Home | About | Donate

Why Are Persons Unknown More Likely to Be Called 'Terrorist' Than a Known White Supremacist?


Why Are Persons Unknown More Likely to Be Called 'Terrorist' Than a Known White Supremacist?

Jim Naureckas

In the wake of mass violence, a nation struggling to understand turns to its news outlets to see how they frame events. The language journalists use in the immediate aftermath of a bloodbath helps form public attitudes and has a major impact on official reactions.


The Washington Post’s white washing of the event is on full display.
It took five people to concoct this abomination.

There is NO attempt to humanize the victims but, and extensive chain yanking around the psycho.

The dominant nation’s dominant media is a fascist used tissue.


In a nation cum empire where war, soldiers, uniformed guards, and militarism have come to define too much of its agenda, it’s no wonder that the NRA zealots come out in large numbers after every school shooting to demand that no changes be made to gun laws.

In a nation where leadership abrogates international treaties, the right to a trial, and enshrined laws; it’s bizarre to watch the President lecture about violence not solving problems when he is knee-deep in it!

In a nation where Hollywood sexes up aggression and young adolescent males think that proof of their maleness is contingent upon their embrace of firearms, it’s not surprising that a loose cannon like this kid would go off… and he’s no doubt been brainwashed with white supremacist “values” since he could walk.

With all that being said, the definition of Terrorist can never fit that of the average gun-toting white guy. After all, the war god Mars is made in his image and likeness and exalting that god of war, those identified with this “ethos” see brutal bloody acts as virtual sacraments. This stance differs little from the mentality enacted during The Crusades.

When anyone ELSE picks up a weapon–be it the Afghani warlord, the kid in Iraq, the Black kid “intimidating” the armed white cop–then HE is defined as a terrorist.

In short, terrorist = what dark skinned males do. Anything enacted by white males–preferably IN uniform is never defined as such.

The narrative that insisted that Saddam was a threat to U.S. citizens and now says likewise about Putin and others… always leaves out the aggression being done unto the make-war state’s current targets.

It is the narrative of the dominator and HIS ethos. It is false and immoral and is to purported National Defense what murder is to life. The product of all of the wars engineered in response to illusory “terrorist” threats have led to MILLIONS of refugees, numerous destabilized nations (just when climate chaos is further challenging life for so many), and new martial bodies popping up like mushrooms in dung after a rainstorm.

The article by Andrew Bacevich specifies that ISIS gained ready access to hundreds of armed Humvees left behind. How convenient to the make-war state that requires expanding theaters of war the way fast food joints require hungry stomachs.


A white person expressing his hatred of Blacks or of Muslims is a “freedom of speech” issue.
A Black person or Muslim doing the same is “terrorism”…
A White person carrying a gun to a political rally slung over his back is exercising his “Second Amendment Rights”.
A Black person doing the same is a public menace and thug and would be shot on sight.

This of course dates back to the very beginning and that hallowed declaration of independence that used the words “All men are created Equal”. a clause written to paper by a slave owner who whipped blacks and sold them like cattle.

The Constitution remains true to its original intent , that being enshrining the privilege of the wealthy white male.



Our media is controlled by large corporations that are the same people who control our government. Most of our news has propaganda interwoven in it. When large violent acts take place they are usually carried out by us, or them. When it is us, all that propaganda can do is encourage citizens to give up more of our rights to make us safe from those crazy or misguided people. Example: After this tragic church shooting it didn’t take a blink for the president to start pitching for an elimination of our constitutional rights to bear arms. On the other hand if the perpetrator can be associated with the middle east they call them terrorists. The propaganda than says we are being attacked by our enemy. Who is our enemy? The Muslims, the enemies of Israel, the people of the Middle East, who we have invaded, bombed, murdered, tortured, and have waged immoral wars against, to gain control of their oil. In the case of the Boston bombing, propaganda can increase the anger of people to the extent that they feel that all our misdeeds in the Middle East were all justified. In some peoples minds Middle Easterners are all the enemy, and they are all terrorists. We were told that 9/11 was carried out by terrorists from the Middle East. They attacked us with box cutters no less. Do you believe that ?