A new low for The Guardian: Climate Denial Linked to the Christchurch Mosque Massacre

Christchurch Al Noor Mosque 2006. Source By Abdullah Link

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Guardian author Rebecca Solnit wonders whether the white supremacist terrorists who massacred 50 unarmed Muslims in Christchurch chose last Friday to distract attention from the Climate Change Student Strike.

Why climate action is the antithesis of white supremacy

Rebecca Solnit

Tue 19 Mar 2019 22.58 AEDT

Behind the urgency of climate action is the understanding that everything is connected; behind white supremacy is an ideology of separation.

As the news of the Christchurch mosque massacre broke and I scoured the news, I came across a map showing that the Friday morning climate strike in Christchurch was close to the bloodbath. I felt terrible for the young people who showed up with hope and idealism, wondered whether the killer or killers chose this particular day to undermine the impact of this global climate action. It was a shocking pairing and also a perfectly coherent one, a clash of opposing ideologies. Behind the urgency of climate action is the understanding that everything is connected; behind white supremacy is an ideology of separation.

Of separation as the idea that human beings are divided into races, and those in one race have nothing in common with those in others. Of separation as the idea that though white people have overrun the globe, nonwhite people should stay out of Europe, North America, and now even New Zealand and Australia, two places where white settlers came relatively recently to already inhabited places – as a fantasy of resegregating the world. Of a lot of ideas and ideals of masculinity taken to a monstrous extreme – as ideas of disconnection, of taking matters into your own hands, of feeling no empathy and exhibiting no kindness, of asserting yourself as having the right to dominate others even unto death. And of course, of guns as the symbols and instruments of this self-definition.

Climate change is based on science. But if you delve into it deeply enough it is a kind of mysticism without mystification, a recognition of the beautiful interconnection of all life and the systems – weather, water, soil, seasons, ocean pH – on which that life depends. It acknowledges that everything is connected, that to dig up the carbon that plants so helpfully sequestered in the ground over eons and burn it so that returns to the sky as carbon dioxide changes the climate, and that this changed climate isn’t just warmer, it’s more chaotic, in ways that break these elegant patterns and relationships. That chaos is a kind of violence – the violence of hurricanes, wildfires, new temperature extremes, broken weather patterns, droughts, extinctions, famines. Which is why climate action has been and must be nonviolent. It is a movement to protect life.

I asked Hoda Baraka, who is both Muslim and 350.org’s global communications director, how it all looked to her in the wake of the climate strike and the massacre, and she said “In a world being driven by fear, we are constantly being pitted against the very things that make this world livable. Whether it’s people being pitted against each other, even though there is no life without human connection, love and empathy. Or fear pitting us against the very planet that sustains us, even though there is no life on a dead planet. This is why fighting against climate change is the equivalent of fighting against hatred. A world that thrives is one where both people and planet are seen for their inextricable value and connectedness.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/19/why-youll-never-meet-a-white-supremacist-who-cares-about-climate-change

Rebecca, using the blood of murdered innocents to promote your climate ideology is nothing short of obscene, a new low even for the climate movement.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Patrick MJD
March 19, 2019 10:17 pm

Time for some serious e-mails to the editor in chief. Disgraceful but not unsurprising.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
March 19, 2019 10:53 pm

May not have been a coincidence.

Not sure the shooter is very smart, but he could have possibly assumed that the police etc may have been busy keeping the peace during the march.



Patrick MJD
Reply to  Roger
March 19, 2019 11:25 pm

The fact he want’s to represent himself, you may be right. The fact he is a self proclaimed eco-fascist lends me to believe he thinks he can get away with murder on a technicality; Saving the planet!

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Roger
March 19, 2019 11:30 pm

And, I read, the NZ “justice” system want to try him for murder not terrorism. And I am sure you know the “justice” system in NZ is a bit of a joke. If tried, and convicted of murder, he could receive 50 life sentences. And in NZ, those sentences would be served concurrently, unlike the US. So, for example, sentenced to 25 years per-murder. That is 50 x 25 years in the US, just 25 in NZ. But, add insult to injury, BECAUSE of the way the “justice” system works in NZ, he could serve only 12 years.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
March 20, 2019 8:39 am

In the US, we would have activist calling for Cristchurch be renamed Mohammadmosque.

Reply to  Pat
March 21, 2019 4:47 am

what makes you think some idiot wont start a campaign to do just that?

Reply to  Patrick MJD
March 20, 2019 3:34 pm

Depending on where he’s sent to serve his time, his chances of surviving a year may be poor.

Ian Cooper
Reply to  Patrick MJD
March 20, 2019 4:55 pm

Patrick MJD are you a New Zealander. It doesn’t seem like it, because what you say about a possible sentence is completely wrong. Most legal experts have so far said that if convicted the perpetrator will get ‘life without parole!’ That is he will die in prison.

The only ‘joke’ here is your ignorance of the New Zealand legal system!

Reply to  Ian Cooper
March 20, 2019 6:48 pm

Ian Cooper .
I am a New Zealander and this disgusting piece of filth who acted alone and slaughtered 50 innocent people should be given the death sentence for what he has done.
He is a terrorist and he has declared war on New Zealand.
Patrick is quite right ,he will get 50 murder charges against him but will only serve one life sentence of 25 years without parole.
But unfortunately in 25 years time there will be a clamor for him to be paroled if he has survived prison life.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Ian Cooper
March 20, 2019 9:22 pm

Thanks for that Ian. Yes, I am a NZ citizen. The fact lawyers can keep re-taking the bar exam in NZ suggests otherwise. One thing you do have right, it’s a legal system hence my use of quotes around the word justice. Plenty of examples where a sentence is handed down and only half the time is served.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
March 20, 2019 5:25 pm

No. He is almost certain to get a life sentence without parole whether he is charged with one or fifty murders. Shorter sentences are only given when there is a hope for reform. We don’t think that the aim of revenge and retribution, which the US “justice” system is based on, is the right way to go. Western countries used to use the term “penitentiaries” rather than prisons, and this reflected the idea that reform and rehabilitation should be one of the main aims of a justice system. And isn’t it just plain stupid to give sentences that last more than a lifetime?
Note that our cops, who do not usually carry firearms, were able to capture the Australian shooter without any injury to him, themselves, or bystanders within a few minutes of the incident being reported. How does that compare with the US?
The massacre, conducted by one Australian, had nothing to do with the climate change march – such events are almost always peaceful in NZ and require little police supervision. Most kids who didn’t attend school that day didn’t attend the march either – they bunked off!

March 21, 2019 12:36 am

In the US, we have more hope that one of the potential victims is armed and shoots back to deflect or stop the attack !

Patrick MJD
March 23, 2019 3:30 am

The US “justice” system is about making money! And that is all it does.

