Note to readers: My sister S. is a highly-educated, cultured and intelligent person; a wife and mother of five gorgeous and talented children; a gardener who is formally-trained in the culinary arts; and a lovely person. She has spent most of her adult life in Paris and now London.
Shortly after the Uvalde shootings, S. wrote this brief message to our family:
“The NRA needs to go. What is happening over there???” [That is, the US.]
This essay is my response. Please feel free to forward it to your loved ones. And your friends and colleagues.
Dear S.,
I have delayed replying to your email out of respect for the dead and the grieving. The loss of any innocent person, especially a child, and especially in an act of mass violence, is a calamity beyond words.
However, the highest respect we can pay them is telling the truth about what actually happened, however difficult that is to do; and however difficult it is to face.
In this letter, I intend to reframe the narrative around Uvalde to more fully comprehend it. The actual story is far more troubling and horrifying than you have been led to believe. And by the end, I hope you will see what the Uvalde murders truly signify.
I. What is Media “Framing”?
When you listen to, or watch, or read virtually any “news” you are not obtaining information; or at least this is secondary. You are primarily absorbing their framing of that information; and often unwittingly.
Framing theory describes how we organize and structure the basic facts of an event in order to convey its meaning. In other words, framing—which is an inescapable aspect of all media communication—influences how you perceive and understand the significance of an event.
And just as one can lie with words and statistics, one can also mislead by how a thing is framed. Indeed, it is a particularly effective mode of deception; in part because it is usually quite difficult to detect.
Why? Because framing often deceives not by what it says, but by what it does not say; not by what it shows, but by what it leaves out.
This selectivity can also be seen in the meta-framing of an “event.” Consider, for example, the near silence around the regular mass-murdering of Christians in Africa. Even just a few weeks ago, more than 50 Christians were slaughtered by a "lone gunman" during a Pentecost Mass in a Catholic Church in southwest Nigeria. What is it about Uvalde that makes it so much more “newsworthy”—and somehow more significant—than these appalling mass murdering sprees?
The end or purpose of all media framing—indeed, the very business they are in—is to provoke emotions; and to encourage you to come to a preordained conclusion about what an event means or signifies (X event signifies → B). The emotion helps to short-circuit reason and keeps the “news”-consuming public mesmerized and addicted to “The Current Thing.” And the preordained conclusion is almost always a politically-expedient one. (Presumably, the African mass murders do not serve the media’s pre-ordained conclusions.)
Nevertheless, when the entire media complex frames an event in precisely the same way (Uvalde signifies → We need gun control), with even identical words, phrases and images, alarm bells should go off in your mind. (This is true even when the media offer up superficial polarities to convey the impression that a broad range of perspectives is being presented. Fox News comes to mind; indeed, this is one of their roles.)
The framing around Uvalde was so uniformly consistent that it’s hard to resist seeing it as coordinated and deliberate; especially as the messaging was so disconnected from what actually happened, as I hope to show you below.
If we can widen the hyper-narrow lens angle by which the media has framed the Uvalde murders, perhaps we might perceive the very questions their framing has suppressed?
In Section II, we’ll first look at gun control in general, in order to provide what I believe to be indispensable context. Thereafter, Section III describes what actually happened in Uvalde, and Section IV points to what the murders signify, before concluding in Section V.
II. 12 aspects of gun control obscured by media-framing
1. “Why do you need a gun? Isn’t that why we have the police?”
The police very rarely intervene in violent crimes (I have read less than 1%, which seems about right).
Protection against bodily harm is primarily your responsibility. Why?
First, because in the vast majority of cases, law enforcement cannot possibly protect you; it’s simply a matter of numbers and time.
Second, law enforcement are not legally obligated to protect you. The Supreme Court has ruled—twice—that the police are not legally obligated to put themselves in harm’s way to protect you.
As we’ll see in Section III: the Uvalde police stood around, armed to the teeth, and did absolutely nothing for more than an hour while Ramos slaughtered 19 children and 2 adults; they later claimed they were waiting for weapons they already had; and still later that they were waiting for a key for a door that wasn’t locked. (And never tried; and anyway, who lets a locked door stop you from saving children from a murderer? It gets worse, as you’ll see in Section III.)
Nevertheless, parents were forced (handcuffed) to sit and listen to the mayhem and murder inside the school. (Can you imagine the nightmare? Put yourself in their shoes in that moment: didn’t a parent in that position have the right to attempt to save their child if no one else was going to try? And as we shall see, one brave mother escaped the handcuffs and saved her children from harm, while 19 officers absurdly stood around for no apparently good reason.
Legally and morally, your safety and the safety of your loved ones is ultimately your responsibility. Stripping you of this right, and forcing you to depend upon people with no legal duty to protect you (assuming they happen to be there in the first place), and even forcing you to listen to the murdering in this case, is not only unconstitutional, it is criminal and evil.
And let it not go unsaid: law enforcement can be indeed counted on to show up after the fact; and draw a white chalk line around the strewn corpse(s).
2. “Hunting and firearms for sport are fine; it’s those semi-automatic assault rifles that I have a problem with.”
Do you know what “semi-automatic” means? It means that every time you pull the trigger, the gun fires a single bullet. This is true with virtually every modern gun in existence. Including hunting rifles. The term “semi-automatic” is used merely to distinguish most firearms from “fully automatic" weapons (commonly referred to a "machine guns"), and from much earlier firearms that required re-loading between each firing (for example, muskets.)
What exactly do you mean by an “assault rifle”? Do you mean the addition of a brace or a tripod? Or a scope, or some fancy-looking military-style cosmetic doo-dad? Many hunting rifles have—or could have—those things. None of which change the nature of the firearm.
In other words, the phrase the media has taught you to use—“semi-automatic assault rifles”—is meaningless twaddle. Why might they mislead you?
Finally, the 2nd Amendment—in intent, in origin, and meaning—has very little to do with hunting...
3. The intent—and only coherent meaning—of the 2nd Amendment is to affirm a fundamental right to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your property.
(Hint: the colonists were not concerned about being able to hunt; nor did the Framers risk their lives, liberty and fortunes—and the very real threat of being hanged—to secure a right to own firearms merely for pleasure.)
The meaning of the Amendment rests entirely upon the main and independent clause in italics.
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Regarding the first and dependent clause (“A well regulated militia”), the body of the Constitution provides for a standing army, so there would have been zero need for reduplicative language.
Moreover, the content and purpose of the Bill of Rights (comprising the first 10 Amendments) was not to enumerate additional powers of government, but to outline, secure and protect the fundmental “rights of the people” as individuals vis-à-vis the Federal Government.
In this context, it’s worth remembering that in the immediate aftermath of the drafting of the Constitution, the majority remained fearful that the Constitution as a whole might spawn an ever-growing Federal leviathan government. Without these Amendments, and the affirmations and protections they afforded, the Constitution would never have been ratified.
The only ambiguities in the 2nd Amendment are those imagined by people who simply don’t like what the Amendment actually says.
But what about the Right itself? Does a female have a right to protect herself from a rapist? Must she submit because you don’t think she should have a gun to equalize the situation? Does an elderly couple have a right to protect themselves from persons intent on theft and physical harm? Does a teacher or a parent have the right to protect their children from harm when no one else can or will?
These questions practically answer themselves. And that Right, as with all fundamental rights, cannot be legitimately taken away by the State; in part because such rights aren’t “granted” or “allowed” by the State in the first place. That is why they are called “inalienable” (or, in the earlier language of the 18th century, “unalienable.”)
We have fundamental rights by virtue of our humanity. Fundamental rights exist prior to the State. (By prior, I mean ontologically prior; not temporally, or some imagined/hypothetical state of nature.)
Indeed, that is the primary purpose of the State: to secure these fundamental rights.
4. “But the Constitution was written in a time when most people were farmers; we don’t live in that world anymore.”
True enough. It’s also irrelevant: what does the fact that we no longer live in an agrarian society have anything to do with the right to protect yourself?
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was self-protection.
And that right to “self protection” includes the Right to protect ourselves against the State.
Have governments become any more trustworthy in the intervening centuries since 1787?
Or have governments become even far more deadly?
Did we not just endure the most bloody-century of all human history? 200 million people—200 million—were murdered by governments, not by lone gunmen.
See a pattern yet? Is the 2nd Amendment the problem?
5. “Protection against the state? That is laughable. Personal firearms cannot possibly protect you. You would “need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.”
First, anyone in an official capacity who talks like that, particularly an alleged inhabitant of the Oval Office (*cough*, “Bidan”), should be arrested and tried for covertly threatening the population.
Second, personal firearms are like a lock on your door. Virtually no lock will ultimately deter a determined intruder. What is the point of a lock? To make a potential intruder think twice; and to slow him down should he try. Both reasons are rational and useful; which is why we all use locks. (Apparently, even an unlocked lock worked in Uvalde.)
And just as an intruder would prefer you don’t use a lock, any would-be oppressor would rather the population be unarmed; which is why they always push for total monopoly on the use of force.
So, third, let’s look at what happens when populations are no longer protected by that metaphorical “lock”…
6. What happens when the citizens are disarmed and the State’s monopoly over the legal use of force is absolute?
Abolishing personal firearms is almost always the first action taken by an oppressive regime. And the outcome is almost always tyranny and mass murder.
In connection with the Nigerian massacre on Pentecost June 5th, 2022 mentioned above, a correspondent wrote:
In my country, Nigeria, where Muslims and Fulanis can go on a killing spree and most times encounter resistance from communities that armed themselves against these attacks on Christian communities, the government came with a plea to lay down guns for a promised protection to increase both army and police presence, the communities believed and gave up their guns. Two days after the agreement, the government switched off her promise and the worst massacre was recorded. Arm yourself, protect your loved ones.
Here is the undeniable historical pattern: when firearms are abolished and/or confiscated or voluntarily relinquished (as in Australia) —> Tyranny and Mass Murder.
Turkey established gun control in 1911. Soon after, 1.5 million Armenians unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. Soon after, about 20 million dissidents unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. Soon after, 20 million political dissidents unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938. Soon after, a total of 13 million people unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. Soon after, one million people unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. Soon after, 100,000 Mayan Indians unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. Soon after, 300,000 Christians unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
Venezuela established Desarma La Violencia to disarm citizens in 2010. Once one of the richest countries in Latin America, Venezuela is currently free falling into violent unrest, extreme poverty and tyrannical free-fall.
Australia established gun control in 1996. Right now, Australian citizens are being brutalized and terrorized by their tyrannical government.
New Zealand expanded gun control in 2019. Right now, New Zealand citizens are being brutalized and terrorized by their tyrannical government.
Canada expanded gun control in 2020. Right now, Canadian citizens are being brutalized and terrorized by their tyrannical government.
Is all that just a coincidence? Of course it was always argued, then as now: “this is for your protection.” Indeed, it is always argued that every action to reduce your sovereignty is “Für Ihre Sicherheit" (“for your safety.”)
WHO’S NEXT? The US is one of the last places left on earth where regular citizens are armed. That is why the 2nd Amendment is a target by the New World Order. Where we go, the world goes. We are right now in the midst of a worldwide counterinsurgency; and we will prevail.
Gun Control is always about civilian disarmament and ultimately control of the population. It is always about tyranny. And mass murder and genocide frequently and almost invariably follow.
“But that wouldn’t happen here and now.” That is what all those people said back then too. And think about it: during the past two years, the entire world sat and watched and cooperated with one of the most diabolical war crimes and crimes against humanity in human history: a worldwide program to lockdown the population, destroy civil liberties and wealth, and inject half the population with an untested, yet novel and totally ineffective, substance that irrevocably impaired the immune system of billions of people; which has resulted in millions permanently injured, and many hundreds of thousands dead.
While the long-term consequences are as difficult to conceive as they are to predict, one thing is for sure: a decade ago most people would have said, and in point of fact did say: “coercing world’s population to take a harmful vaccine over nothing cannot happen here and now.” But it did, no?
See a pattern yet? “Vaccines” are their new weapon. Is the 2nd Amendment the problem?
7. Gun control only disarms law-abiding citizens
Here’s one of hundreds of examples: after hurricane Katrina, law enforcement went house to house and confiscated firearms, and with the predictable result: months and months of armed gangs raping, pillaging, and terrorizing the un-armed citizens who dutifully gave up their firearms.
If outlawing firearms works, why don’t we just outlaw violence? Or crime? Indeed, why not just outlaw mass murders?
Do you really believe that a psycho-path, or a lunatic, or a criminal is going to surrender their firearm? Do you really think they will still not be able to get one? Even if you think this were possible decades ago, this is no longer really possible: anyone if they wish can now obtain a firearm, regardless of the law.
(To clarify this point, it is worth noting that with 3D printing and the increasing availability of home kits, the entire 2nd Amendment debate is rapidly becoming irrelevant. One can even order all of the small parts and assemble them into a very deadly firearm. You cannot conceivably outlaw or prevent the sale of parts.)
In any case, how would you feel if you had given up your firearm after Katrina, only to be forced to watch your husband being beaten to death, or your daughter raped at gunpoint, or your son forcibly “recruited” by gangs who didn’t give up their firearms? And you could not protect them or yourself because you did?
8. “Saving Lives” isn’t the motivation behind gun control.
Here are three reasons among many why:
9 million people die annually of starvation. 3 million of them are children. When was the last time you heard a politician or the media try to create a hysteria around this far worse crisis? It is something quite solvable; there is more than enough food to feed the entire earth’s population, and then some (though the NWO folks are trying to disrupt our food supply too.)
Ever wonder why we don’t hear about starvation incessantly? (Except when we’re asked to send money to a corrupt organization to allegedly relieve the symptom or outcome. Ever notice how the actual cause of famine is never mentioned, let alone addressed? Instead, it’s presented as some sort of act of nature.) Why? Because much like murder and violence, the primary cause of starvation are governments. Starvation is almost always orchestrated murder. Starvation is a political weapon. (But I thought gun-control proponents were actuated by a primary concern to “save lives”?)
Every weekend, in the south side of Chicago, families and children are gunned down. Young black children die brutal deaths by gunshot every day, every week, every month in this and other “blue”/Dem-controlled inner cities. And the media refuses to report on it except intermittently and in the most perfunctory manner.
Why don’t you hear about these murders incessantly in the media? Because these cities have very strict guns laws. And because these deaths go against their case for gun control, they apparently would rather you not know about them. (But I thought “gun control” was about saving human lives?)
Abortion: 63 million dead thus far. It's seems more than a bit rich for the entire media and nearly the entire political class to be hysterically calling for gun control when nearly to a person they support a dubious “right” to murder a human life (if it’s not your body, it’s murder) in the womb. Indeed, the death of 63 million infants—which is nothing less than genocide—is celebrated by these same people.
If saving human life were actually the primary concern, gun control wouldn’t even be a tertiary issue. But see how it’s always front and center?
Ever ask yourself why? Because their primary concern isn’t to “save lives.” It’s to disarm the population.
9. Guns save far more lives than the media allows you to know.
Here are a few examples among many.
Media ignores historical counterfactuals: how many lives would have been saved in the 20th century from death by governments if populations hadn’t been disarmed (see above)?
Media ignores actual examples of guns saving lives. Nearly every week we see examples of people being saved by their own firearm, or that of a passerby. During nearly every major school shooting in the past decade, there have been examples that very day of an armed person saving one or many people from a would-be murderer. Update: here is a recent example.
Media ignores how mandatory gun laws have reduced crime. For example, when Kennesaw, Georgia passed a gun ordinance in 1982 that required all heads of a household to own a firearm and ammunition, violent crime decreased significantly; and has stayed very low ever since.
10. “No one is trying to take your guns away.”
Of course they say that. Even, if not especially, when they are attempting to pass legislation to do exactly that. Observe their actions, not how they characterize them.
@RedPillPharmacist on Telegram had a brilliant take on this.
Look, nobody is coming for your abortions. Okay? What we really want is common sense abortion control. That means mandatory background checks with mental health assessments; along with entering a national registry for abortions and paying a $200 tax stamp (that could take up to one year on a waitlist to receive.) We would seek to outlaw assault abortions occurring after the 1st trimester along with high capacity abortions including twins and triplets. And ultimately we would like to limit the number of abortions that any person can have, because nobody needs to have more than one abortion.
Right?
11. “Okay, I believe you about ‘semi-automatic assault rifles.’ But can’t we at least do something reasonable and ban those dangerous large-capacity clips?”
Yes, you could ban them; however, it’s a relatively simple matter to manufacture and jerry-rig a large-capacity clip into your firearm. Most firearm enthusiasts are more than capable of this.
But more to the point: do you think a psycho-path, or a lunatic, or a criminal is going to refrain from fitting his firearm with a large-capacity clip because it’s “banned”?
If banning works so well, why don’t we just ban violence? Or crime? Indeed, why not just ban mass murders?
12. This entire debate is a prime example of : “for me but not for thee”
One cannot help notice that the people calling the most loudly for “gun control” already have lethal firearm protection—either private or public security, and this 24/7—that is immune from the changes they propose.
It’s rather like all of those politicians and high-profile celebrities who
talk about how “walls don’t work,” while living behind acres of them (while also allowing criminals to stream across our national borders to terrorize regular, tax-paying, unarmed citizens.)
lament the use of fossil fuel, yet fly on private jets (which are incredibly wasteful in every respect, including fuel.)
celebrate the “right” to abortion, while they themselves have escaped having their skull crushed, their limbs torn off and ripped apart, and their parts vacuumed out of the womb—a baby that was alive, with a heartbeat and brainwaves, a child that can feel pain, who would have been breastfeeding in a few months—in what is cheerfully called “a health procedure.”
I’ll tell you what, let’s make a deal: we’ll give up our guns if Nancy Pelosi et al give up theirs.
Deal?
Okay, so let’s take a look at what happened in Uvalde, much of which was deliberately kept “outside” the media’s framing of the event.
III. 3 Primary Questions about Uvalde that were concealed by media-framing
(Nota bene: The Uvalde Murder spree is an ongoing and fluid situation; even as I write to you, more horrors are emerging about how this was handled…)
1. Why did law enforcement stand around, armed to the teeth and do absolutely nothing for an hour and 15 minutes while nineteen children and two adults were slaughtered?
Official testimony confirms Uvalde officers were ready—with enough firepower---to breach the door 3 minutes after shooter entered the building, when no one had been murdered yet. But they waited 1 hour 14 minutes 8 seconds to do anything.
“Three minutes after the subject entered the west building, there was a sufficient number of armed officers wearing body armor to isolate, distract and neutralize the subject.” Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steve McGraw said in prepared testimony.
Absolutely stunning and horrifying beyond words. Incompetence? Cowardice? Or orchestrated & deliberate?
2. Why did the police handcuff parents and bystanders from taking action if they would not?
Can you imagine being such a parent? The rage and helplessness at hearing what they were forced to hear? It’s an evil that is difficult to imagine.
And how was a regular Mom able to do what the police were unwilling to do—or too afraid to do; or, perhaps unable because under orders to stand down—all the while bullets were still flying in the school?
Here is this Mom’s amazing story:
Angeli Rose Gomez drove to the school and attempted to enter it to save her two children;
The police detained Ms. Gomez and handcuffed her to prevent her from entering the school;
She escaped the handcuffs;
She hopped a fence;
She went inside the school and walked out with her two children. The end.
