Christchurch Mosque, March 15, 2019:
The Psyop That Deceived a Nation
Allah will surely make evident those who are truthful, and He will surely make evident the liars. — Quran 29:3
For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad. — Luke 8:17, King James Version
This was precisely the role of the Right in Italy. It placed itself at the service of the State, which created a strategy . . . aptly called the "Strategy of Tension", insofar as they had to get people to accept that at any moment — over a period of 30 years, from 1960 to the mid-80s — a state of emergency could be declared, so people would willingly trade part of their freedom for the security of being able to walk the streets, go on trains or enter a bank. — Vincenzo Vinciguerra, Operation Gladio hitman and pioneer of false-flag terror, speaking in June, 1992. See my full transcript of his statement here.
THIS article is the result of my inquiry into the "terrorist attacks" of March 15, 2019, in Christchurch, New Zealand. The page will be updated whenever new material comes to hand, or whenever old material is discounted. I will, however, retain most abandoned theories, as even misconceptions have something to tell us. As I said when I first addressed the issue of the "shootings", I am doing this because I do not trust the New Zealand Government to tell us the truth. The Government's prime aim is to control the narrative, and to silence dissent with threats of savage punishment (1). If it is now dismayed by all the speculation surrounding the Christchurch events, it has only itself to blame. Secrecy creates a vacuum that speculation will always fill. That's because human beings have an irrepressible desire — and, indeed, a duty — to search and understand. The article was written on April 17, 2019, and last updated on June 17, 2019. The most recent pdf copy, from June 10, 2019, is here.— Basil Throckmorton. Email: nolies (at) chchtruth.com
In the wake of Christchurch, Whitey is the new bête noire.
"Fuck White Supremacy" — and, by extension, the "white" nationalist movements that are now the principal impediment to the pursuit of the globalist agenda. This envisages the abolition of the nation state, as conceived by the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, and its replacement by a one-world government, which would be a grim corporatocracy. Under this plan, there would be no national sovereignty and no national culture, as the former nations would be "multicultural" entities with open borders. Token local elections would continue to be held, but democracy would, in effect, be dead. All major decisions would be made by unelected bureaucrats of the central authority, and ruthlessly enforced by armed police — as they are today in France, in relation to the Yellow Vest movement.
Secondary to this program are attempts to discredit any organized opposition to it. Many tactics can be used; but Operation Gladio proved that none is more effective than a false-flag terrorist attack that makes the opposition repugnant to the public. That is not to say that all terrorist attacks are hoaxes, but that one should always be on the lookout for anomalies in the official narrative, or official evidence, that are indications of a contrived event. No statement from "authority" should be uncritically accepted. What "authority" wants to do, through propaganda, censorship and proscription, is reclaim your mind for the dystopian system.
The link — albeit oblique — to the Balkan wars of the 1990s (see below) is not as surprising as it might seem. The take-home message from the conflict in the former Yugoslavia was "Muslim Bosniak/Kosovar=Good; Christian Serb=Bad", which is similar to the take-home message of Christchurch, after decades of denigration of Islam in New Zealand. Thus, the Christchurch event was a cultural-political coup — a radical reversal of precedent — as much as it was a "terrorist attack". Incongruously, it has also seen local Muslims embrace the wishy-washy gospel of John Lennon: "All you need is love." See the cover of Woman's Weekly, April 1, 2019.
It will be understood, from the above, that there are two types of terrorist attack: (1) Attacks that cause real deaths and real injuries, such as 9/11 and 7/7, and (2) "Attacks" that have fake deaths and fake injuries, such as the Boston and Manchester bombings. It is the contention of this paper that the Christchurch "shootings" fall wholly or largely into the second category. If you believe otherwise — i.e. that the "shootings" were genuine — I would like to question you about the basis of your belief. Is your opinion based on evidence, or is it based on faith? If you have evidence that someone was seriously wounded on March 15, please produce it. And don't fob me off with a photo of a man with a bandaged arm, or a pair of crutches, who swears he was "riddled" by an AR-15.
When one expresses doubt about the reality of a terrorist "attack", the immediate response is either "But what about the list of the dead?" or "What about the medical people involved?" I can't precisely answer these questions, because I can't speak for the perpetrators of false-flag events. But in the case of the first question, I would suggest that the perps: (1) Invent identities, (2) Use the identities of dead people, (3) Use the identities of living people elsewhere in the world, (4) Use the identities of living people who are relocated and given new identities, and (5) In extreme cases, use the identities of people who are sacrificed for the sake of the success of the operation. In connection with (5), it's important to remember that the event is still a psyop, even if people are killed. All too often, a heated argument over whether there were actual deaths and/or injuries excludes a rational consideration of the significance of the event as a whole.
Turning to the second question: I see no problem in securing the complicity of hospital staffs. Who is going to violate "patient confidentiality"? Who is going to terminate their employment, and possibly their medical career, by talking? To whom would any disillusioned person speak, anyway? To the police, who are involved in the deception? To the hospital administration, which is also involved? To the co-opted press, which will never print anything that undermines the official narrative? It's not surprising that the involvement of doctors and nurses in the Boston and Manchester stunts led to no major problems for the perps.* * * *
An outline of the events of March 15 in Christchurch
AFTER each item that has a bearing on the events of March 15, I have made a comment in bold face. Throughout the article, I have supported my arguments with pictures from various sources, which include, ironically, the Facebook page of Al Noor Mosque. In some instances, I have placed a series of photographs, illustrating a particular person or topic, on a subsidiary page. I have also placed some less important pictures here.
• Earlier in the month, on March 5-6, a conference for crisis management teams, called "CrisisX: The Readiness Conference", was held at the SkyCity Convention Centre, Auckland. See here for pictures of the conference. — Of possible relevance..
• Tellingly, on March 15, a police training exercise/counter-terrorism drill is under way in Christchurch. — As soon as I heard this, I thought, "Oh, Oh, here we go again!"
• The illustration on the left is a panel from the back cover of Chronicles of False Flag Terror, by Nick Kollerstrom, 2017, Moon Rock Books. — The counter-terrorism drill that morphs into "reality" is a striking phenomenon of the 21st century — and one that Kollerstrom describes as an intelligence test for the alert onlooker. Click
here to listen to the relevant part of the Radio 5 Live Drivetime interview, in which Peter Power, the managing director of crisis management
firm Visor Consultants, talks to Peter Allen.
From Free Thought, March 18, 2019.
• The training exercise involves the local hospital. — I believe this is a fact, but I can't confirm it.
• Hospital staff are told to expect a realistic scene, with armed police running around, ambulances coming and going, etc. — Conjecture, but in line with the known modus operandi of the perpetrators of false-flag terrorist attacks/hoaxes. Cf. the "Boston bombing" and the "Parkland school shooting".
• The "terrorist" enters the drama. He is identified as Brenton Harrison Tarrant, a 28-year-old Australian who was raised in Grafton, north of Sydney. He is said to be currently living in Dunedin. — Fact. However, Veterans Today editor Gordon Duff, writing in The Millennium Report, March 18, says Tarrant's age has been confirmed as 42..
• Brenton Tarrant is, or was, a real person. — Fact. Click here to see him as a child, and here to see him as a high school student..
• Early reports of more than one person being involved in the day's "shootings", and of "several IEDs attached to cars" (source: Police Commissioner Mike Bush), are forgotten. The preference is always for the simple, straightforward story of the "lone wolf". No conspiracies, please. — Fact.
• Tarrant is of Jewish descent. — Fact. His family emigrated from Palestine in 1948, going first to Britain, then to New Zealand, and finally to Australia. They reportedly gained Australian citizenship in 1970..
• Tarrant has spent time in Israel. — Fact. "A senior Israeli immigration official said Brenton Tarrant arrived in the country from Turkey on October 25  using his Australian passport..." — Times of Israel. He reportedly stayed for nine days. But according to other reports, believed to be from Russian military intelligence, there were also longer visits, during which he received military training. His task, according to these reports, was to have been the assassination of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. It's therefore reasonable to assume that the Israelis financed at least some of Tarrant's travels. Other funding could have come from an inheritance when his father died — as some investigators have suggested. Yet another possibility is that he was somehow able to obtain compensation as a "Holocaust survivor". One can discount the claim he made his money through Bitconnect, as this was a scam..
• Tarrant has also spent time in Pakistan, which he loves. Fact. "Pakistan is an incredible place filled with the most earnest, kind hearted and hospitable people in the world." — Tarrant's post on the Facebook page of Osho Thang on October 23, 2018. Osho Thang is a Shia-run hotel in Nagar Valley, Gilgit-Baltistan, an administrative territory of Pakistan. Anyone seeking further information on Tarrant's travels will find numerous websites, each giving a slightly different account. No doubt much of Tarrant's personal history is untrue, if only because of what it omits. As some observers have noted, one of the "requirements" for the job of "lone-wolf" terrorist/assassin (or patsy) is a murky, ideologically conflicted background. .
• Tarrant is NOT a racist. — Conjecture, but a reasonable assumption in view of his wide travels and praise for Pakistan and its people. If he is a racist, he is idiosyncratic in this respect. Anyone reading his comments about Pakistan must wonder: Is this the person who seethes with disgust at the sight of Pakistani "invaders" in Europe? Gordon Duff describes him as a sociopath, i.e. a person who lacks empathy. But how does that description square with his evident appreciation of kind-heartedness? In my opinion, Tarrant is probably little more than an operative.
• Tarrant is a member of the Masonic Forum in Canberra. — Allegation made by Gordon Duff in The Millennium Report, March 18, 2019, but in line with precedent. Anders Breivik, one of Tarrant's putative heroes, was a member of the Norwegian Order of Freemasons, and some of those behind the terrorism of Operation Gladio — what I generally refer to as Gladio I — were members of the P2 Masonic Lodge in Italy, which was founded by former Blackshirts. Writing in Cairns News, March 20, 2019, Duff describes the Masonic Forum as a "satanic cult"..
• In the "shooter's live-stream" — as the "shooter" sits in his car — the camera is turned to show what purports to be Tarrant's face. This looks as though it could have been superimposed on the video frame(s). It appears to be floating, and is, in the opinion of some viewers, too far forward of the body. It is also strangely elongated, possibly as a result of a technical problem or of some jiggery-pokery with the image. Viewers will also notice that there is the barest hint of a neck. So the picture doesn't conclusively establish who the driver of the car is. It also raises the question: Why did the "shooter" feel the need to identify himself in this way? — Conjecture, but plausible in this age of photoshopping.
Tarrant could not have been made to look more menacing. One is reminded of how pictures of Lee Harvey Oswald were doctored to make him look rattish. Note, too, how the alleged killer is invariably representative of a target population group. Oswald was a "Communist". Sirhan Sirhan, the alleged assassin of RFK, was a Palestinian. Other killers have been repesentative of "radical Islam", and have helpfully emphasized their identity by shouting "Allahu akbar".
• The person who is eventually arrested for the crimes is probably Tarrant, but possibly not the "Tarrant" shown driving the car (as we saw above). In other words, the real Tarrant could be a patsy: someone who willingly participated in the drama, without realizing the full extent of the role that was ultimately going to be assigned to him. There are several possibilities. There also could have been some degree of mind control, along the lines of MKUltra. But in any event, the defendant will be tried and convicted as Tarrant. After that — whatever happens to him — he will not be heard from again. — Conjecture, but should not be dismissed out of hand. The pictures below are from the defendant's court appearance on March 16, 2019.
The blurring or pixellation of Tarrant's face by the mainstream media, at the request of the judge, opened the door to speculation — and to at least one spurious representation of him. Click here to see the blond "Tarrant" with spectacles. June 15, 2019: The court seems to have realized that pixellating Tarrant'e face is a bad idea. In yesterday's television news reports on the day's hearing, during which Tarrant pleaded not guilty, his face (from the March 16 hearing) was shown.
• In the opinion of Wolfgang Eggert, a German analyst, the "live-stream" is not a live-stream but a simulation that was prepared earlier for the counter-terrorism drill. This drill almost certainly envisaged an attack on Al Noor Mosque (and possibly on the Linwood Islamic Centre as well). — Conjecture, but plausible in view of the "live-stream's" many anomalies. As several analysts have reported, it looks more like a video game than an actual shooting. "New Zealand shooting video wasn’t ‘gruesome’ enough to flag, says Facebook," was the headline at news.com.au on April 11, 2019. See news.com.au.
• At some stage, the counter-terrorism drill goes live. — Conjecture, but in line with the established modus operandi of the perpetrators of false-flag terrorist attacks/hoaxes. Cf. The 7/7 bombing in London and the 11/13 Bataclan shooting in Paris.
• Members of the Muslim community, who have been induced, by one means or another, to take part in the "training exercise", fake deaths and injuries (2). Later, as lucky "survivors", some of them make highly dubious claims about what they did and/or witnessed during the "attacks". Heroes abound. — Conjecture, but plausible in view of the fact that testimonies are sometimes at odds with the photographic and video evidence.
I have three pictures that show people carrying what appear to be receptacles containing red material. The top two are from the video at (2). Note the large, melodramatic "bloodstain" over the heart in these images:
Linwood Islamic Centre.
Linwood Islamic Centre. Another screenshot from the video is here.
Linwood imam Alabi Lateef Zirullah. His testimony is here. I don't believe this. An imam is not permitted to halt the salat al-jumuah prayer, and go and "peek" through a window, simply because he has heard "a voice outside the mosque".
Some Muslims have posted this picture to social media with the claim it is from Al Noor. In reality, it is from Somalia, and first appeared online in September 2018.
The picture on the left has been repeatedly posted to social media with the claim it is the Al Noor carpet after the alleged shooting. In reality, it is the carpet of Al Rawdah Mosque in Bir al-Abed, Egypt, which was attacked by ISIS on November 24, 2017. The carpet in place at Al Noor on March 15, 2019, is shown on the right. It suffered no major damage.
At the time of writing, I have been able to find 13 pictures of "gunshot victims" immediately after the alleged shootings. All look more like "victims" of the police training exercise that day — or victims of a gunman armed with an "air rifle of some sort", as Allan C. Weisbecker suggests below (in the section headlined "False-flag terror comes to NZ"). Two pictures of lucky "survivors" are below. The others are here. Pictures of survivor Sheikh Hasan Rubel, from TVONE News, June 15, 2019, are here. Pictures of survivor Adeeb Sami, from TVONE News, June 1, 2019, are here. Pictures of survivor Temel Atacocugu, from TVONE News, May 10, 2019, are here. The faces of 50 of the 51 alleged fatalities are here, on the cover of the issue of Woman's Day for April 1, 2019.
In view of the many pictures we have of "wounded" people (supposedly) being transported from the mosque, one wonders why we don't have a single picture of a body being removed. And where are the pictures of the police forensic teams going into the mosque in their white overalls and facemasks? They apparently don't exist, either. All we have are pictures of what I would characterize as ballyhoo — ambulances (supposedly) racing to the scene with sirens blaring, and heavily armed police running around, hurriedly conferring, and generally looking important and busy. It's all great theater, but where's the substance?
When considering the number of "wounded", one must also consider the possibility — perhaps probability — that some people are capitalizing on pre-existing injuries or infirmities, and claiming that these are a result of the "attack" on March 15, 2019. The testimonies of such people, and any "evidence" they supply, should be closely examined for anomalies. Why might some people lie about being shot? I think the answer to that question is obvious: There is a lot of money at stake here, in terms of compensation. In some cases, "sacred victimhood" might also smooth the path to permanent residency.
No evidence of gunshot wounds, and no medical equipment (apart from the stretcher).
Another casualty with no apparent wounds. Click on the link to see him again, giving the "Finger of Tawhid" for the camera.
PICTURE ABOVE: He's in pretty good shape for someone who has been "shot multiple times" with an AR-15. If he had been shot multiple times, and had somehow survived, it's unlikely he would be lying in a hospital bed dressed in those clothes. One might also expect him to have medical equipment monitoring his condition. Once again, the injuries to this man and his daughter (assuming, for the sake of argument, that there were injuries) are explicable only if they were caused by a low-powered weapon such as an air rifle. Incidentally, the CBC Radio report mentioned in the paragraph below says Wasseem "took [only?] a bullet to the hip".
PICTURE BELOW: CBC Radio reported on April 15, 2019, that Wasseim Alsati (sic) took his daughter Alen to Al Noor Mosque on March 15, "But before they even got inside...both father and daughter were shot and left for dead...The shooter had aimed his automatic rifle at the little girl's head, but her father scooped her up and shielded her. She took a bullet to the stomach and another to her toes." There are two problems here: (1) The alleged shooter's "live-stream" shows no such incident, and (2) A bullet from a real AR-15 to the stomach would have caused such horrific injuries (see the surgical testimony in the next section), one has to wonder whether survival would have been possible for such a small child. See an earlier picture of Alen here.
• For reasons unknown, the "live-stream" video is released to the public, only to be immediately suppressed. Meanwhile, the "Tarrant manifesto" is suppressed, writings critical of the official narrative are censored, and dissident publishers are "deplatformed". Also, images of Tarrant's face are relentlessly pixellated. — As I say below, some analysts have theorized that this crackdown is part of the drill. The suggestion is that the authorities want to find out how quickly and effectively they can shut an issue down.
• The "manifesto" begins with a quotation — in full — of the poem Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night, by Dylan Thomas. A quotation from this poem can also be found at the start of Chronicles of False Flag Terror, by Nick Kollerstrom, published in 2017. — Fact, and evidence, I believe, of the mind games played by the perpetrators of false-flag terrorist attacks/hoaxes. The front cover of Kollerstrom's book is here. The back cover of the book, including the panel pictured above, is here.
• The shooter's timeline — arrives Al Noor 1.40, leaves Al Noor 1.48, arrives Linwood 1.55, arrested 2.20 — is questioned by some people who know Christchurch. One person has written to me to say, in part, "The accused could not have driven between the venues in the time allowed." See the message here. — I don't know Christchurch, so I can't comment on this.
See an aerial view and floor plan of Al Noor Mosque here.
• The Government announces a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the "Christchurch terror attacks", and promises that it will "leave no stone unturned" in its attempt to "get to the bottom of how the terrorism occurred". See here. — Two points can be made here: (1) The inquiry is hamstrung from the start by the fact it operates within the confines of the "system". In other words, its starting point is unreserved acceptance of the official narrative of what happened. This means it will do little more than address such questions as "What links did Tarrant have to Identitarian movements in Europe, and why weren't any such links detected by, or acted on, by the intelligence services? and (2) There are people in the globalist elite — those who profit from what is known as "creative chaos" — who know exactly what happened, how it happened, and why it happened, for the simple reason that they are the real perpetrators. It is reasonable to assume that these people are more or less the same people who staged the terrorist attacks of Gladio I, and that they have more or less the same objectives. (See the preface of this article.)
The alleged shooter's (alleged) weapons
I am giving prominence to this section because most people know almost nothing about the effects of an "assault rifle" when it is fired at point-blank range at a human body. Such is their ignorance, they may believe that being hit by an air rifle pellet — which can kill, but usually doesn't — constitutes being "shot". And if this belief is reinforced by some "authority", which assures them they have been hit by a bullet from, say, an AR-15, they are obviously going to over-estimate the lethality of the "shooting" to which they have been subjected. See a real gunshot wound from a service rifle.
◘ Counter-terrorism expert Greg Barton, from Deakin University, told ABC News the gunman’s weapon resembled an AR-15.
“The attacker was using a couple of guns, one was a shotgun, one was an AR-15 — that’s the so-called civilian equivalent of the M-16. It’s an assault rifle,” Mr Barton said.
From "How the Christchurch shooter obtained powerful military-style weapons", at news.com.au.
◘ It’s possible to argue about everything when it comes to the politics of guns — including about the definition of “assault rifle” itself — but it’s harder to argue about physics. So let's consider the physics of an AR-15.
A bullet with more energy can do more damage. Its total kinetic energy is equal to one-half the mass of the bullet times its velocity squared. The bullet from a handgun is—as absurd as it may sound — slow compared to that from an AR-15. It can be stopped by the thick bone of the upper leg. It might pass through the body, only to become lodged in skin, which is surprisingly elastic.
The bullet from an AR-15 does an entirely different kind of violence to the human body. It’s relatively small, but it leaves the muzzle at three times the speed of a handgun bullet. It has so much energy that it can disintegrate three inches of leg bone. “It would just turn it to dust,” says Donald Jenkins, a trauma surgeon at University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. If it hits the liver, “the liver looks like a jello mold that’s been dropped on the floor.” And the exit wound can be a nasty, jagged hole the size of an orange.
These high-velocity bullets can damage flesh inches away from their path, either because they fragment or because they cause something called cavitation. When you trail your fingers through water, the water ripples and curls. When a high-velocity bullet pierces the body, human tissues ripple as well—but much more violently. The bullet from an AR-15 might miss the femoral artery in the leg, but cavitation may burst the artery anyway, causing death by blood loss. A swath of stretched and torn tissue around the wound may die. That’s why, says [Peter] Rhee, a handgun wound might require only one surgery but an AR-15 bullet wound might require three to ten. [Rhee is a trauma surgeon at the University of Arizona.]
Then, multiply the damage from a single bullet by the ease of shooting an AR-15, which doesn’t kick. “The gun barely moves. You can sit there boom boom boom and reel off shots as fast as you can move your finger,” says Ernest Moore, a trauma surgeon at Denver Health and editor of the Journal of Trauma and Acute Surgery, which just published an issue dedicated to gun violence.
From "What an AR-15 Can Do to the Human Body", by Sarah Zhang, June 17, 2016, at wired.com.
◘ A .223 round fired from an AR-15 travels at 975 m/sec, has 1854 joules of kinetic energy and a range of 3785m . . . All the victims should've been absolutely shredded to bits and would've either died instantly or bled out in minutes or seconds. There should've been a mess of flesh and blood and only pieces left of the victims. The walls and floors would've sustained major damage from EVERY SINGLE shot fired, regardless of whether the bullet impacted flesh or not. Actual results from live-stream video: 1. Minor blood splatter from point blank shots; 2. Zero damage to walls and floors.
From a comment by "Mondz Dolo" on You Tube, April 12, 2019, below the video "The Christchurch Massacre - An Independent Analysis". See here. June 9, 2019: Sorry, this video has been censored, along with all the comments. Return to top of page.
False-flag terror comes to NZ
I see the Christchurch "shooting(s)" 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.
AT THE time of writing, the consensus among independent analysts (i.e. not academic or press stooges) is that the 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, 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.
Gemma, who has close to 20,000 subscribers to her YouTube channel, is one of the most astute and indefatigable commentators on current affairs, mainly as they affect Ireland. It's amazing that, at the time of writing (June 12, 2019), her channel is still up. I suspect that Google has been deterred from taking action against her by her threat to invade Google headquarters in Dublin, with many of her followers, in the event of her channel being shut down.
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. 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 must be the fact the "live-stream" contains several anomalies, which would lead to endless debate and expressions of skepticism if the video were made public.
To my mind, some of the most insightful comments on these anomalies have come from Allan C. Weisbecker, who first addressed the Christchurch shootings on March 17 in his blog post "Extended Minds":
"My other thought today is from what little looking I’ve done into the New Zealand shootings. As I say in a comment, it so far has all the tells of a flat out hoax, i.e., no real crime scene photos (plus photos that look fake), a lack of verifiable details, interviews with unemotional ‘victims’ (shades of Sandy Hook), the immediate anti-gun rhetoric, plus the ‘shoe’ photo. The latter may sound nuts but if you look back at past hoaxed violent events, you’ll find most of them include a ‘lone shoe’ in the imagery. Just a single shoe lying on the street or wherever..."
On March 20, Weisbecker followed this up with "Poof Goes the Airgun":
"The New Zealand shooter was using an air rifle of some sort, which blows a puff on each shot, so it looks like a hit. The footage was so obvious a fake that I’ll not go into details. All you need see are the grabs showing the wall behind where the two main groups of ‘bodies’ lay. No bullet holes. Most, if not all the shots would have gone through bodies and hit the wall, not to even mention misses — his ammo was not hollow point or ‘frangible’ (exploding). I didn’t bother to look up the specific type of weapon but it looked like a version of the AR-15. Doesn’t matter.
"On his way back to his car he supposedly head-shot a woman lying on the street. No splatter, just hair flying from the compressed air effect. Over all, no bullet holes, very little blood, blah blah. Maybe they’ll doctor the footage later, make it look ‘better.’ I’m sure you guys will find many more problems with the footage.
"What bothers me most is how many NZ officials (not to mention the actors) had to be in on this. Local cops, federals, the politicians, the press (of course), and so forth. Many, many people. What do we do, folks? They keep doing this and the vast majority of the world’s population keep buying it..."
* "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. See here.
In Chronicles of False Flag Terror, Nick Kollerstrom writes: "We can be confident that these events are 'state-sponsored,' meaning set up and created by the 'Axis of Evil', CIA-Mossad-MI6. In general, we cannot know to what extent one or another of these intelligence agencies is involved, as they are so closely interlinked." (See how a Mossad spy ring was unearthed in Christchurch. See also how FIANZ has defended Mossad. Astaghfirullah!)
With all this in mind, one has to wonder whether New Zealand's "security" services should be added to the above "axis", albeit in a subordinate role. Few can have failed to notice that mysterious armed men, described as special forces, were conspicuous on the streets of Christchurch in the wake of the alleged shooting.
The triumph of darkness
March 15, 2019, was, indeed, "one of New Zealand's darkest days", but not, in my opinion, for the reasons given by the Government. For a start, we are now locked into a farrago of fact and fiction that cannot be teased apart. And if you do attempt the exercise — or, worse, if you analyze the shooter's "live-stream" — you are judged mentally sick and in need of psychiatric treatment and/or imprisonment for up to 14 years.
IF THE past is anything to go by, the Powers That Be will sooner or later trundle out pop psychologist Nigel Latta, who will tell the nation, in his folksy manner, how emotionally deficient we questioners of the official narrative are.
Already, predictably, we are being told that we are insensitive to the "bereaved" relatives of the dead, who have been hurt twice — first by the loss of their loved ones, and then by the denial of their loss by "conspiracy theorists". But I, for one, have never claimed that no one died in this or any other false-flag terrorist attack.
Deaths can occur in any such operation, especially if someone strays from the script or if something untoward happens. But as a rule, the perpetrators don't want to cause deaths. That's because (a) any death is a complication that can lead to legal problems, (b) real deaths are unnecessary when they can be faked, and (c) the ideal operation is one in which people believe there have been fatalities when, in reality, there haven't been any. The latter represents the acme of the psyop.
The perps also know that even if no one dies in an "attack", they will still be able to draw up a list of the dead and injured that will be accepted in a court of law. They have been pulling off these stunts for about 60 years — since the days of Gladio I, during Cold War I — and know that, because the public is gullible, they can continue their modus operandi almost indefinitely.
Although they operate in the shadows, they occasionally leave hints of who they are and what they plan to do next — possibly to taunt those who know how to read their signs. But according to Danish-born analyst Ole Dammegard, they also do this to protect their karma. Their rationale is: "We gave you several clues. If you were too dumb to pick them up, that's your problem. We can't be held responsible for your stupidity." Dammegard has also spoken of the pair of shoes, signifying "homage to the sacred space", that is often left at the scene of a murder. In Freemasonry, this ritual removal of the shoes is known as the Rite of Discalceation. Conversely, a single shoe, when placed at the scene of an "event", means "this was done voluntarily". (Note, in passing, Ardern's past links with the Freemasons. Note, too, Gordon Duff's allegation, in The Millennium Report, March 18, 2019, that "most of its [New Zealand's] officials are Masonic". )
Humm! What do we have here? Seemingly, a headless mannequin and a pair of "Masonic shoes". (This is the "woman" referred to by Allan C. Weisbecker in the previous section.) Note the protruding tube, where the head formerly fitted on to the torso. Who removed the head, which is clearly visible in this screenshot from the live-stream? And perhaps more importantly, why did they remove the head? To view another picture that includes shoes, click here.
Note the policemen and other officials standing around. They can't be unaware that the "body" in the gutter is actually a dummy. Yet no one has stepped forward to tell the truth — a sure sign of corruption at the highest levels.
On the basis of testimony, I have tentatively identified the mannequin's "comforter" as Nathan Smith (below), who is described in a BBC article of March 20, 2019, as a "father of three, originally from Poole in Dorset". Smith is quoted as saying that, after he escaped from the mosque, he found a young woman lying in the road beside the mosque. "I can see she's been shot so I crouch down and try to roll her over...I didn't know her name and I don't know where she's from at the time. I'm just holding her, I don't know why but I'm stroking her back — she's already dead." Later, he is quoted as saying he had spent hours at a community center in the hope of finding her husband. "I was just hoping to catch a glimpse of her husband. I need to find him. I don't know his name. I just need to know he's okay." But if the "woman" is a mannequin, where might her "husband" be? Standing in the window of a menswear store? It also goes without saying that Smith's other statements do not jibe with the shooter's "live-stream". In particular, I would question the statement, "The windows started going out, I could see people just falling forward. People standing up and just falling."
Another "attack" in which mannequins are thought to have been used is the Westminster Bridge "attack" of March 22, 2017. Note the (presumably unconscious) man's rigid, raised arm. Thanks to Petra Liverani for pointing out that the man's raised pelvis is also unnatural. But at least the obligatory pair of sneakers is more neatly placed here.
In the case of the "Christchurch shooting", we also have the interesting insertion of the number 14 and the image of a fish — as displayed on the palms of John Podesta below. Podesta, a "swamp creature" who was Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign manager, was in New Zealand on March 10 for a Global Progressives Event, and stayed until the day before the alleged shooting.
New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern met Hillary Cinton in Auckland on May 7, 2018, and the pair reportedly "hit it off".
John Podesta visited New Zealand in the days before the "shooting", and warned that the country was a "juicy target" for a major hack.
The above number and fish image, which symbolize the murder, dismemberment and resurrection of Osiris, also appear on the weapon used by the alleged shooter. Thus, the shooter's message could be taken to be, "The white race will rise again". It's a message that proceeds from "darkness", as it denies our common humanity.
The fish and the number 14 both appear on Tarrant's weapon.
Freemasonry originated in the myths and rituals of ancient Egypt. The Port Adelaide Freemasonic Center is even built in the form of an Egyptian temple.
The date of the Christchurch "bloodbath" — March 15 — is also significant. This is the Ides of March — a date associated with the assassination of Julius Caesar and ritual human sacrifice. Concomitantly, March is the month of Ares (Mars in Roman mythology), the God of War who is typically accompanied by sons Deimos (representing Terror) and Phobos (representing Panic). Thus, the date is almost certainly not a coincidence. The elite take a perverse pleasure in messing with our minds.
"That isn't a white supremacist sign, it is an Illuminati / Eye of Horus sign," says Miles W. Mathis, author of a three-part series of articles on the "Christchurch Shooting hoax". The alternative interpretation of the gesture is that the middle, ring and pinky fingers represent a ‘W’ (white) and the thumb and forefinger come together to represent a ‘P’ (power). See it in detail here.
But this negativity is not all. Taken as a whole, the Christchurch shootings could be said to represent the triumph of darkness over light in a city that memorializes Christ, the "Light of the World", and in a mosque dedicated to "The Light" ("Al Noor"). And this is where things become problematic for the Muslim community in New Zealand. For if the Muslims have sided with the globalist elite — the "dark hand" behind the false-flag terrorism of the past 60 years — they have, figuratively speaking, made a compact with the devil.
The nation's Muslims, and especially those of Canterbury, have clearly gained a lot. Only weeks after the alleged shooting, more than $15.7 million has been raised for those "bereaved". Meanwhile, the status of Islam has risen remarkably — to such an extent that an article warning of the "dangers of Muslim immigration" would today be almost impossible to write. The Muslims can also look forward to increased protection from all forms of "hate speech". But they, and the rest of the community, have also lost a lot.
One immediate consequence of "one of New Zealand's darkest days" is the wholesale assault on freedom of speech. We are now in the grip of a veritable frenzy of censorship that is stripping us of rights our forebears fought and died for over many centuries. See here and here. This censorship is driven by a conglomerate called the Trust Project, which promotes the corporate media ("news with integrity") while forcing those with real integrity out of business. But sadly, most people — especially young people — are today so dumbed down they don't even notice what is going on.
According to YouTube, the words of this song constitute "hate speech". But assuming the translation from Serbian is accurate, there is nothing more sinister in it than a warning that the Ustaše (Croatian nationalist organization) and "Turks" (presumably the Bosnian Muslims) should "watch out". During World War I, when Serbia was on "our" side, it was portrayed as "plucky little Serbia", an outpost of Western civilization. But since the Balkan wars of the 1990s, it has been depicted as a hotbed of genocidal maniacs. That — and the fact that Tarrant played the song — is why it was banned. Return to top of page.
When I started to write this piece, I was going to say that the state is corrupt. A more accurate assertion would be that there are people in the state structure whose primary allegiance is to the New World Order, and who are determined to mold New Zealand to its globalist ideals. There are various ways in which they can do this. First, they can co-opt the mainstream media, and ensure it supports the official narrative on any controversial issue — often by denying there is any controversy in the first place! Then they can either co-opt or neutralize the various sectors of society. The unions have long gone as an effective political force, and the potent student/peace movement of the 1960s is now a distant memory.
The beauty of the false-flag terrorist attack/hoax — as staged by agents of anonymous actors in the globalist elite — is that it speeds up the consolidation of power at critical junctures. Specifically, it enables the elite to (a) claim we can no longer afford the "luxuries" of due process, free speech, and private gun ownership, and (b) bring even fringe groups into the fold. When I heard the imam of Al Noor Mosque, Gamal Fouda, say an effusive "thank you" to the globalist Ardern, I realized that this gambit of the New World Order had also worked in the case of the Muslim community of New Zealand.
"Thank you" for what? For the way in which Muslims were enticed into what must, for most, have initially been seen as no more than an anti-terrorism exercise in which they could play a colorful and exciting part? For the way in which Muslims were led, step by step, into a labyrinth of lies, which now collectively form the Lie That Is Too Big to Fail?
Anyone who has doubts on this score should look at some of the Muslims' testimonies, and check them against what purport to be factual records of events on March 15. Take, for example, the testimony of former Canterbury Muslim Association president Mohamed Jama, as reported by the Listener in its issue of March 30-April 5: "He [the gunman] came in the gate — the first person he came to was me. We were just one step away, very close. He looked at my face, I looked at his. He walked past me. I said, 'Where are you going? Do not enter.' But he went inside the mosque and started firing."
Where is this encounter in the shooter's "live-stream"? The answer is that it isn't there. So if Jama's testimony is true, the "live-stream" is indisputably not what it purports to be. Both can't be true.
The "live-stream" does contain a call to the approaching gunman, just before he opens fire. But this sounds more like "Salaam, Brother" than "Hello, brother" (or "Welcome, brother").
Despite the intensity of the subsequent "shooting", there is no "river of blood . . . flowing off terracotta tiles" — as reported by ambulance officer Paul Bennet. All viewers of the "live-stream" report remarkably little blood.
The official narrative is also questionable in the case of Farid Ahmed. On March 29, Newshub reported: "Farid Ahmed was inside the Al Noor Mosque on Deans Ave when a gunman opened fire. He uses a wheelchair and was unable to flee, but still survived the attack." Has any viewer of the "live-stream" spotted a man in a wheelchair? I don't think so.
There is also the case of Tariq Omar, who reportedly died on the day while "[trying] to help children to escape the mosque during the gunfire". (Quote from TVONE's Sunday program of May 12, 2019.) Again, one has to point out that the "live-stream" does not show anyone undertaking any such action. So if it's true that Omar died in a shooting on that day while trying to save children, it's reasonable to suggest that he died in a shooting that was not the one represented by the "live-stream". (See the opinion of Wolfgang Eggert above.)
Thus, it's not surprising the Government is anxious to squelch all knowledgeable debate on the Christchurch "shootings". The more one investigates them, the more one realizes that the official narrative is untenable.
In my opinion, Christchurch's Muslims are also in a precarious position, despite the enhanced status I have mentioned above. If they have been lying, they have been compromised. And if they have been compromised, they can be blackmailed. And if they can be blackmailed, they can be controlled and induced to do more things that are against Islam. The "they are us" meme is a nice political slogan, suggestive of harmonious relations ahead. But what does the emotional aftermath of this "tragic" incident really mean for their future — and for the future of the Muslim community in general?
Aftermath of "tragedy": Living it up in the UAE — one of the perpetrators of the genocide in Yemen.
I also wonder whether some Muslims were a little disturbed, as I was, by the carnival of grief that followed the alleged shootings. To my mind, there was something profoundly un-Islamic in the singing, speechifying, and haka dancing that entertained us at commemorative gatherings. Then there were the thousands of floral tributes — so poignantly reminiscent of the flowers left at the scenes of victimless false-flag terrorist attacks/hoaxes in the northern hemisphere.
Armed police? Flags and flowers? An honor guard of non-Muslim women wearing faux hijab? This is bizarre. What will come next? Hawkers selling trinkets made from empty bullet casings? (Outside Al Noor Mosque, Friday, May 3, 2019.)
The observations, opinions and arguments of Max Igan
While driving to Al Noor and apparently following GPS directions, "Tarrant" parks briefly for no apparent reason. After exactly one minute, a person in red walks past his car. Ten seconds later, "Tarrant" drives off. Some investigators who maintain the "live-stream" is genuine, or partly genuine, say this person in red is "Tarrant's" handler (or one of his handlers).
A figure in red walks past the car at 4.08.
ONE such investigator, who says he has conducted a frame-by-frame analysis of what purports to be the shooter's live-stream, is Max Igan. On his website, Igan has posted two more pictures of a person in red who appears later in the live-stream:
The alleged shooter enters the mosque compound. The face in the rearview mirror doesn't look like that of Tarrant.
A figure in red stands by the wall at top left.
A question mark also hangs over a silver Toyota Will VS, registration FQH875, which was parked to the left of the entrance of the mosque when "Tarrant" arrived, which disappeared during the shooting, but which was later seen passing through the police cordon and reentering the area. See the bitchute.com video (if it's still available). See also three more pictures here.
Igan's conclusion is as follows (edited):
"This was not a lone wolf shooting by a white supremacist. This was an organized hit using multiple players as clearly seen and evidenced by the shooter's own video. Jacinda Ardern is a liar and the people of New Zealand are being disarmed under false pretenses — and it's happening so fast because the Government is terrified of what will happen if the people find out . . .
"All claims of 'CGI/hoax' etc appear to be based on speculation and conjecture that I feel is purposely designed to create as much noise and confusion around the real and solid evidence as possible; to misdirect people away from placing any focus on some very real and indisputable facts contained within the shooter's video, that confirm beyond any shadow of doubt that the NZ Government is lying.
"The claims of hoax and CGI are damage control. People are being played, and if they cannot get a bit of focus, learn to think for themselves and start reporting some real truth regarding this shooting, we are going to get totally screwed over this event. When properly examined, all evidence in the actual shooter's video suggests that this shooting was real, and claiming it's fake is one of the things that is going to be used to shut us all down.
"People simply do not realize how well they have been prepped for this event. And as I previously said, I haven't been looking at this attempting to prove it either way. Belief is the enemy of knowledge. I look at each event separately; and upon inspection, I simply cannot find one shred of anything substantial to prove any of the claims of fakery people are pushing regarding this shooting. In fact, the more I look, the more I find exactly the opposite. I don't have any stake in what I see either way, I'm just sharing my findings . . ."
ASSESSMENT OF IGAN: Igan's references to CGI are an allusion to the claims, made by Jim Fetzer and others, that the absence of bullet holes in the mosque walls, and the apparent disappearance of ejected bullet casings in mid-air, are proof that CGI was used in the production of the "live-stream". I can't offer an opinion on whether CGI was or wasn't used. But I'm inclined to agree with Allan Weisbecker and his correspondent Todd, who "find it ridiculous that Igan blames just about every anomaly in the shooter’s footage on ‘low bandwidth.’ Yes, low bandwidth might ‘erase’ a bullet hole (on the wall, say) in one or two frames of tape, but it doesn’t erase them all in every frame." Perhaps Weisbecker is right when he suggests Igan "is a deep mole along the lines of Miles Mathis (although not as complex)." For the record, other "live-stream" anomalies include (1) An ammunition magazine already on the floor of the hallway as the "shooter" enters the mosque, (2) "Pre-killed bodies" already in place, when the "shooter" enters the prayer hall, (3) A heap of "bodies" (mainly mannequins?) beside an open door, through which at least some people could have escaped, (4) A windscreen that is apparently undamaged after shots are fired through it, and (5) A "shooting victim" who appears to have put on socks after being shot.
CORROBORATION: Gordon Duff, writing in Cairns News, March 20, 2019, says: "We also have an operation where solid intelligence sources say 4 women 'tourists' aided in 'handling and logistics' and local police counter-terrorism forces supplied a second shooter."
OTHER OPINION: Jonathan Eisen, the editor of Uncensored, believes the official narrative is "by and large accurate". (See the issue of June-September.) Return to top of page.
The banning of the 'Tarrant manifesto'
In the wake of the March 15 attacks, the New Zealand Government 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.  The following is an expanded version of a message I sent to the NZ Council for Civil Liberties.
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".
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? 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? See here.
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. As I have said above, I doubt the veracity of some of the fanciful statements being made by some of the protagonists. And I doubt a true history will ever emerge from this wreckage of rationality.
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).
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. (1)
In view of the reasons given for banning the manifesto, one marvels at the irony of singer Cat Stevens' 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''. In my book, that sounds remarkably like "exhorting people to kill".
Stevens, aka Yusuf Islam, made the statement 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. The exchange was as follows:
Geoffrey Robertson, QC: You don’t think that this man deserves to die?
Y. Islam: Who, Salman Rushdie?
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. Return to top of page.
FOOTNOTE: Muslims don't realize that they are being played — that Islam, particularly when it is weaponized as "Islamism", is a tool in the hands of the supranational elite, which is actively seeking global dominance. Al-Qaeda, for instance, is both ally and enemy, depending entirely on the theater of operations and the current exigencies. It has been fought in one region even as has been co-opted in another — in Syria, for example. The same has been true, to a lesser extent, of ISIS. But Islam as a whole can be exploited, or harnessed to the task in hand, depending on the international situation. In the 1990s, during the destruction of Yugoslavia, it was politic to cast Muslims as victims. After 9/11, they were, of course, cast as perpetrators. Now, in Christchurch, we seem to have come full circle, with Muslims being cast as innocent victims again. And in the wake of the Christchurch "shootings", we are, once again, being exhorted to fight terrorism by those who know, only too well, that it is an integral and indispensable part of the "system", as (a) a driver of change, and (b) a facilitator of further manipulation and control.
FOOTNOTE: There's a fairly typical attack on "conspiracy theorists" — "The Christchurch terrorism conspiracy theories are not just false. They’re dangerous" — at thespinoff.co.nz. I have nothing to say about this, except that it doesn't get to grips with any of the evidence I have adduced. For a thorough examination of how a false-flag terrorist attack/hoax is staged, view "The Boston Unbombing" (2016 documentary) at archive.org.
FOOTNOTE: The song that plays as "Tarrant" sets off on his murderous mission is Serbia Strong, which is at YouTube. Listen to it while you can. Anything can be censored in these dark times. May 25, 2019: YouTube has removed the video and terminated the poster's account. Apparently, the song constituted "hate speech". But it's still at BitChute.
FOOTNOTE: An earlier version of some of this material can be found at checktheevidence.com.
(1) The witch hunt is on: See "Christchurch mosque attack: Up to 14 years' jail for video sharers as Commissioner asks Facebook to give police names" at nzherald.co.nz. The article by Chris Keall, dated March 19, 2019, begins: "Chief Censor David Shanks has officially classified the full 17-minute video of the fatal Christchurch shootings which occurred on Friday 15 March, as "objectionable" — meaning it is banned. That raises the prospect of a fine of up to $10,000 or up to 14 years' jail for anyone who shares the clip — and this morning, Privacy Commissioner John Edwards called on Facebook to share names with police. It is an offence to share this material as soon as it is produced, and the timing of the official classification does not affect the ability for police and enforcement agencies to prosecute offences under the Films, Videos & Publications Classification Act 1993, Shanks says. 'Facebook should be notifying the police of the account names of people who have shared this content,' Edwards told RNZ this morning. 'It's not a conflict I think because at the core there is a very egregious offence to the dignity and the rights to privacy of the victims.' "
Actually, you would hard-pressed to identify anyone in the video. Those who have viewed it say all the "bodies" are (conveniently?) face-down. Meanwhile, one wonders why viewing the film of the Kennedy assassination is not a "very egregious offence to the dignity and the right to privacy of the late president"? It is hard to escape the conclusion that the elite, in this case, are (a) trying to hide something, and (b) trying to infantalize and criminalize the entire population, to lock us all into a state of ignorance, subservience and fear. This is the new feudalism, which surveillance technology will make more sinister than the last.
(2) My posting of this link on Twitter resulted in the temporary suspension of my account, so don't post it in any forum where you value your membership. https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=5NH44NNWADB8. I apologize for the flippant commentary. Return to top of page.