Reply to  Roger
March 20, 2019 12:26 am

Friday is the main day of the week for muslim worship. I think it’s been reported that this terrorist was aware of this and chose it for the larger numbers at the main prayer time. Solnit doest even know the first thing about Muslim worship

Reply to  Duker
March 20, 2019 1:08 am

I’m surprised she’s smart enough to breathe. She’s obviously desperate for a story and either made it up on her own or her boss said “I don’t care.. This is The Guardian. Make something up about climate or whatever fer chrissake! Just fill the columns with stuff..”.

Gerry, England
Reply to  ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
March 20, 2019 6:42 am

Many times I wish breathing was more of an intellectual challenge as I am sure most of us would be better off for it.

Reply to  ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
March 20, 2019 8:11 am

Your ‘editor assignment’ assessment is entirely plausible. She probably writes for the “Climate Change Desk” group and when the big story happened she was assigned to cover the ‘climate change angle’ and this was the best she could come up with.

To give the story this much interest is more than it deserves. It is a throw away filler piece best suited for wrapping dead fish or lining the bird cage floor.

Reply to  Duker
March 20, 2019 1:51 am

That is the comment I was going to make. The guy who perpetrated this was very cold and calculating. If you wanted to kill the maximum number of Muslims in the shortest possible time you go to a busy mosque on a Friday, not pick them off one by one in the street.

It was a horrible and calculated act and the author of the Guardian piece must be so climate obsessed they have lost all common sense


John V. Wright
Reply to  Patrick MJD
March 20, 2019 12:48 am

There’s no point, Patrick. The great days of the old Manchester Guardian, when its pages were illuminated by gifted writers such as Harry Whewell, James Cameron and Jack Trevor Storey, are long gone. As is the humour that brought us spoof holiday supplements to the island of Sans Serif (with its capital Bodoni) in the early 70s. The Guardian has sadly become a humourless socialist rag where any departure from the party line is not to be tolerated.

Writing to the editor will achieve nothing as it will not elicit an intelligent and balanced response. Take a look at some of the amazingly ignorant comments posted by warmists at the end of its bonkers articles about CAGW. It is like reading the views of an alien species. Save your breath. There is nothing that can be done for the Guardian or the hate-filled ignoramuses that inhabit its comments section. They are part of a tradition where logic, enquiry and open-mindedness has been replaced by political dogmatism and the triumph of ‘belief’ over fact.

Back in the day, when I was a young journalist, I was proud to have a letter published in the Guardian (it was just the print edition, of course, back then). Today, I would not waste my time and intellect on corresponding with the closed-mind propaganda sheet that this once fine newspaper has become. And neither should you.

Reply to  John V. Wright
March 20, 2019 1:41 am

You are right about the Guardian’s present journalistic condition. But its worth also noting why this has come about.

The important underlying change is that it moved from being a news organization which reports the news, to being an activist organization which seeks to bring about some policies.

When it took this step, under Rushbridger, its news coverage immediate became contaminated by the policy agenda. So the reporting became highly selective, and the columnists unanimously support the activist agenda, and the reporting itself became untrustworthy.

The activist agenda is the ill assorted set generally favored on the far left. Not the social democratic left, the old Labour Party, but the fringe well-off liberal-left of academia and the media.

You cannot any more trust anything in the Guardian about a large and increasing range of subjects, climate, alternative energy, the EU, the grooming and child abuse scandals, the Health Service, Trump and Russia, transgenderism, diet and veganism, immigration, Islam, security…. there are more that don’t immediately spring to mind.

The classic of omission was that it simply failed to report on the Rochdale grooming and child abuse scandal, because those involved were in one of the favored ethnic and religious groups. Not only is it not reliable when it does report, its coverage also deliberately omits inconvenient stories.

Think about the implications for its reporting if a news organization sets itself the goal of influencing a US Presidential Election (as in the Clark County affair). Of getting fossil fuel extraction stopped and ‘leaving it in the ground’. Of facilitating Snowden’s clandestine flight to Russia, complete with his trove of purloined files.

This used to be a newspaper. What they have turned it into is the newsletter of a collection of activists. Its now no more a news reporting organization than Pravda was.

Reply to  michel
March 20, 2019 1:56 am

The Guardian’s conduct in the run-up to the Rotherham scandal in August 2014 was even more reprehensible than you say. The paper ran several articles playing the “Islamophobia” card and quite deliberately downplaying or obfuscating the magnitude of the child abuse. It’s a despicable publication.

Reply to  Graemethecat
March 21, 2019 4:53 am

and the alt media who kept reporting on it for quite some time trying to get the perpetrators brought to justice?
are the ones that get sledged..and this week some got offlined BY aus n Nz big brotherism, because of comments with links (that had already been broken pretty quickly.)
fbk and others got the get out of jaill free pass card..

Reply to  John V. Wright
March 20, 2019 2:10 am

You forgot to mention Neville Cardus. Very few writers could string words together like he did. Now we are stuck with idiots like George Monbiot writing activist nonsense. There is nothing in the Guardian worth reading these days.

Reply to  John V. Wright
March 26, 2019 4:16 pm

Agree. A little while back I used to ‘play in the sand pit’ of comments but stopped when I realised the articles on climate were a bait and capture game. I believe they were there to increase readership and subscriptions, reveal the demonically possessed deniers 😉, push the propoganda of anthropogenically caused warming and give the trolls a job. I no longer read The Guardian, it’s a toe-rag!

Andy Pattullo
Reply to  Patrick MJD
March 20, 2019 1:49 pm

One of the most racist actions humans have embarked on is the myth of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming which is used as support for policies that deny the poorest people on this planet the opportunity to duplicate the great successes of the western developed nations which have greatly reduced hunger, conflict, infant mortality, subjugation of women, lack of eduction and lack of economic opportunities. Racism is being a wealthy, healthy European and telling poor, hungry Africans and Indians to forgo development in favor of self sacrifice in the name of a mythical Gaia, when no observational evidence suggests the mild warming we have had in 170 years is anything but beneficial to the biosphere and people who inhabit this planet. Tying white supremasists to denial of climate change is a classic liberal diversion to distract from the fact that democrats and socialists created and promoted much of the fabric of racism with movements such as eugenics, and the fascist socialist government programs of Italy and Nazi Germany. Racism and xenophobia were also epidemic in the Soviet Union under Stalin and Communist China under Mao.

While radical enrivonmentalists and far left socialists (often the same people) want us to adopt policies that will remake successful nations in the image of the broken shard of a country that is Venezuela, more rational individuals know that the elimination of racism and other evils that plague humanity requires development, opportunity and wealth for all.

Patrick MJD
March 19, 2019 10:19 pm

“Rebecca Solnit is a board member of Oil Change International as well as a Guardian columnist. Her latest book is Call them by their true names”

Lets make sure no-one buys her book.

Tim Beatty
March 19, 2019 10:21 pm

Considering his manifesto railed against climate change and he considered himself an eco-fascist, the link isn’t ‘climate denial.’ Quite the opposite in that he supported violence to implement things like the GND.

