Nice, new duds on Canada’s … uhh … RCMP intervention team. Debut perhaps?
There’s been a shooting in Canada’s Parliament buildings in Ottawa. And I find that I haven’t the heart to post on it. Well, except this post.
More can be found at https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa-shooting-how-events-unfolded-1.2809260.
One person died. I’ve read the reports and am still not clear on who shot the attacker. It sounds like the Sergeant-at-Arms of Parliament did. But CBC says he shot “an attacker.” Is this a deliberate attempt to allow wiggle room?
I have to admit that I don’t have sufficient belief in the incident being genuine (and not false flag) or interest in it to penetrate the story deeper than I have to find the matter out. Isn’t that an awful thing to say? And about oneself in regards to one’s own country? It reflects where I’m at with what appears to be falsified news these days,
I’ve lost interest in incidents that smell of being manufactured, even though most other people in my country are wringing their hands. I’m definitely out of step and feeling it. I’ve left the relative comfort of the national consensus and am saying: I won’t go around this loop this time. Or maybe ever again.
We’re living in a society in which those who would control us and who actually do control the media wish to raise fear in us by manufacturing large- and small-scale problems (atrocities) and then offering their police forces and militaries as the answer to the problems they themselves create.
We go from one atrocity (an airplane taken out) to another (ebola outbreak) to a third (shooting on Capital Hill). It’s as if the ones calling the tune (if this is the case) hope that we won’t connect the dots.
Once I needed evidence to prove the existence of something like the cabal; now I need evidence to prove the truth of an atrocity. The pendulum has swung the other way.
The only thing that dramatically stands out about this incident was that it took place in a Parliament building. Well, that’s a good place to have it if you want the public’s attention. The press are calling it “Canada’s 9/11.”
My objections are:
(1) To call such a minor event “Canada’s 9/11” seems about the clumsiest attempt I’ve seen to entice publicity and have the public swallow an incident which I believe is manufactured. It’s worse than pathetic; it’s embarrassing.
Perhaps 30-50,000 people died on 9/11. Three buildings were brought down. In what way is this tragedy in which one person was killed comparable to that one? Who benefits from making such a claim, except those who wish to increase our fear?
(2) There isn’t a terrorist war going on. There never has been, except if one wants to call one’s own government “terrorist.” So the whole terrorist motif, engendered by the attacker having a foreign-sounding name, is suspect to me. Mind-controlled killers can come from any background. The choice is in the hands of the creators of the incident. I don’t accept that as proof of “terrorism,” except the government kind.
(3) The attacker being subdued by the Sergeant-at-Arms is the coup de grace for me. I’d need very strong evidence before I’d accept that he’s able to do such a thing and isn’t simply a person who can be relied on to maintain his silence. I’ve been through too many shootings by mind-c0ntrolled assassins or other variations on false-flag incidents to jump on a story as unlikely as this.
(5) The public at several American sports events are reported as standing up and singing “O Canada!” Who arranged that? For what purpose? A shooting on Capitol Hill in Canada in which one man died? How does that rate such attention? And who benefits from giving it such attention?
(6) If I were to take up the hue and cry, what would that achieve? A raising of fear that out-of-control maniacs are threatening our society? I have absolutely no sense that that’s the case. And if we continue in the direction we’re going, with more and more people taking responsibility for the shape of their communities, the climate that breeds such a shooting will in time disappear.
Years from now, the frustrated man who might today become a shooter will go down to his local community group tasked with assisting him to come out of his emotional and psychological condition. He’ll receive healing treatment that’s effective, rather than what he may receive today if he could afford it, which he probably can’t.
He’ll have enough to afford all the necessities and perhaps even the luxuries of life. He won’t have to work at a job that demeans him to have what he needs in life.
He’ll live in a society in which all religions and races are dealt with amicably and respectably. There’ll be no reason to shoot anybody. The climate in which shootings take place would not be there.
So why would I want to lend importance to an event such as this that denies that reality and proposes a counter-model of personal insecurity in a hostile world? Just as a simple matter of choice, I won’t. But then who would want to sell me such a view of the world, such a “new world order”? And why?
Have you noticed that we haven’t had any hurricanes or earthquakes recently – not since HAARP was decommissioned. We’ve had incidents in which people tried to build and explode really large bombs and they were neutralized. All the financial institutions belonging to the cabal are being drawn under or taken over. Everywhere the cabal is in retreat. And all of this is being done with as little chaos as possible.
As soon as the cabal are gone from the scene, I’m willing to bet the shootings on Capital Hills everywhere will miraculously stop, as will every other thing that’s laid at the feet of “terrorists” and “madmen.” And everything caused by financial inequity and social manipulation.
I’d like to hear about something other than the cabal’s latest attempt to herd the sheep please. I am not a sheep. Whether I have been one in the past or not is irrelevant. I am no longer one.
It’s going to take more than a manufactured incident (manufactured at least in its presentation in the media if not in its origins) to get my ticker going, if you can get it going these days.
Or is this the best the cabal can do today, the most they can afford to mount with the limited resources they have? If so, I’d think it best to fold one’s tents and try another line of “work.”