Media trying to force us to care about New Zealand mosque shooting

Published by carolyn on Sun, 2019-03-17 13:01

The mosque in Christchurch, NZ sits on spacious grounds. Who paid for it?

By Carolyn Yeager

I don't care and I don't think very many Americans do care about what happened in Christchurch, New Zealand, but the disloyal Media are trying to force us to care, or at least to pay attention. But why should we?

We shouldn't, because it's unnatural for someone like me to care about what happens to fifty Arab-Asian Muslims who pushed their way into a white, English-speaking country against the desires of many of its citizens. It's not like these Muslims were existing peacefully in their own homeland and some crazed white dude invaded their village and shot them dead.

A couple of days before this event, a new supersonic jetliner crashed after takeoff in Ethiopia, and all 157 human beings aboard were killed. Why is there a perpetrator to hate in one instance, and not in the other? And if someone is found to be responsible (most unlikely), will they be charged with murder?

I actually do feel bad about the people on the jetliner because they had every reason to expect a safe flight to their destination. They are true victims. They did nothing wrong.

Not so with the Muslim mosque-goers who brought their unassimilable culture and religion to a long-established Christian country, not at the invitation of its citizenry but through the manipulations of globalist-minded race-mixing specialists. These Muslims knew there was resentment at their presence, but they wanted to be "pioneers" and get a foothold into another wealthy western society.

Americans can understand that when European settlers came to the "New World" very many were slaughtered in vicious, inhumane ways by the Indian inhabitants and no one blames those inhabitants for resisting the settlers' coming using whatever means they had. Today, the savage Indians are celebrated as "victims" while the murdered white settlers are seen as the perpetrators. It's very strange how such an interpretation has come about.

That interpretation is driven by the Media - truly the enemy of the people as US President Donald Trump bravely calls them. In my current series about World War One (The Fatherland series), we see clearly how the major newspapers of the time were united in one voice favoring the English narrative of lies about the Germans. It behooves us to ignore the cries of the Media and and look to our own natural feelings that tell us what is important and what is not for us. The Media do not deliver unbiased news to keep us informed, but propaganda designed to warp our thinking away from our own common-sense best interests into a false (and weakness-inducing) sympathy for what is opposed to us.


News, Race


"...manipulations of globalist-minded race-mixing specialists."
Would not this be viewed as an antisemitic canard such as by the Southern Poverty Law Center, Anti-Defamation League, ad nauseam? I, however, applaud the use and invocation of the term "globalist-minded race-mixing specialists" since their names hurt my ears!
Why did not the Kiwi government bend over backwards and rename Christ Church, New Zealand to Mohammed's Mosque, New Zealand?

Once again you're insisting on interpreting my words as only referring to Jews. Not so. Many Whites and Christians involved in it too.

But you're not alone in that. Have you noticed re my Fatherland posts that when the culprit being pointed to is White Englishmen conspiring against their fellow Europeans, there are no comments and fewer reads? Most who would come to this website are used to just naming "the Joos" for everything that goes wrong for us, and cannot deal with blaming the cherished English/British for anything. No, it had to have been the 'Joos' who made them do everything anti-European they did.

And they want to call Hitler anti-white!

But you're not alone in that. Have you noticed re my Fatherland posts that when the culprit being pointed to is White Englishmen conspiring against their fellow Europeans, there are no comments and fewer reads? 

 There are multiple reasons for that. The first is that most of these Fatherland posts seem to be from 1915, more than a hundred years ago, and it's difficult for the modern reader to connect up the content of the Fatherland to the modern age. For one thing, the 20th century itself didn't really begin until 1918, after the Bolshevik Revolution and the defeat of the Central Powers in WWI  - two events that shook the world. The Kaiser's Germany and the Tsar's Russia in WWI were remnants of the 19th century, not harbingers of the 20th. It's very difficult for us today to put ourselves in the shoes of the men who lived and breathed the air of 19th century Europe.
As for the British, well, they've changed as well in many respects. You do a great job of pointing out - in your post on Farage, and also your last talk with Longshanks - on how the Anglo perfidy of the past relates to that of the present. But in all the anti-British polemics by German nationalists in WWI and WWII, and by sympathisers with Germany after the war (e.g., those by Francis Parker Yockey) we find condemnation of the British and a sneaking admiration of their virtues; read Ewald Banse on the English character for this. But Banse wrote that in 1934, and that type of Englishman is long gone. The British Left has done everything in its power over the past seventy years to destroy him, and they've succeeded. This is summed up in this hilarious tweet, I really couldn't have put it any better myself.
You're dead right on how we today refuse to accept any criticism of Britain in WWI and WWII and deflect it on to the Jews. Archibald Maule Ramsay in his classic The Nameless War  (1952) seems to blame Britain's conduct in WWII entirely on the Jews, and one must think, 'The Anglos have to take responsibility at some point, surely?'.
But to play devil's advocate here: after we've learned the truth about perfidious Albion, what do you want us in the movement to do? Britain is a broken country...

Thank you, David, for this. I have been wanting someone to respond so there can be a discussion. So first things first.

1)  Yes, WWI was 100 years ago now, from mid-1914 to late 1918. I don't think it's a "modern" reader who would have trouble connecting with it, but an ill-educated or ill-informed, or even lazy one. All of  "our" people are interested in WWII and believe they know something about it. That was 75 years ago. WWI was only 20 years prior to that. So it can't be the time element.

I can't agree that the 20th Century "began" after the defeat of the Central Powers rather than in 1901. If that defeat plus the Bols. Rev. "shook the world", then isn't it necessary, in order to be informed, to learn how and why it happened. It is not for the reasons most people think, because, as usual, the victors write the history. When we take it from the pages of the newspapers of the time, it has a sharp reality different than what a historian writes, especially from the pov of the German element in the United States.

It's very important to understand that the World Wars 1 and 2 were One War -- therefore imperative to learn about #I, why it happened, the true facts behind the fake headlines, how badly the Germans were screwed by most of the rest of Europe. The screwing of Germany in "WW2" was just more of what was done in "WW1", using almost the identical ways and means. I don't even think that #2 was worse than #1 because the latter was so blatant and in-your-face. When you grasp this you can't say that 1914-18 was a different age that a 'modern' can't relate to. It's easily relatable. For example Kaiser Wilhelm was loved by the German people who supported him 100% even though he was incredibly defamed abroad. I don't need to point out how it was the same with Fuehrer Hitler.

I'm  going chronologically and now am up to Nov-Dec 1915. The plot is thickening and my next post, which I will put up later today, is the very best yet, imo. I'll continue in a separate comment.

2)  "...we find condemnation of the British and a sneaking admiration of their virtues; read Ewald Banse ..."

I did, and found he confirms what everyone else knows and says. The essence is this (written in 1934):

[For the English] war is no longer a crossing of swords with the enemy, as it used to be, but the military, economic, psychological and moral destruction and extermination of the enemy nation. It was England who instituted the war of starvation, the war of economic annihilation and the war of lies alongside of the war of armies—and scored a thumping success with them. One does not know whether to be horrified at the vileness, or to admire the clear-headed logic and unshakable iron determination, which this reveals; the latter attitude will probably carry a nation with its eye on its future further.

There are those who do admire this (winning is what counts); they must also admire the Jews and the Mossad. But is it pro-Europe? Absolutely not. And in my opinion, England has never been pro-Europe, and still is not - proven by Brexit. Instead of trying to reform the EU, it prefers to leave it and try to form an Anglo-American trade organization with it's former colonies ... as they see the US still.

For Britain, whiteness is not important but English dominance is. And  the bulk of the Alt-Right, jew-friendly spokesmen like Jared Taylor, Peter Brimelow, Kevin MacDonald, Richard Spencer, etc. are all in that mold.

What do I want those in the movement to do? Thanks for asking. I only want our movement to commit to honest historical revisionism which gives a true picture of the actions of the Allies in both wars. I know the Jews don't want this either, which only shows that the Allied countries were in league with organized world Jewry. But the heads of government of the United Kingdom and the United States do not need to be at the mercy of Jewry, or Israel. That is nonsense! They are because they subscribe to the same historical narrative. That can change. Here are some important articles and reports I've published at this website that are good revisionist history:  here, here and here just for a start. There is much more.

When you, David, say 'Britain is a broken country', well they broke themselves. Germany, which can and should  be the leader of Europe, is not only broken but self-hating, and this was caused on purpose by Britain, and its constant ally, America, and its colonies, all conspiring together. This is why I can't say: There is nothing to be done now. Let it go. Something must be done - justice is required and blame (or responsibility) must be accepted. The future can't be built on lies.

Ewald Banse's book is fascinating.  Particularly the psychological attribute sections.  I'm surprised to find many of the descriptions of the various peoples seem accurate so many years on.  Page 290 might be interesting to you, given our recent discussions. Even the sections describing the errors made in WW1 (page 70) and German interactions with natives (page 78) in other parts of the world are enlightening.  What do you make of this book?  Can the English translation be 100% trusted?

I looked further at the book, incl. the pages you noted; the publisher's preface says they translated and published the translation without permission, and that the German Government (Hitler govt.) is against the book, even though the author appears to support the NS regime.

That the English title is A Nazi Theory of "National Defense" tells me that it is not to be trusted. Banse would never have used the word 'Nazi'. In fact, his title translates literally as Space and People in the World Creed. "Nazi" is also used throughout the book, which Banse would not have done.

It's alright to take it as Banse's personal views, which could be very accurate, but not approved NS literature ... as I see it. Although, from the little I saw, Banse's views on the mistakes of WWI coincide pretty well with what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf in 1923.

What sortv of think are you, people died you pathetic piece of crap.

People die all the time, don't they, and I don't have to join in on mourning them. If these people died while praying, they're sure to be in Islamic Paradise now and very happy.

Did you say this when the White girls were beheaded in MOrocco by islamics? 
Or the 5o0 Yazidi women, whose  heads were later found?
Or is your sympathy only for islamics?

Wow, these poor people were praying and if any were immigrants they came to New Zealand because of the US-led Israel benefits wars in the M/E named The War on Terror by Ehud Barak moments after the Mossad CIA Neocon attack on the twin towers in 2001. Your lack of humanity surprises me. 

Maybe they should have gone to Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, extremely wealthy Islamic countries?  There must be some reason they didn't seek refuge in a fellow Muslim country, which would be much closer and more compatible.  

I'm glad to hear my own thoughts on the subject validated.  Sick of the hypocrites talking about how evil this act was.  How the hell are we supposed to save the West, we are certainly not going to talk them out of our countries and there will be much more innocent blood shed in the future if we don't get rid of them now.

The Zionist Media Network has been skillfully directing our attention while telling us exactly how we should perceive events . The British perfected the method ages ago. A good example being the utility of decades of unreast in N Ireland. More recently the Palestinian and Mideast Quagmire has proven very useful for world zionist media wizards.  Sadly generations of well meaning youth, in mostly white countries, have continiously given their sympathy and attention to percived events in far away lands while  ironicly remaining oblivious to the reality, that they are loosing their own ancestral homelands.  
And since it works everytime, now  Bibi Netanyahu, in attempting to avoid jailtime in the lead up to his election has already pointed our attention away he predictably bombs Gaza.

Great article ...thank you. 

I agree with Carolyn, I could care less. And really, the only people I'm concerned about are the shooters, I hope they're OK. That statement comes with one exception, the one who reportedly slipped back to Tel Aviv - screw him.

This is looking to be fake. No blood ! One dead body using his cell phone to text. NZ Govt trying to stop the footage becoming public. 10 year sentence for anyone possessing footage. Another Sandy Hook. Podesta and H. Clinton recent visitors to NZ. Around the 6 mins.
Too many questions. 

Just because that guy is texting doesn't mean its all a hoax. He could have been shot in the leg and unable to move, and was trying to reach his family, etc. I think you are too quick to call it fake. (I didn't watch the whole thing.)

No blood in the footage I saw ! There should have been absolute carnage and blood everywhere as well as bullet holes in clothing. Nothing ! There was a picture of a guy outside with "blood" on him, but someone commented on the colour of that "blood" ! If the guy texting had really been shot in the leg he would have been traumatized and not in any condition to text ! If you get shot in the leg you are in a severe state of shock as anyone experienced in triage will tell you.
Of course I was not there to take photos, but the whole thing smells like the fake footage of chemical attacks on children by Assad in Syria.
Why was the New Zealand Police threatening up to 10 years for sharing video footage on the internet? ....There is only one motive for that !
My opinion. 99% chance it was fake with the usage of crisis actors.

There's much more than just that. Apparently a magazine was already placed in the mosque before the gunner reached for it. When he stepped outside, he shoots someone on the sidewalk then looks the other way. When he looks back, the body is completely off the sidewalk. It seemed odd to fire a few rounds down the streets, which were mostly empty. There were a few cars driving by but they didn't seem to react to the sight of a gunner.If you check the guy's manifesto (can be found on pastebin last I checked), he never mentions the Jews and he even praises Israel as a state to be emulated iirc. When a black Trump supporter (Candace Owens) comes out and starts talking about Hitler (of course, later retracting her statement), some random bloke comes out of nowhere and invokes Trump and Owens as his inspiration. Kind of convenient.

The magazine is a non-issue.  You can see in the video where he drops and loses it.  Having a "pre-positioned" magazine in a faked production would be completely nonsensical or a heinous error which could be too easily pointed out.  He dropped it.

If you watch the aftermath footage (btw it's curious how the footage pertaining to this event is being taken down while other grisly and more graphical deaths are readily available online), you can literally see a guy in a bluish-green jacket "resurrect" from the dead.

No footage has been produced by you guys so how is one to "see" what you're talking about? The link that JoshuaF gave was totally unconvincing.

It makes no sense that they would "produce" such an event and then try to ban and scrub it as hard as they can.  More likely it was a real event and they are worried that too many whites will sympathize with extreme measures of getting these invaders out of our countries.

I am essentially banned from RT for espousing this POV.  I maintain that it is impossible to draw conclusions that the event was "faked" from the video as it is such poor quality.  It is simply impossible to see the details that they are expecting to see, as if it were a Hi-Def video feed.  But that's computer illiteracy for you.

I was kicked out for refusing to go along with the crackpot and absurd "pre-positioned mag" narrative they were pushing, and for agreeing with you.  Kyle Hunt showed himself to be a childish coward and simply accuses those who disagree with him of being jew shills.  He also did this to Mike Walsh, a decent man as far as I can tell.

I think it's really clear that he simply dropped the mag whilst walking down the hall way.  That's why he looked down - he was dropping them.  He even went back to pick one up after unloading in the prayer room.  It's absurd to believe it was planted - if it was a staged CGI production, why plant anything?  Or, why look down at the planted clip at all if that would draw attention to it?  I know you agree with me, I'm just repeating it here to save someone having to lookup the arguments all over again.
I'm really disappointed at the treatment I received.  It's highly ironic to be accused of being a "Jew" by this guy.  He knows from previous comments of mine just what price my family paid in WW2.  I'm not impressed.
There might be a conspiracy here, but I don't think it's in the video.  They descended into pot-head theories instead of focusing on why the shooter would go after a absolutely TINY minority population in a country that isn't even his home, right after making visits to Pakistan and Israel.  Why does he give the chosenites the "free pass" in his so-called manifesto?  And so on.
But the worst thing yet, is that he knows I'm right - he ended up having to delete another commenters post (and my subsequent rebuttal) because the poster was claiming that the "PsyOps team"was putting blue-socks on a victim in the hall way, where earlier in the video he was barefoot.  Like it was some sort of continuity error.  When I pointed out the fact that the victim was barefoot again later in the video and that what he was observing a mere video compression artefact, Kyle realised he was wrong and started deleting.  What sort of character does that show?
He's gone public on a position that is simply unsupportable by facts, and he won't backtrack - so he does what every coward does when exposed by the truth and that is - censorship.  His treatment of Mike Walsh is another case in point.  There's simply no room for disagreement with him and cannot engage in civil debate.  Even if I was not banned, I'm through with these people.

Israel is a state to be emulated...because it puts its own people first without apology.  I wish white countries would put their own people first!

So you don't mind remembering everything non-Israeli Jews did to the white race and commemorating bloodbaths (i.e. Purim)? There will never be any peace at this rate. And don't start accusing me of pacifism. Were it up to me, I'd paint pacifists as the villains and give Stalin and Churchill a free pass. FDR and his descendents deserve no place in this world.
One-sided racialism neutralizes the Aryan ideal of socialism. It's true that Hitler put his people first, but the Germans have long been made to suffer disorientation in history, philosophy, and politics. They needed an uniform worldview, solidarity, and stability. Also, as Hermann Giesler (see Yeager's book) and even Hess revealed (according to Eugene K. Bird), Hitler delayed or halted the advance on Britain for humanitarian reasons, he was still holding out on the prospect of securing peace with the British.

There you go putting words in my mouth that I never said.  Of course we should remember everything the jews have done to whites and Germans...I think about it most every day.  Reality...Israel is now a state regardless of how it came about.  And the truth is, the most humane solution is that every last jew on the planet should be encouraged to emigrate there so they can unleash their depravities and predations on each other, only.

There you go speaking on the behalf of Germans, but really only caring for what happens to America.
>And the truth is, the most humane solution is that every last jew on the planet should be encouraged to emigrate there so they can unleash their depravities and predations on each other, only.
There's a typical American sentiment, advocating half-measures just like with your ancestors (i.e. plenty of US ambassadors and presidents who thought they could manage and redistribute the Jewish populations without inhibiting their breeding). First of all, it's more humane to ruthlessly destroy them than passively letting them destroy each other. There's an excellent contrast to be found in Nero vs Tiberius.
Second, all it really takes to realize their destruction is to build a temple for them. Since Jews haven't changed for 2000 years, every single means utilized in antiquity is still viable.
I don't suppose you've read Dietrich Eckart's publications? You know, the one where he talked about how the Jews were a necessary component, like bacteria in the human body. Which corresponds with Hitler's table talk view that Jews like Marx and Trotsky were beneficial from a certain pov.

You've gone way off topic. Take it elsewhere.

There is no reason to bury and censor footage if it was "faked".  If this was produced for some nefarious reason by the powers that be, why would they then do everything they can to bury it?

No one in there right mind walks out of a movie theatre believing what they saw was real.  There is no Wakanda!  So why should we believe what we see on our Tv, computer or phone screens should be any different?!!!
Wake up people.  Hitler was right.....The Big Lie.  Good many more hoaxes like the USS Liberty, the King David Hotel bombing and 9-11 have to happen before we begin to demand the Jews PROVE their news stories.  
Barnum Bailey was right.....sadly.
The Jews are Guilty until proven innocent.  

I agree, Carolyn. The hypocrisy surrounding this event stinks.
The flag was flown at half-mast over Buckingham Palace -something which didn't happen after the Manchester bombing.Theresa May gets on TV and does the usual 'thoughts and prayers' routine conveniently forgetting that British and US governments have killed more Muslims - to the greater glory of Israel - than Tarrant could ever hope to!
Why is it such are tragedy when Muslims are killed on Western soil yet it's alright to bomb them in their own countries?

Nor is anything reported in the news when Christians are murdered:  In 2018, 4300 Christians were killed across the globe, according to Open Doors, a non-denominational mission with the goal of helping Christians in countries where Christianity is oppressed for cultural or political reasons. Sadly, the number is only going up. In 2017, there were 3066 murders of Christians for religious reasons. This represents a 40% increase from the previous year.  

The article you linked to says "the vast majority" of these 4300 Christians killed in 2018 were Nigerians. I also don't care about Nigerian Christians. Nigeria, like the rest of Africa, wanted to be a free and independent nation so let them take care of and manage their own affairs as they wish.

My own thinking is that when we use arguments like this, we're just reinforcing the multiculturalist system. If the Christian churches want to go around the world converting blacks to Christianity, let them take care of them and protect them if need be. If they can't, they shouldn't be converting them.

And these Christian churches should also not be bringing these Nigerians and other non-whites into the U.S., Europe and other white countries.

they were squatting in a town called CHRISTchurch for heaven's sake; talk about hubris

There must be a 1000 Asians in NZ for every Muslim.  I find the Mosque a strange target, given the circumstance ... or is it?  Also, isn't it odd, how the shooter had no issue with the chosenites, as long as they didn't interfere in "White" lands and stayed in Israel?  Who is he kidding? So, I *do* sympathise with the people who's family members were killed - it wasn't right, and if it "accelerates" anything, it'll be a 1984-style police state coming down on dissenters to the current system.  The Gun grab is already underway and freedom of speech is being seriously questioned. Re: Propaganda. The Muslims (just like the Germans), have gotten the wrong end of that stick for a long time (think how they are presented in Hollywood, etc.)  Post-9/11 politics changed a lot of things, but even before that they were always demeaned by Colonial forces.  Coincidence? Perhaps if the Anglo-Judeo cabal calling the shots hadn't been razing and stealing their lands for the past 100 years (particularly the last decade or so where most of the migration has occurred) there wouldn't be any Muslim migration to Australia or NZ.  Something to ponder, but I don't think that thought ever entered the Shooters head.

I thought I was the only one that thought this.
I felt nothing when I heard the news.  No emotion, whatsoever.  Good or bad, when I heard the news.
And later, I thought, "what about the White, European, Christians that have been raped, slaughtered, beheaded by islamics?  
Where is the mourning for them?

The faith of our Founding Fathers definitely wasn't Christianity.
By Brooke Allen
February 3, 2005

It is hard to believe that George Bush has ever read the works of George Orwell, but he seems, somehow, to have grasped a few Orwellian precepts. The lesson the President has learned best–and certainly the one that has been the most useful to him–is the axiom that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. One of his Administration’s current favorites is the whopper about America having been founded on Christian principles.

Our nation was founded not on Christian principles but on Enlightenment ones. God only entered the picture as a very minor player, and Jesus Christ was conspicuously absent.

Our Constitution makes no mention whatever of God. The omission was too obvious to have been anything but deliberate, in spite of Alexander Hamilton’s flippant responses when asked about it: According to one account, he said that the new nation was not in need of “foreign aid”; according to another, he simply said “we forgot.” But as Hamilton’s biographer Ron Chernow points out, Hamilton never forgot anything important.

In the eighty-five essays that make up The Federalist, God is mentioned only twice (both times by Madison, who uses the word, as Gore Vidal has remarked, in the “only Heaven knows” sense). In the Declaration of Independence, He gets two brief nods: a reference to “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” and the famous line about men being “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.”

More blatant official references to a deity date from long after the founding period: “In God We Trust” did not appear on our coinage until the Civil War, and “under God” was introduced into the Pledge of Allegiance during the McCarthy hysteria in 1954 [see Elisabeth Sifton, “The Battle Over the Pledge,” April 5, 2004].

In 1797 our government concluded a:
“Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, or Barbary,” now known simply as the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 of the treaty contains these words:
As the Government of the United States…is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion–as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of Musselmen–and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This document was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and President John Adams. It was then sent to the Senate for ratification; the vote was unanimous. It is worth pointing out that although this was the 339th time a recorded vote had been required by the Senate, it was only the third unanimous vote in the Senate’s history. There is no record of debate or dissent. The text of the treaty was printed in full in the Philadelphia Gazette and in two New York papers, but there were no screams of outrage, as one might expect today.

The Founding Fathers were not religious men, and they fought hard to erect, in Thomas Jefferson’s words, “a wall of separation between church and state.” John Adams opined that if they were not restrained by legal measures, Puritans–the fundamentalists of their day–would “whip and crop, and pillory and roast.” The historical epoch had afforded these men ample opportunity to observe the corruption to which established priesthoods were liable, as well as “the impious presumption of legislators and rulers,” as Jefferson wrote,

“civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time.”

If we define a Christian as a person who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ, then it is safe to say that some of the key Founding Fathers were not Christians at all. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Tom Paine were deists–that is, they believed in one Supreme Being but rejected revelation and all the supernatural elements of the Christian Church; the word of the Creator, they believed, could best be read in Nature. John Adams was a professed liberal Unitarian, but he, too, in his private correspondence seems more deist than Christian.

George Washington and James Madison also leaned toward deism, although neither took much interest in religious matters. Madison believed that “religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize.” He spoke of the “almost fifteen centuries” during which Christianity had been on trial:

“What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.”

If Washington mentioned the Almighty in a public address, as he occasionally did, he was careful to refer to Him not as “God” but with some nondenominational moniker like “Great Author” or “Almighty Being.” It is interesting to note that the Father of our Country spoke no words of a religious nature on his deathbed, although fully aware that he was dying, and did not ask for a man of God to be present; his last act was to take his own pulse, the consummate gesture of a creature of the age of scientific rationalism.

Tom Paine, a polemicist rather than a politician, could afford to be perfectly honest about his religious beliefs, which were baldly deist in the tradition of Voltaire:

“I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life…. I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.”

Decent summation about the Christchurch shooting, Carolyn. I think some people out there are too eager to call this a "false Flag", but I happen to think it was indeed genuine. It's foolish to critique the video for not being bloody enough or having other imaginings simply because the video quality of the livestream was terrible. For every point they make about the footage that "proves" it a false flag, another could make a counterpoint as to why it's real.
People tend to forget that whether or not the shooting was real or fake, the end result is the same. The killer even said this in his manifesto. That is: the full prostrating of a western country like New Zealand to the Muslims and the liberal elitest agenda. The SJW PM of New Zealand jumped at the chance to restrict Gun freedoms for Native New Zealanders. 
The media of every western country is indeed the enemy of the people! 
This brings sense to this shooting. I used the word "fake" in my previous comment meaning there was a lot wrong which needs further investigation. Maybe we now have to be more careful about the word "fake". (911 wasn't exactly fake although there was a lot of fakery around, enough to disbelieve anything the government and media had to say about it.) All these incidents have enough fakery about them to enable us to know the agenda is to disarm and weaken the population so that the criminals who have infected our governments can carry out their parasitism with impunity. WE have to find good ways to expose the truth to the brain dead. I do believe that TV contains signals to the unconscious mind with the following message, "Do not accept any information other than what we tell you." This message goes to the sub conscious mind while the viewer is in an "alpha" state as regards his brain waves and it is why TV watchers are generally impossible to reason with.