Yellow crime scene tape!!! It must be real!!

[This entry has been updated.]

IN the aftermath of real shootings, everything is done to save lives. Contained havoc prevails as victims are frantically treated and rushed to hospitals. Gore is visible and messy; rescuers are in too much of a rush to hide it. Trauma centers can sometimes save even those who have been shot in the head. Rarely is a victim conclusively declared dead at the scene and then left without being taken to the nearest trauma center. And if such poor treatment occurred, lawsuits would result.

In our day of pervasive cellphones, dozens of images of vivid carnage and its repulsive chaos would quickly emerge after a real mass shooting. In fake shootings, you see no evidence of this frantic rescue effort and no convincing gore. Instead, you see lots of police standing around or rushing into buildings (with a cameraman coincidentally nearby) as if they are on the set of a TV drama. These images are quickly replaced by those of official press conferences and people with red eyes and candles. As a former newspaper reporter, I can tell you that this is not how things work at real crime scenes where everything is done to save lives and detectives truly study the evidence, without rushing to declare instantly who the perpetrator is.

The default position for all synagogue or school shootings should be that they are staged political events until proven otherwise. Yes, they may be real, but evidence is needed before a rush to judgment. This rule insists on hard evidence, not just official reports. The Pittsburgh synagogue shooting strongly suggests staging. The almost immediate identification of the perpetrator — with no doubts — with a ready profile of him and his motives suggests staging. See more here on prominent signs of a hoax. (I do not endorse all the content on this site.) Police openly refer to an “actor” in the Pittsburgh shooting. Why did the virulent anti-Semite who allegedly committed this crime kill elderly people in Squirrel Hill? A commenter at Brother Nathanael’s site writes:

If a virulent anti-Jew — in this case, one Robert Bowers — was willing to throw away his own life with an attack, why would he target seniors at an inter-faith religious facility?

Seriously. Old retired Jews on Squirrel Hill is a far cry from the heart of the New World Order.

As a target, it’s utterly nonsensical.

Instead, he would go after high value and far more culpable targets.

The man condemned a slew of Judaics and their specific activities. So why didn’t he go after them? The story makes ZERO sense on its face.

Of course, mad killers don’t often make sense. But given that there was a active shooter drill at this very synagogue months ago, how did a mad man penetrate security? Where is the bloodshed? Is it a coincidence that he fits in with the agenda to censor the Internet?

As the Holocaust story crumbles and as more people awaken to a world controlled by a powerful crime syndicate and learn of the blood-thirsty side of Judaism, expect more and more Jewish “victims.” We are consoled amid this latest episode of what is very likely engineered mass hysteria by the unlikelihood of real victims or a trend toward violence, especially in America which has no history of anti-Jewish violence. Criticizing Jewish supremacism is not loony or the same as wishing Jews physical harm. It is, in fact, compatible with actually liking individual Jews and wishing them well.

Years ago, the British journalist Malcolm Muggeridge, who worked in television news, anticipated the false flags of today. In his book “Christ and the Media,” he warned that television would be used — and was already being used — for mass deception:

I remember once returning to my hotel in New York and noticing on the way that a crowd had assembled outside what was obviously an embassy or consulate of some sort — I found out afterwards that it belonged to one of the Arab countries. There were the usual students assembled — bra-less girls, bearded men, holding slogans with placards on them; also a police van in attendance, and a number of cops standing by with their truncheons — everything set for a demo. ‘What’s going on?’ I asked, and was told, as though it should have been obvious, that the cameras hadn’t yet turned up. I lingered on, until they came, and watched them set up and start rolling. Then, ‘Action!’ whereupon, placards were lifted, slogans shouted, fists clenched; a few demonstrators were arrested and pitched into the police van, and a few cops kicked, until, ‘Cut!’ Soon the cameras, the cops, and the demonstrators had all departed, leaving the street silent and deserted. Later, in the evening, in my hotel room, I watched the demo on the screen in one of the news programmes. It looked very impressive.

He also wrote:

I don’t myself in any way equate the invention of printing with the invention of television. There are enormous differences between the two, and one of the most obvious ones is that the printed word — which I hold in veneration — is not subject to the same centralised control as television.

Television news hypnotizes.

Some people get extremely angry when presented with this fact because they believe they are actually living a staged event. They would rather be deceived than admit to being deceived. They are like animals in a lab who have so often been artificially stimulated into a state of extreme alertness and panic that they cannot abide calm and a sense of control anymore. They are habituated to alarm.

Please follow and like us: