Was Mercer An ISIS Plant?

Why did CNN attempt to turn a black man into a white man? Curious minds want to know.

Guest Post by Karl Denninger

Things get more curious by the day…

First, there has been floating around for the last few days a report that the shooter in Oregon was on a Russian Terror Watchlist — one that that Obama administration refused to consider.  All the sources on this point to a somewhat-sketchy European point of origin, but it definitely bears watching.

Then there is the “curious” CNN whitewash of the shooter’s face.  The shooter was clearly a black man and yet CNN did severe violence to his complexion, whitening it to look like a white guy who had never seen the outdoors!  In the process, however, the managed to delete the moles on his face, which gave away their deception since the image that they used as a source with the background intact (and thus easily compared) is still around.  Why, CNN, did you attempt to change the apparent race of the shooter?

Third, if this man was indeed not crazy but instead an ISIS/ISIL/MuzzieNutjob or both then that destroys the narrative being pressed by Obama (and now Hitlery too) on gun control, doesn’t it?  Never mind that Hitlery’s “forefront charge”, she claims, is facially bankrupt.  She has said she wants “100% background checks at gun shows” and has promised to do so via “executive action” should she be elected.  Well, Oregon already has that via state law.  It did nothing to change outcomes, did it?

I remind everyone that virtually every mass-shooting, with a couple of exceptions over the last two decades, has taken place in a so-called “gun free” zone.

Obviously criminals prefer to shoot at unarmed peasants (and, possibly, other criminals) rather than face the possibility that an armed, peaceful citizen might be present.  If we really wanted to do something about these sorts of situations we’d encourage people to be armed since the clear history shows that criminals prefer places where the absence of defensive armament has been declared.  Remove that and they’ll have to face the odds of someone prepared and able to offer effective resistance.

There are also those who claim that “nobody” (as in “civilian”) has ever stopped a mass murder incident.  False.  I have a few examples that required no research whatsoever; they are entirely from memory.  The first was the Clackamas mall shooter that a concealed-carrying citizen confronted; the shooter, who was armed with a rifle killed himself upon being confronted — the concealed carry holder was almost-certainly seen targeting him after he drew as he was forced to seek cover by the gunman; his line of fire was obstructed by innocents who might have otherwise been hit.  The second was very recent; an armed Uber driver this spring shot and stopped a gunman who opened fire into a crowd of people at Logan Square Mall.  The third was the nutjob in the food plant in Oklahoma a year or so ago; he was shot and killed by the COO who grabbed a firearm and ended the assault.

Then there is the case of a civilian that ignored the rules and had a gun anyway, even though he wasn’t supposed to.  That would be the doctor in the psychiatric clinic in Pennsylvania, where an enraged man shot and killed a caseworker and then shot the doctor, wounding him.  Despite the office being a posted “murder here all you want” (that is, “Gun Free”) zone the doctor had a gun, drew it and shot the perpetrator, ending the assault.

Why is it that Rolling Stone intentionally lies about this, along with the rest of the media and politicians?  It’s because they know good and damn well that if you face the facts head-on you cannot prevent someone hellbent on murder from acquiring whatever they wish to use.  You can try, but you will fail, and when (not if) you fail you then have simply turned the populace into targets on a shooting range.  This is unacceptable and that the politicians know this is true is evidenced by the fact that Hillary, as a former Secretary of State and First Lady, and President Obama along with the “important” people in both major political parties have gun-toting guards around and with them 24 hours a day.

The first thing we must do as a society is take down the “Unarmed Citizen Shooting Range” signs from our schools and other venues around the country.  It is utterly outrageous that we advertise to crazed felons-to-be that they have the best odds of completing their crimes unopposed in places where our children are present, among others — but the worst part of this outrage is when we consign our children to such a place and they are both forced to be there and incapable mentally of consenting on their own.  If you wish to walk into such a place voluntarily (e.g. a shopping mall) that’s your call but you have no right to force others, especially young people without the ability to give or decline consent under our legal system, do so.

Second, we must recognize that once any person is willing to commit murder all the other crimes you can concoct for him or her to be convicted of up to and beyond that point are immaterial.  This is basic logic; you cannot execute a man nor imprison him for life more than once.  Since a nutjob needs only one firearm or, for that matter, any other implement of destruction to commit his act you would need to get rid of all of said implements, or substantially all of them, to make them inaccessible.  Unless you intend to start by disarming the police, Secret Service and similar (and we know you’re not) you’re wasting your time.

Third, we place AEDs in public places and encourage private businesses to have them because if you’re having a heart attack the 3 minutes it takes for the ALS folks to get there is 3 more minutes than you have and the presence of that AED might save your life.  The same 3 minutes is required for the cops to get there when a bad guy shows up and starts shooting; the presence of armed civilians might save your life.  There are no guarantees in either circumstance but I will take all the odds-shifting I can get in my favor should something ugly of that nature occur, whether it be a heart attack of a nutjob with a gun.  For this reason I want to encourage people to be armed and, in my opinion, so should you.

Finally, we as citizens have a duty to call out all of the politicians and media who intentionally lie about these matters.  These are not mistakes, they are intentional acts.  CNN didn’t “accidentally” alter the shooter’s appearance and neither Rolling Stone or any other media outlet accidentally reported that “no armed civilian has stopped a mass-shooting.”

Both are blatant falsehoods and when it comes to media outlets they exist on advertising dollars.  It is your duty as a citizen who has an interest in the truth to boycott every single advertiser associated with or running ads on any media outlet that intentionally runs a false narrative when it comes to matters of life and death.

The reason for this is simple: The life or death involved next time may well yours or that of someone you love.

70
Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
razzle
razzle

Gotta start somewhere…

@AP
— “We should remember that people live their lives in different degrees of moral development”

Not quite. We should remember that people have difference *preferences* for how they want the world around them to operate. These preferences cause conflicting approaches to problem solving.

Can you empirically measure a person’s “degree” of moral development?

— “…and refrain from undermining that foundational belief…”

For the same reason you refrain from undermining your house’s foundation. Physics.

— “…if for no other reason than compassion for people who still wrestle with questions like, “why be moral?”

Nothing to do with compassion. Cause and effect of making other humans the end of the line when it comes to accountability.

— “…for people who still wrestle with questions like, “why be moral?””

Very few people struggle with why be moral. They struggle with having enough information to make a decent decision. The statement that “without God anything is possible” is remarking on what happens when a person is taught that “to be moral” is to do what their government says, what their priest says, etc. Once you have a generation inclined toward earthly accountability… you can convince them to do anything.

Organized religions are being discredited by the same people who propped them up *specifically* because they have a fatal flaw despite their historic success at controlling people. That flaw is the moment a person or group remembers they can appeal straight to God when their fallible religious leaders tell them to do something where they would rather suffer the earthly consequences and face their idea eternity.

Even if they are wrong about eternity… that emotional bonding agent can not be allowed to continue because it provides too much resistance to those who wish to mold everyone. Again… it’s a physics problem.

— “…The “purpose” and “nature” of “God” is to be that ideal of the bridge that allows people to reach – how to say it? – a higher level of moral development, a realization of their potential.”

At its most pragmatic level… it is a check and balance of power.

razzle
razzle

@AP
— “My *preference* is for a World with more Beauty.”

What is your preference for other people’s standard of beauty?

— “But for more Beauty to come into being, it must begin with an act of Creation…”

And destruction.

In order for a garden to appear, native wildlife must be destroyed. In order for native wildlife to appear, the garden must decay. Which do you choose? What is your cutoff where you have too much of one or the other?

— “…so I have a bias in favor of acts of Creation over Destruction;”

Nonsense. You have a bias toward things you like… everything you like exists because someone else someone else likes went away.

— “…which leads to a working principle, “Do not destroy that which doesn’t seek the destruction of other things.””

What did the blank canvas seek? What did the aborted zygote seek? What did the creatures that lived where you now live seek? What did the clay seek?

When do you say enough is enough to humans who only know how to survive via parasitism? They don’t *want* to destroy… but will do so eventually without meaning to. When do you decide to pull the plug on a person in a coma that is bankrupting your family? When and how do you decide to react to a woman who wants nothing more than to teach your young boy about sex and has the best of intentions?

— “This for me is sufficient to justify refraining from an action that I would subjectively define as murder. “”

Do you establish any “best practices” at work or at home in order to prevent problems from arising… or do you wait until the problems are guaranteed to cause failure to act?

Is it murder to enact social policies which are the social equivalent of feeding cancer in the interest of not being inhumane to cancer cells which don’t *mean* to hurt… they just don’t know any better?

razzle
razzle

This seems like it is a good baton hand-off rather than me continue on for several more long posts.

@AP
— “I agree that I cannot objectively define actions, such as murder, yet I have a *preference* that some actions be held reprehensible by the community.”

Survival of the fittest is one approach to morality.
Survival of everyone is another approach to morality.

The first has a clear precedence in nature. It is proven to be sustainable and allows for a vast variety of life and ways of being.

The second… well… you tell me.

razzle
razzle

To my perception… much of the modern world’s approach to morality is akin to a person who turns their headlights off while driving at night, not immediately crashing, and thinking they could always drive like that.

There is little long term vision and while a small percentage of people might actually make it home safe, they are the exception to the rule.

When you add new drivers to the road who have never driven those roads and thus have no memory of the patterns to the paths they can follow… the difficulty in navigating without a “beacon” besides the tail lights ahead of them that might be just as lost becomes insurmountable.

razzle
razzle

@AP
— “Perhaps I will, but the concept has so little present reality for me, that I cannot summon a feeling of apprehension, merely curiosity:”

It is interesting and worth noting your assumption that your lack of feeling apprehension is relevant. Feeling apprehension at an accounting is only relevant if the person believes they are going to come up short.

This is why I use the word accountable as opposed to judgement. An accounting can be something that a person can look forward to… as you mention next.

— ““How did I do? Did I pass?” I believe such an encounter would be a boon, necessary feedback on whether lessons were learned.”

Absolutely, I hold no conflict with this point of view.

— “Eternal punishment simply cannot be reconciled with my conception of the Truth.”

Perhaps some assholes have distorted the concept of “eternal punishment” in order to trick people into either obeying… or in your case… to reject the notion entirely. Let’s look at it a different way.

A person is having a hard time making ends meet and is in debt to some dangerous people. They sell their youngest child to get out of a debt, believing the person who is taking them to have good plans for their child. They don’t hear about that child for the rest of their life, but that child endured a life of abuse and died an early death.

The parent dies and now enters a dimension where nothing is hidden anymore. The “eternal punishment” would be better described as “eternal memory”.

The “accounting” process metaphor would be something like this. A 2D in Flatland being asked to calculate the trajectory of a ship flying through our 3D solar system will find the idea either crazy… or irrelevant. However a 3D being will find it fairly trivial… and a 4D being will not even have to calculate because the entire path will be visible at once the same way a 2D picture is visible to us all at once but a flat lander can only see portions of it at a time.

This accounting process would be similar… what we consider relevant or even possible from our vantage becomes trivial to downright obvious from another point of view. It is easy for the flat lander to lie to themselves about what the picture is and their part in it… however the Sphere Worlder can see the whole thing at once.

I consider being held accountable to be a boon as well. However you can tell a lot about our fellow travelers by how they react to the idea of everyone seeing them in full. Sure we’re not supposed to make assumptions… and in a world where human judgement can cause innocent people to feel the need to hide… and guilty people to be eager to show off… there is truth to it.

But there is also an undeniable reason why some people NEED to believe that they won’t find their entire life naked after death and it has nothing to do with whether God or “Truth” are rational concepts for them.

razzle
razzle

@TJF
— “Organized religion over history has not been a force for peace and love as much as it has been a force for hate, violence and predation. It serves as a mechanism for control of the people.”

I’m not a fan of organized religion, but Vox Day has done some great legwork in “Irrational Atheists” deconstructing this and laying out the cold hard numbers for you. Feel free to try to prove his analysis wrong… he’s dying for someone to take a crack at it.

Religion certainly is one mechanism for control of people… just like laws against murder are. Are you against laws against murder? 😉

— “I say that only the dead know what happens after death with any certainty and they’re not talking much about it.”

Well… lots of commentary has been written about it with a lot of people saying that the dead have said a great deal. You just reject all of it and conclude that nobody is saying anything.

Perhaps it’s just sour grapes because they haven’t talked to you? 😉

— “If you could explain to me why you think that something like the Golden Rule cannot exist without the belief in God, I would love to hear it.”

Which Golden Rule? The one where so long as you are ok with them doing something to you, you are free to do it to others? Or the one where so long as someone doesn’t want you to do something, you can’t do it?

Or that abstract almost meaningless one which is just a platitude that makes people think they’ve cracked the morality nut but in truth have just kicked it down the road because they live in a time of such resource abundance they don’t have to make any real decisions?

There are a lot of ways to interpret the Golden Rule, just like there are a lot of ways to interpret The Bible.

There is only one way to interpret “The truth about what I knew, thought, and felt when I acted will not be hidden”.

Discover more from The Burning Platform

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading