, quiet man devoted to helping other people. They described an intelligent, sensitive and caring fellow student who did not participate in party politics. More than 15 witness stated under oath that Jean Leonard Teganya never wore the signature clothing of the more radical Hutu political parties.

Where and how were the Rwandan prosecution witnesses to Mr. Teganya’s alleged crimes identified and who identified them? These are some of the pivotal questions that an ICE agent on the witness stand at Mr. Teganya’s trial was unable or unwilling to answer with conviction.

Did the ICE agent commit perjury?

Hutu, Death Agents, Have become Its Victims

As the cataclysm unfolded in Rwanda in 1994, the western media reported from behind the RPA lines. The RPA narrative became the mainstream establishment narrative (that remains the predominant one): Tutsis as victims, Hutus as killers.

When the United Nations High Commission for Refugees special rapporteur Robert Gersony reported on the RPA’s widespread killing of scores of thousands of Hutu inside Rwanda, the report was squashed: all Hutus were killers, all Tutsis were victims. Gersony went silent and stayed silent.

As a survivor of the mass atrocities and genocide that occurred in his home country of Rwanda during the civil war, Jean Leonard Teganya was one of millions of innocent non-combatant Rwandans uprooted and driven from his homeland.

Forced to flee at the age of 21, from one country to another, he was for all practical purposes a fugitive from injustice (at the hands of the RPA), forced to survive or perish under the constant nagging memory of the horrors that he witnessed and the threat of arrest and persecution by the current regime in Rwanda.

His real crimes? He is a Hutu. He is an intellectual. He is a survivor. He had a U.S. government issued work permit and (for over two years) he was working at a prestigious university.

Mr. Teganya persevered in finding a new home, building a new life, raising a family.

And the worst crime of all? Jean Leonard Teganya was on the path of gaining asylum in the United States of America.

When president Paul Kagame and his Directorate of Military Intelligence in Rwanda learned that Mr. Teganya was legally employed as a laboratory technician at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge Massachusetts, and that Mr. Teganya was about to gain legal U.S. residency status through the formal immigration process, they set about manufacturing a case against him.

The RPA slaughtered hundreds of thousands of unarmed non-combatant Rwandans–mostly Hutu women, children and elders–and also uncountable Congolese citizens during the Rwandan and Ugandan invasion of Zaire in 1996 and 1997.

At the height of the slaughter in Zaire, the New York Times and other major international media published story after hand-wringing story that basically manufactured consent for the ongoing genocide against the unarmed innocent Hutus in Zaire.

The New York Times article of 13 April 1997 that basically gave the green light for the continued massacres of innocent non-combatant refugees in Zaire–mostly women, children and the elderly.

On 1 October 2010, the 20th anniversary of the RPA invasion of Rwanda (1 October 1990), the United Nations published an extensive Mapping Report of atrocities in the DR Congo. The Mapping Report established clear patterns and documented atrocities declared to include war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide committed by the RPA and its allies.

Zaire (the Congo) was not the first place that Hutu refugees experienced massacres, torture and unimaginable brutality at the hands of the RPA. The Hutu people also experienced atrocities of this unimaginable and unprecedented inhuman scale, magnitude and character during the four years of terrorism and war prosecuted by the RPA in Rwanda.

Jean Leonard Teganya’s flight from Rwanda in 1994 led him from Zaire to India to Canada.

According to the ICE press release of 4 August 2017, Jean Leonard Teganya was arrested in Massachusetts on that date but the press release does not disclose the full circumstances of context of Mr. Teganya’s status in the United States, or his employment at MIT:

Jean Leonard Teganya, 46, was charged with one count of immigration fraud and one count of perjury. Teganya made his first appearance in federal court in Boston on Friday afternoon.

As alleged in court documents, approximately 800,000 people were murdered during the Rwandan genocide in 1994. Prior to and during the Rwandan genocide, Teganya was a medical student and medical trainee at the Butare hospital in Butare, Rwanda. Several witnesses present in Butare during the genocide described Teganya as active in the political party of the genocidal regime, the MRND, and its militia, and stated that he actively participated in the persecution of Tutsis, the group that was largely targeted during the genocide.

According to court documents, Teganya left Rwanda in mid-July 1994, and traveled to Congo, India, and then Canada. In 1999, Teganya applied for immigration benefits in Canada. Canadian authorities twice determined that Teganya was not entitled to those benefits, and ordered his deportation because he had been complicit in atrocities committed at the Butare hospital during the genocide. After 15 years of litigation, Teganya evaded the order of deportation and fled across the border into the United States. On Aug. 3, 2014, Teganya was encountered walking on foot after he crossed from Canada into Houlton, Maine. Teganya was taken into custody and later made false statements on documents submitted to U.S. authorities by failing to disclose the extent of his affiliations and activities with the MRND and Hutu extremists.

If you were to read only what was written about Jean Leonard Teganya by the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald in the years, months and weeks that preceded the trial, or the stories that appeared after the trial began on 11 March 2019 and before closing arguments were heard on 3 April 2019, you would be convinced that Jean Leonard Teganya is a monster of human being capable of the most sadistic violence.

Asylum trial portrayed a monster. Defense aims to change the narrative,” reads Maria Cramer’s Boston Globe article of 2 April 2019.

No matter the stories’ leads, most of these articles quickly spin off into the never-never land of established lies, false accusations and manufactured evidence that are peculiar to Rwanda genocide asylum trials held in the United States and Canada over the past 20 years.

Like the select group of Kagame agents and regime insiders that peddle them, these falsehoods, tactics and methodologies of oppression have become the staple mechanisms and tools of strong-arm long-arm authoritarianism used to reach outside Rwanda and silence, terrorize and extradite (from the U.S., Canada, U.K., Netherlands, etc.) any Rwandan that in any way challenges the Rwandan regime.

When all else fails, there is always the RPA assassination program.

In March 2019, Paul Kagame publicly and unapologetically bragged about the necessity and righteousness of the assassination of former RPA/RPF cadre member Seth Sendashonga–assassinated by RPA agents in Nairobi Kenya in the late 1990’s.

The Rwanda Genocide Industry

On the U.S. side, working for the dictatorship in Rwanda, and keeping tabs on Mr. Teganya from the moment he entered the U.S. in his quest for asylum, crossing the U.S.-Canadian border in Maine in August 2014, was Brian Andersen, a special agent with U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE), Human Rights Violators and War Crimes Unit.

Brian Anderson testified at Jean Leonard Teganya’s trial in late March 2019, and he is cited by the Boston Globe without any due journalistic diligence or even a modicum of investigative reporting to vet or uncover the truth about Anderson’s history and practices used to hunt down supposed genocidaire fugitives.

“Brian Andersen, a special agent for the Department of Homeland Security, which investigated the case, testified that his team found the witnesses in Rwanda and established contact with them,” wrote Maria Cramer, for the Boston Globe on 1 April 2019.

No April fool’s joke, what the Globe did not report is how special agent Mr. Andersen has worked with the Kagame regime to hunt, frame and persecute many Rwandan Hutus, survivors of the cataclysm of 1994.

Special agent Andersen has been involved in at least four previous high profile but bogus Rwanda genocide asylum cases, two of these in Boston, one in Manchester New Hampshire, and one in Utah.

Expert witnesses for the prosecution in several of these cases have included Dr. Phil Clark, a British academic at London’s School for Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), Zachary Kaufman, an academic at the Kennedy School of Government, and Rony Zachariah, a doctor with Medecines Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders) who was present in Rwanda for a short spell before being evacuated during the atrocities of April 1994.

Each of these three experts has made a career out of whitewashing the crimes of the Kagame regime through publishing, public speaking, and/or testifying at one-sided Rwanda genocide tribunals or asylum hearings.

Dr. Phil Clark has been discredited by his own peers in the international academic community. Clark has for many years maintained friendly relations with Kagame and peddled the RPA narrative in complete disregard of evidence of the RPA’s crimes to the contrary; Clark’s tight relations with Kigali suggest some significant financial or material reward for helping to spread the propaganda of the regime.

In the October 2017 immigration trial of Prudence Kantengwa adjudicated by Federal Immigration Judge Sanchez, federal prosecutor Mary Kelley succeeded in getting Dr. Phil Clark qualified as an expert: the immigration judge dismissed Clark’s direct ties to the Kagame regime. Dr. Clark testified by videoconferencing from London; he was allowed to refer to his notes, even search the Internet–while under oath and on the virtual witness stand–to buttress his testimony.

Witnesses for the defense were required to appear in Boston in person, and Judge Sanchez disallowed Rwanda scholar Dr. Susan Thomson as an expert witness for the defense, claiming that Dr. Thomson’s testimony would be duplicative of issues addressed by Dr. Phil Clark. In fact, based on her multiple highly critical reviews of the genocide text edited by Dr. Phil Clark and Dr. Zachary Kaufman (see below), Dr. Susan Thomson would likely have offered testimony in strong contradiction to the prosecution’s expert witness Dr. Phil Clark.

Defense witnesses who did appear at the Kantengwa hearings were not allowed to surf the Internet, refer to documents or books, or even access their personal notes while giving testimony.

Federal prosecutor Mary Kelly harassed the two leading defense witnesses (Keith Harmon Snow and Claude Gatebuke) that Immigration Judge Sanchez did qualify as experts. Ms. Kelley attempted to intimidate, stifle or completely silence the witnesses.

In the Kantengwa case, Immigration Judge Sanchez found in favor of Rwanda and its collaborator, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and thereby set the stage for the extradition and deportation to Rwanda of Prudence Kantengwa.

In the appeal brief filed by Kantengwa’s defense attorneys (William Joyce, “Brief in Support of an Appeal of an Immigration Judge’s Decision,” filed in Falls Church Virginia, A 098 277 297) the appeal attorney explicitly flagged the unprofessional and immature behavior of federal prosecutor Mary Kelley, both in the context of her hysterical outbursts and harassment of the two qualified defense experts and in the context of Prudence Kantengwa’s initial immigration trial adjudicated by U.S. Federal Judge Klein.

Judge Klein, who initially heard Ms. Kantengwa’s case, noted for the record in her written opinion the DHS trial attorney’s [Mary Kelley’s] lack of respect for the court and unnecessarily combative questioning of Ms. Kantengwa and her witnesses. Tr. #1 at 1242 (“I want whoever reviews this case to listen to the tone of this trial attorney [Mary Kelley] throughout this case.”); id. at 1250 (Judge Klein to attorney Kelley: “…it gets to the lack of respect that you have for this Court…”); IJ Klein Dec. at 48 (“On various occasions during cross-examination, DHS counsel’s tone toward the respondent was accusatory and aggressive.”).

This aggressive questioning continued in Ms. Kantengwa’s hearings before Judge Sanchez, in part leading to the reticence of witnesses to respond to questioning…(DHS accusing Ms. Kantengwa of violating and ICTR sequestration order)…(DHS likening Ms. Kantengwa to a Holocaust denier)…(DHS accusing Mr. Gatebuke of misrepresenting his identity)…(DHS accusing Mr. Gatebuke of having a bank account in the Caymans)…(DHS comparing Mr. Snow to Adolph Hitler)…(bond counsel for Ms. Kantengwa to DHS: “I don’t know why your [sic] harassing [the respondent].”) The end result of this very aggressive and possibly inappropriate line of questioning plus the investigator [ICE special agent Brian Andersen] running in and out of the court room led to an atmosphere of intimidation both to the experts and to the respondent.

Though a seasoned Judge from another court arena, Judge Sanchez was newly appointed to the Immigration Courts and the trial of the United States v. Prudence Kantengwa was one of the first immigration cases he heard.

Ms. Kantengwa’s appeals attorney also noted the conflict that arose in the court when a defense witness refused to reveal his sources. Defense expert [Keith Harmon Snow] testified that he had interviewed a Rwandan genocide survivor who had witnessed crimes against humanity and who was himself the survivor of severe and inhuman forms of torture committed by the Rwandan Patriotic Army. Judge Sanchez asked the expert [Snow] to reveal the name of witness/victim and when the expert repeatedly refused to name the source or provide to the Court any video or audio recordings of said victim’s statement, Judge Sanchez ruled that the expert’s [Snow’s] opinions on torture in Rwanda be stricken from the record.

In his decision, Judge Sanchez afforded less weight to the expert’s [Snow’s] testimony on the grounds that he was “non-responsive to DHS questioning” and he refused to provide the names of sources to the Court upon demand.

During the trial, attorney William Joyce, the defense counsel for Prudence Kantengwa, strenuously objected to the requirement that experts require names of sources, particularly given the presence in the courtroom of the ICE agent — Brian Andersen — who conducted an investigation in Rwanda of Ms. Kantengwa and her sister Beatrice Munyenyezi.

The appeals attorney also noted in the Kantengwa appeal that:

In fact, there is a serious question as to whether the ICE agent [Brian Andersen] sitting at the [prosecution] table who was also running in and out of the courtroom and providing information to government counsel was attempting to intimidate Mr. Snow. In fact, the respondent’s counsel requested an off the record discussion to discuss what could be considered possible intimidation towards Mr. Snow.

The tactic used by Mary Kelley and Brian Andersen of targeting innocent Rwandans who showed up at hearings in support of other defendants or respondents, or who have been named or identified in immigration hearings, is not without precedent, as noted above.

Dr. Zachary Kaufman, who is Dr. Phil Clark’s academic and editorial colleague, has also maintained a tight relationship with the Kagame regime, effectively serving as one of Kagame’s hired guns. Dr. Clark’s relationship involves material and financial rewards in exchange for whitewashing the regime and gaining access to the country and the largess (and privileges) secured by the criminal RPA cadres and their illegal networks in Rwanda and Congo.

Paul Kagame has numerous times been invited (and appeared) as speaker at the Harvard University Kennedy School of Government where Kaufman and genocide expert and stateswoman Samantha Power both have deep historical and current ties. Like Clark and Kaufman’s publications, Samantha Power’s publications on ‘genocide in Rwanda’ are laden with inaccuracies, omissions, distortions and selective truths.

Clark and Kaufman published an edited volume titled After Genocide (2009) that was criticized by Dr. Susan Thomson, a Rwanda scholar whose professional work and vocal criticisms of the regime lead to her being declared persona non grata in Rwanda. Thomson and other scholars also signed a public letter criticizing Dr. Phil Clark’s work and his ties to the Rwandan government. Thomson’s dislike of the Cark/Kaufman book was so strong as to provoke her to write not one but two book reviews that were subsequently published in academic journals.

The preface of After Genocide was written by Paul Kagame and, besides a few chapter contributions by Clark and Kaufman (and a collection of more honest and professional academic chapters), there is also a chapter by another of Paul Kagame’s leading hired guns, the English-speaking propagandist Tom Ndahiro.

Recall that the Tutsi aristocrats and their Ugandan brethren who invaded Rwanda were English speakers, while the Tutsi that suffered the genocidal onslaught in 1994 were French speakers. Kagame and company did not trust, or care about, French speaking Tutsis who ‘stayed behind’ in Rwanda in the 1960s and 1970s when the Tutsi aristocrats fled, and when so many innocent Tutsis targeted in retaliation for Tutsi guerrilla (Inyenzi) attacks against Rwanda also fled to neighboring countries.

Zachary Kaufman was quoted in one of the main Boston Globe articles about Jean Leonard Teganya. Reporter Maria Cramer brought Kaufman into the story to provide an official authoritative and definitive quote to repudiate the defense attorney’s demonstration that Rwandan witnesses for the prosecution are coached, and the defense team’s demonstration of witnesses’ inconsistencies.

In the same story, the Globe briefly discussed the two other recent cases that involved Brian Andersen, Munyenyezi and Kantengwa, but special agent Andersen is not mentioned in connection to those two cases. Instead we read Harvard University expert Zachary Kaufman declaring the final judgement on the matter:

Teganya is the third Rwandan since 2012 to face prosecution in New England for allegedly hiding links to the genocide to obtain asylum…

In 2012, Prudence Kantengwa, a Hutu, was sentenced to 21 months for lying on her asylum application about her affiliation with the party that orchestrated the genocide, the National Republican Movement for Democracy and Development.

Three years later, Kantengwa’s sister, Beatrice Munyenyezi, a Hutu mother of three who had moved to New Hampshire, was sentenced to10 years for lying about the killings and rapes she ordered as head of a roadblock in Butare, where Tutsis were stopped, checked for identification, and often murdered on the spot.

Like Teganya, Munyenyezi argued that the witnesses against her were motivated by the possibility of financial compensation or by fear of the Rwandan government.

But other scholars of the genocide said they are skeptical that the government has interfered with witnesses’ testimony.

“I have never seen any evidence of such,” said Zachary Kaufman, a senior fellow at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government and a lecturer at Stanford Law School. “It is not unexpected that an accused genocide perpetrator would try to muster any defense they could…”

At least one of the Rwandan witnesses for the prosecution in the Teganya trial has appeared in court for more than one of the cases ‘investigated’ by ICE special agent Brian Andersen. Witness statements show remarkable similarity in the kinds of details they provide and, under cross-examination, in the omissions or contradictions of their testimonies.

The reasons and process whereby Rwandan Hutus have come under the gaze of special agent Brian Andersen are very irregular, if not illegal, and the four previous cases are all interconnected. Mr. Andersen is not alone in the decision-making process that has led to the expenditure of millions of dollars for each of the five cases to be explored herein. Mr. Andersen’s ally in hunting down and persecuting innocent Rwandans in the United States includes Boston federal prosecutor Mary Kelley.

What the Boston Globe also did not report about special agent Andersen is that the Federal Court in Utah found against the Department of Homeland Security and the efforts of Brian Andersen, after the judge in the case realized that the investigation had been botched, the evidence fabricated.

Special agent Andersen and prosecutor Mary Kelley have deployed what has become standard boiler-plate language, tactics and the production of fraudulent witnesses, in the pursuit of ‘justice’ meant to satisfy the dictatorship in Rwanda and silence its critics.

Mr. Andersen and other agents have traveled frequently to Rwanda, where there is no possibility of independent research or investigation, and where ‘witnesses’ are often produced by or coerced by the Kagame regime into satisfying its interests of suffering the repercussions of violence against themselves or their families. In other cases, witnesses are promised lenience on their prison sentences or financial rewards for their cooperation. Some witnesses agree to testify to settle old scores.

“Did the government of Rwanda play any part in selecting the witnesses?” the Boston Globe on 1 April 2019 reported that Assistant U.S. Attorney Scott Garland asked Andersen this question under oath. “No, they didn’t,” Andersen replied.

Of course they did. Did special agent Thomas Brian Andersen commit perjury?

Under cross-examination on the witness stand at Mr. Teganya’s trial in Boston, special agent Brian Anderson was asked how he found the Rwandan witnesses who testified to Mr. Teganya’s alleged crimes. Special agent Andersen faltered, badly.

The Boston Globe did not report on special agent Brian Andersen’s poor performance under cross-examination.

Brian Andersen committed perjury, and it is not the first time. What happened in Utah?

Finally, after hearing some truthful testimonies by defense witnesses, and under the byline of reporter Laura Crimaldi, the Boston Globe began waking up and reporting about Jean Leonard Teganya’s character and the ordeal he survived with greater accuracy and depth.

During much of the 100-day Rwandan genocide in 1994, Jean Leonard Teganya said, crowds of victims assembled each day outside the teaching hospital in Butare — overwhelming medical staff with the severity of their wounds.

A month into the violence, Teganya, a Hutu and then a third-year medical student, said he, too, became a victim. Attackers beat him over the head and slashed his leg and ankle with a machete in a secluded area near his dormitory, he said.

Answering questions from his defense lawyer for about three hours, Teganya delved into his life story for the jury, discussing his Tutsi mother, his education at a Catholic seminary and medical school, and the chaos at the hospital in Butare, the country’s second-largest city.

Paul Kagame Terrorism Inc.

While Jean Leonard Teganya was helping the sick and wounded in Butare, and throughout the four year war, the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA) was perpetrating massive war crimes and crimes against humanity against anyone in their warpath. From 1990 through 1993, the RPA’s scorched earth policy decimated entire villages in northern Rwanda, and this is where the RPA began its slow march to conquer territory across Rwanda. As the RPA continued its steady war of terrorism, hundreds of thousands of refugees were uprooted from homes and villages, forced to become refugees in their own country.

Northern Rwanda is an area of the country where the masses–mostly Hutu, but also some Tutsis and Twa–shared a collective history of generations of extreme violence and injustice suffered at the hands of the Tutsi aristocracy that once ruled the kingdom from central Rwanda.

Paul Kagame and the other Tutsi guerrilla invaders from Uganda were raised on stories of how their noble Tutsi ancestors were the benevolent benefactors of the Rwandan masses. The masses in this case included the predominant Hutu population of over 80-90%, with between 10 and 10% Tutsi, and about 1% Twa. The ethnic categories take on little meaning when one begins to comprehend the nature of the Tutsi aristocracy, their client-patron relations, systems of reward and punish, shifting allegiances and alliances.

The RPA was backed by powerful foreign allies, and their atrocities were whitewashed by the international media and the academics that have always peddled the Tutsis as victims narrative. This narrative was constructed in large part by the human rights establishment, following the lead of the London-based non-government organization African Rights.

From 1990 on, RPA terror cells began infiltrating Kigali, the capital, and all other areas of Rwanda, and with them came atrocities that were frequently blamed on the Habyarimana government. These included assassinations, massacres and disappearances. By March 1993, Rwanda’s internally displaced persons (IDPs) population exceeded one million people.

Hungry, homeless, out of work and money, suffering horrible trauma, despair and the sadness and grief of having lost family members whose lives (and deaths) were further defiled by the inability of survivors to property attend to burials and burial customs. The RPA practiced a scorched earth policy. They did not want to have to administer a territory or deal with local populations. The RPA displaced people and villages, shelled IDP camps, machine gunned huge crowds of people that they first lured into public spaces, and then they marched on. They killed some captives, buried them in mass graves, incinerated them in hugs ovens, baked them to death in tractor-trailer shipping containers, bulldozed them into the forests, and used survivors as porters to transport ammunition, dig trenches, cook their meals, serve as their sexual slaves, and they usually shot them in the end no matter.

As the RPA occupation of Rwanda continued, the Hutu majority government of Juvenal Habyarimana was framed for genocide against Tutsis in Rwanda as early as 1993, while the RPA enjoyed increasing authority, power-sharing and impunity for the horrible and widespread atrocities that were being committed in broad daylight, under cover of night, in villages, in prefectures, across the country in the form of targeted assassinations and other dirty tricks. Trained at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, Paul Kagame was schooled in art of ruthless, lethal, contemporary guerrilla insurgency.

Racketeering? Perjury? Conspiracy?

It is important to first realize that special agent Brian Andersen apparently has some kind of special mission to hunt down, arrest and extradite anyone that the Kagame regime accuses of participation in genocide.

One of Mr. Andersen’s fellow Hutu hunter’s is the federal prosecutor Mary Kelley, also based out of Boston Massachusetts.

Kelley and Andersen worked together to frame, arrest, prosecute and imprison Prudence Kantengwa (Boston, MA) and Beatrice Munyenyezi (Manchester, New Hampshire) the sisters of Jean Marie Vianney Higiro.

Paul Kagame has been trying to get his hands on Jean Marie Vianney Higiro since Higiro fled Rwanda in 1994. The former director of the RWandan Office of Information (ORINFOR) during the Habyarimana regime, Higiro and his daughter, a U.S. citizen, were evacuated from Rwanda on 7 April 1994 by U.S. marines who escorted them to Bujumbura, Burundi, and then flew them to Nairobi Kenya on route to the USA.

The trial of Beatrice Munyenyezi was also fraught with irregularities. One of these was the prosecution’s introduction of formerly highly classified satellite images taken by U.S. intelligence reconnaissance satellites during flyovers of Rwanda in June 1994. These photos were introduced by a Pentagon analyst. Their existence had never previously been disclosed.

In his opening statements in a Concord, New Hampshire (USA) courthouse on February 23, 2012, federal prosecutor John Capin launched the U.S. government’s trial against a 41 year-old Rwandan so-called ‘genocide fugitive’ by wielding satellite photographs purportedly showing the road blocks where she “commanded extremist Hutu militia and ordered the rapes and killings of Tutsi” in Rwanda in 1994.

In a remarkable development, this is the first time in the history of the ‘Rwanda genocide’ trials or related Rwanda asylum hearings where Pentagon satellite photographs have been produced as evidence, and the first time that the existence of satellite photographs taken over Rwanda during the so-called ‘100 days of genocide’ has ever been verified.

Later in the Munyenyezi trial the U.S. prosecutors produced a ‘Pentagon analyst’ who testified about the satellite photographs. The Pentagon analyst was Mr. Eric R. Benn, Technical Executive, Analysis and Production Directorate, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA). The photographs introduced into the public record include very high resolution images shot over Rwanda in May, June and July of 1994.

Under cross-examination during the Munyenyezi trial, the Pentagon analyst admitted that other photos–that would have exonerated the accused–existed, but after a hastily arranged court recess the analyst changed his story declaring that no such photos existed.

“My sister and her attorneys were denied access to exculpatory evidence that consists of satellite photo taken in April 1994.” Jean Marie Vianney Higiro has watched as his sisters have been framed and attempts have been made to frame him. “The photos that the Pentagon submitted to the court were taken in June, and they do not show any roadblocks. The defense attorney for Beatrice asked if there were photos taken in April [1994] because that’s when they [prosecution] said the roadblocks were there. The gentleman from the Pentagon said yes these photos existed. Then there was a break in the trial. When the trial resumed the gentleman said the photos did not exist. These photos [April and early May] would have shown that there were no roadblocks when my sister was allegedly checking ID cards. They were denied exculpatory evidence.”

Declassified Pentagon photos purportedly showing the location of (nonexistent) road-blocks in Butare that were produced in the case of United States v. Prudence Kantengwa.

Brian Andersen played some role in advancing the false story of roadblocks in Butare, where Beatrice Munyenyezi was alleged to have been checking IDs to single out Tutsis to be raped or killed, and he thus played a role in framing Beatrice Munyenyezi.

On June 22, 2010 a Search and Seizure Warrant was approved by the U.S. District Court in New Hampshire for the purpose of invading the Manchester N.H. home of Beatrice Munyenyezi.

The warrant was based on the affidavit of Thomas Brian Andersen, Jr., the same ICE Special Agent involved in the case of Jean Leonard Teganya. In his affidavit, Andersen distilled the Hutu/Tutsi conflict in Rwanda down to a few essential details that helped to frame Beatrice Munyenyezi as a genocidaire.

When the story of Munyenyezi’s arrest was reported in Boston Magazine, ICE special agent Brian Andersen was the hero and Beatrice Munyenyezi was “The Monster Next Door.”

Beatrice Munyenyezi claimed she was a refugee from the Rwandan genocide,” wrote Boston Magazine. “Federal agent Brian Andersen suspected she was someone far more sinister.

Compounding the injustice against Jean Marie Vianney Higiro and his family, ICE agents had Prudence Kantengwa arrested and tried for perjury based on the non-existent roadblocks story. When ICE agents interviewed Kantengwa, they claimed, she did not mention the roadblocks in Butare that became the pivotal (though falsified) evidence against Beatrice Munyenyezi. Kantengwa did not mention the roadblocks because they did not exist. Kantengwa was nonetheless adjudged guilty of perjury.

Both Prudence Kantengwa and Beatrice Munyenyezi were denied exculpatory evidence and both remain in prison today.

Prudence Kantengwa was further judged guilty of perjury on account of her alleged failure to mention that her husband, Athanase Munyemana, was a member of the MRND party. Note, this is one of the boiler plate accusations used against many Rwandans falsely accused by the regime in Rwanda and by the U.S. asylum courts. First, for decades Rwanda was a one-party dictatorship where membership in the government MRND party was obligatory. Second, Althase Munyemana was a state prosecutor in Rwanda who had been transferred to the Service Central de Renseignements (Central Intelligence Services). As a prosecutor, sent by a government minister to work for the CIS, Munyemana was forbidden by Rwandan law from joining any political party.

Federal prosecutor Mary Kelley apparently also worked for Homeland Security, at which time she had both the Kantengwa and Munyenyezi cases referred to the District Attorney. Kelley was also the federal prosecutor in the case against Prudence Kantengwa. Kelley tried to connect Jean Marie Vianney Higiro to both of his sisters’ cases–to frame him as well. This was clearly a direct collaboration with the Kagame regime.

In October 2017, during the Kantengwa trial, federal prosecutor Mary Kelley was forced to disclose a report written by one of her [the prosecution’s] expert witnesses that Kelley disclosed was funded by the Rwandan government.

Another of Mary Kelley and Brian Andersen’s comrades in their Hutu hunting quest is Eugenie Mukeshimana, a Rwandan Tutsi woman who is clearly a paid activist/lobbyist for the Kagame regime. As one Rwandan confided privately: “this is one of Kagame’s hired guns.”

Working in some very irregular capacity as an “interpreter”, Ms. Mukeshimana is also some kind of special adviser to the federal prosecutors in Boston.

Eugenie Mukeshimana has appeared in federal court every day, advising the federal prosecutors at the trial of Jean Leonard Teganya.

Eugenie Mukeshimana has a substantial Internet presence, and she is known by rwandan nationals (with U.S. citizenship) for her pro-regime activism in political and legal circles in Boston, Washington, New York and New Jersey.

Jean Marie Vianney Higiro remains under constant surveillance and monitoring by the Department of Homeland Security and Federal Bureau of Investigation.

On 9 November 2016, the day after the U.S. presidential elections were decided, two F.B.I. agents appeared at the home of Dr. Jean Marie Vianney Higiro. This was only 12 hours after Donald Trump was elected. While the agents failed to observe protocol by reading Dr. Higiro his Miranda Rights, Dr. Higiro was nonetheless cooperative and invited the two agents into his home. He also answered all their questions for over an hour.

The Obama administration had clearly made some deal with Paul Kagame, and it was time to clean house and tidy up unfinished business during the last days of Obama’s lame-duck presidency.

“I thought they were going to arrest me,” Dr. Higiro says. “It’s not over. Who knows what’s going to happen.”

Taxpayers in the United States should demand that a Federal Grand Jury be convened to investigate the corruption, perjury, racketeering and conspiracy being perpetrated in bogus Rwanda genocide asylum trials.

The following people (not an exhaustive list) should be deposed under oath:

  • ICE agent Thomas Brian Andersen
  • ICE agent Kevin Cronin (who has also traveled to Rwanda, works with Andersen to frame refugees and U.S. citizens of Rwandan origins)
  • ICE agent Jordan Regan
  • U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services agent Meghann Boyle
  • Federal prosecutor Mary Kelley
  • Federal Prosecutor Andew Lelling
  • Federal Prosecutor George Varghese
  • Homeland Security Investigations agent Jeffrey Stillings
  • Rwandan “interpreter” and RPA agent Eugenie Mukeshimana
  • MSF doctor and RPA agent Rony Zachariah

How many scores or hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayers dollars are being spent on these fraudulent trials?

The fifteen-day trial of Beatrice Munyenyezi in February and March 2012 was concluded with four additional days of deliberations by an all-white jury. On 15 March 2012 the jury delivered a deadlocked decision and the U.S. government declared a ‘mistrial’. The re-trial began 10 September 2012.

Mark Howard, one of Beatrice Munyenyezi’s attorneys, revealed to the press the huge sums of money spent by the U.S Judiciary to try Rwandan genocide suspects.

Howard estimated that U.S. taxpayers paid between US$ 2.5 million and $US 3 million for Munyenyezi’s first 2012 prosecution and trial in federal court. Howard estimated (at the time) that the second 2012 retrial was likely to cost an additional US$ 1 million.

Howard’s estimates include attorney fees, agent salaries, the ‘extraordinary expense’ of investigating in a foreign country, the costs of bringing some fifteen witnesses to New Hampshire, and the hiring of experts.

In the case of Jean Leonard Teganya, some 15 witnesses appeared for the prosecution, with at least 18 witnesses for the defense. Most of these witnesses were flown in from other countries.

The combined costs of the four or five trials mentioned herein must have (or will) exceed $15 million dollars.

According to ICE statistics from 2017:

The investigation leading to Teganya’s arrest was conducted by special agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) in Boston and supported by ICE’s Boston Office of the Chief Counsel and ICE’s Human Rights Violators and War Crimes Center (HRVWCC). Established in 2009 to further ICE’s efforts to identify, track, and prosecute human rights abusers, the HRVWCC leverages the expertise of a select group of agents, lawyers, intelligence and research specialists, historians, and analysts who direct the agency’s broader enforcement efforts against these offenders.

Since 2003, ICE has arrested more than 380 individuals for human rights-related violations of the law under various criminal and immigration statutes. During that same period, ICE obtained deportation orders against and physically removed 785 known or suspected human rights violators from the United States. Additionally, ICE has facilitated the departure of an additional 108 such individuals from the United States.

Currently, HSI has more than 160 active investigations into suspected human rights violators and is pursuing more than 1,750 leads and removals cases involving suspected human rights violators from 95 different countries. Since 2003, the HRVWCC has issued more than 70,400 lookouts for individuals from more than 110 countries and stopped 213 human rights violators and war crimes suspects from entering the U.S.

Souls on Ice

ICE special agent Brian Andersen appeared as an expert witness during an immigration hearing in Salt Lake City, Utah. On trial was a woman named Agnes Mukantagara, a Rwandan refugee who was forced to seek asylum at the U.S. Embassy in Kigali, Rwanda, after coming under threat by the Kagame regime. Agnes Mukantagara was working for the U.S. Embassy at the time of her falling out with the regime, and the U.S. Embassy facilitated her admission into the United States.

Agnes Mukantagara appeared in Boston in an immigration hearing involving Prudence Kantengwa. Homeland security operative and federal prosecutor Mary Kelley spotted Agnes Mukantagara and Beatrice Munyenyezi sitting in the courtroom and Kelley pressed ICE to launch an investigation to find out who they were and ascertain their immigration status.

On the witness stand at the Mukantagara trial in Salt Lake City, special Agent Brian Andersen reportedly admitted that Agnes Mukantagara’s case originated in Boston after she appeared in federal court as a witness in Prudence Kantengwa’s case. Andersen also reportedly said he was sent to Kigali to investigate Mukantagara.

In Kigali, Rwanda’s national commission created to hunt down genocidaires provided special agent Andersen with an office where he could work and interview potential witnesses. The government commission brought witnesses to that office for special agent Andersen to interview–witnesses selected to provide Andersen with information that would serve the regime’s interests.

When asked under oath if he had moved outside of the office to perform his duties and gather information special agent Brian Andersen reportedly said ‘no.’ When asked whether he knew that Agnes Mukantagara’s first husband had been murdered by the RPA, Mr. Andersen reportedly said ‘no.’ When askd whether he had met Mukantagara’s relatives during his stay in Kigali, he reportedly said ‘no.’ When asked whether he knew that the government commission trains and schools witnesses, special agent Brian Andersen reportedly said ‘no.’

Later it came to light that Mary Kelley has undertaken her own special research project to learn what she could about Agnes Mukantagara. In so doing, Kelley discovered that one Agnes Mukantagara was tried by one of Rwanda’s public Gacaca Tribunals. Agnes Mukantagara was found guilty of genocide, but not as an organizer, and she was sentenced to life imprisonment. (See, for example: John Quigley, The Genocide Convention: An International Law Analysis, Routledge, 2016: p. 35)

Mary Kelley apparently used the information she so proudly discovered about Agnes Mukantagara, one convicted of genocide at a Gacaca Tribunal in Rwanda, to help make the case against Agnes Mukantagara, one who fled from the threat of the RPA to the U.S. Embassy in Kigali, in Salt Lake City, Utah.

There are/were two Rwandan women with the name Agnes Mukantagara.

Based on Kelly’s tip, the Rwandan regime set about to manufacture a dossier against Agnes Mukantagara. The whole case began in court in Boston, under the ever vigilant Hutu hunting eyes of prosecutor Mary Kelley and special agent Brian Andersen.

After Brian Andersen’s testimony in Salt Lake City, under cross-examination by the defense, the judge found in favor of Agnes Mukantagara’s request for asylum, ruling against the Department of Homeland Security. The DHS, of course, immediately filled an appeal.

Photography Credits: Keith Harmon Snow

On My Visit to New Zealand

I visited the city of Christchurch on May 23, 2018, as part of a larger speaking tour in New Zealand that also took me to Auckland, Wellington, Hamilton and Dunedin.

New Zealand is an exceptional country, different from other countries that are often lumped under the generalized designation of the ‘western world.’ Almost immediately after my arrival to Auckland, New Zealand’s largest and most populous city, I was struck by the overt friendliness, hospitality and diversity.

This is not to downgrade the ongoing struggles in the country, lead among them being the campaign for land rights as championed by the Maori people, the original inhabitants of New Zealand; but, indeed, there was something refreshingly different about New Zealanders.

Just the fact that the Maori language, “Te Reo”, is one of the three official languages in the country, the others being English  and Sign Language, immediately sets New Zealand apart from other colonized spaces, where indigenous peoples, cultures, languages and rights are, to various extents, inconsequential.

