Politics

Last month, a shooter opened fire in a Catholic church. The immediate backstory of the shooter being transgender fit the current social fears of ideological conservatives. Almost immediately, news media seemed to forget about the current administration’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Conservatives also seem to be heralding Trump’s commitment to expand military deployments in American cities, something they would have raged against had the previous administration engaged in the same practices. Why was the media covering this particular shooting, with a near orgy of evidence released immediately, while completely glazing over the assassination of a Blackstone executive whose industry has been ravishing the consumer housing market? Now we see another assassination of a prominent conservative speaker, in full view of hundreds of students at a university. Immediately there is polarization and massive coverage of the event from every media outlet. Examining what the major outlets are covering and what they’re downplaying can paint a picture of what may be coming later this year.

Blackstone and the Housing Market

On July 28th, a gunman opened fire in a New York City business tower, killing four people¹. Investigators claimed he carried a hand-written note stating the reason for the shooting was due to brain injuries and the NFL². When journalists mention the name of the Blackstone executive Wesley LePatner, it’s always with phrases like “loving wife” or “mother³.” They don’t mention she was the CEO of BREIT, the Blackstone Real Estate Interest Trust that has spent over $100 billion buying up homes and rentals across the United States while constantly raising housing rates⁴⁵. She was leading a company that, like other BlackRock real estate subsidiaries, was buying out entire markets of homes, turning them into rentals and forcing up the price of housing across America⁶.

The story of the shooter being upset over the NFL seems like a coverup. We are told to believe he drove halfway across the country to shoot someone on the 33rd floor of an executive building with a rifle and then turned it on himself⁷. It seems more likely this was some type of hit on a prominent executive. It furthers my belief that the Luigi Mangione case was a planned psychological operation. If anything, LePatner should have been Mangione Part 2: the assassination of a female, lady-boss CEO responsible for driving up housing prices and crushing an already demoralized subset of Americans who believe they will never be able to afford a home⁸. Instead, the details of this case have been immediately swept under the rug. It’s an important news story to not forget about, because it’s a shining example of how big media has the ability to quash stories that should stoke American outrage.

Burning the Flag

Near the end of August, President Trump signed an executive order for prosecuting the burning of the American flag. He claimed this executive order would result in someone burning an American flag receiving one year of jail time⁹. In reality, the executive order doesn’t specify prison time. It only advises that the Attorney General prosecute existing ordinances if someone burns a flag, such as property damage or disturbance of the peace crimes¹⁰. It shows that the president doesn’t read his own executive orders¹¹.

It’s a rather silly issue, as the Supreme Court ruled that flag burning was constitutionally protected speech in their 1989 Texas v. Johnson decision. What’s also interesting is that Hillary Clinton co-sponsored a bill to imprison flag burners as well in 2005¹².

Flag burning can be a heated issue. Symbols are powerful and emotionally loaded for a reason. Yet in America, we also understand the essential and undeniable importance of speech. Even at the January 6th protest, a small sample size of woman-on-the-street interviews showed that at least some conservatives understood why flag burning was protected speech¹³.

Perhaps the recent executive order was intended as a response to the man who was sentenced to fifteen years for burning a pride flag in Iowa¹⁴. In that situation, he stole the flag from a church, committed arson, and had his sentence compounded by previous felonies¹⁵. Still, the sentence seemed excessive. The issue of flag burning is one of many that can make people heated across the political spectrum, even though it is ultimately a silly thing not even worthy of the anger it generates. Trump’s executive order was just a part of a series of divisive escalations. It wasn’t even original, just a rehash of a beaten-to-death trope to distract everyone from actual violations of American values.

The Catholic School Shooting

On August 27th, two children were killed and eighteen others injured in a shooting at a Catholic church in Minneapolis¹⁶. The alleged shooter was Robert Westman. People immediately focused on how Westman was transgender, having changed his identity to Robin Westman¹⁷. Almost immediately, the news reported on the shooter’s deleted social media videos, and the various guns featured with phrases like “Nuke India,” “Israel must fall,” and “Kill Donald Trump” written on them¹⁸. A witness claimed he heard gunshots, identified them as from a rifle and not a handgun, and heard “30 to 50” shots¹⁹.

It’s interesting how in this particular shooting, there was an immediate plethora of evidence, discovered online or released almost immediately²⁰. The shooter, who spouted anti-Israel sentiment, didn’t target the nearby synagogue or yeshiva, but instead attacked Catholic school children during mass²¹. The details of the Catholic church shooting fit perfectly into a growing narrative involving transgenderism, mental instability and gun violence. They are convenient narrative details: a tragedy with dead children that’s immediately exploitable in the growing tension of the American politic. It’s given the spotlight, front and center, completely overshadowing the killing of a Blackstone executive and the Epstein files debacle.

President Trump’s administration claimed the Department of Justice was “reviewing ways to ensure that mentally ill individuals suffering from gender dysphoria are unable to obtain firearms while they are unstable and unwell²².” Just like that, many conservatives who once stood united on Second Amendment gun rights are now willing to compromise due to the threat of transgender shooters, clamoring for what are essentially Red Flag Laws.

Send in the Clowns Troops

On Monday, August 11th, Donald Trump deployed federal troops in Washington, D.C., under the Home Rule Act of 1973 (signed under Nixon), branding the event as “Liberation Day²³.” In his speech, Trump spoke of his intentions to expand troop deployment efforts to New York City, Baltimore, Oakland and others²⁴. In a leaked memo obtained by The New Republic, the Department of Homeland Security was anticipating increased use of the military in urban centers under the justification of fighting gangs, cartels and illegal immigration²⁵.

“I cannot believe the same people who would have completely shit themselves if Biden did this, if Kamala Harris did it, if Obama did it. .. Where are they? They’re nowhere. They’re like, ‘Oh it’s okay when my preferred dictator does it…’” -Melissa Dykes, TruthStream Media²⁶

On the Ground in The District

I’ve talked to several friends who either currently live around D.C. or were originally from the area. One of my friends is concerned about the strong-arm tactics of military deployment. She doesn’t think they will fundamentally address the issues leading to most of the crime, considering the city government was already making progress in that regard. She was also concerned about the rounding up of the homeless, what Trump referred to as “beatification” projects²⁷. I couldn’t help but think about how China displaced homeless people in preparation for hosting the Olympic Games in Beijing²⁸.

Another more conservative friend was in favor of the efforts. She had spent years in D.C. and argued the situation with crime was quite substantive, and the city’s efforts were not really going to address it. Another individual cited his concerns about the military patrolling areas around news and media outlets. While deploying troops domestically within a federal district is one thing, the expansion to other cities should raise serious concerns.

Chicago and Beyond

In a later broadcast in August, Trump referred to Chicago as a “killing field” while also trying to claim, “I’m not a dictator²⁹,” in reference to sending troops into the city. I lived in Chicago for over three years, in the neighborhoods of Logan Square, Old Town and South Loop. There were times when I’d see news of shootings in places I had been, yet I had never personally had a gun pulled on me or seen anyone shot. I did lose a phone to a pickpocket on the Blue Line, and an attempt was made to break into my car (although nothing was stolen). When looking at crime in Chicago, shootings are mostly concentrated in very specific neighborhoods³⁰. When I first moved to Chicago, I often walked and cycled through some of these neighborhoods, ignorant of how dangerous they were.

Chicago crime problems stem mostly from gang violence. No amount of National Guard presence is truly going to make a difference within those neighborhoods. People seem to have already forgotten that the National Guard was deployed in Chicago during the last Trump presidency after the George Floyd riots. Directly across from my apartment building, Humvees lined up in the afternoon in a gas station parking lot. The following days I saw them at intersections in nearly every direction.

When the National Guard was brought in to add stability after the riots, it began a process of normalization. It didn’t start with Trump. George W. Bush deployed troops domestically in 2008 to carry out crowd control in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act³¹³². Everyone, no matter what side of the political spectrum they fall on, should be greatly concerned with the deployment and use of troops domestically for any purpose. It’s a great overreach and leads to a very dangerous path.

“There’s a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people” -Commander Adama. Battlestar Galactica³³ (TV Show 2004)

The Shooting of Charlie Kirk

On September 10th, the eve of the anniversary of 9/11, Charlie Kirk was shot and killed during a question and answer session at a speaking event at Utah Valley University. Numerous students were in attendance, and the videos of the assassination are quite horrific. What was equally horrific were the people who were celebrating his death. There was protest, even during a moment of silence for Kirk, on the floor of the House of Representatives³⁴. I have a feeling many of the people making light of this situation probably didn’t know who Kirk was, beyond a vague notion that he should be hated because he was on the wrong side. I personally only thought of him as someone who was occasionally a guest on Tim Pool, unaware that he was also a co-founder of Turning Point USA.

Charlie Kirk is not without his controversial statements. He’d openly advocated for death penalty executions to be “public, quick and televised,” with corporate media sponsorship³⁵. He’s also stated that Joe Biden should have been put in prison or given the death penalty for his crimes³⁶. To that I’d only add that every president should be put in prison for their crimes, including George W. Bush for his involvement in torture, Barack Hussein Obama II for carpet bombing Libya and trying to take America to war with Syria, and even Donald Trump for the Epstein debacle, filling his administration with the swamp monsters who were involved in the 2008 financial crisis and pushing the dangerous and untested preventive drug as a reaction to the events of 2020.

Still, despite what anyone may think about his political stances, glorifying an assassination against an American who was expressing his freedom to speak is absolutely disgusting and inexcusable.

Questioning the Facts

Immediately there were people in the alternative media questioning the narrative around the shooting^37383940. Was what we were seeing real? I do think the shooting and death of Kirk were real, but I also don’t think anyone should be shunned or belittled when questioning anything that comes out of the media landscape today. With all the new automated video generation techniques available, people should understandably be skeptical.

Some people have pointed out how in some of the videos, it appears that Kirk’s ring switches fingers as he is shot. It’s a legitimate question, but it turns out it has a simple answer. He owns a hinged ring, and he’s often seen fidgeting with it in interviews⁴¹⁴². Some have pointed out the unusual way his shirt seemed to ripple, and I think those people simply need to watch high-speed video of actual projectile impacts⁴³⁴⁴. A fired bullet has a tremendous amount of force in a tiny mass that can easily cause ripple effects of any type of fabric or light material on the target. Finally, some have questioned how the bullet can immediately be heard in videos with zero delay. If the details we’ve been given about distance are correct, the sound of the bullet would still be in the air upon impact⁴⁵.

I do not discount anyone who questions anything about the shooting. There are people who can become immediately enraged when questioning anything about an event with so much media-focused emotion behind it. I have looked at what people have presented and have reached the conclusion his public murder was very real.

Questioning the Narrative

Still, the timing of the attack should draw serious questions. After his death, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called Kirk a “friend of Israel” and a “great champion of free speech⁴⁶.” He also rejected accusations that Israel was behind the assassination⁴⁷. However, Charlie Kirk was beginning to question Epstein’s connections to Mossad and Israel⁴⁸. He became critical of Israel’s ongoing campaign against Hamas⁴⁹. Harrison H. Smith claimed that “someone close to Charlie Kirk” told him Kirk thought Israel would try to kill him if he turned against them⁵⁰. Kirk, once a loyalist to Israel, labeled as anti-Semitic for mildly criticizing Zionism, and murdered on the day before the anniversary of 9/11, should make people consider there could be more to this situation⁵¹.

Prior to getting shot, Kirk was answering a question regarding transgender mass shooters, a very hot topic and contentious issue that’s been exacerbated by news media coverage this year. The FBI released a video and requested assistance in tracking down the shooter⁵². The shell casings from the shots allegedly had words written on them⁵³, suspiciously like the Brian Thompson assassination. This information was supposedly leaked to Steven Crowder, a man with questionable investigative principles, by an ATF officer⁵⁴.

After the suspect’s apprehension, Governor Spencer Cox of Utah stated the suspect had a roommate/boyfriend who was transitioning from male to female, and then continued on a rant about the dangers of social media, comparing the dopamine hits from online engagement to fentanyl⁵⁵.

Charlie Kirk’s assassination may have been a professional hit by an intelligence agency, or it could have been an organic lone gunman. Whichever is the case is irrelevant. News and propaganda agencies have immediately jumped on this story, accelerating all sides of the political spectrum into a hyper-reactionary and emotionally charged event that is dividing Americans further on core moral lines.

The Reversed Conservative

The propaganda media cycle is working diligently at turning Americans, both conservatives and liberals, against the core beliefs and rights that are the foundations of our nation. Every crisis is being used as a catalyst for some political agenda. Americans should be unified in standing against military officers deployed on the streets of our cities, but now some are embracing this dangerous direction. Americans should be unified in standing against disarming citizens and protecting the Second Amendment, but now there are people who are supporting the suppression of gun rights for those citizens the State deems mentally ill. Governor Spencer Cox has even gone as far as to use loaded language against Internet usage, which seems like it would be used to promote digital identification and government tracking of individuals. How ironic would it be if Charlie Kirk’s assassination, while exercising his freedom of speech, would lead to the suppression of speech one side or the other disagrees with?

I drove by a protest in my own city last week, where people held up signs opposing “fascism.” While I am concerned deeply with the direction the nation is moving, I also can tell by the signage what these people stand for and how they’ve been ideologically captured by the false left-right narrative. They likely oppose the violation of our essential liberties only when it is done by their opposition and not by their political sports team. Where Americans should be driven together by single critical issues of freedom, we’re driven further apart by requiring people to accept an entire massive package of ideologies in order to find a political home.

Emotions are high, propelled by traditional and social media. Where George Orwell’s 1984 had a 2-minute hate, we are now in a 24/7 hate cycle. Certain events are covered in detail while others are completely ignored. Few have the critical capacity to read between the narrative bullshit to identify what lawmakers are really trying to gain and steer the populace into accepting using their roles as actors on the Senate floor. At the beginning of this year, I predicted that 2025 would be the year of psychological operations. When I look around and talk to people, I feel like Americans have learned nothing from the events of 2020.

We are continuing down a path where both sides of the false left-right dynamic are clamoring for more control and autocracy while also claiming to fight against government overreach and authoritarianism. We are a nation of fractured people, indoctrinated with deeply conflicting narratives that will ultimately lead to more technocratic capture by those whose hands are on the levers of collective thought control.