Michael Stuart Kelly

Terrorist Attack in Christchurch, New Zealand

Recommended Posts

I saw a minute or two of the video. A few things looked strange to me. He would enter a room and everyone would be at the far end of the room, motionless, piled into the corner. Not trying to run out of the building, not hiding. Also, he fires a lot, from the hip, so shots should miss and hit the walls and windows — but none of that is evident. Frontal, point-blank shots on people wearing white, with a SHOTGUN, which should leave a hole you can place your fist into, yet, no blood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

What pure tyranny. NZ had better sharpen-up their guillotines.

Jon,

For as much as I detest Perigo (the SoloPassion guy in NZ), I don't wish harm on him or his people. After all, he runs an operation in the Randian universe (for however it's weird). And, oddly enough, we share many of the same values re President Trump, free speech, and so on. 

I don't see NZ as a healthy environment for his kind of "death to Islam" rhetoric right now. I sincerely hope they don't shut him down or come for him. I don't give high odds for the NZ government doing that, but you never know. Right now they're coming for guns, censoring people they don't like, etc. Why let a crisis go to waste?

One of the things I take into account about NZ as a tyranny is that Kim DotCom lives there. He is one of the biggest pains in the ass on the planet for the US establishment in terms of copyright in the cyberworld (we're talking major moolah). He keeps the NZ government in the courts constantly and has not been harmed so far. So NZ is a halfassed tyranny at best.

But a halfassed tyranny with a gun is still a power-monger with a gun. And right now that power-monger has a full-blown terrorist mass shooting to use.

Whether the shooting was a false flag or not, I don't believe the NZ government will find out much objectively. I don't think it wants to. The propaganda gift is just too great.

Michael

 

(LATER EDIT: This does not mean I am making a peace overture. I find it impossible to forgive what they did to Barbara Branden. I'm just speaking out in their favor on principle. Why? Because the current threat is real, not fantasy-world bluster. And the human values involved are universal. Especially force and free speech. One must speak out in this context.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WARNING! If you are in possession of a certain video showing what happened in Christchurch, New Zealand, you could be arrested and put in prison. https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-03-17-violent-videos-on-the-net-possessing-the-nz-mosque-shooting-video.html

If you want to find that video and find out what the government is hiding that they need to put people in prison for finding out and maybe post it on OL, your best chance is probably Brighteon because youtube tends to censor stuff. 

BTW, naturalnews.com seems to be blocked by chromium but not by firefox.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soooo...

According to the left on Buzzfeed, Chelsea Clinton cased the NZ mosque massacre?

:)

According to Rush Limbaugh, the only person who defended her was Donald Trump, Jr. Not the NYT, not other politicians, not CNN. A Trump did.

Dayaamm!

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is how Chelsea Clinton is seen on the true progressive left:

It's not pretty. Just look at the hatred.

Riffing off of Rush, in Chelsea Clinton's defense, she married a Jew, thus has Jew kids--to put it in the most blunt manner possible to highlight the part her protesters don't want highlighted. In other words, a Jew going to a Muslim event like this...

Guess what happens?

Can anybody say bigotry meets crony corruption?

Michael

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here is how Chelsea Clinton is seen on the true progressive left:

It's not pretty. Just look at the hatred.

Riffing off of Rush, in Chelsea Clinton's defense, she married a Jew, thus has Jew kids--to put it in the most blunt manner possible to highlight the part her protesters don't want highlighted. In other words, a Jew going to a Muslim event like this...

Guess what happens?

Can anybody say bigotry meets crony corruption?

Michael

Jimmy's hatred for the Clintons is pretty thick.

Jimmy seems brighter and more aware than most who share his political leanings.

He sees what's coming and the need to start distancing from them now.

Shortly, the Clintons will be unable safety to appear in public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy Josh of  https://kiwifarms.net  is one who apparently hosted or posted links to the video and is exchanging love letters with NZ police ...

 

On 3/17/2019 6:12 AM, MICHAEL, John (JP) wrote:

Good afternoon

I am hoping that you can help us with an investigation the New Zealand Police are working on.

On 15 March 2019 there was a shooting in New Zealand with multiple fatalities at two mosques in the city of Christchurch.

The alleged offender in this matter is a Brenton TARRANT.

At around the time of the shooting there were a number of posts and links posted on kiwifarms.net <http://kiwifarms.net> relating to the shooting and TARRANT

We would like to preserve any posts and technical data including IP addresses, email addresses etc linked to these posts pending a formal legal request .

Could you please advise what legal process you require for this request and also confirm preservation of the data requested pending legal process.

Kind regards

John

John Michael_
_Detective Senior Sergeant*
*E-mail: john.michael@police.govt.nz <mailto:john.michael@police.govt.nz>

===============================================================

WARNING

The information contained in this email message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged information. It may also be subject to the provisions of section 50 of the Policing Act 2008, which creates an offence to have unlawful possession of Police property. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or have received this message in error, you must not peruse, use, distribute or copy this message or any of its contents.

Also note, the views expressed in this message may not necessarily reflect those of the New Zealand Police. If you have received this message in error, please email or telephone the sender immediately

---

 

 

 


Is this a joke? I'm not turning over information about my users. The person responsible for posting the video and manifesto PDF is myself.

I feel real bad for you guys, you've got a quiet nation and now this attack is going to be the first thing people think of for the next 10 years when they hear the name New Zealand, but you can't do this. Tell your superiors they're going to make the entire country and its government look like clowns by trying to censor the Internet. You're a small, irrelevant island nation barely more recognizable than any other nameless pacific sovereignty. You do not have the clout to eradicate a video from the Internet and you do not have the legal reach to imprison everyone whose posted it. If anyone turns over to you the information they're asking for they're not only cowards, but they're fucking idiots.

My name is Joshua Moon, I'm a US Citizen living overseas. My company is contained within a Florida company. If you need an address to send physical documents to this works.

Lolcow LLC
913 Beal Pkwy NW
Suite A-1017
Fort Walton Beach, FL 32547

If you're wondering, no. Kiwi Farms has nothing to do with New Zealand. Our name is a pointed jab at some of the mushmouthed autistic people we make fun of. Absolutely nothing about our community is NZ oriented.

And I don't give a single solitary fuck what section 50 of your faggot law say about sharing your email. Fuck you and fuck your shithole country.

- Josh

---

 

 

 


Hi Josh

Appreciate your quick response.

Will definitely consider what you have said.

Regards

John

John Michael
Detective Senior Sergeant
E-mail: john.michael@police.govt.nz

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Now for a wise perspective on power grabbing and empathy.

Michael

Michael, Glad you mentioned empathy which JP Watson alludes to here on behalf of the murdered victims. Elsewhere, I've heard him talk generally of "psychopathic altruism". (For Objectivism "altruism" suffices, natch). So he shows he has a great understanding of "power grabbing" by means of the sugar-coating of altruism -- forcing 'universal love' aka altruism, as its end goal. Sacrificial altruism plus power, and we have socialism. I wish many objectivists shared Watson's vision of altruism, minds every place subjugating themselves to 'love'' and 'empathy'. (Only for the 'right' groups and races, that is, the rest get hatred). And how your President's election interrupted their fantasy (that got them so unbelievably riled)..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, anthony said:

... forcing 'universal love' aka altruism, as its end goal.

Tony,

Here's a nit I want to pick.

Altruism is never the end goal. It is merely a tool of disarmament for the propagandists who preach it to achieve the end goal: unrestricted political power.

Illuminating that was, to me, one of Rand's greatest messages. And I am forever grateful to her for casting light on that particular wolf in sheep's clothing.

As to helping a bro out when he's down, I think differently. I don't think twice when I see distress and helping out is my size, that is, within what I can do without disrupting my life. (Even Roark helped out Peter all through their coming of age.) 

When I give like that, it's one way. I give without strings, then I sever the attachment to what I gave. If the bro wants to reciprocate or pay it forward, that's his business. I won't give a second time if he doesn't though. But what I gave the first time is no longer mine, so no strings.

I think that form of altruism is a good thing. I like living in a world where people do that.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony,

Here's a nit I want to pick.

Altruism is never the end goal. It is merely a tool of disarmament for the propagandists who preach it to achieve the end goal: unrestricted political power.

Illuminating that was, to me, one of Rand's greatest messages. And I am forever grateful to her for casting light on that particular wolf in sheep's clothing.

As to helping a bro out when he's down, I think differently. I don't think twice when I see distress and helping out is my size, that is, within what I can do without disrupting my life. (Even Roark helped out Peter all through their coming of age.) 

When I give like that, it's one way. I give without strings, then I sever the attachment to what I gave. If the bro wants to reciprocate or pay it forward, that's his business. I won't give a second time if he doesn't though. But what I gave the first time is no longer mine, so no strings.

I think that form of altruism is a good thing. I like living in a world where people do that.

Michael

 Michael, you may be confusing good will, kindness, benevolence, generosity, aid, charity and so on - whichever arises from your value system at an appropriate occasion, with full-blown altruism. And that altruism is completely contrary to one's values, since it is forced on one, or as we see at every turn today, psychologically pressured - guilted- onto us. To the benefit of any and all people you don't even know. As was said by Rand, and I can draw on too many life examples in agreement, altruism makes benevolence impossible. Each of us has a limit, materially, spiritually, emotionally, to helping others (outside our immediate circle of intimates). And when it's not done by one's identified choice, one will begin to resent/hate all other people and their endless needs. You might have seen me say that this is where my main support for President Trump lies. I believe he recalls when unforced benevolence - from moral strength - based on values, individual and national self-interest - was paramount in the USA. Not acted out of selfless duty. Probably he doesn't know this philosophically, that he and his supporters are implicitly pushing back against sacrificial altruism at home, while encouraging outside nations to also find self-interest. He understands Socialism, however.

Altruism as cause and consequences. I see that universal love and harmony and the highly selective, disingenuous advocacy of 'empathy', are both the means of seizing power (over minds, always over minds) for some  'elitists' - and the promised dream and end goal for many, many more who will slavishly follow to that global utopia. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen more sections of the video, they screwed up bad. While in the car, he fires a gun several times while pointed at the windshield, yet the glass doesn't break — so those were blanks, all bang!  no bullet, no projectile.

When he is outside firing rapidly, 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. Very sloppy, incomplete computer-generated imagery.

8:57 to 9:10 in the video. Several dozen rounds fired. No brass heard bouncing on the pavement, none seen on the pavement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, anthony said:

Michael, you may be confusing good will, kindness, benevolence, generosity, aid, charity and so on - whichever arises from your value system at an appropriate occasion, with full-blown altruism.

Tony,

Why the qualifier? Why talk about "full-blown" when I'm using the word altruism without a qualifier?

I'm not confused about what I am addressing. I've been doing this online thing for over 15 years and you would not believe the level of knuckleheadedness in our subcommunity.

I can't remember the name of the tidal wave disaster about a decade ago (I could probably look it up), but after it happened and practically destroyed a few island paradises, some idiot or other over at ARI published, under the auspices of ARI, an article saying it was immoral and evil to help the victims of the disaster because that would be altruistic. Thankfully, they took that garbage down.

But still they had it up for a few days. So in my view, they are confused about what the truly truthy true altruism is. Not me.

I see this discussion as a war of jargon, not concept. And, as I am getting sick of leftwing politically correct speech wrecking the entire news industry, I see no virtue in adhering to altruism as a kneejerk term in our subcommunity.

That kind of one-definition-only approach worked for the world of the novel Atlas Shrugged. That's because the novel had a theme. But out here in real-land, open any dictionary and anyone can see that all words (except for two or three) come with at least two definitions. That's just the way English works.

Try to understand conceptually what I am saying, then realize that the boo-boo word you want to split hairs over has been used by people in our subcommunity countless times to mean the benevolence I am talking about, not just the manipulation Rand was talking about. Then you will understand why I am no longer on board with using this jargon in such a rigid fashion.

I do agree with you about Rand's portrayal of altruism when it is used for evil purposes. But, having seen the good stuff called evil over and over and over because of Objectivism's own form of political correctness, I've lost patience with the semantics game. (btw - They've even crucified David Kelley over his writing on benevolence, calling it altruism in disguise.)

I have an interesting concept for you: poetic justice. This is the motor of most great storytelling. Guess what one scholar calls it when the punishment is meted out by a heroic avenger? Altruistic punishment. (The idea is that the avenger suffers personal loss to avenge the suffering of another who he may or may not know.) The scholar's name is William Flesch and he wrote a book about it called Comeuppance. It's a book rich in wonderful concepts (seriously great ideas), but written in one of the worst academic drivel styles I have ever encountered. He makes postmodern proto-feminist garbage against the patriarchy of male gerbils causing slave societies sound clear. It's a highly irritating book because of this, but well worth the effort to translate it into something resembling English if you have the patience. :) 

In my early days of Randian influence, I would have simply seen the term "altruistic punishment," then determined this was an evil book without looking further. Nowadays I look. We can call poetic justice anything we want, but the concept is going to remain the same. Poetic justice is not what Rand meant when she used the term "altruism." So do you see the colossal error I would have made in my early days over jargon?

It's not worth it. We should split hairs over concepts, not just words. We should fight over the candy bar, not the wrapper.

(And no, I won't give you my half.)

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

I have seen more sections of the video, they screwed up bad. While in the car, he fires a gun several times while pointed at the windshield, yet the glass doesn't break — so those were blanks, all bang!  no bullet, no projectile.

When he is outside firing rapidly, 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. Very sloppy, incomplete computer-generated imagery.

Jon,

Are you indicating that you think that the massacre was faked?  If that is what you think, faked by whom?  And why?

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony,

Why the qualifier? Why talk about "full-blown" when I'm using the word altruism without a qualifier?

I'm not confused about what I am addressing. I've been doing this online thing for over 15 years and you would not believe the level of knuckleheadedness in our subcommunity.

I can't remember the name of the tidal wave disaster about a decade ago (I could probably look it up), but after it happened and practically destroyed a few island paradises, some idiot or other over at ARI published, under the auspices of ARI, an article saying it was immoral and evil to help the victims of the disaster because that would be altruistic. Thankfully, they took that garbage down.

But still they had it up for a few days. So in my view, they are confused about what the truly truthy true altruism is. Not me.

I see this discussion as a war of jargon, not concept. And, as I am getting sick of leftwing politically correct speech wrecking the entire news industry, I see no virtue in adhering to altruism as a kneejerk term in our subcommunity.

That kind of one-definition-only approach worked for the world of the novel Atlas Shrugged. That's because the novel had a theme. But out here in real-land, open any dictionary and anyone can see that all words (except for two or three) come with at least two definitions. That's just the way English works.

Try to understand conceptually what I am saying, then realize that the boo-boo word you want to split hairs over has been used by people in our subcommunity countless times to mean the benevolence I am talking about, not just the manipulation Rand was talking about. Then you will understand why I am no longer on board with using this jargon in such a rigid fashion.

I do agree with you about Rand's portrayal of altruism when it is used for evil purposes. But, having seen the good stuff called evil over and over and over because of Objectivism's own form of political correctness, I've lost patience with the semantics game. (btw - They've even crucified David Kelley over his writing on benevolence, calling it altruism in disguise.)

I have an interesting concept for you: poetic justice. This is the motor of most great storytelling. Guess what one scholar calls it when the punishment is meted out by a heroic avenger? Altruistic punishment. (The idea is that the avenger suffers personal loss to avenge the suffering of another who he may or may not know.) The scholar's name is William Flesch and he wrote a book about it called Comeuppance. It's a book rich in wonderful concepts (seriously great ideas), but written in one of the worst academic drivel styles I have ever encountered. He makes postmodern proto-feminist garbage against the patriarchy of male gerbils causing slave societies sound clear. It's a highly irritating book because of this, but well worth the effort to translate it into something resembling English if you have the patience. :) 

In my early days of Randian influence, I would have simply seen the term "altruistic punishment," then determined this was an evil book without looking further. Nowadays I look. We can call poetic justice anything we want, but the concept is going to remain the same. Poetic justice is not what Rand meant when she used the term "altruism." So do you see the colossal error I would have made in my early days over jargon?

It's not worth it. We should split hairs over concepts, not just words. We should fight over the candy bar, not the wrapper.

(And no, I won't give you my half.)

:) 

Michael

Altruism was appropriated by the totalitarians for moral justification for their idiological snarmniness and Rand countered with "selfishness" thereby justifying in her own way tyranny if tyranny be a value to whomever. The major flaw in her philosophy is its center in morality instead of politics and it's implicit and explicit morality. She was not wrong about  rational self interest but she never recognized the nature of self interest in altruism. Of course, the religionists used altruism the same way the totalitarians did, to justify themselves and to control the subjugated and to subjugate.

What has been obscured in this ideological warfare by its sheer bilateralism is actual human nature. The irony of the world of Atlas Shrugged is the sheer human destruction by the men of the mind going on strike is exponentially greater than anything the totalitarians have managed to achieve too date. 

Now I know I am mixing up my categories, fiction and non-fiction, and Rand declared she was trying to prevent a socialistic America, but Rand too was always mixing up those categories. However, man the individualist was also and always man the provider and man (man and woman, of course) the protector. Man and his (her) family.

The irony is the Atlas bad boys were the heroes who let the other bad boys play just to practically illustrate in every way Rand could imagine how bad the bad boys and their policies could be to the USA. Not included, though, were anything like the Nazi and Communist genocides. Just good old Mr. Thompson and naked John Galt on the rack.

That was essentially the end of her magnum opus. In her previous novel naked Howard Roark laughed.

Roark led straight to Galt.

This is why there is no Objectivist movement. The Objectivists are in Galt's Gulch.

--Brant

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Jon,

Are you indicating that you think that the massacre was faked?  If that is what you think, faked by whom?  And why?

Ellen

I am saying that the 17 minute long video the shooter uploaded on Facebook and that the NZ government is threatening 10 years imprisonment for the possession of, was faked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, anthony said:

 Michael, you may be confusing good will, kindness, benevolence, generosity, aid, charity and so on - whichever arises from your value system at an appropriate occasion, with full-blown altruism. And that altruism is completely contrary to one's values, since it is forced on one, or as we see at every turn today, psychologically pressured - guilted- onto us. To the benefit of any and all people you don't even know. As was said by Rand, and I can draw on too many life examples in agreement, altruism makes benevolence impossible. Each of us has a limit, materially, spiritually, emotionally, to helping others (outside our immediate circle of intimates). And when it's not done by one's identified choice, one will begin to resent/hate all other people and their endless needs. You might have seen me say that this is where my main support for President Trump lies. I believe he recalls when unforced benevolence - from moral strength - based on values, individual and national self-interest - was paramount in the USA. Not acted out of selfless duty. Probably he doesn't know this philosophically, that he and his supporters are implicitly pushing back against sacrificial altruism at home, while encouraging outside nations to also find self-interest. He understands Socialism, however.

Altruism as cause and consequences. I see that universal love and harmony and the highly selective, disingenuous advocacy of 'empathy', are both the means of seizing power (over minds, always over minds) for some  'elitists' - and the promised dream and end goal for many, many more who will slavishly follow to that global utopia. 

Hear! Hear! You are eloquent, Tony. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon. As long as the video is available, the truth will come out and be understood by humanity.  All of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...