It is due to the empowered position of the indigenous Maori culture, that New Zealand is, compared to other countries, more inclusive and more accepting of refugees and immigrants. And that is likely why New Zealand – and Christchurch, in particular – was chosen as a target for the terrorist attacks carried out by an Australian national on March 15.

The Australian terrorist – whose name will not be mentioned here in honor of a call made by the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, as not to celebrate the infamy of the senseless murderer – wanted to send a message that immigrants, particularly Muslims, are not safe, not even in New Zealand.

But his attempt backfired. Not only will he live “the rest of his life in isolation in prison”, as promised by New Zealand’s Foreign Minister, Winston Peters, who was speaking at the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) emergency conference in Turkey on March 22, but the horrific crime has brought New Zealanders even closer together.

There is something sorrowful, yet beautiful, about Christchurch. This small, welcoming city, located on the east coast of New Zealand’s South Island, was devastated on February 22, 2011 by a massive earthquake that killed 185 people and destroyed much of the town.

Last May, I spoke at Christchurch’s Cardboard Cathedral, an innovative structure that was built as a temporary replacement to the Anglican Cathedral that was destroyed in the earthquake.

In my talk, I commended the people for their beautiful church, and for their own resilience in the face of hardship. The diversity, openness and solidarity of the audience reflected the larger reality throughout the city, in fact, throughout the country. For me, Christchurch was not a place of tragedy, but a source of hope.

My audience, which also included members of the Muslim community, some coming from Al Noor Mosque – the main target of the recent attack – listened and engaged me as I argued that the genuine authentic voices of ordinary people should be placed at the core of our understanding of the past, and our hope for a better future. While the focus of my talk was the history of the Palestinian people, the message exceeded the struggle for freedom in Palestine into the struggle and rights of all indigenous groups, guided by such uplifting experiences as that of the Maori people of New Zealand itself.

I also had the chance to meet with Marama Davidson, co-leader of the Green Party, among other MPs. It was strange to be in a position where solidarity from politicians came across as genuine as that of the unconditional solidarity of ordinary activists – once again, highlighting the uniqueness of New Zealand’s progressive politics and leadership.

Experiencing that myself, it was no surprise to see the outpouring of genuine love and support by Prime Minister Ardern and many members of her cabinet and parliament following the mosque attack. The fact that she, along with numerous women throughout the country, wore symbolic head-scarves in order to send a message to Muslims that they are not alone, while countless thousands of New Zealanders mourned the victims who perished in Al Noor and Linwood mosques, was unprecedented in the recent history of Western-Muslim relationship.

In fact, on Friday March 22, when all of New Zealand’s TV and radio stations transmitted the call for Muslim prayer, and as Muslims and non-Muslims rallied together in a massive display of human solidarity while mourning their dead, for a moment, all Muslims became New Zealanders and all New Zealanders became Muslims.

At the end of my talk, a group of Muslims from the mosque approached me with a gift, a box of dates to break my fast, as it was the month of Ramadan, the holy month of fasting and repentance for Muslims worldwide. With much gratitude I took the box of dates and promised to visit Al Noor when I return to the country in the future.

A few months later, as I watched the horrific images on television of the terrorist attack that struck this peaceful city, I immediately thought of the Cardboard Cathedral, of the beautiful solidarity of the Maori, of the numerous embraces of so many New Zealanders, and, of the kindly Muslims and the box of dates.

I also understood why the undeserving-to-be named terrorist chose to strike Christchurch, and the underlying message he wanted to send to Muslims, immigrants, New Zealanders and all of those who champion peaceful co-existence and tolerance worldwide.

But he failed. In fact, all other foot soldiers of racism and hate will continue to fail because tragedy often unites us. Collective pain helps us see each other as human beings first, where our differences, however great, can never be enough to justify or even explain why 3-year-old Mucad Ibrahim had to die, along with 49 other, beautiful and innocent people.

However, one can be comforted by the Maori saying, “Ka mate te kāinga tahi, ka ora te kāinga rua” – “when one house dies, the second lives”. It means that good things can always emerge from misfortune.

It will take much time for Christchurch, and the whole of New Zealand, to heal from this terrible misfortune. But the strength, will and courage of so many communities should be enough to turn a horrific terrorist act into an opportunity to heal our collective wounds, not just in New Zealand, but the world over.

Why Did This Just Happen Again?

Another heavily-armed, sociopath fascist has carried out a carefully-planned, extremely cold-blooded, videotaped massacre. In terms of the particular form of mass murder that involves targeting people because of their race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or other such commonly-held characteristic, by far the most large-scale forms of ethnic cleansing have been carried out by governments. Examples include institutionalized forms of genocide such as the European Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Nazi gas chambers, the Japanese Empire’s Rape of Nanking, the smoke-filled caves of Turkey during the First World War, the total devastation wrought from the skies down on entire civilian populations in places like Iraq, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Korea, and Japan by the US Air Force, the price put on each Indian scalp in colonial New England, the many, many massacres of whole villages that took place during the theft of indigenous land or under the banner of “war” throughout the Americas, in Australia and so many other places with similar histories. The names of towns and cities often become representative of the ethnic cleansers of the day, and depending on the time and place, everyone knows what you mean when you use the shorthand of place names such as Alhambra, Guernica, Dachau, Wounded Knee, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, My Lai, Srebrenica, Falluja, Deir Yassin, Sabra, Shatila.

In times and places when such slaughter isn’t a daily occurrence, it’s more shocking. Particularly when the slaughter is carried out not on orders of a commanding officer in an occupied war zone somewhere far away, but by a freelance sociopath from a generally peaceful country who obviously wants so much to kill for his beliefs that he’s willing to die in order to do so. Then we add place names that have become chilling reminders of this special variety of incomprehensible horror, at least for those who remember — Hebron, Oak Creek, Orlando, Charleston, Pittsburgh, Utoya, Christchurch — to name only a few, that adhere strictly to the concept of freelance fascist terror directed at a particular group for the crime of existing. (Which is not to minimize other forms of terror. I’ll get to some of them later.)

Many commentators have aptly pointed out that at a time when the leader of the free world is openly racist (along with the leaders of an increasing array of other major countries), this encourages racist hate crimes, which is evidently and not surprisingly true. I would venture to add a couple things to this discussion, not that I make any pretenses to be the first to do so. For one thing, this legacy of genocide, racial and ethnic division didn’t start with Trump, or even with Hitler — it goes back a lot further than that, and this is crucial to understand for making any sense of the world around us. The other thing I’d add is I don’t feel at all confident that the leaders of most countries in the western world actually want these massacres to stop, and I say this just from my own personal experiences, which I think are worth sharing in some detail.

There have been competing narratives going on throughout the history of Europe and the European-descended settler-colonial/refugee diaspora that has come to dominate so much of the world in recent centuries. Very broadly, you could say that on the one hand there is the divide and rule narrative of the rich and powerful, and on the other, the narrative of solidarity, uniting all the people against their common enemy, the ruling elite. Depending on the time and place, the adherents of one or the other of these narratives have been in the ascendancy, but for most of the history of Europe and its colonies, the elite has maintained their grip on power through the systematic and often very deadly sowing of divisions within the ranks of the people.

Ethnic cleansing has been a major feature since the beginnings of European Christendom. It would be a terrible mistake, however, to assume that what was happening in Europe was happening everywhere else — it wasn’t. During the many centuries that were characterized in much of Europe by the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the expulsions of hundreds of thousands of Jews and Muslims from places like Spain, Portugal (with smaller mass expulsions from England and other countries), in the Ottoman Empire Jews, Christians and Muslims lived side by side in peace and prosperity, with the sultan taking an active role in promoting coexistence of different religions, languages and traditions within the sprawling, extraordinarily diverse Ottoman lands. In one of the most massive and least well-known events during the long period in Europe often referred to as the Dark Ages, when all the Jews of Spain were given three months to leave the newly Catholic country or be killed, most of them were rescued in a gigantic naval operation by the Ottoman fleet. At the time, any Ottoman, Chinese or Andean city was far more prosperous and high-tech than the most advanced parts of Europe. In fact, the term “Europe” wasn’t used to describe the land mass it is currently understood to be referring to, so even writing a history of Europe is a fraught concept to begin with for any historian going back further than the modern period.

Jews, Muslims, and the wrong kinds of Christians were systematically and regularly targeted by crusaders and inquisitors, and then in North America by Puritans, who hanged Indians along with Catholics and Quakers, and burned them alive in large numbers in Connecticut. Among those who came to North America and Australia from England, Ireland and elsewhere in Europe, most were refugees of one form or another, and when they got to wherever they were going — often in chains — they generally lived short and brutal lives. If they were lucky, after a couple generations of assimilation their lot might improve. Not so much for the Africans brought over in chains that were maintained in place by institutionalized racism no matter how many generations later, or for the Indians whose land was taken, with whole populations and cultures reduced to suggestions of what once had been.

Throughout all of this there was profound resistance — resistance which has defined reality for those of us alive today to a huge extent, though perhaps not as huge an extent as the oppressive institutions, systems and ways of thinking we’ve been up against over these centuries of the global struggle between the haves and have-nots. There were Indian nations pitted against each other and others who managed to unite against a common foe. There were race riots and pogroms but there were also slave rebellions, farmer rebellions, and eventually, after many decades of trying and failing, inter-racial unions. The Europe-wide uprisings of 1848, the concurrent Rent Strike movement in the US, and the miner rebellion in Australia soon afterwards all had profound impacts in terms of Europe and these European settler states becoming more democratic and more prosperous.

