The Shooter In New Zealand

An analysis.

The media wasted no time in blaming Trump, but I blame them, for at least two reasons:

First, while the shooter didn’t think that Trump was a great leader, he did admire him “a symbol of renewed white identity.” Why would he do that? Because that is how the media repeatedly portrays him, reality aside.

Second, in their continual calls for gun control, they encouraged him to think that his act would be the straw that finally broke the back, and allow them to finally implement it, resulting in the new American civil war that he claims to seek.

Free tip to Fox News, and conservatives. Start pushing the narrative that it’s the media’s fault, not Trump’s. Put them on the defensive for once.

And of course, this was big news, because one of their favorite victim groups, Muslims, were the target. Let’s see how much play they give the slaughter of Christians in Nigeria, or the shooting in Utrecht. By Muslims.

[Update a few minutes later]

This seems related: America’s race problems are mostly caused by the soft bigotry of guilty white virtue-signaling leftists (who falsely call themselves “liberals”).

[Update a while later]

Thoughts on the “elites” in the last link from Ann Althouse.

7 thoughts on “The Shooter In New Zealand”

  1. “Let’s see how much play they give the slaughter of Christians in Nigeria,”

    The extent of the coverage of the Christchurch massacre was due to it happening in a Western country, similar events in London and Paris in which Muslims were the perpetrators got similar coverage.

    While the killing of Christians in Nigeria gets little coverage compared to events in Western countries, the slaughter of Muslims by the Nigerian Army gets even less coverage – but that’s mainly due to the ability of Nigerian Authorities to suppress news on those events.

    1. Did the Nigerian Army slaughter Muslims in the Philippines prior to the bombing of the Catholic cathedral in January?

      1. The Nigerian Army wasn’t in the Philippines, before the church massacre, General Jacob H Smith was though.

    2. I think that is accurate but should it be?

      Our media constantly claims those on the right hate brown people and don’t care about there well being. But this illustrates that it isn’t the right that doesn’t care but rather the leftist controlled media. The right has a long history of charitable work in Africa. They demonstrate concern. The leftist media claims to be concerned but in reality, they only cover places like Africa when it can be done to attack their domestic political opponents.

  2. . All the targets of the original 1920s and 30s fascism are here – capitalism and Marxism, democracy and liberal society, the racial enemy and the race traitors.

    I haven’t read the manifesto to try and tease out what was sincere from what is an evocation of Poe’s Law. Should we accept his claim of being a fascist? He doesn’t like marxists but likes China? Wants to protect the environment but likes China? Fascism is marxism.

    There is a movement to not say the names of people who do things like this and to censor manifestos, videos, ect lest they inspire someone else. That does make some sense but hiding the information also allows for false narratives to be constructed and to scapegoat innocent parties. It also prevents developing ideas that can counter the ideology of the people in question.

    The scapegoating of innocents is especially troubling in this case as it is exactly what was intended by those responsible for the attack.

  3. it reveals something about the United States in the Trump era: The country is not divided by racial conflict, but by conflict over racial ideology.

    Because leftist ideology is one of being morally superior over the other. Being against racism means the other has to be for racism. It doesn’t matter what the other actually thinks. It is just a way to set themselves apart and to show superiority.

    PC culture is the same. It isn’t that any word is intrinsically offensive to someone but that someone finds the other person’s existence offensive and thus anything they say is a symbol of their offensiveness.

    Words mean different things to different people. The NYT article references immigration but do they mean legal or illegal or both? Did their respondents even know how many immigrants we have? We know that to the left, legal and illegal immigration is conflated, so to is refugee. Not so on the right. Diversity also means different things depending on left/right. The NYT polling was interesting but they are too blinded by their own racial ideology to analyze the numbers in a meaningful way.

Comments are closed.