Fact Check: How the Media Misled Everyone about the New Zealand Shooter – Diving for Answers in His Manifesto

By now, everyone has heard about the abhorrent terrorist attack on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, which happened on March 15 and left 50 people murdered and another 50 wounded. I followed the news as more information came out and the activist journalists didn’t take long to crawl out of the woodwork to take advantage of a tragedy in order to push their anti-Trump, anti-gun, and “conservatives are radical white supremacist extremists” regular programming. Even in the wake of a tragedy, the media never cease to opine and spin an event to suit their narrative. Even if they have to stand on the graves of dead men, women, and children. With this tragedy, they do it again.

We know the shooter left a manifesto, on the basis of which the media draw conclusions about who he is, what he believes in, and what his motivations are. My question, as I read all of these expert opinion and report pieces, is the following. Has anyone of these journalists even read the shooter’s manifesto? And before I continue, I have a side note.

I completely understand the idea of not sharing the murderer’s name and photograph, not sharing his writings, and not giving him what he wants, which is attention and notoriety. That’s what every mass shooter or serial killer wants. They love being in the headlines and on people’s minds, they elate with satisfaction whenever the entire world writes and talks about them. This is a fact. That is why a number (albeit small) of media outlets make the choice to never share the name of the suspect and not give him the fame that he wants, while still keeping their obligation to report the news. I support this. That’s why I also opt out of mentioning this individual’s name. I also understand why social media and other websites refuse to have his manifesto or the video of the attack on their platforms and proceed to delete them. I get it, don’t share it, don’t spread it, don’t make a thing out of it, don’t popularize it, don’t give him the extra attention. The US Ambassador to New Zealand, Scott Brown, urged people not to read the manifesto because the text is just the ramblings of a lunatic who is rotten to the core. That is true.

However, that same media are putting together their articles and analyses on the basis of that same manifesto, the words of a lunatic, and then present their findings to us, the audience, as fact. That is why I chose to focus precisely on the manifesto. I will not share the document either but I did read it. And I think it is imperative, before anyone starts speculating about the suspect’s motive and intent, to read the manifesto. I find it necessary to debunk the media’s selectiveness of the document and the misleading labels they attribute to the shooter, his supposed allegiance, and his motivation. The only way to do this is by going back to the original source itself. Consider this a fact check on the media that chose to pin the shooter as a right-wing conservative Trump-supporter while telling us that we should avoid looking into the text ourselves. So let’s get started.


The 74-page manifesto consists of a Q&A section, a bunch of poems sprinkled throughout the pages, some open letters to different groups of people, and a section filled with ramblings on race. Overall, I think the guy wants to be perceived as a deep lucid thinker, as an intellectual. In reality, the manifesto is precisely a manifest of his illiterate deranged low IQ lunacy. His goal is violence, publicity, and notoriety. He praises the writings of other murderous lunatics and hopes he will be a historic figure in his “eco-fascist” war alongside them. The guy is not smart, he is an evil piece of human garbage, who slaughtered 50 people because of his fixation on race. The media need to stop giving him so much credit for being an evil mastermind. The media need to stop filtering the text and painting him as a right-winger and a Trump supporter. Anyone who has actually read the text will recognize these claims as incorrect. 

One thing is unquestionable. The shooter repeats himself a lot, reiterates the same points and thoughts over and over, and no matter what he addresses, every single thing is looked through the prism of race. Every. Single. One. He is fixated on race. Obsessed with race. There is not a single speck of rational thought. It is an obsessive text through and through. In one of his ramblings, he dismisses numbers, facts and statistics, and tells us that we should rather focus on emotions. He dismisses principles, ideas, and free will, and chooses to fixate on race. In his world, if only our lives revolved exclusively around race and our racial differences, everything would be hunky dory.


The minute we heard about the attacks in Christchurch, the number one thing that politicians started crying about was gun control. What kind of guns were used? How did he get them? Were they legal? How many people have guns? See, it’s the gun’s fault. If it wasn’t for the availability of guns, this wouldn’t have happened. Politicians, among whom our favorite sassy dimwit Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), went on a Twitter rant to condemn “thought and prayers” as useless, in a usual reference that gun control is the one and only savior of all things evil.

