maybe Christmas-school holiday minding?
plantagenet,
Pity, you lot aren't engaged in Christmas-school holiday minding !

Paul1405 is promoting what he considers 'the evil of Brenton Tarrant' and is relating it to other ostensively "Extreme Right" situations as viewed through his ostensively "Extreme Left" lense.

Well given that Paul1405 brought it up lets analyse Brenton Tarrant and what he believes what he did and in what context- and in comparison to other historical context. Further we should analyse whether this justifies the JTTF actions and others comparison's to the Albury arrest as being related to Brenton Tarrant.

The JTTF are police officers and are subject to the laws- whether these laws are illegal laws or not- see mandate of the people and other historical context in regards to law.


Brenton Tarrant appears to have made some points which could be considered valid in his writings independent of any justification of his actions- which should be analysed on their own merit or lack of it.

Brenton Tarrant's writings appear to indicate that he is concerned with global political trends and how they disadvantage his broad ethnic group.

He seems to indicate that he (and perhaps we) are in "a war" with certain forces- he seemed to be a relatively functional person prior to the New Zealand incident- he appears to have read widely on history and philosophy.

If his justification for his actions is because he is at war- under what circumstances is war just- John Locke 1600's believed that law (and war) should be left to the state- but what if the state is criminal by some measure- is it then valid to fight against the state and to ignore the law. Is it ok to do objectively criminal acts when demanded by the law- one example of this complexity is embodied in Breaker Morant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaker_Morant

I can see reasons on both sides for the conduct in the situation of "Breaker Morant"- whether they were justified depends on the moral framework applied- this is an example of moral relativism.

These situations prompt us to ask "What really is law in a broad sense? How does contemporary law differ from traditional law, etc, etc,...".

So in contradiction to Paul1405's title of this thread "Far Right Extremism 'in Australia'" Brenton Tarrant appears to view circumstances as a multinational and perhaps a global threat- and his actions as a reaction to this threat- and not merely an Australian or a New Zealand one.

Paul1405 misrepresents Brenton Tarrant perhaps for his own selfish interests- perhaps that's what Brenton Tarrant was sort of trying to say- everyone needs to fight for their own self interest- he fought for his own selfish interests too.

On that at least I can agree with both of them...

If we can all keep our hands off stuff in others buckets- whether this is the bucket owned by the individual, the family, the community, the culture, the anthropocentric or the animal world- then perhaps we can live in peace.

Generally my view is that violence is a last resort- but some will seek out reasonable people- see reason as a weakness- and exploit it. No one will protect you but yourself- evil laws can be created to subvert this natural right- every level of the hierarchy needs a shield and a sword- to survive.

The left see every war as a racist war- look at how they treated the Vietnam veteran's.

It's not surprising that the left and the "Economic 'Liberal Party'" want to intimidate the traditional right. At some stage the "Economic 'Liberal Party'" will realise that multiculturalism isn't in their interest either- as their dreams of 'Global Business Royalty' evaporate.

The movie "Who Dares Wins" talks of the 80's when 42 embassies were held hostage by communist groups as I understand- not to include state based terrorism in Russia and China and elsewhere. Communism has been much more effective as a subversive force than Nazism was. The history of the world is the history of ethnic conflict- the last hundred years have just changed the nature of the conflict.

Every culture needs their own nation

CM,

Sorry, can't see Paul's reference to that racist mongrel.

As for 'self-interest', how can it be in the interests of any decent human being to murder fifty one innocent people ? i.e. people who haven't committed any crime ? Except, in your view, believed in the wrong ideologies ? Which, last I heard, wasn't a crime ?

So your justification of his vile offences doesn't really stand up. But I don't suppose that would worry you.

Joe

Loudmouth said-

"CM, Sorry, can't see Paul's reference to that racist mongrel.

As for 'self-interest', how can it be in the interests of any decent human being to murder fifty one innocent people ? i.e. people who haven't committed any crime ? Except, in your view, believed in the wrong ideologies ? Which, last I heard, wasn't a crime ?

So your justification of his vile offences doesn't really stand up. But I don't suppose that would worry you. Joe"

Answer-

I'm not actually justifying anything- just trying to understand it.

Question-

how can it be in the interests of any decent human being to murder fifty one innocent people ? i.e. people who haven't committed any crime

Answer-

I don't know enough about this situation to understand it- but I believe we need to understand this situation holistically.

Hypothetically- if Brenton Tarrant sees the people of the mosque as being complicit in harm against hundreds of millions of his people- or they benefited by an injustice against his people- and hence might not have been completely innocent in a sense- this has been used as an excuse to go to war in the past. Sounds like a bit of a stretch perhaps. Perhaps these things also occurred in Northern Ireland. I understand that the authorities want to enforce standards of behavior and rule of law within our communities for their own reasons- and sometimes they do correlate with our interests- sometimes they need to do this aggressively.

Mao said war is an extension of politics.

Brenton Tarrant perhaps believes that the communities existential interest has been undermined by special interests and so they are unable to obtain redress by political and civil means- so perhaps believes the solution is 'by extension of politics'.

Quote "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned."

Quoting yourself there are many "vile offenses" in the world on all sides as well as their "justification". My first instinct is to try to understand them- but in the end we are different at the different levels of society- despite those that say we have the same needs- we need to respect their rights to self determination and non- molestation- at some level perspicacity is subjective and existential and based on tradition- cultural relativism- something that those on your side want to destroy. I have to admit that broad Liberalism has broad strategic advantages over traditionalism but that doesn't mean that it is right.
Maybe our future is as Orwell surmised 'to have the boot of the world on our heads forever'.