New Zealand Assailant: 'Eco-Fascist' Not 'Right Wing'

Some useful comments in the article below but let me expand them.

Brenton Tarrant displays a mix of ideas in his manifesto,  though, as we shall see, it is a rather familiar mix.  His overriding idea is a dislike of Islam in general and Jihadis in particular.  His massacre was a clear answer to the Jihadis.  He says: If the Jihadis can slaughter Western men women and children indiscriminately,  I am justified in slaughtering Muslim men women and children indiscriminately.  It is Old Testament justice.

And it is that hostility to Islam that the Left identify as "right wing".  And conservatives do indeed voice strong reservations about Islam.  But conservatives are not alone in that.  There can surely be few people in the Western world who are happy about the constant assaults on Western people by Jihadis.

The only people who seem to like the Jihadis are the Left.  They do their best to protect Muslims from any retribution or any check at all.  But their reason for that is clear.  The Leftist's whole aim in life is to disrupt the existing society (to "fundamentally transform" it, in the words of Barack Obama and Bernard Sanders). So the disruptions caused by Muslims makes Muslims "fellow travellers" to the Left who must not be denounced.

So his dislike of Islam does identity Tarrant as non-Left in that regard but that does not make him conservative.  His dislike is simply an extreme version of a normal reaction.

So what of his other views? What of his admiration of Communist China and Bernard Sanders?  What of his describing himself as both a Fascist and an eco-fascist?  What about his belief in global warming and other Greenie themes? Except for his ideas about Muslims he would make a pretty good Greenie and a pretty good socialist.

And liking both China and Fascism are not at all inconsistent.  Although China is still ruled by the Communist Party, the Dengist reforms have given it a classical Fascist economy. Business is allowed to get on with business but the State keeps a watchful eye overall.

What makes Tarrant's hostility to Islam particularly strong is his racial awareness.  He sees himself as part of the white race and deplores attacks on it.  So how common is that?  Mention of race has been so thoroughly suppressed in our society that there could well be a large reservoir of racial sentiment just below the surface.  We don't know -- though Leftists regularly assert it.

There is no doubt, however, that seeing himself as part of an identity group -- whites -- was the key to Tarrant's behaviour.  And the chief promoters of whites as an identity group are of course the Left.  The Left are entranced by group identities and the big gorilla looming above all other groups is white males.  Only a few extreme-Left whites take any notice of that but there was one white male who did -- Brenton Tarrant.  There had to be one. He had been exposed to a lot of Leftist thought and suddenly it occurred to him when hearing talk about whites:  "Hey! That's me!"

And according to the Left, whites are all powerful masters of the universe who control everyone else.  And Tarrant liked that identity.  So identify he did.  And when he saw that there was an evil force -- Islam -- trying to tear down white civilization, he took up arms in its defence, as group members tend to do.  And it is not pychopathic to take up arms in defence of your group.  "Greater love hath no man ..."  Tarrant was sucked in by Leftist identity talk and it all developed from there.  Had he been a conservative, he would have rejected identity talk in favour of the centrality of the individual.

But where have we heard all that before?  Where have we previously encountered a combination of socialism, environmentalism and racial loyalty?  Yes.  It was our evil twins, Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini.  Both were good socialists, good Greenies and strong racial loyalists.  In short, Tarrant has reinvented historical Nazism in his own mind.  He is a perfectly consistent Nazi in the historical sense of that term. And, like the Nazis of history, Tarrant attacked those he saw as his racial enenmies.

But he is NOT "Right wing" any more than Nazism ("National Socialism") was. Far from it. And his ideas are not "mixed up".  They once dominated two of the biggest and most sophisticated nations in Europe, so they have their own consistency.

And it follows fairly strongly from that that Tarrant is not a psychopath/sociopath.  I can see no evidence that Tarrant was a sociopath.  I have done research into psychopathy/sociopathy and have a couple of articles on it in the academic journal so I know a bit about it but nothing stands out to me in Tarrant's manifesto that points clearly in that direction.  Narcissism, yes. Psychopathy, No.  He in fact displays a sense of humor fairly often, which is rare among psychopaths.

So Tarrant is not mad and belongs firmly on the Green/Left

Footnote:  For Hitler's Greenie credentials see here  For Mussolini's Greenie credentials see here


The brutal terrorist attacks on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, today, were, according to police, perpetrated by a sociopathic Australian. Three others were arrested in connection with the attacks. The assailant killed 50 people and wounded nearly that many more. He live-streamed part of the attack to Facebook, and posted it to other social media outlets — significantly enhancing the profile of this attack. He abandoned his assault and fled only when another man picked up a shotgun the shooter had dropped and fought back.

The primary suspect declared in a lengthy manifesto that he was inspired, in part, by racist fascists who perpetrated attacks in the United States, Canada, and Europe. For that reason, and because he mentioned President Donald Trump as “a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose” (though condemning some of his policies), the Leftmedia and others, including the Australian prime minister, are parroting the charge that he is a “far-right extremist.” But that’s just not the case.

