An Australian “comedian” makes a joke about the Christchurch Mosque massacre, in which 52 Muslim worshippers were killed by an Australian right wing terrorist in New Zealand in 2019. pic.twitter.com/vqWYNofEzb

— CJ Werleman (@cjwerleman) August 2, 2020

Oh man oh man oh boy wow.

An Australian comedian with a big beard, Isaac Butterfield, known for his shock humor, made a joke last week about the Christchurch mosque shooting, which is just so precious to me.

He said:

This Australian extremist stormed this building, this mosque, this room, where people were saying their prayers, and going about their business, and for me, the saddest thing about that wasn’t the 52 people who were killed. It wasn’t the countless others who had their lives changed forever because their family members were taken from them. It was the hundreds of people that night who couldn’t make it home from nightclubs in Christchurch because all the cabbies were dead.

The crowd made a whole helluva lot of noise before ending in huge claps. Honestly, the only thing I take issue with here is that he didn’t drop the mic. He deserved to drop the mic.

It was just – that is so beautiful, on every single possible level.

This is exactly what we need in our society: we need to have these sacred cows burned down by jokes. That is the only way to break through this solid wall of mind enslavement that has been built up around us. You have to laugh at the absurdity of making dead hajis a sacred event.

Thus far, at time of writing, Butterfield has yet to apologize for the joke. Instead, he released a video joking about the fact that people are angry about the joke.

He did the same thing last year when he was attacked over a Holocaust joke. Total lack of apologies. That time, he even compared it to the shooting of the church in Sri Lanka, saying that the Jewish media cares more about him joking about dead Jews than they care about the actual murder of Christians.

This man deserves golden prizes.

Honestly, he should just immediately be made the leader of Australia. Or of all white countries. Or the world, in total.

He is a complete hero.

Anyone who questions anything now is that – a hero.

Anyone who refuses to bow down.

Of course, what it means for him is that he cannot possibly have a career. There is no room for freedom of artistic expression in this world – let me tell you so, because I know a thing or two about that.

But God will remember him. God will remember that he stuck up for freedom.

He broke through the lies of the system and laid the whole thing out, bare and naked. He showed the absolute weakness of this system, its total inability to defend itself.

He is a true hero.

Remember Brenton Tarrant?

There’s a more recent picture of him below.

It’s clear that they’re starving him on purpose, mostly because they were jealous of his beefy arms and forearms, but also because they’re still salty about the mosque thing.

Daily Mail:

The Australian gunman who murdered 51 Muslims during the Christchurch mosque massacre has pleaded guilty to all charges.

Brenton Tarrant, 29, appeared via video-link in the High Court at Christchurch on Thursday morning where he admitted to carrying out the attack on March 15, last year.

He pleaded guilty to 51 counts of murder, 40 charges of attempted murder and a charge of engaging in a terrorist act.

The white supremacist had originally pleaded not guilty and was preparing to stand trial on June 2.

The shock hearing was scheduled late on Wednesday night, before the country was placed in a four-week lockdown to slow the spread of the deadly coronavirus.

The terror charge against him was the first prosecution of its kind in New Zealand.

Tarrant will remain in a maximum-security jail in Auckland ahead of his sentencing and now faces life in prison.

Tarrant stormed two mosques in Christchurch, on New Zealand’s South Island last year, killing 51 Muslim worshipers and injuring dozens more.

He live-streamed the horror attack on Facebook.

Tarrant first entered the Al Noor Mosque as Friday prayers were beginning and opened fire.

Worshipers scrambled as the shots rang out. Some managed to smash windows to escape, while others had to lay with the bloodied bodies and pretend to be dead.

Tarrant then drove to the Linwood Mosque on the other side of the city and continued shooting.

For a culture that boasts about “the intrinsic value of human life,” “human rights,” kindness, and all of that stuff, the way Brenton Tarrant is being treated should at least raise a few eyebrows.

Why is he not being fed proper food?

Why are they torturing him?

How is this okay?

Philip Arps, online freedom fighter

Nothing says “White male privilege” quite like going to prison for almost two years for sharing a video online.

Reuters:

A New Zealand man was sentenced to 21 months in prison on Tuesday for distributing videos of a massacre at two mosques in the city of Christchurch, media reported.

…

Radio New Zealand said Philip Arps, 44, pleaded guilty to two charges of distributing objectionable material after sharing copies of the live streamed video with about 30 people.

Arps also shared a video that was modified to add cross-hairs and a body count to the images of the massacre, the broadcaster said.

I still don’t get why this would be illegal.

Then again, I don’t get why what Tarrant did is supposed to be illegal either.

In a sane society, mowing down dozens of invaders would earn you a medal and a huge barrel of goat cheese.

Christchurch District Court Judge Stephen O’Driscoll said that when Arps was asked for his opinion of the video, he replied it was “awesome,” Radio New Zealand said.

Where’s the lie?

“It is clear from all the material before me that you have strong and unrepentant views towards the Muslim community,” it quoted O’Driscoll as saying during the sentencing.

This cuck really needs some real justice done hard on him, ideally by just dumping him into any random Moslem country and seeing how he likes living among them.

New Zealand’s government has outlawed the sharing of videos of the massacre, which is punishable by up to 14 years in jail.

Look at all that freedom you have, goyim!

Aren’t you happy you don’t live in China, where little boys don’t even have the freedom to cut their dicks off?

A self-described white supremacist, Arps was charged with”offensive behavior” and fined NZ$800 ($543) in 2016 after he delivered a bloodied pig’s head to Al Noor mosque, according to court documents.

The mosque was among the two targeted in the March massacre.

BASED!

Not quite as funny as Tarrant’s prank but still, it’s the thought that counts.

The best thing about what Brenton did is that it’s making the System do stupid things like this, which make people hate it and mistrust it even more.

I’m willing to bet most normies in NZ had no idea the government can just put you in prison for posting something online, and even the most brainwashed among them can’t possibly agree with over a decade in prison for it.

So this is basically the gift that keeps on giving.

Hail Tarrant!

I’ll watch Initial D in his honor.

Brenton Tarrant, the man who livestreamed his mosque visit back in March, still manages to upset MOSLEMS from behind bars.

New Zealand Herald:

Brenton Tarrant has today denied being the Christchurch mosque terror attacker and will stand trial in May next year.

The 28-year-old Australian national entered not guilty pleas during a short appearance at the High Court at Christchurch this morning.

He didn’t deny being the shooter.

He pleaded not guilty to what they charged him with because he’s a uniformed partisan fighting an occupying force, not a murderous terrorist.

Tarrant gave a slight smile when not guilty pleas were entered through his lawyer.

Wearing a grey sweatshirt and straining to hear discussions, he was not in the courtroom but instead appeared via audio visual link from Paremoremo Prison in Auckland.

He constantly looked around during the hearing. Several cameras would have shown to him the courtroom, judge and lawyers but not the public gallery.

He also appeared to be flexing or stretching his neck at times.

The courtroom was filled with victims – survivors and family members of the 51 killed during the March 15 attack at two Christchurch mosques – with many more watching from two overflow rooms inside the courthouse via audio visual link.

They reacted with gasps when the not guilty pleas were entered.

All of the victims kept their eyes glued to the alleged gunman throughout the hearing. Many were visibly upset. One woman hugged a cuddly toy.

A trial date of May 4 was confirmed by Justice Cameron Mander. The Crown believes the trial could last around six weeks. Defence counsel Shane Tait believes it could take up to three months.

The accused gunman now faces a total of 51 murder charges and 40 attempted murder charges – along with the terrorism charge.

When due process fails us, we really do live in a world of terror.

…a world full of monsters.

…a world full of legends.

…and a world full of fake heroes.

Daily Mail:

A mosque hero who chased away the Christchurch shooter has slammed the accused Australian man for smiling in court.

Abdul Aziz, 48, called accused shooter Brenton Tarrant a ‘coward’ for smirking as he pleaded not guilty to shooting dead 51 worshippers outside Christchurch District Court on Friday.

Abdul Aziz

Survivors gasped and cried when Tarrant, originally from Grafton, New South Wales, entered the pleas to all 92 charges via video link from a maximum-security prison in Auckland.

Mr Aziz was later confronted by a man who espoused white supremacist views outside of the court.

Abdul Aziz confronted by a man

Hero Mr Aziz defended the Linwood mosque, Tarrant’s second target, with an Eftpos machine and chased the shooter during the live-streamed massacre.

‘He was laughing there (in court) and he thinks he was so tough, but he was a coward when he faced me and he ran,’ he said.

You either didn’t run after him hard enough or you’re just too out of shape to catch him, Aziz.

‘He was not man enough to stand up that time and (now) he’s standing there and laughing.

‘Put me for 15 minutes in one cell and then we will see if he can laugh any more.

‘It was very hard for us even just to look at him.’

Temel Atacocugu, shot nine times during the attack, said he was putting his faith in New Zealand’s legal system.

‘We are strong. He is the loser and we are the winners. He will lose,’ he told reporters.

Yes, Aziz, you are a strong, manly man who finds “very hard” to just look at Brenton Tarrant.

WARNING: GRAPHIC

People who don’t find looking at Brenton Tarrant “very hard” can watch his livestream footage and read his manifesto here.

What better way to know what happened than to see what happened?

What better way to know why it happened than to read what Brenton Tarrant had to say about it?

They won’t be able to rewrite history and change the facts.

We can see the facts.

We can read the facts.

You can expect Brenton Tarrant to continue making MOSLEMS cry all throughout his trial.

It’s all very inspiring.

After Brenton Tarrant visited a mosque, New Zealand tried to censor his face and the footage of his visit.

They’re now dropping the ban on his face.

Daily Mail:

A ban on New Zealand media showing the face of the Australian man arrested over the Christchurch mosque shootings has been dropped.

Cameras were in court when 28-year-old Brenton Tarrant appeared in court for the first time on March 16, the day after the terror attack that killed 51.

However, an order made during the appearance meant local media had to pixelate the former NSW resident’s face in any images they published.

The decision comes ahead of Tarrant’s return to court, via videolink from his prison, next week.

…

After the attack, multiple New Zealand media organisations said they would attempt to use his name as little as possible and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said she would not name him to avoid adding to his notoriety.

Apparently, naming Brenton Tarrant gives some kind of power to Brenton Tarrant and his cause, so this is as good a time as any to watch his mosque video and casually name-drop him somewhere.

For now, try this Brenton Tarrant spell and see how much power you gain.

You just need to read his name; you don’t even need to speak it aloud.

BRENTON TARRANT BRENTON TARRANT BRENTON TARRANT BRENTON TARRANT BRENTON TARRANT.

Feel any different?

Try this:

BRENTON TARRANT BRENTON TARRANT BRENTON TARRANT BRENTON TARRANT BRENTON TARRANT BRENTON TARRANT BRENTON TARRANT

BRENTON TARRANT BRENTON TARRANT BRENTON TARRANT BRENTON TARRANT BRENTON TARRANT BRENTON TARRANT BRENTON TARRANT

BRENTON TARRANT BRENTON TARRANT BRENTON TARRANT BRENTON TARRANT

BRENTON TARRANT BRENTON TARRANT BRENTON TARRANT BRENTON TARRANT BRENTON TARRANT BRENTON TARRANT BRENTON TARRANT BRENTON TARRANT BRENTON TARRANT BRENTON TARRANT BRENTON TARRANT BRENTON TARRANT

BRENTON TARRANT BRENTON TARRANT BRENTON TARRANT BRENTON TARRANT BRENTON TARRANT BRENTON TARRANT.

BRENTON TARRANT!

He is a real hero.

And a real human being.

The whole staff was butthurt that song didn’t make his playlist.

We were all like “does this guy even read the Stormer?”

But you know what it really was?

He was too humble to identify himself as the real hero he is. 

But in the name of the white race, I dedicate that song and this song to BRENTON TARRANT.

Christchurch terror attacks — further charges laid.

Police can now confirm the man arrested in relation to the Christchurch terror attacks will face 50 Murder and 39 Attempted Murder charges when he appears in the High Court in Christchurch on Friday 5 April.

— New Zealand Police (@nzpolice) April 4, 2019

Other charges are still under consideration.

As the case is before the court, Police is not in a position to comment further.

— New Zealand Police (@nzpolice) April 4, 2019

Following the live-streaming of his ridiculously funny mosque visit, Brenton Tarrant’s score has been calculated and he’s now charged with 50 counts of murder. Pretty impressive K/D.

Daily Mail:

The man accused of shooting Muslim worshippers at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand has been charged with 50 counts of murder.

Brenton Harrison Tarrant, 28, is due to appear in the High Court at Christchurch on Friday.

The Australian-born man is accused of gunning down almost 100 people in a sickening attack on the Al Noor and Linwood mosques that was live-streamed and shared to Facebook on March 15.

Tarrant, 28, will appear via audio-visual link from New Zealand’s only maximum security prison in Paremoremo, Auckland, the New Zealand Herald reported.

He has previously requested to represent himself in court, and in his last court appearance he smirked and gave a white supremacist sign with his hand.

They are so afraid of putting Brenton in the same room as the people that are going to judge him that they’ll do a kind of Skype video-call thing instead. They went nuts censoring his manifesto for the same reason; they fear people being exposed to what he has to say, because what he has to say resonates with a lot of people.

It resonates with everything they’ve observed for years but couldn’t put into words because of the strong push of the Jewish social engineering apparatus.

We are one.
Violence and hate has no place here. pic.twitter.com/eaiS3eEYBE

— New Zealand Police (@nzpolice) March 30, 2019

You can read Brenton’s manifesto and watch his action-packed video here.

White men still having the will to fight isn’t the only thing that Brenton’s live-stream showed. It also showed that Hollywood movies ridiculously exaggerate what bullets do.

Brenton’s video looked pretty clean, especially compared to most movies.

…all of which makes his video less intimidating to normal people. In fact, most people loved his video and its soundtrack.

Definitely better than anything Netflix has available.

Jews really don’t want people to have fun, and since people loved the video of Brenton Tarrant’s mosque visit, Facebook wants to make it harder for further mosque visits to be live-streamed.

New York Post:

Two weeks after a crazed gunman broadcast himself slaughtering 50 people in New Zealand on Facebook, the social network giant says it’s putting in new restrictions on livestreaming.

“We have heard feedback that we must do more – and we agree,” Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg wrote to the New Zealand Herald amid worldwide outrage over the horrific footage taken from shooter Brenton Tarrant’s helmet camera at two mosques March 15.

“In the wake of the terror attack, we are taking three steps: strengthening the rules for using Facebook Live, taking further steps to address hate on our platforms, and supporting the New Zealand community.”

Facebook found more than 900 versions of the video showing portions of the 17-minute broadcast, Sandberg revealed, after it previously claimed users did not report the video until 12 minutes after the livestreaming ended.

She said the company is weighing limiting access to Facebook Live for those who have violated its “community” standards and is working on how to respond faster when disturbing footage is aired.

They’re in a pretty tough spot now because every measure that could be used to fight the livestreaming of mosque visits and the spreading of those videos could also be used and abused to shut down legitimate livestreams by trolls and whatnot.

Any measure that would make it easier to shut down a live-stream of forbidden mosque behavior would also make it easier to shut down what Facebook considers legitimate livestreams. If they put hundreds of thousands of livestream moderators sitting and waiting to check and review reported livestreams in real time, they’d lose money and the issue wouldn’t even be fixed, because none of the approximately 200 people who watched Brenton Tarrant’s video live reported it before it ended. They can’t depend on viewers flagging the video nor on any type of real-time report, and they can’t depend on AI because AI just isn’t there yet.

Besides being impossible to stop, trying to stop it is also stupid and pointless. Fewer deaths don’t occur if the livestream gets shut down in two minutes instead of seven minutes. And if killing Moslems is really as horrible as Sandberg and her tribe wants you to believe, they should want people to see it so they understand how terrible it is.

So, unless Sandberg is just trying to lean in on Pewds…

…then announcing that she’s “working” towards keeping Brentons from Tarranting is just a front for her real censorship agenda.

From Sheryl Sandberg’s letter to the New Zealand Herald:

Second, we are taking even stronger steps to remove hate on our platforms. We have long had policies against hate groups and hate speech.

We designated both shootings as terror attacks, meaning that any praise, support and representation of the events violates our Community Standards and is not permitted on Facebook.

We are also using our existing artificial intelligence tools to identify and remove a range of hate groups in Australia and New Zealand, including the Lads Society, the United Patriots Front, the Antipodean Resistance, and National Front New Zealand.

These groups will be banned from our services, and we will also remove praise and support of these groups when we become aware of it. And just this week we announced that we have strengthened our policies by banning praise, support and representation of white nationalism and separatism on Facebook and Instagram.

Yes, earlier this week, they announced that they banned “praise, support and representation of white nationalism and separatism.”

Now they’re also banning “hate groups” that may or may not have anything to do with white nationalism, separatism or whiteness and instead may just be against the Moslem takeover of New Zealand.

Being against Moslem immigration is relatively acceptable among normal people, who generally agree that Moslems are incompatible with “Western values” by pointing out the obvious Islam issues with Islam including terrorism, legal rape of non-Moslems, child brides, killing faggots, torture and stoning, and so on and so forth. A lot of really cucky people support a total ban on Moslems. Banning being against Moslem immigration is basically just a boomer ban.

They’ll likely do the same for other “hate groups” outside of New Zealand, eventually.

We’re nearing the point where expressing thoughts against giving up your wealth and your land and your people’s wealth and your people’s land to browns and blacks will be against the law.

Think of a WarCraft II type of scenario except your government is working for the invaders and the invader’s governments are also working for the invaders, and most of your people are brainwashed into also working for the invaders.

Pretty much everyone’s working for the invaders, except for you and a bunch of guys wearing Space Marines and Inquisition armor writing about how everyone’s working for the invaders.

Don’t let that discourage you though. This is a kind of game, so learn to play. Also learn to code.

Basically just get in the fucking robot and fight with us.

In Brenton Tarrant’s manifesto, he acknowledges that the act was technically terrorism, by the accepted definition of the term. But he argues that he is actually a partisan, fighting back against an occupying force.

Though the definitions of “terrorist” and “partisan” are such that there is a lot of overlap and one could probably be considered both at the same time (especially given that the definition of the former is broad and vague), the bottom line is that a terrorist is an illegitimate combatant and a partisan is a legitimate combatant. Tarrant made a concerted effort to ensure that he meets the definition of a partisan.

In the Q&A section, Tarrant writes:

Do you consider it a terrorist attack?

By the definition, then yes. It is a terrorist attack. But I believe it is a partisan action against an occupying force.

Further, he states plainly what his defense will be at trial:

If you survived, did you intend to go to trial?

Yes, and to plead not guilty. The attack was a partisan action against [an] occupying force, and I am a lawful, uniformed combatant.

A partisan is defined thusly:

A member of an armed group formed to fight secretly against an occupying force, in particular one operating in enemy-occupied Yugoslavia, Italy, and parts of eastern Europe in World War II.

Wikipedia has the historical context of the concept pre-WWII:

The initial concept of partisan warfare involved the use of troops raised from the local population in a war zone (or in some cases regular forces) who would operate behind enemy lines to disrupt communications, seize posts or villages as forward-operating bases, ambush convoys, impose war taxes or contributions, raid logistical stockpiles, and compel enemy forces to disperse and protect their base of operations.

Under international law, no distinction is made between a soldier and a partisan, and a partisan is considered a soldier so long as he meets four requirements:

1. There is someone at the head of the organisation, who assumes liability
2. They can be identified by a sign or mark, which is visible from far away
3. They carry their weapons openly
4. They adhere to the customs and laws of war, during their operation

Though Brenton was not a member of an organization, he assumed liability for his own actions. He also included a section in his manifesto about contacting the reborn Knights Templar, the group of Anders Breivik, and getting their blessing, which I suspect he included to fulfill the first requirement.

He wore a uniform with a visible military insignia.

And he carried his weapons openly.

People would try to argue that he did not adhere to the customs and laws of war, which are defined by the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, because he attacked unarmed persons. However, the fact that the mosque he attacked had been caught recruiting terrorists means that it qualifies as a military base and could thus be considered a legitimate military target.

Unsurprisingly, Jewish partisans who fought against the Nazis on the Eastern Front have been celebrated as heroes, despite the fact that they were engaged in terroristic tactics that violated the laws and customs of war.

So the real world difference in definition between a terrorist and a partisan is thus:

• A partisan must be fighting in his own lands against a foreign force, whereas a terrorist is either fighting against his own people or the government of a foreign power
• In order to be considered a partisan instead of a terrorist, you have to win

The argument of the current Western globalist regime is that the Moslems of Christchurch are “New Zealanders” because they live there, and thus a white man fighting them is fighting against his own people. Because the governments of our countries are a completely autocratic, authoritarian force, they are not under any obligation for their assertions to make any sense.

Right now, it is looking as though the government of New Zealand is planning to do some kind of secret trial for Brenton Tarrant, who has said that he will be representing himself in court.

Obviously, there are a lot of different reasons they would not want to allow him to have a public platform at a normal trial. Certainly, they don’t want him to appear sympathetic to anyone, which would be impossible to avoid. We have all seen the comments sections and Facebook posts wherein very normal people are saying “I don’t agree, but I understand.”

In fact, they have been unable to get any kind of public outpouring of support for the dead. Although I think most people find the action itself distasteful, there have simply been so many of these random attacks on white people that when the reverse happens, the best you can get people to do is shrug.

They certainly do not want the meme of “partisan not terrorist” out there. This provides a rhetorical device for people who fundamentally understand and sympathize with Tarrant’s actions but do not currently have the language to express this beyond “all he did was what they do to us all the time.”

So much of the 1984 social control grid’s power is in denying people the language to describe their emotional reactions, which is why in the immediate aftermath of the even, people on the left were more focused on attempting to force a “terrorist” label on Tarrant than they were on attempting to get any kind of “#PrayFor” campaign going.

Because in fact, the #PrayFor phenomenon is in itself a way to deny people the ability to express themselves. While it allows people to vent emotion, it is essentially a form of tactical nihilism, a statement that there is no real world action that can be taken to prevent Moslems from killing you. This was made explicit by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez coming out after the Christchurch event and condemning prayer as a response.

Because of course, while there is allegedly nothing they can do to stop Moslems killing whites, they believe there are a litany of real world actions they can take to stop whites killing Moslems, including censorship, creating databases of white nationalists and even prosecuting white nationalists for their beliefs.

We have to recognize the threat of white nationalism. We’ve got to call it out. As President of the United States, my Justice Department would go after white nationalists with full prosecution. #WarrenTownHall

— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) March 19, 2019

While I am not the least bit excited about what Tarrant’s act means – it is effectively the beginning of a civil war – the fact is that we are in this situation now and there is nothing we can do about it. There never was anything we could do about it. It was always going to happen this way. So all we can do is deal with it.

We shouldn’t apologize for Brenton Tarrant or the many more who will inevitably follow him with similar acts. Nor should we ever endorse them. However, because we have no ability to stop these events from happening, we have no choice but to deal with them, in the same way that the government and media cannot stop Moslem terrorist attacks but can only manage the public perception of them in the larger context of society.

The context of “partisanism” is key to framing these events, and it should be relied upon heavily. The basic position should be: “I do not support these acts, but calling them terrorism is dishonest. Brenton Tarrant viewed himself as a partisan, and it is clear that his actions meet the definition of that term.”