On August 18th of 2019, literally 2 days ago as of the writing of this pieace, the Washington Post publish a story in their Science section titled: Two mass killings a world apart share a common theme: ‘ecofascism’
The article laid out a pretty straight forward fact: the Christchurch shooter and the El Paso shooter shared more ideologically with the left than had been previously stated. The thing they shared with the left is a militant environmentalist ethos. Both men spelled out their environmentalism in their respective manifesto and in some part attributed their environmentalism to the acts they would commit.
These seemingly brushed over facts are something many on the right have tried to point out both in original articles and op-eds, as well as in comment sections to popular websites, such as Mediaite where one of their writers, Tommy Christopher, published a piece on August 17th where Tommy derides republicans for pointing this out.
In the comments section I wrote:
So we have left wingers claiming to have read his manifesto are quoting selectively edited quotes by way of the left wing media. Imagine my shock when they act confounded by the truth of the matter.Disqus: Leaked Memo Shows House Republicans Literally Claiming Trump-Echoing El Paso Shooter Was ‘From the Left’
In response to my comment a poster with the moniker In_Like_Flynn asked, ” What’s your truth of the matter?”
Normally I wouldn’t have responded to such a retort. It seemed like troll bait. Regardless, I decided to holster my normal snark and answer the man seriously for no other reason than the use of the phrase “your truth.”
Here’s the entirety of my reply to this person.
There is no “my truth.”
There are opinions and then there are the facts.
The fact of the matter is, like the New Zealand shooter’s manifesto, the El Paso shooter’s manifesto was all over the place politically. With both, you could quite literally quote one part of their manifestos and make them out to be an advocate of China or militant environmentalist, or another part to make them seem like xenophobic racists and white identarians.
In my opinion, you only hear about one side of the manifesto, because it’s all part of the intersectional theatrics pushed by left wing democrats these days. The left wing media and democrat politicians only care about the aspect of the story that’s important to them. The part that furthers the narrative white people are in general imbued with privilege and are crypto-racist, if not outright racist.
It’s my opinion, these intersectionalist democrats have a real interest and are actively seeking this narrative any time there’s a shooting that fits a certain paradigm, such as a rando nutcase shooter who wrote a manifesto with no real coherent ideology, which the left wing can mold to fit the narrative. These people have zero interest in the far greater numbers of shootings related to black on black gang violence, insofar as it can’t be pinned on white people… Because the left often asserts, without evidence I might add, that communities outside of the control of the left are the source of weapons used in gang violence.
But in the end, what we’re getting from the news media is a selective reading of these manifestos, and that is a fact!Disqus: Leaked Memo Shows House Republicans Literally Claiming Trump-Echoing El Paso Shooter Was ‘From the Left’
Now, the commenter in question never replied. I assume I projected the attitude I was immaliable to their arguments and wouldn’t change my mind. It’s a pretty common phenomena in online forums where people spend more time talking past each other than engaging in productive conversation.
Now imagine my surprise when the very next day the Washington Post published a piece the very next day that explores the commonalities of these two shooters I pointed out just the day before.
Don’t get me wrong here. I’m not so narcissistic as to believe I was the genesis of this Washington Post article, because there were many others making this exact same point. What I am saying, though, is this: the timing is awfully convenient.
That leads me to my main point. Having debated politics online for decades, I see a trend, which is that it seems many of the talking points we see embedded in articles from publications such as the Washington Post, had their origins in the anonymous comments sections of sites like Mediaite.
Many news stories seemingly had a life in these online forums long before it was a news story. The best example is the Russian Collusion narrative. Those on the left had pushed this narrative against Trump long before he won the election, and even before Trump won the primary.
Now I don’t present this as fact. It is my opinion, but an informed one to be certain.