New Zealand killer’s manifesto says that he did attack to get more gun control/gun bans in New Zealand and the US, Killer was a socialist, environmentalist who hated capitalists and trade

15 Mar , 2019   Video

As New Zealand moves quickly to adopt more gun control (indeed, a ban on semi-automatic guns), it may come as a surprise that the killer carried out his attack to push for more gun control in both New Zealand and the United States. As the above video shows, the New Zealand Prime Minister called immediately for more gun control, even before many basic questions were answered about the attack. Within hours, the NZ Attorney General said that the country would ban all semi-automatic guns.

This killer is obviously a nut, but the media is selectively reporting/distorting his claimed political views. By making it impossible to share this manifesto, Facebook has made it harder to correct the record. But here are some quotes from Brenton Tarrant’s.

Won’t your attack result in calls for the removal of gun rights in the New Zealand?
The gun owners of New Zealand are a beaten, miserable bunch of baby boomers, who have long since given up the fight. When was the last time they won increased rights? Their loss was inevitable.I just accelerated things a bit.

Won’t your attack result in calls for the removal of gun rights from Whites in the United States?
Yes, that is the plan all along, you said you would fight to protect your rights and the constitution, well soon will come the time.

This guy’s political views keep being described as a right-wing, but in fact his views seem overwhelmingly on the far-left. The shooter also hates Trump’s policies, but that hasn’t stopped the media from saying that Trump inspired him. Here is a guy who thinks his views are closest to the People’s Republic of China and who most admires Sir Oswald Mosley who founded the British Union of Fascists.

Were/are you a fascist?

Yes. For once, the person that will be called a fascist, is an actual fascist. I am sure the journalists will love that.
I mostly agree with Sir Oswald Mosley’s views and consider myself an Eco-fascist by nature.

The nation with the closest political and social values to my own is the People’s Republic of China.

Was there a political figure or party in history you most associate yourself with?
Sir Oswald Mosley is the person from history closest to my own beliefs. [Mosley founded the British Union of Fascists.]

Globalized capitalist markets are the enemy of racial autonomists

An environmentally conscious and moral society will never be able to economically compete with a society based on ever increasing industrialization, urbanization, industrial output and population increase. The cheaper labour and ignorance of environmental health will always result in cheaper goods produced with less effort and inevitably result in control of the market.

A Europe of nature, culture and sustainable living practicing will not be able to ever compete in the global market.

Were/are you a socialist?

Depending on the definition. Worker ownership of the means of production? It depends on who those workers are, their intents, who currently owns the means of production, their intents and who currently owns the state, and its intents.

Were/are you a supporter of Donald Trump?

As a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose? Sure. As a policy maker and leader? Dear god no.

Break the back of cheap labour

Whether that is by encouraging and pushing increases to the minimum wage; furthering the unionization of workers; increasing the native birthrate and thereby reducing the need for the importation of labour; increasing the rights of workers; pushing for the increase in automation or advancement of industrial labour replacement or any other tactic that is available.


5 Responses

  1. Scott Stillwell says:

    Link to the psychotic’s screed no workee.

  2. John Lewis says:

    We can defeat ALL pending “Red Flag” legislation if we simply and loudly press the point that anyone who is so mentally deranged that they are an imminent danger to others will not suddenly become sane and harmless simply because they are temporarily deprived of guns. Such a homicidal maniac can easily get illegal guns or use any of dozens of other commonly owned items as a deadly weapon. Therefore, if the proponents of “Red Flag” laws honestly and sincerely want to prevent such a maniac from harming anyone, they must agree that THE DANGEROUS INDIVIDUAL MUST BE LOCKED UP, not merely deprived of his 2nd Amendment rights and allowed to go free to find some other way to commit murder. ALL 2nd amendment supporters in our legislatures MUST press for amendments to any “Red Flag” legislation that changes the focus from confiscating guns to LOCKING UP the supposedly dangerous INDIVIDUAL. This will emphasize that our 2nd amendment rights are just as valid and important as the right of “habeas corpus”. If the supporters of “Red Flag” laws are foolish enough to pass such an amended bill into law, it will immediately be challenged by the ACLU and other liberal organizations and thus struck down by SCOTUS. But if they reject the amendment, they will prove that they are lying hypocrites who actually have no interest at all in saving lives but in reality are merely exploiting this lie as a convenient excuse to rob innocent citizens of their Constitutional Rights to own the tools necessary for self defense.

    • Reziac says:

      That’s an interesting point. Basically force these redflag laws to perform a criminal conviction without a trial, which as you say will not get far in the courts.

      HOWEVER… there are similar laws in place with regard to dog ownership, where having certain breeds, or having “too many animals” means confiscation (and often conviction) without a trial; the principle is identical. And so far court challenges have been weak to nonexistent, because it’s been pushed as “stopping those evil puppy mills” (defined as literally anyone who breeds dogs professionally) and “stopping dog attacks” — both of which fly pretty well with insulated urbanites, and ANY accusation of ‘neglect’ or ‘abuse’ (no matter how fabricated or farfetched) results in loss of rights and property, with no right to face your accuser.

      So don’t think it can’t happen with guns. It’s already happened with a softer target, and is procedurally so well established that where such laws exist, that softer target has been largely eliminated.

  3. Win Bigly says:

    “Depending on the definition. Worker ownership of the means of production? ”

    The typical difference in academic circles between socialism and communism is “control” versus “ownership”. Usually it’s “government” control or ownership but here it’s “worker”. Assuming worker = government, his use of term “ownership” means he’s a communist, not a socialist.

    FWIW, given the US government has control of the means of production via the court case Wickard v Filburn, the US is already socialist.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *