Final (?) thoughts on the massacre in Christchurch, New Zealand

I pour my heart out over the outrage in Christchurch and what it means. I also go over the evidence that shows categorically that the shoot did not (and could not) have acted on his own.

Filling in details of the 15 March events in Christchurch

This can also be viewed on VIMEO

I wish to give what I hope are my final thoughts on the terrible massacre in Christchurch. I say this because I am doubtful as to whether any major revelations are going to come out.

I deal with grief on a daily basis – the unravelling of the ecosystem in real time is a major part of this.

The spectre of war that is always there with every geopolitical convulsion.

The breakdown of every aspect of our life – economic, political and moral is another.

But now there is a whole new source of grief and it revolves around the fate that has befallen (or rather, imposed) on the city where I grew up and know (or rather KNEW) so well.

First, THEY (and I mean the people governments of all stripes truly represent) wanted Canterbury’s water and other resources so they sacked the DEMOCRATICALLY-ELECTED representatives who promised to put a spanner in their plans so they cancelled democracy and put tn their own handpicked commissioners to facilitate this theft.

Then in 2011 came the earthquakes in Christchurch – whether as an act of God or by design – we’ll never know which has riped the guts out of the city so much so that 8 years later the city is still reeling.

Whatever the truth of the earthquakes the next bit is not subject to speculation. All of this opened up DISASTER CAPITALISM which allowed the continuing rape of Canterbury’s resources and destruction of its environment and the rebuilding of Christchruch in the image of Gerry Brownlee and the John Key government.

The entire face of Canterbury changed in the ten years of the John Key government – changed beyond recognition.

A new government has not reversed but CONTINUED the agenda.

Next came the massacre in two mosques.

This has hit me once again

Firstly, because because 50 people died and 50 were injured in an outrage that one would not imagine even possible in this remote, peaceful city.

Secondly, this has, as I have already said, dealt a terrible blow to the city that I grew up in and loved. It is terrible to hear the names of streets that I know so well mentioned and associated with a crime as terrible as any other that has been committed anywhere in the western world.

Yes, this was carried out by a 28-year-old from Australia only newly arrived in the country.

But he COULD NOT and DID NOT carry out this act on his own and I hope to,once again, demonstrate this.

But first I have a message that I want to direct at the powers-that-be – the government, police, spy agencies and the lamestream media.

You have made both the “livestream” video of the murders and the manifesto illegal so I am not going to refer to either. I’m nobody’s fool so don’t believe for a single moment, not for a single instant the reasons you give for this action.

So I will rely on interviews that come straight out of television an point out things that directly contradict the lies of the official narrative and on the research of others that are a bit more free to fllow the evidence.

I have done little PRIMARY research of my own and rely on the words of others along with my own powers of observation and of discrimination.

I have not looked at the video since the second day of this when the authorities decided to arrest and make an example of a couple of young people who shared the video.

I have not looked at, no am I interested in the manifesto which I regard as a fake.

You may want to shut down all discussion of this and lead people to passively accept what you have in mind.

But I assert these rights that are enshrined in the NZ Bill of Rights Act”

“You have the right to think what you like

“You can say what you like and share information and ideas with people”

I can imagine a time very soon (and why not after recent events?) when there will be anther “terrorist” attack (perhaps committed by Muslim extremists – ISIS – imagine what sort of confusion that will create in the people! - and there will be cross-party consensus for rescinding the Bill of Rights – and in the twinkling of an eye all our hard-earned rights will be out the window.

The news last night and this morning is that gun laws that were probably waiting in the wings, they have come so quickly, will result in harsh penalties for possession of a semi-automatic gun.

If the John Key government’ s main defining characteristic was CRIMINALITY then the main defining characteristic of this government is HYPOCRISY.

Nothing illustrates this better than revelations that not 5 months ago – in December last year, our PM chaired a parliamentary committee that brought in unbelievably lax gun regulations.

Since then they have taken the unprecedented step of trying to remove the traces by taking down the official notification of these regulations.

What is worse is that despite our regulations the country is absolutely awash with automatic and semiautomatic weapons.

I have been told by someone I trust who is in the know that in the late 80’s the army released a whole heap of weapons onto the open market.

In addition, an unknown quantity of weapons has been made available on the black market through graft and corruption at the ports of entry.

And then there remains the question of how a Brenton Tarrant, an Australian only recently arrived in NZ who as an Australian was not eligible for a license,got a license for all his weapons.

Perhaps he did not need to because the country is so awash in weapons – I don’t know.

Now lets look at evidence that points to the fact that I regard as incontrovertible, that the gunman, Brenton Tarrant, did shoot and kill 50 people BUT THAT HE WAS NOT ACTING ON HIS OWN.

NO WAY!

I will give as evidence three interviews that are open-source and come from television media.

Finally,I will finish off with sharing information from an article, written about a week ago, that sheds much light on what went down.

What strikes me is that there were actions all over Christchurch on the day which have been whitewashed from the narrative.

All the street names and locations are painfully familiar to me.

Well, folks, that is the evidence.

At the very minimum, if you take the simple evidence I brought forward the government and authorities is lying to you about their “lone wolf” narrative.

I would call it a conspiracy theory were it not for the fact that if it involves just ONE person it can’t be a conspiracy.

If we take into account the evidence I have just shared the truth is far, far more dark and undermines whatever faith one had in government – government of any political stripe.

I cannot tell you in all honesty who did it – no one can and if they claim to they are playing into the divide-and-rule game of the authorities.

What I am sharing (to paraphrase Max Igan) these are not my opinions but this is where the evidence is heading .

Wherever the ultimate truth lies this is New Zealand’s 9/11 and nothing will ever be the same again.

We can kiss our liberty goodbye.

This is Seemorerocks reporting from Down-Under.

LINKS

TVNZ interview: Shooter left a warning on Facebook that was mot heeded https://soundcloud.com/robin-westenra... 

Christchurch: the single gunman narrative blown out of the water https://soundcloud.com/robin-westenra... 

The Christchurch massacre: An interview with survivor, Sherif Ibrahim https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ALrJ... 

Christchurch Terror Attack: Mass Censorship, Mystery Shooters, And The Globetrotting Lone Gunman 

https://www.sott.net/article/409545-C... 

I neglected to mention the author of the article, Niall Bradley - A contributing writer at SOTT.net, Niall Bradley's articles are cross-posted on his personal blog, NiallBradley.net. Niall is co-host with Joe Quinn of NewsReal, and co-author of Manufactured Terror: The Boston Marathon Bombings, Sandy Hook, Aurora Shooting and Other False-Flag Terror Attacks.

 'Clash of Civilizations' Arrives in New Zealand: 49 Massacred by Multiple Gunmen During Multi-Site Terror Attack in Christchurch https://www.sott.net/article/409180-C... 

Christchurch mosque massacre: 49 confirmed dead in shootings; four arrested - three men, one woman https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar... 

Christchurch massacre: PM confirms children among shooting victims – as it happened https://www.theguardian.com/world/liv... 

Rumour and reality on streets of Christchurch https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2019/03/15... 

No bail for man accused of distributing live stream of mosque shootings https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-z... 

Christchurch mosque shootings: Police reveal how they caught the alleged gunman 

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar... 

Quick Action, Near Miss and Courage in New Zealand Attacks https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/17/wo... 

NZSAS soldiers in Christchurch for snipers event responded to mosque terror attack 

https://www.nzherald.co.nz//nz/news/a... 

Christchurch mosque shootings: Camouflage wearer claims wrongful arrest https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar... 

Papanui High School cordon lifted after shootings in Christchurch https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crim... 

Gunman stopped on way to third attack - Police Commissioner Mike Bush https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/chri

Compare this with the OFFICIAL timeline

Timeline: Security services, government and Muslim community before the Christchurch mosque attack

On 15 March 50 people died in a terrorist shooting at two mosques.

A police officers guard the area close to the Masjid al Noor mosque after the terror attack. Photo: AFP or licensors

Read a timeline of how the day unfolded, learn about the victims and some of the heroic actions of people that day.

Read a timeline of the actions by New Zealand's security services, government and the country's Muslim community in the years leading up to the Christchurch mosque attacks.

Before the Christchurch mosque attacks - a timeline

• 2002 - New Zealand enacts Terrorism Suppression Act. As of 2019, no one has ever been charged under Act
• 2009-2019 - Not one specific mention in this period of the threat from white supremacists or right-wing nationalism in SIS or GCSB public documents
• 2010-2017 - Figures from this period show 92 far-right attacks compared with 38 by jihadists* in US
• July 2011 - 77 people killed in Norway by white supremacist shooter
• 2012 on - Series of reviews of NZ security agencies after scandals including the Kim Dotcom spying
• 2013 - National-led government abandons intrusive internet surveillance
• 2013 on - Flood of refugees into Europe begins
• 2014 - Suite of changes to national security set up including three new entities - a Strategic Risk and Resilience Panel, Security and Intelligence Board and Hazard Risk Board
• 2015-2018 - Series of budget boosts for SIS and GCSB, including (in 2016) of $178m over 4 years
• 2015 - Corrections Department sets up Countering Violent Extremism working group as part of government's counter-terrorism strategy
• June 2015 - Nine killed by white supremacist at African-American church in South Carolina, United States **
• December 2015 - New Zealand Muslims hold first community meetings to discuss counter-terrorism
• June 2016 - Two men sentenced in Auckland over Islamic State material
• October 2016 - Islamic Women's Council raises fears of far-right with SIS
• 2017-18 - Security agencies set up new National Risk Unit and new National Security Workforce team, plus get a new specialist coordinator for counter-terrorism
• 2017 - Research finds NZ Muslims believe government surveillance is excessive
• 2017 to early 2018 - Muslim community in numerous meetings with government seeking but failing to get national wellbeing strategy
• January 2017 - Six killed at mosque in Quebec, Canada
• September 2017 - New Zealand's new Intelligence and Security Act 2017 comes into force
• June 2018 - SIS begins to increase its efforts to assess far-right threat
• November 2018 - Eleven killed by far right shooter in Pittsburgh, US
• March 2019 - SIS and GCSB confirm they had no intelligence about the Christchurch terror accused

* Global Terrorism Database by the Washington Post

** This list of far-right attacks is far from exhaustive

REPOSTED: The shock doctrime in Canterbury, New Zealand

My friend from Canterbury, Lyn Williams wrote the following article, as relevant now as when it was written, which I posted in 2012 (but cannot locate).

Here are her very pertinent questions with regard to the government’s intentions in quake-stricken North Canterbury.

I continue to harbour suspicions that the 2011 earthquake was not entirely a natural phenomenon,

The Shock Doctrine has come to New Zealand

the Automatic Earth,

27 March, 2012

Russell Lee It's All Over June 1939 "Veteran migrant agricultural worker camped in Wagoner County, Oklahoma. He has followed the road for about 30 years. When asked where his home was he said, 'It's all over.'"

We are in Lyttelton, a suburb (albeit through a fairly recently built tunnel) of Christchurch, New Zealand's second largest city. The entire city center has been cordoned off, and the vast majority of buildings have either collapsed or been condemned. Much of it can never be rebuilt, since there is no way to assess the real risk of further collapse of either buildings or even foundations.

Now, ever since we got to Australia and, later, New Zealand, I've had the impression that the main priority of the respective federal governments is to sell off any and all domestic resources as fast as they can, and for short term profit only (or, well, maybe to cover the deficit losses they've run up). New Zealand is actively trying to sell some of its most productive farm land. What's more, it's attempting to raise revenues from the sale – though the government claims it's actually a form of public-private partnership – of a portion of its hydro infrastructure and -power.

This morning, we were having a conversation with one of our local hosts, and I said that in the light of the above I was sure that the aftermath of the devastating February 22, 2011 earthquake would be the next chapter of the Shock Doctrine. I had no proof of this, but a strong gut feeling; some things just can't be any other way.

Up until just a few decades ago, New Zealand was a very rich (about 2nd globally per capita) and, relatively, very egalitarian society. None of this is still true: income inequality has risen enormously, and per capita wealth has plummeted. So the Shock Doctrine has been in the works for a while. The earthquake 13 months ago was simply the event the disaster capitalists were waiting for, and were ready for, ready to act while the population was still in shock.

As I said, when I said I expected the next chapter of the Shock Doctrine this morning, I had no proof, just a suspicion. Then Nicole sent me this article below, which dates from February 2, 2012, written by Lyn Williams. Now I have proof, as well as suspicions. I'll let the article speak for itself, and thank Lyn for writing it.

A Tale of One City

This is a tale of a city that outlived its usefulness.

The problem for the city was it sat at the centre of a region with vast natural resources that the central government wanted to exploit. There was considerable and varied local opposition to this largely because of the effects on the environment.

This was a wealthy city that had developed as a light industrial hub for the traditional rural economy of a wealthy region. Clever manipulation of national laws aimed at privatising the public sector had enabled the local government to maintain effective control of much of its assets.

But the concentration of population and wealth was seen an obstacle to the Government’s plans to exploit the region’s natural resources, and to sell off the city’s assets.

The Government’s first move was to declare the elected Regional Authority to be incompetent and to install commissioners selected by, and answerable to, it.

The region’s elected Mayors, organised by the City’s Mayor, all actively collaborated with this.

The government’s next move was to support the re-election of those city and district mayors who would work with them in the exploitation of the region’s natural resources.

Plans were well under way when nature stepped in and gave the Government a helping hand in the form of natural disaster.

The shock of this disaster, and an effective PR machine, ensured the election of government friendly mayors right across the region. More importantly, it gave the Government the justification for creating even more swingeing legal powers.

A second, even more catastrophic disaster, resulted in the Government creating an overarching authority run by people selected by them – which had complete power to do whatever the government deemed necessary. The powers given to the central government and bureaucrats were unprecedented in peacetime.

The city’s re-elected Mayor proved to be a very popular figure in the aftermath of the disaster and was very useful to the Government in managing the public response to it – but he too was to outlive his usefulness.

He continued to work in the way he always had, doing deals behind closed doors and colluding with the CEO to reduce the effectiveness of the council.

The Mayor’s power base in the city council began to be challenged by a group of councillors who attacked the way the council was being run. The dissidents presented themselves as champions of the people whilst, probably unknowingly, actually doing the work of the Government. The Council split into two opposing camps.

The local press started a campaign which seemed to be about demanding greater accountability and democracy but which had the effect of further undermining local confidence, not just in the Mayor and CEO, but the whole council.

Even with a mayor and councillors who were prepared to stand up to the government, the Council would have struggled to represent the people of the city and stop the plundering of the city’s and the region’s assets. In the political and managerial void left by the increasingly dysfunctional council and CEO, the Government’s new Authority rapidly expanded its role.

And then came the proverbial straw – an action by the Mayor and his supporters that outraged his opponents and, when it became public, also outraged the population of the city.

People had had enough and many disparate interests coalesced around the understanding that, while this Mayor and CEO were in charge, their city was never going to be rebuilt into a vibrant modern version of what had been destroyed.

The calls for the sacking of the CEO and Mayor began. Normally compliant and conservative city dwellers flooded the local media with their angry views and began to stage protests.

Councillors who had approved the action that had sparked the outrage called for the dissolution of the Council and blamed the dissident Councillors for the mess.

The Mayor, despite having colluded with the sacking of the democratically elected regional authority, put his grave, pro-democracy face on and warned the population to be careful what they wished for.

The CEO who had always stayed out of the media limelight for the very good reason that he was PR-challenged, tried to make amends and made matters worse.

The government appointed a single observer and claimed not to be interested in the dissolution of the Council – unless it had no alternative.

Central to the Government’s long-term plan was the depopulation of large areas of the city and key satellite towns. These happened to be the areas occupied by people likely to be troublesome to the government’s plans for the region. the effects of this diaspora had already been felt in the national elections.

Many people had been left to camp out in their ruined homes and neighbourhoods for months before the government declared swathes of the city as uninhabitable. The months of anxiety, inactivity and uncertainty were followed by offers for resettlement that appeared to be fair and generous but which actually made it impossible for many people to stay.

This was a forced resettlement. On the surface people were given a choice – the government appeared to be generous by offering to buy people’s homes and land from them but, leaving the development of new land to the market resulted in a free for all – and land, rents and building prices sky rocketed.

Many people found that they had to increase their mortgages to afford to replace like with like. Others, unable to afford larger mortgages or refused loans, had to downsize – or ended up renting or were forced to leave town.

The Government’s writing off the land also gave the insurers an out. They not only saved money on some payouts but they avoided future liability by the Government forcing large numbers of people away from a region that was deemed no longer worth the risk of insuring. And behind these actions lurked the spectre of bigger commercial interests, the exploitation of the region’s water and oil resources.

A government of the people, for the people, by the people would have stood up to the insurers and forced the insurers to meet their legal and ethical obligations. It would have purchased land and created new subdivisions and sold them at prices that enabled people to replace what they had lost. It would have leased land on 999 year leases and given the freehold titles to the Council or community housing associations. It would have assisted in relocating whole communities that wanted to stay together. It would have invested in land remediation leaving only those areas which should never have been built on to be turned into nature reserves and parks. It would have given people security and choice by buying the mutual insurance company it had already underwritten, merged it with its own earthquake insurance bureaucracy and created a state insurance option for domestic dwellings and local and central government infrastructure.

And it would have more wisely and circumspectly managed the vast reserves of taxpayers’ money that had been built up over decades in the national disaster fund.

But, this was a government of big business, by big business, for big business. It not so much got into bed with the insurance industry, as bought the best bed on the market, made it up with fine linen and a goose down duvet, tucked the industry in, made it a mug of milo and read it a bedtime story.

What happened to the city? Well, it ended up less than two-thirds of its original size. Its political structure had changed forever and much opposition to the government was wiped out as formerly cohesive and well-organised communities were fragmented and dispersed.

Go there today and it’s a pretty sad place. The city centre still has great gaping holes where buildings once stood because there’s no incentive to build. Vast swathes of its suburbs are weed-ridden wastelands. The region’s once glorious rivers and waterways are polluted and depleted by the intensive agriculture that exists solely to feed an increasingly unsustainable international neutraceuticals industry.

Its oil resources are being exported and the promised wealth has not trickled down to the populace although some have become even richer and retreated further into the safe confines of their gated communities or moved north.

No doubt I’ll be labelled a conspiracy nut or accused of being unhelpfully negative and pessimistic by painting this picture of Canterbury but I think that the people of this region need to wake up and smell the fertilizer because this is what has been and is being done to our region.

Lake Forsyth on Banks Peninsula is emblematic of Canterbury's problems

We do not have a vote in local regional democracy until 2013; in all likelihood the people of Christchurch soon will not have a say in the running of their city as it may be a matter of time before the CCC is dismantled. Every action and inaction of the council combined with the low public profile and high pay of its CEO are more nails in the coffin of local democracy.

Local councillors were powerless enough before – they are seen as a waste of public money now. The wealth of ChCh and Canterbury as a whole is about to be sold off to the private sector, not to rebuild the city and region, but to be milked for as much short-term profit as can be extracted from it.

I do not believe that this government has any loyalty to Canterbury. It doesn’t want a big, bold, wealthy city guarding and drawing on the natural resources of the Canterbury plains and seabed.

It wants to sell the best stuff to its mates -the people in whose interests it governs, which – let’s face it – isn’t ordinary folk. Some will profit – the vast majority will not. In fact, an awful lot of us will be impoverished, left further in thrall to the banks and/or forced to relocate from the city and region we call home.

I have a big emotional investment in Canterbury – I never knew how much until I saw it threatened. And I’m not talking about the threat of the 9000 or so earthquakes since September 2010– I’m talking about the political and economic quakes. They’re what will destroy NZ’s second city and take most of the Canterbury we knew with it.