Analysis of the Shooting(s) in Christchurch New Zealand – Banning of Brenton Tarrant’s manifesto

See 16 April 2019 update here: cawblimey.livejourna…

This was sent to me from New Zealand and, though I have not investigated the incident myself, I consider this report to be an excellent study. New Zealand has censored certain types of discussion and analysis of the events. This is discussed below.

From my own estimation, it seems to that many of the events over the last few years are primarily staged events – including the filming of some drills, maybe using a bit of archive footage or something shot earlier the same day or on the previous day. They then get the profile of a “dodgy” character from a given community and use them as a “patsy”. A scenario is fabricated that it will convince enough people that It’s lone gunmen or bomber sympathetic to ISIS – or some nationalist of far right group – whatever nonsense they think will work. As the media journalists don’t really investigate anything anymore and often aren’t allowed to because of “data protection” or “national security,” the real perpetrators can get away with these faked up events – just as we’ve seen in Westminster (London), Manchester, Paris and elsewhere.

I think the reason why it is done this was is simply to control the narrative completely. For example, so many people can film stuff  with smartphones now and upload their film in seconds, they cannot risk a “totally real event” – where, say, a mind-controlled gunman or suicide bomber works alone. In a “real” event, they can’t control what people actually film – 9/11 was a good example of this – i.e. a lot of people filmed the real event and now they are “in trouble,” because the real videos show what actually happened. However, if the only films that exist are of a “staged event,” and they have “set up the stage” in the first place, any films will only show what is on the stage. They just need to be able to conceal the staging of the event. The Boston Un-Bombing was a the best example of this that I have seen. They set the stage and built a narrative around it – and just paid off enough people to keep quiet.

PDF Version of this article is here: www.checktheevidence…

Banning of Brenton Tarrant’s manifesto

In the wake of the March 15 attacks on Al Noor Mosque and Linwood Islamic Centre in Christchurch, allegedly by Brenton Tarrant, a 28-year-old Australian, the New Zealand Government has moved quickly to ban the viewing, sharing, downloading and possession of both Tarrant’s manifesto and his live-stream of the first attack. David Shanks, the country’s chief censor, has said the suspected shooter’s manifesto [The Great Replacement] “promotes murder and terrorism,” and that his office is treating it like terrorist material from ISIS. [1] The following is an expanded version of a message I have sent to the NZ Council for Civil Liberties. — AI, March 30, 2019

                                                 *            *            *            *

NEW Zealand’s banning of the Tarrant manifesto makes no sense in the absence of bans on its ideological antecedents — the manifestos of Theodore Kaczynski (the “Unabomber”) and Anders Breivik, respectively. Both are better written and more compelling than Tarrant’s incoherent ramble.

Indeed, the Unabomber’s manifesto makes such “good reading” — in the words of Anders Hove, of The Tech — it was published in the Washington Post and the New York Times. It has since inspired generations of eco-terrorists. Yet as far as I know, it has never been banned.

Much the same can be said of Breivik’s tour de force, entitled A European Declaration of Independence, which displays considerable historical and philosophical knowledge, before trenchantly commenting, “You cannot reason with Islam. Islam consumes everything eventually unless it is stopped in a decisive manner.”

Both the above works — which have been cited as significant influences on Tarrant’s thinking — are readily available to the public, as are thousands of cruder inflammatory publications.  So the attempt to suppress Tarrant’s manifesto, and only his manifesto, makes New Zealand look silly. It also criminalizes any unapproved researcher who has the temerity to obtain a copy of the manifesto for analysis.

Another influence on Tarrant must have been the many articles and/or videos, like the one below, that specifically address the issue of the “replacement” of “white” populations by Muslim immigrants.

Throughout the mid-2010s, this article by Cameron Slater was on Page 1 of Google’s results for the search term “Islam in New Zealand”.  

Blog post by Cameron Slater, May 21, 2014.

Tarrant’s diatribe is neither unique, nor uniquely dangerous. Much of what he says about the alleged dangers of Muslim immigration has been said before, albeit in more palatable terms, by prominent New Zealand publications since the mid-1980s.

Take, for example, the New Zealand Listener’s article of 1987. This was entitled Sword of Islam, and was prefaced by the blurb, “New Zealand’s ignorance of Islam makes us a target of Muslim attentions”. After introductory paragraphs, the article begins — in the words of visiting British Islamophobe John Laffin — by warning darkly of terrorist “sleepers” in the Muslim community “who will be activated when the time is right”.

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters was still singing from the same song sheet in 2005, when he said in a speech entitled “The End of Tolerance”:

“In New Zealand the Muslim community have been quick to show us their more moderate face, but as some media reports have shown, there is a militant underbelly here as well.

“These two groups, the moderate and militant, fit hand and glove everywhere they exist.

“Underneath it all the agenda is to promote fundamentalist Islam.

“Indeed, these groups are like the mythical Hydra – a serpent underbelly with multiple heads capable of striking at any time and in any direction.”

Another article that was clearly designed to inculcate feelings of fear and loathing for Islam and Muslims was North & South’s article of April, 2013. This is prefaced by the words, “Mark Scott asks if

Parliament is justified in demanding our respect for a brand of Islam expanding in New Zealand that approves wife-beating, female genital mutilation and the death penalty for homosexuals”.

I don’t recall any expressions of concern about the tenor of such articles, or about their balance, or about the effects they might have on readers, from any member of the New Zealand Government.

 After the above two articles appeared, I wrote to the respective editors with appeals for moderation of the provocative rhetoric. In the first instance, the editor condescendingly published an abridged version of my letter; in the second, the editor refused to print any of my points. There was no reflection by either editor on their publications’ portrayal of Muslims as inscrutable, menacing people who were alien to New Zealand and undesirable as citizens.

Now the shoe is on the other foot, so to speak. Suddenly, being

Muslim is “in”. The villain — apart from Tarrant himself, of course — is the generic far-right white racist, who rages against his phantom “dhimmitude”. In the emotional aftermath of the Christchurch shootings, politicians, reporters, ordinary people, and even police officers have been wearing hijab and sprinkling their conversations with Islamic words and phrases.

Oddest of all, perhaps, has been the “rehabilitation” of Al Noor Mosque, which was formerly associated — if only in the media — with the radicalization of two young Muslims who were later killed by an American drone in Yemen. How many people, apart from the Clover Chronicle, remember the Press article, headlined “Drone victims ‘radicalized’ at mosque”, published on June 5, 2014? [2] And who remembers that the Linwood Islamic Centre was set up as a refuge for those Muslims who were deeply unhappy about the state of affairs at Al Noor? [3]

It’s a topsy-turvy world — and one in which the suppression of vital information is already leading to the mythologization of the events of March 15 in Christchurch.  I doubt the veracity of some of the fanciful statements being made by some of the protagonists. [4] History is, I fear, already being skewed.

In defence of his decision to ban the manifesto, the Chief Censor — a grandiose title that sounds disturbingly like Grand Inquisitor — said it crosses a red line by “spread[ing] direct hateful messages that are exhorting people to kill and commit terrorism”. In that respect, it is worse than Hitler’s Mein Kampf, in the censor’s opinion. But guess what? You will be allowed to read the manifesto if you are a member of the academic elite. Yes, you “will be granted access to the document without penalty” (1News) [5].

In other words, the law is to be applied selectively — a fact that proves the “serious crime” of possessing the manifesto is not a crime at all. If it were a real crime, like theft, assault, or murder, the law against it would apply to everyone in all circumstances. Thus, the law is just a device to coerce the population. And that means it is not the law of a democracy, but of a dictatorship.

In view of the reasons given for banning the manifesto, one marvels at the irony of singer Cat Stevens’ (Yusuf Islam’s) appearance at the national remembrance service for the victims of the mosque shootings, held in Hagley Park, Christchurch, on March 29, 2019. The Minister of Immigration has evidently forgotten that, in 1989,

Stevens called for the death of writer Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses, saying that, rather than go to a demonstration to burn an effigy of the author, ”I would have hoped that it’d be the real thing”. [6 ] In my book, that sounds remarkably like “exhorting people to kill”. 

FOOTNOTE: At the time of writing, the consensus among analysts seems to be that the Christchurch shooting has all the hallmarks of a false-flag operation by that nebulous entity known as the New World Order.* If it is such an operation — and I am inclined to think it is — Tarrant is agent, rather than instigator. The primary aim of this kind of “terrorist attack” is not, as most people assume, to divide the community. In reality, that may not be an aim at all. The primary aim is to make people amenable to the abrogation or curtailment of their civil liberties. Typically, in the “problem reaction-solution” scenario, the authorities rush through measures that (a) disarm the public, (b) arm and militarize the police, [7] and

(c) provide for an across-the-board increase in surveillance, censorship, repression and control. Already, we are seeing moves to turn New Zealand into a nation of spies and snitches — to “keep us safe”, of course. All this constitutes the sinister subtext of the lovey-dovey line being fed to us by the mainstream media in the aftermath of the Christchurch event.** The draconian bans on disseminating, or even viewing, Tarrant’s manifesto and video are part of the overall crackdown — as is the absurd claim we should not give the terrorist “oxygen” by mentioning his name. Clearly, the Government is desperate to control the narrative, and to consign anything that conflicts with this to oblivion. [8] And like all governments, it is determined to strictly censor the social media and all “alternative” sources of news and information. Viewed in this light, the Government crackdown could be seen — and is seen by some observers — as a test of the speed with which it can stanch the flow of information, and stifle all meaningful discussion, after such a national crisis — so that the official narrative, as promoted by the MSM, has no credible competition. A further concern for the Government, in the case under consideration, must be the fact the live-stream (if, indeed, it is a genuine live-stream) contains several anomalies, which would lead to endless debate and expressions of scepticism if the video were made public.

So, overall, how do I see the “Christchurch shooting(s)”? I see it as an event — like many other “terrorist attacks” in the 21st century — that combines elements of reality and elements of illusion. I’m also inclined to see it as New Zealand’s Reichstag fire, or as New Zealand’s 9/11, in that it is the “catalyzing event” that allows the Government to swiftly enact measures that would, in normal circumstances, have been opposed by large sectors of the population. In other words, it is the crisis that allows those in power, citing the need for safety and security, to start to introduce the strictures of a fascist state.  

* Update, April 2, 2019: “Payback” by Israel for perceived hostile actions by New Zealand is another possibility. “Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly told New Zealand’s foreign minister that support for a UN resolution condemning Israeli settlement-building in  the occupied  territories would  be viewed as a ‘declaration of war’ ”. — The Guardian, December 28, 2016.…

** Update, April 1, 2019: I originally wrote “tragedy” here. However, I now suspect that, if there was a tragedy, it was somewhat different from the one described in the official narrative. I am inclined to think the event was essentially theater.  That’s not to say that no one died. People do die in some false-flag attacks, though the preference, these days, is for fake victims.

<![if !supportLists]>[1]    <![endif]>See www.businessinsider…. 

<![if !supportLists]>[2]   <![endif]>See the articles below.

<![if !supportLists]>[3]   <![endif]>See the Press article below.

<![if !supportLists]>[4]   <![endif]>See the New Zealand Listener article below, headlined “What do we do? What can we do?”

<![if !supportLists]>[5]   <![endif]>”Possessing a copy of either [the manifesto or the video], or distributing them to other people, is now a serious crime carrying a maximum jail term of 14 years or a fine of up to $10,000.” — 1News, March 25, 2019.

[6 ] Geoffrey Robertson, QC: You don’t think that this man deserves to die?

Y. Islam: Who, Salman Rushdie?

Robertson: Yes.

Y. Islam: Yes, yes.

Robertson: And do you have a duty to be his executioner?

Y. Islam: Uh, no, not necessarily, unless we were in an Islamic state and I was ordered by a judge or by the authority to carry out such an act – perhaps, yes.

[Later, Robertson discusses a protest where an effigy of Rushdie is to be burned.]

Robertson: Would you be part of that protest, Yusuf Islam, would you go to a demonstration where you knew that an effigy was going to be burned?

Y. Islam: I would have hoped that it’d be the real thing.

This exchange occurred in the context of a television debate. A police officer was present, but took no action — despite an appeal from Fay Weldon, who was also on the panel.

<![if !supportLists]>[7]    <![endif]>See the Manawatu Standard article below.

<![if !supportLists]>[8]   <![endif]>See the Manawatu Standard article below.

What’s that in the bottle? Any forensic analysis of those “bloodstains”?



Those who study terrorist attacks will know that they often coincide with, or come shortly after, anti-terrorism drills.

March 19, 2019.

March 18, 2019.

Note the hijab. I won’t be surprised if this picture appears on the cover of a fashion magazine.

An official inquiry is, almost by definition, an inquiry that cements the official narrative in place. Furthermore, it is hard to envision any “recommendations” that don’t consist largely of more spying, more random searches, more restrictions on public gatherings, more security cameras, more screening, more scanning, more censorship. . . The list goes on. The country is screwed. We are truly entering a Dark Age.

From the New Zealand Listener, March 30-April 5, 2019.

Gemma O’Doherty was just one of the astute commentators who immediately saw through the Christchurch event.…

Related articles...

Comments are closed.