COMMENT | It bothers me when people say the massacre of Muslims in their place of worship in Christchurch was an attack on humanity. This was an attack on Muslims. This was an attempt to further religious and racial division between (white) Christian communities and Islamic communities in the West.

The killer made this clear in his manifesto. He specifically chose a close-knit community, where his actions would cause the most damage in the sense that people would begin to question their values and government policies.

When people say this was an attack on humanity, it blurs the line between the agenda of the perpetrator and the beliefs of his targets. It fuels a narrative that slips into easy political and social bromides, while diminishing the danger of the ideology that was the basis of his crimes. It was not an attack against humanity; it was an attack against Muslims.

You do not need to generalise the incident to make it accessible for people to empathise with the survivors. The sooner the West wakes up to the fact that right-wing white nationalism poses a greater threat than Islamic terrorism (there is enough empirical evidence to support this statement), the better we non-Whites will be able to handle death cults like IS and their ilk.

Was what DAP Mengkibol assemblyperson Chew Chong Sin said (and since retracted) 'politically incorrect' but 'true'? No, it was propaganda meant to further non-Malay political narratives to sustain mainstream “moderate” Malaysian politics, which is anything but moderate. His retraction means little, not because the damage has been done – which merely means the Malay far right is using it to further their narratives - but because this type of propaganda has taken root in the Harapan non-Malay base.

Think about what Chew (above) said: "The alliance of Umno and PAS and their vigorous agitation on race and religion is totally irresponsible. It serves no benefit in the building of a new Malaysia and can also be taken advantage of by foreign terrorist groups." This is false. What Umno and PAS are doing is no different from what Bersatu, PKR and Amanah are doing, except that since the last GE, Umno does not have the fig leaf of inclusiveness that the DAP and non-Malay political operatives from PKR give their Malay power brokers.

The basis of the then opposition hooking up with Bersatu was race and religion. This was something only Bersatu could give them. Mahathir acknowledged this. Lim Kit Siang endorsed this, together with many other non-Malay Harapan political operatives. So, from the start, Harapan was playing the exact same game as Umno and PAS. When it comes to racial and religious agitation, Harapan is doing its fair amount of it. When Azmin Ali wants to carry out a bumiputera agenda without apology, this is racial agitation. When the Islamic affairs minister in the Prime Minister's Department hooks up with Zakir Naik, this is religious agitation.

When Harapan goes after the LGBT community and initiates criminal investigations against women NGOs, this is agitation against democratic principles. When Harapan backs out of Icerd and the non-Malay political operatives make excuses, this is racial and religious agitation.

When Harapan non-Malay powerbrokers accept in spirit, if not in rhetoric, the beefing up of Bersatu through frogs from Umno, this is racial and religious agitation, since the basis of Bersatu is to protect Malay sacred cows, which are anathema to a functional democracy.

Umno and PAS are honest about their racial and religious supremacy, but what Harapan is doing is making excuses for theirs. What Harapan non-Malay political operatives do is to point to the Umno/PAS union as an example of Malay extremism while ignoring the basis of their union with Bersatu, and the furtherance of racial and religious policies - which are no different from the Umno/PAS union.

This is why someone like Chew has the temerity to make the claim that the extremism of Umno/PAS would court foreign extremists, when the reality is that foreign extremists set themselves against the government of the day – Harapan – and make use of the religious bureaucracy nurtured by Muslim power brokers, but before they do this, they destroy home-grown Islamic power brokers. In other words, foreign extremists will hook up with anyone whom they believe will further their agenda, but more importantly, court the Harapan elite through "legitimate" agents to further their Islamic caliphate goals.

It is not the “extremism” of Umno/PAS that Malaysians need to worry about, but rather the manner in which the Harapan government deals with its Islamic narratives. It is not Umno/PAS that are bringing home IS returnees, for example; it is the Harapan federal government.

And what do non-Muslim political operatives say about this? They are too busy not spooking the Malays, or they spew propaganda like the kind Chew espoused, which gains currency in the non-Malay Harapan base and is thought of as some sort of truth-telling. It is not.

When former Umno Youth leader Razlan Rafii (above) says that the "puak DAP" should be shot, some people are up in arms, but if you believe the Umno/PAS union would lead to a Taliban country, why should this surprise anyone? This is the point of it all, right? Everyone is playing to everyone else's narratives.

The DAP reprimanded Chew for his statements. What were they reprimanding him for? Lim Guan Eng said the Umno/PAS union was targeting non-Malays, and Nga Kor Ming said this would lead to a Taliban theocracy. The only thing Chong did was to use the Christchurch massacre to advance the same propaganda. Was that the mistake, using the Christchurch massacre when there are other better opportunities or examples to spread such propaganda?