This intrepid mother did all this while 19 law enforcement officials stool waiting—fully armed and with bullet proof clothing/shields—outside the classroom where the gunman was; and while bullets were still flying in the school.
Now she is claiming that police threatened her with “a probation violation for obstruction of justice” if she spoke to media. Given the bizarre behavior and the lies of the Uvalde police, I’m inclined to believe her. If her claim is true, care to speculate why they might threaten her?
3. Why did the Uvalde police outright lie about what happened after the fact?
The official timeline says that within three (3) minutes of Ramos entering the school, 11 officers had done so as well.
What was their stated reason for waiting 1 hour and 15 minute before actually doing anything?
They first said they were waiting for shields and weapons. But Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steve McGraw testified they were sufficiently armed upon entry. And even if they had only handguns: there were 11 of them, more than sufficient to take out a single amateur gunman.
Moreover, beyond McGraw’s testimony, we can prove they lied: we have visual evidence that they certainly had firearms and shields at 11.52:28. They didn't enter the classroom for another 58 minutes. They stood around while kids were being shot; while those already shot were bleeding to death; while kids called 911 and begged for help. THEY fuxxing stood there. And then they lied about it.
Their second excuse? Get this. They were waiting for a key.
Let me be really clear here: they were waiting for a key to a door that was NOT locked. And now they have admitted that they did not even try the door.
But even so, suppose it was locked, let me ask you: WHO ON EARTH WAITS FOR A KEY TO A DOOR—EVEN IF LOCKED—WHILE CHILDREN INSIDE ARE BEING MASSACRED?
Even if it had been locked, a normal person would have broken down the door. Right?
Let’s recap this point: the Uvalde police were waiting for weapons they already had and for a key to a door that was not locked, while children were being massacred behind the door. Bleeding to death. Shrieking for help. Calling 911.
But “we were waiting for a fuxxing key.”
Right.
It’s the 2nd Amendment thats the problem here folks. Clearly.
Additional problems with the media framing of Uvalde
Why isn’t the media asking: why did Uvalde file a lawsuit to prevent bodycam footage (which taxpayers own) from being made public? We own that footage and we want to see it. The media should be demanding it. Notice the crickets?
Why isn’t the media asking these and other things about Ramos?:
How did a kid with no money (described as "poor" by his peers; and apparently bullied for being so) purchase $10,000 worth of Daniel Defense rifles, optics, & ammo?
How did he own a new $18k truck but apparently did not drive or have a license?
How did he own a $1000k cell phone?
Why isn’t the media asking: why did the police ignore Ramos’ threats and violent behavior online and in real life, which was reported over and over again, for weeks?
Ramos was known by the police as troubled; he was apparently on psychotropics and had a therapist (or, MK-ultra “handler”?);
Ramos had a social media account telling people exactly what he was going to do (btw, why wasn’t he banned?);
Ramos threatened to kill his grandmother; police were called, nothing was done.
Why isn’t the media asking: why did a teacher—who saw Ramos crash his truck nearby and get out of it while shooting—prop open the door when she saw him coming towards the school? It’s inexplicable by any normal frame of reference; and it goes against every instinct.
Why isn’t the media asking: why hasn’t Police Chief Pete Arredondo been arrested? Is it because law enforcement do not actually have a legal obligation to protect you or your children? (Update: a few of my readers have written to say that Arredondo is deeply connected with Beto O'Rourke and his anti-gun crusade; which I am unable to confirm as yet.)
Now ask yourself: is all that the fault of the 2nd Amendment? The NRA?
Or, does the entire incident not illustrate exactly the importance of the 2nd Amendment? And those who will defend it? Including the NRA?
Now, please. Think about these two options: which is more plausible? (Sadly, there is really no third option here, at least as far as I know.)
Either:
Uvalde law enforcement were too cowardly, too stupid, too lazy, or too whatever to do their job.
