The New Zealand massacre: a heroic non-victim and a cowardly perp
Ever since the news of the New Zealand mosque killings, I’ve been wondering how the killer was stopped and captured. Various rumors have gone around, and I suppose that this story might be just another one, but it seems pretty detailed and I’ll assume it’s true.
The man, named Abdul Aziz, was worshiping at the mosque and heard a voice outside, looked out a window and saw a man with a “large gun” and saw two bodies. He immediately realized this man was probably a killer, and then Aziz did what he says “anyone” would have done but of course most people would not have done. He grabbed the most likely weapon at hand, a credit card machine (I have no idea how big that is) and ran outside with it:
Aziz said as he ran outside screaming, he was hoping to distract the attacker. He said the gunman ran back to his car to get another gun, and Aziz hurled the credit card machine at him…
The gunman returned, firing. Aziz said he ran, weaving through cars parked in the driveway, which prevented the gunman from getting a clean shot. Then Aziz spotted a gun the gunman had abandoned and picked it up, pointed it and squeezed the trigger. It was empty.
He said the gunman ran back to the car for a second time, likely to grab yet another weapon.
“He gets into his car and I just got the gun and threw it on his window like an arrow and blasted his window,” he said.
The windshield shattered: “That’s why he got scared.”
We have a few important elements here. One is Aziz’s quick thinking, and his use of distraction by doing something unexpected—yelling at and charging towards the attacker. Another is the fact that the perp seemed to be having some difficulty at that point with a jamming firearm or one out of ammunition (if the perp’s weapon had been working, Aziz might well be dead). Another is that Aziz seemed to know that he needed to weave rather than going in a straight line, and he was partially shielded by the cars in the parking lot; if he’d tried to do something similar within the mosque, he might indeed be dead. It’s fortunate for him, and for everyone else who survived, that the gunman made noise outside the mosque, giving an alert and speedy observor enough advance warning to prepare himself as best he could, and that a heavy object (the credit card machine) was around, and that he was strong enough to haul it and throw it.
A firearm would have been better, but Aziz made the most of what he had.
Another element that matters a good deal is that the perp seems to have been somewhat cowardly. He had the firepower, but he ran away. I’ve read that this can sometimes (certainly not always) be the case—that the perp believes the weapon gives him superpowers and that defiance from someone he sees as only a victim can take him unawares and turn the tables somewhat. But don’t count on it.
I also had wondered how the perp was ultimately captured:
He said the gunman was cursing at him, yelling that he was going to kill them all. But he drove away and Aziz said he chased the car down the street to a red light, before it made a U-turn and sped away. Online videos indicate police officers managed to force the car from the road and drag out the suspect soon after.
There’s some missing information there. Did someone call 911 and describe the car? How far did the perp get before being stopped?
This is another case in which first responders, however well-intentioned and trained, appear unable to get to the scene quickly enough to prevent carnage. That makes sense because a person with a gun can do a lot of damage very quickly in a disarmed crowd. So it seems up to those under attack to stop the perp in his tracks, and an unarmed person in that position has to be strong, quick, smart, inventive, courageous—and lucky.
Good for Aziz. He saved many lives, probably. I think it’s often true that these killers fold when challenged.
Kate, absolutely. But the courage it takes to challenge them! I ask myself whether I would have the same bravery if called upon. I hope so.
From that linked piece in USA Today:
There’s often mention of that “autopilot” thing by others who act heroically.
Mrs. Whatsit, same here. Would I have the reaction this man did? I used to ask myself, when I was living in third-world countries containing Islamist radicals, if I would have the courage to decline to “convert” on video to save my life. I hope so. Fortunately I was not called upon to decide.
Muslims are rather fatalist, believing that every moment is under the direct control of Allah, including whether they draw their next breaths. However, Aziz’s reaction was very courageous and cannot be simply chalked up to thinking it was Allah’s will. He may think so after the fact.
There is that old saying- “When seconds count, the police are minutes away.”
Here’s a preliminary timeline of the events:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47582183
The first attack was at the Al Noor mosque, where Brenton Tarrant killed the most people with the first shotgun and the two assault rifles, perhaps 42 dead at least. He fired a second shotgun several times from the car as he drove away from the Al Noor mosque. The video of the attack ends well before he reaches the second mosque, Linwood.
By the time he attacks the people at the second mosque, Linwood, he has already left behind one shotgun and one assault rifle at the first mosque. He may have had few remaining rounds for the second assault rifle, as evidenced by the far lower number of people killed there, perhaps seven or eight dead. It’s likely that by the time he reached the second mosque, he only had three long-arms to use for this attack, among them a shotgun and a bolt-action rifle.
If Brenton Tarrant still had the fully loaded assault rifles he used at the first mosque, then Abdul Aziz almost certainly would have been dead or seriously wounded. The casualties at the second mosque would certainly have been much higher had the shooter not expended so many rounds inside of the first mosque and down the streets outside.
He had also covered his weapons and magazines with writing in white ink, such as 1488 (the fourteen words, etc), “refugees welcome to hell”, dates and places of past Islamic conflict (Tours 732, Acre 1189, Vienna 1683) and the names of Western victims in modern conflicts, from both terrorism and crimes committed by immigrants. He even had his own soundtrack for the streaming video, including the song “Remove Kebab” (which dates from the mid-90s Balkan wars). And as his manifesto indicates, the shooter did not want to fight the police, and intended upon capture to continue his message and political struggle from prison.
One may call Tarrant many disapproving things. But the man is no coward. Rhetoric is doubtless very useful in politics / virtue-signalling; however it does nothing to help us further our understanding of the man or the tectonic social forces which have been unleashed in the world by our feckless ‘elites’.
Aziz certainly behaved bravely. Then again, his worst possible outcome was staying alive and becoming a hero. He had a perfect chance of becoming a Shaheed. So there’s that, too.
I harp endlessly about the Confucius and the Rectification of Names. Muddy thinking will not get us out of the present civilizational crisis.
Tarrant’s future quality of life in a NZ prison will depend very much on the Maori inmate population’s views on Muslim Immigration.
Zek:
The shooter was and is a coward. And that’s neither rhetoric nor is it virtue-signaling. I couldn’t care less about virtue-signaling, nor do I think it enhances my virtue in any way to call him a coward. I call him a coward because he is a coward.
Anyone who mows down a bunch of unarmed innocent people in a house of worship, while he himself is armed to the teeth, is among many other things a coward. And then, that same person runs away at the first sign that someone is fighting back, and might even hurt him. Coward.
Why a person would think otherwise I really don’t know.
Mowing down a bunch of unarmed innocent people is Evil. Certainly not Queensberry Rules either. In fact one could go on at great length about the wrongness of doing so. But beyond a certain point it’s pretty much flogging a dead horse.
Mowing down a bunch of unarmed innocent people in the full knowledge that one is irrevocably destroying one’s own life (one way or the other) must presumably imply some degree of resolution and courage.
Further Re Aziz. Clear-headed people understand that it’s reasonable to assume that these two individuals inhabit different moral/spiritual universes with different calculi when it comes to life-risking acts of courage. Again, this is not to excuse or excoriate one or the other. But you are comparing apples with bananas.
Without brutal cut-to-bone surgical thinking and exposition, we face the risk of ignoring the Elephants in our Brains (highly recommended book, BTW) and obfuscating ourselves into a civilizational-scale lower brain stem atavism of the order of the Late Unpleasantness. Not something to be desired by anyone.
Zek sounds like Bill Maher, who said this about the hijackers after 9/11:
“We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it’s not cowardly.”
It was ugly then, it’s ugly now.
Ann:
Damn right, it’s not cowardly. You try it and report back to us.
Call it what it is. Call it Evil. Call it a great rent in the Natural Law. I do. I also call it a gross strategic blunder. (What I don’t do is emote at length to protect myself from specious allegations by people who are incapable of rational analysis.)
Which part of “If we do not use the most precise words to describe a thing we will not be able to reason correctly about it and take appropriate action” do you not understand?
Of course if people wish to emote or vent, that’s another thing.
Leave Bill Maher out of it. I’m not a Progressive.
Zek:
I am being extremely precise. I’m surprised the distinction is not clear to you. I will try to make it even more clear.
The 9/11 hijackers and the New Zealand shooter committed evil deeds. But I actually agree somewhat with the abominable Maher that the 911 hijackers, evil though they may have been, had a certain amount of strange courage. I don’t find their courage admirable, but it takes some sort of bizarro, twisted courage to fly an airplane into a building and kill yourself. Evil and courage can co-exist. Courage in and of itself is not necessarily admirable, however. The courage to do great evil may be courageous, but it is certainly not the least bit admirable.
However, the New Zealand shooter was NOT courageous. I have explained why, but I will repeat it: he faced unarmed innocent civilians and with the force of a firearm killed them—probably men, woman, and even children. Not the least bit courageous. He did not kill himself. On the contrary, he ran the moment anyone physically challenged him and he thought he might get hurt. Not the least bit courageous.
My guess is that he expected that he might be able to escape, as well, although perhaps not because by livestreaming the whole thing he could not hide who he was. Perhaps he intended to escape and change his identity. He seems to have spent an enormous amount of time traveling the world, including many long stays in third-world countries. Perhaps he intended to disappear into one of them, and he may have had contacts there who could help him. At any rate, I see nothing courageous about him. Arrogant, self-important, evil, aggressive, many things of that sort, but not courageous.
Brilliantly said, Neo.
Ann/Neo:
Perhaps you need to locate, download and read the man’s manifesto (described in the usual suspects media as ‘Rambling’ and ‘Hate-filled’) and mull it over a bit and then eviscerate it point-by-point. Needless to say, you won’t find any mainstream media reproducing it in full. Needless to say hundreds of thousands of young and specifically male people HAVE read it and are now processing it. Think about what that might mean going forward.
There’s going to be more of these. It’s inevitable at this point. Calling them playground names isn’t going to make any of this go away. Said Manifesto states that one of his aims was to create a backlash and give some impetus to the great grinding mill rollers of the Dialectic.
Easy to flap around in a chorus of “I won’t dignify such a depraved individual by reading his demented rubbish”. Great. Muh Feelz.
But:
History has shown repeatedly that when an individual or a group produce a manifesto stating their views on what is wrong with the world and what they intend to do about it, *and* start risking their lives to take action commensurate with same, it’s probably NOT a good idea to respond in the time-honoured ways one learned back in the playground or on the college paper. It’s only useful as Group-Signalling that “we are the good people”. Doesn’t help with understanding the underlying issues and doesn’t help in the least in shaming likely future perpetrators who would only see your disapproval as a sign that they’re on the right path.
What the answer is, I’m not entirely sure. But it sure as hell isn’t candle-lit vigils and choruses of ‘He so bad’.
If what’s coming down the pike is to be nipped in the bud, it’s going to require very-cold-blooded rational thinking and action on all sides.
And that’s just about all I have to say on this topic unless someone has something some factual/strategic to add. Emotive language gets us nowhere here.
Zek:
Perhaps you should pay attention to what a person actually says before you accuse that person of saying something the person never said.
You write “Calling them playground names isn’t going to make any of this go away.” I certainly never called the New Zealand shooter a playground name. I called him a coward, and I explained why. Nothing juvenile about it. It is my opinion based on the facts. Nothing emotional about it either. It’s a perfectly ordinary descriptive term for a state of mind and a type of behavior.
And I certainly never suggested for a moment, nor would I, that it would somehow “make this go away.” That would be an extremely stupid thing to think.
You also write, “Easy to flap around in a chorus of ‘I won’t dignify such a depraved individual by reading his demented rubbish.’ Great. Muh Feelz.” Exactly where did you get the idea that I said anything of the sort? This isn’t about my feelings, either, so what is this “muh feelz” business?
I’ve read some excerpts of the manifesto and am aware of the general gist of the shooter’s plans, dreams, expectations, and goals. I take such people very seriously, both the havoc they wreak and the havoc they desire to wreak in the future. I have written many many posts on the motives of various mass murderers, including Breivik, who has a similarity in some ways to this shooter. The New Zealand shooter also has a slight similarity (in goals) to, of all people, Charles Manson, in terms of Manson’s plan for Helter Skelter. The murders his group committed were supposed to ignite a huge race war that would leave him and his band in charge of things.
Manson had a very idiosyncratic point of view; there was no political movement he connected to. Nor was there an internet, and he didn’t write and publicize a manifesto. The New Zealand shooter wants to inspire violence and chaos and has more tools with which to do it, and more people who might be simpatico with those goals than Manson ever had. That doesn’t mean he’ll succeed, although it does make him potentially very dangerous.
Breivik wanted to ignite a movement as well, by the way, and published a very lengthy manifesto too:
It didn’t catch on, although we may at some point find that the New Zealand shooter was a disciple of Breivik. It would not entirely surprise me if that was the case.
None of this has a thing to do with whether a person is being cowardly or not during a certain event. The New Zealand shooter’s behavior during this incident was both evil and cowardly.
Zek:
Any comments on the Unibomber’s (Ted Kaczynski) manifesto? Did Timothy McVeigh write a manifesto? Don’t forget Aum Shinrikyo (Sarin on the rails).
Get back to us on these, don’t get emotional.
Neo: We’ll just have to differ on appropriate use cases for the word ‘cowardly’.
Om:
Thanks for asking! I do have a comment. All of the above committed terrible crimes. All of the above were in some ways perhaps symptomatic and indicative of deeper ills facing their respective cultures. A wise person would try to look deeply into the maw of the beast and try to understand precisely where things had gone wrong. It’s very difficult to do this though because as soon as one posts anything that isn’t just a giant spank down and heaping of curses upon the perpetrator, the names and imprecations start flying. And one wonders why human societies never seem to learn and keep repeating the same bloodthirsty mistakes over and over again. All this talk of dialectic and grinding out the truth through debate appear to be just so much talk.
Ted Kaczynski had no business blowing people up. Parts of his manifesto make amazingly perceptive and for the time percipient statements about the Faustian bargain we have all made with technology. I think, however, that he’s rather more sui generis than the other two examples you give.
Japan, having reached for the brass ring and lost bigly, and consequently having lost also its soul, *will* throw up apocalyptic cults and strange cases like Mishima Yukio every now and then. It’s only natural.
McVeigh also had no business blowing up a daycare centre (I include the rest of the adults in that building too — having little respect for people who live off the taxes of others).. but he was a harbinger. A looming. Just because you or I couldn’t figure out that something had gone very wrong with the scale, motivations, and self-serving/perpetuating creeping tyranny of Federal Agencies back in the 90s, doesn’t mean that some ‘wild-eyed nutter’ couldn’t nut it out. Was the Oracle at Delphi particularly sane, coherent, or humane?
There *is* going to be an on-going organic Reaction with a Capital R against unvoted-for and unwanted immigration by culturally and religiously incompatible aliens into the West. It’s only human. Ordinary ‘flyover country’ people are not doing well and are not happy at all. Read David Goldman for what happens when people feel that they are bound for demographic extinction. What ails the West goes deeper than mere demographics of course.
I get that I come across as cold and unemotional about these things. I also get that a large percentage of the population has a need to gather together to affirm this or that moral stance. A lot of what we talking primates do is just group-cohesion stuff. And that some form of community singalong is required after any Catharsis to restore the business as usual sense of the community. Cool. We’re not going to stop being monkeys anytime soon.
And yet, all of us need to try to take a step to the side and a step back way the #$@% outside the Overton Window and polite convention every now and then if we’re to stand any chance of seeing the woods for the trees and avoiding the really bad things we know we’re capable of as a species.
I would prefer not to continue to post on this topic in this thread. I think I’ve said all that I wanted to say.
Occams razor, nuts (insane people) do insane things. Evil is and evil does even if this individual is not actually insane. So go ahead Zek and tie it to the manifest problems in the world today.
Anyone who mows down a bunch of unarmed innocent people in a house of worship, while he himself is armed to the teeth, is among many other things a coward.
While I don’t agree completely with zek, I think the use of the term “coward” is probably not appropriate. This fellow is a fanatic and probably has plans to use the court procedure to continue his behavior which resembles Charles Manson and his “family” more than most mass murderers.
The San Bernardino killers did not surrender as they seemed to want death as part of their jihad. The “Pulse” nightclub mass killer, also Muslim, did not surrender and was killed by police. The mass killer in France on Bastille Day 2016, also Muslim, was killed by police and made no effort to surrender or escape.
We will probably hear more from this killer in New Zealand unless the authorities prevent him from talking.
This is an interesting analysis of the event and the killer.
zek:
It’s fine with me to disagree on the word “cowardly.”
But I want to respond to one thing you said, which is this: “I get that I come across as cold and unemotional about these things.” Actually, I thought you came across as quite emotional in your reaction to my calling the perp a coward. What’s more, you attributed an emotional meaning and valence to it that I never gave it (calling it a “playground name,” as well as your expressing the idea that I thought this would “make it go away,” something I never for a moment had indicated). I interpreted your reaction as an emotional one, not a cold one at all.
Now, of course I might be wrong about you and your emotions on this. It’s just a perception of mine. The internet is a notorious vehicle for misunderstanding emotional states. So I think we all do well to state somewhat tentatively and/or provisionally our opinions of the emotional states of others online, unless those states are unequivocally clear.
Mike, thanks muchly for the link to the Rod Dreher article. Interesting indeed, as are some of the links in the Dreher piece.
MikeK:
Knowing that New Zealand does not have capital punishment makes me think the Christchurch murder suspect is indeed a coward and evil. Your other examples were Muslim fanatics, evil, yes, cowards, who knows. God will sort that out.
And of course the Christchurch suspect has very, extremely, critically important things to tell the world that justified killing 50 people. (not)
And of course the Christchurch suspect has very, extremely, critically important things to tell the world that justified killing 50 people. (not)
My point was that he wants the publicity and plans to keep talking. Charley Manson did not have anything intelligent to say. Did you read the linked article ? I doubt it.
MikeK:
I did not read it. Others have summarized his “manifesto” as trolling for attention; 72 pages from an alleged mass murderer, but hey, he’s got your attention. How many clicks does Rod Dreher need?
Alleged mass murderer since he hasn’t been convicted yet. And not a coward either. /s
How many clicks does Rod Dreher need?
I guess it just depends on how much someone wants to be informed.
Thank you Mike K for the link. Very worthwhile.
Like I said (on the prior, now-dead thread), Rod Dreher makes the point that this guy’s critiques are important to understand. Like Marx’s critiques of capitalism, Tarrant (the killer) identifies the upcoming death of Euro-centric Western Civilization.
I doubt that many in the Dem media will want to ask “why did he do it” — because they label him right-wing, and say he did it because right-wing folk are evil.
In labelling all Reps as guilty they do, against Reps, just what they say we should NOT do against Muslims, every time some crazy Muslim kills.
On the word “coward”, my feeling is that there are cowards, neutrals, and courageous. The unarmed Muslim who attacked back, and died, was courageous; so was the one who fought back and survived as Tarrant went back for more pre-loaded guns. The ones hiding were neutral. Had some tried to run away, I would not call them cowards. Had they been police whose job it was to fight back, but they don’t fight back, or run away, they would be cowards.
(bing) “a person who is contemptibly lacking in the courage to do or endure dangerous or unpleasant things.” He was evil, and contemptible, and unwilling to fight anybody who was fighting back, without a loaded gun (overwhelming firepower). Still, his willingness to act makes me feel he is willing to endure the unpleasant killing, as long as he knows he will win. If what he wants is kill, not to fight, that also makes him a bully. And bullies are usually labeled as cowards, too.
I don’t think labelling the one who initiates as a “coward” is the kind of connotation to the word that I’d prefer the word to have. I don’t think the US nuking Hiroshima was a “cowardly” act, nor is the use of drones. Is Tarrant a coward for not wanting to actually fight where he might get hurt, might lose? If so, then those who claim the US is cowardly for using drones or overwhelming force, in order win without loss, they are also cowardly, if they go and deliver weapons of destruction but fly away without staying to maybe get hurt.
Interesting differences in nuances.
(I include the rest of the adults in that building too — having little respect for people who live off the taxes of others).
You’re welcome to move to Somalia (or a slum in Tegucigalpa) if you’d like a taste of a world without a government.
Marx’s critique of capitalism, that shared a lot of sweetness light on the world (and helped the masses), and the musings of a mass murderer opining about the death of Euro-centric Western civilization. How much attention would the manifesto have gotten if he had only killed 1, or 49, none, or millions? But it is significant because ….
I’ll wait and see if the manifesto proves to be a cannon of Euro-centric Western civilization. I don’t have clicks to harvest.
see if the manifesto proves to be a cannon of Euro-centric Western civilization.
A survivor of Auschwitz once said, “When someone says he wants to kill you, believe him.” The killer’s writings, like those of the Unabomber, were worth reading to see what is going on and why. They don’t tell you how to live, or even how to survive but they might tell you why the killer was doing what he did.
The fact that the bomber of the Ok City federal building did not leave a “manifesto” was that he assumed, as eventually people figured out, that the bombing was revenge for Waco.
Mass murderers are no more “cowards” than the killings are “senseless.” There is a reason. Cowards are the deputies in Broward County who took cover in spite of the change in police rules since Columbine
I did find the manifesto on the Web. I won’t leave the URL here unless Neo would like me to, because I do understand the downsides (risks and publicity) of publishing it. But if anyone wants to read the thing, I found it using Startpage.com and searching on the string
“The Great Replacement” manifesto .
In any case, I certainly agree with Mike K, Tom, and the others that Mr. Dreher’s analysis is well worth considering.
MikeK:
So the Umma may learn something from the Holocost. Fat chance.
You can’t accept that he may be trolling the media and was willing to murder for his 15 minutes of notoriety. And of course only after the corpses are tallied is the rant given any attention.
Evil, heinous deeds such Christchurch often are not “sensible.” That is a fundamental problem, try theodicy if you really want to think.
We are stiIl waiting for the sensible explanation for the Las Vegas mass murder event. Not a coward there either. /s
If we learn that the NZ perp did it for the attention and his manifesto is tripe what does that say for your nothing is “senseless.” But don’t worry we have had less than one week and we now are told that his manifesto is a must read. Time to harvest some clicks.
“The New Zealand shooter also has a slight similarity (in goals) to, of all people, Charles Manson, in terms of Manson’s plan for Helter Skelter. The murders his group committed were supposed to ignite a huge race war that would leave him and his band in charge of things.” – Neo
Chicagoboyz commenter noted this, which seems relevant to your observation, although the post topic was the Dem’s anti-Semitism, not the NZ massacre (but it did follow Mike K’s reference to his manifesto and I think it was probably in response to that):
https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/59399.html#comment-1016664
Brian Says:
March 16th, 2019 at 1:00 pm
Richard Fernandez had a great tweet a few days ago :
“Though it may sound counterintuitive the absolute worse thing politicians can do is react by collecting guns, imposing hate speech restrictions and announcing open borders. If they don’t understand why that is bad they don’t understand the problem at all.”
Test
his manifesto is tripe what does that say for your nothing is “senseless.”
You seem to be an expert in responding to things I didn’t say.
Have a nice day,
Dreher lists seven items that the killer says comprise “degeneration” and the last five of them have nothing to do with Muslims — “widespread drug use, the loss of worker rights and stability under the reign of globalist capitalism, envinvironmental degradation, the collapse of Christianity, and rampant hedonism”. All window dressing. It’s the hatred of a particular people that drove him to commit that massacre.
Ann:
Yep, those are sensible reasons to murder 50 Muslims (not) or did he just really hate them (as you said) and knew that NZ doesn’t have capital punishment, and few firearms. But would that be the sign of a sensible calculating coward? Others have also asked why do these mass murderers tend to select “soft targets?” It’s just so anti-heroish, almost cowardly.
Others before Dreher had noted that the manifesto was sketchy.
The purposeful taking of innocent life is inherently evil, even more so when done at a place of worship. Whatever the twisted motives, there really is no justification, it is only evil. It is also cowardly to purposely kill innocents. That would seem self-evident. These were not soldiers in a conflict, or collateral damage on the field of battle that were unintended casualties. These people were the focus of the killing because of who they anonymously were, not because of any wrong they personally did.
We can argue quite rightly about if any group of people should be allowed into any country, in what numbers, and what criteria should be used. But once they are here, by what ever circumstance, violence against them cannot be justified. Killing innocent people is not self-defense. We are not all children of any given country or religion, but we are all children of God.
All window dressing. It’s the hatred of a particular people that drove him to commit that massacre.
There’s no window dressing, Ann. Those are all common complaints within certain circles.
And those complaints added together make a unified manifesto? (not.) Yeah, next up, 9-11 and Jet Fuel Doesn’t Melt Steel. Or maybe the guy just had to murder? Nope, that’s too obvious.
JJSefton’s take on the Christchurch perp: ace.mu.nu
“Speaking of which, the real motivations and political mindset of the perpetrators don’t really fall neatly into the official media narrative of white nationalist right wing Nazi Trump supporter. From what has escaped the media embargo is the fact that the ring leader is some sort of socialist, radical environmentalist and was in fact hoping that the massacre would somehow be the spark that sets off a hot civil war in the USA. Helter Skelter + 50 years. ”
Like Charlie Manson, whom I’ve been told here, had nothing intelligent to say. Hard to know who is the non-Manson whose manifesto is a must read and who just had to kill some people in a place of worship. but who is not a coward.
More evidence that this killer has more agenda to play out.
He wants to talk in public. That’s why he surrendered. Muslim mass killers commit suicide or go down fighting police.
Pingback:Neo – National Emergency, Veto, Airline Crash, New Zealand Massacre, “sorry”, Dylan & Byrds, Earth from Space – Tom Grey – Families, Freedom, Responsibility
Mike K on March 18, 2019 at 1:02 pm at 1:02 pm said:
More evidence that this killer has more agenda to play out.
* * *
“A man who represents himself in court has a fool for a client.”