2019.03.14 Christchurch Shooting

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search

🇳🇿Christchurch, New Zealand: a left wing eco-nationalist (who hates Capitalism, Conservatism, and is Chinese Communist sympathizer) shot-up a couple mosques because immigrants were over-populating the planet and causing Global Warming. Because the shooter said he didn't like Donald Trump's politics or leadership, the media said he was a right wing Trump supporter. He had illegally modified guns, used guns instead of more effective bombs because he said that would turn the left into his tools in dividing nations like the U.S. over gun-control, and he was stopped/slowed at the second mosque because a good guy was able to get a gun and scare him off. (It was one the shooter had dropped). So the media does his bidding, calls for division and gun control, and ignores the role that a good-guy with a gun had in reducing the carnage. NZ threatens to punish anyone that makes the info about his true motives available.

🗒️ NOTE:
Facebook has seen fit to censor or block these truths as too be too inconvenient to the far left's narrative to allow it. So they often block it, without explanation. They point to their community standards, but there's of course nothing in this post that seems to violate those standards, other than truths the left doesn't like very much. You can read the details at Facebook: Hate speech

Manifesto Facts

Is he left wing/progressive?

  • He called himself an “Eco-fascist,” or "Green Nationalist" who combines environmentalism, racism and authoritarianism into one delightful package.
  • He says he's doing it because immigrants are over-populating and causing global warming, because they're invading white lands, and committing acts of terror first. Also says he's doing it "to create conflict between the two ideologies within the United States on the ownership of firearms in order to further the social, cultural, political and racial divide within the United states."
  • His political idol is Oswald Mosley (British Fascist). Fascism as we know was a left-wing branch of Socialism (stemming from Syndicalism).
  • His logo on the opening page is about progressivism and march "Forward" to a new society. ("The Great Replacement.pdf").
  • He says conservatism is corporatism in disguise and rails against it quite a bit. There's a whole section telling them to open their eyes and ends with, "CONSERVATISM IS DEAD, THANK GOD."
  • He also mentions that he's not a Christian, or at least, "That is complicated. When I know, I will tell you."
  • He hates capitalism, free markets, and free trade - right wing things
  • He loves the Communist Chinese government and authoritarianism (left wing things) that protects its own culture, and repeats Marxist rhetoric about the poor workers of the world. To quote, "The nation with the closest political and social values to my own is the People’s Republic of China".
  • In his mind, “over population” (left wing) is directly tied to “mass immigration” and basically felt that white people are being bred out of existence. This matches Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger's reason for creating the abortion mill and the entire turn-of-the-20th century progressive movement.
  • He calls for a “Green Nationalism” which will save the planet by stopping “the continued destruction of the natural environment itself through mass immigration and uncontrolled urbanization”.
  • He complains about drugs/pharma and that they are poison (both legal and illegal). And not a fan of NGO's.
  • He doesn't like Trump (thought the media implies the opposite). To quote him on Trump:
    • Were/are you a supporter of Donald Trump? As a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose? Sure."... and the media stops there
    • the rest of the paragraph?... "As a policy maker and leader? Dear god no."...Not exactly the ringing endorsement or supporter that the media usually leaves you with.
  • He focuses a bit on the U.S. and the melting pot, as a bit of a failed experiment in his mind. That the country is collapsing to polarization of special interests and divided racial loyalties. Again, that's not purely right/left, but the right seems more likely to admit that. But then he switches back to being anti-American, which is more left wing. To quote, " THE MYTH OF THE MELTING POT MUST END, AND WITH IT THE MYTH OF THE EGALITARIAN NATION". That we're victims of injustice is very left wing.

There's not much there what would make you think right wing. But he'd be right at place in Berkeley or Harvard, at least he would if he was a radical violent separatist that supported any minority except whites.

Is he a White Supremacist/NeoNazi/Nazi?

  • Violent White Separatist is probably more accurate. Of course it's clueless to ignore that there are left-wing white supremacists, or that in the U.S. the whole movement (KKK) was just the militant wing of the DNC. The propaganda in schools/media has convinced the gullible that racist and right wing are synonymous (and the left is saintly), while the left wing is historically and presently at least as racist, if not more. (But because they discriminate against Whites/Conservatives/Jews, it's OK).
  • Mostly he says he's doing it to defend his race/culture, and blames whites for not breeding more, being stupid with multiculturalism, and not being smarter about the environment.
  • In his mind, he's not a xenophobe or against diversity, he is a world traveler and claims the only way we can have diversity is by keeping cultures separated and distinct, and he loves Muslims as long as they are in their own countries and not foreign invaders in one of his own (which is any of the white European countries).
  • To quote him, "Was the attack anti-diversity in origin? No, the attack was not an attack on diversity, but an attack in the name of diversity.... In my mind a rainbow is only beautiful to due its variety of colours, mix the colours together and you destroy them all and they are gone forever and the end result is far from anything beautiful."
  • He says that Nazi's haven't existed in 70 years, and doesn't agree with them or NeoNazi's (and isn't either). And to quote him, "A jew living in israel is no enemy of mine".

How is he right wing?

  • He has no semblance of White Guilt (which the left demands). In fact, the demands for it, are part of what fueled his anger and backlash.
  • He complains a lot about the "Rape of European Women" by invaders, and documents a couple dozen of them.
  • He is definitely anti-multi-culturalism / anti-Islamic-immigration - which isn't purely right or left wing based on polls/facts/history. Nazi's were left-wing national socialists that were highly against Multi-Culturalism, as was Wilson, FDR, Johnson, Wallace, and many Democrats are/were, but the vocal left has the gullible believing that it is more right wing.

That's about it. Not a lot of meat there -- but it is nuanced and complex.

The Media Spin

The lack of evidence of his right-wingedness, and the mountain of evidence that he's pretty left leaning, doesn't stop the media/left (WaPo, CNN, HuffPo, NPR) from blaming everything on their favorite villain, "the right". I listen to NPR regularly, and their spin is experts blaming it all on White Supremacists in the U.S. (because of Trump) is fueling this global hate. When anyone with any objectivity can see that it's like always: progressives demand progress -- and when that rate of change exceeds societies ability to adapt to it, you get friction/backlash/retaliation. And the most marginal or disenfranchised will respond poorly. But to admit that, would require introspection and responsibility sharing: both anathema's to the media/progressive activists.

So instead, they're purging as much of the evidence of what this guy really thinks as they can. So that their creative re-writing of history, will be harder to question with pesky facts. If the truth will set you free, these people want everyone to be in a mental prison of their creation.

The attack

  • He had bombs and detailed how he could have done more damage with "A TATP filled rental van. Household flour, a method of dispersion and an ignition source." (the latter is a fuel-air bomb), but chose to use guns to, goad individuals on the left into pushing for gun control in order to “create conflict between the two ideologies within the United States.” and because anti-Second Amendment haters would assure his crime got extra media attention.
  • He hoped to pressure them to “seek to abolish the second amendment” in order to rip the U.S. apart.
  • He mentions that New Zealand's gun control laws have already beaten down the gun-liberties in that country (he mocks them).

Hey, you get what you incentivize, and the left/media incentivizes gun violence with the fame they lavish on mass shooters. The left is his tool, he told them they'd be his tool, and all they had to do to NOT be his tool is read his manifesto and not act like leftists. They ignored that, and are reflexively being his tool because they can't help themselves. He played them, and they're too self-absorbed to see it.

The Gun Agenda

Gun Grabbers at FakeNews outlets like WaPo, CNN, HuffPo, NPR and others start the big lie: that the reason for their problems is lax gun laws. The truth is:

  1. New Zealand has far stricter gun controls than the U.S. and much of the world
  2. He was able to kill many in the first Mosque because there were no armed civilians (gun-free zone) and because Police response times were slow. Waiting for the government to come and protect you, is a recipe for death (as was shown in Parkland, Florida).
  3. The reason only 7 were killed in the first Mosque, was because an armed patron wrestled a gun from him and distracted him
  4. NZ's murder rate was ≈8 people out of 5 million last year. If it is true that their problems are due to lax gun control laws, then sign us up -- our murder rate is like 300 times higher than theirs.

