Yet More Shootings
First the Buffalo, NY shooting, and now the Uvalde, TX shooting… sowing outrage and dissent against the concept of gun-ownership, while simultaneously just in time to allow the powers that be to try to distract you from things like the failed Disinformation Board being ‘put on pause’ (rather than disbanded), or the formula-shortage-for-you-but-not-illegals fiasco, or the inflation and package shrinkage. Any of the million things that impact you directly, the Powers That Be want to distract you from in order to further their own goals.
And what better distraction than mass-shootings?
Betrayal, at a Fundamental Level
There is a fundamental betrayal in-play here, aside from these events being played for obvious political points, and to illustrate the magnitude of this treachery by those who are ostensibly our leaders, let us employ what I’ve heard as an exercise in law-school: where a case is presented and the details are added or slightly changed and re-presented again to illuminate the subtleties of the law, of guilt and innocence.
Similarly, we will use a modified Uvalde as our case for this:
- You are a juror, called in on the trial of one of the Uvalde, TX shooters; the facts and details of the case are given and witnesses take the stand, and the accused himself during his testimony he confesses that “I’d do it again, the bastards had it coming!” — what is your gut reaction there?
- Now, in this context the ‘bastards’ in question are the police, and it was several of these who were shot, not the children — does this change your verdict? If so, how? If not, why?
- Lastly, what if one of the ‘details’ in point #1 was that the accused was a parent, the father of one of the children, going to save his child from the danger, being hindered by the police? Does this change your verdict?
Now, you still might be inclined to call the father guilty, thinking “the police are there to stop the shooter. They have a duty to protect the public, that includes both the parents and the children.”… but this flies in the face of legal reality of Warren vs District of Colombia where the courts have ruled that there is no duty for the police to protect any particular private citizen: they have no duty to you, to children, to the elderly, their only duty is to the nebulous ‘public good’ (that obviously includes politicians and judges).
Indeed, given that there appears to be a link between the Buffalo shooter and the FBI, via a retired agent, and the police in Uvalde holding back parents one has to ask “Is everything a false-flag?” and “Is everything being used against me?” Especially considering that there is some evidence that Uvalde had some form of military involvement, and with Biden suggesting that the schoolhouse (evidence) be destroyed…
The answer is ‘probably’ — if the government leaders and authorities doesn’t see you as part of ‘their people’, why would you imagine that they would do anything for your benefit? Indeed, this is the betrayal that hurts and outrages us the most: those in leadership positions sacrificing their people to their own benefit, and this was illustrated as a counter-example of leadership in an excellent video titled “Why Leaders Eat Last”.
Much of this separation into us vs them in the realm of government authorities, at least at the local level, can be seen in the transition from “Peace Officers” to “Law Enforcement” — though some people note that the latter should more accurately be called “Revenue Enhancement Officers”, especially in cases involving asset forfeiture.
Law-Enforcement vs. Peace-Officers
The difference in peace officer vs law enforcement can be subtle, and difficult to articulate, but consider the scenario of teenagers doing stupid things: in the law enforcement mentality the laws must be enforced, and “throw the book at ‘em Dano!” whereas with a peace officer, it would be more typical to give them a lecture (maybe the proverbial ‘smack upside the head’ and “Don’t be dumb!”), take them to their parents, and resolve things there at the lowest levels: in one it is all about how the Rules must be followed, in the other it is about “keeping the peace” — sure, sometimes you need to arrest someone, peace officers did that too, but the focus was less on hard compliance-enforcement and more on the community itself (which does need rules — but the rules are made for the community, not the community for the rules)… and what we see now in our own police is the penultimate evolution of the Law Enforcement Mindset: a slavish enforcement of The Rules, though selectively, and a disregard to the community at-large. (The last form that Law Enforcement will take is that of pushing policies and rules that are literally illegal, justifying themselves that because they have authority they must be in the moral right, and anyone opposing them must be morally evil.)
The reason that the tyrants wish you disarmed, is precisely so that this may happen — Noah Webster said it very well, that with an armed population enforcing unjust laws cannot be done:
On that note, I wonder how long it will be before “I’m with the F.B.I.” will be seen with the same emotional-response of revulsion and disgust as “I’m a NAZI” would get you.