Thread: Media Reporting on New Zealand, but Did You Hear About That OTHER Bigotry-driven Mass

Media Reporting on New Zealand, but Did You Hear About That OTHER Bigotry-driven Massacre?

Written by Selwyn Duke
Tweet


“If it bleeds, it leads” is, say critics, the morbid media standard. But it’s more accurate to say that if the right person bleeds, it leads. A good example would be the horrible massacres at two Christchurch, New Zealand, mosques by China-loving, anti-capitalist, self-described “eco-fascist” Brenton Harrison Tarrant and the massacres that Time forgot (along with the rest of the media).
Actually, the latter, recent incidents in Nigeria in which Muslim Fulani militants murdered a total of 23 Christians, are just part of a large category of massacres ignored by the mainstream media. But it’s not fair to say the media couldn’t care less about them.
They care very much about ignoring them.
Because these incidents involve the wrong people killing and the right people killed.


Were I inclined to score cheap political points, I’d take a leaf from the leftists’ book and say that the mainstream media just “don’t care when black people are killed.” Yet while this appears largely true, it’s mainly because they don’t seem to really care about anyone being killed (hence their support for pre, and now even post-natal infanticide).
To be clear, it does make sense that the Christchurch shooting would receive more coverage than a Nigerian massacre. New Zealand is part of the West and the Anglosphere, as are we, and that the nation is strikingly peaceful with an extremely low murder rate makes the carnage stand out; in contrast, violence is rife in Africa.
But a massacre isn’t the issue. As Chronicles reported Friday, according “to ‘Open Doors,’ at least 4,305 Christians known by name were murdered by Muslims because of their faith in 2018.”
Yet “known by name” may be the key words. According to the Baptist Press, approximately 6,000 Christians were murdered last year alone (as of August 6) in Nigeria “by jihadist Fulani herdsmen aided by resurging Boko Haram terrorists.”
Moreover, according to figures from organizations Christian Solidarity Worldwide and Christian Association of Nigeria, “the Fulani jihadists have destroyed more than 500 churches in the Middle Belt’s Benue State alone since 2011, and internally displaced about 800,000 people in the state, with 180,000 of them living in camps and others living with relatives or as squatters,” the site also reports.
Here are just a few examples, provided by Open Doors:
On February 17, 2018 Boko Haram militants attacked a Christian farming village in Borno State. The attack, in which 106 people were killed, specifically targeted male residents of the Christian community.
On April 24, 2018, militant Fulani herdsmen attacked a Catholic church in Benue State during a morning service, killing two priests and 17 parishioners. After the “shooting rampage,” the attackers reportedly “descended on the community and razed over 60 houses, farmland, food barns, after carting away what the people had in their barns.”
On June 23, 2018, 120 Christians were killed by Fulani militants in Plateau State, as they returned from attending a funeral.
Going beyond Africa, Chronicles presents a list of 10 terrorist acts in France, then tallies the victim numbers and writes, “That makes 261 dead and many more injured, in attacks by Muslims on non-Muslims, in less than four years, in only one country, France (pop. 66 million). With 66 dead a year on average, Frenchmen are exactly ten times more likely to be murdered by a Muslim than a Muslim being killed by a non-Muslim terrorist anywhere in the Western world.”
Furthermore, “Aid to the Church in Need, in its latest ‘Religious Freedom Report,’ warned that 300 million Christians, overwhelmingly in the majority-Muslim countries, were subjected to violence, making it ‘the most persecuted religion in the world,’” the site also tells us.
In contrast, “Terrorist attacks against Muslims in the Western world are extremely rare,” Chronicles writes, adding perspective. “This morning’s carnage in two mosques in New Zealand, with the death toll currently at 50, is the first major event of its kind since the Quebec City mosque shooting — over two years ago — which killed six persons.”
In fact, a “Christian living in a majority Muslim country is 143 times more likely to be killed by a Muslim for being a Christian than a Muslim is…to be killed by a non-Muslim in a Western country for being what he is,” Chronicles further informs.
Given this, someone naïve might think the Christchurch shootings receive disproportionate attention because they’re a man-bites-dog story. But the reality is that the media want people to believe it’s a dog-bites-man story — and that rabid right-wing dogs are everywhere.
The media have not only been portraying the 28-year-old Tarrant, an Australian national, as a “white supremacist” (which he appears to be) but also as being of a kind with “President Trump, his supporters, and conservatives in general,” as The New American’s C. Mitchell Shaw wrote Friday.
This is more journalistic malpractice. Tarrant, who is in custody, penned a 2,644-word manifesto in which he quite literately detailed his passions, which included impugning conservatism, capitalism, and Trump’s leadership and policy-making; and expressing affection for China’s despotic regime. Explaining his ideological evolution, he wrote, “When I was young I was a communist, then an anarchist and finally a libertarian before coming to be an eco-fascist.”
But don’t bother the media with the facts. In fact, Chronicles writes that the Christchurch affair’s consequences are predictable (all quotations are Chronicles’):
• Pseudo-elites the Western world over, in and out of media, will characterize terrorism as a conservative, Christian, white phenomenon stoked by “racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, and all other traits of the deplorables; and yes, it will be Trump’s fault to boot.”
• Islamic activists embedded in the West, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, “and its fellow-conspirators elsewhere, will clamor for ever more stringent laws criminalizing ‘Islamophobia,’ effectively defined as any form of meaningful debate of Islam, its scriptural message, historical practice, and current ambitions.”
• “Such demands will be promptly translated into legislative proposals by the jihadophile liberal class which will proclaim zero tolerance of ‘Islamophobia’ as defined by CAIR et al. And, of course, they will demand additional Soviet/Nazi style gun laws.”
Ironically, this is precisely what Tarrant wants. He wrote in his manifesto that he perpetrated his act with firearms precisely because of the “affect it would have on social discourse, the extra media coverage they would provide and the affect it could have on the politics of United states [sic] and thereby the political situation of the world.” He knew the media would beat the anti-Second Amendment drum; he aimed to catalyze a removal of gun rights, which, he believed, would evoke a strong reaction from the Right — and this, he hoped, would spark a civil war.
So given how pseudo-elites have long been complicit in aiding jihadism via media-malpractice acts of omission and commission, one could ask: Is there any terrorist whose bidding they won’t do?

Photo of mourner at funeral for slain Christians in Minya, Egypt, Nov. 3, 2018: AP Images

Related article:
Christchurch Shooter Praises Communist China, Condemns Conservatism and Capitalism: Media Call Him a Trump Supporter

https://www.thenewamerican.com/cultu...y9e57dwAq1KmdM

Christchurch Shooter Praises Communist China, Condemns Conservatism and Capitalism: Media Call Him a Trump Supporter

Written by C. Mitchell Shaw


As details of Friday afternoon’s shootings in New Zealand have begun to emerge, the mainstream liberal media are tying the shootings to President Donald Trump and his supporters. But their allegations are disconnected from reality.
Early Friday afternoon local time, a lone gunman, identified as Brenton Tarrant, targeted two mosques in the New Zealand city of Christchurch. Between those two mosques — the Al Noor Mosque near the center of the city and Linwood Mosque, about three miles away — the attacker killed at least 49 people and seriously injured another 20 or more. Taking a page from the ISIS playbook, the shooter livestreamed his shooting rampage via Facebook.
The shooter, an Australian national, has been taken into custody and charged with murder. A manifesto he published online, entitled The Great Replacement: Towards a New Society, has been used by mainstream liberal media to point to President Trump, his supporters, and conservatives in general.


But a reading of the manifesto itself does not support that view. Headlines and subheadings of multiple articles published online since the tragedy include phrases such as “Trump supporter,” “right-wing,” and “conservative” to describe the shooter. It is noteworthy that this same mainstream liberal media rightly condemns the use of such a broad brush when the shooter is a Muslim (as in the San Bernardino attacks in December 2015), a homosexual (as in the Orlando shooting at the Pulse gay nightclub shooting in June 2016), or simply a liberal (as in the shooting at the congressional baseball practice in June 2017). When details of the lifestyles and political and religious views of those shooters came to light, the media were silent except to point out that those shooters should be viewed as individuals — not as representatives of a group.

But this is not that. This is being spun as an indictment of Trump, Trump supporters, and conservatism. And to support that false narrative, the mainstream liberal media have carefully cherry-picked Tarrant’s manifesto for selected quotes. Carefully avoided are quotes which show that he is not a conservative, not a Trump supporter, not a Christian, and not a capitalist. In fact, he has far more in common with the likes of Obama and Clinton than with Trump.
Here, in his own words — quoted directly from various portions of his manifesto — is what he had to say (much of his manifesto is in question and answer form):
Why did you carry out the attack?
… To create an atmosphere of fear and change in which drastic, powerful and revolutionary action can occur….
Finally, to create conflict between the two ideologies within the United States on the ownership of firearms in order to further the social, cultural, political and racial divide within the United states.This conflict over the 2nd amendment and the attempted removal of firearms rights will ultimately result in a civil war that will eventually balkanize the US along political, cultural and, most importantly, racial lines.
Why did you choose to use firearms?
I could have chosen any weapons or means. A TATP filled rental van. Household flour, a method of dispersion and an ignition source. A ballpeen hammer and a wooden shield. Gas, fire, vehicular attacks, plane attacks, any means were available. I had the will and I had the resources.
I chose firearms for the affect it would have on social discourse, the extra media coverage they would provide and the affect it could have on the politics of United states and thereby the political situation of the world.”
The US is torn into many factions by its second amendment, along state, social, cultural and, most importantly, racial lines.
With enough pressure the left wing within the United states will seek to abolish the second amendment, and the right wing within the US will see this as an attack on their very freedom and liberty.
This attempted abolishment of rights by the left will result in a dramatic polarization of the people in the United States and eventually a fracturing of the US along cultural and racial lines.
Were/are you a conservative?
No, conservatism is corporatism in disguise, I want no part of it.
Were/are you a christian?
That is complicated.
When I know, I will tell you.
Were/are you a fascist?
Yes. For once, the person that will be called a fascist, is an actual fascist. I am sure the journalists will love that.
I mostly agree with Sir Oswald Mosley’s views and consider myself an Eco-fascist by nature.
The nation with the closest political and social values to my own is the People’s Republic of China.
Were/are you “right wing”?
Depending on the definition, sure.
Were/are you “left wing”?
Depending on the definition, sure.
Were/are you a socialist?
Depending on the definition. Worker ownership of the means of production? It depends on who those workers are, their intents, who currently owns the means of production, their intents and who currently owns the state, and its intents.
Were/are you a supporter of Donald Trump?
As a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose? Sure. As a policy maker and leader? Dear god no.
Why focus on immigration and birth rates when climate change is such a huge issue?
Because they are the same issue, the environment is being destroyed by over population, we Europeans are one of the groups that are not over populating the world. The invaders are the ones over populating the world. Kill the invaders, kill the overpopulation and by doing so save the environment.
Why do you blame immigrants and not the capitalists?
I blame both, and plan to deal with both.
Did you always hold these views?
No, when I was young I was a communist, then an anarchist and finally a
libertarian before coming to be an eco-fascist.
Are you a Fed/shill/mossad agent/false flag/patsy/infiltrator/antifa/glow in the dark etc?
No, but the next person to attack could be, so a healthy scepticism is a good thing.
Won’t your attack result in calls for the removal of gun rights from Whites in the United states?
Yes, that is the plan all along, you said you would fight to protect your rights and the constitution, well soon will come the time.
So, the shooter clearly states that he is not a conservative (in fact, he addresses conservatives in a 394-word screed in the middle of his manifesto, ending it with, “Conservatism is dead. Thank god. Now let us bury it and move on to something of worth.”
He states that he is an “Eco-fascist” who planned and carried out his attack — in part — to “save the environment.” He states that he places the “blame” on capitalists, whom he describes elsewhere in his manifesto as “your capitalist owners” who keep the rest of the world in the dark to “ensure none of us get grand ideas of taking the unearned wealth” they have accumulated.
He makes it plain that he does not support President Trump (whom he mentions one time in his entire 2,644 word manifesto) as anything other than a “symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose.” To put in the for-what-it’s-worth column, that “symbol” is a caricature created by the mainstream liberal media who have taken Trump’s words out of context — just as they have Tarrant’s.
He asks and refuses to actually answer whether he is a Christian, saying he doesn’t know. Here is a tip: If a grown man does not know whether he is a Christian, he isn’t. Period.
And finally, while painting a picture of himself as having been all around the political Mulberry bush before ending up as a fascist, all indications appear to point to his heaviest influence being his communist roots — which are not far removed from fascism anyway, but very far removed from freedom or free enterprise. In his manifesto, he said himself that the nation with political and social views closest to his own is Communist China.
Far from the Right, his ideas and goals are those of the Left. And in keeping with that ideology, his tactics are those of the Left. By planning and carrying out his attack, he said that he hoped to force a civil war in America and other parts of the West.
And before the blood of his victims was even dry, the Leftist mainstream media in America was busy trying to fan the flames of the fire he was trying to start.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/world...rump-supporter

If he can't tell you if he's a Christian, then he's not one. Sounds like he just wants attention, and now the media will give it to him by the ton.