Komrade Kuma
Reply to  Tim Beatty
March 19, 2019 10:43 pm

Yes of course but that does not matter to the deconstructionists at the Grauniad, its just a mere factual detail to be sliced, diced and de/reconstructed or ignored as suits the circumstance.

M Courtney
Reply to  Tim Beatty
March 20, 2019 12:58 am

Correct. His manifesto is culled from the Guardian Environmental blog.
His ravings about “population control” is about “climate change” – those are his own words.
The Guardian is desperately trying to shift the blame away from its own propaganda.

March 19, 2019 10:31 pm

In his manifesto Tarrant describes himself as an “eco-fascist” concerned about global warming.

Reply to  jeff
March 19, 2019 10:48 pm

Exactly. He repeatedly cited environmentalist talking points and explicitly said he hates non-whites because they’re overpopulating the earth.

The Guardian is unbelievable. His environmental manifesto is the same tripe you read in the Guardian every day, and yet not only do they fail to acknowledge this, or even ignore it, they pretend he was actually opposed to the environmental movement.

Craig from Oz
Reply to  Chip
March 20, 2019 7:25 pm

The point everyone calling this stain on humanity a ‘White’ seem to ignore is that he identifies China as the nation he most admires.

Lot of ‘White’ people in China apparently.

The man is a Left. He is a proud and out Eco Fascist. The only variations between him and just about every main stream Left is his closed borders belief and the fact that even Left Wing idiots aren’t moronic enough to carry out mass murder.

Reply to  jeff
March 20, 2019 8:57 am

The usual subjects are busy declaring that this guy is right wing.

Reply to  MarkW
March 20, 2019 11:46 am

He loved Trump. That’s a start.

Reply to  Simon
March 20, 2019 1:28 pm

And… he was keen to cite Trumps racist attitudes as motivation for him. But it’s also true he was one screwed up man. A terrorist who too the lives of 50 innocent people. Have to say the New Zealand prime minister has been a wonderful leader through all this. Strong but at the same time compassionate.

John Dilks
Reply to  Simon
March 21, 2019 11:01 am

Simon, I am sorry, but you are spouting BS.

Reply to  Simon
March 21, 2019 12:56 pm

John, Simon is here for the purpose of disinformation. He is free to make a fool of himself.
BS is less pernicious.

Reply to  Simon
March 21, 2019 1:42 pm

John Dilks
Be specific which part is BS?

Reply to  Simon
March 21, 2019 2:10 pm

Simon, sorry to inform you that there are sceptics present. Anything you assert that cannot be supported by evidence is automatically BS until proven otherwise.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Simon
March 21, 2019 6:21 am

He loved Trump? All I’ve heard is that he liked Trump for his “white nationalism”, but definitely not as a policymaker or leader.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
March 21, 2019 10:27 am

That’s bad enough isn’t it. Trumps racism fuelled this guys fire.

Reply to  Simon
March 21, 2019 12:29 pm

Desperate. If not puerile.

March 19, 2019 10:32 pm

50 people were killed in cold blood by this nut case. Why can’t the Guardian call it for what it is?

They diminish the enormity of the travesty, perhaps even excuse it, by even mentioning climate change in the same breath. On a par with the nutter’s manifesto.

Reply to  HAS
March 20, 2019 6:20 am

The left never misses a chance to use any event to further the cause, even if it is a lie.

Reply to  LdB
March 20, 2019 2:29 pm

You could switch that and say the same about the right. How are they any different?

Chris Hanley
March 19, 2019 10:43 pm

‘I wondered whether the killer or killers chose this particular day to undermine the impact of this global climate action. It was a shocking pairing and also a perfectly coherent one …”.
On the contrary, it’s a connection that only the warped mind of a fanatic could dream up.
BTW Rebecca may not realize that Islam is not a race and that at least 26% of New Zealanders are of non-European or mixed descent.
“At the latest census in 2013, 74.0 percent identified as European, 14.9 percent, as Māori, 11.8 percent as Asian, 7.4 percent as Pacific peoples, and 1.2 percent as Middle-Eastern, Latin American, and African (Wiki)”.

Bruce Clark
March 19, 2019 10:49 pm

I support the comment

“Rebecca, using the blood of murdered innocents to promote your climate ideology is nothing short of obscene…”

Gary Pearse
March 19, 2019 10:50 pm

Gee, they rightfully jump into the breach when violence by Muslim extremists, African American blacks, Latino or Asian gangs is generalized as a racial characteristic, yet they have no compunction about smearing all white men because some violent extremists of that race commits a horrific crime.

 “Of a lot of ideas and ideals of masculinity taken to a monstrous extreme –”

This after a diatribe about white people intruding all over the world. She touched all the world of white troublemakers except she left out the usual “old white men” category. That I guess needs a rest now and again.

The main thesis of this being a climate denier action is new. The looming worry of the clime syndicate is not just that theyve come to understand that nothing is going to be done – even Germany, Denmark and UK are backing out, not just Eastern Europe, USA and more and more in the developing world – but that “climate” appears not to be warming frightfully despite desperate jiggering of data. They want action desperately because if the climate doesnt become dangerous with business as usual, they will be seen to have been horribly wrong and guilty of wasting trillions, damaging the world economy, killing off the poor, and cluttering the land and seascape with useless renewables derelicts. Yeah, they want to spray sulphates into the stratosphere, not to save the planet, which doesnt need saving , but to save their @$$eS and their wastrel employment.

Old Doc
March 19, 2019 10:52 pm

Thank you, Eric, for this post. I only hope that I live long enough to see the pendulum swing back in the direction of rational thinking.

March 19, 2019 11:29 pm

Anybody who uses the words “climate denial” has got to be seriously short of brain cells.

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
March 20, 2019 3:54 pm

Absolutely….. I get sick of people denying the climate. It’s “climate science denial.”

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Simon
March 21, 2019 6:24 am

More accurately, it’s catastrophic climate change denial.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
March 21, 2019 10:29 am

Actually that’s a fair description of the few climate scientists on this side of the debate. None of them deny mans influence in the warming. But there are some here who even deny that and they are climate science deniers.

John Dilks
Reply to  simon
March 21, 2019 11:04 am

simon, Man’s influence in the warming has not yet been proven.

Reply to  simon
March 21, 2019 12:03 pm

Simon , you know well enough that what you wrote was pure disinformation. “climate science denial ” is a nonsense phrase that is used in NewsSpeak in the republic of Oceania.

Reply to  simon
March 21, 2019 1:45 pm

“simon, Man’s influence in the warming has not yet been proven.”
OK so you fall into the catagory of climate science denier. Well done.
Find me a climate scientist who agrees with you… just one name. On either side of the fence. One who says man has nothing to do with the warming. Till then you are spouting BS or ignorance. Take your pick.

Reply to  simon
March 26, 2019 5:09 pm

Simon there are a lot of eminent scientists who do the correct job of science, even on this quasi religious topic of anthropogenically caused climate change (CO2) by questioning the science. Here are only a small number but if you want you can find increasing numbers of them. BTW if you dig into the John Cook ‘research’ you will find his methods, process and his conclusions false. He’s the guy who claimed 97% of scientists agree that catastrophic climate change is anthrop. caused.
So here are some names of those who question the claims of A.C.G.W.: Dr Judith Curry, Prof. Freeman Dyson,Dr. Ivar Giaever, Prof.Richard Siegmund Lindzen, Richard Bellamy, Piers Corbyn,Prof. Steve Koonin, Prof.Nils-Axel Mörner, Dr Garth Paltridge…I haven’t time to do more. But 31,484 scientists signed the Oregon Petition (see here:http://www.petitionproject.org) If you are really interested in science and the preservation of intelligent inquiry go do some reading. Nothing in science is 100% certain except that there is evidence indicating a repeatable predictable outcome. If someone says it is 100% certain then they haven’t looked at all the evidence. Climate is incredibly complex and no-one has the full measure of its processes. Why are birds dropping from the sky in huge numbers, why mass fish die offs, why are seals and whales getting sunburned, why are transformers spontaneously exploding, why has the northernmost jet stream split, why are plasma events increasing,why are glaciers now growing, why is the sun quiet, why is there so much flooding, why are clouds nucleating, why is the magnetosphere weakening, why are the magnetic poles moving so erratically, why why why? So many questions unanswerable by current scientific understanding. It is not tin foil hat-ism to question, it is man’s nature to be curious enough to ask. It is the empirical process. In reply to the article conflating the murderer with climate denialists well, it is a disgrace, a proof of the work of propagandists so dominant in the media these days.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
March 21, 2019 2:34 pm

Let us be absolutely precise – it is ” imminent catastrophic anthropomorphic (sic) climate change denialist white supremacy”.
Right Simon?

Reply to  farmerbraun
March 21, 2019 4:41 pm

I think your tin hat has fallen off.
I wouldn’t say imminent, more …. likely. And the catastrophic part will depend where you live. Bangladesh has some seriously issues not too far away. Other parts of the planet it might be 100 years. Some parts may be fine.

Reply to  farmerbraun
March 22, 2019 1:23 am

Still waiting for you to name one scientist who denies man is having an influence on the warming. Just one ?

Reply to  Simon
March 21, 2019 12:07 pm

Which is equally brainless because science is a method of obtaining results . Perhaps you know more about denial than you do about science or climate.

March 19, 2019 11:41 pm

Oh yeah …. she is the “literary award winner” who wrote this dung heap of unmitigated hate and … ‘separation’ …

And she apparently hates white people, nearly as much as she hates President Trump. I cannot imagine what word she substitutes for “deplorable”. But being the “literary award winner” she is … I am sure she’ll think of something even more hateful and unhinged.

We’re lectured about how “divided” America has become. How ‘separated’ we’ve become. Trump is the blame ‘they’ claim. But how anyone can read such a nasty, nonsensical, racist screed such as this mental patient’s prose … and not immediately recognize the true dank origin of our divisiveness … well … then you are part of the problem. Right along with Rebecca Solnit

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Kenji
March 22, 2019 8:27 am

Solnit ist ein Spätzünder wie Hermann Hesse, Kerouac, Krakuer-

Wanderlust: A History of Walking by Rebecca Solnit – Goodreads
https://www.goodreads.com › book › show
rebecca solnit wanderlust von http://www.goodreads.com
Wandering by Hermann Hesse Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer On the Road by Jack Kerouac Wanderlust by Rebecca Solnit The Old …

Fehlt eigentlich nur Adalbert Stifter: Nachsommer, Bergkristall…..

Very Green, reactionary, slow in thinking and feeling.

Reminds on Himmler – civil profession



And she needed from ’66 to ’84 to learn HER profession – exemplaric for greens?

Anyway – she’s got readers, ( as on that thread ), earns of money and attention.

With that she’s satisfied.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Kenji
March 22, 2019 9:09 am

Hermann Hesse – die Türen der Erkenntnis / The Doors of Perception:


March 19, 2019 11:49 pm

97% of MSM journalists agree.

March 19, 2019 11:54 pm

This disgusting article of The Guardian is a perfect example of the intrinsic paradox of the First Amendment :

– indeed, it allows some Eco-Nazis psychopaths to deliberately confuse contrariant scientists with terrorists and to ask to stop those scientists from speaking out, or worse, to put them in concentration camps.

March 20, 2019 12:08 am

I’m sure Europeans stopped being concerned about colour several decades ago.
What is of concern is the influx of bad behavior and irrational thought.

March 20, 2019 12:22 am

I live on the other side from the road of a 3rd mosque which was not hit but may have been on the madman’s list.
Police standing guard with big guns.
We have been through a lot with the earthquakes and now this.

I never thought that someone would even try to link the murders with climate change denial.

As Eric Worrall says
“Rebecca, using the blood of murdered innocents to promote your climate ideology is nothing short of obscene, a new low even for the climate movement.

March 20, 2019 12:39 am

Has anyone pointed out to the Grauniad author that the self-styled ecowarrior chose to shoot up the mosques on a Friday….. because that’s when they collect for prayers….?!
Her logic connecting it with a children’s parade is as tenuous as their arguments for AGW.

Joel O’Bryan
March 20, 2019 12:54 am

If that is not racism… nothing is.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
March 20, 2019 4:18 am

In this great era of newspeak it´s not racism because there cannot be racism to white old men. It´s one way ticket today. Only white old men can be racists. It´s sad, but it´s true.
“They” are twisting the language, like they twist climate history. Everything means everything now, except what the old white man says. It`s never politically correct, but it´s always somehow racist.

Wellcome to the brawe new world! It allows articles like that. There´s no shame at all. Shame is not a word anymore.

Barry Sheridan
March 20, 2019 12:58 am

I had not heard of Rebecca Solnit until today, that was indeed a blessing. How on Earth such people get to be paid for writing hate filled racist rubbish is perhaps the greatest mystery of our modern world. Then again the Guardian has made a business out of it, despite losing money they go on doing it, strange!

dodgy geezer
March 20, 2019 1:06 am

I hear from a commentator on Zero Hedge that the massacre WAS linked to Climate Change. Apparently the perpetrator was worried about Global Warming and overpopulation – his web site showed him to be an eco-fascist.

Can’t be confirmed, because all data on the topic is censored.

Julie near Chicago
Reply to  dodgy geezer
March 20, 2019 1:18 am

“The Great Replacement” manifesto is still around on a few sites. One of them is


Craig from Oz
Reply to  Eric Worrall
March 20, 2019 7:50 pm

Are we sure he isn’t a mental health suffering lone wolf of undefined ethic background and unknown motivation?


The deeper problem here is that popular culture in the west has both normalised terror attacks as a ‘perpetual irritant’ that kills relatively few people, demonised all discussion that opposes the official mantra as Hate Speech and made increased calls for casual violence as an acceptable solution for problems.

Remember, this is the same culture that were happy to ask for a 15 year old boy to be punched in the face for smirking.

So what do you get? You get a society that is no longer really shocked by mass murder (I heard my first Christchurch joke 3 days ago), where one that arrests Hate Speech but makes social heroes of people who commit acts of casual violence provided the Elite approve of the target.

Now tell me this is actually the best environment for a person who feels they need their voice heard in public?

Significant sections of the public have been happily calling for violence in the name of their Elite approved causes. Now one of their own has gone off script and suddenly it is STILL not their fault.

Reply to  dodgy geezer
March 20, 2019 8:44 am
Coeur de Lion
March 20, 2019 1:11 am

I think the Guardian is dying tho’when I read it occasionally there are some jolly interesting opeds and well written . But I guess it is killing itself.

March 20, 2019 1:31 am

Eric, you are always posting articles based on something the Guardian has said…

If it annoys you so much, just stop reading it?

Reply to  griff
March 20, 2019 1:47 am

If the articles on this website annoy you so much, just stop reading them?

Reply to  skeptikal
March 20, 2019 5:37 am

Griff did try to disengage from this site and actually went “cold turkey” for , oh about 2 months, before he returned.
I suspect that the alarmist sites he had turned to were not only comparatively sparsely attended , but made up of such inane ecobabble that even Griff , decent chap that he(she?) is basically, was put off and came back to take part in the (largely) civilised and scientifically literate conversations to be found here.

Reply to  griff
March 20, 2019 1:58 am

Apologised to Susan Crockford yet? She’s over on the Polar Bear thread.

Reply to  griff
March 20, 2019 4:24 am


You annoy us so much, could you just stop it?

Reply to  griff
March 20, 2019 7:42 am

Why exactly are you here Griff all you do is post blatant lies which you always get caught on?

Reply to  griff
March 20, 2019 9:05 am

Are you that desperate to hide the nonsense the Guardian prints?

March 20, 2019 1:34 am

Julie near Chicago
March 20, 2019 at 1:18 am


If this is a link to the shooters manifesto I, as a Kiwi, would be grateful if you could delete it. Every time it is viewed it increases its ranking and thus helps it spread or pop up. There’s no need to encourage this idiot orhis followers. Thanks.

David Hood
Reply to  Alastair Brickell
March 20, 2019 1:43 am

Exactly, Alastair – starve the sod of the oxygen which he graves.
As another New Zealander AND Christchurch resident, any reference to anything specific about this guy, should be viewed as hate speech and not even a chance to be made available to the public.
I might suggest that the article by Rebecca be considered in the same light – hate speech.

But, sadly, I have to grant her at least,the right to have her views and to write them as she sees fit.
As her boss, maybe I wouldn’t be so lenient – now, who is her boss, and what standard do they hold for such matters?
Oh – right – do forgive me being so naive.

Reply to  David Hood
March 21, 2019 12:36 pm

Naive? Pffffft.

John Dilks
Reply to  David Hood
March 21, 2019 12:44 pm

David Hood, I disagree with the use of the term “Hate Speech”. That is one of those terms that is easily used to limit speech to what you agree with and only what you believe in. It should never be used as it serves no useful purpose.

Aynsley Kellow
Reply to  Alastair Brickell
March 20, 2019 2:08 am

No, Alastair! I am Christchurch born, but I would oppose censoring this (or, indeed, the Unabomber’s manifesto). To do this would simply allow those like this vile author to make false statements without accountability or correction. We should, indeed must, know that they are both eco-fascists.

Would you suppress the information of the green Nazi state? That they had an organic garden at Dachau? That current Greens here in Australia are both opposed to population growth and so in favour of of accepting asylum seekers arriving on the boats of people smugglers that they prejudge their cases positively and call them refugees without their claim to that status being tested (and advance of those that have met the requirements but are stuck in UNHCR camps and awaiting resettlement)?

History is important – if sometimes painful.

Reply to  Alastair Brickell
March 20, 2019 10:51 am

At the same time so much is being reported that is unfactual about the New Zealand shooter to support various folks’ talking points and platforms that it would be good if people can look themselves and see what was really said.

I am sure it is just whacky ramblings but the mere fact he mentioned Trump got all the media in the US saying Trump caused it and it because of Trumps racism.

Even Chelsea Clinton (Daughter of Pres. Bill and SOS Hillary Clinton) was accused of causing the killings because she made comments against antisemitism. (sarc – Heaven forbid Jews should be treated same as anybody else.) Somehow defending Jews against hate and attacks is now anti Islamic – which shouldn’t be the case.

Reply to  Alastair Brickell
March 20, 2019 11:58 am

It’s not censoring, it’s giving it the worth it deserves. Nil.

The guy is totalitarian on the axis from libertarian to totalitarian. On the axis from conservative to radical, he’s radical. He’s radical totalitarian, which is in the Mao-Stalin-Hitl3r-Bader-Meinhof sector. Nothing to do with us engineers wondering how would you pretend save the world with a solar panel which makes net emissions larger, not smaller.

But most importantly, he has some of the same psycho features as a known Norwegian dimmie. He feels no human feelings and belongs to an institution forever. I don’t know what one usually gets for 50 murders in NZ, but this guy needs to be permanently locked up has a seriously dangerous person.

What’s bad is that there will be attacks against Christians / atheists which are motivated by this senseless brutal attack against innocent people in a distant country. And the Guradian columnist I refuse to comment. She’s below that.

Matthew Drobnick
Reply to  Hugs
March 20, 2019 2:08 pm

all of you advocating for censorship are equally deplorable as the modern left – justify your reasons to ease the pain of hypocrisy, but it matters not. You are still totalitarians.

Reply to  Alastair Brickell
March 21, 2019 5:07 am

i see youu point
how is stopping people reading what the lunatic uses for his reasons, benefiting society?
the logic or rather lack of it is important
seeing how he and probably others think and what induced that behavior is of some import.
he appears to have been very mid eu influenced which is odd, the music and cyrillic childish writing on bullet cases and guns etc.
for someone who was so detailed in planning that seems at odds
but then Im not a shrink.
his defence will be silenced /banned from the public of course
just like the Tassie chaps were.
it does no one any service to deny them hearing why someone went batshit.
personally allowing them airtime and then ridicule or picking it to bits analytically would be of more use

March 20, 2019 1:35 am

She includes in her article that ‘plants had helpfully sequestered CO2 that we are now releasing back into the atmosphere ‘ .
What was the level of CO2 in the atmosphere before the plants sequestered it?
The climate at that time must have been OK for the plants to survive and grow.
When they had sequestered all that amount of CO2, did the level of CO2 fall so much that plant growth was inhibited?

Andrew Harding
Reply to  StephenP
March 20, 2019 11:32 am

Of course, all the oxygen in the Earth’s was once combined with other elements chiefly hydrogen but also carbon because it is highly reactive. The primitive atmosphere of the Earth had nitrogen at about the same concentration as now because it is relatively inert and carbon dioxide at about the same concentration as it is now. The evolution of plants and photosynthesis changed the CO2 into carbon plant material and gaseous oxygen AGW is simply not a problem for the following reasons:
1) The current concentration of CO2 is 400ppm as opposed to 200,000ppm in the distant past
2) Photosynthesis can only occur between the temperatures of 0 – 40 Celsius and is optimal at 15 Celsius (coincidentally or most probably not), this is the average temperature of the planet I would guess it was the same then
3) Although the Sun was 30% cooler in the distant past, plants evolved and photosynthesised despite concentrations of CO2 being 500 times higher than they are now.
4) CO2 is a greenhouse gas because its molecules absorb infra-red radiation but it only absorbs certain wavelengths that are a tiny percentage of the infra-red band. One the photon is absorbed it is re-emitted at a different wavelength and so escapes into space.
5) Because the photon is absorbed only once it is absorbed by the first CO2 molecule it encounters. Any other CO2 molecules in the same trajectory are irrelevant. The height at which 99+% is absorbed is about 20 feet. In the primaeval atmosphere, it would have been about three inches if humans had been around they would have had warm feet and ankles!
Returning to the topic; The Guardian (also known as the Gruniard due to its multitude of spelling mistakes) is a dreadful newspaper and very intellectually Left as opposed to the Mirror which is Left without any intellectual content whatsoever.

David Hood
March 20, 2019 1:38 am

I thought hate speech was banned?
I live in Christchurch (all my life) and will continue to do so.
The journalist is I would suggest, filled with hate, and this is revealed in the article.
I am not sure if I should feel sorry for her, or contempt, but I am leaning toward the latter.
People of her ilk are filled with venom, and being such, can only spew forth this sort of dribble.
We may not have a perfect world, not even here in little old Christchurch, but it is to me and many others, a lovely place in which to live and be surrounded by people of many (all) kinds and beliefs.
People filled with hate and dislike for their fellow man/woman/country or foreigner, are not welcome.
So Rebecca, make Christchurch a better place, and stay away.

Reply to  David Hood
March 20, 2019 9:07 am

Hate speech is defined as anything a leftist disagrees with.
So by definition, nothing a leftist says can be hate speech.

Reply to  David Hood
March 21, 2019 12:18 pm

No David in New Zealand we meet face to face and discuss things. You seem to like division and exclusion, possibly exclusivity also.

March 20, 2019 1:38 am

She includes in her article that ‘plants had helpfully sequestered CO2 that we are now releasing back into the atmosphere ‘ .
What was the level of CO2 in the atmosphere before the plants sequestered it?
The climate at that time must have been OK for the plants to survive and grow.
When they had sequestered all that amount of CO2, did the level of CO2 fall so much that plant growth was inhibited?
If we burn all the fossil fuel, will the CO2 level return to the level before the plants started sequestering it?
What was that level?

Serge Wright
March 20, 2019 1:44 am

It’s interesting that she claims white people have overrun the globe, when white people are actually a minority group making up only about 14% of global population. Asian people make up 60% of global population but don’t even rate a mention. Her comments can therefore only be interpreted as a racist anti-white rant.

It then gets worse when she claims white settlement occured in two already inhabited countries, Australia and New Zealand, implying that this was a hostile takeover, but what she forgets is that she supports an ideology that wants full open borders to flood in as many freeloaders that can be accomodated in a short space of time and with no regard for the wishes of the original inhabitants, whose land would be completely overrun, resulting in their total demise. If she really cared about the indigenous peole she would advocate for a complete halt to further immigation in these countries.

Her words indicate she obvioulsy harbours a huge hate aginst white skinned people, where the actions of a single person acting alone are unfairly tarnished to all people with the same skin colour, which is very sad in today’s modern society where we have put significant energies into removing nasty skin colour based discriminations.

David Hood
Reply to  Serge Wright
March 20, 2019 1:53 am

Well said Serge.
Her view is created out of contempt – for anything but her idea of what the world should be like.
YOUR take on it, is by far and a way, rational, hers is, well…..there must be a word for it, but IF I were to type it here, I doubt it would pass moderation – and rightly so.

Reply to  David Hood
March 21, 2019 12:22 pm

Give it a go . Unless of course you are simply casting aspersion .
Say it. We are not in Oceania now.
There is free speech here.

Reply to  Serge Wright
March 20, 2019 2:21 am


Great post, I’ll just make one observation.

Open borders run the risk of the same fate befalling the now indigenous people of NZ/Aus etc., as that of the original indigenous Maoris and Aborigines. A lesson we have been urged to learn and not repeat.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  HotScot
March 20, 2019 5:18 am

Maoris are migrants from polinesia. Aborigines are indigenous peoples, it’s what “Aborigine” means, native peoples.

One of my posts seems to have been purged. I think it is valid to this discussion.

Dudley Horscroft
Reply to  Patrick MJD
March 20, 2019 6:54 am

Unless you believe that Australia’s aborigines were from a separate creation, then you must accept that they are descended from immigrants, just as the Maoris in New Zealand.

There is no generally accepted definition of “indigenous peoples”. In Australia it is generally taken to mean Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. However, I have heard that it can also include those whose ancestors bones are buried in Australia. This can, of course, include most of the population of Australia, whose parents are dead and buried in Australia. Including, for example, Andrew Bolt, whose parents – of Dutch origin, are buried here.

The Aborigines became British subjects by virtue of the annexation of Australia – “Cook wrote that he formally took possession of the east coast of New Holland on 21/22 August 1770 when on Possession Island off the west coast of Cape York Peninsula.[102] He noted in his journal that he could “land no more upon this Eastern coast of New Holland, and on the Western side I can make no new discovery the honour of which belongs to the Dutch Navigators and as such they may lay Claim to it as their property [italicised words crossed out in the original] but the Eastern Coast from the Latitude of 38 South down to this place I am confident was never seen or viseted by any European before us and therefore by the same Rule belongs to great Brittan [italicised words crossed out in the original]. Wikipaedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Australia

At that time all aborigines became British subjects – but this was only given effect by the opening of the settlement in New South Wales (a country can annex a territory but this must be given effect by landing and maintaining a population thereon.) For this reason the French annexation of Western Australia lapsed. Wikipaedia again: “In 1772, a French expedition led by Louis Aleno de St Aloüarn, became the first Europeans to formally claim sovereignty over the west coast of Australia, but no attempt was made to follow this with colonisation.”

