Christchurch, New Zealand

[JackRiddler]

Okay then.

Have you engaged with the suspects writing at all?

More than you are willing to engage with mine.

Have you lost yourself in the relative trivia and ignored its evident and consistent thrust? Do you prefer not to see it for what it is? It is indeed a "manifesto," rather like Hitler's, which I also read for my first book. It's not about Aryans against Jews (who are supposed to all go to Israel, in this version) but about "whites" against everyone else. But in any case, it's all about the fascism and genocide, since "white genocide" (and eco-disaster) is the alternative.

I feel like I've read it many times. It is a straightforward statement of unvarnished racist ideology and a call to heroic mass violence. Sick and fucked in the head and fundamentally wrong and evil, but consistent to its own fucked up logic:

The white birthrates must rise. White genocide is real, most of all via birthrates. Race is culture. Race is identity. All else is bullshit. Humans come in races-civilizations. Immigration must be crushed. Only violence creates nations. Europeans are the enslaved. They are being replaced by Muslims. Who kill whites in terrorist attacks. It's their thing, their natural. Like Borg. More importantly, they're breeding, so they will win.

He is taking revenge, and seeking to motivate others to do the same. He hopes or assumes he will survive the first attack and maybe get a further shot to murder more. He wants to start a revolution of others doing the same thing. He understands it must be centered in the United States. Make America white again and able to fight again. All Turks must leave Europe. Le Pen is milquetoast, stronger measures are needed.

Seeing the French election outcome, he understood it was up to him to do something. That's the origin story of this superman. "I am not a direct member of any group, though I have donated to many nationalist groups and have interacted with many more." (Quelle surprise!)

He claims to have the blessing of the Knights fucking Templar (which is trolling I presume. Or maybe he talked to the people Pasulka discovered?). So he decided to prepare to go after the invaders himself. New Zealand was incidental, he was training there so why not, when he saw the invaders there?

He graciously tried to minimize killings of the youngest and female by picking a mosque with fewer citizens. Except the boys should die too, because they become men and thus replace the white men. No one is innocent in an invasion. The unarmed Muslims are worse than the armed, so kill their children before they grow up to kill yours. But the worst Muslim is the converted white Muslim. Real "diversity" is about keeping peoples separate, so they don't mix and lose that special race essence. If they leave voluntarily, they can go.

Then he starts doing some trolling, starting with black nationalist Candace Owen as his greatest inspiration and the idea that gaming taught him to be a white nationalist. The real inspirations listed are not the trolling bit about "the Internet" but Oswald Mosley and a list of his favorite mass murderers, Roof, Breivik, et al. Also, if lives he will eventually get the Nobel Peace Prize, just like the terrorist Mandela.

The part about how this attack will inspire tighter gun laws means he's glad because this will make the gun people fight and rise up against it. It's the old idea of things must get much worse to force polarization and revolution.

Then he makes up some fanciful poetic shit -- I think you're familiar with the bragging found in the rap form? This is like that, except never mind flow and rhyme.

He has killed hundreds already, he is everywhere to be found where real men live, like he's the Navy Seal who shot Osama, he's a super killer and he's the US Marines and he will kill you.

In other words, he's envisioning the World War he wants to start, or that he thinks is already underway.

Then he rags on conservatives and tells them to get a spine and start murdering (my translation), ditto Christians, who should go ahead and launch Crusades 2.0 (or is it 3.0, 4.0, etc.?) Then he tells Marxists and Antifa he will kill them, he has nothing to say to them. Then he deports the Turks to Asia Minor, so that Constantinople can be Greek again. (Or does he prefer the Frankish period?)

Where is the fucking mystery in this? Is this not an ideology shared (with variations, but fundamentally the same) by many? Is it not an ideology that has motivated exterminationist warfare before? Is it not an ideology that explicitly says: murder the enemy, all of them, quick as you can? That's supposed to be the appeal, the substance of it. Violence makes you alive, etc. Haven't enough people been killed by those invoking it already? How many millions? Or killed by its various mirror images? Is it not sufficient to you as an explanation?

It doesn't mean it IS the explanation, since there is no certainty in anything, right? But damned if it doesn't fit. Like a fucking glove.

Then he talks about how young Western men are all going to become radicalized just like him. Also, celebrity suicides are a symptom of white youth crisis. So don't isolate, don't be "diverse," fuck melting pot assimilation of immigrants because it doesn't work because ethno/race=culture, discover the beauty of hierarchy and ancestor worship, discover white unity and eco-fascism, democracy is shit and just another means of corporate control.

All pretty standard full-fascist type shit, which partly overlaps in analysis with a lot of other shit that isn't fascist. Great, he's against the corporations. Hip hip.

Then he rolls out his suggested first assassinations list: Merkel, Erdogan, and Khan the mayor of London. To be followed by the nationalist revolutions. Don't wait for a signal, be the signal, lead the way. Be a lion, not a sheep. Go go men of honor! Kill the invaders, it makes you a hero. If you die in the fight, you live forever. Fight wherever you are, with passion, not statistics. Fuck logic. Inspire with your manhood! Lead the reluctant. Don't take to the hills, run to the cities and fight there. There are no democratic solutions. You shall know your leaders when you hear them speak with the spirit of the race.

Seize power in the institutions with force and speed. Astonish the enemy with your force and speed. Then kill the race traitors and drug dealers and capitalists who profit off race traitor business and NGOs and leftists and liberals and globalists. Then kill the invaders, who breed like rats. All invaders must go. Whites only, the others in their own country.

So the Hitler handbook. He doesn't say how he wants to handle his hero Candace Owen and the African Americans, but I'm guessing a Bantustan with Arbeit Macht Frei on the gate. Also, I don't know if his winning team is supposed to do gene testing and institute a 78% rule.

When you win, create a fascist international of brother nations. If you die, you live forever. If you win, fuck and make lots of white babies. This will inspire white people to fuck and make more white people. His grandchildren will sing songs about him. Valhalla Now!

Do you think no one can write this shit and really mean it? I think a lot of people can, and do, and have.

Do you think this is some kind of caricature? That the script department wrote up a fascist just so that they can make fascists into the new terrorist threat? That the fascists you know are milder? (They probably are; he wants to be an alpha fascist, not some wimpy Le Pen. Mostly I know Le Pen types, since they're all over the place and you know, voted for Trump. Regular fucking assholes, not uebermensch murderers like this piece of work. Prefer it when the cops do the dirty work. Think they're not fascists, think fascists and communists are the same thing. This manifesto writer, he doesn't think that.)

Are we talking about the fascists who've always been the real terrorist threat, or among the leading terrorists always, who have never gone away? Who were the troops doing the false-flags in the Gladio days, by the way? Oh yeah, fascists. Because they're suited to this kind of operation. Shoot a three-year-old on your first try. No long MK process necessary. He did his own MK. However he got it, he got it the organic way.

Of course, again, and for the last time, this doesn't rule out that it's a different tyrannosaur, with MK and more conspirators and maybe even a patsy in the jail cell. It's just not necessary. If this is such a convincing simulation, it's because it's so believable and it simulates an act that real fascists have done and say they want to do all the time.

So, basically, show me where anything in this Nazi 2019 text conflicts with anything I wrote above. I mean in my earlier posts, on this thread. Fundamentally, no picayune stuff or bullshit about Candace Owen. Or do you prefer to read this manifesto again?

Answer if you're serious. Or don't. I've said all I'll have to say here, I figure, and will try not to repeat.

.

[MacCruiskeen]

The foreign-travel itinerary of this allegedly rabid white supremacist and Muslim-hater is something to behold: Pakistan ("lovely, friendly people", sic), North Korea (!), Israel, Bulgaria, and I've forgotten where else.

As for that "manifesto", all I've seen of it is a screenshot of the first three pages. In the very first line, Brentin Tarrantino goes out of his way to tell us that his ancestry is "Scottish, Irish and English". So here's a simple question: Is there any record of him ever having visited any part of the British Isles? If so, or indeed and especially if not, I think we should be told.

Because, so far, I've seen no report anywhere of him ever having done so. And the UK is, for too many reasons to list, the very first stop for most young anglo Aussies when they visit Europe for the first time, even if they're not much interested in their progenitors or their own spiffing genes.

Professional forensic linguists should also take a good long look at that "manifesto" (though of course they won't, because it's more than their bleedin' job`s worth). What little I've seen of it looks decidedly fishy, even arrogantly and sloppily fake. Ostentatious retarded-schoolboy errors like "a average guy" are followed by long passages of perfectly-spelled words, some of them quite long and obscure, in faultlessly constructed sentences.

Don't get me started on the mystery of what or who paid his bills on his eccentric world travels. Bitcurrent lottery joy? Inheritance from dead rich Dad? The fortune he earned as an itinerant personal trainer? Monthly money transfers from Langley? You be the judge (and jury), because you can bet the farm we'll be hearing no more about such trivial side-issues from the fine gents and ladies of the Fourth Estate. Because it's more than their bleedin' jobs are worth.

[JackRiddler]

.

Here's the full thing, I think.
http://milnenews.com/2019/03/15/christc ... manifesto/

Sure, Pakistanis in Pakistan are lovely to the author, whereas Pakistanis outside it are fair game for murder. Turks are worst of all because they're occupying a piece of his Europe, and Constantinople must be Christian again.

Anyway there's plenty of trolling in it and his idea of humor and provocation against those he hates. Sort of like the just-in-fun ironic poll from Tactical Shit. It's a style, and only in parts. The ideological thrust is clear and consistent throughout. It cannot be accused of going off message. Hitler also deployed all kinds of extended ironic opposite-talk, also in his manifesto.

(I'm sorry I've said Trump plays Hitler on TV. Only because it's more accurate to say he plays a sort-of knock-off Hollywood version, the Hitler that WWE would invent. But really more a Latin dictator, much more superficially macho. This manifesto plays Hitler on paper, pretty accurately.)

Not that other income flows of the kind you describe are impossible, but there is no particular mystery in how he got rich. Assuming it's true, but it's happened to a lot of assholes exactly this way. (Others just bought some fucking real estate and sat on it and got lucky. Others did indeed inherit from their parents.)

So, if not him, since his name sounds like someone else's so he can't be real,* and if it was not a fascist cell doing it exactly for the same reasons as described in the manifesto, who do you figure and why?

.

* example of type of irony in which one says the opposite of what one means, a device which I think you may be familiar with? You're some kind of literature reader or something, aren't you?

[Wombaticus Rex]

Do you think no one can write this shit and really mean it? I think a lot of people can, and do, and have.

Do you think this is some kind of caricature?

Yes to both, really. I think a lot of people have written that stuff because I also think that manifesto is a blender of /pol/ stuff.

I also think that it's very much a work of literature in the same vein as Breivik's "2083"-- and very different from, say, the essays of Kacyzinski, who was earnest. I don't think Tarrant or Breivik are earnest and I don't think either are being remotely honest in their public statements.

Just like I agree with all of this:

Are we talking about the fascists who've always been the real terrorist threat, or among the leading terrorists always, who have never gone away? Who were the troops doing the false-flags in the Gladio days, by the way? Oh yeah, fascists.

Sure, and thanks to years of hard work by researchers, we also have a pretty clear sense of the cut-outs and back channels that make communication possible between the street-level fash-bois we both agree on, and the exact high-level offenders implied by "false flag" that you dismiss for now, while allowing for the possibility of -- a respectable and empirical stance. But either way, we're not puzzling out UFO propulsion, here. This is basic tradecraft shit; mundane. Only congressional staffers are naive enough to think secure communication is impossible.

So in closing, I disagree with this and I know you disagree with me and I suspect neither of us are hugely concerned by the impasse, either:

I expect the exterminationist terrorism and effective call to inspire others to do more of it IS the psyop, and vice-versa. They are one and the same. As I expect was so with Breivik. It's not the executive level of Spooks International or Davos Men who are doing this, even if some trail or other leads back to them or other higher levels.

[MacCruiskeen]

So, if not him, since his name sounds like someone else's so he can't be real,*

Spare me it, Jack, because it's neither smart nor funny nor any kind of honest contribution to an honest discussion. One might call it stochastic shitposting, were one so inclined. Yes, I do know what a fucking trope is, so sue me or piss in my sherry or something, for the offence of objecting to the now-chronic and nauseatingly pretentious misuse of that term by every forelock-tugging hack in Christendom. (I saw what I did there; did you see what you did?)

Also, forgive me for noticing that two world-famous "ironic", "jokey", hyperviolent movie-makers happen to have unusual names that noticeably chime. It's wrong to notice things. (Name that trope, smartypants.)

[JackRiddler]

.

(responded to WR's earlier post, crossed with Mac's)

I don't generally expect fascists to be grand original thinkers. I do expect the ones who are slightly smarter than the norm to think they're fucking geniuses and gods. That part is all over this manifesto. He thinks he is, but he's not. I mean, if it was brilliantly written, would you find that more believable?!

Call him wrong for what he did, but Kaczynski -- not a fascist but more of an anti-humanist -- was actually smart and could think, argue and write originally. He had certain romantic ideas about human nature that rhyme with some fascist thinking, I suppose.

The Tarrant or "Tarrant" manifesto has plenty of bad writing and muddled lowbrow thinking (if ideologically consistent, since the premises are so moronically simple and easy to maintain). That, and a bunch of mish-mash copy-paste or plagiarism, are not evidence for or against a false flag.

Again, I'm defining false flag for this case not as that maybe some co-conspirators helped him, or even got away from the scene, but as the idea that the purpose of the attack was not to murder the maximum possible number of Muslims in as spectacular a fashion as one could manage, as its own end, and as an inspiration to others to do the same, in the service of race war.

False flag would mean there was some opposite or different motive desired by the higher "them." It would have, in effect, also been an attack on fascists, to frame them and make them the target.

Possibly to start the race war the manifesto calls for, but knowing it will be won by the "liberal state"? That would be false-flag. Or wait, possibly to start the race war so the fascists win, exactly like the manifesto claims? That would be an op, but not the same as a false-flag.

I don't see a REASON yet to assume higher layers. It's not necessary. And if I did, my first thought would be the higher layers are fucking fascists too, and believe the manifesto as much as the shooter does.

For now the act is not so exceptional or difficult to pull off, and I figure out of everyone here, you're one who understands that. The numbers of assholes in the world capable of these acts (morally and in terms of expertise) who are also death-driven psychos are sufficient to explain their frequency stochastically. They inspire each other. The rhetoric from on high helps.

My radar would ping if it facilitated an already planned larger state action, like a war already in the works and -- oh look, the lights just went out in Santiago 1973 Venezuela. And right away blamed on "Maduro." See, that's a kind of a self-evident false-flag.

What does this one do?

And now, tell me seriously: What did you think you were doing in the OP?

.

[DrEvil]

"Prior to that, in 2017, he entered Israel and from there, he entered Syria where he, according to Russian Military Intelligence, visited Deraa and then a refugee camp outside al Tanf, where Israel and the US have stationed hundreds of ISIS fighters under cover of refugees.

This is confirmed by a General in Russia’s military. Russia is seriously considering confronting the US military in al Tanf...

Tarrant was in the Rukban camp, and from there traveled to Deraa, where he met with ISIS cells, and then was escorted back to Israel and from there to Turkey where he entered Idlib and met with al Nusra. He transited in and out of ISIS/al Nusra occupied Syria to Turkey 3 times before traveling to Belgrade."

https://www.veteranstoday.com/2019/03/1 ... ss-murder/

Explosive, if true.

I would take this with a pinch of salt unless there are other, more reliable sources available. Veterans Today has published some crazy ass stuff over the years, and Gordon Duff is, in his own words, not a reliable source:

“About 30% of what’s written on Veterans Today, is patently false. About 40% of what I write, is at least purposely, partially false, because if I didn’t write false information I wouldn’t be alive.”
(from here: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ary-215247 )

[Wombaticus Rex]

False flag would have had some opposite or different motive desired by the higher "them." It would have, in effect, also been an attack on fascists, to frame them and make them the target.

This binary framing seems to fit a planet with 190+ nation-states very poorly, would you agree? I reject this.

All "false flag" needs to qualify is that single layer of deception and obfuscation. In this case, as in so many others recently, "Lone Wolf" is the false flag.

What if these were, say, globalist fascists instead of white nationalists? Is there an entire New World Order edifice that views white identity politics as just another tool for the job? Is that cast of characters equally willing to use, say, Tibetian or Sunni or Ukranian identity politics along the way towards their end goals? I would contend the answer to all of these questions is "Yes."

I don't see a REASON yet to assume higher layers. It's not necessary.

It is, though. Plausible deniability is just as necessary as command and control, and vice versa. This dual mandate is why intelligence and counterintelligence is so difficult.

What does this one do?

Attacks on internet free speech, further restrictions on guns, move criticism of both immigration and Islam closer to "Terrorism" in terms of public perception. Now, granted: this is all some wild speculation on my part, since absolutely none of that has happened in the aftermath of this attack. To my surprise, New Zealand has opted to leave their guns laws intact and they're not passing any laws against possessing/sharing the manifesto and video, so perhaps I was wrong here.

And now, tell me seriously: What did you think you were doing in the OP?

https://www.moviemaker.com/archives/mov ... ing-scene/

[DrEvil]

Building 7 didn't just collapse "because small fires", but because two of the biggest buildings in the world had just fallen basically on top of it, carving away vital sections of the sophisticated foundation system known as "the bathtub".

What??? I've always understood that WTC7 suffered minimal damage from the fall of nearby WTC1. Where do you get this "two of the biggest buildings in the world had just fallen basically on top of it" from?

https://www.ae911truth.org/news/480-wtc-7-evaluation-nearing-the-finish-line-an-interview-with-dr-leroy-hulsey

The side of the building we see in the collapse video has almost no damage, but the other side of the building is pretty messed up. There should be pictures somewhere.

[Grizzly]

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/b31dbs/meta_shills_are_actively_targeting_all_discussion/

There were two "mosque shootings" in New Zealand at the same time. One with a livestreamer that seems real (IMO) and one where we only get to see the aftermath (which is staged IMO). This is where a lot of the confusion comes in for those not up to speed.

[JackRiddler]

Please first read the last post if you're going to respond to this one.

Reconsidering terminology:

False flag would have had some opposite or different motive desired by the higher "them." It would have, in effect, also been an attack on fascists, to frame them and make them the target.

All "false flag" needs to qualify is that single layer of deception and obfuscation. In this case, as in so many others recently, "Lone Wolf" is the false flag.

Ok, it's complicated semantics and to an extent a matter of preference in labels. What matters first is what happened, and second if there is a real white nationalist background and thus the point of the attack itself was what I have been calling "as advertised," meaning a mass-murder "propaganda of the deed" meant to inspire fascist fellow travelers to launch more "heroic" warfare and commit further exterminationist "solutions" to the perceived "white genocide." I question which is the most useful term depending on scenario. Let's use 9/11 lihop scenarios as examples:

1. Al-Qaeda networks organize real hijackers autonomously as blow against US empire and "revenge" for Palestine, Iraq, etc., and to inspire other motherfuckers to do the same. US/allied agents of pro-war camps hear "chatter" and don't want to know, intentionally look the other way, prepare to welcome it as an agenda-changing new global enemy pretext for new wars and launching of Homeland Sec and Surveillance state 2.0 to replace the creaky Cold War version, grab resources and make lots of money. (criminal and treasonous exploitation and complicity arguably is the greater crime, but attack itself not false flag)

2. Real hijackers, but plot is known in advance to pro-empire agents in the right places who may infiltrate to manage it, intentionally time for it, and facilitate it to guarantee it through blinding of LEO and defense mechanisms. (arguably false flag but "real" plot exists)

3. Real hijackers, but add-ons are deployed to make it worse. (hybrid false flag)

4. Whole thing conceived in advance by pro-empire network, wouldn't have happened without it, non-hijacking patsies or constructs. (not "lihop," fully false flag)

Additionally there were those who objected to 1-3 as justifying GWOT because these have "real" terrorists motivated by Islamist ideology, but this is an objection on what ethicists call "consequentialist" grounds and a) doesn't speak to what is actually true or not, and b) "real" terrorists don't justify the post-9/11 policy program in any case, since it doesn't address causes or prevent future attacks but just uses attacks as pretext to make everything worse.

Getting back to NZ, however, I still see Option 0: real white-power fascist shooter, whether with or without friends helping, successfully pulls off surprise mass-murdering "propaganda of the deed" as call to inspire more exterminationist actions, exactly as hardcore elements within fascist international already advocate. Fans of fascism erupt in applause, some may actually be inspired to try to beat his high score. How NZ or other authorities respond is after the fact.

Okay, definitely done on this horror.

In reality, I believe, this motherfucker or the motherfucker and friends murdered a bunch of unarmed innocents, claiming there are no innocents. He didn't locate some Islamist gun club and try to kill potential warriors like himself. He seems to have intentionally targeted (as the manifesto suggests) a mosque attended by those best-assimilated to their new society, most "exemplary" in "Western" terms, most "diverse" and culturally open to living together with others, most middle-class and educated. (See bios of some of the dead, here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/19/worl ... names.html). That doesn't make it "worse," of course, it is equally evil and tragic no matter which civilians are gunned down because some motherfucker is evil and cunning. Manifesto says he scoped out several targets before choosing the first two, and also effectively says peacemakers (whether Muslim or "white") are the worst enemy of its bullshit "white race." This is another thing that smacks of holocaust-level racism motivating exterminationist warfare as the reason for the crime.

.

[Wombaticus Rex]

It is complicated semantics, and pretty un-necessary, too. I am merely leaping unto the breach to defend "False Flag!" as valid discourse, especially here.

Please first read the last post if you're going to respond to this one.

As long as we're doing Retrocausality Wednesdays, allow me to go whole hog for a moment:

Who are you talking to with this whole riff?

You, largely, if you wish to consider it, and the weird way you started this thread, and the peremptorily dismissive attitude from you

I think that's pretty valid, I've also been called cryptic and hostile a lot here and both of those are pretty valid, too. I don't live in the woods because I like people, you know?

I'm also not here to write essays spelling out my actual theories, but I will say that Mossad seems, out of all intel agencies with actual force projection, to take the most active role in "managing the plaza" of cover ops for covert ops. Now, precisely because of the fact that can be documented with some weight, I have assume they themselves are being used as a cover, a bowl to wash some Ivy League hands in. The most obvious culprit (and beneficiary, and sponsor, and enabler) would probably be a lot closer to us both than Tel Aviv.

And yet, where is the center of the wealth behind Langley? Is it anywhere at all anymore?

We have to discuss these things, but we also have to remember we're often discussing phantoms and ghosts. If dumb motherfuckers want to insert "The Jews" or "The Aliens" there, man, they're gonna do just that, day after day, month after month, year after year.

[JackRiddler]

Okay, but that's your general knowledge about ops history providing context for a claim about the Christchurch case you can't sustain very far on the evidence available to us. So far the claim that it's a fascist's terrorist action is supported by the same evidence, and wins for parsimony and believability. The latter being believability to me, I shall admit, but also to fascists having wet dreams about mass murder. They exist. Some of them act. Your version, insofar as you're really tied to it, barely makes the "would not put it past them" level for me (them being the presumed higher-level false-flaggers). Mine is more on the level of "exactly what I would expect to emerge from the current fascist milieu, now and again," without requiring false flag assistance or orchestration. Now, say, if it had involved four planes hijacked and crashed into buildings, a huge official conspiracy theory full of contradictions, and a war plan ready to go, I would think otherwise, but this appears to be a sick motherfucker with a lot of big guns walking into someone's temple and murdering them during the service, live-streaming it with consumer technology, and in the aftermath the state reacting predictably. So, provisionally...

[seemslikeadream]

Took five days.

Reuters Top News

BREAKING: New Zealand bans military-style semi-automatics and assault rifles

[JackRiddler]

.

Scahill podcast. Third guest illuminating on development of fascism in US, with some good history, and ties within the fascist "international." Other two also very interesting.

https://theintercept.com/2019/03/20/rad ... ntercepted

Guardian columnist Nesrine Malik talks about the “ghoulish routine” in the media and among politicians that increasingly emerges in the aftermath of massacres of Muslims by white supremacists. The Intercept’s Murtaza Hussain explains why, as a nonwhite Western Muslim, he felt compelled to analyze the “manifesto” of the shooter. He argues that the shooter’s “writings reflect a worldview that is not just confined to the dark corners of the internet but is openly expressed in media and politics.” University of Chicago historian Kathleen Belew, author of “Bring the War Home: The White Power Movement and Paramilitary America,” discusses the history of white power movements and why she draws a distinction between white power and white supremacy. She also rejects the label “lone wolf” for the perpetrators of these massacres and argues that they are united in their heinous cause.

Belew mentions OKC 1995 and takes it at face value, which I know would have its skeptics here. I take it at face-value plus, and would not be surprised if NZ is face value-plus.

What is this latest terminological coinage, you ask? By "face value-plus" I mean, if there are second shooters and larger networks and gathering places involved in the backstory to a fascist white power attack, these co-conspirators are almost certainly not evidence of a CIA-type false flag with several layers and a trail leading up to some Langley or other and hidden geostrategic or psyop motives. They are very likely themselves also white power fascists collaborating with the accused "lone wolves."

"Lone wolf" is the fascists' version of false flag and plausible deniability. It arises from their doctrine of decentralized combat, going back at least to Turner. Belew contrasts this to the open, popular KKK of the 1920s. White power fascists today try to keep the organizational modes and milieux hidden and informal and deniable, leaving the strategic creed encourages heroes and heroic cells to step up and act autonomously -- and deniably, to the rest of the white power fascists. The "manifesto" repeats this theme at length and also trolls on it. So if there are second shooters or other evidence of a wider conspiracy, it doesn't surprise.

Governments who aren't white power fascist may and do help this out passively by prefering not to declare white power fascism the enemy, not to go after an ensconced group of fascists that would antagonize a majority population who largely share white supremacist attitudes if not white power ideas. (Belew makes this distinction between white supremacy and white power, usefully.)

Governments and most establishment political parties will prefer to cover up evidence of the iceberg beneath the bloody surface of the spectacular right-wing terrorism, and stick with Islamism as the main foreign enemy, or uphold the narrative of extremes, with its pretense that there is anything remotely like a comparable "left wing terrorism." Of course there are also the white power fascists and sympathizers and just willfuly blind within government actors, and of course CIA-type plots may infiltrate, orchestrate and instrumentalize fascist violence for other ends. But could is not always did, let alone must have.

Am I being "prejudiced" against fascists? Certainly! The difference between the threat to "the West" or Americans posed by "real" Islamist retail-terrorism and the fascist version is that the former is vastly exaggerated as a means of bolstering the war budget and the empire and the ideological system and the prevailing cultural prejudices, while the latter is denied or downplayed or depicted as crazy "lone wolf" because it's a segment of someone's support base and dearie oh me, suggests a broader racism exists, which is mildly-to-very taboo in polite discourse.

.