by Sean Jobst
19 April 2019
Over a month has passed since the shootings at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, and lost in the broader debate are its suspicious consequences and their deeper geopolitical implications. Domestically, the New Zealand government has used it as their casus belli for gun control and to increase their selling the country's assets to foreign corporations and control by their own Globalist clubs. Geopolitically, we can ignore neither the Israeli connections nor the shooter's manifesto which reveals the imprint of Duginism. All of these aspects tie in together as I will demonstrate.
The false flag question
A false flag should not be confused with those co-opted elements who talk of "crisis actors" and events being "fake" (to discredit all false flags), nor should it be a knee-jerk reaction to every single event with no commitment to seeing the evidence play out. Rather, a false flag simply means there are suspicious questions about a violent event that points to deeper involvement than the official narrative suggests. In this case, that there is more to it than just a lone-wolf shooter named Brenton Tarrant.
One recurring theme is that information initially released after an event is quietly withdrawn, never to be spoken of again. It happened on 9/11 with the five cheering Israelis of Urban Moving Systems filming the attacks. As anyone who followed the early coverage of the Christchurch can attest, initial reports said that there were multiple shooters and official reports even said there were others "on the run". These claims were never backtracked, but simply disappeared down the Memory Hole. What happened to these "multiple shooters"?
The backdoor for gun control
Barely had the dust settled or the blood dried than the New Zealand government under Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern pushed through with wide-sweeping gun control legislation - 600 pages (!) - which we are to believe was a spontaneous reaction to a traumatic attack and not something pre-planned, just waiting for the perfect opportunity to be released. Just as the various leading Zionist-Neocons in my own country called for a "cataclysmic event" on the eve of 9/11, why were these two attacks which exceeded the entire annual murder rate in all New Zealand, allowed to affect such permanent changes?
Especially since Tarrant himself, in the 74-page Manifesto he wrote entitled "The Great Replacement: Towards a New Society", predictably saw gun control as the first result toward this "new society": "Finally, to create conflict between the two ideologies within the United States on the ownership of firearms in order to further the social, cultural, political and racial divide within the United states [sic]. This conflict over the 2nd amendment [sic] and the attempted removal of firearms rights will ultimately result in a civil war that will eventually balkanize the US along political, cultural and, most importantly, racial lines." So, you react to the attacks in the exact way the shooter envisioned and sought?
How was an Australian citizen able to so easily secure assault weapons in New Zealand? Why were New Zealand citizens to bear the brunt of a foreigner's actions? Based on what various ANZAC speakers have noted about the gun situation in their countries, there were already strict rules within New Zealand against possessing handguns and semi-automatic weapons, and strict government regulations of weapons. We are confronted with the same parallel as EU intelligence agencies "monitoring" various Islamist shooters who nevertheless manage to move and procure weapons more freely than the actual natives.
These speakers also suggest the easiest ways to obtain weapons are through certain "clubs" with deep links to well-connected Masonic circles. Keep this in mind as we see the alleged Masonic connections of Tarrant and the role of the Labour government in privatizing ports, the only entry for such weapons into the island country. We are confronted once again with elites who use real loss of lives for their own purposes, while playing out the very scripted response cited by the manifesto.
What was John Podesta doing in New Zealand?
Increasingly in a Globalized world, events in one corner of the world can affect those in another. This includes reviving the talking points of our own domestic advocates for gun control, and we have to point out the suspicious activities of one: John Podesta, former campaign manager for the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016. In other words, the anointed talking head for the left pole of the Left/Right dialectic just happened to be in New Zealand around the time of the attacks, lending his support to his NZ counterparts and in the process dropping clues to the deeper implications of these attacks.
Podesta was a keynote speaker for "A Global Progressives Event" in Australia on 7th March, and we know that sometime afterwards he traveled to New Zealand where he praised Ardern as a "superstar" and "somebody that people are paying attention to". Asked to comment on the warning by New Zealand's top spies to Parliament the month earlier that their elections were extremely vulnerable from cyber attacks, Podesta agreed that NZ was a "juicier target" than the other members of the "Five Eyes" intelligence community (US, Canada, UK, Australia) and warned about "the use of social media to spread discord, lies, dissastisfaction". He added: "There are other actors in the region including China that may have a high degree of interest in being able to penetrate what the private conversations of people in NZ politics and NZ Government are looking at."
Globalist connections of Ardern and NZ Labour
What anointed Ardern as such a "superstar" but her Globalist connections? This gave her a ready platform before the global Zionist-Corporatist media, which indeed made a heroine out of Ardern. We should cut through the emotion-driven sound-bytes to look at the track record of Ardern and her Labour Party predecessors, who on more than one level pursued actions that fostered the attacks via the Problem - Reaction - Solution dialectic. That is, they laid the groundwork for the socio-political factors leading to the attack; through their censorship and media, engineering the reaction; and then proposing the "solutions".
The reality is that Ardern government and the entire NZ Labour apparatus is stocked full of politicians with memberships in various Globalist clubs like the Parliamentarians for Global Action, who decide policies beyond the prying eyes of their citizens. That they have overseen increased military expenditures and involved New Zealand in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and vocally supporting airstrikes against Syria, while promoting mass-immigration into her own country.
Like her predecessors, Ardern has pursued Neoliberal policies literally selling out the country to foreign corporations, especially from the US and China. And most significantly in light of Christchurch, privatized and deregulated the literal ports of entry for guns into the island country. The global media anointing her as a "superstar" through this horrific event - including a gushing interview already a full year earlier, and talks of her creating an internationalist "progressive foreign policy" - is a dress rehearsal for her desired career with the United Nations after she leaves office, much like her mentor and predecessor Helen Clark and like politicians worldwide use their political careers as resume builders for their ultimate careers in banking, lobbying, the UN, or Globalist NGOs.
Insanity of the multicultural dialectic
As I am increasingly seeing and have pointed out in past articles, I see the same elites that are pushing for wars abroad and creating the socio-economic conditions driving emigration from mostly-Muslim countries, also pushing for open borders and unfettered immigration to mostly-White and Western countries, including the psycho-social conditions for declining birthrates in our countries. All the same, they are able to shed crocodile tears when Muslims are the "victims" of the new "white nationalist" bogeyman, while simultaneously killing or looting Muslims in their own countries.
Tarrant the alleged "white ethno-nationalist", mentioned absolutely nothing about the role of Zionist-Jewish organizations and prominent figures in promoting mass-immigration, just like the various controlled opposition voices that condemn open borders only when it comes to Muslim immigrants while still championing Israel and ignoring the Zionist inspiration behind the Kalergi Plan. The same can be said for Renaud Camus, the Frenchman who coined the "great replacement" phrase used by Tarrant in his own manifesto, and exhibits pro-Israeli sympathies. These represent nothing but a false "opposition" who enable the very policies they oppose, because of their buying into the Zionist dialectic that Israel represents "Western values" and lobbying for fighting wars on Israel's behalf.
Much the same can be said for the other side of the dialectic, who champion open borders for their own tribal-religious interests, oblivious to the fact that its pushed by the very same elites attacking their countries. They cheer on the publicity stunt of a hijab-wearing, mosque-visiting, salam-uttering Ardern, catering to the victimhood mentality at a mosque where two members had previously been radicalized and killed in drone attacks championed by her government. This trend dismisses every Islamist attack as a false flag and, even while pointing out Israeli connections, buys into the official narrative of "white nationalists". An example is Mint Press News, which even manages to slip in a swipe at Ukraine, being just one of many countries visited by Tarrant, to fit their editorial line which pretends to be "anti-Zionist" while ignoring the deep Zionist-Chabad connections of Putin or Israeli ties to the Kremlin-backed separatists I documented last year.
Tarrant, the "Ethno-Nationalist" Psyop
The elites have used this attack to demonize those in Western countries who oppose open borders and mass-immigration. We have to wonder why Tarrant's social media accounts were shut down within moments, except that they wanted to control the narrative. Or his employing of various memes, the fact that his sending a donation to the anti-immigrant Identitarian movement was used to discredit that movement and refuse its leader entry into the US - like receiving a donation from somebody indicates alleged support for their later actions, which I say despite my own problems with Identitarian leaders never saying anything about the central Jewish-Zionist role or their idolizing of that anti-Western Kabbalist chaos subversive Alexander Dugin.
As with gun control, they have used Christchurch to censor and suppress free speech, a slippery slope that has included prosecuting people who merely shared the shooter's video (even while the media itself showed it), anyone expressing a view outside their own tightly-controlled narrative. A leading actor in this effort has been the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), whose leader Jonathan Greenblatt has opened a "command center" in Silicon Valley to "combat cyberhate" and hired a "technology director", thus pressuring tech companies to censor all opinions this subversive Zionist pressure organization deems as "hate".
Almost like a gift to Marxist talking-points which like to condemn all their opponents as "Nazi" or "Fascist", Tarrant described himself as an "eco-fascist". We can take this as yet another indicator of his "manifesto" appearing like a sloppily-constructed meme, but there is something deeper here in how he wrote of his desire not to father any children since they are "ultimately destructive to nature and culture". What "ethno-nationalist" would see the bequething of culture and heritage to successive generations as "destructive"? I find this very peculiar, since its exactly the declining birthrates in the West that are used by the elites to justify open borders.
Peculiar also is how this "ethno-nationalist" idolizes Communist China: "The nation with the closest political and social values to my own is the People's Republic of China." This is very suspicious given China's technology links with Israel; how Podesta specifically named China as "penetrating" New Zealand politics and intelligence; and how China has been increasing its influence in the country so much that Western countries have ceased sharing information with the New Zealand intelligence agencies for fear it could get into Chinese hands....which brings me to suspicous remarks Netanyahu made about the "Five Eyes" recently at Cybertech Tel Aviv 2019....
To be continued in Part 2....
19 April 2019
Over a month has passed since the shootings at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, and lost in the broader debate are its suspicious consequences and their deeper geopolitical implications. Domestically, the New Zealand government has used it as their casus belli for gun control and to increase their selling the country's assets to foreign corporations and control by their own Globalist clubs. Geopolitically, we can ignore neither the Israeli connections nor the shooter's manifesto which reveals the imprint of Duginism. All of these aspects tie in together as I will demonstrate.
The false flag question
A false flag should not be confused with those co-opted elements who talk of "crisis actors" and events being "fake" (to discredit all false flags), nor should it be a knee-jerk reaction to every single event with no commitment to seeing the evidence play out. Rather, a false flag simply means there are suspicious questions about a violent event that points to deeper involvement than the official narrative suggests. In this case, that there is more to it than just a lone-wolf shooter named Brenton Tarrant.
One recurring theme is that information initially released after an event is quietly withdrawn, never to be spoken of again. It happened on 9/11 with the five cheering Israelis of Urban Moving Systems filming the attacks. As anyone who followed the early coverage of the Christchurch can attest, initial reports said that there were multiple shooters and official reports even said there were others "on the run". These claims were never backtracked, but simply disappeared down the Memory Hole. What happened to these "multiple shooters"?
The backdoor for gun control
Barely had the dust settled or the blood dried than the New Zealand government under Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern pushed through with wide-sweeping gun control legislation - 600 pages (!) - which we are to believe was a spontaneous reaction to a traumatic attack and not something pre-planned, just waiting for the perfect opportunity to be released. Just as the various leading Zionist-Neocons in my own country called for a "cataclysmic event" on the eve of 9/11, why were these two attacks which exceeded the entire annual murder rate in all New Zealand, allowed to affect such permanent changes?
Especially since Tarrant himself, in the 74-page Manifesto he wrote entitled "The Great Replacement: Towards a New Society", predictably saw gun control as the first result toward this "new society": "Finally, to create conflict between the two ideologies within the United States on the ownership of firearms in order to further the social, cultural, political and racial divide within the United states [sic]. This conflict over the 2nd amendment [sic] and the attempted removal of firearms rights will ultimately result in a civil war that will eventually balkanize the US along political, cultural and, most importantly, racial lines." So, you react to the attacks in the exact way the shooter envisioned and sought?
How was an Australian citizen able to so easily secure assault weapons in New Zealand? Why were New Zealand citizens to bear the brunt of a foreigner's actions? Based on what various ANZAC speakers have noted about the gun situation in their countries, there were already strict rules within New Zealand against possessing handguns and semi-automatic weapons, and strict government regulations of weapons. We are confronted with the same parallel as EU intelligence agencies "monitoring" various Islamist shooters who nevertheless manage to move and procure weapons more freely than the actual natives.
These speakers also suggest the easiest ways to obtain weapons are through certain "clubs" with deep links to well-connected Masonic circles. Keep this in mind as we see the alleged Masonic connections of Tarrant and the role of the Labour government in privatizing ports, the only entry for such weapons into the island country. We are confronted once again with elites who use real loss of lives for their own purposes, while playing out the very scripted response cited by the manifesto.
What was John Podesta doing in New Zealand?
Increasingly in a Globalized world, events in one corner of the world can affect those in another. This includes reviving the talking points of our own domestic advocates for gun control, and we have to point out the suspicious activities of one: John Podesta, former campaign manager for the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016. In other words, the anointed talking head for the left pole of the Left/Right dialectic just happened to be in New Zealand around the time of the attacks, lending his support to his NZ counterparts and in the process dropping clues to the deeper implications of these attacks.
Podesta was a keynote speaker for "A Global Progressives Event" in Australia on 7th March, and we know that sometime afterwards he traveled to New Zealand where he praised Ardern as a "superstar" and "somebody that people are paying attention to". Asked to comment on the warning by New Zealand's top spies to Parliament the month earlier that their elections were extremely vulnerable from cyber attacks, Podesta agreed that NZ was a "juicier target" than the other members of the "Five Eyes" intelligence community (US, Canada, UK, Australia) and warned about "the use of social media to spread discord, lies, dissastisfaction". He added: "There are other actors in the region including China that may have a high degree of interest in being able to penetrate what the private conversations of people in NZ politics and NZ Government are looking at."
Globalist connections of Ardern and NZ Labour
What anointed Ardern as such a "superstar" but her Globalist connections? This gave her a ready platform before the global Zionist-Corporatist media, which indeed made a heroine out of Ardern. We should cut through the emotion-driven sound-bytes to look at the track record of Ardern and her Labour Party predecessors, who on more than one level pursued actions that fostered the attacks via the Problem - Reaction - Solution dialectic. That is, they laid the groundwork for the socio-political factors leading to the attack; through their censorship and media, engineering the reaction; and then proposing the "solutions".
The reality is that Ardern government and the entire NZ Labour apparatus is stocked full of politicians with memberships in various Globalist clubs like the Parliamentarians for Global Action, who decide policies beyond the prying eyes of their citizens. That they have overseen increased military expenditures and involved New Zealand in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and vocally supporting airstrikes against Syria, while promoting mass-immigration into her own country.
Like her predecessors, Ardern has pursued Neoliberal policies literally selling out the country to foreign corporations, especially from the US and China. And most significantly in light of Christchurch, privatized and deregulated the literal ports of entry for guns into the island country. The global media anointing her as a "superstar" through this horrific event - including a gushing interview already a full year earlier, and talks of her creating an internationalist "progressive foreign policy" - is a dress rehearsal for her desired career with the United Nations after she leaves office, much like her mentor and predecessor Helen Clark and like politicians worldwide use their political careers as resume builders for their ultimate careers in banking, lobbying, the UN, or Globalist NGOs.
Insanity of the multicultural dialectic
As I am increasingly seeing and have pointed out in past articles, I see the same elites that are pushing for wars abroad and creating the socio-economic conditions driving emigration from mostly-Muslim countries, also pushing for open borders and unfettered immigration to mostly-White and Western countries, including the psycho-social conditions for declining birthrates in our countries. All the same, they are able to shed crocodile tears when Muslims are the "victims" of the new "white nationalist" bogeyman, while simultaneously killing or looting Muslims in their own countries.
Tarrant the alleged "white ethno-nationalist", mentioned absolutely nothing about the role of Zionist-Jewish organizations and prominent figures in promoting mass-immigration, just like the various controlled opposition voices that condemn open borders only when it comes to Muslim immigrants while still championing Israel and ignoring the Zionist inspiration behind the Kalergi Plan. The same can be said for Renaud Camus, the Frenchman who coined the "great replacement" phrase used by Tarrant in his own manifesto, and exhibits pro-Israeli sympathies. These represent nothing but a false "opposition" who enable the very policies they oppose, because of their buying into the Zionist dialectic that Israel represents "Western values" and lobbying for fighting wars on Israel's behalf.
 |
| Co-opting the discourse: Camus and his Zionist friend Finkielkraut |
Much the same can be said for the other side of the dialectic, who champion open borders for their own tribal-religious interests, oblivious to the fact that its pushed by the very same elites attacking their countries. They cheer on the publicity stunt of a hijab-wearing, mosque-visiting, salam-uttering Ardern, catering to the victimhood mentality at a mosque where two members had previously been radicalized and killed in drone attacks championed by her government. This trend dismisses every Islamist attack as a false flag and, even while pointing out Israeli connections, buys into the official narrative of "white nationalists". An example is Mint Press News, which even manages to slip in a swipe at Ukraine, being just one of many countries visited by Tarrant, to fit their editorial line which pretends to be "anti-Zionist" while ignoring the deep Zionist-Chabad connections of Putin or Israeli ties to the Kremlin-backed separatists I documented last year.
Tarrant, the "Ethno-Nationalist" Psyop
The elites have used this attack to demonize those in Western countries who oppose open borders and mass-immigration. We have to wonder why Tarrant's social media accounts were shut down within moments, except that they wanted to control the narrative. Or his employing of various memes, the fact that his sending a donation to the anti-immigrant Identitarian movement was used to discredit that movement and refuse its leader entry into the US - like receiving a donation from somebody indicates alleged support for their later actions, which I say despite my own problems with Identitarian leaders never saying anything about the central Jewish-Zionist role or their idolizing of that anti-Western Kabbalist chaos subversive Alexander Dugin.
 |
| ADL and HIAS: Advocates of Open Borders for "Goyim", but an exclusively Jewish ethno-state for Israel |
As with gun control, they have used Christchurch to censor and suppress free speech, a slippery slope that has included prosecuting people who merely shared the shooter's video (even while the media itself showed it), anyone expressing a view outside their own tightly-controlled narrative. A leading actor in this effort has been the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), whose leader Jonathan Greenblatt has opened a "command center" in Silicon Valley to "combat cyberhate" and hired a "technology director", thus pressuring tech companies to censor all opinions this subversive Zionist pressure organization deems as "hate".
Almost like a gift to Marxist talking-points which like to condemn all their opponents as "Nazi" or "Fascist", Tarrant described himself as an "eco-fascist". We can take this as yet another indicator of his "manifesto" appearing like a sloppily-constructed meme, but there is something deeper here in how he wrote of his desire not to father any children since they are "ultimately destructive to nature and culture". What "ethno-nationalist" would see the bequething of culture and heritage to successive generations as "destructive"? I find this very peculiar, since its exactly the declining birthrates in the West that are used by the elites to justify open borders.
Peculiar also is how this "ethno-nationalist" idolizes Communist China: "The nation with the closest political and social values to my own is the People's Republic of China." This is very suspicious given China's technology links with Israel; how Podesta specifically named China as "penetrating" New Zealand politics and intelligence; and how China has been increasing its influence in the country so much that Western countries have ceased sharing information with the New Zealand intelligence agencies for fear it could get into Chinese hands....which brings me to suspicous remarks Netanyahu made about the "Five Eyes" recently at Cybertech Tel Aviv 2019....
To be continued in Part 2....
No comments:
Post a Comment