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
March 22, 2019 3:57 am

“Dudley Horscroft March 20, 2019 at 6:54 am

Unless you believe that Australia’s aborigines were from a separate creation…”

There is evidence they originated in Africa. Given the fact I can test my mDNA (That is what you inherit from your mother) and it shows it is, mostly, African. Some African Americans have found their DNA originates in Europe. Go figure!

What is means is this; When we were “growing” up we were shagging anything insight (To stay alive)!

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Serge Wright
March 20, 2019 5:13 am

At the time the “British” arrived in Australia and New Zealand, integration was last on their minds. Hence the “resistance” to various British days of celebration, like Australia Day. May indigenous people’s call it “invasion” day.

Fair enough. You can have your land back, we will take our technology back. OK?

Dudley Horscroft
Reply to  Patrick MJD
March 20, 2019 7:27 am

On the contrary, Patrick MJD. “Among the instructions Phillip received from George III in April 1787 was ‘to endeavor by every possible means to open an intercourse with the natives, and to conciliate their affections, enjoining all our subjects to live in amity and kindness with them’. The relevant footnote states: “Phillip’s Instructions, given at court at St James Palace, 25 April 1787, in Historical Records of New South Wales, Vol 1, Part 2, p 89.” See “The Break Up of Australia”, Windschuttle, K. Quadrant Books, 2016, p 384.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
March 22, 2019 4:00 am

Yes well George didn’t have to deal with locals so…” “Among the instructions Phillip received from George III in April 1787…”

Took the back burner…

March 20, 2019 2:11 am

“In a world being driven by fear…..”

Confirmation, were it ever needed, that 350.org exists on a different planet to the rest of us.

March 20, 2019 2:13 am

It is interesting that the Guardian journalist lists various things she regards as the basics of life – weather, water, soil, seasons, ocean pH – but neglects to mention carbon or, specifically carbon dioxide. No carbon dioxide, no life. Simple as that. What unbelievable ignorance from one who would wish to write on environmental matters.

March 20, 2019 2:52 am

New Zealand shooter has more in common with radical environmentalists than ‘right-wingers’

Most of Tarrant’s troubled screed is devoted to detailing the radical environmental views that led him to declare himself an “eco-fascist” and commit mass murder. To put it bluntly, he saw himself as attempting to save the planet by killing off some of the human beings who were despoiling it.
“Why focus on immigration and birth rates when climate change is such a huge issue?” he asked rhetorically. “Because they are the same issue. The Environment is being destroyed by overpopulation. We Europeans are one of the groups that is not overpopulating the world. The invaders are the ones overpopulating the world. Kill the invaders, kill the overpopulation, and by doing so save the world.”
In other words, it’s all about the birth rates.
In obsessing over population growth, environmental collapse, and planetary apocalypse, he was following the ideological lead of people like Paul Ehrlich, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), and John Holdren, all of whom have publicly complained, in one way or another, that some people are having way too many children.
Ehrlich is famous for predicting—over and over again–that a “population bomb” will sooner or later devastate the planet. Newcomer AOC imagines that she knows the actual year—2023 AD–that the world will end.
Then there is John Holdren, who served in the White House as Obama’s science advisor. In his book, Ecoscience, Holdren endorses compulsory abortion, mass sterilization, and the sterilization and abortion of “undesirables.” He even proposed that a “Planetary Regime” be established, that would have the power to decide who would be allowed—and who would be forbidden—from having a baby.
China adopted every last one of Holdren’s radical suggestions, even down to the implementation of a quota system for births.

March 20, 2019 3:26 am

The article author seems to have a vile, little mind. Of course, it is all about the message. Anything within the message. Nothing outside the message, nothing against the message.

Tom Abbott
March 20, 2019 4:33 am

Well, President Trump said this the other day about White Nationalism: ” [White Nationalists] are a small group of people with some very serious [mental] problems.”

I assume this author is trying to equate Trump with white nationalism, but there is no evidence that Trump is a white nationalist or a racist.

It’s not racist to want to protect the border from illegal aliens because those illegal aliens are made up of every race on the planet, so there is no discrimination going on, Trump wants to stop ALL of them, no matter what their race, color or creed. Trump is treating all illegal aliens equally, including the white ones. He’s deporting them as fast as he can.

This author is just playing the race card. It’s Standard Operating Procedure on the Left to claim those who oppose the Left are doing so because they are racist.

Standard Leftist Smear.

John Doran
March 20, 2019 4:56 am

I noticed an article by Bjorn Lomborg , in recent posts, which I’ll read next.

After reading this hateful little piece, I’m expecting to read some hard facts & figures, presented with cool reason & logic.

Ignorant filth like this article makes one realise what a pile of garbage one has to avoid or wade through when one adheres to the principle of free speech.


March 20, 2019 5:13 am

These people in the Guardian et al are forever seeing correlation where there is none, as if everything in the world fits in neat boxes for their simplistic minds.

March 20, 2019 5:15 am

,,, terrorists who massacred 50 unarmed Muslims …

Is somebody advocating that New Zealand Muslims should be armed?

What we have is the Democrat agenda: gun control, immigration, and climate change. link The ideological possession of the left is so dangerous because it disguises itself as virtue. link

Patrick MJD
March 20, 2019 5:29 am

IMO Facebook are complicit in this as they allowed him to live-stream his activities. Some of his stream was widely viewed before being banned.

Facebook seemed to be slower to react to this “live stream” event than when a woman posted a video of her nipples online!

Reply to  Patrick MJD
March 21, 2019 5:14 am

i pointed that out on news.com and reckon like other comments it wont be posted
too true i guess

March 20, 2019 5:50 am

Unlike some other similar appalling incidents the killer has been apprehended live and is at present in custody.
Assuming he makes it to Court he will be able to explain , under questioning, his motives (although he may remain silent I suppose). Depending on the skill of the prosecuting team we may be able to extract the real motives and associations , and they may conflict with the knee jerk reaction of the Guardian and BBC journalists.
If , however pre trial questioning uncovers a confusion of eco nonsense , global warming, climate fear attached to over -population and uncontrolled immigration , the subsequent trial might be embarrassing in some quarters.
Will he be tried in -camera on the grounds of national security , or judged unfit to plead for reasons of insanity and just locked away for ever?

Reply to  mikewaite
March 21, 2019 5:16 am

they pretty much said closed court already
especially as he wants self representation
can’t have the people hearing his reasons
especially the ones mentioned here re overpop green leanings;-)

arderns full greentard

Mark Pawelek
March 20, 2019 5:57 am

The terrorist calls himself as an eco-fascist. He thinks the world is polluted, overpopulated, and communism is a good thing. Reading the Guardian, it seems to me, many of those views are held by the majority of its’ writers. Some people need to take a long hard look in the mirror, and accept responsibility for their part in promoting this evil at Christchurch.

March 20, 2019 6:04 am

It’s the Guardian, and as reliable as a teenager with a crystal meth habit.

