Thanks. I read most of the "manifesto" as soon as it became available, and still have access to it. I would have studied it more closely if it had appeared to be Tarrant's work. But it seemed, to me, to be largely, perhaps entirely, the work of others. After all, how likely is it that a member of the "PewDiePie generation" would begin his opus by quoting a poem by Dylan Thomas?
The attempt to "sanitize" Christchurch Mosque is interesting. I was well aware of its "history", and knew something of the split between the Salafists and those of a more liberal disposition. So when my wife came home and said, "There's been a shooting at Christchurch Mosque", I initially thought they must have started shooting each other!
Then, like everyone else, I believed it was a genuine terrorist attack. I even made a donation to the "injured" and "bereaved". But after many years in journalism, I knew that, before I came to a firm conclusion, I should scout around for a counter-narrative. I soon found it - and was reasonably sure, after about a week of research, that the attacks were a psyop, and that, as in the case of the "Boston Marathon bombing", there probably weren't any real victims. Today, I think all the Muslims involved in the event are either lying or keeping quiet about what they know. In one prominent case, I can prove that the person concerned is lying.
What induced the Muslims to desecrate their own mosque? Were they coerced in some way, or were they simply promised the tremendous rewards that they have since received for their cooperation? I don't know, and I suspect that persuading someone to talk, even with the assurance of anonymity, won't be easy.