Home // Health Ranger

What are they trying to hide? Out of all the violent videos on the ‘net, possessing the NZ mosque shooting video can now get you 10 years in prison

03/17/2019 // Mike Adams // Views

Tags: civil war, conspiracy, deception, false-flag, gun control, gun rights, military operation, mosque shooter, New Zealand, shootings

Something is incredibly fishy about the New Zealand mosque shooting and how governments and the media have responded to it. Governments are now going to extraordinary lengths to eliminate the video from the internet while criminalizing anyone who dares possess it or distribute it.

An 18-year-old man was arrested in New Zealand for merely sharing the live stream video of the Christchurch shooting. "The live stream video of the shootings in Christchurch has been classified by the Chief Censor's Office as objectionable," reports Radio NZ. "Police said anyone in possession of the video of the shootings, or found to be distributing it, could face imprisonment."

This means, essentially, that linking to content the government doesn't like is now a crime in New Zealand.

But wait: Horrific videos of WWII death camps, assassinations and street shootings are NOT banned or criminalized...

So wait a minute. YouTube alone hosts countless murder videos covering everything from war-time military shootings to civilian gunfight videos in which people are fatally shot and killed. Yet possessing those videos -- or sharing them, or posting them -- apparently isn't a crime in New Zealand or anywhere in the western world.

Assassination videos of former U.S. President John F. Kennedy being shot in the head are not censored online. They are considered part of the "historical record." Yet wasn't that shooting just as violent and just as hateful as the Christchurch shooting in New Zealand?

World War II documentary videos by Ken Burns and other documentary filmmakers depict horrific mass murder events including the Holocaust, yet there is no government in the world that criminalized citizens for sharing Holocaust incineration oven videos or historical footage of death camp survivors. Ever wonder why these videos are deemed "safe" to share but not the New Zealand shooting video? Is it okay to share videos that show the mass murder of Jews but suddenly not okay to share videos depicting the mass murder of Muslims? Who arrived at this logic, anyway?

Similarly, no western government banned videos of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York City in which over 3,500 Americans died. In fact, the media went to extraordinary lengths to play those videos millions of times over as a way to burn them in the psyche of the public. Apparently, videos depicting the mass murder of Americans is perfectly okay with the media. "Be very afraid" seemed to be the point of all that because, of course, the deep state was desperately trying to push passage of the Patriot Act, which "legalized" government spying on U.S. citizens. That law, not surprisingly, was used by Barack Obama to wage a highly illegal covert spy operation on Trump campaign officials in 2015 and 2016. If it wasn't for the 9/11 attack and the media hysteria that followed, there never would have been public support for spying on Americans in the first place. (Oh yeah, they promised the law would never be used to spy on Americans, if you remember. They said it was only for "international terrorists." Yeah, right.)

Dwarfing all those examples, Hollywood movies that are perfectly legal to own and view in New Zealand are filled with extreme murder scenes, mass shootings, torture scenes, blood and gore. Yet those are apparently not deemed "objectionable," and no one in New Zealand has been sentenced to prison for 10 years for watching Pulp Fiction or Die Hard. (Yes, Die Hard is a Christmas movie, in case you were wondering.)

Government's response to the shooting is raising even more red flags than the shooting itself

So what is it about this particular shooting that has governments in a total frenzy to terrorize citizens into deleting all the copies they might possess?

Could it be that the attack was, according to this one analysis, carried out by a special ops military team that also carried out the attack on the North Korean embassy in Spain, as reported by Disobedient Media? As Disobedient Media says:

An investigation and analysis by Disobedient Media indicates that Tarrant and the group he worked with likely have professional military connections, are part of the same cell that perpetrated a February 22nd break-in of the North Korean embassy in Spain and potentially have intelligence ties to various agencies that cooperate under the UKUSA Agreement popularly known as Five Eyes (FVEY).

The [shooter] also engaged in extensive travel abroad to a number of areas that should have raised red flags with intelligence services. Countries visited by Tarrant included Pakistan, North Korea, Turkey, parts of Africa, Portugal, Spain, France, Afghanistan and Xinjiang, China. The extensive travel and access to military grade firearms should have made detection by law enforcement and intelligence services nearly impossible to avoid.

Funny, I don't recall the mainstream media reporting that this guy had traveled all over the world while somehow collecting military-grade firearms and stockpiling them in New Zealand. You're not supposed to even know that part of the story.

Could it be that there was also a third shooting venue reported outside the Christchurch Hospital, indicating that a much larger assault team had been deployed in military fashion to launch simultaneous attacks on three targets? (Two mosques and one hospital.) As Maori News previously reported:

There is also a report of a gunman at a second Christchurch mosque in Linwood. And a third active shooting is being reported outside Christchurch Hospital... Stuff is reporting shots being fired at Christchurch hospital.

Could it be that the police response to the shooting was suspiciously slow, taking over 20 minutes for police to arrive even though police stations were only a few blocks away? (Sounds a bit like the Parkland shooting in Florida, doesn't it? Remember how sheriff's deputies were ordered to stand down while the shooting was playing out?)

Could it be that eyewitnesses described "blood everywhere" but the live-streamed shooting video doesn't appear to show any blood at all?

Could it be that the primary shooter openly described his attack as a false flag operation designed to foment civil war in America over gun rights? As InfoWars reports, "The New Zealand shooter admitted in his manifesto that his goal was to kill Muslims with firearms to spark a civil war in the United States, and create cultural division in the West."

Why do the AR-15 rifle cartridges disappear mid-air and never hit the ground?

Here's another interesting question in all this: Why do the brass cartridges being ejected from the AR-15 never hit the ground? They all magically disappear mid-air. See this video on Brighteon.com, because it's banned everywhere else:

Every time I train with an AR-15, I always end up with brass on the ground. Sadly, I've never been able to buy "magic brass" that disappears mid-air and never hits the ground, because that would be really convenient at the gun range. (Those mean range masters make us clean up all our brass, for some reason.)

Somehow, this kill team in New Zealand was able to source some magic brass, which might come from the same supplier as the magic passports found on the sidewalk in New York after the 9/11 attacks. (Authorities claimed the passports were ejected from the airplanes during the explosions, survived the fireball and fell to the ground where they were picked up by police and magically found to identify the attackers. Wow. Where can I get some of that passport material? It seems impervious to explosions...)

Something looks very suspicious about this video

Why are so many people just standing around in every room instead of hitting the ground, hiding behind cover or fleeing out the nearest exit? To be clear, we're not in any way saying that people weren't killed, but it's almost certain at this point that some parts of the shooter's own narrative are contrived, since he explains in his own manifesto that he initiated the shooting to manipulate public opinion and start a war. That underscores his media-savvy knowledge of how the world media would report on his attack, even knowing that the media would cherry pick whatever they wanted in order to blame President Trump, gun owners, white people or conservatives. His attack, honestly stated, was designed for the media and played out for the media, even by the shooter's own admissions in his manifesto.

So why is Facebook now desperately scrubbing the shooting video off its platform even though it gladly hosted the live stream of the shooting in the first place? Both Facebook and Twitter were complicit in the original shooting, given that they are both now operated as editorialized publishing platforms rather than open free speech platforms. As I've pointed out, this means Facebook and Twitter can both be sued for hosting this shooter's videos and content.

Why is this singular event now resulting in worldwide calls to ban 8chan and various online chat boards? Is this event the scripted springboard to unleash global censorship of all speech across the 'net? It was obviously scripted by the shooter himself, who openly wrote about planning and carrying out the event as a form of live action fatal theater to achieve his twisted political goals.

Why has no one heard about the 453 Islamic terrorist attacks across 31 different countries that murdered 1,956 people just this year alone? Why does the media only spend time covering attacks on Muslims but never attacks by Muslims? When Christians are slaughtered by the thousands, it's apparently "non-news" to the New York Times, CNN and the Huffington Post. But the minute a Muslim mosque is targeted, it's somehow the single most important story in the world. Why the double standard? Why isn't the slaughter of Christians newsworthy and important to expose, too?

Brighteon.com is rapidly becoming the online destination for insightful truth videos about shootings, vaccines and more

There are simply too many questions about the media response and government response to this shooting. Those responses seem irrational, almost hysterically exaggerated, and highly selective to this event. We don't yet know what's so unusual about this particular event that would make globalists so nervous and almost panicked about people watching the videos, but clearly something has made them scared s##tless about this event. Could it be that some really big secret is right out in the open, just waiting to be pointed out?

Then again, all the dissenting voices have already been de-platformed and censored across every major online platform. That's why the best analysis videos about this shooting are appearing on Brighteon.com, the free speech video alternative to YouTube. Here's some of what you can now find, only at Brighteon.com:

---

---