Blogging The Demons, Monsters & Mysterious Creatures That Allegedly Haunt Our World.
I'm not at all impressed by these videos by people who can't spell, and can't speak without constantly saying "ok". I think the scenario is a ridiculous one, but let's leave that aside for the moment. The bigger issue is the idea that 1) the government is unreservedly evil (I see a lot of graft and bumbling, but very little evil) and 2) that we could somehow protect ourselves against this with guns. The government has tanks, troops, unlimited supplies of all kinds, drones, even nuclear weapons. If the government ever became so toxic as to begin wholesale killing of its citizens, there aren't enough guns on earth to put up a real resistance. Rather than pursuing what are in most cases plainly goofy conspiracy theories (and it seems as if the purveyor knows this himself because he repeats his framing of the issue over and over, a technique that works only on Fox News viewers) we would be better off trying to detoxify our government and dissolve organizations that hide behind it and operate without our knowledge or consent. The clown who made these videos doesn't get to tell me when the case is closed, however many times he repeats himself.
@ Anonymous at 7:54 AM on June 5, 2014,I think you fail to realize is that if this is a hoax then no one died. For me, it all boils down to this:1. Elliot Rodger allegedly was shot in the hip by cops. Then he killed himself by shooting himself in the head. However, multiple pictures of the car show that there is no blood. A white air bag deployed when the car crashed and it's spotless. There's no blood on the seat. There's no blood on the seat where his head was. There's no blood on the side of the seat facing the door, the location he was shot by police. Where's the blood? 2. The girl who allegedly got shot 5 times yes was up and walking an doing interviews two days later. All she had was a band aid patch on her leg. Shot 5 fucking times. Right. 3. The red head in the deli claimed she did CPR on the guy who supposedly died yet photos reveal the body was on his side. You can't give CPR to a person on his side. 4. There was only a small amount of "blood" in the deli. The workers were photographed cleaning it up which is against the law in California and can result in a $10,000 fine. By law they are supposed to hire a cleaning crew. Not to mention that the deli had crates of replacement glass already ready to go at the scene and that bags of chips located right behind the alleged victim were not damaged and did not contain blood splatter.5. Father of alleged victim immediately went on t.v. to blame the NRA and claimed that his son died because nobody did anything after Sandy Hook, meaning guns weren't banned. Sorry, this is a hoax in my book. They want to ban guns because the population has to be disarmed before they can implement the truly shocking and controversial changes to our society that they have planned.
Well, I won't argue the details of this particular case and I think we can agree to disagree. In general, you can pick apart any crime scene on the basis of things that should have happened but apparently didn't. If it was a hoax, it would certainly be the stupidest and most senseless one ever attempted, since many people (all of them seemingly kind of dimwitted at best) would have to be in on it. But whether it was or not, my point really was that people seem to think it's still 1776 and everyone is fighting with flintlocks. My point was that if the government is toxic, we need to change it. If it's toxic enough to do terrible things to us, then guns aren't going to do us a bit of good against a government that has troops, supplies, drones, tanks, nuclear weapons. I don't like many things government has done, but I'm personally more afraid of the power of multinational corporations. Keep blogging though, Doc. I don't always agree, but I tend to follow many of the same stories you do and always appreciate another view.
@ Anonymous at 12:19 PM on June 5, 2014,They aren't going to use massive weapons such as atomic bombs or anything. They may use tanks but the men staffing the tanks have to come out some times. They want the population to be disarmed so as to be able to implement extremely controversial changes to our society and in way in which we could not possible ever stop or prevent. Taking away our guns is the first priority. When the second amendment falls, all of our rights fall as we will not be able to protect ourselves.
On the one hand you say that they want to do unspecified but extremely evil things to us, and that they're constantly plotting and hoaxing us in every imaginable way, and on the other you say that, when it really comes down to the wire, they won't use some or most of their most effective weapons. Why not? Do you really think they'd suddenly decide to practice restraint and just use against us the same sort of weapons we could use against them, in the interests of fairness? If I imagine the government as completely evil and intent on subduing the people of the U.S., I can also imagine they'd use every weapon in their arsenal. Why wouldn't they? They'd use drones to terrorize people, tanks to protect the troops when they're out making mayhem, air strikes on specified targets (the more vulnerable and demoralizing, the better), and they'd nuke a small city here and there just to show people that they were prepared to do anything. What earthly use would a stack of guns in somebody's cellar (even in EVERYBODY'S cellar) be in such a case? I'm always curious when I find that people who think the government is absolutely demonic at the same time can hold a conflicting belief that they could stand up to their monstrous government with a limited supply of outdated weaponry. Again - it's a fantasy that allows us to avoid rolling up our sleeves and actually fixing our government. If you think we can fix it with guns after it does some unthinkable thing to us, then surely we can fix it with less drastic means BEFORE that ever happens.
@ Anonymous at 1:11 PM on June 5, 2014,Don't put words in my mouth. This is called psychological warfare. They are manipulating public opinion in order to get what they want. Look up Operation Northwoods. The DOD and CIA wanted to perform acts of terrorism on the U.S. public and blame it on Cuba to justify a war. Part of the plans even evolved faking terrorist attacks, complete with fake victims. If we have documents which prove factions of the government wanted to do this back in the 60s what makes you think they don't want to do this now in the 2014? What makes you think they wouldn't stage fake shootings to get what they want?
I didn't put words in your mouth. I asked what I think is a reasonable question with respect to your statement that they "wouldn't use massive weapons such as atomic bombs or anything". I ask again: why not? Why would they not use everything they have, if it comes down to that? And again I ask how guns, even lots of them, would do any good against drones (which they would CERTAINLY use), tanks, guns, chemical weapons and ammunition in almost limitless supply, and nuclear weapons - not to mention the vast material resources available to the government? And I didn't deny that there's a manipulation of public opinion. I'm familiar with Operation Northwoods, and haven't denied that such things went on then and no doubt do so now. But that doesn't mean that every event that might be called an attack on the public is part of a plot. There are plenty of just plain crazy people in the world who do bizarre things for reasons too twisted to comprehend. I repeat what I said earlier: I don't believe this incident is part of any plot, because it involves too many people (none of whom I would rely on to find their way back home afterwards) and is simply too idiotic. Everyone who got a camera stuck in their face immediately made a pathetic fool of themselves. Give the CIA/DOD/Whatever a little credit - they're not morons. This incident is just plain imbecilic. I can't even figure out what sort of manipulation of public opinion anyone could hope to get out of this. Both sides of the gun debate in this country have their opinions set in stone, and anything at all that happens serves only to reinforce each side in what they believe is true. People who want to keep their guns will see this as a reason to have them, and people who are opposed will see it as a reason to remove them - it won't change anyone's mind, and if I can figure that out, so can the masterminds at the CIA/DOD/WHATEVER.
@ Anonymous at 2:28 on June 5, 2014,Yes you did put words into my mouth as on more than one occasion. Here is just one:"On the one hand you say that they want to do unspecified but extremely evil things to us"I said no such thing. You wrote that, not I. You are entitled to your own opinion but your opinion is lousy. To clam that some events might be staged but this isn't one of them because too many people were involved is pure stupidity. Do you know how many people worked on the H bomb? Do you know how many people are employed by the CIA? So far, there's only been a handful of people associated with this incident and that's plenty to make a hoax. Most of the media are CIA assets. How can you be that blind to think that the agenda wasn't anti-gun? Not even 24 hours after the incident the father of the alleged slain man went on t.v. and blamed the NRA. Not the killer. Not the killer's parents for not preventing him from getting their guns or for getting him treatement. he blamed the fucking NRA. Open your damn eyes.
Post a Comment