After she got slammed for criticizing prayer, given the attacks happened in places of worship, she went on to blame the NRA. Because, if a tragedy that gives us the opportunity to bash guns comes up, the NRA, an exclusively American organization, which protects the Constitution’s 2nd amendment, is to blame, even if the tragedy occurred in New Zealand.

Then Vox had a piece, which obviously aimed at shaming and attacking the United States for not taking a stance against gun violence and gun control, compared to the measures that New Zealand is taking overnight. 

Now we have to go to the shooter’s Q&A, more specifically to the question he asked himself “Why did you carry out the attack?” He provides us with almost two pages of his wants, reasoning, and intent, where he virtually reiterates revenge, vengeance, “to create an atmosphere of fear,” “To incite violence, retaliation and further divide,” “add momentum to the pendulum” and so on. His last point, however, pertains exactly to what the media and politicians did.

“Finally, to create conflict between the two ideologies within the United States on the ownership of firearms in order to further the social, cultural, political and racial divide within the United states. This conflict over the 2nd amendment and the attempted removal of firearms rights will ultimately result in a civil war that will eventually balkanize the US along political, cultural and, most importantly, racial lines.

This balkanization of the US will not only result in the racial separation of the people within the United states ensuring the future of the White race on the North American continent, but also ensuring the death of the “melting pot” pipe dream.

Furthermore this balkanization will also reduce the USA’s ability to project power globally and thereby ensure that never again can such a situation as the US involvement in Kosovo ever occur again (…)”

This is a very important quote. These are the shooter’s words. Not mine. He spells out that one of his reasons to carry out the attack is to further stir the division between proponents and opponents of the 2nd amendment. So what happened immediately within the media outlets, like CNN, and The New York Times, and The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal, and The Guardian, and Vox, and many others, including Democrat politicians. Exactly what the shooter wanted. The gun debate commenced rightaway.

But wait, there’s more! Further down in his manifesto he specifically answers the question “Why did you choose to use firearms?” His answer.

“I could have chosen any weapons or means. A TATP filled rental van. Household flour, a method of dispersion and an ignition force. A ballpeen hammer and a wooden shield.Gas, fire, vehicular attacks, plane attacks, any means were available. I had the will and I had the resources.

I chose firearms for the effect it would have on social discourse, the extra media coverage they would provide and the affect it could have on the politics of the United states and thereby the political situation of the world. The US is torn into many factions by its second amendment, along state, social, cultural and, most importantly, racial lines.

With enough pressure the left wing within the United states will seek to abolish the second amendment, and the right wing within the US will see this as an attack on their very freedom and liberty.

This attempted abolishment of rights by the left will result in a dramatic polarization of the people in the Unites states and eventually a fracturing of the US along cultural and racial lines.”

Dear media, you are not helping anybody. You are not helping any of the victims, or their families, or the injured by politicizing a horrible tragedy for the purposes of pushing your favorite narrative and political activism, while standing on the corpses of dead people. You are either dumb and didn’t read his manifesto (second half is unlikely), or you read it and still decided to go with what is too good of an opportunity to pass for another gun control push. You are playing into the hands and frankly, helping a fanatical scumbag.

But wait, there’s more! Another question he gives a very clear answer to is “Won’t your attack result in calls for the removal of gun rights from Whites in the Unites states?”

“Yes, that is the plan all along, you said you would fight to protect your rights and the constitution, well soon will come the time.”

Now juxtapose the shooter’s words with the media’s reaction again. I hate having to quote this piece of garbage but if we don’t bring light to his own words regarding this, then we are only left with the media’s misleading statements alongside their attempts to dissuade us from reading the document.

Now the media is praising the New Zealand government for pushing for a complete ban on semi-automatic weapons, which for people who have low gun IQ means virtually every gun that exists. Semi-automatic means nothing more than you push the trigger once, one bullet comes out. That’s it. New Zealand’s Primer Minister Jacinda Ardern is introducing this ban alongside even more restrictions and by the looks of it, it may as well pass. In his manifesto, the gunman says he could have used anything under the sun and that “New Zealand was not the original choice of attack.” This attack has nothing to do with New Zealand’s gun rights or gun laws, which are not the most loose ones to begin with, but in the end, law-abiding New Zealanders will be the ones who suffer from it. Even if guns were already completely outlawed and the shooter was indeed as motivated as his manifesto clearly indicates, in his own words, I could have chosen any weapons or means. I had the will and I had the resources.” 

Back to my original point about the shooter craving fame and attention, he answers the question “Did you intend to survive the attack?

“(…..) Survival was a better alternative to death in order to further spread my ideals by media coverage and to deplete resources from the state by my own imprisonment.”

Given the amount of media coverage he and his manifesto received, his wishes came true.


The second point that the media is promulgating is that the shooter is a Trump supporter. Once again. Have you read the manifesto? What exactly led you to believe that? Donald Trump’s name appears once in the 74-page document and here’s what it says.

Were/are you a supporter of Donald Trump?

As a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose? Sure. As a policy maker and leader? Dear god no.”

As I said earlier, the man is fixated on race, to a point where nothing else is of consideration in the equation, and when it comes to him expressing his support for somebody, he will consider them through a prism based solely on race, regardless whether Donald Trump or anyone else actually reciprocates his views or ideas. 

Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) tied Donald Trump’s rhetoric to the shooter’s atrocities insinuating that the terrorist attack in New Zealand is a consequence of President Trump’s words. Other websites pushed for the Trump dog-whistling white supremacist claim and regurgitated the idea that the terrorist attack is Trumps’s fault.

As acting White House Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, said on Sunday:

“I don’t think it’s fair to cast this person as a supporter of Donald Trump any more than it is to look at his ‘eco-terrorist’ passages in that manifesto and align him with Nancy Pelosi or Ocasio-Cortez.”

And he is exactly right. Just like because his deranged ramblings sound like a Bernie Sanders rally with a white racial spin to me, that doesn’t mean that we should pin Bernie as the shooter’s thought leader.

But let’s take a look at that angle. The shooter specifically talks about saving the environment. And he talks about it a lot.

“Why focus on immigration and birth rates when climate change is such a huge issue?

Because they are the same issue, the environment is being destroyed by over population”

His caveat is “kill the overpopulation and by doing so save the environment.” Hmm, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s caveat is to destroy the entire economy and industry of the United States, stop eating burgers, ban air travel, stop driving cars, and don’t have children. Then you’ll save the environment. Should we draw a parallel between him and AOC? Or between him and PETA? He talks about the “ignorance of environmental health.” In the next paragraph, he refers to growing birthrates in general (not just race-based, which is surprising for this 74-page collection of vomit), as being “ultimately destructive to nature and culture.” Damn, eco-fascist through and through. Your turn, PETA!

In the shooter’s own words in the section titled “Green nationalism is the only true nationalism.”

“There is no Green future with never ending population growth, the ideal green world cannot exist in a World of 100 billion 50 billion or even 10 billion people. Continued immigration into Europe is environmental warfare and ultimately destructive to nature itself.”

Environmental warfare? The ideal green world? Now remember when AOC claimed that if we don’t completely overhaul the economy and our entire way of living as we know it, the world will end in 12 years? Should we say that AOC and the Left’s climate change fear-mongering campaign have impacted the shooter? We could. But sure, keep calling him a Trump supporter.

Huffington Post also didn’t waste any time to turn the tragedy on Trump and his rhetoric. Their headline read “Trump condemned the New Zealand terror attack – then used language similar to the suspected shooter’s to describe immigrants.” How does he do it? By simply fighting for his plan for a border wall, which would stop illegal immigration, drugs, and human trafficking through the Southern border. Again, HuffPost doesn’t want to link to the manifesto, and neither do I, but I will give out some quotes to back up my claim that their argument is bullshit. The shooter is against all kinds of immigration. Any type of immigration is an attack on white people, according to him. Donald Trump and his supporters simply want to combat illegal crossings. People who choose to commit a federal crime. People who smuggle drugs. People who run sex trafficking and human trafficking rings. How can you not understand the difference between the two? It’s quite simple. You don’t want to. It doesn’t suit your political narrative. Instead, you choose to stand on the graves of dead people and further your anti-Trump agenda by saying that the President’s rhetoric is nothing more than the rhetoric of a psychopathic mass murderer.

The shooter unequivocally rejects legal immigration by citing that one cannot be a member of a white nation even “if they have the paperwork.” He answers the question whether the attack was anti-immigration in origin with “Yes, beyond all doubt, anti immigration.” Nobody on the right in America, except for maybe Ann Coulter, has called for a halt or opposed legal immigration. And, as is obvious from his manifesto, the gunman’s number one fixation is race with a twist on fertility rates. Nothing more. Not the individual. Not character. Not ideas. Not freewill. Not the law. Certainly not free market economics or conservatism, which I will get to a little later, since the media painted him as a right-winger. 

How were you able to muster up that the killer has pledged allegiance to Donald Trump based on those two sentences is beyond my comprehension? Because he considers the US President a symbol of something the shooter reveres? While at the same time clearly spelling it out and stating he does not support his leadership and policy. Now let’s see what this guy actually supports because, as every attention-seeking fanatic does, he spends plenty of time talking about himself. 


Who is he? He is an evil lunatic. He is deranged. He is delusional. He is a dummy fanatic. He is a racist garbage human. I know it sounds irresponsible to call someone who slaughtered 50 people a dummy, but his writings don’t prove otherwise. He is not a deep thinker as he would love to be perceived. An obsession and fixation on race is not an act of deep thinking. Believing that race is the be all end all to all worldly issues and debates is not an act of deep thinking. 

Here are his self-proclamations, taken from his Q&A.

“Were/are you a racist?

Yes. I am a racist.”

“Were/are you a nationalist?

Yes, predominantly an ethno-nationalist (I place importance on the health and well being of my race above all else).”

“Were/are you a fascist?

Yes. For once, the person that will be called a fascist, is an actual fascist. I mostly agree with Sir Oswald Mosley’s views and consider myself an Eco-fascist by nature. The nation with the closest political and social values to my own is the People’s Republic of China.”

“Did you always hold these views?

No, when I was young I was a communist, then an anarchist and finally a libertarian before coming to be an eco-fascist.”

“What are your views?

I am an Ethno-nationalist Eco-fascist.”

He says “Roma, African, Indian, Turkish, Semitic or other. If they are not of our people, but live in our lands, they must be removed.” He completely rejects personal character, personal responsibility, freewill, the value of ideas. Once again. A complete fixation on immutable characteristics. Which brings me to my next point. The media labeling the guy a “right-winger.” He very explicitly says he is not a conservative, he is not a Christian, he is an Eco-fascist.


The third and very important point I want to address is the media labeling the shooter as a right-wing conservative extremist. I’m here to tell you that the right-wing conservative part could not be further from the truth. And I get it. The media wants to label every racist in the world as a right-winger. In their world, you can’t be a socialist, environmentalist and be racist, right? That is why they have been especially selective and misleading, as we’ve seen so far, so let’s take the shooter at his word, bring out the receipts, and see how he feels about the right-wing and conservatism.

“Were/are you a conservative?

No, conservatism is corporatism in disguise, I want no part of it.”

“Worker ownership of the means of production? It depends on who those workers are, their intents, who currently owns the means of production, their intents and who currently owns the state, and its intents.”

So in his book, this Marxist idea depends on the race of the workers, as well as that of the owners. In a conservative’s book, this is pure Marxism and it never depends on any immutable characteristic. Not right-wing and definitely not conservative.

“Why do you blame immigrants and not the capitalists?

I blame both, and plan to deal with both.”

So he plans to “deal with” capitalists? How? By killing capitalists also? I remember another so-called deep thinker by the name of Joseph Stalin who was a proponent of the same. Not right-wing and definitely not conservative.

Going back to his statement I mostly agree with Sir Oswald Mosley’s views and consider myself an Eco-fascist by nature.” For those of you who don’t know, Sir Oswald Mosley was a purely left-wing proponent of European socialism. Also, I can’t remember the last time a conservative claimed to be aligned with the People’s Republic of China? Oh, that’s right. Never. Not right-wing and definitely not conservative.

“Force is the only path to power and the only path to true victory.”

“Physical force is the ultimate form of support.”

“Voting is mob rule and mob rule is media rule and media rule is corporate rule.”

“The movement may begin in (…) even Venezuela” he writes, among other countries, referring to where and how his movement may gain momentum. Weird. Who in their right-wing conservative mind would say this? Here’s who. Nobody. Who in their deranged eco-fascist racist mind would say that? This guy, the shooter. A proponent of socialist ideas with a racial twist. Not right-wing and definitely not conservative.

Let’s look at another quote, which appears in one of his ramblings titled “Emotions rule over facts.” Very conservative, right? We conservatives always rely on emotion, not facts and rationale. Even though we simultaneously get slammed at every corner for our “Facts don’t care about your feelings.” stance.

“Stop trying to persuade the general population with statistics, charts, tablets and figures.

Humans are emotional, they are driven by emotions, guided by emotions and seek emotion expressions and experiences.”

Such a deep thinker. Such a right-wing Trump supporter. Yes, that is sarcasm, because it is bullshit. The shooter is a piece of wreck.

Now let’s see what kind of a conservative this guy is on the economy. He calls for the murder of CEOs, calls “the economic elites who line their pockets with profit” as “these greed filled bastards”. Greed filled bastards? Are we at a Bernie rally?

Or let me ask you something else. When was the last time you heard a conservative, a person who believes in free-market capitalism say “If an ethnocentric European future is to be achieved global free markets and the trade of goods is to be discouraged at all costs.”

The man who talks about destroying free-market capitalism is the same guy the media labels as a right-wing conservative. A man who believes in “Barring the importation of all goods produced outside a New European zone.” That guy is right-wing? The guy who says we should close off the borders for trade. He proposes a new union without free markets and the destruction of capitalism. If you are still not convinced, here’s another quote “Block foreign goods from white markets.” By the sound of it, this guy would be a much better fit over with the folks who cry about cultural appropriation. Nor right wing and definitely not conservative.

Going back to his environmental fascism, he shares that “Goods produced without care for the natural world, dignity of workers, lasting culture or or white civilizations future should never be allowed into the new morally focused and ethically focused European market.”

Take out the “white civilizations future” part and you got a perfect speech for AOC’s next public appearance.“It’s the cities where marxists have poisoned the institutions” says the man who speaks like an ethno-marxist, yet the media vehemently label a right-wing conservative. 

But wait! The brilliance of this conservative has no bounds! He says he wants to “break the back of cheap labour” because “cheap labour is slave labour” by “encouraging and pushing increases to the minimum wage; furthering the unionization of workers; increasing the rights of workers; pushing for the increase in automation.”

“In the end human greed and the need for increasing profit margins of capital owners needs to be fought against and broken.”

Now where have I heard these? Isn’t there another manifesto we could refer to where we could find these brilliant economic suggestions? How about everyone pick up Karl Marx’s The Communist Manifesto and tell us how far-right conservative freakin’ Karl Marx is.

My final rebuttal of the fake news is the section where he talks about taxation. The shooter writes “Taxation is theft in a traitorous system.” and proceeds to basically explain that taxation is theft when race is involved. His point is taxation is great as long as we are all the same color. Otherwise, taxation “should be considered theft, and refusal to pay taxes a sign of racial loyalty.” How much more race-obsessed could he get? Free-market conservatives believe taxation is theft regardless. Period. No variables. No immutable characteristics involved.

Am I claiming he is a left-winger? A liberal? A progressive? A race-obsessed Democrat (which is nothing new)? A Bernie-like nefarious actor? An AOC-type environmental fear-monger? No. Although there’s much more evidence to backup this claim than anything else spewed by the media. I am claiming that he wrote a whole bunch of evil, racist, dumb ramblings. None of it makes sense if you are a rational, honest person with a little bit of knowledge on political and economic thought. Yet, the media are putting him in a very specific category, as if a lunatic, driven by race and violence, is someone we should listen to about political ideology and make our judgment on conservatism after he has slaughtered 50 people in cold blood. A person who never ceases to push the idea that death is the only solution to a problem.

The media keep filtrating his manifesto to make up their claim that this POS is a right-wing conservative Trump supporter, radicalized by Candace Owens, which I will get to next.


“Is there a particular person that radicalized you the most?

Yes, the person that has influenced me above all was Candace Owens. (…) though I will have to disavow some of her beliefs, the extreme actions she calls for are too much, even for my tastes.”

Why does he mention Candace Owens? Candace Owens is a black conservative, currently working for Turning Point USA, a student movement for free markets and limited government. She is the de facto leader of the BLEXIT movement. What kind of “extreme actions” is he referring to? I follow Candace Owens, and the most extreme thing she’s probably ever said is to stop voting Democrat and start thinking for yourself. That’s her basic shtick and there is nothing extremist about it.

To me, his name-dropping of Candace Owens and her “extreme actions” actually reads more like him targeting her in an attempt to get the media and the progressive mob after her by intentionally putting her in the spotlight. Yet, the media manages to spin this name-dropping as some sort of proof that Candace Owens and her peers, aka other conservative pundits, are extremists themselves and are somehow radicalizing people into committing asinine crimes.


As we saw from his writings about the gun debate, he expresses his huge desire for a civil war in America, first, along racial lines, and second, in order to overthrow America’s position as a leader.

“Civil war in the so-called “Melting pot” that is the United States should be a major aim in overthrowing the global power structure.”

As we also see from his ramblings about taxation, the economy, eco-fascism, and racial group fixation, he hates individualism, an idea upon which America was founded, with the same passion

“In the United States, perhaps more than anywhere else in the world, the cult of the individual has been practiced for the longest time and with the deepest devotion.

Luckily for us the end results of this deracialized, irreligious and deculturized program show themselves.”

He then proceeds to suggest that all of America’s problems are race-based and a result of the “immoral” cult of the individual. He starts pseudo-intellectualizing about possible election outcomes and his thoughts on the future of Texas, which don’t make any sense primarily due to him being a dumbass.

He may have thrown some cash traveling around the world, but I think it is obvious he doesn’t know anything about America. He doesn’t know what constitutes America and the American idea, and it is none of the things that he claims that make the country special. America is a melting pot because people are supposed to come and pledge allegiance to the Constitution and the principles of the founding document, because of individual rights and responsibilities, because of individual freedom and a free market, not because people lose their heritage or succumb to the passions of immutable characteristics. This is part of the American idea and the United States led an entire Revolutionary war to fight for it.


I want to make a couple final points. America is a great country. There are many reasons why America is the greatest country in the world but in this case, there is a section in the manifesto, in which the New Zealand shooter mentions his idols, other mass shooters. And the only one who received what he deserved, namely a death sentence, is the one who carried out a shooting in the United States.

The 5 pieces of shit this gunman aligns himself with are an Italian who was given a 12-year sentence, a Norwegian who was sentenced to 21 years after murdering 77 people and injuring more than 300, a Swede who died during the mass shooting he carried but who wouldn’t have been sent on death row anyway, since Sweden has abolished the death penalty, a Brit who was given life sentence to live off of the taxpayer’s back, and the American who is currently on death row.

This individual, the New Zealand shooter, is no different. He should rot in Hell. Unfortunately, he won’t be anytime soon because he is not going to receive the death penalty in New Zealand. The country abolished capital punishment in 1961. New Zealand’s so-called “unprecedented” sentence in this case is that the shooter won’t have the possibility for parole. Slaughtering 50 people calls for drastic measures like letting the murderer live off of the public dime until the rest of his life. Turns out he will get what he wants yet again, which in his own words is “to deplete resources from the state by my own imprisonment.” Very sad. It is sad that we live in a time when individuals like this one actually get what they want because they are given what they want, while leaving behind the corpses of dead innocent people.

Subscribe to My Newsletter!

Be the first to get notified when I post more content