Or what happened at Uvalde is intentional. A False Flag event. Orchestrated mass murder.
While Option 1 might make us feel marginally better—and while logically possible—it is improbable in the extreme. They waited around for equipment they already had?They were waiting for a key for a door that was not locked? (And who on earth lets a locked door stop you from saving children from being slaughtered?) They stood there, listening to the screams of the children? They handcuffed parents from doing anything? And yet, a regular mom escaped and went in and got her children, unarmed and unafraid?
No one is this stupid or cowardly. And sadly, I have no third explanation.
And all this from a police force that had just a few weeks ago undergone training for this exact scenario? (Which is highly typical with False Flags; Anons believe that footage from these exercises is often used by the media after the fact.)
Either way you conclude—whichever option you go with—you might want to keep your firearms. What could be more clear: either the police cannot be counted on to protect you and your loved ones; or they simply won’t.
And even more to the point: you might want to think twice about allowing them to use this orchestrated event to justify taking your firearms away.
Did I just say orchestrated event? Yup. Option #2 fits the pattern.
IV. False Flag Operations: Uvalde fits the overall pattern
The Pattern is the same, over and over: an orchestrated deadly event for media framing -> preordained conclusion by the media-consumers: “we need to get rid of the 2nd Amendment.”
Same Pattern, same plan. Same moronic media personalities, politicians and celebrities (controlled assets) calling in unison for gun control; in the same language, etc.
(NB: For those who don’t know, a False Flag Operation is an act committed with the intent of disguising the actual source of responsibility and pinning blame on another party.)
What is the general pattern at work in these orchestrated events?
The “story” as the media frames it is utterly improbable and riddled with inconsistencies and impossibilities.
For example: consider the Mandalay Bay shooting, 2017, which was allegedly the deadliest mass shooting by a single individual in US history. We were expected to believe that:
A frail man with a heart condition somehow dragged thousands of pounds of firearms and ammo into a hotel with no one noticing?
The perpetrator fired these high-powered weapons for an hour without stopping, when even a highly-trained navy seal could not do so without a break every ten minutes or so? (Moreover, the weapons get too hot, so he would have had to replace, and get into place, new weapons at regular intervals. Not an easy thing for a single shooter to do, even if highly conditioned and trained.)
The photographs of his room showed no shells on the floor. Not one. But after that amount of firing, the floor would have been inch-thick in them.
The eye witnesses who were first interviewed must have all been blind (what are the odds?): they all claimed independently that the shots came from far below where the alleged gunman had a room. These interviews were all taken down from Youtube, as the alternative story about a "lone gunman" emerged from the media.
For some reason law enforcement inexplicably delayed in stopping the alleged assailant who had free reign to shoot unarmed concert goers at will, like fish in a tragic barrel. Strange.
Uvalde? Yup. Check. (I’ve received many letters from readers recounting the same improbabilities in all the school shootings, Sandy Hook, etc. I concur but that will have to await another article.)
A troubled, unstable and usually very young person who has been making credible threats of violence, both online and in real life, all of which go ignored. The person is typically on psychotropics of some kind, which are known to cause suicidal and homicidal ideation and violence. One wonders: what else was in their blood stream? And yet, an autopsy report is never provided.
Uvalde? Check. We’ll see about that autopsy.
The perpetrator has a therapist (Mk-ultra “handler”) who is deeply connected with the FBI, and who subsequently disappears.
Very common. Not sure about Uvalde yet. My best guess is “yes.”
The perpetrator is allowed an hour or so to shoot without interruption.
Uvalde? Check.
The perpetrator is eventually killed by the police.
Uvalde? Check. (This is called terminating the patsy.)
There is nearly always a “simulation event” near the date and place of the shooting, often involving the exact same people. (We believe these exercises provide footage that is used afterwards by the media to show the event.)
Uvalde? Check: the Uvalde officers had "trained" for this exact scenario just a few days prior. As we’ve seen, something was either terribly wrong with their “training” or this event (and that training exercise) isn’t what the population thinks it is.
The site of the massacre is always bulldozed before evidence can be collected.
Uvalde? Check. Pretty much all of these “events.”
All video/cam footage is confiscated and sealed.
Uvalde? Check. Pretty much all of these “events.”
The same Crisis Actors show up again and again to play various roles.
Unclear wrt Uvalde. But very typical.
No one is ever ultimately held accountable. The only conclusion we’re supposed to draw is to get rid of the 2nd Amendment. Because clearly that’s the problem here.
We’ll see about Uvalde.
The Uvalde murders fit the pattern. Highly likely it’s a False Flag event.
But almost all of the media coverage has obscured all this from you, in favor of a framing meant to get you to conclude: “the 2nd Amendment must go.”
V. Conclusion: We don't have a 2nd Amendment problem
Do away with the NRA? Or do away with the manipulative and far more powerful media?
Do away with guns? Or with out-of-control, unconstrained, un-Constitutional government? Such governments have killed (and will kill) FAR MORE PEOPLE than individual citizens with firearms, the vast majority of whom are responsible and safe gun owners and users.
It seems absurd in the extreme to lecture regular citizens about owning firearms, when:
More than 200 million people were murdered by governments in the 20th century alone. So far the 21st looks at least as bad if not worse. “Vaccines” are their latest weapons.
63 million children have been murdered in their mother’s wombs. Abortion is a weapon.
9 million people each year die of starvation caused by governments. Starvation is a weapon.
The death of 19 children and 2 adults was allowed to happen; either because law enforcement refused to protect them for one reason or another; or because this was a deliberately orchestrated event.
Either way, what does any of that have to do with individual firearm ownership and use? With the NRA? With the 2nd Amendment?
Doesn’t the entire Uvalde incident illustrate exactly the importance of the 2nd Amendment? And those who will defend it? Including the NRA?
We are as a world sliding rapidly into tyranny. And particularly at this time, it might be wise to be a bit skeptical of the "news," especially when it comes to anything that encourages you to conclude that we need to disarm the population.
They want us divided and unarmed; they want us uninformed and weak; they want to control and even cull the population.
Genocide is as old as human history. And the weapons are as diverse as they are wicked. The Armenians were tied to trees and the trees set on fire. The Jews were sent to gas chambers. The Rwandan Hutu killed nearly a million Tutsi with machetes.
Finally, you may have noticed that unlike many of the previous school shootings, this time the media has actually been forced to cover at least some of the discrepancies, general weirdness, and outright deception that is always at the heart of these horrifying “events.”
Thanks to Anons, awareness about—and more importantly, insight into—False Flag mass murders has grown considerably in the past five years.
Warfare is evolving and “all the world’s a stage.”
*****My dear sister, I am quite certain my attempt to “reframe” Uvalde didn’t make either of us feel better; no doubt it made you feel worse; we've gone from a single lunatic to deliberately organized mass murder. But however disturbing, it's always better to know things as they really are.
Of course, I may not have changed your mind at all.
And I sympathize: the idea that tragedies like this would be orchestrated is, I know, very hard to believe and accept. And even if you do start to perceive events in light of this letter, there is a natural tendency to retreat back into the media-narrative. It seems safer; it feels morally righteous; and it is simply easier to conform to, and in every respect: socially, professionally and psychologically, and so on.
I do not say any of this about Uvalde with anything but a heavy heart and sorrow. Many difficult truths about the world are emerging. And this is a big one. But I assure you, others are coming. And it is going to take some time for the world to absorb them. I have seen it time and again: not only grief but anger and feelings of betrayal are, in my experience, among the first responses when learning the truth about how the world actually works.
But at the very least, I hope that the conclusions encouraged by the media-framing (the NRA must go; we need gun control) now seem unwarranted.
At any rate, I hope you are well. I do miss you and your family. All my very best to them. Hope to see all of you this July/August. I am still unvaccinated, however, and that will not change. Not ever.
Love,
David
.