On Saturday, a would-be gun man was thwarted from attacking a mosque near Oslo, Norway. According to progressive media blog The Guardian, the thwarted shooter “was inspired by recent white extremist attacks in New Zealand and the US.” The failed attacker “claimed he was ‘chosen’ by ‘Saint REDACTED’, the gunman who killed 51 people at mosques in New Zealand in March.”
“My time is up, I was chosen by Saint REDACTED after all … We can’t let this continue, you gotta bump the race war threat in real life … it’s been fun,” one post reads.
REDACTED is described as having “addressed the Muslim problem” while REDACTED, who has been charged with the attack in El Paso, Texas, in which 22 people died, is praised for “fighting to reclaim his country”.
The body of the gunman’s stepsister was later found at his house. The Guardian worries there will be a “cascade” of right wing terror attacks.
“We are now no longer talking about one-off events, but a loosely coordinated chain of far-right attacks across the world, where members of these networks inspire – and challenge – each other to beat each others’ body counts,” said Peter Neumann, professor of security studies at King’s College London.
“The ultimate motivation … is to launch a race war. The aim is to carry out attacks, claim responsibility, explain your action, and inspire others to follow.”
But how are these attacks propped up and given a cult-like mythological status? How do they become an ideal for mentally unstable, racially obsessed freaks looking to “do” something to advance their cause? The media. The media devotes 24-7 coverage, politicizing murderous events even before details are released. They set up the slaughter of innocent people with sensational coverage and wonder why other lunatics aspire to be the subject of their discussions, opinion editorials, think pieces and townhalls dedicated to their carnage. Sure some media may refuse to use the name of the madmen, but they promote the handiwork of bloody psychopaths and that’s quite enough. What’s the difference between using a gunman’s name and glorifying his bloody handiwork?
Why do they do it? For political advantage, to whip up the public into an emotional frenzy hoping it will lead to the desired legislative outcome. And politicians desperate for fame along with their gun-ignorant Hollywood handmaidens join into the passion play.