In the more modern period, divide and rule tactics have been used by most western countries to pit nations against each other in wars over colonial control of other parts of the world, using the working class of one country to slaughter that of another. But at least as significant as those wars between countries has been the systematic use of divide and rule tactics to keep populations under control within a given country. In Europe, the divide between different forms of Christianity and the existence of Jews, Muslims, and later of the supposed threat posed by the Soviet Union and still later once again by the existence of Muslims and specifically Muslim refugees have been some of the main pillars of divide and rule. In the US we’ve had all of that, plus an extra helping of racial division to add a seemingly infinite degree of complexity to the already great challenges inherent in the class struggle anywhere — and that is very much true in Australia as well, which for a very long time had a whites-only immigration policy, as did the US and New Zealand.

So why this history refresher? Because, as far as I can tell, nothing much has changed. For all the talk about cracking down on far right terrorism or white nationalism or whatever they’re using as the modern term for the inquisitors, crusaders, ethnic cleansers, fascists, genocidal colonizers, Puritans, slave-traders, imperialists, CIA coup-plotters or torturers, the crackdown will never be very thorough, because any thorough crackdown would mean a fairly complete transformation of society. It would mean, in short, socialism. In order to overcome these divisions, which were all intentionally created, we have to intentionally put an end to them. This means, to coin a phrase, the workers of the world uniting. And what then of corporate profits?

Well, that, it seems to me, is the problem. I’m now over half a century old, and I’ve been involved with what they call activism since I was twelve or so. From my experience, the powers-that-be in these European and European-colonized countries like the US, Australia and New Zealand don’t seem to be very concerned with the repeating patterns of far right violence. Regardless of the facts, regardless of the news or of what they say they’re going to do, what they seem to do in actuality most of the time is crack down on the left some more. That is, they crack down on the very advocates for the concepts of unity and solidarity that they say they also stand for. It seems to me you can’t have it both ways.

And as they are opposing progressive thought and action in most every form at most every turn (until that which is violently opposed is ultimately embraced as self-evident), they are also constantly supporting and embracing and propagating a false narrative of history that suits their ends, and ultimately ends up supporting white nationalism. Either intentionally or because they don’t know any better, throughout institutions of society in places like the US, Australia and New Zealand, people are being lied to as they’re growing up and throughout their adulthoods, with so many different forms of mythology about the superiority of European civilization. And when the contrast between the wealth in so many of the whiter countries and the poverty of so many of the darker nations is not explained or put into the context of colonialism and imperialism, as it generally isn’t, it might make sense to assume there is something to this white nationalism after all. The way Venezuela is currently being covered in the western media and by western politicians is a case in point. No real historical context is given for why Venezuela was so poor to begin with, how Chavez changed that for so many people, or why the people talking about all of the different ways the US and other forces are acting to destroy the country are clearly the ones with the strength of history on their side.

Media coverage and portrayal by politicians of the global justice movement in the late 1990’s in which I was an active participant is another case in point, and is the first personal example I’ll begin with. You would be forgiven for thinking that intensified and militarized border security and the militarization of police forces in the US was a post-9/11 phenomenon in response to terrorism. For those who were around and involved with the movement, we know differently. The security state flew into high gear in response to the WTO protests near the end of 1999. This is when the total vilification of our movement in the media began.

They consistently painted us as “anti-globalization,” a term we never used. The impression they gave was that we were against trade of any kind. They dismissed us as ignorant people who didn’t appreciate the greatness of capitalism, and all the good the US, the UK, France, etc. has done in the world by promoting free trade and democracy. Many of them probably believe the lies they spout. Why wouldn’t they? They grew up in this mind control experiment called the western world, too, believing all this rubbish. They painted us as universally engaged in violence and property destruction, just the same way they talk about the Yellow Vest movement in France today, although with our movement, as with that one, the rock-throwers were a small minority. Most of the movement was all about nonviolent civil disobedience, which is how many different global trade meetings were disrupted.

And that’s what really upset them — this egalitarian social movement. That’s what they couldn’t stand. And when we, this global movement, began to influence the mainstream understanding of and conversation around so-called development programs and blood-sucking institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, when people broadly began to question whether free trade was good for the average person, while at the same time the billionaires were unable to hold a public meeting and have it go off smoothly unless they held it in a dictatorship, the global elite in the great democracies of the west were facing something of a legitimacy crisis.

For the ruling elite in the US especially, 9/11 was their opportunity to seize the moral higher ground in the face of the argument around stratification of wealth, free trade, and exploitation of workers, the environment, and the Global South — an argument they often appeared to be losing. Now, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, they finally had found a worthwhile enemy to distract everyone with — and they finally found a worthwhile enemy to compare us with, as well. I remember the voice of the NPR anchor so well in the days following the attacks on New York, when he said something like, “last week they were protesting the World Trade Organization. Now they’re bombing the World Trade Center.”

And it is true that the last time I recalled being at the World Trade Center in downtown Manhattan prior to 9/11 was on May 1st, 2000, when thousands of riot police had been deployed all over the city to make sure we didn’t shut down Wall Street or break windows at Starbucks, McDonald’s or at the Twin Towers. Turns out they had more to worry about than window-breaking teenagers, but you wouldn’t know they were worried about anything other than the left, when you look at the police budgets in different cities, and how they mushroomed not in preparation for potential terrorist attacks, but to prevent us from messing up their meetings.

Sometime around September 13th, 2001 I was driving with a friend past New York City’s smoldering ruins, along i-95 in Connecticut, the stretch of highway that consistently gets the distinction of being voted the ugliest in the United States by the truckers association. No one ever hitch-hikes on i-95, but that day there was a hitch-hiker, and he was Israeli. That was weird. We gave him a ride to New Haven. He said he had been there for a long time. No one would pick him up. He figured it was because he looked Arab.

I don’t know who that guy was, but years later I heard from a friend who had been off the radar for a long time. He wasn’t a close friend, so it wasn’t so strange not to hear from him for a while, but when he resurfaced it turned out that he had been off the radar because he was basically in hiding, afraid he might die at any moment. After not dying for so many years, he ventured to anonymously tell me his story, which he said I could publish on my blog (which I did). To sum up the salient points, my friend knew Mohammed Atta, smoked cigarettes with him at the smoking area outside of a mysterious building in Hollywood, Florida where Atta worked. The building contained companies that had names that seemed to indicate they were moving companies, but they had hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of computer equipment, and most of their employees were Israelis, at least one of whom clearly didn’t get the cue that he was working for a moving company. The janitor went to the wrong floor and died there. All the businesses in the building suddenly closed on September 12th, 2001. I still want to know what the hell that was all about.

I first learned I was on a watch list in 2002, but I had begun having huge problems crossing the Canadian border before then. I was prevented from entering Canada for the G8 protests in 2002 and told I’d be detained if I tried to enter anywhere else in the country. When would I be released? When the protests were over, I was told. Why would I be held in the first place? The document just said to turn me away, but that they should give me a false reason for having done so. (The border agent wasn’t supposed to show his orders to me, but he was too freaked out by them not to. Other people have similar stories, including Laura Poitras.)

I mention the watch list because under treaty, the US, Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand share all of that kind of information, since 1948. I learned that in 2013, when I was denied entry to New Zealand.

I had been to Aotearoa — what the European settlers named New Zealand — on several occasions before then, playing gigs and getting to know people and places on those lush, green, beautiful islands. I had met people on watch lists, and people who were on trial on charges that involved the word “terrorism” being thrown around frequently. They were all either Maori or non-Maori supporters of Maori sovereignty.

But then to be denied entry in 2013, to find out that government agents from those islands are reading my blog, and telling me about it in detail as they explain that pot-smoking musicians like me are not welcome in their country, was a surprise to me and to the veteran immigration lawyer in Christchurch who tried and failed to help get this decision overturned.

Only weeks later in Australia I got some strange news through the bizarre circumstance of knowing a government worker in Canberra. Down the hall from where she worked, through the open door of the War Crimes Department one of her coworkers clearly heard people inside that department discussing me. Her coworker didn’t hover near the door to try to get more information, but he excitedly reported this bit of gossip to my friend, which was as unreal to him as it was to her and to me.

However else you want to decipher this set of facts and the facts that have come to light since the massacre in Christchurch, I was on watch lists in both New Zealand and Australia, and this Australian fascist with a long and active record of hate speech on the internet was able to get a license to own an arsenal of machine guns, and he was not on a watch list in either the country of his birth, Australia, or the country he had moved to, where he bought his guns and killed all those people. Lest anyone be left with the impression that I’m talking about my history with being on multiple international watch lists in order to prove how cool I am, that is not the point. The point is that the authorities are wasting their time and effort on people like me, and however many thousands or millions of other people like me, and they are missing the people they should be watching. (Not that this is a problem that can be solved by better policing in the first place.)

I was in Scotland for the 2005 G8 summit and protests there, which involved lots of nonviolent civil disobedience, delayed meetings, and other festivities. It also involved thousands and thousands of riot cops to make sure the summit would be able to go on. They felt they needed such a large police presence that there weren’t enough cops in Scotland for the job, so they imported loads of cops from other places. None of this is unusual, by the way. Many of the cops they imported for the protests were from London. Turns out that in July, 2005 the London cops had other things they might have been looking into aside from nonviolent protesters in Scotland. What they know of in England as 7/7, the terror attacks on the London Underground, occurred at the tail end of the G8 meetings in Scotland, while the London cops were away policing us.

I was in Oslo only a couple weeks after the bombing there and the massacre in Utoya that followed in 2011. The mounds of flowers at the Oslo Cathedral were still fresh. It was the same cathedral where a few years earlier I stood with Afghan refugees who had been on hunger strike for weeks, trying to draw attention to the fact that Norway intended to send them back to a war zone to die. I watched the police destroy their tents one night, and I watched the Red Cross put up new tents the following morning, in a direct challenge to the police.

Like other people following the news in July, 2011, I was hearing stories about the slow police response to the massacre that had been unfolding on the island. One of the things that kept getting mentioned was that the city of Oslo had just one police helicopter.

Only then in the wake of by far the worst massacre in post-World War 2 Scandinavian history did I learn the significance of the experience I had had not long before that time, when Barack Obama was in town to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. The tabloid press and the Norwegian authorities were apparently so concerned about Islamists attacking the Nobel proceedings with rocket launchers that they had arrested Norway’s one known Islamist before Obama’s arrival as a precaution.

On the day when Obama was getting his prize and some few anarchists were protesting in the rain, including a number of my Scandinavian friends, I wasn’t feeling well. I was trying to take a nap around midday, when a helicopter showed up directly above me. I was on a bed on the fifth floor of a five-story building, and the helicopter above me was deafeningly loud. It hovered there for around two hours, preventing me from napping.

Being an activist and getting harassed by helicopters is, believe it not, not an unfamiliar experience for me and for many other people who I could introduce you to. But knowing that the helicopter harassing me in this particular case was probably Oslo’s one police helicopter, at a time when they were supposedly worried about Islamist violence, less than two years before the country would be devastated by a horrific act of rightwing violence, it felt very much like yet another example of a grievous misallocation of police resources, at the very least.

I could share so many more examples, but my abundant experience indicates that whether we’re talking about a more nakedly capitalist country like the US under the leadership of an open bigot or under the leadership of a suave gentleman of color; whether we’re talking about Thatcher’s England or the pacific social democracies of Scandinavia led by people who apparently really do think free health care and government housing are good things; the mainstream media and the mainstream political leadership of all of these countries are much more concerned with the possibility that progressive movements will upset their status quo than they are concerned with mass murderers.

Given that the historical evidence indicates that the cure for fascist movements is successfully-implemented socialism that allows everyone to live dignified lives with universal housing, health care, education, etc., the tendency of all of these neoliberal European, North American and South Pacific nations to suppress progressive movements wherever they crop up in their own countries or elsewhere in the world, to almost always side with corporate interests against the interests of their own people or other people, will continue to be one of the major factors providing a great breeding ground for the ethnic cleansers in our midst following in the paths of a thousand years of rule by the descendants of the Crusaders.

You want to de-radicalize the fascists among us, hand-wringing western democratic leaders of the world? You can start by taking your corporate boots off of the necks of the progressive social movements that have been trying to oppose these people while you’ve been pretending you don’t have a history as an explicitly racist state with a whites-only immigration policy.

Reading Manifestos: Restricting Brenton Tarrant’s The Great Replacement

A censorious and censoring attitude has engulfed responses to the mental airings of the Christchurch shooter.  Material in connection with Brenton Tarrant, the alleged gunman behind the killing of 50 individuals at two mosques in New Zealand, is drying up; his manifesto, for one, is being disaggregated and spread through multiple forms, removed from their various parts with blunt razors.  Doing so does a disservice to any arguments that might be mounted against him, but having a debate is not what this is generally about.

Arguments on banning the incendiary and dangerous are easily mounted against a range of publications. The smutty supposedly corrupt public morals; the revolutionary supposedly give citizens strange and cocksure ideas about overthrowing the order of things. Then there are just the downright bizarre and adventurous, incapable of classification, but deemed dangerous for not falling into any clear category.  Certitude is fundamentally important for the rule-directed censor and paper shuffling bureaucrat.

One example stands out, a testament to the failure of such efforts and the misunderstandings and distortions that follow.  Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, as a stellar case, was banned in Germany after the Second World War.  In January 2016, it was republished on the expiry of copyright held by the Bavarian government.  As Steven Luckert remarked in The Atlantic at the time, “the history of the book, and of Hitler’s words more generally, demonstrates that there’s no clear-cut relationship between banning speech and halting the spread of ideas.”  The Nazi party did not disappear in the aftermath of the ban; nor could it be said that his ideas had captivated whole states and their governments, despite being accessible.

The book, deemed to be an insight into the darkened corridors of Hitler’s racial and biologically charged mind, was not initially seen as off limits in the war of ideas; even as the United States was doing battle against Nazi Germany, advocates for understanding the mental baggage of Hitler was sought rather than dismissed.  Houghton Mifflin made it a patriotic duty for Americans to familiarise  themselves with the tenets of the text.

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was also keen that those battling Germany have a sense of what they were up against.  As he noted in his history of the Second World War, “There was no book which deserved more careful study from the rulers, political and military, of the Allied Powers.”  All the elements were there, from “the programme of German insurrection” to establishing “the rightful position of Germany at the summit of the world.”

With Tarrant, the push to restrict discussion and siphon off any serious mention is well underway.  The Great Replacement is become scarcer on the internet, having been removed from numerous sites and scoured off digital domains.  White House counselor Kellyanne Conway insists that the document be studied and read “in its entirety.”  Her reasons, explained in a Monday morning interview with Fox & Friends, are valid enough; she wants to argue that Tarrant is not merely a white nationalist warrior, but as much a radical in other contexts.  Yes, he mentions President Donald Trump “and there it is, one time.  But he also said he aligns closely with the ideology of China.  He said he’s not a conservative, he’s not a Nazi, I think her referred to himself as an eco-naturalist or an eco-fascist.”  Such are the muddying details of completeness.

The suggestion prompted scorn and outrage from the media cognoscenti.  Aaron Rupar called it “highly irresponsible.”  Joan Donovan of Harvard’s Technology and Social Change Research Project, demonstrating the enlightened disposition one has come to expect from boxed squirrel scholars, demanded a curb to its reach. “It is loaded with keywords that lead down far-right rabbit holes.  Do not repost.”  Tech writer for The New York Times Kevin Roose was decidedly paternalistic, issuing a hazard warning to any would-be reader: “be careful with the NZ shooter’s apparent manifesto.  It’s thick with irony and meta-text and very easy to misinterpret if you’re not steeped in this stuff all the time (and even if you are).”  Like the Catholic Church of old, it has been left to a priestly cast of read, steeped-in-the-stuff interpreters to give the highlights, carefully chosen, for public consumption.  No rabbit holes, meta-text, or irony for the unfortunate plebeian readership.

The mechanism by which this censorship is being engineered is questionable from ethical, evidentiary and epistemological contexts. The copy-cat syndrome has roared to the fore as real and influencing, and to that end, justifying.  Be wary of social contagion in the aftermath of a mass killing, we are told.

In 2015, a multi-authored study in PloS ONE claimed to find “significant evidence that mass killings involving firearms are incented by similar events in the immediate past.”  There was “significant evidence of contagion in school shootings.”  The authors suggested that an increased risk of mass killings and school shootings in a 13-day period following previous incidents.  Such perspectives on contagion have been echoed in a range of publications which insist on not publishing names or photographs of mass shooters.

Adam Lankford and Sara Tomek revisited the theme in studying mass killings in the United States between 2006 and 2013 in the journal Suicide and Life-Threatening Behaviour.  They noted the absence of relevant empirical studies on the subject, and previous contradictory findings.  The authors suggested that contagion requires transmission. “The social contagion thesis requires that the imitative mass killer be at least indirectly exposed to the model killer’s behaviour.”

On examining their gathered data, Lankford and Tomek confidently asserted that their study raised “significant questions about previous findings implying a short-term social contagion effect from mass killings.”  No “statistically significant evidence of contagion” was detectable within the 14-day time period.  Ever careful to cover their tracks with heavy padding, they also issue a cautionary note; “that longer term contagion or copycat effects may pose a significant threat to society.”

The banning complex is hard to resist.  After catastrophe, material can find itself onto forbidden lists.  Authorities, fearing mayhem, are the first to identify such dangers in slipshod fashion.  Uncertain and unverifiable contagion measures are considered.  But keeping such material off the radar will not advance the discussion of nationalism of a certain pedigree and the source of its inspiration.  If white nationalism be the problem, then call it out.  Examine it.  Consider remedies.  Tarrant’s The Great Replacement, like Hitler’s Mein Kampf before it, should be studied for its implications and understandings rather than avoided as a viral inducement for further violence.  The censor, in attitude, practice and assumption, remains as great a danger to society as any dangerous text ever could be.

Nonviolent Versus Violent Peace in Afghanistan and the World

“Salam (peace)!” is how Afghans greet one another, some of them simultaneously placing a hand over their hearts.

But, while everyone including Afghans wants peace, the Afghan Peace Volunteers and I have observed that the human species appears to be stuck on violent peace. We think that this is because most of us are reared as armed doves, like the one drawn by Wifred Hildonen for Cartoon Stock below.

There is a new Peacemaker in town!

Using Wilfred’s cartoon analogy, the Afghan Peace Volunteers and I are differentiating violent peace from nonviolent peace based on whether a society includes or excludes the use of weapons and armies as a resort to secure peace.

To date, the earth has housed violent peace. Human beings are the armed doves inhabiting the planet under the threat of lethal weapons, including 14,575 nuclear warheads. Even small island countries like Singapore are spending more and more money to acquire superior weaponry from the military industrial complex

We’re not differentiating between violent and nonviolent peace to judge anyone, as we would only be judging ourselves. We’ve tried nothing but violent peace in Afghanistan, to everyone’s loss. The time is overdue to pursue peace without weapons or armies, so that we can all enjoy the kind of peace we human beings dream about.

So, please trust your humanity, and trust that we share that humanity too. Like you, we wish to protect and defend our loved ones, so we don’t make this call on the people of the world lightly: “Don’t just pause. Stop! Consider nonviolent peace. It won’t harm you. It is the love we’ve always wanted!”

We so badly want societies that are highly organized on the foundation of love. This is already happening in many places through the local establishment of egalitarian, nonviolent practices. Joan Boaz said, “That’s all nonviolence is – organized love”.

It is happening among the Afghan Peace Volunteers, like with Afghan 11th grade student Rashid, whose story I had begun telling in a previous post.

Rashid

Rashid’s father was killed in a suicide bombing attack on a mosque in Kabul, for which a Pakistani militant group, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, claimed responsibility. Rashi’s father was selling oranges at the mosque. Rashid was so devastated by this loss that he became inconsolably depressed and couldn’t bring himself to attend school for three months.

Once during a counselling session, I was listening to Rashid describe the tightness and pain he feels in his chest when he remembers the prison-like religious school he was forcefully enrolled in. Rashid recalled the incessant punishments in class, and the loneliness….The tears started pouring down his cheeks, not the sort of tears that sought any attention, but flowy, tender tears.

“Do you think you can heal yourself of the war inside you?” I asked Rashid recently.

“Yes, by changing the way I think. I can ask questions, and look for evidence before I believe any claim about war or other matters,” he replied.

I asked what he would say if his mother asked to take revenge against the Pakistani “terrorists”, or against the Afghan extremists who, through traumatic indoctrination at the religious school, tried to brainwash him into joining them to wage the “holy war”.

“I will tell her: If I take revenge, you know that they will retaliate with even fiercer vengeance. You could be hurt. I could lose everything,” Rashid said.

I probed deeper, as my own personal journey towards understanding war and peace involved a freeing up of my basic assumptions, “After all that your mother has gone through, don’t you think that it’s her right to fight back?”

“Teacher,” Rashid explained to me, “There is an Afghan saying, “Blood cannot wash away blood.” Taking revenge doesn’t work.”

“But, Rashid, how will you be able to allay your mother’s fears, or even your own fears, if there were no military forces to defend you and your mom? Who will protect you?”

“My father was killed even when the Afghan army and the US/NATO forces were here defending us in Kabul. What we need is a people’s defense, in which the people bring security by conversing with the groups in conflict. We shouldn’t use weapons, because if we do, others will also use weapons against us. Look at the current peace negotiations in Afghanistan. While they negotiate, the sides in conflict are increasing their fighting and killing! How is peace ever going to come?” Rashid explained.

Rashid was stating what even the US Joint Chief of Staff, Marine Corps General Joe Dunford and the United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres had both said on different occasions, “There is no military solution in Afghanistan.”

“I used to admire those who looked strong holding dangerous weapons like this or like that…,” Rashid said, switching his arm posture as if he was holding a gun. “I used to think that Afghanistan must have an army to defend the country. I was a fan of the army generals.”

In most countries of the world today, saying something like this will get serious censure, “Rashid is unpatriotic. He is a traitor, maybe a Talib!” As armed doves, we consider the military almost sacred.

“Now, though I respect army generals and even militants as human beings, I don’t like what they do. I used to think that fighting proves how courageous I am. I was like a smart phone that was programmed by a system run by the government,” Rashid said.

I was reminded that I was speaking to a young person who belongs to the digital age and smart phone generation. It’s youth like Rashid and Swedish climate activist Greta Thurnberg who are rising up to change our obsolete and unresponsive systems. Greta had said:

We can’t save the world by playing by the rules because the rules have to change.

I could see Rashid applying his mind, the way he does in school, getting first position in his 10th grade class last year, “after the classmate who paid bribes for his grades left school”.

“Is it possible to re-program the human smart phone?” I asked, though I’ve been thinking that with the repetitive war negotiations among fully armed players in the Afghan conflict, neither adult human beings nor our communication systems are very smart.

“Of course, once we understand the systems that did the programming, we can un-install the program, or format it!” Rashid quipped.

Rashid thinks we can reprogram ourselves for nonviolent peace

Rashid is becoming the other dove that is within him, the nonviolent dove who offers an olive branch, without any weapon strapped under his wing.

Death in New Zealand: The Christchurch Shootings

Five weapons were said to have been used, all inscribed with symbols, numbers and insignia.  The individual charged with the shootings at two Christchurch mosques that left 49 dead was an Australian with, it is alleged, a simple purpose: inflict death, and on specific communities in worship.  Even as the carnage became clear, Christchurch was already the epicentre of twenty-four hour news television, supplying a ghoulish spectacle.  Saturation coverage followed, and continues to do so, a point that will warm the attacker’s blood (his entire effort was streamed on live video on Facebook).

The alleged perpetrator, one Brenton Harrison Tarrant, left an unstirring piece – to call it a manifesto would be far-fetched – for those interested before the attack. It is a document of banality and off target assumptions. “Who are you?” he asks himself, suggesting an inner voice in need of reassurance and clarity.  “Just an ordinary White man, 28 years old.  Born in Australia to a working class, low income family.”  Stock: “Scottish, Irish and English”; a “regular childhood without any great issues”.

He did not like education, “barely achieving a passing grade.”  Universities did not offer anything of interest.  He invested money in Bitconnect, then travelled.  A sense of cognitive dissonance follows; Tarrant had recently worked part time “as a kebab removalist”.

No criminal record, no watch list, no registry.  Nothing to suggest a tendency towards mass murder, disrespect or mania.  What Tarrant did have was a desire to avenge individuals he felt a kinship for, suggesting that the dull witted are just as capable of killing as the charismatically ideological.  The “radical”, rooted nature of violence lies dormant in many; all that is required is a match.

The simple language of the note resembled that of various European populist platforms, albeit trimmed of deep historical flourishes: fear the Islamic invader; take to the barricades to repel the forces of Allah.  Interestingly enough, Tarrant leaves the detail of the invaders unclear, given that European lands have received all manner of invasions over its existence, of which the Ottoman and Islamic is but one stream.  The broad statement strikes a note of nonsense: “To take revenge on the invaders for the hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by foreign invaders in European lands throughout history.”

Other statements of motivation follow: the “enslavement of millions of Europeans from their lands by the Islamic slavers”; “the thousands of European lives lost to terror attacks throughout European lands”.  Rather conveniently, and in manipulative fashion, the spirit of young Ebba Åkerlund, who died in 2017 in a terror attack in Sweden, is also channelled.  It was not sufficient to merely mention her; the eleven-year old inspired the shooter to name rifles after her.  “How the hell,” expressed stunned father Stefan Åkerlund, “can we ever get to mourn in peace?”

The problem with any such event is the risk of immoderate response.  Sensible comments have been noted: the risks posed by non-Islamic terrorists have tended to be neglected in budgets and rhetoric, though US President Donald Trump is, unsurprisingly, insisting that militant white nationalism is fringe worthy rather than common. Under the John Key government, the overwhelming focus of funding intelligence and security efforts was directed at the phantom menace of Islam, burrowing deep into the suburbs.  Watch lists of suspects were constantly noted; the fear of returned “radicalised” fighters was constantly iterated.  To add a greater sense of purpose to the mission, New Zealand troops were deployed to Iraq to fight the troops of Islamic State.  “Get some guts!” exclaimed Key to his opposition counterpart, Andrew Little, who seemed somewhat half-hearted in committing to the effort.

Other policy recommendations, still embryonic and possibly never to fly, are making their errands.  There are suggestions of deploying around the clock security personnel to mosques in various countries, something that risks militarising places of worship.

Vengeful rebuke can also find room in legislative and executive action.  In New Zealand, reforms to gun laws are being promised.  (These are already strict, and it is by no means clear if safety would be improved by such changes.)  In Australia, Tony Burke of the Labor Party suggests punishing hate speech and denying visas to certain right wing advocates of the white supremacist persuasion.  Australia’s immigration system is sufficiently intolerant and erratic enough to deny visas to those who might interfere with the false tranquillity of its society but a suspicious paternalism remains the enemy of free speech. Debate, in short, cannot be trusted.

The move to further push tech companies to reign in violent content will also receive a mighty boost.  The response from such companies as Facebook thus far is one of optimism: last year, some 99 percent of content linked with terrorism content promoted by Islamic State and al-Qaeda was successfully purged by artificial intelligence. Calls to do the same for other sources of inspiration are bound to follow.

There is also a stark, uncomfortable reality: no one is safe.  The entire field of terrorist and anti-terrorist studies is replete with charlatan impulses and the promise of placebo styled security.  There are fictional projections and assessments about whether an attack is “imminent” or “probable”.  There are calls to be vigilant and report the suspicious.  Political leaders give firm reassurances that all will be safe, a point that, quite frankly, can never be guaranteed.

The actions of Friday demonstrate the ease with which an act of mass killing can take place, the damage than can arise from attacking freely open spaces where people commune.  Extremism is said to lack a face or an ideology, but on Friday, it manifested in an all too human form.