John Endicott
Reply to  tom0mason
March 20, 2019 6:20 am

tom0mason, how insulting of you. You own teenagers with crystal meth habits an apology for comparing them to the filth that is the guardian. 😉

Reply to  John Endicott
March 20, 2019 7:36 am

OOops, my bad.

Reply to  tom0mason
March 20, 2019 6:21 am

Or Griff

March 20, 2019 6:23 am

Well the killer’s ideology is their ideology. He called himself an “Ecofascist”…. Which most of the Environmental movement are. The killer was as misanthropic as most Greenpeace activists. His “Manifesto” was nothing I haven’t read on most Environmentalist sites, minus his ideas on race.

So I’m guessing they are a bit shocked and worried… When Greens go bad, this guy is the result.

John Endicott
Reply to  J.H.
March 20, 2019 7:11 am

When Greens go bad, this guy is the result.

Unfortunately Greens rarely go good.

Reply to  J.H.
March 20, 2019 8:15 am

Greens are, ironically, naive.

March 20, 2019 6:55 am

Filth. Makes us angry to read but more determined than ever.

March 20, 2019 7:12 am

The Essay That Launched the Term “Mansplaining”
Rebecca Solnit’s ‘Men Explain Things to Me’ explains this international scourge

Rebecca is Femsplaining to us!! :: ))

March 20, 2019 7:18 am

Global Warming Is Now A ‘Women ’s Issue’ Due To ‘Ecofeminism
Environmentalists are increasingly claiming that global warming is a “women’s issue” and that the world needs “eco-feminism” as a path forward.
Ecofeminists believe that women and nature are bonded by traditionally “feminine” values and their shared history of oppression by a patriarchal Western society. This patriarchal society is built on four intersectional pillars of sexism, racism, class exploitation, and environmental destruction.

March 20, 2019 7:28 am

I wish Freud was still around, in Warmism he would have a whole new category to study.

John Endicott
Reply to  Ve2
March 20, 2019 7:37 am

Yeah but somehow he would manage to bring it all back to sex and wanting to sleep with your mother and/or father.

March 20, 2019 8:03 am

A diversitist (i.e. color judgment) national socialist with an environmental cause, who expected to exploit the greenness of some, many people and inspire them to join his causes.

March 20, 2019 8:06 am

That just really angers me. For one you can forget the white supremacist bit as the guy was just a bloody nutter.

Gordon Dressler
March 20, 2019 8:08 am

First, it was one seriously deranged individual, not “terrorists” as the Guardian incorrectly stated.

Reading between the lines, the Guardian seems to be implying that denying climate change is responsible for insanity in humans. Well, really . . . is this assertion something that we couldn’t see coming?

Reply to  Gordon Dressler
March 20, 2019 8:13 am

The Guardian, specifically Hope Solo, is also worried about too many”white girls next door”. Whether it’s National Socialists or others with a principled-alignment, it is historically documented that diversity (i.e. color judgment) breeds adversity.

March 20, 2019 8:09 am

When and by whose choice does a human life acquire and retain the right to life? This is a question we’re advised not to ask and cannot be answered. So, selective and cannibalized-child are taboo topics in a liberal society. The first rule of planned parenthood protocol is that survivors do not have a voice to protest, arms to defend, and a right to life.

Joel Snider
March 20, 2019 8:26 am

Well, we were just saying yesterday that there’s no absurdity below them.

March 20, 2019 8:36 am

I think this is great news. Debunks the rest of the media which claims Trump personally did it.

I guess the Guardian wasn’t creative enough to link both climate change and Trump in the same story.

March 20, 2019 8:47 am

There is a religious belief in the far left that if everybody believes as they do the world will be perfect. There will be no more war and everyone will get along. The climate will be perfect. Of course human history completely contradicts this. People have always squabbled.

The beliefs of the far left are identity politics, socialism, climate change plus a total intolerance to discussion of issues. For instance the question of low wage immigration impact on working class families in the US is meant with “You must hate immigrants”. Instead of an honest discussion of its pros and cons.

So it is easy for them to blame climate change skepticism for the shooting because their beliefs are interconnected. Its hard for us to understand this because these issues in a rational world are not interconnected.

March 20, 2019 8:57 am

Off topic but guardian related , they not have a hatchet job by Mann and Ward attacking the new panel on climate change and Will Happer in particular making accusations of Lysenkoism.
Projection much!

David Murray
March 20, 2019 9:52 am

This foul newspaper and its greasy snide journalists needs to fail quickly before it poisons more minds.

March 20, 2019 11:07 am

Kmart may be gone but cheap, check out isle, tabloid journalism spins on.

Coeur de Lion
March 20, 2019 12:04 pm

The sadness is that when her socialist utopia arrives, up rolls the three ton truck with a couple of hoods in it- pack a small suitcase, never seen or heard again.

March 20, 2019 7:31 pm

Anyone who thinks they can parse the self justification ramblings of a psychopath is a worry as even his family and home town are astounded by his actions not to mention his recent neighbours who thought he was an average Joe who kept his lawns neat. Just what special pool of talent and their insight does The Guardian have with psycopaths I ask?

Michael Ozanne
March 20, 2019 9:06 pm

“Your ‘editor assignment’ assessment is entirely plausible. She probably writes for the “Climate Change Desk” group and when the big story happened she was assigned to cover the ‘climate change angle’ and this was the best she could come up with.”

Solnit is a freelancer, and one of the intellectual leaders of modern feminism and inventor of the term “Mansplaining”. She isn’t a Guardian staffer. Feted by femi-nazi Jessica Valenti as “always the smartest person in the room”. Whenever she has ventured her opinions into areas where I have some knowledge or that are capable of being fact-checked. She has come across as being naively ignorant.

March 20, 2019 11:21 pm

Folks you do not understand. White privilege causes both climate denial and mass murder. Get with the programme 🙂

March 21, 2019 2:05 am

O/T-ish (but still Antipeodean): Light comedy, heavy satire, parody, propaganda, realism, cynicism… ? 2 min 20 seconds worth a glance…. Austrlain Federal Elections. https://www.facebook.com/mareth1/posts/10156134639410060?notif_id=1553152077426728&notif_t=notify_me

Reply to  SuffolkBoy
March 21, 2019 2:16 am
Reply to  SuffolkBoy
March 21, 2019 1:27 pm

Clearly that was HateSpeech/AntiSemitic (these NewsSpeak terms are synonymous in Oceania) for the obvious reason that it fails to sufficiently condemn/vilify/hate WhiteSupremacists and ClimateDenialists. 🙂

Steven Fraser
March 28, 2019 9:22 pm

Apologies for late arrival on this thread.

Will not NZ jurisprudence determine (to establish as fact) how many people at the Mosque were killed, receiving reports from Police of the number of shell casings retrieved, locations of the dead, etc?

Just wondering.

Steve in Texas

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights