What they want you to think. Chapel Hill.

Last night three muslim students were shot dead in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The killings were carried out by a white, American, atheist male who claimed on twitter that, 'When it comes to insults, your religion started this, not me. If your religion kept its big mouth shut, so would I.'

You may not be aware of these events at such an early stage, although I hope that they will be well reported on the news across the UK and Europe, and the actions of this man scrutinised as seriously as the hate crimes of the Kouachi brothers who carried out the Charlie Hebdo attacks. Unfortunately so far this has not been the case.

It appears abundantly clear that this killer has acted upon anti Islamic feeling to carry out such a heinous act against three individuals who appear to have done nothing to him. There are clear parallels with the hate crimes of the Kouachi brothers, although arguably these victims are more innocent than the Hebdo cartoonists. These parallels have not however been covered by the Western media to nearly the same degree. 

When Hebdo happened, rolling news broadcasts focussed on footage of the shooting of a policeman. They speculated over connections to ISIS which didn't exist and then followed the obvious demand for increased securitisation leading Cameron to indicate he may ban or drastically increase monitoring of some forms of communication. When Chapel Hill happened (today), the story did not appear on the BBC News homepage, however a story discussing how Belgium have jailed Islamists did appear. Why is this?

The reasons for this are simple, fear of Islamism makes sense for Western governments; when these events happen, it helps to connect them to events in the middle east and promote fear of muslim culture among our communities. When events like the Charlie Hebdo killings happen, widespread news coverage helps to promote an anti extremist fervour and allow arms companies to make money from escalating war. Arms companies which ex government ministers, and government donors have stakes in. This propaganda, and that is what it is, allows the capitalist class to gain from war in the middle east and the subsequent securing of assets. It allows the political class to capitalise on our fear and increase security - as this blog correctly predicted following the Hebdo shootings.


The complete disparity in coverage in two very similar atrocities, which both happened in the West and both included multiple civilian casualties is a clear indication of the agenda driven corporate media. This man stands for atheists and the West as little as the Kouachi brothers stand for Islam or the muslim world. Making connections between the actions of ISIS in the middle east and the actions of a few lunatics in Paris is the same as making connections between the actions of a lunatic in North Carolina and you.

Many laugh at and ridicule the pantomime that is Fox News in America, their propaganda is transparent and easy to observe and ignore, but Fox is not the only organisation which puts across this message. It isn't even the only news organisation with that particular owner (a few of his papers in the UK declined to report on this incident today, it appeared low down on his news website's homepage). Observe this disparity in all of the mainstream media, understand why it happens. Capitalists in the UK have an agenda, it isn't one which benefits normal people either here or in the middle east. Until power is taken away from these people by turning your support away from the people in power (including the ones who aren't in government this minute) and forcibly taking power away from those who control these institutions our society will continue to make these same mistakes and hold onto this same hypocrisy.

The Green Debate: More harm than good.

When David Cameron came out to request the inclusion of the Green Party in the upcoming TV leaders' debates, many from the Green-left cheered. It was assumed that this gave a platform to a real alternative and would catapult the party into mainstream success. This unfortunately is unlikely to be the case.

The Green Party themselves have been quoted as saying they are targeting twelve seats as potential gains, with six seats being a reasonable estimate for what they could realistically hope to win. Considering the limitations of the party's estimates, it is clear they do not expect to be a major player in the next parliament.

It is for this reason that Cameron's request is not a laudable example of political inclusivity, but a piece of tactical genius. In welcoming the Greens into the TV debates, Cameron has opened the door to legal protestations from the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the DUP, Sinn Féin, the SDLP and Respect. Inclusion of the Green Party in TV debates means that based on broadcaster neutrality, all of these parties have a right to equal representation based on their representation in the House of Commons.

In promoting the inclusion of the Greens, and allowing the door to open to all of the minor parties within the House; Cameron has successfully created a debate scenario wherein the majority of messages become drowned out in a cacophony of alternative opinion. I think many would agree that nationalist and regional parties, who are now to be included in the debates, do not offer any value to a UK wide discussion on policy, as they do not seek support or have support in the majority of the union.

What these parties do serve to do however, is create confusion. In a leader's debate format, discussion on a number of issues will take place over a very short time - the previous discussions were over a 90 minute period. Were the parties to each cover their stance on health, education and the economy in this time, each leader would have just over four minutes to speak on each issue, disregarding time for questioning, retort and actual debate to ensue.

This move by Cameron to bring in minor parties, many of whom are irrelevant in the majority of constituencies serves to protect him from any criticism regarding the destruction he has carried out on the UK in the last five years. In such a limited space, it is unlikely at best that he will face any real critique on his failures in government, or be required to make any explanation of why he has begun to destroy the NHS without a mandate to do so; or increased the UK debt whilst pushing many low income families into food banks. The inclusion of the Greens has had a knock on effect of turning the debate into a circus, in which Cameron the clown becomes an entertaining option.

Within such a chaotic debate it is unlikely the Greens will get any real platform to promote themselves, and they will likely win few votes from the appearance. What their appearance, admittedly along with the SNP and Plaid Cymru will do is cause confusion. What confusion will do will cause worry among voters who have not been conveyed any understanding of complex policy issues and the respective solutions of the parties on what is the ONLY piece of media in this election which will likely reach a mass market. 

Unfortunately, what this worry will do is cause a retreat to the safety of familiarity, and likely promote the option of the Conservatives where a debate offering real criticism would damage them. The Tories remain the only party who have public confidence in their ability to run the economy, which whilst baffling is a huge tool for them, particularly in an arena such as this debate. Napoleon said that the winner will be he who controls chaos, and that is exactly what Cameron is trying to do here.

Do you agree? Leave your opinions in the comments.