Of course, after other Islamist terrorist attacks — including Paris, Orlando, San Bernardino, and most notably, the 9/11 attack — these same Leftmedia outlets lectured, ad nauseam, that Islam is the Religion of Peace™, and that we shouldn’t stereotype Muslims by associating all of them with a few extremists.

Fact is, there are brutal Islamic attacks against Christians in the Middle East and Africa daily, with virtually no media notice. But indeed, we should not embrace the stereotype that all Muslims support such violence.

That notwithstanding, we fully expect the Leftmedia’s reporting on this incident, and hate-profiteering by the Southern Poverty Law Center, to focus on the rise of “right wing” hatred in the age of Trump, casting that stereotypical shadow over all those who support Trump. But as we’ve said before, there’s nothing uniquely “right wing” about racism or nationalism.

For the record, the ideological spectrum is better understood as circular, not as linear. And in that sphere, fascism occupies the space between Left and Right. Anyone who asserts that fascism is uniquely “right wing” is either grossly misinformed or intellectually disingenuous. The New Zealand assailant was not what the Leftmedia commonly calls “right wing” — those advocating Liberty, individual rights, and limited government. Far from it.

The New York Times declared, “Writing that he had purposely used guns to stir discord in the United States over the Second Amendment’s provision on the right to bear arms, he also declared himself a fascist. ‘For once, the person that will be called a fascist, is an actual fascist,’ he wrote.”

But the assailant, who spent time in North Korea and Pakistan, specifically declared himself an “Eco-Fascist,” who advocated “Green Nationalism” and supported the socialist views of Bernie Sanders. He railed against humans for destroying the environment and causing global warming, and he advocated government control to stop it. He wrote, “The nation with the closest political and social values to my own is the People’s Republic of China.” That would be Communist China.

Right winger? Hardly.

For his part, President Trump said, “I spoke with Prime Minister Ardern of New Zealand to express the sorrow of our entire nation following the monstrous terror attacks at two mosques. These sacred places of worship were turned into scenes of evil killing. … It’s a horrible, horrible thing.”

A final note: Attacks on houses of worship are, tragically, nothing new. The Associated Press compiled a list of 18 such attacks just over the last decade. Churches, mosques, synagogues — nothing is safe. Such violent hatred is pure evil. Indeed, the assailant bore symbols of Satanism among his belongings. Responsible people should rise above that evil with our run-of-the-mill political disagreements.

SOURCE





Unprecedented snowfall in Himalayas due to global warming

What else?  Just use the all-purpose explanation.  Always works.  Saves thought

The unprecedented snowfall and prolonged cold weather in the Himalayan region this winter was caused by global warming, a weather scientist in Almora said Monday.

The trend will continue in the coming years as global weather patterns are changing rapidly, said Dr Sandeepan Mukherjee, a weather scientist at GB Pant National Institute of Himalayan Environment and Sustainable Development based at Kosi in Almora.

"The erratic patterns of western disturbances, that cause rain and snowfall in winter months in the northern part of the globe, have become so due to the changing patterns of weather caused by global warming," he said.

"It seems these erratic patterns will continue in the coming years with increase in global warming," he added.

The first spell of rain and snowfall this winter was received in the Himalayan region on December 12 and the last was received as late as on March 13, residents of Munsiyari in Pithoragarh district said.

"There were 24 spells of snowfall in Munsiyari between December 12 and March 13 this year which broke the record of 1972 when there were 15 snowfalls," Puran Pandey, a local said.

According to Mukherjee global warming is not only causing erratic patterns in western disturbances, but also causing uneven trends in south western monsoon that is responsible for monsoon rain in India.

SOURCE






The BBC’s age of denial

Paul Homewood

I doubt if a day goes past now without a blast of global warming propaganda from the BBC.

Isabel Hardman has a new five-part series on Radio 4, called the Age of Denial. Although it covers all forms of denial, it is clearly aimed at climate sceptics, as this opening episode makes obvious:

Hardman interviews Kari Marie Norgaard, a social scientist from Oregon, who has written a book about climate change denial.

You can listen to the first five minutes, but to give the gist, Norgaard visited a small town in western Norway in the winter of 2000/01 to do research for a book she was writing. She found that the winter that year was a mild one, with the snow arriving late.

But what really stunned Norgaard was that none of the locals wanted to talk about ‘climate change’, which she was convinced was to blame.

Hardman and Norgaard then discuss various reasons why this should be so, which amounts to no more than a load of psychobabble.

For some reason, it did not occur to either of them to ask what the locals knew already: that it was just the sort of weather event that they, or their forefathers, had seen in the past.

Indeed, when we check the actual data at Bergen, the longest-running site in the region, we find that those winter temperatures in 2000/01, far from being unusual, were the norm in the 1930s and 40s, and not infrequent at other times either:

In the remainder of the episode, Hardman discusses various theories from other psychoanalysts. But it is all just a spurious intellectual attempt to create a condition called ‘Denialism’. No doubt so that climate sceptics can be conveniently labelled and then ignored.

In reality, you don’t need to be a psychologist to understand why so many people are suspicious of what they are told about climate change. The answer lies in the fact that they see no evidence on the ground to support the barrage of apocalyptic warnings showered on them.

People who live near the coast can see with their own eyes that they are not about to be inundated by the sea. Temperature rise has been so small in the last century that most people would not even be aware of it if not told. As for extreme weather, older people know that there have always been floods, droughts, heatwaves and storms. Sadly it is the younger generation, who have no such experience, who are vulnerable to propaganda.

In short, people are far more knowledgeable than the sneering Isabel Hardman gives them credit for. And they know when they are being sold a pup.

Moreover, these ordinary people have far more pressing concerns in their daily lives than to be paranoid about climate change. Perhaps if Hardman came out of her metropolitan BBC bubble and talked to ordinary people, she might find this out for herself.

Rather than trying to package sceptics as people with psychological problems, she might ask why others have become totally paranoid about climate change. When I see school kids questioning the point of going to school when ‘their future could be ruined by climate change’, I truly despair.

What on earth are we doing to these youngsters? Do we really want them growing up so indoctrinated and unable to use their own faculties that they cannot even check the facts for themselves? Do we really want them to grow up so neurotic that they are scared of the weather?

Are we happy to see them marching around like a bunch of zombies, full of meaningless slogans about topics that they don’t have the slightest understanding about?

SOURCE





Greenpeace founder erased from history -- just like Orwell's 1984

Greenpeace are actually lying about this.  Denying straight out that Patrick Moore was ever even a member.  Truth is optional to the Green/Left

Google, with the help of Greenpeace, is revising Greenpeace's history to erase Dr. Moore from his role in co-founding the environmental group. But Greenpeace's own website has previously featured Moore as one of its "founders."

President Donald Trump touted Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore’s statements earlier this week that “the whole climate crisis is not only Fake News, it’s Fake Science.” Moore made his comments while appearing on Fox & Friends

But now, Google, with the help of Greenpeace, is revising Greenpeace’s history to erase Dr. Moore from his role in co-founding the environmental group.

Moore on March 16: “Oh my! Google has removed my photo and name from the ‘Founders of @Greenpeace’. It was still there 2 days ago but now I am erased. Tech Tyranny!!”


As we were

SOURCE





Australia: The Liberal Party candidate in the prized seat of Curtin spurns climate warming consensus

Celia Hammond, has declared her ­belief that humanity’s contribution to global warming has ­likely been “very minimal”.

Ms Hammond, who was preselected last week to contest the safe seat, acknowledged that ­climate change was a major concern among voters in Curtin, but said the issue must be addressed in ways that did not harm the economy.

She rejected scientific opinion that the burning of fossil fuels was the main factor behind global warming.

“I believe man has contributed in some way to climate change — the exact extent is probably very minimal,” she said.

When asked whether her ­belief was backed by scientific ­evidence, she said: “I don’t believe it goes against the science. There is a lot of science and a lot of contradictory science.

“But I am always open to evidence-based approaches and I’m always happy to actually, if need be, change course, to change ­direction.”

The consensus within the scientific community is that human activity is the primary cause of global warming and that continuing greenhouse gas emissions will increase the severity of climate change.

Ms Hammond, 50, rejected suggestions by some of her political opponents that she is too ­socially conservative to represent Curtin, which had the strongest vote in Western Australia in favour of same-sex marriage.

“I’m not ultraconservative,” she said. “There are people who are less conservative than me and there are people who are more conservative than me.”

She refused to reveal how she voted in the same-sex marriage survey in 2017. “I voted as a private citizen, the law has since been changed and I’ve been to a same-sex wedding of people that I love very much,” she said. “I’ve got my own personal values and I don’t impose them on anybody.”

Ms Hammond’s main rival in Curtin, independent Louise Stewart, claimed last week that the ­Liberal Party’s choice of a “conservative” candidate was a huge boost for her campaign.

Ms Hammond is widely respected for her success in running the University of Notre Dame for more than a decade and she impressed Liberal preselection delegates, who gave her 62 per cent of the first-preference votes cast.

It emerged before the preselection ballot that Ms Hammond had spoken out against “militant feminism”, casual sex and contraception. She stood by the comments yesterday.

“The reason I don’t call myself a feminist is that there is within the feminist movement now a very large militant feminist voice which is essentially saying unless you believe X, Y, Z you’re not pro-women,” she said.

“And the whole thing for me about feminism is that women should be able to make up their own minds and live their own lives and not be told.”

Ms Hammond revealed she would work closely with longstanding Curtin MP Julie Bishop in the lead-up to the federal election.  “Julie has given her full support,” she said.

“I met with Julie before I put my application in. She wished me well, she was delighted there was a field of people running, and she rang me within moments of it being announced that I’d been preselected to congratulate me to say we’d be working together.”

SOURCE 

***************************************

For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here

*****************************************