Execute Brenton Tarrant!

warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 27 in /home/solopsweb/solopassion.com/sites/all/modules/video_filter/video_filter.module on line 343.
Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Sun, 2020-08-30 09:10

There is much jubilation, as there should be, over the sentencing of terrorist Brenton Tarrant—whose name I have difficulty remembering, always confusing it with that of cultural terrorist and Woke hero Quentin Tarantino—to life imprisonment without parole. My question is: where is the death penalty when it's needed? This moronnial monster should not be allowed to live one second longer, much less his entire natural life-span fed and generally sustained by the taxpayer. Execute Brenton Tarrant!

Justice is supposed to be blind. It matters not one whit that Tarantino slaughtered Muslims and that Islam is a religion of slaughter. One has the right to murderous beliefs, as long as one doesn't try to put them into practice! Moreover, in the case of Christchurch, these were innocents, born without their consent into a savage superstition that did not have their conscious blessing. They had done nothing wrong, and this foreigner killed them in cold blood in a manner incomprehensible to New Zealanders.
One of the incomparable glories of life in New Zealand is that its Bill of Rights guarantees both freedom of religion and freedom from religion. It embodies the quintessence of, "I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it." Section 14 says:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the right to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form." 

Alas, the Christchurch mosque massacre is being used as a pretext to destroy Section 14 and criminalise criticism of Islam, so that this very post could be deemed criminal, and I a criminal for posting it. This is Comrade Jihadi Jacinda Podesta's exact intent. She was never voted in, and we must ensure that she is voted out.

Here is Comrade Ardern in her capacity as President of Socialist Youth International a few short years ago:


Based and red pilled

Bruno's picture

If all one can see is "the government", he is still blind.

"The deep state" is real.

Playboy interview quotes

Jmaurone's picture

I did find some relevant quotes in there. They're pretty consistent with the other quotes, in that the common theme is that censorship it the "line in the sand" as the criteria to revolt:

Q: Would you be willing to die for your cause, and should your followers be willing to die for it? Andfor the truly nonsacrificial Objectivist, is any cause worth dying for?

A: “The answer to this is made plain in my book. In Atlas Shrugged I explain that a man has to live for, and when necessary, fight for, his values—because the whole process of living consists of the achievement ofvalues. Man does not survive automatically. He must live like a rational being and accept nothing less. Hecannot survive as a brute. Even the simplest value, such as food, has to be created by man, has to beplanted, has to be produced. The same is true of his more interesting, more important achievements. Allvalues have to be gained and kept by man, and, if they are threatened, he has to be willing to fight and die,if necessary, for his right to live like a rational being. You ask me, would I be willing to die for Objectivism? Iwould. But what is more important, I am willing to live for it – which is much more difficult.”

Q: Would you actively advocate that the United States invade Cuba or the Soviet Union?

A: “Not at present. I don’t think it’s necessary. I would advocate that which the Soviet Union fears above allelse: economic boycott. I would advocate a blockade of Cuba and an economic boycott of Soviet Russia;and you would see both those regimes collapse without the loss of a single American life.”

Q: Throughout your work you argue that the way in which the contemporary world is organized, evenin the capitalist countries, submerges the individual and stifles initiative. In Atlas Shrugged, JohnGalt leads a strike of the men of the mind—which results in the collapse of the collectivist societyaround them. Do you think the time has come for the artists, intellectuals and creativebusinessmen of today to withdraw their talents from society in this way?

A: No, not yet. But before I explain, I must correct one part of your question. What we have today is not acapitalist society, but a mixed economy—that is, a mixture of freedom and controls, which, by the presentlydominant trend, is moving toward dictatorship. The action in Atlas Shrugged takes place at a time whensociety has reached the stage of dictatorship. When and if this happens, that will be the time to go onstrike, but not until then.What do you mean by dictatorship? How would you define it?A dictatorship is a country that does not recognize individual rights, whose government holds total,unlimited power over men.

Q: What do you mean by dictatorship? How would you define it?

A: A dictatorship is a country that does not recognize individual rights, whose government holds total,unlimited power over men.What is the dividing line, by your definition, between a mixed economy and a dictatorship?A dictatorship has four characteristics: one-party rule, executions without trial for political offenses,expropriation or nationalization of private property, and censorship. Above all, this last. So long as men canspeak and write freely, so long as there is no censorship, they still have a chance to reform their society orto put it on a better road. When censorship is imposed, that is the sign that men should go on strikeintellectually, by which I mean, should not cooperate with the social system in any way whatever.

Playboy interview

Jmaurone's picture

My pleasure. You know, I don't think I've ever read that interview in its entirety, and it's one of the few pieces I don't have.
It is available online, though...I should do that, now.


Jmaurone's picture

Long past time. But it didn't happen, so, now, we're getting an intervention.


Mr_Lineberry's picture

Think we are giving these people their last chance.

As you know I have long predicted a Trump landslide (49 States, 58 - 60% popular vote) and Republican sweep. Victory too large to deny on election night, or to steal.

So a scenario along the lines of.... Trump wins Tuesday, DoJ launches investigations at 9 o'clock Wednesday morning into "everybody".

By Friday some well known people already under investigation (Comey, Brennan, Stroke, BLM leadership, for example) are being arrested.

Dominos are falling.

Various people realise the game is up (and they may well die in prison) and start knocking their nonsense on the head.

Some people haven't lasted this long - due to rat cunning and being saturated in corruption - by not knowing which way the wind is blowing. By knowing a weaponized DoJ cannot be beaten.

Thanks for digging those up, Joe.

Jon Letendre's picture

I still think I have something else in mind. Maybe it was in the Playboy interview, I have that in print and will have a look. What I have in mind I believe this questioner is referring directly to:
“You’ve said it would be proper to revolt if the government established censorship."

Come on, man!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

We are beyond the time where it's proper to revolt. The only difference from Rand's scenario is that it's the Deep State, not the govt. Deep State includes Soros-backing Obleftivism.

Is it this quote?

Jmaurone's picture

From “What Can One Do?” in PHILOSOPHY: WHO NEEDS IT:

“It is too late for a movement of people who hold a conventional mixture of contradictory philosophical notions. It is too early for a movement of people dedicated to a philosophy of reason. But it is never too late or too early to propagate the right ideas—except under a dictatorship.

“If a dictatorship ever comes to this country, it will be by the default of those who keep silent. We are still free enough to speak. Do we have time? No one can tell. But time is on our side—because we have an indestructible weapon and an invincible ally (if we learn how to use them): reason and reality.”

Rand, Ayn. Philosophy (pp. 203-204). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Q&A quote

Jmaurone's picture

Hi, Jon. Is this the quote you're thinking? pgs 47-48:

“So long as a country is not yet under a dictatorship, the culture can be turned around peacefully…so long as a country is not yet under a dictatorship, the culture can be turned around peacefully, particularly in a country like the United States, which is based on the ideas of freedom. It would be harder in Europe, where they are traditionally statist-their basic subconscious values are statist-and freedom is an exception. In America, people bear too much-too innocently and too naively-but I don’t think a dictatorship could take hold. Beneath all their errors, the American’s basic premise is freedom. That is the unspoken emotion- the sense-of-life atmosphere. Traditionally and historically, the American people can be pushed just so far, and the they stop it.

Once a country accepts censorship of the press and of speech, then nothing can be won without violence. Therefore, so long as you have free speech, protect it. This is the life-and-death issue in this country: do not give up the freedom of the press….So long as that’s free, a peaceful intellectual turn is possible.”


Pg. 56-57:

“You’ve said it would be proper to revolt if the government established censorship. Has that time come?”

Rand: “Fortunately, not yet, or I couldn’t be giving this speech…we haven’t reached that point yet, and I don’t think the government will get away with it here, at least not yet. Even in Russia…they didn’t establish total censorship immediately. It took years of gradual steps, each one a trial ballon. They got away with it through smaller encroachments, until they established total censorship. They won’t get it away with it here, because the basic premises of the American people are still pro-freedom. But the basic premises alone won’t do any good. We must be aware of the advancement of censorship. And if the government begins wholesale suppression, then it’s proper to revolt.”

And ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Obleftivists would/will denounce Trump's cancellation of Critical Race Theory as a violation of freedom of speech. Just wait!

No wonder Obleftivists aren't showing up for anti-lockdown demonstrations!!

Hi Joe

Jon Letendre's picture

That is a good response, Joe, thanks. But it is not what I had in mind. And now I cannot find precisely what I had in mind! Her statement that I have in mind is alluded to in the book Ayn Rand Answers, Politics and Economics; "You've said it would be proper to revolt if the government established censorship. Has that time come?"

The last three sentences of her response, as reported in the book, (Ford Hall Forum '73): "But basic premises alone won't do any good. We must be aware of the advance of censorship. And if the government begins wholesale suppression, then it's proper to revolt."

Speak up

Jmaurone's picture

"Ayn Rand was once asked point-blank: As a society approaches totalitarianism when does it become moral to resist with force?

"Who can tell me her answer?"

I know you already know the answer, Jon, but here it is, anyway:

"There are four characteristics which brand a country unmistakably as a dictatorship: one-party rule—executions without trial or with a mock trial, for political offenses—the nationalization or expropriation of private property—and censorship. A country guilty of these outrages forfeits any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and becomes an outlaw."
[“Collectivized ‘Rights,’ ” VOS, 141; pb 105.]

That said, Rand also quipped that “You don’t expect me also to be some kind of woman on the barricades and lead an army on Washington; it’s much too soon for that."

If it was too soon for her, then, it's "later than you think", now, for us. But (O)bjectivists are stuck at the "education" stage, and don't seem to realize, or don't want to admit, that Gramsci's "long march through the institutions" beat them to the punch. (As Linz once said, a "reverse Gramsci" isn't going to work.)

I get the "education/cultural change" bit, but Galt was not just a man of though, he integrated thought with action. But O'ists have been all though. I long ago said that they had too much vested in the current system to be serious for real change. I had at least thought that if it ever got to THIS point, they'd take Rand seriously in the quote above. But not only is OrgO'ism NOT putting up a fight, they'd rather defend people like Bill Gates and attack anyone making a serious attempt to thwart the Deep State. Today's O'ists would condemn Howard Roark, blame John Galt for "violating the property rights" of the media when he interrupted Mr. Thompson's address with his speech, and decry the closed borders of Galt's Gulch. And don't even mention Ragnar Danneskjold...

Not discuss it?!?

Jon Letendre's picture

Ayn Rand was once asked point-blank: As a society approaches totalitarianism when does it become moral to resist with force?

Who can tell me her answer?

3+2 Eyes Do the arithmetic, spell it, search browser

Jon Letendre's picture

Consider their participation in F1V2E3Y4 (search that at KYoumap.pub, but just the four letters, skip the numbers.)
They're not small, incompetent or incapable. They're hooked up, they're capable. For one thing, our slavemasters spy on us for each other. Same thing for all five of us. This is one way they have gone around privacy laws for years — have another do the spying, which is spying on a foreigner for them and not on a domestic citizen.


Mr_Lineberry's picture

Certainly don't think you are lying Jon - of course not.

Perhaps we could not discuss the illegal video? I am sure nobody wants to take part in the commission of a crime (however unintentionally).

Questions for Greg, Olivia

Jon Letendre's picture

... and Mr Lineberry:

Do you believe Mark and I are either lying or are mistaken? Or do you accept that the video was a fake?

Do you believe your gov't banned and *eliminated* the video because it is a very poorly executed fake that was just exposing them, as Mark and I and many others who viewed it have observed, or do you believe that your gov't banned it to protect the psychological health of the public, as they said at the time? Or do you believe they banned and eliminated it from the worldwide web under some other motivation?

Do you have any questions about the issues with the video that I describe?

Which part precisely

Jon Letendre's picture

... is beyond the capabilities of the gov't that willed a video out of existence on the entire www?
So far ... shot bodies delivered to hospital.
Anything else?


Mr_Lineberry's picture

What I think Greg and Olivia are trying to say is - if these turkeys can't build 1 house in three years (let alone 100,000), then the notion they could undertake the "crime of the century" is a bit far fetched.....(if you know what I mean?)

As I mentioned in a post below - the 7 minutes travel time has always bothered me; know the area in question very well; it's preposterous.

But maybe he got lucky? *shrug*


Jon Letendre's picture

It is not just an edict and it is not easy to make a video disappear, and remain disappeared, on the entire worldwide web.
Again, which part exactly of said faking is so very beyond their capabilities?
You asked me that about 911 the last time we talked about the fake video of the fake Tarrant event. I don't know what happened on 9/11. I know the official story is impossible.


edpowell's picture

Not having studied the event I have no comment on the video or the extent of the crime.

I do want to comment on the death penalty. I am in favor of the death penalty from a moral perspective, but that does not mean I am in favor of it in any given society from a legal perspective. In the US, the courts are phenomenally corrupt in so many ways that I can’t even begin to count them. The fact that 98% of cases are pled down to lesser charges—that is, the accused pleads guilty to crimes he did not commit in order to avoid standing trial for crimes he (probably/maybe) did commit—is the height of corruption and injustice, to both the accused and the victim, that the whole system needs to be burned down and rebuilt from scratch. Add in prosecutorial corruption (Gen. Flynn comes to mind), judicial corruption (Gen. Flynn again), defense counsel corruption (Gen. Flynn a third time) and any honest person would never permit the death penalty under these circumstances.

The active principle is “in a demonstrably corrupt legal system, never institute an irrevocable decision.”

And while we’re talking about mass shootings, ever wonder why the Las Vegas shooting in the US never ever gets mentioned anymore? The lynching of a gay black man in 1955 is routinely brought up in the New York Times, dozens of times this year, but a mass shooting with 50 dead and 500 injured is never spoken of, even by rabid gun control advocates? Something is just not right about this. And there’s absolutely no information about this, even underground. There’s theories, but no evidence. So I would be the last person to discount potential problems with the official story in the Tarrant case when there is no official story nor is there any curiosity about the worst mass shooting in the US since Wounded Knee.


Olivia's picture

that was easy because it was just a legal edict.

Faking a shooting - and its aftermath, is another whole level of deceit and organisation.

May I ask you, do you think 9.11 was an inside job too?

Which part exactly is so beyond the capabilities of NZ gov't?

Jon Letendre's picture

Shooting some people and transporting them to hospital is beyond a small government's capabilities?
This small, incapable government made its comically inept video utterly disappear from the internet. Why wasn't that little part beyond its capabilities?


Olivia's picture

My friends in Ch Ch have a daughter, an emergency nurse, who works in the main hospital down there. She was on duty when the injured were coming through. It was real. They had been shot. A daughter from a fine Christian family would not lie about this, neither would the St. Johns ambulance paramedics who ferried them to hospital.

NZ is a very small country. To pull off a hoax like this, as Greg says, would be beyond the government’s capabilities.

Hi Greg

Jon Letendre's picture

Your friend's theory about hot brass ringing less than cooler brass is not useful for explaining why the brass disappears while flying through the air. In any case you can assure your friend that warm, hot and cold cases ring when they land on asphalt. The brass making no sounds upon landing is but a fraction of this particular issue, as the cases ceasing to exist in midair is the primary problem. As I wrote a year and a half ago very small objects on the ground are clearly resolved, leaves and even aggregate pebbles within the asphalt are clearly resolved, yet the brass disappears before reaching the ground.

The brass is therefore cgi and the gun with the white lettering from the boot beside the petrol IS NOT FIRING.


gregster's picture

That the shell cases seemed to disappear before hitting the driveway outside when he was firing up the street has been explained to me by a friend who believes that hot cases don't make much sound. I haven't tested that theory as I only have an air rifle. Certainly the video is not 100% fake. The view of his car boot, music playing, with the petrol canisters and the weapons with all the white lettering over them. I don't for one second believe this particular government is competent to fake this.


Lindsay Perigo's picture

I suppose I am being a bit "emotional". Have no particular argument beyond "pro life about everything".

As for Hitler or his henchmen, the chaps at Nuremberg, if it had been up to me I would have......let them all go.

I rest my case. In your own words.

pro-conspiracy anti-conspiracists

Bruno's picture

The objecto-sphere has always been anti-conspiracist, which means pro-conspiracy - since they will gladly permit any conspiracy to go un-noticed.


Mr_Lineberry's picture

I suppose I am being a bit "emotional". Have no particular argument beyond "pro life about everything".

As for Hitler or his henchmen, the chaps at Nuremberg, if it had been up to me I would have......let them all go.

Would have said - "you're not going to wriggle of the hook that easily, you b******, you are going home. Your children are going to know exactly what you've done and you will have to look them in the eye across the dinner table. And one day you'll have to explain it to your grandchildren".

Seriously, would have let them go, let them "endure" the endless night of being..... them

Just as Tarrant has to live with the horror of being him.

If you think this is a soft option - it isn't.

Many moons ago a certain party did an appalling thing to another party. I intervened (as I like to keep things behind closed doors); things were dealt with quietly. The injured party was paid off (by me) and no criminal charges or fuss was made.

The guilty party left the country - their life, their friends, their family; everything. Gone in 60 seconds to undertake a vacant, medicated oddessy of Australia's most obscure country towns. Plagued with guilt, shame, and self loathing.

A genuine punishment (be under no illusions about that!).

Could have dialled 111; could have made a fuss; Police, Courts; ending with a plea bargain down to a bulls*** charge resulting in community service and a "jolly good talking to" by the Judge.

But my way saw this certain party royally f*****. I never breathed a word - to this day their family and friends have no idea why they suddenly left without a word and haven't returned.

What eats him up is the silence - only the three of us know about this. It really eats him up that I say nothing about it.

If he wants his life back he is going to have to confess isn't he? haha! Going to have to tell his family and friends what he did to the other certain party; admit to being a scumbag. Look them all in the eye and account for himself.

In view of what his psychiatrist has increased the dosage of his "happy pills" to (think: horse tranquilizers) ...somehow I don't think so.

Therefore his 15 year nightmare and punishment will continue....


Mark Hunter's picture

The problems with the video that Jon mentioned are but a fraction of them.  The video is so phony it might as well be satire.  It certainly doesn’t depict what “they” want you to believe it does.  So the question becomes:  What was the point?  Why did “they” make this phony video and pass it off as genuine if the usual account of what happened is really true?

And why did “they” suppress the video when people began pointing out its many flaws?

There are only two answers:  What the video depicts never happened.  Or, something like it happened – perhaps not as extreme – and “they” wanted to impress the crime on the public, and in these days of television that means video.

The motivation in either case:  to create an excuse to crack down on the public’s anti-moslem sentiment.  You don’t want to identify with a mass murderer do you?

I put “they” in derogatory quotes to indicate corrupt elements within New Zealand’s government.


One blockhead at ARI, Ben Bayer, recently wrote an article denouncing “conspiracy theories.”  He didn’t mention the New Zealand mosque massacre, or alleged massacre, in particular but he did mention some events in the U.S. just as suspicious.  Leave your common sense at the door before entering the Ayn Rand Institute.

No deaths were recorded in that video

Jon Letendre's picture

Yes, did not occur. It is a lingering belief since viewing the video at that time. I suppose testimonies about it would have to be phony, yes, and probably some were honestly tricked.

It was banned quickly, but not immediately, and I posted links to it that worked at the time, here and at ObjectivistLiving. The only person who watched and commented was "Gregster," who had very dismissive comments for me initially then immediately backed me up on the disappearing brass upon viewing. No one else bothered to watch it before it got banned and removed from everywhere.

I don't WANT a thing but truth and justice. The video was fake, fake, fake. Has nothing to do with my wants.


Rand said not while there is still free speech ...

Jon Letendre's picture
Submitted by Jon Letendre on Wed, 2019-03-20 17:19.

The video of the event, which your government is threatening imprisonment for the possession of and is trying to prevent you from seeing, was faked. https://d.tube/#!/v/highimpactflix/l3p2l643

At 7:00 and at 7:40 he fires dozens of rounds in the large room at end of hall, toward the people piled up to the left and toward the people piled up to the right. At 10:59, on the right side of the room, a "shot" blows the cap off a head, but does not traumatize the head, thus no head destruction or blood splatter on wall, just cap blown off, by gunpowder—only round from his "weapon." No holes in the walls, no holes in people's backs. He has now fired several dozen rounds in this direction from the middle of the room. Window is intact, no broken glass is evident. No blood on these people's hands, arms, faces, clothes, floor around them.

From 8:57 to 9:10 in the video several dozen rounds fired. No brass heard bouncing on the pavement, none seen on the pavement, the ejected brass disappears in midair, none is seen bouncing on the ground or rolling around on the ground. He stands still firing dozens of rounds, the brass is flying to a spot on the ground to his right, but then it's gone. The ejected brass is CGI, very sloppy, incomplete computer-generated imagery.

From 11:24 to 11:30 he is on the left side of the room. Again, he has fired dozens of rounds in this direction from the middle of the room, yet there are no holes in the wall. His "shots" on these people are not resulting in any blood splatter to the wall, just puffing their clothes and hair. Blue sweater gets puffed by the hot expanding gas of a blank, but no holes in the sweater or blood. No blood on their hands, feet, clothes.

At 12:50 his shotgun fails to defeat his own windshield!

Then again at 12:53!

Again at 13:12!

Finally, at 13:21, the pressure is sufficient given blunter angle to the glass, and the pressure of the projected gasses is sufficient to defeat the glass.


Lindsay Perigo's picture

Just so we're clear: you believe that the massacre didn't occur? All the testimonies of bullets, blood and gore and horror are phony?

As I recall the video was banned immediately. I certainly didn't get to see it. How did you manage to see it many times? And if you did, what about it bespoke fakeness?

I'm not unmindful of the fact that this event fell into Jihadi Jacinda's lap and advanced her evil agenda enormously. That doesn't mean it wasn't real or that it was a conspiracy of which she was part or that decent humans shouldn't be appalled by it. If you have actual evidence to the contrary, please present it. All I'm seeing right now are people erring on the side of what they WANT to believe, not what is actually true.

Death penalty

Bruno's picture

I am in favor of the death penalty where necessary, but as others here present, I have serious doubts as to what was going on during the event in question.

Eli ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Forgive me, but I still can't see an argument here. You package-deal force-initiators with force-initiatees and ejaculate a moral equivalency between them. Pure emotionalism.

Would you please state your objection to the proposition that he who takes the life of another forfeits his own right to life?

I am generally against capital punishment because of the possibility of error. Better guilty men be kept alive than one innocent man be put to death. In the case of Tarantino, there is no possibility of error. He did it. There ought to be a legal category for beyond any doubt. Of course, postmodern epistemology would preclude such a thing.

I wonder, does your "pro-life" stance include Hitler?


Mr_Lineberry's picture

I do, Lindsay.

As you know perfectly well, I am "pro life" on everything; from murder to wars to abortion to euthanasia to drunk drivers zigzagging on the motorway.....and everything else!

That includes Mr Tarrant.

I am very uneasy about the sentence; (the Judge couldn't have given him a fairly "academic" non parole period of 40 years?!?).

When we start to single people out then cracks appear in the dam.

As an aside in response to Jon Legendre; I have often wondered how somebody was able to drive from Deans avenue to Linwood, in Friday gridlock traffic, in 7 minutes ...(who the f*** was THAT supposed to fool? Eye haha!)

You believe there was a shooting event?

Jon Letendre's picture

I do not.
Many times I viewed the "video of the event" that your government eventually banned.
It was fake in many, many ways. It was 100% fake.

How about no?

Bruno's picture

Whatever that “event” was, it was the perfect scapegoat to enact draconian measures against the kiwi population.

The fault lies obviously with Jacinda and her globalist handlers and not this other person, whether the attack was by his hand or not.

As for “religious liberty”, it is an out dated liberal fantasy and should be canceled along with all other liberal lies. Take note from Switzerland, which banned mosque towers by public referendum.


Bruno's picture



Lindsay Perigo's picture

There is a lot more going on with the New Zealand mosque attack that “they” don’t want you to know about

What, exactly? And who are "they"?

Tarantino slaughtered more than 50 utter innocents, and maimed many more. Premeditatedly. If others were involved—and I do suspect there were, at the highest level, but have no proof, which you seem to have—I'd say they should be put to death also. He who intentionally takes human life forfeits his own, as long as it's beyond reasonable doubt. In the case of Tarantino, it's beyond any doubt.


Lindsay Perigo's picture

Do you have an argument?


Mr_Lineberry's picture

Have you taken leave of your senses?!? Shocked

The death penalty? We are not savages.

“You’re wrong.” – Dale Carnegie

Mark Hunter's picture

Brenton Tarrant should no more be executed than Timothy McVeigh was.  There is a lot more going on with the New Zealand mosque attack that “they” don’t want you to know about (remember the video?) just as there was a lot of skullduggery with the Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building bombing.  Both men are key witnesses.  Doubtless the real instigators in the Oklahoma City bombing breathed a sigh of relief when McVeigh was out of the way.  Some people in NZ will too when Tarrant is killed.

Besides, when law breaks down – in this case immigration law – people will take the law into their own hands.  Apparently Tarrant was at least partly responsible for the attack.  Though his way of fighting the corruption of immigration law was wrong, the real perps in the crime are the people who corrupted the law in the first place.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.