From Buffalo and Uvalde to January 6th, the Narratives Do Not Add Up

There have been a string of mass shooting events within the last few weeks, but has the official narrative been accurate? As has been covered previously, the Buffalo shooter was actually a gun control advocate who chose New York as the location for his heinous crime because he knew that nobody could stop him in a state where gun restrictions were some of the tightest in the country. Fox News has since reported that a retired (or perhaps not) federal agent participated in the shooter’s racist chatroom and may have known about the plot before it occurred, and some go even further, suggesting that the shooter was “groomed” to commit the act of terrorism. I cannot independently confirm that this was an entrapment case, or that the assailant was hired by the federal government, but if it turns out to be true, it would certainly not be unprecedented. We already know that the alleged kidnapping of the Michigan governor was a clear case of entrapment, and to capture potential Muslim terrorists after 9-11 and right-wing individuals who were mentally-unstable, the FBI has been quite fond of ruining people’s lives by giving them an opportunity to commit criminal acts that they likely would not have otherwise actually attempted. It would not be surprising if the Uvalde, Texas massacre and January 6th riot were orchestrated by the federal government in some capacity. At the very least, the government may have been informed or knew something was going to occur and did nothing to stop it, perhaps to further the anti-gun agenda (the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando also raises suspicion about the government’s intentions, being that agents were informed that something was going to occur and did nothing).

As the Left screams, like normal, that increased gun control would have prevented mass shootings, it is clear that background checks, for example, would not have prevented the incident (the shooter had previously passed a background check). Then, you hear: well, those measures may not have stopped this one, but they will surely stop the next one. The question becomes: at what point do you keep increasing gun measures? Do you keep going, with every thinkable restriction for every situation, until guns are banned completely? Perhaps that is what the Left ultimately wants, but for those on planet reality, we need to allow more people to own and carry guns in public as a deterrent. “But, there were ‘good guys with guns’ during the Uvalde shooting,” a random person on the left side of the room yells. Yeah, police officers, who were afraid to confront the gunman or ordered to stand down by higher officials, stood outside for an hour before acting. That hardly constitutes what pro-gun choice advocates argue. Maybe the anti-choice people should be more honest with their talking points.

For the untrained citizen, who generally has faith in government narratives, this was just a string of bad luck. You know, horrible acts happen all the time, and instead of blaming the perpetrator or looking into the details of the case further than what the headlines read, the simplistic anti-gun storyline has to be the most rational explanation, right? But, why did police officers sit outside of the classroom and not engage the shooter? How many additional people had to die because of their cowardice?

It has been reported that the police department for the city trained specifically for this type of event two months prior to the incident (perhaps like 9-11, COVID-19, and monkeypox, but of course, any such questioning would be considered a right-wing conspiracy theory full of disinformation). There was really no excuse (not even that they needed backup or a tactical team) for why the officers responded in the manner in which they did, but I am sure officials will cook up some kind of excuse in the upcoming days. “We are so very sorry. We do not know how this could have occurred, but we will train our officers even better than we trained them before,” will be famous line.

It was also peculiar how the teacher that inadvertently allowed the gunman to enter the school premise, had propped the door open, but then she realized that there was a shooter and quickly closed the door to prevent entry (at first, the narrative claimed that she had left the door propped open, allowing the gunman to enter, but this has since been changed). Conveniently for the shooter, the door had not locked the way it should have. Yes, mistakes happen and doors malfunction, but when there are multiple coincidences for the same incident, one must question how coincidental it actually is.

As CNN and NPR reported, the narrative with the Uvalde shooting has changed multiple times, and it seems as if nobody can get their stories straight. Officials claimed one thing, only to be contradicted at a later time. This is another reason to believe that there is something fishy about what happened. Was the shooter reacting to an MK-Ultra-type of conditioning? Did federal government experiments cause him to snap? Did the FBI sabotage the door so the shooter could enter unobstructed? We cannot know for sure, at this time, but there are questions that need answers other than the official propaganda.

In addition, the parents were prevented from saving their children. One parent was handcuffed, another thrown to the ground violently, and a third pepper-sprayed. One mother was able to make it past the guards and the fence and get her two children safely out of the building, but why were police so insistent that nobody could go into the building? If your children were trapped in an active shooter situation, what would you do, especially if the police were not acting? Why were the police treating parents like they were the enemy? Was it simply because they were “interfering in a federal investigation” and would have gotten in the way of the officers sitting around doing nothing? Maybe they were interfering in a federal experiment to see how parents would react to the police sitting around while their children were in danger. Bravo for the “protect and serve” mantra.

Now, the anti-gun rhetoric is being pumped out full time. I mean, after all, we have the most mass shootings of any civilized country, by far, and the most guns per capita, right? Well, the answer is probably half true. According to the Crime Prevention Research Center (and specifically John Lott), the United States is actually in the middle of the pack for mass shooting frequency and deaths (per capita), and the myth that there are more mass shootings in the United States than anywhere else originated from a suspect study by Adam Lankford from the University of Alabama (Lankford has been unwilling to reveal his methodology or data). The United States does, indeed, have too many mass shootings (many of which likely involve government agents persuading potential attackers to take the next step), but parroting unproven talking points does not make one correct. However, it does make for a good narrative for prohibiting firearms.

If it is suspected that some of the recent mass shooters and Michigan kidnappers had connections or interactions with the FBI, could the FBI have caused the January 6th rioters to act irrationally and in a criminal manner by egging them on to trespass on the Capitol grounds? An underreported fact is that the FBI actually found no evidence that an insurrection took place (an insurrection being “an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence”), being that the protesters were unarmed (except with maybe a flagpole), unorganized, and incapable of overthrowing the most powerful empire on the face of the planet. Plus, as Project Veritas has shown, there were FBI agents in the crowd of the rioters, thus further implicating the federal government in its participation and fueling of the “infamous” day. As I have said previously, videos emerging from that day show police officers letting the rioters enter the building, and since I have worked as a security forces member in the military and know that you cannot just allow unauthorized visitors to pass through checkpoints without orders to do so, it seems pretty obvious, to anyone who is not blinded by his or her hatred of the former president, that January 6th was set up to occur exactly as it did.

Yet, the Left continues to run with the “coup” narrative (just like the dishonest “good people on both sides” comment from President Trump and the false narrative that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia), and since the narrative is under the control of those pushing these ideas, independent and critical thinkers will, for a while, be considered conspiracy theorists and disinformation spreaders. If, as The New York Times reporter, Matthew Rosenberg, has suggested about the January 6th riots being overblown by the Left for ratings and to paint the picture of the Right as dangerous terrorists are true, it means that a witch hunt for Trump-supporters could be underway. Measures to further chip away at self-defense rights are also in the works (a new gun control package, signed into law by Governor Kathy Hochul, has already been forced upon the people of Upstate New York against their will and without the chance for recourse). Our rights are disappearing slowly, and it seems as if most Americans are oblivious to it.

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.