Hi @valued-customer,
Are you saying that Tarrant helped shoot and kill a huge number of unarmed people, in cold blood, in order to attack the alt-right?
What would his end goal be? And would it be worth paying such a high price?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
It is apparent that his intent was to generate a political response. Indeed, he states that he is intent that New Zealand be completely disarmed (although I don't recall if that source was included herein). He had posted on a platform called 8chan with some frequency prior to the attack, as well as other platforms.
Given how the platforms and beliefs of white mass shooters are demonized, and the very free nature of speech on 8chan, if he intended to oppose freedom of speech, posing as a right wing lunatic would draw the wrath of society down on those platforms and sources. He very specifically named people, channels, and platforms knowing full well that people outraged at his terrorist attack would tar those he himself painted a target on with his crime.
The enemedia is primed for this, awaiting such events with practically bated breath.
I cannot reckon further than is apparent, failing possession of deeper insight only potential with greater familiarity with his life and person. People often do things that seem bizarre or without nominal purpose that have dire consequences. Jack Ruby would be a good example. Their motives remain impenetrable to me. All I can do is observe they do them.
It seems Tarrant hated the right with such depth that he was willing to not only sacrifice himself by larping as a rightwing terrorist, but dozens of innocent victims as well.
Thanks @valued-customer, I really appreciate your well-thought out response.
Why do you think he would oppose Free Speech? I mean, surely most people believe that they personally deserve Free Speech...?
The irony of shooting so many people, to oppose guns is absolutely huge.
I just can't even comprehend actually being able to go through such an action.
It's not something most people could do, I hope!
While a majority of people do believe in free speech, there are indeed cadres that vehemently oppose it, specifically Antifa and other associated cultural marxist movements. Also, if he were some kind of quasi-government agent or spy, many governments are intent on crushing free speech, if only surreptitiously. Neither forget the increasing use of censorship by social media platforms. That's actually why I came here to begin with.
100% agree. I've had my own problems with Facebook, who refused to resolve my issues claiming I violated their ToS but couldn't tell me how or when.
I know I'm asking a lot of questions, and I really appreciate your patience with me, I'm just trying to get it.
What is it about this situation that makes it more likely that it's an attack on the alt-right rather than a racist guy who is so scared of Islam that he's willing to go to these lengths? I don't know about New Zealand, but I know in Australia the racial tensions between Muslim people and everyone else are pretty high. Actually, honestly, the racial tensions between a number of nationalities in Australia is pretty high.
As I pointed out, I came here to be free to speak, not to earn tokens per se. That being the case I seek exactly conversation sparked by posts, and more than anything criticism that points out where I'm wrong. @sift666 helped refine my grasp of issues in comment here on this post, for example. It is only when I am made to understand I am wrong that I can change my mind and become right.
Don't hesitate to set me straight, ever, but don't expect me to just agree I was wrong because a claim of it is made. I want to be actually right, not just agreed with. I far prefer the former to the latter, in truth.
To my eyes, the voluminous detail consisting of his previous posts that link him and his radicalization to specific persons, institutions, and platforms remarkable for their dedication to free speech and debate, as I have just related regarding myself, and fact-based narrative, rather than the string tugging of emotions that is often employed - and is and will be regarding this event - to bring content consumers to agreement with particular positions.
It is a lot of the essential difference between the right and left wings of political thought, although not the typical right and left as used in actual political party affiliation. Both sides of the American political party (yeah, I meant that) are controlled by neocons/neoliberals that differ only in rhetoric. The actual policies they effect are substantially identical, and amount to waging war for profiteering defense industries.
I was particularly struck by his comment regarding Candace Owens, because he literally said 'She did it. She's the one that radicalized me and drove me to murder these Muslims.' Having so prepared before the attack the posts, comments, and literature that would inundate the media, he could not have been unaware of the impact that statement would have on Owens.
I'll be surprised if she has a Twitter, Fakebook, or other mainline social media account very soon, or isn't herself targeted for violence. He all but signed her death warrant, and had to know he was.
If he'd been actually intent on bodies simply to reduce the Muslim population, none of that would have been necessary. If he'd wanted to gain recruits to his cause, he'd have been better served by larping as a leftist, to drive that anger at that quarter. Since his psyop technique lends itself to the enemedia mechanisms used to shame and guilt people and nations into giving up their arms and ability to speak freely, I think it's intended to do exactly that.
I honestly have no idea... and I definitely can't because I'm across the other side of the world. I don't know anyone in that area.
The reason I was asking was to get clarity on his viewpoint... and maybe expand on his thoughts about the motivations...