Of course the loud and stupid jumped in, like AOC and said, "what good are your thoughts and prayers". She was quickly denounced for her hypocrisy, insensitivity and stupidity, but that's never stopped/slowed her before. [1]

NZ Gun Restrictions

New Zealand is considered a restrictive gun control country because they require all of the following:
  • a person seeking to buy a firearm must provide the local licensing authority with evidence of good character (3rd party references) and have a valid reason why he needs the firearm (self-defense is not a valid reason for gun ownership/use)
  • complete licensing and registration -- that requires background checks on criminal, mental health, medical, addiction and domestic violence - the police interview applicant's spouse, partners, or next of kin
  • testing on theoretical and/or practical training course is required
  • all that expires every 10 years
  • They have lots of features banned, including more than 7 round magazines
  • No private party transfers
  • While there's no set waiting period, the average wait in 2012 was 104 days
  • Securely stored when not in use laws, laws on transportation and carrying, and so on
  • Automatic weapons require special police-approved permits and must be disabled when not in use

The guy passed all their tests, planned for 2 years -- he had legal guns, that he illegally modified. But in the end, someone intent on mass murder is not going to obey gun regulations. And the biggest mass shootings were in the two most gun restrictive countries (Russia, Norway). The problem wasn't a lack of annoyances for legal gun owners, it was that gun-control never works. It also shows that every one of those proposed gun controls (that the left loves and keeps proposing for the U.S.), are a waste of time and shouldn't be implemented in the U.S., since they're completely ineffective.

Candice Owens

  • Another thread going around (or being tweeted about) is the shooter called out to Candice Owens... and the media/left totally lied by omission there. What the shooter said sounds bad (out of context): "Is there a particular person that radicalized you the most? Yes, the person that has influenced me above all was Candace Owens. Each time she spoke I was stunned by her insights and her own views helped push me further and further into the belief of violence over meekness. Though I will have to disavow some of her beliefs, the extreme actions she calls for are too much, even for my tastes."
  • If that's all you hear about (especially in fragments), and you know nothing about Candice Owens, it leaves you with an impression. Now the context that the media omitted:
    • Everything I've heard from Candice (and it's only a small sampling) is that she's mocha-milquetoast: against bullying, not a fan of BLM/Far-Left, but hardly a rabble-rouser calling for violence by telling blacks/democrats to wake up. Find me something caustic by her, and I'll reconsider, but she's a kitten compared to leftist commentators.
    • His comment was between two other satirical/sarcastic answers in his FAQ:
    • (1) "From where did you receive/research/develop your beliefs? The internet, of course. You will not find the truth anywhere else."
    • (2) "Were you taught violence and extremism by video games,music,literature,cinema? Yes, Spyro the dragon 3 taught me ethno-nationalism. Fortnite trained me to be a killer and to floss on the corpses of my enemies. No."
    • So the media/left's version of events omits that his Candice Owens answer was wedged between two other sarcastic answers -- which would leave the reasonable to assume he was being sarcastic. Of course I don't know that for sure, but it seems likely. What I do know is that leaving out the context is NOT trusting your readers/viewers to make up their own minds is either dishonest, inept journalism or both.
  • The other thing, is pretend he's a White Supremacist (as they claim), why is he quoting one of the most famous black activists as one of his idols and motivators? If you think blacks and Women are inferior, you wouldn't be heaping such praise on a Black Woman, would you? He's anti-Islam, and anti-multi-cultural, but not sure he fits the traditional definition of White Supremacist.


Those who want to solve the problem, will analyze what happened and what to do about it.

  • I watched the video to become informed. It was horrific and I wouldn’t recommend it to others. (I was shaky and a bit sick afterwards).
  • The shooting was about 8 minutes -- he is calm, practiced, as if in a video game
  • He breached with a shotgun, reloaded many times... walked back to his car, got another gun and ammo, came back inside and committed headshots on folks, to make sure they were dead.
  • He took a few pot-shots at bystanders or folks in his line of site outside, or from his car
  • Then drove off for another 5 minutes, re-capping what he did...
  • I believe after that, he went to another Mosque and was going to repeat it, but was stopped by a good-guy-with-a-gun

What did we learn?

  • Gun control didn’t work and never could. He planned it for two years, passed interviews and screenings to get a gun license (in one of the more restrictive places on the globe), and then he made illegal modifications to the guns. He broke the law against mass murder, why anyone thinks that a law against guns would slow that kind of person down, is beyond me.
  • He mentioned that he could do more damage with home made explosives, and historically, that's likely. The best hope of gun control, is that he couldn’t of gotten guns (delusional false hope as some of the worst shootings have been in the most restrictive countries like Russia or Norway), and that he would have gone to explosives instead. Where he would have killed more people and it would have taken longer to track him down? Plus that will get mired because all it does is punish innocents for the crimes of others: that’s like punishing all environmentalists, because he was an environmentalist. That’s not a win for me. But the left refuses to think through their immorality and what it would if it was applied back in how they want to apply it to others.
  • Government can't protect you unless a cop happens to be on scene, it's too late. But you might be able to protect others, and others there, might be able to protect you: if you trust your fellow man more than you feel a tool (a gun)
  • If you want to fix it, there should have been a back exit, someone trained in getting people out, the cops should have responded faster, and if there was any security it would have slowed him down, or driven him off. All would make a positive difference.
  • The truth is these events are extremely rare -- but to show how much I care about the Muslims or devout in my community (and of course Jewish Synagogues or Christian Churches), I would support to have some CCW's in their midst. Basically let's allow/encourage/regulate to have secret security officers who carry concealed firearms.
    • Ask a right or left wing guy who trusts their neighbors more? All the right wing folks I know are fine with training so these folks can have tools to protect themselves: many would volunteer themselves to protect other minorities. It's the left that doesn't trust their minority neighbors with boom-sticks.

Who is at fault?

  1. Obviously the perpetrator(s) are at fault. Period.
  2. The media: we know that mass murderers crave the spotlight, so sensationalizing mass shootings (or mass murder) trades ratings for more of the events. And they own some of that responsibility.
  3. You can't protect against individuals committing mayhem -- driving a truck into a crowd killed 2x as many (87 in Nice, France -- with 434 injuries), bombs regularly kill a few hundred, box cutters killed ≈3,000 on 9/11, lighting things on fire (Cinema Rex fire killed 422 in Iran), even the Kunming knife attack (China) killed 35 (and wounded 135). So those that distract from focusing on the real problems (security or finding perpetrators) are partly at fault -- they distract from real solutions, and waste energy on political fights over their agenda: which is always removing more freedoms from individuals like the ownership of Guns, Knives, or cars.
  4. What is agitating these guys? If you read this manifesto (and some others), it’s the activist left and the FakeNews that drives some of this backlash. It’s the denial of any consequences by the left/media, shouting down politically inconvenient truths (and silencing others), helps fuel the "need to act" (in their minds).
    • In this case it was lying that mass immigration without integrating or policing the Muslims, or denial that there were rape problems and so on, that seemed to fuel the rage/impetus to act, because they know that the media is lying. The media/left’s solution is to lie more. Which enrages the kooks even more. If they were non-biased adults, we'd admit the problems, and work on solutions to help with integration into the culture, cultural outreach, rewards for integration (like language, education, jobs) and incentivize opportunities and mixing -- but to do that would require admitting there's a problem -- so the left dodges, and calls everyone who would suggest such a thing "racist".

Sadly, I don’t see the news or left suddenly maturing, admitting some mistakes, and getting responsible, honest or informative any time soon. At least based on how they handled this, by trying to virtue signal and blame the other side for all of it.


I often go analytical on problems, as you can see by this article. But here are some of my thoughts, feelings and biases (with things I shouldn't have to say, but do):
  1. I don’t sympathize with this guy at all. If he was in America, I’d wish he gets the electric chair... quickly.
  2. I have zero sympathy for those that would kill innocents, whether they are Muslims, Jews, Christians or Atheists
  3. I do sympathize with the poor victims (and their survivors) who did nothing to deserve this, and the community that had to endure this
  4. My Dad and much of my family are Muslims, my Mom's side is Catholic, my brothers is Christian, I'm atheist (or agnostic), and we even have a few chosen people in our extended family
  5. While this guy hates multi-culturalism, I’m a product of it and like controlled immigration and diversity
  6. I love immigration, and cultural appropriation. But it has to be at a rate that society can adapt to and integrate with, or you’re going to create backlash.
  7. I think this guy was scary because he was actually fairly rational — though I don’t agree with any of his final conclusions (like resorting to violence). His manifesto and Anders (which was his mentor) have some valid complaints and facts... they just go to the wrong conclusions and solutions. That means they are appealing to some. And the more the left tries to suppress them, the more they attractive these ideologies will be to the disenfranchised (and the more they drive people there, or to act out).
  8. I can’t fix that there’s always going to be a fringe element that can be agitated. I just wish I could take away some of the fuel for their hate, by getting the left/media to act more responsibly.

We’re in a stalemate that until the left grows, they’ll keep making it worse. And I haven’t seen any evidence of their capability to grow. The individuals that commit this stuff are worse. The left paints groups they don't like with a broad brush, while calling everyone who does the same, "bigots" or "haters". This hypocrisy is fuel for outrage and retaliation. The more successful they are at silencing or shouting down the other side, the more pressure builds. Two fanatical ideologies are squaring off, and neither accepts any responsibility for their actions. It’s tragic to watch... but how do you get fanatics to recognize that they’re fanatics? Especially when they think they're "Journalists".


There were two other mass murders of Christians the prior weeks that got virtually no airtime. The Philippines Church Bombing kills 20+ [2] and the Nigerian Church attack that killed 32 [3]. If you didn't hear about those, ask why?

This isn't really whataboutism, as I'm not excusing Tarrant's actions in any way. But the clueless will call it that. The point is that the media decides what's newsworthy --- and when they do it in a completely biased way, don't trust their readers, and they suppress views they don't like, it fuels the anger/resentment. The fanatics have a choice:

  • (a) Trust the media is looking out for them, despite evidence to the contrary
  • (b) Trust their own eyes that knows injustices are happening against their tribe -- and defend that persecution. They are spurned to act by the dishonesty of the media.

Not Free Speech

New Zealand warns that they consider exposing the true video, or his manifesto are hate speech. So the left has been going on book-burning censorship binges, to prevent the skeptical from fact checking. I considered embedding the content in my site, to protect history from the Fahrenheit 451 crowd, but I don't want to be a purveyor of this stuff more than I have to. And I fear retaliation from anti-Free Speech organizations like Facebook, Google, some litigious left-wing activists, or my hosting service. But let me assure you, this is not linked to publicize or sensationalize the shooter or his ideology in any way. I wouldn't link it at all, if the Media/Press did their job and either didn't sensational the event or lie about the manifesto, and just reported it accurately. But since the press lied, wants to sensationalize the shooting and "interpret" it for political gain, and doesn't want you to understand his motivations or trust you to make up your own mind, I felt it better to link to the source. Not to support the shooter, but to show how misleading the media (and their army of rubes) are, to let people can see how out of context things were taken, and trust my readers to make up their own minds.


It's definitely rambling, with a lot of poetry and topic changes, a little FAQ, and so on. He seems to think that like the Terrorist Mandela, he'll also be let out in 27 years, to delayed recognition and so on. I'm betting he's wrong... but I would have said the same thing about Mandella, the Weather Underground, Assata Shakur, Che Guevara, the PLO, and dozens of other left-wing terrorists that the left now idolizes. So who knows? He might be the champion of left wing nationalism someday. Sadly.

I don't know what you can take from the manifesto, other than the ramblings of those that made bad life choices. Trying to get in the mind of a mass murderer is intellectual gymnastics that I'm not limber enough to execute very well. My curiosity was mostly about what he said, versus what the media said he said. And my suspicions were confirmed that like Breivik and many other crazies, what the media says about him or his ideology is quite different from what he actually said/did. So getting in the minds of media polemics is a much easier problem to solve: everything they don't like is right wing, especially when it isn't.


📚 References

NZ mosque attacked issued manifesto citing U.S. right wing extremism as an inspiration, police say. Death toll rises to 49.

FakeNews 🤥

  • CNN tries to spin that the problem is NZ's lax gun control laws. Of course any cursory glance is that their laws are far more restrictive than ours, and that no named law could have stopped someone who was not deemed a threat from getting access to a legal or illegal gun and doing this. The guy planned it for 2 years and knew how to make explosives (according to his manifesto) -- the alternative was worse. Most of all, they omit that the reason he only killed as few as he did, was because in the first place someone shot back and he had to leave to go to a gun free zone, so he could kill many more people.
  • The AP posts something that claims the Christchurch's 77 page (large type) manifesto is like Anders Breivik's (Andrew Berwick) 1500 page book, and that both are right wing. Yeah, they both disliked the Islamification of Europe. But Eco-Communist is not what most rational people call, "right wing". Anders is more complex, he covers a lot more stuff -- I've only scanned it. But it's a futurist book that explains how things happened in our future by looking backwards in a series of articles. The real history part (like half of it) is just documenting grievances against Islam and is fairly accurate, from a one-sided grievance against Islam point of view. The Futurist stuff explains how history progresses from a dark, conspiratorial and anti-Islamic and anti-EU point of view -- and dabbles in tactics/organization of the terrorist cell that takes back the continent and drives the invaders out. I only scanned it, but it's probably not what most people have heard on the media, and it's less fantastical/error-ridden than say Das Kapital (which isn't a high bar). So while I want nothing to do with it, there's a slight overlap in agenda (with Christchurch manifesto), but virtually none in style, tone, content, scale, or scope.


No Free Speech

The stuff the left doesn't want you to see/read: