The Narrative on the Buffalo, New York Shooter Does Not Match Reality
Another mass shooting has occurred, and because it was racially motivated with a potential for a conversation on more gun control, the corporate media cannot stop talking about it (this week, anyways). The gunman picked a Tops Friendly Market in Buffalo, New York because he knew that there would be a high proportion of black people, and his detailed manifesto on an absurd replacement theory was telling of what his motives were. He intended to target black people first, and then he wanted to eventually eradicate Jews because they were the ones that he claimed were ultimately trying to replace the white race. There can be no doubt, if the manifesto can be confirmed as authentic, that the shooter was a devout white supremacist and anti-Semite, and it is disgusting that people still have these sorts of views in the modern era. However, the politicization, on both sides of the aisle, has brought up many issues, and this will only add to the gun control and narrative crusade that the Left seems to want to wage nationwide.
Of course, the Left, understandably, would condemn the white supremacy aspect of this shooting and argue that these things should not be tolerated in our free society (yet, it ignores the other recent shooting in New York City, where the man was a black nationalist with a grudge against white people, because it did not fit the narrative so well), and although almost everyone in the nation would agree that white supremacy and racism are immoral, the agenda seems to be to blame the Right for the attacks and push for censorship of certain ideas. In the last couple days, I have listened to progressive/liberal podcasts on the matter, and the message that was clearly taken away was that Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro were to blame for the Buffalo shooting because they were enabling white supremacists to take such actions. This ignores the fact that the shooter actually mentioned that Ben Shapiro and other Fox News hosts were Jewish, and therefore, they were quoted as being part of the problem with America (how can Ben Shapiro and Fox News be criticized by the assailant while simultaneously being the inspiration for the attack?).
The Left’s narrative on this starts to break down even more after you realize that not only was the shooter a fascist, but he also advocated for environmentalism, socialism, and increased gun control (well, congratulations, shooter, because you might just get what you wanted out of this). This is far from the so-called Right-wing conspiracy theorist and Trump-supporting camp that the Left puts this perpetrator in. It appears that the culprit does not fit neatly into either end of the American political spectrum, but the corporate media will not mention his full views because it is trying to create a narrative around the shooting. Eventually, the facts will be revealed at the bottom of news articles in a few weeks after the public has forgotten about it. This highlights the media’s strategy of pushing agendas before the facts are known to get people in line with the narrative (in this case, the race-dividing narrative), and then the retractions can be released when nobody cares anymore, thus cementing the original narrative in their heads for future use.
To a critical-thinking mind, it is irresponsible to blame your political rival’s opinions as the inspiration for heinous crimes. Tucker Carlson, for example, may have opinions that are offensive and race-baiting, but to say that he caused the attacker to take a gun and go shoot black people is ludicrous, especially given that the shooter was critical of Fox News. If someone takes what I have to say during my critiques of our foreign policy out of context, for example, and uses my material to justify placing a bomb in the Pentagon, am I responsible for the terrorist’s actions? Yet, the Left desires censorship of all information that it views as dangerous (many adhering to this perspective genuinely believe that certain narratives should be censored for the greater good of society, so this push is not necessarily nefarious), which then brings up whether censorship of certain speech is acceptable in a free society.
As part of New York Attorney General Letitia James’ investigation into the incident, unelected Governor Kathy Hochul made it clear that social media companies must “examine their policies” and “take responsibility and be held accountable.” In other words, the government wants more regulations and public partnerships to force businesses to comply with what state officials demand (a version of abridgement of free speech that is outlawed in the U.S. and New York Constitutions). Again, blaming others for inspiring criminal behavior is irresponsible and devoid of deep thinking, but politicians look for any simplistic manner of control that they can exercise. We should know by now the direction that this country is headed when it comes to the First Amendment and scapegoating certain political ideologies (particularly with the Department of Homeland Security’s measures), but the words coming from the governor are blatant.
The Left thinks that it is helping the security of the nation by attempting to pressure social media companies to prohibit certain material from remaining on their platforms, but in reality, it is their prohibitions against that information that is the real problem. If you would like to combat bad or erroneous speech, instead of wasting energy on banning it, put effort into releasing better and more factual information to combat it (free exchange of ideas). What happens when someday the Left loses political power and it finds itself a victim of the Right trying to censor information about immigration, climate change, or abortion? If you believe that the Right should be able to arbitrarily determine this type of information as threatening and censor it, fine, but if not, perhaps you need to check whether you truly believe in free speech, or whether you are doing this for power and control. Free speech is about principles and fighting for the right of people to say things that you personally find abhorrent and dangerous. If you pick and choose which things are acceptable to say based on your own political views, you do not really believe in free speech.
Moreover from the lack of journalistic integrity from the corporate media and liberal podcasters on this issue, what is interesting is that the shooter chose New York to commit his crime because the state has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. He knew, with much certainty, that nobody in the store or area would have a gun that would be capable of stopping him, and if anyone did have guns, they would only have limited ammunition (the NY SAFE Act ended up not being so safe). Many mass shootings take place in gun-free zones (like schools) for this reason. So, what was the logic that liberal politicians used after the shooting? Well, of course, the answer is even more gun control. So, instead of listening to the reasoning of the person who committed the crime, we must do the complete opposite because gun control is always the agenda whenever a mass shooting occurs. But here, we have more evidence that gun control is often counterproductive and harmful to the population, as the shooter knew that the population was unarmed and was able to act with ease. If multiple people in the supermarket had had guns, someone could have easily stopped the terrorist.
Was the shooting a false flag or an attempt by the Left to get its desired gun measures expedited before it potentially loses power after the midterm elections? Something does not add up, as the shooter advocated for more gun control and was liberal-leaning on certain issues. Perhaps he was just a mentally unstable boy full of hatred and bent on destroying people’s lives, or perhaps he was hired to do the bidding. We will probably never know conclusively, as the information will be suppressed, revealed too late after the fact, or labeled as disinformation.
In conclusion, I will leave you with a quote from Thomas Jefferson:
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man”
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.
05/20/22 Update on New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s Response to the Buffalo Shooting (social media post)
The unelected governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, has issued new executive orders, outside of the legislative process, to force the State Police to create a new division within the New York State Intelligence Center to track people, based on her definition of extremism and radicalization, and to strengthen the state's Red Flag Law. She is admitting (the state legislature and the former governor are to blame as well) that the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments* are just suggestions. She is also hoping to work with the Department of Homeland Security, which is attempting to arbitrarily determine what is considered truth and censor information that runs contrary to it, to stamp out whatever she deems as dangerous speech (which, of course, will be abused). This is covert authoritarianism, and hardly anyone cares. Unbelievable.
*Bill of Rights violations:
First Amendment: monitoring people based on their political beliefs and affiliations, and making people fear searching for certain topics because they might become a target (called "chilling")
Second Amendment: making it difficult to purchase and retain firearms, and guns could be confiscated at the government's whim ("clear and convincing evidence" of "substantial risk of physical harm" can really mean anything, if manipulated)
Fourth Amendment: issuing warrants quietly and without scrutiny (like is the case with FISA warrants) for both gun confiscations and arrests for alleged violent crime (or domestic terrorism)
Fifth Amendment: taking guns with lack of due process (a crime must actually have been committed for property to be seized, and the government cannot conclusively know that a person will commit a crime), sometimes based on tips from family members, "friends," and fallible law enforcement agents; and the accused (but not convicted) will not be able to reasonably challenge the seizure
Of course, the Left, understandably, would condemn the white supremacy aspect of this shooting and argue that these things should not be tolerated in our free society (yet, it ignores the other recent shooting in New York City, where the man was a black nationalist with a grudge against white people, because it did not fit the narrative so well), and although almost everyone in the nation would agree that white supremacy and racism are immoral, the agenda seems to be to blame the Right for the attacks and push for censorship of certain ideas. In the last couple days, I have listened to progressive/liberal podcasts on the matter, and the message that was clearly taken away was that Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro were to blame for the Buffalo shooting because they were enabling white supremacists to take such actions. This ignores the fact that the shooter actually mentioned that Ben Shapiro and other Fox News hosts were Jewish, and therefore, they were quoted as being part of the problem with America (how can Ben Shapiro and Fox News be criticized by the assailant while simultaneously being the inspiration for the attack?).
The Left’s narrative on this starts to break down even more after you realize that not only was the shooter a fascist, but he also advocated for environmentalism, socialism, and increased gun control (well, congratulations, shooter, because you might just get what you wanted out of this). This is far from the so-called Right-wing conspiracy theorist and Trump-supporting camp that the Left puts this perpetrator in. It appears that the culprit does not fit neatly into either end of the American political spectrum, but the corporate media will not mention his full views because it is trying to create a narrative around the shooting. Eventually, the facts will be revealed at the bottom of news articles in a few weeks after the public has forgotten about it. This highlights the media’s strategy of pushing agendas before the facts are known to get people in line with the narrative (in this case, the race-dividing narrative), and then the retractions can be released when nobody cares anymore, thus cementing the original narrative in their heads for future use.
To a critical-thinking mind, it is irresponsible to blame your political rival’s opinions as the inspiration for heinous crimes. Tucker Carlson, for example, may have opinions that are offensive and race-baiting, but to say that he caused the attacker to take a gun and go shoot black people is ludicrous, especially given that the shooter was critical of Fox News. If someone takes what I have to say during my critiques of our foreign policy out of context, for example, and uses my material to justify placing a bomb in the Pentagon, am I responsible for the terrorist’s actions? Yet, the Left desires censorship of all information that it views as dangerous (many adhering to this perspective genuinely believe that certain narratives should be censored for the greater good of society, so this push is not necessarily nefarious), which then brings up whether censorship of certain speech is acceptable in a free society.
As part of New York Attorney General Letitia James’ investigation into the incident, unelected Governor Kathy Hochul made it clear that social media companies must “examine their policies” and “take responsibility and be held accountable.” In other words, the government wants more regulations and public partnerships to force businesses to comply with what state officials demand (a version of abridgement of free speech that is outlawed in the U.S. and New York Constitutions). Again, blaming others for inspiring criminal behavior is irresponsible and devoid of deep thinking, but politicians look for any simplistic manner of control that they can exercise. We should know by now the direction that this country is headed when it comes to the First Amendment and scapegoating certain political ideologies (particularly with the Department of Homeland Security’s measures), but the words coming from the governor are blatant.
The Left thinks that it is helping the security of the nation by attempting to pressure social media companies to prohibit certain material from remaining on their platforms, but in reality, it is their prohibitions against that information that is the real problem. If you would like to combat bad or erroneous speech, instead of wasting energy on banning it, put effort into releasing better and more factual information to combat it (free exchange of ideas). What happens when someday the Left loses political power and it finds itself a victim of the Right trying to censor information about immigration, climate change, or abortion? If you believe that the Right should be able to arbitrarily determine this type of information as threatening and censor it, fine, but if not, perhaps you need to check whether you truly believe in free speech, or whether you are doing this for power and control. Free speech is about principles and fighting for the right of people to say things that you personally find abhorrent and dangerous. If you pick and choose which things are acceptable to say based on your own political views, you do not really believe in free speech.
Moreover from the lack of journalistic integrity from the corporate media and liberal podcasters on this issue, what is interesting is that the shooter chose New York to commit his crime because the state has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. He knew, with much certainty, that nobody in the store or area would have a gun that would be capable of stopping him, and if anyone did have guns, they would only have limited ammunition (the NY SAFE Act ended up not being so safe). Many mass shootings take place in gun-free zones (like schools) for this reason. So, what was the logic that liberal politicians used after the shooting? Well, of course, the answer is even more gun control. So, instead of listening to the reasoning of the person who committed the crime, we must do the complete opposite because gun control is always the agenda whenever a mass shooting occurs. But here, we have more evidence that gun control is often counterproductive and harmful to the population, as the shooter knew that the population was unarmed and was able to act with ease. If multiple people in the supermarket had had guns, someone could have easily stopped the terrorist.
Was the shooting a false flag or an attempt by the Left to get its desired gun measures expedited before it potentially loses power after the midterm elections? Something does not add up, as the shooter advocated for more gun control and was liberal-leaning on certain issues. Perhaps he was just a mentally unstable boy full of hatred and bent on destroying people’s lives, or perhaps he was hired to do the bidding. We will probably never know conclusively, as the information will be suppressed, revealed too late after the fact, or labeled as disinformation.
In conclusion, I will leave you with a quote from Thomas Jefferson:
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man”
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.
05/20/22 Update on New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s Response to the Buffalo Shooting (social media post)
The unelected governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, has issued new executive orders, outside of the legislative process, to force the State Police to create a new division within the New York State Intelligence Center to track people, based on her definition of extremism and radicalization, and to strengthen the state's Red Flag Law. She is admitting (the state legislature and the former governor are to blame as well) that the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments* are just suggestions. She is also hoping to work with the Department of Homeland Security, which is attempting to arbitrarily determine what is considered truth and censor information that runs contrary to it, to stamp out whatever she deems as dangerous speech (which, of course, will be abused). This is covert authoritarianism, and hardly anyone cares. Unbelievable.
*Bill of Rights violations:
First Amendment: monitoring people based on their political beliefs and affiliations, and making people fear searching for certain topics because they might become a target (called "chilling")
Second Amendment: making it difficult to purchase and retain firearms, and guns could be confiscated at the government's whim ("clear and convincing evidence" of "substantial risk of physical harm" can really mean anything, if manipulated)
Fourth Amendment: issuing warrants quietly and without scrutiny (like is the case with FISA warrants) for both gun confiscations and arrests for alleged violent crime (or domestic terrorism)
Fifth Amendment: taking guns with lack of due process (a crime must actually have been committed for property to be seized, and the government cannot conclusively know that a person will commit a crime), sometimes based on tips from family members, "friends," and fallible law enforcement agents; and the accused (but not convicted) will not be able to reasonably challenge the seizure
No comments have been added yet.
