52

Is ‘hate-crime’ a media-creation? Do we accept the designation of ‘hate crime’ simply because state and corporate sponsored outlets ask us to, or do we interrogate beyond the proffered narrative?

Renee Parsons

As part of Remarks by President Trump on Mass Shootings in Texas and Ohio on August 5th, President Donald Trump announced that.

Today, I am also directing the Department of Justice to propose legislation ensuring that those who commit hate crimes and mass murders face the death penalty, and that this capital punishment be delivered quickly, decisively, and without years of needless delay

Normally it might have been expected that the mainstream media would run with Trump’s support of the death-penalty-for-hate-crimes as proof positive that the man is off his rocker. Instead, the statement garnered barely a flicker of public notice. Did anyone in authority bother to confirm that the shootings were indeed motivated by ‘hate?’

As the mainstream media consistently rush to judgment, speculation too often becomes fact before all the evidence is considered (ie Russiagate) as the MSM is relied on to provide factual and critical background information.

And yet since 65% of the American public believe that the MSM is peddling fake news begs the question of why should detailed reporting on these tragic events be left to a discredited media establishment or that their information on these recent shootings be considered truthful? 

Why should the American public trust the MSM for what may have already been determined to be a ‘hate’ crime without providing evidence of the hate – as the Divide and Rule Game continues undeterred sowing division and conflict among the American people.

It remains unclear exactly why either tragedy is being specifically labeled a “hate” crime instead of felony murder as if there is a larger agenda to establish ‘hate’ as a bona fide. 

Obviously, such barbaric mass killings are not normal behavior as the rationale for such conduct must stem from some deep emotional depravity just as the epidemic of suicides of young white males who have lost hope in American society makes no more sense.

There is an endemic crisis throughout the country and the political class are responsible. Decades after federal government elimination of grants for community mental health programs, ‘hate’ is the favorite determinant factor as the world’s most violent nation creates a generation of emotionally or mentally unstable young men, many of whom may be on mind-numbing psychiatric drugs. 

Since the MSM has failed to inform the American public of advanced mind control practices; perhaps the MSM itself and the young shooters are part of widespread experiment using MK Ultra or other state-of-the-art brain manipulation techniques.  How would the American public ever know which might be true?

The 21 year old El Paso shooter was immediately identified  as a right wing Trumper acting on behalf of the President’s “hate” rhetoric and that he had posted an anti-immigration racist tract entitled  An Inconvenient Truth – all of which turned out to be something less than the truth.

Decrying mass immigration as an environmental plea for population control sounds more like something John Muir might have written rather than a hate-filled racist diatribe justifying the slaughter.  

Perusing the alleged politically charged manifesto included such statements:

Our lifestyle is destroying the environment of our country…If we can get rid of enough people, then our way of life can become more sustainable.

There is, however, a problematic psychiatrist father of uncertain character in the background as the shooter drove 650 miles from his home to El Paso before committing the crime and surrendering to authorities.

On the other hand, the Dayton shooter also defies the usual partisan identity and has been acknowledged as a 24-year old member of the Democratic Socialist Party, a Bernie and Elizabeth Warren supporter and was dressed and masked as an Antifa member at the time of the shooting.  His weapons and ammo magazines appear to have been legally acquired, he had a high school history as a bully who kept a hit list and made violent threats.

Meanwhile,  the Democrats who consider themselves the responsible party on gun control,  failed to restore the assault gun ban when they had the votes in 2010 as they prefer fanning the flames of more ‘hate’ by blaming Trump’s loose lips even though the once-revered ACLU does not oppose the Second Amendment.

One wonders that if the El Paso shooter can be tagged with being influenced by Trump rhetoric, did the Dayton shooter receive his inspiration from Antifa or perhaps Elizabeth Warren?   It is too much to expect any rational media voice to inquire – all of which brings us back to the President’s Remarks endorsing the death penalty.

How exactly did this ‘hate’ language make its way into Trump’s remarks as “hate” has become a preoccupation of American society and the Administration as its Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism’s very life purpose is to root out hate – not hate of all kinds but only that of the Jewish variety.

Historically, the American criminal justice system, flawed as it is, requires any jury in a criminal case to consider the Defendant’s level of conscious intent to commit a criminal act as well as the illegality of the act without specificity to the psychological issues of that intent.

Originally, hate crime laws were expected to offer special protection based on an individuals’ sexual orientation, gender, religion, disability or racial identity as perceived by the perpetrator.  

In a manner that does not occur in normal criminal proceedings, defining the “hate” component of a crime requires a distinct determination that the defendant’s actions were solely motivated by thoughts of ‘hate.’

In a worse case scenario, is Trump suggesting that the death penalty may be applied to what is determined to be a hate crime even if that crime has not resulted in a death?   

The reality is that hate crimes may be difficult to distinguish from a run-of-the-mill felony murder, thereby increasing the hate crime penalty makes little sense since first degree murder is already subject to the death penalty. Therefore, it appears that a redundant death penalty for a crime that would already call for the death penalty is little more than…overkill.

In other words, hate crime prosecution necessarily relies on criminalizing thoughts as the NSA claims it has already developed remote neural monitoring revealing one’s most hidden private thoughts or an iphone may be bugged with implants to reduce impulse control.

Many legal scholars would respond that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the Due Process Clause in the Fifth Amendment already provides all American citizens with the guaranteed right to equal protection under the law (ie Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade) and therefore such hate laws are unnecessary and may be unconstitutional.

Since the Constitution already protects the rights of aggrieved parties, why would Congress initiate an entirely new category of duplicative Hate Crime laws unless they needed the extra legislative accomplishment to justify their existence or to satisfy prominent politically-connected constituencies or to create a nefarious political agenda.

Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist with Friends of the Earth and staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found on Twitter.

Filed under: featured, latest, United States

by

Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist with Friends of the Earth and staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found on Twitter.

avatar
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Jihadi Colin

“the Divide and Rule Game continues undeterred sowing division and conflict among the American people.”

The more divided and infighting between Amerikastanis, the more they hate each other, the more they weaken their country, bring it closer to its demise and disintegration; and that is definitely a result to be desired.

At one time, prior to 2016, I still imagined that one could be friends with some Amerikastanis. That was stupidity on my part, since I had seen Amerikastanis who were “antiwar” under Bush overnight switch to being enthusiastically pro-war under the Nobel peace prize “winner” Barack Hussein Obama, despite the latter being a worse war criminal even than Bush under just about any category you care to name. Still, I held on to 2016, only to find that the very same Amerikastanis who had professed to literally want to skin Bush alive in 2006 were hailing him as a hero in 2016. At that point I realised that one could never trust an Amerikastani; one could never be friends with an Amerikastani; that all Amerikastanis were real or potential enemies, and could never be anything else. As such, there is no cure except for the utter destruction of the Imperialist States of Amerikastan. Since one can’t do it from outside, one can only support Amerikastanis doing it to themselves. I support all sides in that endeavour. Infight away!

mark
mark

You now have automatically to disbelieve any and every official narrative and anything that appears in the MSM. And anything put out by controlled opposition like Counterpunch and Democracy Now. It is almost certainly completely false.

If you have a chapter of 4 KKK people, 3 of them are FBI agents and the 4th is a reporter.
The same is true of “Antifa.” Half of them are cops.

The leader of “ISIS” in Libya turned out to be an Israeli Mossad man. ISIS was a creation of western countries, Israel, Turkey, and the Gulf dictatorships. “ISIS fighters” have been seen with their sleeves rolled up revealing US Army tattoos. Strange how these hard drinking, drug taking, pork eating, whoring, “Islamic radical terrorists” have never once attacked Israel. Strange how they exported vast quantities of oil stolen from Iraq and Syria to Israel completely unhindered for a couple of years before the Russian air force stopped it. And the White Helmets with their 150 strong PR department, courtesy of the UK taxpayer. Likewise the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

It is difficult to catalogue all the false flag “terrorist” attacks. There have been so many for well over a century. Many, like 9/11, were clearly Zionist operations. The evidence is overwhelming, and does not need any repetition. It is likely that very few, if any, were genuine. Charlie Hebdo, the Stade de France, Nice, Bataclan, and many others all fall into the same category.

At the same time, Britain has played a leading role in many recent false flags and hoaxes. 7/7. The Syrian gas attacks. Skripal. Russiagate. Manchester Arena. So has the US. The Boston bombing, Orlando, school shootings, and so many others.

People sometimes find it difficult to grasp the implications of all this. That we are ruled over by psychopathic subhuman filth who think nothing of killing and maiming thousands of ordinary people to serve their warped and twisted agendas. They are simply evil and depraved, utterly devoid of any moral standards or scruples.

The same pattern repeats itself endlessly. Highly improbable official narratives. Passports and identity cards conveniently discarded at the scene. Alleged offenders who turn out to be long standing intelligence assets. Reports of multiple gunmen who appear to be military or para military teams. Bizarre numerology markers left as signatures for those in the know.

Jihadi Colin

I’m not sure where you got that information about the Libyan ISIS leader being Mossad. I’m not saying it’s untrue, I need a reliable source proving your contention.

mark
mark

Israeli national and Mossad spy Benjamin Efraim.
He was the leader of 200 Libyan head choppers and throat slitters, and also a “radical mosque preacher” in his own right, using the name “Abu Hanf.” (26/8/17.)
There are known to be at least “several tens” of Mossad agents running the whole show and making sure all the throat slitting goes swimmingly.
The Head Honcho of “ISIS”, “Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi,” is widely reputed to be one of them, though I don’t know of any concrete evidence being produced.
This is all quite plausible. In due course it will probably be revealed that his real name is Shlomo Gobbowicz and he’s a close mate of Nuttyyahoo.
Edited by Admin to remove gratuitous racism

Maggie
Maggie

Hi Mark:
HERE ARE THE LINKS FROM MY OLD RECORDS..
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/08/27/mossad-officer-leading-isis-as-mosque-imam-arrested-in-libya/

Senator John McCain’s Whoops Moment: Photographed Chilling With ISIS Chief Al-Baghdadi And Terrorist Muahmmad Noor!
Senator JohnMcCain with Syrian Al Qaeda / ISIS terrorists. ISIS Chief Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi (aka Elliot Shimon, Jew) circled in red !
ISIS(ISIL), Al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood … are all owned/controlled by western Illuminist intelligence agencies: CIA, MI5/6, Mossad …
http://madworldnews.com/ 

Does anyone remember the article about John McCain being a traitor? Does the man in the red circle look familiar? Everyone put on your shocked face for John McCain’s whoops moment. It seems the Arizona Senator who was upset at Obama for the mess in Iraq was photographed chilling out with ISIS terrorist leaders in Syria!

Senator John McCain was making headlines but not for saying he was happy Eric Holder was persecuting illegal aliens or his lie about Holder investigating the VA, even though Eric Holder didn’t have plans to prosecute people in the VA. He even seemed a little hot under the collar about losing Iraq, but that wasn’t why he was in the headlines.

He seemed to forget that he was photographed, and those photographs were broadcast world wide, with the same individuals that caused the trouble in Iraq and Syria and deemed too violent to represent Al Qaeda.

It’s pretty bad when Al Arabiya, a Muslim Middle East news paper, makes fun of your statement that you can identify the “good guys” in Syria. It is another to get caught in the middle of funding, being filmed, and photographed with a terrorist organization. It seems John McCain either ‘was’ a traitor, as his fellow Veterans from Vietnam denounced him as, or he couldn’t tell a “moderate rebel” from the ISIS leader, who was also filmed with McCain despite the multi-million dollar contract on his head.

Let’s take a look at who he was photographed with shall we?
Open the link!
http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2014/08/13/senator-john-mccains-whoops-moment-photographed-chilling-with-isis-chief-al-baghdadi-and-terrorist-muahmmad-noor/

John McCain and the Caliph
by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network, 18 August 2014
https://anarchodutch.wordpress.com/2014/08/20/john-mccain-the-caliph/
On February 22nd, John McCain was in Lebanon. He met members of the Future Movement (the party of Saad Hariri) whom he charged to oversee the transfer of arms to Syria… Then, leaving Beirut, he inspected the Syrian border and the selected villages including Ersal, which were used as a basis to back mercenaries in the war to come.
In May 2013, Senator John McCain made his way illegally to near Idleb in Syria via Turkey to meet with leaders of the “armed opposition”. His trip was not made public until his return to Washington.
In photographs released at that time, one noticed the presence of Mohammad Nour, a spokesman for the Northern Storm Brigade (of the Al-Nosra Front, that is to say, al-Qaeda in Syria), and we also see Ibrahim al-Badri (also known as Abu Du’a and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi).
Asked about his proximity to al-Qaeda kidnappers, the Senator claimed not to know Mohammad Nour who would have invited himself into this photo. The object of his illegal trip to Syria was to meet the chiefs of staff of the Free Syrian Army.
According to him, the organization was composed “exclusively of Syrians” fighting for “their freedom” against the “Alouite dictatorship” (sic).
Back from the surprise trip, John McCain claimed that all those responsible for the Free Syrian Army were “moderates who can be trusted” (sic).

However, since October 4, 2011, Ibrahim al-Badri was on the list of the five terrorists most ”wanted by the United States” (Rewards for Justice). A premium of up to $ 10 million was offered to anyone who would assist in his capture.
A month before receiving Senator McCain, Ibrahim al-Badri, known under his nom de guerre as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, created the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant – all the while still belonging to the staff of the very “moderate” Free Syrian Army.
He claimed as his own the attack on the Taj and Abu Ghraib prisons in Iraq, from which he helped between 500 and 1,000 jihadists escape who then joined his organization.

Neither Senator McCain nor his companions of the Syrian Emergency Task Force provided the information in their possession on Ibrahim al-Badri to the State Department, nor have they asked for the reward. Nor have they informed the anti-terrorism Committee of the UN.
In no country in the world, regardless of their political system, would one accept that the opposition leader be in direct contact, and publicly friendly, with a very dangerous wanted terrorist.

In the latest issue of its magazine, the Islamic Emirate devoted two pages to denounce Senator John McCain as “the enemy” and “double-crosser”, recalling his support for the US invasion of Iraq.
The senator immediately issued a statement calling the Emirate the “most dangerous Islamist terrorist group in the world”. One would like to believe it … if it weren’t for the photographs from May 2013…

Yonatan
Yonatan

Hate crime, like thought crime, is double-plus ungood.

Harry Stotle
Harry Stotle

Yes, irony upon irony – the MSM, presumably inspired by PC now actually communicates in ‘newspeak’.

What term from Orwells dystopia will be popularised next, ‘crimethink’?

It may sound hyperbolic but are thoughts being restructured to comply with the principles of Ingsoc?
https://33hpwq10j9luq8gl43e62q4e-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/1984_-_newspeak_dictionary.pdf

Fair dinkum
Fair dinkum

The word ‘hate’ is a cop out (pardon the pun).
Isn’t more to do with ignorance and fear?
Ignorance and fear provide the fertile ground for sowing the seeds of hate.

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker

Did anyone in authority bother to confirm that the shootings were indeed motivated by ‘hate?’

I stopped right there. Do you think the shootings were in some way motivated by love instead?????!!!

Neil McCormick
Neil McCormick

There are other alternatives to hate than love – try plain anger for instance – but I do get your point. Maybe the MSM looking into each crime for what it is rather than rushing to find a box to put it in is a good start.

George
George

I think you’ve hit on something there. The words “Love” and “Hate” are now standing in for the words “God” and “Devil” i.e. these are just labels to say “us” and “them”, like the old games of “cops and robbers” or “cowboys and indians”. (Actually – even these old games have more informational content.)

TheThinker
TheThinker

I’ve been reading a collection of essays by a Australian guy called Careys – on Democracy and propaganda, fully named, Taking the Risk out of Democracy. He died unpublished but his papers were collated in a book after. Here some bits from my read that were interesting.

In Jan 1994 David Hume reflecting on the consequences of the recent state terrorist projects that Washington had organised and directed in its Central American domains, with the Church a prime target. They took special note of ‘what weight’ the culture of terror has had in domestically the expectations of the majority vis-a-vis alternatives different for the powerful; the destruction of hope, they recognised, is one of the greatest achievements of the free world doctrine of ‘low intensity conflict’ what is called ‘terror’ when conducted by official enemies. Noam Chomsky 1994

Propaganda is the management of collective attitudes by the manipulation of significant symbolism…collective attitudes are amenable to many modes of alteration…. intimidation…intimidation….economic coercion…drill
But their arrangement and rearrangement occurs principally under the importers of significant symbolism and the technique of using significant symbols for this purpose is propaganda. Lasswell, Bardson & Janowitz 1953

Successful use of propaganda as a means of social control requires a number of conditions: The will to use it, the skills to produce the propaganda, the means to deiiseminate it; and the use of significant symbols with real power over emotional reactions – ideally symbols of the sacred and satanic (Light vs DARK)

A society or culture which is disposed to view the world in Manichean terms will be more vulnerable to control by propaganda. Conversely, a society where propaganda is extensively employed as a means of control, will tend to retain a Manichean world view, a view dominated by symbols and visions of the sacred and satanic.

Manichean – an adherent of the dualistic systems (dual = 2) religious systems of Manes, a combination of Gnostic, Buddiasm, Zoroastrianism and various other elements with a doctrine of a conflict between the Light and Dark, matter being regarded as dark and light / good vs evil – love vs hate

The ‘public mind’ was recognised long ago by corporate leaders to be ‘the only serious danger confronting’ their enterprise & major hazards facing industrialists along with the newly realised political power of the masses, which had to be beaten back.

Big Business in the US stated started the Americanise Movement ostensibly to Americanise worker, who was being perceived as being under threat from subversive forces of the Industrial Workers of the world.

what started as a method of controlling the political opinion of immigrant workers quickly turned into a massive program for the thinking of an entire population. One of the most startling examples of the escalation of the whole population in processes of propaganda was how Americanisation Program ( a word which conjures up the ‘thought police’) came to be transformed into a National Celebration Day for the 4th July, to many of us (Carey’s words not mine) it comes as a shock to discover that American Independence Day had it’s beginning in a Business led program to control public opinion rather than as a direct expression of a Nation celebrating its historical birth.

Roland Spansky
Roland Spansky

Dude, you need to update your worldview. You’re locked in this idea that the stories put out to us by the media are reality-based because their basic aim is to inform, that they are motivated to be “news.” You have to realize they are not. These corps are all controlled by a tiny tiny group of people who have a more or less common view of what they want the world to be like. Their media is used to put out an endless stream of mind-controlling bullshit designed to make us conform to their ideas. It’s rarely reality-based. Why does it have to be? Who’s gonna call them on it if it isn’t? There are no checks and balances any more. Disney pretty much rules the world. If these guys want us to think there’s a war they just have to tell us there is. The actual war may not even be necessary. if they want us to think there’s been a shooting, ditto.

I have no clue what happened in Sandy Hook or other places. I just know we’re all way more mind-manipulated than most of us dare to realize.

gardenfiend
gardenfiend

Quit quote mining. The author was using the word ‘hate’ with regards to ‘hate crimes’.

I know, words strung together in sentences and paragraphs are confusing sometimes. I recommend you read articles all the way through in future, perhaps multiple times.

Wiki definition of hate crime:

A hate crime (also known as a bias-motivated crime or bias crime) is a prejudice-motivated crime which occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of their membership (or perceived membership) in a certain social group or race.

Your perpetual adversarial stance BTL is starting to look more and more transparently premeditated. I hope for your sake you ARE a troll, as this is some pretty low IQ, illiterate and judgemental behaviour otherwise

Try harder next time.

Brian Steere

Mind control in the sense of shattering peoples minds as children to ‘breed’ personalities to later use is somewhat unbelievable to a sense of other people as like myself at heart even if I really don’t like them.
But places like
https://www.newsarticles.media/news-articles/mindcontrolnewsarticles
offer a portal into this if you have the stomach to look.

However I see that as as technological development and extension of a mind already set on control – of others and world, seeking out and abusing the helpless and voiceless.

That many terrorist events result in killing rather than maiming or capturing the perpetrator can suggest they have a story that does not support the narrative.Along with early reports of more than one perpetrator – that are then ignored as the narrative takes shape.

Narrative control IS mind control of narrative invested identities – and propaganda that has developed the psyop under the surface of PR runs far beyond socially engineering a compliant consumerism.

You are a target in your hidden hopes, fears and secrets. Room 101 in Orwell’s 1984 was an extreme example of breaking and remaking a mind through hacking into their specific terrors. Orwell painted despair as the basis of systemic tyranny operating under the shallow but coercively backed deceit of protection. What is a lie of a life that knows itself betrayal?

The heart’s despair is the condition in which the mind asserts or imposes control over a willing sacrificial acceptance or allegiance. “Take this fear and pain away!”
Mind control can limit and manage or redistribute pain but it has no power for real change. the heart’s waking to its innate responsibility for recognition, acceptance and decision is the only basis for real change.

The mind of a masking substitution for real relationship and communication, must accuse itself in the ‘Other’ and attack them or induce attack by eliciting sympathy (pos or neg) in order to seem or pass off as real. For its has no substance or support in truth. And yet here is the realm of personal identity conflict.

This accusation in the other is seen in the readiness to resort to personal smear and social invalidation in such terms as are a call to ‘righteous hate’ as THE denial of any willingness or capacity to communicate or abide open relationship and communication.

What we hate in others we hate in our self, but what we are trained to hate is a survival strategy within a group identity that otherwise brings us exclusion and penalty. And so the willingness to escape penalty by accusing others – or sacrificing others – along with the witness of a true relationship – for a personal survival or privilege instead of pain. This is a hateful self-reflection and so is denied and pushed out – lest it poisons and paralyses. yet at some level we know and the poison is not evaded but masked.

Everyone has self rejecting judgement – some of which is very easily noticed and some of which is deeply buried – but no less active and sometimes triggered with destructive result to self and others. Hate is rooted in hurt and hurt is the betrayal, rejection or abandonment of the heart. Or rather …the breaking of the invested and identified conditions that we set our heart in.

Reactive mind control can operate in any case, without clever manipulators reeling you in as a golem for working their agenda under belief you are making you’re own choices. For we already have a mind that works to block what we are not willing or able to face – or finds its rising so hateful and intolerable as to project it out and away with venom that would kill. Else we may come under a self hate that would deserve pain or death. “I hate myself and want to die!” isn’t just a T shirt – but a deeply broken mind set over despair yet clinging to its own damning judgement. NO ONE is as hard on us as our self.

Those who are obviously hateful or careless, hostile or indifferent can be easily and openly hated, while those who mask their hate under socially correct moral judgements may seem righteous and protective, caring and kind – but only to maintain their personal and social masking identity.

Setting our heart in specific conditions is locked into a past that isn’t here now, and which may even be inherited or acquired in infancy from the naive immaturity of an undifferentiated love that takes on the unhealed hates and fears or burdens of others in the family – because we do pass on unhealed fear energetically – even when we think to have changed by running counter to our parents as if to have escaped.
Hate is a call for correction rather than reciprocation – where there is the awareness and willingness to see beneath the presentation. But correction is always firstly in ourself – from which we then communicate – or else the attempt to ‘do-good’ in order to earn validation in our eyes and others works the belief we have none while seeking to change others to serve our own idea of who they should be. This is also hate.

Hate is not a crime. Hacking the law to set parameters for hate as a crime is a hateful deceit – unworthy of allegiance. There are laws for criminal acts that already cover the balance points but we are not talking of balance points for a diversity of views and endeavour. We are talking of narrative dictate set over a mounting dissonance of many unhappy returns – seeking sustainability of sympathetic allegiance.

nottheonly1
nottheonly1

May I add a few thoughts? The fist one is related to my Mom. She is of old age and her mind is showing that. For various reasons she has been overwhelmed by my Dad having decided to move six times over the last ten years. The work was mostly done by my Mom – my Dad does not help. He watches the news all day. Yesterday she told me “I hate him!” That’s painful to hear for me.
I tried my best to explain that ‘hate’ is the opposite side of the coin that has ‘love’ on the other. Both are emotions. As long as there are emotions, it is next to impossible to step back and let go of the situation.

This applies to the ‘hate’ Trump is speaking of and with him a lot of other people. ‘Hate’ is used to stir up emotions in those who will be emotionally affected by it. In the tradition of mind control, when the reason for a crime is painted to be ‘hate’, it means actually nothing else but the reason being emotional. There is a law still in effect in Spain, that enables a person who was cheated on to shoot his/her spouse and the lover. It is justified for the exact reason of being an emotional reaction to a situation that has caused no physical harm.

Therefore, IF the reason for any crime is based on an emotional break down, the person belongs not on an electric chair or into a gas chamber as Trump wants it to happen now. The person belongs into psychiatric care. Closed one at that. It is also imperative to point out that hate is an important motivator for the military to butcher people that have done nothing wrong – but being the subject of such hate. There are enough Americans that hate Muslims. Their hate is desired when they join the military. Their hate is not permissive when they unleash it in their own society, in their own country.

It can be alleged that, by using ‘hate’ as being the motive for any potentially hurtful, or fatal action, those who use it are actually fomenting more hate. This rabbit hole is certainly endless and it also contains notions of ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’, or ‘whoever is not with us is against us’. What happens, if someone hates someone else that acted out of hate? Does the irony not strike like lightening?

Now, when we (society) look for answers as to ‘why’ these shootings happen, ‘hate’ can never be the answer. Because the real reasons are hidden in plain sight. They are not to be revealed by the responsible parties. In order for this society to continue on its predetermined path, certain events are necessary to happen. Her lies the real question for the motive. As in all other cases the question is ‘Cui Bono?’ and while people might say that this question is worn out, it is very clear that it is the only question that will unearth the real reasons behind these shootings.

Hate is nothing a human being is born with. It is acquired. It is taught. Shown by example. An entire society can be manipulated to hate (See 1933-1945). When politicians promote legislation to curb the effects their policies have on the people, you know that they are disingenuous. Where are the laws that curb the causes for these actions and crimes? Nowhere to be found.

Also a pretty worn out notion, but regardless more valid than ever before, comes from George Carlin, who said: “I never believe what my government tells me.” That includes all these shootings as well. When the president of a country states publicly that the population of the neighboring country are all rapists and thieves, he/she creates causes for such shootings. But that will never exclude with certainty the involvement of certain regime agencies.

Junaid

Thank you for this article
On August 22, Tehran presented the Bavar-373 anti-aircraft missile system, which is considered in Iran as a more advanced system New “Faith”: Iran introduced its counterpart S-300

New “Faith”: Iran introduced its counterpart S-300

George
George

The use of the word “hate” has become another thought-stopper. It’s like calling something “Evil” without further explanation. I first realised this when I found the following article which is specifically about Off-Guardian:

https://www.stopfake.org/en/russian-trolls-exiled-from-guardian-find-home-for-their-hate/

The title is in the URL itself but it’s worth emphasising since it headlines the article:
“Russian trolls exiled from Guardian find home for their hate”

And there it is – the simple assertion “hate”. It’s so crass. It’s like cartoon propaganda – which may well be the most effective kind. And it echoes that old staple, “They just hate us!”, “They are haters!” and, best of all, “Hatred of the good for being good.” That last one is a masterstroke since it absolves one side of investigation while shoving all blame onto the other side. Best of all, the more “they” hate us, the more “good” we must be!

Ramdan
Ramdan

F***…. am I russian now?…..and where can we pick our passports?? 🙃

Capricornia Man
Capricornia Man

The article you provide a link to offers the following wisdom:
‘In line with the Kremlin’s goals, OffGuardian seeks to undermine trust in the “mainstream media”.’

Capricornia Man
Capricornia Man

Wanted to finish my above post by observing that, for anyone capable of a moderate level of independent thought, the “mainstream media” have done a brilliant job of forfeiting trust all by themselves.

Elementor
Elementor

LOL – my favorite bit of that article is where they cite Kit’s use of the internet-4Chan meme “accidentally the…” as evidence English isn’t his first language!!!!

ROFL I literally nearly fell of my chair laughing.

This lady is revealed as either truly ancient, a cultural hermit or or herself a non-native English speaker.

Also she lies her ancient ass off about Ukraine.

Roland Spansky
Roland Spansky

That is fricken priceless

Rhys Jaggar
Rhys Jaggar

The real difficulty with all ‘hate crime’ stuff is proving that a hating state of mind exists. The key point here is that those offended by statements or those victimised may assume hate to be present when it may be hatred of an individual, not their sex, religion, sexual orientation etc.

Here are few hard questions:

1. If I state, correctly, that several leaders of Russian mob families are- or have been Jewish, does that make me antisemitic?

I say absolutely it does not. I would back that up by saying that several other crime overlords profess to have Christian ancestry. So not all mob capos are Jewish…..and being Jewish does not make you more likely to lead a life of crime….

2. So what about if I killed a Jewish mobster because his hoods sexually abused my daughter? Does that make me antisemitic??

Absolutely not. I would kill any mob capo whose vermin attacked my daughter. Jewishness does not come into it. I certainly hated the mobster, but I did not hate his Jewishness….

3. What about if I say that the Israeli Secret Service, the Mossad, is a terrorist organisation?

Here we are talking about the official Intelligence Service of the Jewish State. Those folks are going to be Jews, representing Jewry. Is that anti-semitic?

Why?? Being a terrorist basically means you have either a very violent religion or you do not uphold the principles of a less violent one. I would point to the known terrorism in the histories of MI6, the CIA, the OSS and several others to prove that it is not Jewishness that drives the terror, rather the precepts under which Intelligence agencies are run.

4. What if I say that Jews are over-represented amongst the Western media and banking elites? Is that anti-semitic??

Well, firstly the data suggests I am being factual, namely that the actual number of Jews in such positions is far higher than might be expected on a population-based pro rata outcome. Secondly, have I said it is either good or bad? I think I am suggesting that society might discuss why that has come about, whether any consequences have ensued and whether the majority in a society consider those consequences to be appropriate. It is not anti-semitic to ask if a small minority holding inordinate influence/power is aggreable to the majority of the citizenry. After all, we are continually suggesting that white, public-school-educated male graduates of Oxbridge should not dominate UK society in this day and age….

5. What if I say that a small minority of Jews proclaim the Jewish people to be superior to all goyim? Is that factual or anti-semitic??

What if I say to hold such a view makes that subset of Jews to be racist?

My view again is that that is factually accurate. It does not imply all Jews think like that, does it? It is like saying in the 1970s that the National Front was racist: said nothing about the majority of British people, did I?

I would really dare some Jewish people to challenge those arguments.

Not by smearing, scaremongering, bursting into tears or any other melodrama.

Nor by power plays, threats, blackmail or libel.

By cool, reasoned argument….

OffG
Admin
OffG

Can we try to keep at least one thread free from discussing the antisemitism issue.

If you want to debate that subject there is an ongoing and currently civilised discussion between Mark and Mandy Miller on one of the Epstein threads. Feel free to re-post this comment there.

This article is about the media manipulation of the concept of ‘hate’.

wardropper
wardropper

I share Norman Finkelstein’s view that the appropriate response, both by us and by the Labour Party, for example, is to funnel any such accusations to a small unit which will answer any serious charges in detail, leaving the rest of us to state quite clearly, “It’s over. We’re not having our wide political and global interests forced into an endless, energy-sapping and time-wasting series of protests against ridiculous charges. We are not answering them any more. Take them to the relevant unit, and leave our free speech alone.”
That said, Rhys does a great job of making his point, and perhaps the concept of “hate” is not so irrelevant to that point.

Martin Usher
Martin Usher

Antisemitism is not what’s being discussed, its just a well known example of ‘hate’ that we can all more or less agree on. Its a tricky subject to discuss because its the closest thing that we have to Thoughtcrime in contemporary society so we need some sort of ground state we can work from.

The example of Jewish mob bosses is useful but we could have chosen American ones rather than Russian ones — the Jewish ‘mob’ was preeminent in US cities before being displaced by the Italians/Sicilians. What I think is important, though, isn’t stated and that’s the idea that tribal identity has gradually been made important with our identity is inextricably bound up with our tribe, a tribe differentiated by religion, race or orientation but not notably by our economic class. The question shouldn’t be to argue among ourselves about details and crumbs but to ask why allowing ourselves to sliced and diced into potentially warring groups. The media is full of it (literally and metaphorically) — if its not race or gender then its the latest millennial versus baby boomer BS. To me the answer is obvious — you don’t want people uniting around common goals and expectations, you need to have them at each other’s throats, fighting for those crumbs.

Incidentally, having to put up with racist jerks is the unfortunate side effect of espousing free speech. There’s no easy way to winnow the good from the bad and you just know that if you let Big Brother decide for you then sooner rather than later it will be *you* that they’ll be coming for.

flaxgirl

Oh for goodness sake. It’s all faked … and they tell us it’s faked loud and clear. I have a webpage on how they tell us clearly.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/they-tell-us-clearly.html

Obviously, it must be a legality because these events are so full of obvious holes they have to be deliberate and in some cases what happens is virtually impossible such as in the event that happened in my own city last week. Mert Ney brandishes a knife in the middle of an amazingly empty Clarence St with BROWN EYES but when we see him pinned ludicrously under the milk crate he has BLUE EYES, a change in eye-colour obviously effected with blue-tinted contact lenses. Does anyone seriously believe that a dextrous Mert pulled out and inserted these contact lenses between his knife-brandishing and being pinned?

Brown eyes
https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/accused-sydney-stabber-mert-ney-suffering-in-jail-after-leg-surgery/news-story/e522f3ce939d1af835c8301897e55b8e

Blue eyes
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/loners-ideology-of-death-revealed/news-story/2be3afe37ee71f54d48e4ea701855ad4#&gid=null&pid=1

Scrutinise the media stories. Notice all the contradictions in the various versions of the story. Notice all the misspellings, the inappropriate tone and register of language. The phony loved ones and witnesses. The nauseating heroes pimping their employer on morning TV. The complete absence of any sense of reality to these highly improbable crimes. What will it take for the recognition of these events to catch on? I simply do not understand.

Here is the word “Staged” inserted incongruously into this text. “Must have been a hell of a drug bender …”?????? How much clearer do they have to make it?
Sydney stabbing LIVE: NSW Police confirm body found in Clarence Street unit linked to attack
BREAKING: We can confirm the death of the woman in the Clarence Street unit in Sydney’s CBD is linked to the stabbing on the street below. Staged Must have been a hell of a drug bender…

https://headtopics.com/au/highest-order-heroes-the-men-who-took-down-an-alleged-sydney-knifeman-7520445?fbclid=IwAR0leTJjIpqgFp1VtFTGwJ5_z0qNJCLrKEuYW6tlKDD9m-Kl71h7-AHanys

And then we have the Philly cops spraying blood.

OffG
Admin
OffG

The blue/brown eyes thing is a non-issue, it can be created simply by changes in lighting levels or resolution. We pointed this out to you once already.

If you genuinely want to engage people and are not – as many claim – a troll please take some advice:

Add the words ‘I think’ or ‘could be’ occasionally.

Don’t comport like a missionary trying to convert unbelievers.

Put forward suggestions rather than pronouncements of dogma.

That way your posts might provoke some genuine discussion. If you ignore these suggestions and continue with these repeat-posted manifestos of certitude it’s going to start looking as if the claims of trollery are not misplaced.

PS – this commenter below is inviting discussion of potential hoax shootings – why not engage with him ?

PPS – The link you added to the alleged contact lenses is broken, so we’re removing it. Add another below and we’ll add it to this post of yours

flaxgirl

The blue/brown eyes thing is a non-issue, it can be created simply by changes in lighting levels or resolution. We pointed this out to you once already.

Apologies, I do not remember seeing that, however, I’m not sure your assertion is valid – you’d have to show an example that matches mine. When you say the link didn’t work I wonder if you copied the entire link or just clicked because obviously the link wasn’t underlined for its entirety and for it to work you needed to copy and paste it. In any case I found a better link – see below.

If you scroll down on this page you will see a ring around Ney’s eyes which clearly indicates a contact lens.
https://pressfrom.info/au/news/australia/-141427-sydney-stabbing-accused-mert-ney-reportedly-saw-michaela-dunn-and-other-sex-workers-before-alleged-attacks.html

In this photo of a tinted contact lens you will see a similar-looking ring.
https://eyecandys.com/collections/colored-contacts/products/eyecandys-opal-grey-colour-contacts

As usual, OffG, you select one item only – which you don’t manage to debunk in any case. There are so very many things wrong with the stabbing incident story. Unsurprisingly, you fail to make a comment on the word “Staged” appearing incongruously for example. Please, I beg you, OffG, what is your explanation for the word “Staged” appearing incongruously in the middle of a paragraph on this story and are you going to tell me that it is just sloppy journalism to say “… must have been a hell of a drug-bender” when a woman has just been knifed to death and another woman injured? Are you going to tell me, “sloppy journalism”?

You seem unable to confront evidence, OffG. I have the feeling that you believe it is more scientific to reserve judgement, that one must always sit on the fence about evidence. This is a fallacy. When all the evidence points in a certain direction and none points in any other direction, the scientific thing to do is to call it. It is sitting on the fence that is unscientific.

I wonder what you actually call. Do you think that it might have been 19 terrorists armed with boxcutters responsible for 9/11 after all? Perhaps you do.

INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT
No one, despite the offer to choose your own judge, has responded to my 10-point Occam’s Razor challenge for 5 separate events … nor has anyone come up with even a single point. The fact that that to you is insignificant means you do not know how to judge logic and evidence. I have put my money where my mouth is but, OffG, you never, ever do that.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/5000-challenge.html

different frank
different frank

My personal favourite is Woolwich.
The most laughable fake event.
http://sonarz.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Amateur.png

Wot, no blood?

different frank
different frank

Just because there are uniforms, it does not mean they are cops.

flaxgirl

No, but I think they often are because these events are really drills pushed out as real and response agencies are key players. In this video, the very observant Woodrow Wobbles identifies training going on. He notices one guy hanging around the milk crate who looks like a guy at an event in Melbourne and he identifies the words, “Lock it, lock it, lock it … Let go,” suggesting the police are being trained.

Maggie
Maggie

I am in agreement with you Flax. Definitely looks like a training drill.

flaxgirl

Thanks, Maggie. It does feel a bit lonely in the comments when your position is the outrageous, not-(according-to-my-opposers)-well-supported one of claiming that virtually all shooting/bombing, etc events reported 24/7 by the media are fake.

Doctortrinate
Doctortrinate

Flaxgirl: …I looked at the Philly cop video you posted – very interesting, as am also unsure of it’s authenticity – though perhaps not for the same reason as yourself….as to myself , the drops/drips and dribbles themselves seem to be counterfeit,…possibly edited into the film – and detectable by slowly (frame by frame) playing through it…revealing some unusual and seemingly unfeasible characteristics…..of couse, would still be fakery , but with a twist – Media created even.

Elementor
Elementor

Agree. It looks at first glance as if those dots just appear, which leads to thinking the cop “sprays” them or something similar, but on close analysis it looks wrong. I suspect it’s been faked, a honeypot for the unwary hoax-buff.

Doctortrinate
Doctortrinate

precisely Elementor – well seen and put …” a honeypot for the unwary hoax-buff”

quite possibly.

Cheers.

flaxgirl

I do find “honeypot for the unwary hoax buff” pretty funny. Not that it’s not a perfectly valid inference because, after all, Bill Kaysing, the first person to come out and say that the moon landings were a hoax was obviously a CIA plant whose purpose was to mislead the 5-10% or so of the population who never believe authorities by default in order to undermine their ability to persuade people when the government really does commit crimes.

Yes, it could be a honeypot. I myself think it does not look fake and if it had occurred to me that anyone might think it did I would have done more investigation to find other clues. These things are nauseating and one gets tired of trawling through the media rubbish to find the nuggets of hoaxery. It was so much better pre Feb-2018 when YouTube wasn’t so censored and other valiant analysts would do the hard work for you. They still do to a degree but they’re always getting pulled down and it’s just so much tougher.

The thing about these events is that a very clear part of the MO is this:
— They give us a significant number of clues
— They never give us anything that favours real over staged. They are scrupulous in this way – they could certainly fake things so that they look very real and make it impossible for an armchair analyst to judge but they never do that and we have to hand them that at least. They give us every possible chance to determine that they’re hoaxing us – they really give themselves an enormous handicap. We cannot take that away from them.

That’s why even if there might be disagreement over one seeming sign there will always be others – this is manifest above in my exchange with OffG. While OffG focused on attempting to debunk the blue eyes/brown eyes sign they ignored two other compelling indicators that are virtually impossible to shoehorn into “real event”. One must always keep all potential signs under consideration as well as any or lack of contradictory evidence.

I have made two mistakes myself in the Sydney event: I thought initially that Mert was first wearing white shoes and then red shoes but I saw on closer inspection the red shoes were, in fact, red socks. I also saw that someone had found a Facebook page for a Michaela Dunn (the victim’s name) in the US who looked very similar to the the Sydney Michaela. I was utterly convinced it was the same person. But no! Someone else found a FB page for a Michaela Kate in Sydney and this is definitely the person – they have used photos for the FB page in the media. So you can be wrong about a clue but because there’s so many, it doesn’t change the fact that the event is a hoax.

It’s a mistake to treat the media story as a default. The media story simply supports (although not particularly convincingly when you start to look carefully) one hypothesis: that the event is real. It should not be taken as a default – our initial response to any event we may suspect might be fake is to ask:

— what is the evidence that supports real
— what is the evidence that supports fake + is the fakery made obvious, are there gratuitous signs?

While you and Elementor are reasonably persuaded of the fakery of the blood how persuaded are you of the reality of the event? What makes you convinced the event is real?

This old black guy from New Orleans doesn’t think it was real – not that he analyses in particular detail but I think it’s worth a watch, nor do his commenters.

Here’s another guy just arrived at the scene who said he was expecting an event in Philadelphia because of Jonathan Kleck who he refers to as a “planted YouTube agent” and who he says keeps talking about Philadelphia and when he talked about Dayton, Ohio a shooting happened there.

I should do some proper research shouldn’t I to get some definite signs of hoaxing but I’m afraid that isn’t going to happen. However, if you have some evidence that favours real over fake I’m all ears.

Maggie
Maggie

Spot on Flax as usual. Philadelphia Shooting AK47 for two hours and no body dead or injured….. pwha!

FALSE FLAG!!!


Sadly only 6.900 hits? Which is why they criminals know they can get away with MURDER.
This brilliant video is 1 and a half hours long, but has invaluable information about all the false flags, predictive programming and human responses.
Kevin Barret does ALL the leg work for us… but as he says, collect all the evidence, question all narratives, but keep an open mind, and beware red herrings.
911, ISIS, Charlie Hebdo, Paris football stadium, Paris Bataclan nightclub, 7/7, Brussels Airport. Orlando.
Note how the public’s telephones are collected and CCTV is obliterated..
WARNING do not dare to cross Netanyahu and the Zionists and you know what you will get?

flaxgirl

Thanks for that, Maggie. This so helps with promoting the meme that staged events are a common phenomenon. They are a definite thing that is common. OffG and other commenters on this site manage to somehow maintain an obtuse blindness to all the indications in so very many events that bear testimony to the fact that they are a very-well confirmed phenomenon, containing certain clear hallmarks and are a phenomenon that is, alarmingly, increasingly common. I mean, there’s the Philadelphia event exactly one day after the Sydney event – not to mention so very many others.

OffG accuses me of inappropriate certitude. When you accept the phenomenon of these events that includes in its MO that THEY TELL US LOUD AND CLEAR that the event is staged then certitude is not inappropriate – it is perfectly appropriate in this circumstance. As I say above, even if you’re wrong in interpretation of one element in the event, these events are very forgiving because there are so many anomalies to choose from to make your case.

The only way you cannot recognise these events as staged, in fact, is to wilfully turn your head from the evidence. There is nothing scientific in rejection of these events as staged or sitting on the fence about them either. A clear-sighted examination of the evidence points to one conclusion clearly, excluding all others: they are staged.

flaxgirl

In case you don’t receive a notification and don’t happen to look, Elementor, I answer both you and Doctortrinate on their reply.

Seamus Padraig
Seamus Padraig

‘Hate crimes’ are just thought-crimes, pure and simple. They are now criminalizing political points of view. The Constitution is dead.

… even though the once-revered ACLU does not oppose the Second Amendment.

Of course the American Civil Liberties Union doesn’t oppose the Second Amendment–it’s a civil liberty! That being said, with things going the way they’re going, I wouldn’t be at all surprised in the ACLU eventually does turn against the Second Amendment. Once upon a time, not so many years ago, they were free speech absolutists as well–does anyone else here remember the infamous Skokie Nazis? The ACLU actually argued their case pro bono! But in more recent times, they have succumbed to the logic of the campus ‘hate speech’ craze.

Many legal scholars would respond that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the Due Process Clause in the Fifth Amendment already provides all American citizens with the guaranteed right to equal protection under the law …

And they would, too, if only the US government still followed its own constitution.

Harry Stotle
Harry Stotle

“Today, I am also directing the Department of Justice to propose legislation ensuring that those who commit hate crimes and mass murders face the death penalty, and that this capital punishment be delivered quickly, decisively, and without years of needless delay” – unless they are neocons in which case they can kill with impunity under the usual rubrics – ‘liberal intervention’, ‘bringing democracy’ or ‘humanitarian aid’.

Hell, we can even stage pop-festivals and invite grotesque figures like Sir Richard to belt out ‘Imagine’ while the local militia tool up with CIA hardware before wreaking havoc on unarmed civilians.

If western audiences become slightly sceptical the MSM will do its usual job of reassuring them that mass murder is an inconvenient externality when it comes to building a brighter future.

Elementor
Elementor

Why should the American public trust the MSM for what may have already been determined to be a ‘hate’ crime without providing evidence of the hate

Terrific point. Where do we draw the line on skepticism about official narratives? How much do we really know about these shootings, the identities of the shooters, even the reality of the crimes?

I don’t want to get into full “it’s a hoax” mode, but surely it’s only intelligent to recall there are documented cases of fake events and therefore being prepared to allow the possibility any event may be fake is objectively the only rational response. What stops us? Nothing more than the same kneejerk rejection that makes other people refuse to consider 9/11 may have been an inside job or JFK may not have been shot by LHO.

It’s not per se crazy to entertain the possibility, or per se offensive either. Fakery happens, we are constantly being manipulated, being aware of all possibilities is our only defense.

The same intelligence entities that coined the phrase “conspiracy theory” have also closed down any Youtube channels that dare to question, even in the most restrained and respectful way, the reality of any mass shooting. But sites like this condone that censorship, not seeing the connection.

Is it possible to have a non-binary, rational, fact-based discussion about the possibility some mass shootings may be fake?

I invite thoughts

John Thatcher
John Thatcher

The old adage,”The price of freedom is eternal vigilance” comes immediately to mind,and that particularly applies to government and government action.As you rightly point out,there have been too many examples of fake events and official lies for anybody to be complacent.Treat all with caution and judge on the weight and quality of the evidence.If the evidence is not conclusive in any direction maintain a sceptical state of mind.

Elementor
Elementor

So very true. And yet so many of the enlightened are unwilling to assimilate this into their thinking. You can call it laziness maybe. It’s tempting to simply replace the received wisdom of the mainstream media with the received wisdoms of the alternative media. But in this case what are we doing? More is needed of us, as you so rightly say.

How many are prepared for the continuous effort of questioning and skepticism required in order to be a truly independent and responsible human being?

The lack of responses so far here is not a good sign.

Hey there OffG columnists Phil Roddis, Ed Curtin, CJ Hopkins, Eric Zuesse, Renee Parsons, and hey there BigB, Jen, Maggie, Antonym, Mark, and other “stars” of this forum. People actually come here to read what you guys have to say. This question of fakery is a major subject impinging on our future freedom.

Who of you dares to address it?

edited by Admin at author’s request to correct typo

Elementor
Elementor

So no one wants to have a serious non-kerazee debate about the potential for fake shootings? Too far outside the Overton Window? How disappointing. It’s bizarre, even flaxgirl would rather troll the admins that just have a sensible debate with someone who’d like to talk to her.

Anna
Anna

Very good and valid question Elementor.

Not so very long ago, I happily dismissed most ‘fake shooting’ narratives as either merely far-right/lumpen (sorry for such a crass term)-baiting/monetising, conspiracy theories – of the Alex Jones variety.

However, after about two-three years of observing media biases, I find it so much easier to spot where the overriding narratives appear to reside. However the actual events unfold is often less important than their ultimate goal, which is of course mass censorship and getting round that terribly inconvenient Second Amendment. This is I believe, the main agenda of the so-called Hate Crime. Yes, I am aware that this makes me appear to some rather Info-Wars but that’s the joy of shedding my own confirmation bias!

I do now assume that there is state or states involvement in all these terror events. They are manipulated/controlled (of sorts), whether the perpetrator knows of it or not. Some may indeed be fake from the onset.

Empty vessels make the most noise and that is I’m afraid the state of corporate ‘journalism’, who mostly whore themselves for the state/oligarchy narrative. Be very aware of ANY story that is shilled verboten by these hacks, as they are awfully telling in the identification of agendas and the direction of our further enslavement.

flaxgirl

I’m always prepared to have a sensible debate, Elementor. Always. I wasn’t on my computer yesterday and haven’t seen all these posts. As far as I’m concerned all mass shooting/bombing and similar events breathlessly reported 24/7 around the world that I’ve ever looked at have been fakes … and unquestionably so. This is simply due to straightforward aspects of their modus operandi:

1. They always give us gratuitous clues with things not adding up, smiling grievers, contradictory versions of the story, physical impossibilities, inappropriate tone and register and on and on some of which simply CANNOT be shoehorned into “real” event.
(We can only infer this is some sort of legality)

2. They NEVER provide a single piece of evidence that a believer of their story can brandish to say, “Hey, this shows real.”

It is utterly impossible to say, “This event shows reality through x y, or z.” Impossible. I’ve proved it with my unresponded to $5,000 challenge. Not only has no one come up with the 10 points to meet the challenge, they’ve not come up with even a single one. I truly do not understand why it’s so difficult for people to get their head around this very straightforward phenomenon. As said by historian, Francis Richard Conolly, whose film, JFK to 9/11 Everything is a Rich Man’s Trick (search for it on YouTube – they keep removing it but you should find a version somewhere), first woke me up:

All terror is fake.

It’s just so simple and backed by clear evidence.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/5000-challenge.html

The only thing people can do to argue against fake is pick on hoaxer claims. So above you say you think the blood is not what I infer it to be. OK, I can be wrong in misinterpreting certain things in these events as I say above but I guarantee, Elementor, that you will not find a single, solitary piece of evidence with regard to the Philadelphia event that you can put forward as bearing testimony to its reality. And if you cannot do that then you have to ask yourself why you believe it. Shouldn’t there be something that looks pretty real?

axisofoil
axisofoil

Remember this?

MLS
MLS

Another level of fakery altogether, faking mind-control!