The religious violence they don’t report: Srjda Trifkovic
https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/the-religious-violence-they-dont-report/
In his latest interview for Serbia’s top-rated Pink TV morning program (Tuesday, March 19) Srdja Trifkovic analyzes Western media coverage of last Friday’s mass shooting in Christchurch. [You can watch the video here.]
ST: What is truly striking about Western reactions to the shootings in New Zealand is, first of all, the level of self-hatred, of civilizational and racial self-loathing. So much self-recrimination over an isolated act by a single deranged person defies belief. On the other hand, whenever some Islamists carry out an attack on non-Muslims—which happens on average once a week, most recently in the Dutch city of Utrecht yesterday [March 18, killing three persons on a tram]—three features are invariably present in Western media reports.
- First, the attacker is probably insane. This was initially claimed about the Tunisian who killed 86 French people with a truck in Nice on Bastille Day 2016; they claimed exactly the same about Major Nidal Hasan who murdered 13 soldiers [at Ft. Hood] in the United States; and so on.
- Second, if the attacker screams “Allahu akbar!” the commentariat nevertheless will wonder what could have possibly motivated him to carry out the attack. We need to look for the “true causes”: Islamic fundamentalism per se cannot be the reason since Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, so there must be some dissonance here. Aha, it’s probably all our fault, because we have not provided sufficient employment opportunities, sufficient level of integration, so the poor attacker was feeling marginalized and discriminated against.
- The third reflexive media response: we must avoid the danger of “backlash” which may induce “Islamophobia.” On the other hand, in recent days I have not heard anyone issuing a warning against marginalizing white heterosexual males, against stigmatizing them with negative stereotypes.
Another cardinal factor in all Western reporting is that when Muslims murder Christians, it is not news. In the few days before Christchurch, 120 Christians were killed by Boko Haram in three villages in a province in northern Nigeria. Has anyone reported it? No, they acted just as if it had not happened.
And yet, when we consider the number of Christians in majority-Muslim states, especially in the Middle East—including Iraq, where they have practically disappeared following the U.S. intervention—it is clear, and I wrote about that in Chronicles, that a Christian in a Muslim country is at least 143 times more likely to be killed than a Muslim in a Christian country. Overall, in this case we are looking at a grotesque example of the civilizational decrepitude and collective psychopathology of the Western ruling elite class and the media machine which it controls . . .
With the second and third generation within the Islamic diaspora we encounter far more negative attitudes to the host society than with the first. Those who arrive in the first generation actually want to change their environment, and they have a modicum of respect for the institutions of the host-country. Those who are born in those countries have absolutely nothing to identify with, certainly not with the tepid, tasteless pap of multi-culti Western liberal toleration which is served to them in public schools and the media.
Pink: So they go on with their parallel lives?
ST: In France they are not served Racine or Victor Hugo as the foundation of the French identity in which to partake, but tolerance and multiculturalism. Then they go in quest of an identity, and that quest for roots ultimately leads them to “Allahu akbar!” We have the same situation with the third generation of Algerians in France, Turks in Germany, Pakistanis in Britain, Moroccans in Holland, and everyone from those lands in Scandinavia. So this is not a phenomenon related to the cultural peculiarities of a certain country of region, but to Islam as a whole.
Pink: Is the West being Islamized?
ST: Public discourse on Islam is already circumscribed by what Islamist activists in the West define as permissible discourse. To be specific: it does not matter if a specific Kuranic verse mandates that the infidel be converted, or killed, or forced to pay poll tax with the trembling hand of abject submission. If you say that in a manner which may be seen as “intolerant,” then it does not matter that you are telling the truth, you will be accused of “hate speech.”
Comments are closed.
