The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewC.J. Hopkins Archive
The War on White Supremacist Terror
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
OpenAI Text Summary
C. J. Hopkins critiques what he perceives as a new wave of hysteria surrounding "white supremacist terrorism," drawing parallels to the earlier "War on Terror" initiated after the September 11 attacks. He suggests that the corporate media and government entities are once again mobilizing public fear, this time directed towards white supremacists, similar to how they focused on Islamic terrorism in the past. The recent tragic shootings in Texas serve as a catalyst for this renewed campaign, with calls for more stringent government measures to combat perceived threats. Hopkins implies that, much like the original War on Terror, this new initiative may lead to a significant erosion of civil liberties under the guise of national security.

The New York Times Editorial Board features prominently in Hopkins' analysis, as he highlights their op-ed advocating for the government to take aggressive actions against individuals deemed "terrorists" or "potential terrorists." He suggests that the board's proposals echo past practices from the original War on Terror, which included surveillance, infiltration, and prosecution of those associated with perceived threats, though the editorial fails to acknowledge the more severe tactics employed in previous anti-terror operations. Hopkins argues that the Times’ narrative exacerbates the public's fear and pushes for a dangerous expansion of state power to combat a threat that he believes has been overstated.

Hopkins further critiques the mainstream media's response to recent mass shootings, asserting that many of the individuals labeled as white supremacist terrorists lack clear connections to organized terrorist groups. He introduces the concept of "non-terrorist terrorism," where individuals with no formal ties to extremist organizations can be categorized as terrorists based on their actions. He posits that this reflects a departure from the more defined terrorist groups of the past, such as al-Qaeda or the IRA, and highlights a troubling trend of broadening the definition of terrorism to fit the prevailing political narrative.

In a satirical tone, Hopkins suggests that the ongoing narrative equates democracy with a struggle against an imagined enemy of white supremacy, paralleling the earlier narrative of democracy under threat from Islamic extremism. He warns that this manufactured fear is used to justify authoritarian measures and quash dissent, with the ultimate goal being the establishment of a controlled societal order devoid of any ideologies that challenge the global capitalist status quo. He concludes by emphasizing the cyclical nature of these fears, hinting at a dystopian future where all forms of dissent are silenced in the name of security and societal harmony.
OpenAI Outline Summary
# Outline of "The War on White Supremacist Terror"

## I. Introduction
A. Comparison of the War on Islamicist Terror to the War on White Supremacist Terror
1. New target: white supremacists
2. Uncertainty about the main villain (Trump vs. Putin)
3. Urgency of the message: "The Terrorists are coming!"

## II. Recent Events Prompting Hysteria
A. Texas shooting incident
1. Trigger for new government actions
2. Call for "taking the gloves off" in response to perceived threats
B. The New York Times' editorial stance
1. Proposal for government actions against labeled "terrorists"
2. Suggestion for broad surveillance and infiltration measures
3. Implicit inclusion of extreme measures from the original War on Terror

## III. Media Response to White Supremacist Terrorism
A. The New York Times’ coverage and language
1. Repeated references to white supremacy and domestic terrorism
2. Headlines linking Trump to white supremacist actions
B. Other media responses
1. Global media coverage framing the U.S. as facing a white nationalist crisis
2. Liberal journalists creating narratives of a global conspiracy

## IV. Mischaracterization of Events
A. Questionable connections of perpetrators to white supremacy
1. Clarification that some shooters were not aligned with white supremacist ideologies
2. The concept of "non-terrorist terrorism" emerging
B. Historical context of terrorism
1. Past definitions of terrorism involving organized groups
2. Current definitions expanded to include any individual actions with media attention

## V. Shift in Official Narratives
A. The dual narrative of Democracy versus Putin-Nazis
1. Evolution of fear tactics from Russia to fascism
2. Framing of mass shootings as part of a larger narrative of threat
B. Impact of mass shootings on public perception
1. Media exploitation of events to reinforce the terrorism narrative
2. Erosion of critical thinking among the public due to fear

## VI. Government and Public Reaction
A. The call for increased security measures
1. Public demands for military-style responses to perceived threats
2. Statements from influential figures promoting armed security at public gatherings
B. Potential implications for civil liberties
1. Risks of overreach in government powers
2. Comparison to historical responses to terrorism

## VII. The Future of the War on Terror
A. Predictions about ongoing and evolving definitions of terrorism
1. The potential for expansion of government measures against various ideologies
2. The relentless pursuit of a "perfect" society free from dissent
B. The satirical vision of a future without extremism
1. A hypothetical world that eliminates all forms of non-conformity
2. The implications for personal freedoms and societal norms

## VIII. Conclusion
A. The author's stance on the War on White Supremacist Terrorism
1. Acknowledgment of the complexity of defining terrorism
2. A critique of the current political climate and its response to perceived threats
B. Final thoughts on the implications of labeling and the future of societal discourse
1. The need for critical examination of narratives pushed by media and government
2. An open challenge to the audience to reflect on the nature of terrorism and civil liberties

## IX. Author's Background
A. Introduction of C. J. Hopkins as a playwright and satirist
1. Notable works and publications
2. Invitation for readers to engage with his content through various platforms
List of Bookmarks

If you enjoyed the global corporatocracy’s original War on Islamicist Terror, you’re going to love their latest spinoff, The War on White Supremacist Terror. It’s basically just like the old War on Terror, except that this time the bad guys are all white supremacists, and Donald Trump is Osama bin Laden … unless Putin is Osama bin Laden. OK, I’m not quite sure who’s Osama bin Laden. Whatever. The point is, the Terrorists are coming!

Yes, that’s right, some racist psycho murdered a bunch of people in Texas, so it’s time to “take the gloves off” again, pass some new kind of Patriot Act, further curtail our civil liberties, and generally whip the public up into a mass hysteria over “white supremacist terrorism.”

The New York Times Editorial Board is already hard at work on that front. In a lengthy op-ed that ran last Sunday, “We Have a White Nationalist Terrorist Problem,” the Board proposes that we would all be safer if the government — but presumably not the current government — could arbitrarily deem people “terrorists,” or “potential terrorists,” or “terrorist sympathizers,” regardless of whether they have any connection to any actual terrorist groups, and … well, here’s what the Editorial Board has in mind.

“The resources of the American government and its international allies would mobilize without delay. The awesome power of the state would work tirelessly to deny future terrorists access to weaponry, money and forums to spread their ideology. The movement would be infiltrated by spies and informants. Its financiers would face sanctions. Places of congregation would be surveilled. Those who gave aid or comfort to terrorists would be prosecuted.”

The Board didn’t mention the offshore gulags, wars of aggression, assassinations, torture, mass surveillance of virtually everyone, and other such features of the original War on Terror, but presumably all that kind of stuff would be included in “the awesome power of the state” that the Board would like the U.S. government to “mobilize without delay.”

And the mandarins of The New York Times were just getting started with the terrorism hysteria. The Tuesday edition was brimming with references to “white supremacy” and “domestic terrorism.” Here are some of the front page headlines … “Trump is a White Supremacist Who Inspires Terrorism.” “White Terrorism Shows Parallels to Islamic State.” “The Nihilist in Chief: how our president and our mass shooters are connected to the same dark psychic forces.” “I Spent 25 Years Fighting Jihadis. White Supremacists Aren’t So Different.” “Trump, Tax Cuts, and Terrorism.“ And so on.

The Times was hardly alone, of course. In the wake of the El Paso and Dayton shootings, the corporate media went into overdrive, pumping out “white supremacist terrorism” mass hysteria around the clock. The Guardian took a break from smearing Jeremy Corbyn as an anti-Semite to proclaim that El Paso was “Trump-inspired Terrorism.” The Sydney Morning Herald declared that the U.S. is now officially in the throes of a “white nationalist terrorism crisis.The Atlantic likened Trump to Anwar al-Awlaki, and assured us that “the worst is yet to come!“ Liberal journalists and politicians rushed onto Twitter to inform their followers that a global conspiracy of white supremacist terrorists “emboldened” or “inspired” by Donald Trump (who, remember, is a Russian secret agent) is threatening the very fabric of democracy, so it’s time to take some extraordinary measures!

Never mind that it turns out that two of the three “white supremacist terrorist” mass murderers in question (i.e., the Gilroy, El Paso, and Dayton shooters) do not appear to have been white supremacists, and that none of them were linked to any terrorist groups. We’re living in the Age of Non-Terrorist Terrorism, in which anyone can be deemed a “terrorist,” or a “suddenly self-radicalized terrorist,” regardless of whether they have any actual connection to organized terrorism.

Terrorism isn’t what used to be. Back in the day (i.e, the 1970s), there were terrorist groups like the PFLP, ANO, BSO, IRA, RAF, FARC, the Weather Underground, and so on … in other words, actual terrorist groups, committing acts of actual terrorism. More recently, there was al Qaeda and ISIS. Nowadays, however, more or less any attention-seeking sociopath with a death wish and a knock-off AR-15 (or moron with a bunch of non-exploding pipe bombs) can be deemed a bona fide “domestic terrorist,” as long as it serves the global capitalist ruling classes’ official narrative.

The official narrative of the moment is Democracy versus The Putin-Nazis (also known as The War on Populism), which I’ve been covering in these columns, satirically and more seriously, for the better part of the last three years. According to this official narrative, “democracy is under attack” by a conspiracy of Russians and neo-Nazis that magically materialized out of thin air during the Summer of 2016, right around the time Trump won the nomination. OK, the Russia part kind of sputtered out recently, so the global capitalist ruling classes and their mouthpieces in the corporate media are now going full-bore on the fascism hysteria. They’ve been doing this relentlessly since Trump won the election, alternating between the Russia hysteria and the fascism hysteria from week to week, day to day, sometimes hour to hour, depending on which one is “hot” at the moment.

These recent mass shootings have provided them with a golden opportunity, not just to flog the fascism hysteria once again, but to fold it into the terrorism hysteria which Americans have been indoctrinated with since September 11, 2001 (the objective of which indoctrination being to establish in the American psyche “the Terrorist” as the new official enemy, replacing the “Communist” official enemy that had filled this role throughout the Cold War). If you think the original War on Terror was just about oil or geopolitical hegemony, check out “leftist” political Twitter’s response to the El Paso and Dayton shootings. You’ll find, not just hysterical liberals, but “leftists” and even so-called “anarchists,” shrieking about “white supremacist terrorism.” It was the number one U.S. hashtag on Monday.

No, the original War on Terror (whatever else it was) was probably the most effective fascist psy-op in the history of fascist psy-ops. Fifteen years of relentless exposure to manufactured “terrorism” hysteria has conditioned most Americans (and most Westerners, generally), upon hearing emotional trigger words like “terrorist” and “terrorism” emanating from the mouths of politicians (or the front page of The New York Times) to immediately switch off their critical thinking, and start demanding that the authorities censor the Internet, suspend the U.S. Constitution, and fill the streets with militarized vehicles and special “anti-terror” forces with assault rifles in the “sling-ready” position. This tweet by Geraldo Rivera captures the authoritarian mindset perfectly:

“In the meantime, there must be active-shooter trained, heavily armed security personnel every place innocents are gathered.”

I’m not quite sure what “in the meantime” means. Perhaps it means until the USA, Western Europe, and the rest of the empire, can be transformed into a happy, hate-free, supranational corporate police state where there is no racism, no fascism, no terrorism, and no one ever says bad things on the Internet.

What a glorious, transhuman world that will be, like a living, breathing Benetton ad, once all the racists, terrorists, and extremists have been eliminated, or heavily medicated, or quarantined and reeducated!

Until then, the War on White Supremacist Terrorism, Domestic Terrorism, Islamicist Terrorism, Russian Terrorism, Iranian Terrorism, anti-Semitic Labour Party Terrorism, and any other type of terrorism, extremism, hate, conspiratorial thinking … oh, and Populism (I almost forgot that one), and every other type of non-conformity to global capitalist ideology, will continue until we achieve final victory! It’s coming … sooner than you probably think.

Damn, here I am, at the end of my essay, and I almost forget to call Trump a racist. He is, of course. He’s a big fat racist. I should have put that right at the top. I’m already in hot water with my fellow leftists for not doing that enough. Oh, and for the record, in case there are any other kinds of Inquisitors reading this, I also renounce Satan and all his works.

C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23, is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant Paperbacks. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org.

 
All Comments Hidden • Show  262 Comments • Reply
PastClassics
From the Leo Frank Case to the Present Day
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism