Den Tarragon has positioned himself as a vigilant guardian of truth, a self-styled whistleblower determined to expose “wrongens,” “fraudsters,” “scammers,” and “cheats” within his community. In his conversations with figures like YouTube’s Jupiter, he presents himself as a man driven by moral duty—a protector warning the public against deception.
On the surface, this seems commendable. Vigilance against fraud is necessary, especially in an era where online scams proliferate. But what happens when the self-appointed watchdog becomes the very thing he claims to oppose? What happens when his accusations are not rooted in truth, but in personal vendettas, misinformation, or an unwillingness to admit error?
This is the contradiction at the heart of Den Tarragon.
 |
| Den Tarragon |
The Wrongens Paradox: Truth-Teller or Smear Merchant?
While Tarragon claims to expose fraud, there is mounting evidence that he has falsely branded honest individuals as scammers while shielding—or even aligning with—actual bad actors. His campaign against John Wanoa, the New Zealand-based entrepreneur behind The King’s Flag and Moai Tidal Energy, is a prime example.
Tarragon has repeatedly labelled Wanoa a “scammer,” a “liar,” and a “thief.” But those who know Wanoa—myself included—find these accusations not only baseless but malicious. John Wanoa is a man of integrity, an innovator with a bold vision for renewable energy through tidal turbines. His ambition to raise £25 million in capital was not evidence of fraud, but of legitimate entrepreneurial aspiration.
So why does Tarragon persist in this narrative?
The Inconvenient Truth: A Sunk Cost in Slander.
Reluctant as I am to ascribe motive, the evidence suggests that Tarragon is trapped in his own lie. Having invested so heavily in the falsehood that Wanoa is a fraudster, he cannot backtrack without facing severe reputational damage. Admitting error would require accountability—something Tarragon seems unwilling to embrace.
Instead, he doubles down, ensuring that Wanoa’s name remains tarnished. The consequences? A man’s reputation, business prospects, and dreams have been systematically dismantled by online mob justice, led by Tarragon and his associates.
The Sabotage of Moai Tidal Energy: How Far Did It Go?
At the core of this saga is the Moai Tidal Energy share sale, which never had a chance to succeed. Why? Because Tarragon and his cohorts actively sabotaged it.
In a capitalist economy, raising capital through share sales is not only legal but fundamental to innovation. Investors take risks—some ventures succeed, others fail. That is the nature of business. Yet Tarragon and his allies did not merely express scepticism; they orchestrated a campaign to destroy Wanoa’s credibility before his project even began.
The most damning revelation? John Wanoa was denied entry into the UK under highly suspicious circumstances. According to credible accounts, this was not the result of legal due process, but of backchannel interference—specifically, an alleged phone call from one Danny Jones to a contact at Heathrow Airport. If true, this constitutes underhanded, extrajudicial sabotage.
Where were the fraud charges? The criminal complaints? There were none. Just a coordinated smear campaign masquerading as “consumer protection.”
The Bigger Picture: Who Really Benefits?
This case raises disturbing questions:
Who gains from destroying an entrepreneur’s reputation?
Is Tarragon truly a fraud exposer, or does he engage in selective targeting to bolster his own standing?
Why do his followers accept his claims without scrutiny?
The pattern is clear: Tarragon positions himself as a truth-teller while engaging in the very behaviour he condemns. He brands honest men as fraudsters, protects actual wrongdoers, and refuses to correct his mistakes—even when confronted with evidence.
A Call for Accountability.
If Den Tarragon genuinely cares about truth and justice, he must:
Publicly retract his false claims against John Wanoa.
Provide evidence for his accusations—or admit they were baseless.
Acknowledge the harm caused by his campaign of sabotage.
Until then, his credibility remains in tatters. A man who claims to fight fraud cannot himself traffic in lies.
The public deserves better. John Wanoa certainly did.
When Hell Freezes Over: Satanist Defends Den Tarragon.
The digital landscape, already a breeding ground for the bizarre, has witnessed a truly unexpected alliance. YouTube provocateur Den Tarragon, currently embroiled in a contentious feud with Guerrilla Democracy News and facing scrutiny over his allegations against John Wanoa, has found an unlikely defender: an unnamed Satanist using the YouTube handle - The Order 666.
Tarragon's accusations against Wanoa, claiming the latter is a "scammer," have been met with scepticism and rebuttals, particularly from Guerrilla Democracy News, who point out the lack of concrete evidence – no convictions, no charges – supporting Tarragon's claims. In the midst of this escalating online drama, the Satanist's intervention has thrown fuel onto an already raging fire.
The initial comment, "whatever else, he is 100% correct about John Wanoa," is demonstrably false when held to the standard of legal proof. The statement however, demonstrates a firm belief in Tarragon's claims. This belief is not shared by everyone.
The subsequent comment, lauding Tarragon as "one of the good guys," has amplified the shockwaves. The sheer incongruity of a Satanist publicly endorsing a figure like Tarragon has ignited a flurry of speculation and commentary across social media platforms.
The irony, as pointed out by observers, is palpable. Tarragon has been vocal in his denial of any Satanic presence or influence on YouTube, making this unexpected endorsement all the more perplexing.
The implications are multifaceted:
Shifting Alliances: This incident underscores the fluid and often unpredictable nature of online alliances. In the digital arena, ideological boundaries can blur, and unexpected coalitions can form.
The Power of Narrative: The Satanist's defence, regardless of its factual basis, highlights the power of narrative in shaping public perception. Even unsubstantiated claims, when amplified by certain voices, can gain traction and influence opinion.
The Question of Credibility: This incident raises questions about the credibility of online voices and the challenge of discerning truth from falsehood in a landscape saturated with misinformation.
The nature of Den Tarragon's accusers: Den Tarragon has been accused of being a provocateur, and someone who makes content that is designed to get a reaction. The appearance of a Satanist supporting Den Tarragon, may be seen by some, as another example of Den Tarragon attracting controversy.
The meaning of “Satanist”: The word Satanist has a wide range of meanings, and is often misunderstood. The user who identified as a Satanist may simply be using the term to describe an anti-establishment or contrarian viewpoint.
The online community is now left to grapple with these questions and the broader implications of this bizarre development. The incident serves as a stark reminder of the unpredictable and often bewildering nature of online discourse, where alliances can shift, narratives can clash, and the lines between reality and fiction can become increasingly blurred.
As the saga unfolds, one thing is certain: the online world will continue to watch, speculate, and dissect this unexpected alliance, seeking to unravel the motivations and implications behind this truly surreal turn of events.
