explicitClick to confirm you are 18+

Racism vs. Criticism of an ideology

Swiss LibertarianDec 7, 2021, 11:39:21 AM

I never understood why the article on the left got published and was not considered hate speech, although it is 100% racist, as it attacks people based on a completely unalterable part of their being - the fact that they are of European origin - and demands that people in Australia should feel "shame" and "apologize" for the deed of one single individual, Brenton Tarrant, the terrorist who had attacked 2 mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, just because he happened to have an Australian passport and was white.

Without a shred of evidence, white people and only white people in Australia are considered to be racist, supposedly based on some inherent defect in being white.

The article on the right, on the other hand, did not get published and never will be. Unlike the actual hate speech in the article against white Australians, the demand that Muslims confront the violence in their ideology would be called "hate speech", although it is entirely factual. The Quran really does call for violence. And it is an ideology, not an unalterable part of a person's being. All ideologies are and must remain open for criticism.

There is absolutely no reason why an ideology that is considered a "religion" should be treated any differently from any other ideology. Whether someone believes that his god tells him to kill people or whether he does it for "social justice" is irrelevant to their victims. The followers of both have to be told to knock it off and their teachings have to be changed!

The actual motivation of the Christchurch terrorist

Tarrant actually spent a lot of time in Europe, Northern Africa, Iran, Pakistan and the Muslim Uyghur region of China, which is strange, given that it is almost impossible for tourists to entrer that region.

Based on his insane ramblings he published, Tarrant was not even hostile to Islam, but was opposed to the mass immigration into western countries. He praised the Chinese Communist Party, the CCP, expressed hatred for conservative parties, which he accused of "represand movements and said that he had decided to use guns in the attack so that guns would actually be banned.

He was completely obsessed with the far-left  "man-made climate change" ideology and the associated Malthusian ideas that have been promoted by the Club of Rome, the WEF, the UN and their IPCC, the much-hyped Greta and pretty much every far-left organization on the planet.

This eco-apocalyptic ideology was always attempting to terrorize weak minds and in the case of Tarrant, they clearly succeeded.

This article here was published by NZZ on Dec 4, 2021, so just 3 days ago, and it describes how the utterly absurd eco-apocalyptic fearmongering causes depression and anguish in young people:


They actually send the reader to this pathetic web site here, "climate psychologists":

Those kids don't need "climate psychologists", they need intelligent, knowledgeable people who can explain to them that they were lied to, that whatever climate change might be happening is 100% natural and non-threatening. That the climate is actually much milder, right now, than it has been in the recent past.

But no, it's easier to turn eco-fascist-induced fear into "white supremacy". Because that's the chosen strategy of the left and the "Great Reset".

In reality, it is high time to declare that eco-fearmongering is criminal child abuse and psychological terrorism!

The worldwide reaction to the NZ attack

Not a single Christian, Jewish or Hindu leader celebrated the attack on Christchurch. There were no public celebrations.

Take the message from the Israeli president and prime minister:

Israel’s president and prime minister on Friday joined with world leaders to express condolences and condemnation following the deadly attacks on mosques in New Zealand. “I condemn the terrorist attack on the mosques in Christchurch in the strongest possible terms and send my condolences on behalf of the people of Israel to the families of the victims, the injured, the government and the people of New Zealand,” said President Reuven Rivlin.


The revenge attack in Sri Lanka

Just about 1 month after the attack on Christchurch by a single nutcase - pretty much the very first such attack by a non-Muslim on Muslims - a bunch of Muslims in Sri Lanka decided that they wanted to commit a "revenge attack" on Christians in Sri Lanka, although there was absolutely no connection between their chosen victims and the Christchurch attacker - clearly NOT a Christian.


Nothing about Islam is immutable except if the followers refuse to alter it based on the ridiculous idea that it is somehow "god-given" which is obviously untrue.

Nothing about it is "perfect" or "divine". It is packed with errors and totally immoral rules and demands.

Therefore, it would seem normal to demand that it should be changed.