Australian Senator Assaulted
Over in Australia senator Fraser Anning did the unthinkable - he told the truth. And for a politician doing that rare thing of actually telling the truth, how was he treated?
He was assaulted and had his name dragged through the mud, with all the ists, isms and the rainbow range of made up "phobias" all dog piled on as per usual.
But what did he say to cause a young man to ambush assault him from behind and then have the ring of biased media circle their wagons to protect? Well I'll share the quotes, as supplied by blue tick verified Twatter user, Jim Scuitto, from the media outlet with the 'special' relationship with the truth - CNN.
He was assaulted and had his name dragged through the mud, with all the ists, isms and the rainbow range of made up "phobias" all dog piled on as per usual.
But what did he say to cause a young man to ambush assault him from behind and then have the ring of biased media circle their wagons to protect? Well I'll share the quotes, as supplied by blue tick verified Twatter user, Jim Scuitto, from the media outlet with the 'special' relationship with the truth - CNN.
It reads:
"I am utterly opposed to any form of violence within our community, and totally condemn the actions of the gunman,"
"However, whilst this kind of violent vigilantism can never be justified, what it highlights is the growing fear within our community, both in Australia and New Zealand, of the increasing Muslim presence."
"As always, left-wing politicians and the media will rush to claim that the cause of today's shootings lie with gun laws or those who hold nationalist views but this is all cliched nonsense."
"The real cause of bloodshed on New Zealand streets today is the immigration program which allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand in the first place."
"Let us be clear, while Muslims may have been the victims today, usually they are the perpetrators. World-wide, Muslims are killing people in the name of their faith on an industrial scale."
"The entire religion of Islam is simply the violent ideology of a sixth century despot masquerading as a religious leader, which justifies endless war against anyone who opposes it and calls for the murder of unbelievers and apostates."
"The truth is that Islam is not like any other faith. It is the religious equivalent of fascism. And just because the followers of this savage belief were not the killers in this instance, does not make them blameless."
"I am utterly opposed to any form of violence within our community, and totally condemn the actions of the gunman,"
"However, whilst this kind of violent vigilantism can never be justified, what it highlights is the growing fear within our community, both in Australia and New Zealand, of the increasing Muslim presence."
"As always, left-wing politicians and the media will rush to claim that the cause of today's shootings lie with gun laws or those who hold nationalist views but this is all cliched nonsense."
"The real cause of bloodshed on New Zealand streets today is the immigration program which allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand in the first place."
"Let us be clear, while Muslims may have been the victims today, usually they are the perpetrators. World-wide, Muslims are killing people in the name of their faith on an industrial scale."
"The entire religion of Islam is simply the violent ideology of a sixth century despot masquerading as a religious leader, which justifies endless war against anyone who opposes it and calls for the murder of unbelievers and apostates."
"The truth is that Islam is not like any other faith. It is the religious equivalent of fascism. And just because the followers of this savage belief were not the killers in this instance, does not make them blameless."
So lets see what he got wrong:
He condemned the violence - which is correct.
He states the left-wing will blame guns laws and those who would protect their nation - which is correct.
He highlighted the existing fear of the growing non-compatible people's presence - which is correct.
He correctly identified the trend of an out of control Western immigration policy - which is correct.
He states the fact the non-compatibles usually ARE the perpetrators and that they ARE killing a shitload of people - which is correct.
He states the religion is a violent ideology that perpetuates war and calls for the murder of unbelievers and apostates - which is correct.
He states the religion is the religious equivalent of fascism - which is correct.
He condemned the violence - which is correct.
He states the left-wing will blame guns laws and those who would protect their nation - which is correct.
He highlighted the existing fear of the growing non-compatible people's presence - which is correct.
He correctly identified the trend of an out of control Western immigration policy - which is correct.
He states the fact the non-compatibles usually ARE the perpetrators and that they ARE killing a shitload of people - which is correct.
He states the religion is a violent ideology that perpetuates war and calls for the murder of unbelievers and apostates - which is correct.
He states the religion is the religious equivalent of fascism - which is correct.
It's a no brainer that the mass invasion of the West HAS brought violence here (check the rise in the UK here http://archive.is/AItp3). The far-left proved senator Fraser Anning correct when he said they will blame guns and patriots, the female Prime Minster of New Zealand is looking to steal gun rights as I covered (here).
So what radicalised this young man to assault a politician for his point of view?
So what radicalised this young man to assault a politician for his point of view?
Did The media incite violence?
There is no denying that the media drives public opinion on matters and thereby is a huge factor in their behaviour. Why in fact the UK advertising watchdog is set to crack down on adverts that show normal gender roles, just in case you wanted any further evidence that the state acknowledges television influences people (here http://archive.is/LNRZs).
So what were the headlines and themes of coverage of the assault of a politician - let's take a look:
"Ben Simmons Shouts Out Australian Hero "Egg Boy" On His Sneakers" reads the headline on Deadspin (part of the Gizmodo media group here http://archive.is/ayq38). So this company go as far as calling the young man who assaulted the senator for his views a "hero".
"The two big mistakes that Egg Boy made when he egged Fraser Anning" reads the headline from NZHerald (same place that did a character assassination piece on the guy who stood up to New Zealand's over reaching police http://archive.is/hn5NU). These guys went one further calling anyone who is a white nationalist a "nutbag", the article even goes on to state that the right provokes the violence the left inflict on them - bizarre. The writer expresses their feelings that people who share the wrong view (according to them) should be "frozen out of the mainstream". This 'journalist' also throws insults at the intelligence of those they disagree with, before outing themselves as a political activist with this quote "when I was exactly his age I was out protesting neo-Nazis too".
Anti-British rag the Guardian went with "Far-right Australian senator Fraser Anning attacks boy after being egged by him". So they lessened the assault to "being egged" - yeah you know what he would be charged with if it was followed through by the police? Assault.
Then like a lot of news outlets they love referring to the assailant as a "boy" - he was fucking 17, he's a young man. Believe it or not far-left media it's not innocent childlike behaviour to assault politicians for their views.
John Oliver (some bloke off the tele here http://archive.is/6xGKe) was ecstatic that someone with a different opinion than them was assaulted and celebrated the fact.
Now there is no denying the biases in media or the fact the power of the media resides in the hands of too few. But the growing concern is that the controlled media is radicalising people of all backgrounds, ages and races. And increasingly more and more we are seeing that was their intent all along - not reporting the facts, but 'manufacturing' the news.
So what were the headlines and themes of coverage of the assault of a politician - let's take a look:
"Ben Simmons Shouts Out Australian Hero "Egg Boy" On His Sneakers" reads the headline on Deadspin (part of the Gizmodo media group here http://archive.is/ayq38). So this company go as far as calling the young man who assaulted the senator for his views a "hero".
"The two big mistakes that Egg Boy made when he egged Fraser Anning" reads the headline from NZHerald (same place that did a character assassination piece on the guy who stood up to New Zealand's over reaching police http://archive.is/hn5NU). These guys went one further calling anyone who is a white nationalist a "nutbag", the article even goes on to state that the right provokes the violence the left inflict on them - bizarre. The writer expresses their feelings that people who share the wrong view (according to them) should be "frozen out of the mainstream". This 'journalist' also throws insults at the intelligence of those they disagree with, before outing themselves as a political activist with this quote "when I was exactly his age I was out protesting neo-Nazis too".
Anti-British rag the Guardian went with "Far-right Australian senator Fraser Anning attacks boy after being egged by him". So they lessened the assault to "being egged" - yeah you know what he would be charged with if it was followed through by the police? Assault.
Then like a lot of news outlets they love referring to the assailant as a "boy" - he was fucking 17, he's a young man. Believe it or not far-left media it's not innocent childlike behaviour to assault politicians for their views.
John Oliver (some bloke off the tele here http://archive.is/6xGKe) was ecstatic that someone with a different opinion than them was assaulted and celebrated the fact.
Now there is no denying the biases in media or the fact the power of the media resides in the hands of too few. But the growing concern is that the controlled media is radicalising people of all backgrounds, ages and races. And increasingly more and more we are seeing that was their intent all along - not reporting the facts, but 'manufacturing' the news.
We need a free media
The West needs a free media more than ever, not one that capitulates to the government, which is why it needs to be free from consequence from the state. However individuals can and should hold large media entities accountable through the courts, when they are in the wrong of course.
Lastly, we have to dismantle monopolies and the vehicles that prop up these monopolies, like search engines preferring certain opinions over others and out right banning things it doesn't like.
We should as 'free people' be able to hear both sides of the argument, no matter how unpalatable or extreme the views may seem.
We as a people need to start calling out these anti-Western establishments, rebuild our own cultures and pro-actively keep out the rogue elements.
We need to track those who benefit from the chaos and damage the West is currently undergoing and bring them to justice.
The change will only come from you and what you support.
For example the advertising watchdog in the UK deciding that showing things in a certain way is "damaging". Make them provide proof and where non-exist take them to court. It's an old saying but who watches the watchers? The answer is all of us.
Lastly, we have to dismantle monopolies and the vehicles that prop up these monopolies, like search engines preferring certain opinions over others and out right banning things it doesn't like.
We should as 'free people' be able to hear both sides of the argument, no matter how unpalatable or extreme the views may seem.
We as a people need to start calling out these anti-Western establishments, rebuild our own cultures and pro-actively keep out the rogue elements.
We need to track those who benefit from the chaos and damage the West is currently undergoing and bring them to justice.
The change will only come from you and what you support.
For example the advertising watchdog in the UK deciding that showing things in a certain way is "damaging". Make them provide proof and where non-exist take them to court. It's an old saying but who watches the watchers? The answer is all of us.
By Roley
20/03/2019
20/03/2019