by Scott Creighton
Aside from the relevant details and all the conflicting facts that have been uncovered about this case, the Aurora Massacre, why is it that it just seems too… well… to “perfect” (not to mince words) to be something born of a diseased and drug addled mind of a 24 year old kid with no particular political leaning?
Why this place? Why this kid? Was he really capable of this horror? Do the answers to questions like these need to be found or is it all just too “plausible” that Holmes got lit-up on drugs and pulled off the mass murder of the century on pure instinct alone?
What is at stake? Why this film? When so many details of the case are suspicious, an active and diligent citizenry is required to look at them carefully and dispassionately for the sake of yesterday’s victims (finding them real justice) and for tomorrow’s.
What is at stake?
We all know that billionaire Mayor for life Bloomberg was practically standing on the bodies of the fallen and the wounded with a bullhorn calling for stricter laws governing weapons in America.
And we have seen people like John McCain demand the presidential candidates take a stand on the issue in the wake of the shooting.
Now Obama has put out a statement that we all know that Ak-47s belong in the hands of warriors and not “the criminals”. Seems he forgot another classification of persons there… law abiding citizens.
The second amendment, regardless of what various actors may Tweet, is not there to provide you and yours with the joys of hunting or target shooting. The second amendment is included in the Bill of Rights as a guard against tyrannical government.
Obama’s recent carefully scripted statement on gun control clouds that issue and makes it seem he supports the spirit of the amendment while simultaneously dismissing the purpose of it.
“I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. I think we recognize the traditions of gun ownership passed on from generation to generation, that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage.” The Hill, Obama statement on gun control
Our cherished national heritage also includes throwing off the shackles of a repressive government, Mr. Obama, need I remind you. And that sir, is the purpose of our second amendment.
But why would oligarchs wish to disarm the people? Why would they want to make it harder to purchase such weapons? Well, the answer to that question lies in the fact that in every single country where neoliberal shock therapy of the Chicago School economic theory is imposed, it is accompanied by strict authoritarian regimes who are needed to repress the will of the vast majority of the people. From Iran ’53 to Chile in ’73, from Iraq in 2003 to Libya today, these programs are designed to repress dissent and suppress opposition uprisings.
Therefore is it reasonable to suggest that the oligarchs and complicit politicos would support the control of the kinds of weapons needed to resist tyranny? Of course it is. And we see that happening in stages as we speak.
Why this kid?
James Holmes has not been described by anyone as a “criminal” (as Barack Obama makes reference to in his new statement) prior to July 20th 2012.
In fact he was apparently a model citizen someone who would never be denied a firearm under the current guidelines.
That’s important if you wish to manufacture consent for changing the guidelines because had he been some random killer or criminal, then we would be asking how he got past the existing laws rather than looking to refine them.
But instead what they are looking at it keeping guns from “the wrong people” and military grade weapons from all of them. Who makes the determination as to who the right and wrong people are? What is the criteria? Who sets it?
Would blogs like this prevent me from owning a weapon? Would previous military service or affiliation with “fringe” ideological groups?
To say to impose such a arbitrary selection process would certainly be to travel down that proverbial “slippery slope” but gauging purely from the recent rhetoric coming from the anointed one, we seem to be well on our way.
That is why this clean-cut well heeled citizen was a prime choice were this to have been a psyop with a well thought out and carefully crafted design behind it.
Was he really capable of this horror?
It is my contention, as I have stated before, that an event like this requires a very specific kind of human being. One that will not freeze, one that will not empathize, one that will not hesitate or second guess or die.
There is a great deal of hard evidence that there was another person involved and it has been my conclusion after researching this event that someone other than James Holmes committed this atrocity while Holmes was drugged in the car waiting to be discovered.
But what kind of person would that be and do various factions within our government or our military work with people like this daily? The answer of course is yes.
Destabilization campaigns are run by technocrats usually, technocrats aided by jackals. The jackals train and equip various indigenous personnel who run operations like the one in Aurora in various countries all across the world. Sudan, Somalia, Syria, Libya, the list goes on and on. We know this to be true. History is replete with the declassified files stretching across the entire globe.
The jackals and their assets (indigenous mercenaries) are calculating, experienced, cold-blooded killers working to one end and one end alone; the greater good, whatever that case may be.
This event has the markings of their work. It was well planned, quick, and the perfect patsy was primed and ready.
Did Holmes have the experience with those firearms to do what he did? Is a 12 out of 71 a high kill ratio? He didn’t panic, he didn’t freeze. If his gun jammed he simply switched to another. He tossed the distraction grenades and waited for them to ignite. No one got close enough to him to stop him. He didn’t rush out the front chasing victims down. He didn’t lose himself in the chaos. By all early accounts, the assailant was calm and meticulous… as if he had done it before.
Is that the way a drugged out college kid would have behaved?
I don’t think James Holmes could have shot kids point blank and simply moved on to others. That has to have an effect on someone. I couldn’t do it. Neither could you. And if this was a planned destabilization event, no one would have put that kid in that room with all that was at stake.
Apart from a complete and total break from reality, James Holmes would not have been capable of that act and the fact that he warned police about the traps set in his apartment, he clearly wasn’t in that mental state.
Why this film?
The most obvious part of this psyop I believe was the choice of films, Batman Dark Knight Rises.
The film is pure propaganda setting the nobility of the oligarchs verses the savagery of the masses. It is a one dimensional morality play full of every Dick Cheney/neocon cliche that was ever used to justify torture and the glorious Global Free Market Wars.
The Aurora Massacre serves as a warning of …
The shape of things to come.
If the conclusions that I and so many others have come to are indeed accurate (and we hope they are not), then we are to expect more of this.
Like in India just 10 years or so ago, we can probably expect a wave of similar acts with various targets and perpetrators.
In India, like in so many other places where fascist neoliberalism is rammed down the throats of the people, the “leftists” will invariably be cast as the culprits; the national villains.
We already hear talk of “international leftists” from the far right already. The question is who will be targeted and who will be blamed.
When hunger and hopelessness mix with the anger of seeing their communities ravaged, people need scapegoats to keep them from turning on their real enemies. Hitler knew that. So did Pinochet. So did McCarthy for that matter.
I wish I could say that I do not expect more of these kinds of horrendous acts but unfortunately I do. In the film Children of Men, it opens with a random act of terrorism that is seemingly so commonplace, the protagonist barely escapes with his life and yet he marches on diligently to his place of work.
Apparently others see it coming as well.
American Everyman wishes to extend condolences to all those injured by this horrendous act of cowardice. In a better world, there would be no need for questions like these. But America’s history and her policies make dreamers of us all if we ignore what we wish to ignore. And we can’t dream our way out of this. There is no “HOPING” there is no “BELIEVING” anymore.
It’s a hard reality we must face. So let’s get on with it.