The following article has been published in ABC Religion & Ethics and The Times of Israel Blogs by Julie Nathan.

After the hor­rendous terrorist attack by an Aus­trali­an white ethno-nation­al­ist ― a sub­scriber to the myth of “White Replace­ment” ― who murdered 50 Muslims in New Zealand mosques last month, how do we ensure such an attack does not occur in Australia?

Many ideas have been put forward, from proposals for more laws against hate speech to a greater crackdown on right-wing extremism. Many have put the blame for the massacre on the shoulders of politi­cians and/or the media. There has been much virtue sig­nalling and much genuine dis­cus­sion. Much talk has included con­spir­acy theories; and much talk has been con­stric­ted due to “political cor­rect­ness.”

To solve a problem we must first be familiar with it. We must know its belief system and motiv­a­tion and look at all con­trib­ut­ing factors, without fear or favour. The only questions are: what is it and how do we deal with it?

The concept of “White Replace­ment” (sometimes called “White Genocide”) is the false belief that there is a global con­spir­acy, usually described as orches­trated by “the Jews,” to “import” non-Europeans ― espe­cially Africans, Asians and Arabs ― into Europe, North America and Aus­tralasia for the express purpose of sub­jug­at­ing and decim­at­ing the European races and des­troy­ing Western civil­isa­tion. Those who subscribe to the “White Replace­ment” myth believe that through such mass immig­ra­tion, people of ethnic European back­ground will become a minority group, out­numbered and dominated ― that is, replaced ― in countries where once they were a majority of the pop­u­la­tion.

Many white ethno-nation­al­ists view Muslims, though a religious and not a racial group, as the largest, most powerful, most militant and therefore most threat­en­ing, non-European group entering Christian European nations. Those who subscribe to the “White Replace­ment” myth often view both Jews and Muslims as the prime enemies ― Jews as the plotters and instig­at­ors, Muslims as the means. Or, as one white ethno-nation­al­ist phrased it: Jews are “the disease,” Muslims are “the symptom.”

Those who subscribe to the “White Replace­ment” myth often see the solution in terms of what they term “White Revolu­tion” and “Race War”. Through the strategy of “lead­er­less res­ist­ance” (code name for terrorism), as advocated by James Mason in his book Siege, they advocate violence, followed by more violence, with the aim of instig­at­ing a civil war between the majority ethnic Europeans and the various minor­it­ies of non-European ethnicity. Acts of terrorism and mass murder, such as occurred at the synagogue in Pitt­s­burgh in 2018 and the mosques in Christ­ch­urch in 2019, aim at sparking this “Race War.”

How do we deal with this ideology and those who subscribe to it, espe­cially its tenets of “Race War”? There are two choices: we can stomp on it or we can dissipate it. The answer lies in what will be the most effective method. There are two related but separate issues here: dealing with the ideology, and dealing with its adherents.

These are matters to be addressed by gov­ern­ment, law enforce­ment, counter-terrorism experts, crim­in­o­lo­gists, psy­cho­lo­gists and soci­olo­gists. Addi­tion­ally, civil society and the minority com­munit­ies affected need to have their input into dealing with this. Import­antly, the media needs to take great care in how it portrays the issues, to act respons­ibly and not sen­sa­tion­ally.

Dealing with the ideology requires dis­cuss­ing the issues and the beliefs of its adherents. Sweeping it under the carpet or shutting down debate ― for instance, by calling them racists, even if many of them are ― is counter-pro­duct­ive. Immig­ra­tion, like all gov­ern­ment policies, needs to be, and should be, openly but respect­fully debated in the public arena. If a policy debate is forced under­ground because the loudest public voices, from whatever direction, deem it a shut-and-closed case and shout down dissident views, it can lead to frus­tra­tion and des­per­a­tion for those who are denied, or feel they are denied, a voice.

Views within the white ethno-nation­al­ist grouping encompass a wide range from ordinary Aus­trali­ans, of various ethnic back­grounds, concerned about immig­ra­tion and changing cultural and ethnic patterns, espe­cially in our cities, through to hard-core racists. Responses need to be tailored to take this into account. For those who advocate violence and murder, the law is the method. For those not fully ensconced in the “White Replace­ment” myth, but who are concerned about the changing ethnic demo­graph­ic of their country, then education and dialogue may be an effective method.

Since the Christ­ch­urch massacre, many white ethno-nation­al­ists have been forced onto the defensive. Some have publicly distanced them­selves from Brenton Tarrant, some have condemned his act in principle, while others have condemned it for damaging the white ethno-nation­al­ist cause. In contrast, others are openly sup­port­ive of the massacre, some even to the extent of calling for more massacres. Others are in complete denial, caught up in a fantasy, accusing Tarrant (who demands all Jews be expelled from “white” countries) of being a Zionist stooge, a puppet of “the Jews,” who massacred innocents in order to discredit and destroy the white ethno-nation­al­ist movement.

Some white ethno-nation­al­ists are being pushed back into their corners. Many have been removed from Facebook and Twitter, thus limiting their ability to spread their hate. Several far right websites have been taken offline or been made inac­cess­ible in Aus­tralasia. New Zealand has enacted a ban on certain types of firearms, and has also banned pos­ses­sion of Tarrant’s 74 page manifesto, on pain of up to ten years in prison.

In response to these reactions by gov­ern­ments and others, many of these white ethno-nation­al­ists are adopting the maxim suc­cinctly espoused by Neil Erikson, a convicted antisemite, on Gab (26 March 2019): “When you make peaceful revolu­tion impossible you make violent revolu­tion possible.”

The problem is: the more they are stomped on, the more militant they become. The more the public debate on immig­ra­tion is squeezed towards only one view, the more desperate they feel. It may seem a good idea to stomp on them. But if they are feeling increas­ingly desperate and isolated, without any way out, it can lead to violence and the mindset espoused by Robert Bowers, the Pitt­s­burgh killer: “Screw your optics, I’m going in.”

Given the potential for further violence, espe­cially in the form of mass killing by white ethno-nation­al­ists, or any extremist, as part of the instig­a­tion of a “Race War,” we need to ensure that the response by gov­ern­ments, law enforce­ment, media and others is appro­pri­ate and effective rather than mere feel-good measures or knee-jerk reactions that are often simplist­ic and coun­ter­pro­duct­ive. Lives depend on getting this right.