Submitted by Niles and Frasier Mercado

Editors Note: Authors Niles and Frasier Mercado will be guests on next week’s Real Politik, airing Monday at 3:00PM EST on Truth Frequency Radio and archived here.

While the media is making the most out of the recent mass shooting event in San Bernardino, California, details are emerging that are making a strong case that this supposed shooting was in fact Just Another C.I.A. False Flag.

mintz-and-friendsThe amount of shootings nationally has been steadily declining, even if you choose to include the shooting hoaxes the media has been sensationalizing as real events. Reality is just not that interesting. If it weren’t for the hoaxes (increasing in frequency), there would not be enough fodder for the national media to create an anti-gun narrative.

In Orwell’s 1984, the government controlled the range of thought by limiting vocabulary; today, the American government eliminates certain thoughts by associating them with the last fake shooter. People are left with the remaining viewpoints that have not been eliminated. It is guilt by artificial association.

nyp-mercerThe fake motives of fake perpetrators of fake tragedies provide the government with REAL justification to REALLY target REAL and innocent people, here and abroad. Let’s run through some recent examples:

1) The supposed Oregon Shooter, Chris Harper Mercer, is said to have had Sandy Hook hoax videos on his MySpace page. Translation: anybody who expresses interest in these staged shootings must be the next shooter! This is the message the government-media complex wants to convey. Any glaring evidence associated with Sandy Hook being a complete hoax is thus quickly discredited (since they used another hoax shooting to associate such investigative instincts with murderous intent). Mercer’s mother is presented as having pro-gun social media posts for the very same reason: pro-gun equals parent of sociopath (when the opposite is true). This is the dumbed down twisted math used in New World Order propaganda.

2) Planned Parenthood shooting hoax was meant to associate homicidal violence with anti-abortion perspectives. If you happen to be against abortion, well then you must be the type who kills innocent people (I know the irony is heavy on that one).

3) The recent fake shootings in San Bernardino and Paris, France villainize Islamic people, implicate ISIS (or ISIL) and lay the groundwork for war with Syria and other countries in the Levant region. Doubtless these two recent shootings will result in some military action in the Middle East the same way that 9/11 was used to instigate an invasion of Afghanistan, the 7/7 bombings were used to justify England’s unpopular military involvement in Iraq, or the Gulf of Tonkin incident was orchestrated to justify a war in Vietnam.

The desired reaction of the public to these incidents is decided before they are faked, then after the event the media gets to work cultivating this reaction from the public so that they will accept the solution the government is dying to roll out. The media is so effective as the mouthpiece for the government that the public will end up begging for the government’s medicine.

How do you spot when a shooting is real or when it is just another shooting hoax? The following are some tell-tale anomalies common to staged shooting hoax events:


People deal with grief in various different ways. If family members of people in danger were not crying at all, that would be COMPLETELY understandable. On the other hand, these fake shootings display crisis actors who FAKE CRYING, making the sounds and movements of a person crying, only without the tears. Any police detective worth his salt would take note of something like this suspicious behavior.

Figure 1: Wiping Away Imaginary TearsIn San Bernardino, California Olivia Navaro waits for her daughter and wipes away fake tears from dry eyes.


We saw that with the Oregon Shooting, cell phones were confiscated from the students of Umpqua which is why we have yet to see pictures or video coming from the students there.  However, we should at least see official photos from law enforcement, shouldn’t we!?  We are all familiar with crime scene images with quarters or dollar bills laid down for size perspective (when CSI folks are short on official size rulers) and getting meticulous photos of every bullet, every victim and any other item that might turn out to be remotely important. But where is all of this with the Oregon “Shooting”?

Screen Shot 2015-12-06 at 1.32.44 AM

Originally the shooters of the San Bernardino Hoax were supposed to have had GoPro cameras, thereby capturing the gruesome affair on video. I even found myself wondering if actual hard evidence was going to come out on this shooting (after all eventually an actual unplanned real shooting will take place). However, this became yet another part of the every changing story that even the news media had to admit was untrue.

In fact the only actual video footage of anything even close to the “actual” event in San Bernardino we could find was the following:

This video taken by a person in the San Bernardino recreation center did manage to leak online. It shows people being lead out of the facility with their hands above their heads. This video is somewhat of an anomaly. It should be noted that it has not been broadcast on television and has repeatedly been taken down from YouTube (hence the link). That said this video doesn’t show anyone actually injured, no one deceased, no blood or evidence of blood, no bullets or bullet holes… keep in mind many of these things can be faked but in this case they aren’t even bothering. Similar to the Boston Bombings, the media and government can simply say someone is guilty and show some stills or footage that is not at all incriminating and the public will nod their head and yell “go get ‘em”. ‘Innocent until proven guilty’ has all but evaporated from the public consciousness.


In the Oregon Shooting and San Bernardino Shooting Hoax, we saw people being carried out on gurneys, but no evidence of blood. Blood is somewhat hard to fake: it gushes, it grows, it makes puddles. In time it coagulates and changes color. Blood that is shiny initially quickly becomes dull. In the Recent Paris shooting, one of the shooters was supposedly shot to death, but did not bleed. At all. See for yourself this striking direct evidence that the Paris Shooting is a complete hoax (footage is voiced over by the always-colorful Redsilverj):


This will become more apparent as the weeks / months / years wear on. We saw in the years after Sandy Hook, the death certificates of the victims, the supposed shooter, even his mother (who supposedly was murdered a day before the shooting), have all been suppressed (or simply don’t exist). NEVER SEEN! Not to mention the 911 calls and autopsy reports. To this day, the number of people murdered in Newtown Connecticut is officially ZERO (according to FBI statistics).


In the Oregon Shooting the shooter (Chris Mercer) had supposedly been honorably discharged from the Army. Chris Mintz, the famous million-dollar-fake-shooting-victim was on leave from the Army.


In San Bernardino one of the supposed shooter’s brothers was in the military. This may sound like a reasonable expectation; a certain portion of the overall population IS in the military after all. And maybe it stands to reason that ex-military personnel would be more likely to shoot a bunch of people randomly (especially if you lean left). However, if in San Bernardino the male shooter is supposed to have been some Islamic extremist, isn’t it somewhat odd that his brother is a member of the American military?


At the same time as the San Bernardino Shooting was supposed to have been taking place, there was a SWAT team that was running active shooter drills nearby the San Bernardino community center (where the shooting was staged). In fact, this was the reason given for their quick arrival (making this part of the official story).

In Oregon the Principal of the Umpqua Community College claimed they had an active shooter drill a week prior to the shooting. In April and May of 2015, in Roseburg, Oregon, the Douglas County Emergency Management team hosted several drills with innocuous sounding names like Intermediate Incident for Expanding Incidents and Command System 400 for Advanced. These smaller drills are reminiscent of the much larger exercise referred to as “Abel Danger” during 9/11 which was nearly identical to the 911 hijacked plane scenario that we saw play out.

What’s It Mean?

Remember that this shooting is simply one of what will become hundreds of hoaxes played out by the time widespread gun confiscation goes into effect. The details change slightly but there seems to be a checklist they follow that makes these events easy to reproduce but also easy to spot once you know their playbook. But why the explosion of fake shootings at the same time that gun-related deaths are at a multi-decade low? Eric Holder made this fairly clear when he complained that “It’s not enough to have a catchy ad on a Monday… We have to do this every day of the week and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way” (emphasis ours).

Obviously no amount of snarky TV ads was going to turn America against guns. Anti-gun staged events are needed so that the government-media complex has an excuse to dominate news cycle after news cycle. These staged shooting productions would get a film director permanently banished from Hollywood but they are good enough when you have the news media “presstitutes” at your disposal.

Niles Mercado has about two decades of experience consulting for various government agencies including the Air Force and the Department of Justice. Mercado has published the following books about conspiracies of various flavors: When Prosecutors Attack, Bush Killing Reagan, and Oregon Shooting: Just Another C.I.A. False Flag. To maintain his privacy and his family’s safety he has chosen to write this volume using the pen name “Niles Mercado”; in light of the facts laid out here in this volume can you really blame him?

Frasier Mercado has produced (and gained financing for) multiple independent Hollywood films (under his real name) including multi-million dollar productions starring Ashton Kutcher, Jason Statham, and Mickey Rourke. Frasier uses his extensive Hollywood experience faking blood, wounds, gunshots, and explosions to spot all the tell-tale signs of a staged event and has teamed up with his brother Niles in the writing of Bush Killing Reagan and Oregon Shooting Just Another C.I.A. False Flag.

FREE REPORT (See all the pictures and diagrams from Oregon Shooting):


Leave a Reply

64 thought on “San Bernardino Shooting Parallels Recent Oregon College Massacre”
  1. “The amount of shootings nationally has been steadily declining…”

    This statement requires the belief that an active shooter a day and hundreds of victims are fabricated. The fact that the national murder rate has plunged in the last generation is only proof that we are living in a de facto police state. Given that a co-author has ties to the government makes this seem like a falsely planted narrative. The government sociopaths do not care how many shootings there are. A sociopath, governmental or other, is self concerned: funding, anti-gun agenda, increasing power are all they care about. Many of these high-profile media events could be drills gone live, however, a continuation of tactics of COINTELPRO and MKULTRA in the form of gang stalking, and, the tactical use of mobbing in workplaces and universities for strategic bloodletting is likely a big part of the game.

    1. Even including the fake ahooting numbers, mass shootings have increased but overall gun deaths have decreased (interpret that any way you like). You are right that these are generally exercises gone live and initially I had a mental block when I heard so many shootings were faked because I know the new world order does not care about murdering actual victims. That said the frequency they need to turn people against guns makes it so that they must engage less sociopathic people outside of their sociopathic inner circle and it is infinitely easier to get someone to cooperate with a staged event where know one dies as opposed to when younge students and such are going to die. Of course the New World Order would sacrifice countless victims to accomplish its goals but the average person they engage as crises actors would have a little harder time going along and keeping quiet if people were really going to die as a result. 911 was a false flag but not a hoax (obviously) but was perpetrated by hardened black ops professionals. But regardless where you get your information it is healthy to be suspect to a point.

      Lastly I do respect your suspicion of someone who says they have worked on government contracts but I have been upfront about my past involvement and I wonder what you think of Snowden and all the other whistleblowers that have worked for the government but have real info to expose. But regardless of where you get your information it is healthy to be suspicious to a point. I hope you will listen to Mondays broadcast and keep an open mind.

      1. I believe that the reconciliation of rising mass shootings at a time when overall gun homicides have fallen just as greatly is the direct result of government involvement, directly or indirectly, affecting the mass shooting events.

        Your article addresses the fact that a growing number of these mass shooting events are drills that, in some cases, involve no fatalities (e.g., SHES, Charleston Church shooting). I believe that, in some of these cases, the government has used longstanding manipulation tactics employed through a useful idiot patsy to create a real mass shooting (this was likely done by the government using PIMA college to mob Loughner into the Tucson shooting). It is this case of rogue criminal elements in Mil-Intel hijacking workplace and academic and community mobbing (“gang stalking”) that you do not address. Here are a couple of MHB articles that you may find interesting regarding the latter explanation for some of these mass shootings:

        I do think that it is important to keep an open mind about these events, and that this type of social engineering can be quite nuanced employing a variety of tactics and schemes to achieve its goals. I am in complete agreement that the endgame here is the nullification of the Second Amendment. I hope that you have a chance to read the above-linked articles, and, I do look forward to listening to Monday’s broadcast.

        1. The second link above should be to an article I authored on Loughner:

          Also, for clarification, I believe that mass shooting drills, that constitute criminal mass deception, are occurring with mainstream government support for the gun control agenda. I also believe that more reactionary, criminal government elements are hijacking volatile mobbing situations in workplaces, universities and communities with the aim of greasing the rails to make some of these mass shootings happen as well. These rogue criminal elements are primarily concerned with their own funding, and promotion of the growing surveillance state that they run (state within a state).

        2. Response to PeaceFrog and Niles Mercado

          I know gang-stalking exists, as do TIs(targeted individuals). Loughner was manipulated and used, James Holmes also (but it appears not reliable enough to actually do the shooting), Sirhan Sirhan another who actually did the shooting (but they had a 2nd shooter, to ensure success).

          Gang stalking might be used to weaken an individual’s mental state, but it is going to take much more than that to manipulate a person into a mass shooter. And that takes time.

          I see no evidence of this in SB. We have multiple witnesses claiming 3 tall adult white males (military operators). If the couple were NOT middle eastern and Muslim then I would be more apt to consider them possible TIs. Just too convenient for the anti-Muslim, pro-war agenda.

          The gun-control agenda is WAY behind schedule, they are rushing these events. Which is one reason why they’ve become so sloppy. But this rushing of these created events is telling.

          Assuming the event is a created false-flag. If you are going to have real deaths, then someone(s) got to be pulling triggers. If we don’t have the right ‘patsy’ to actually do it, then you’ll need actual trigger men (who cannot be caught or IDed) and then frame it on someone. But what is easier and safer and faster (remember they are in a rush) than that option?… fake victims. Also, there is another really good reason not to have real victims. Real victims have REAL family who want/demand answers.

          Mercado brothers I liked the article and look forward to the interview. Worked for USGovt, produced Hollywood films, using pseudonyms… all Reg Flags for me. You’re either legit or not (which is the case with everyone and all of us, and me), time will tell.

          Listen to everyone, trust no one. – credit to Chris Duane for that line.

        3. Regarding the 3 white males witnessed, many trial lawyers will tell you that initial witness reports are contradictory and often wrong. This applies to car accident cases, robberies as well as the much more traumatic scenario here. I don’t doubt that this could have gone down with three military ops, but, again, wait and see. Since all the evidence they had of the shooting was eyewitnesses, I’d like to see the bodies and clothing inspected for gunpowder residue, etc. Then again, JFK’s brain went missing, right? So, I guess fat chance!

  2. Well-done! I find an interesting exercise to be watching Fox News with the sound off. I wonder to myself, “What price did these nulls accept to sell out?” I also frequently wonder during the same exercise, “Surely these talking heads are not completely unaware of the falsity to which they are ceremoniously trying to give credence???” But the most interesting part are their facial expressions…the “terrorism experts” who are unable to prevent themselves from cracking cocky grins right after a mass casualty incident (real or simulated). The master of not breaking character (fully believing her own poppycock in full-on kayfabe mode) is Megyn Kelly. I’m beginning to wonder whether she’s had some sort of neurological operation done which has permanently disabled the natural human curiosity (which should be found in higher amounts among real journalists).


  3. so since Barry has illegally been elected, mass shootings have gone up 8Xs any of the previous 5 Presidents … Now I am kinda a stat/geek guy and I would love to see any analogous violence stat in the history of a nation that coincides with that preposterous leap … just that stat alone, to me anyhow, proves that all these “events” have been staged in the current President’s (who is a member of Man’s Country in Chicago) tenure.

    1. Hah! I understand that his main squeeze Rahm is also a member. Chicago looks like Beirut in the 80″s.

      I wonder if they include all of the shootings by cops in those stats? Stats are marvelous things. You can make them support anything.

  4. There are three additional elements that distinguish the real from the fake, most of the time: marksmanship, media coverage, and randomness.

    Consider, for example, the recent mass shooting in that park in New Orleans (that was not nationally promoted by the press, so no one heard about it): lots of wounded, no one killed. It’s hard to hit a moving target–which is what people become when they are attempting not to be shot. It’s even harder to hit that target in a place that will result in death.

    Yet in the saturation-coverage events, the killers, however improbable (think Adam Lanza), have an astounding kill rate per cartridge fired.

    The big-promotion, fake events also tend to be random; there is no real rhyme or reason the individuals targeted are selected.

    But REAL mass shootings happen for a good reason, usually having to do with gang warfare over drug turf or something similar. That’s what New Orleans was about, and pretty much every shot fired every day in Chicago.

    When people try to kill people in real life, they usually fail–because it’s not so easy. When they try to kill lots of people in very short time, it’s even harder. But they usually have a pretty good reason to do it. Leroy Brown and his crew selling crack on MY corner!

    But the national press is never interested in real killings with real motives, so no one ever hears about them outside that locality. Conversely, if everyone in the country is immediately knows about a mass shooting that is entirely random, and the killer is incredibly accurate with his weapon, it’s probably a hoax.

    1. Agreed. The only logical explanation for a high kill to hit rate is a professional, and normally they are or have been government trained. But when is the last time we’ve had uncontroversial undeniable evidence of mass deaths at a mass shooting event? That would even suggest a professional was used?

      Port Arthur, AUS Massacre in 1996??

      A person with little training is going to be very inaccurate due to trigger jerking, poor aiming technique, poor stance, poor grip, and the gun kicking.

      1. Kevin, all of that is true. The problem is that we discuss these things as if the information provided is true. Conversely, we use it do question the likelihood of the assertions.

        So called “professionals”, unless they are hit men, are trained to wound. A wounded opponent takes two others out of action to transport them for treatment. In order to have close to 100% kill rate would require a steady aim and calm determination. This is difficult to accomplish in a room full of people moving about that you would have to keep your eye on.

        The use of automatic (or fast-firing semi-automatic) weapons is to keep people’s heads down. The reason for this is to suppress return fire. It is not to kill as many as possible.

        Any gun can kill. So can a sledge hammer or an axe or knife. Ironically, while there is little doubt that the display of vastly overblown law enforcement presence in these scenes is meant to reinforce the notion that they are necessary, the opposite is actually true. They did not prevent their alleged atrocities. Indeed, you could double or quadruple them and it would make no difference.

        In a real situation if someone is intent enough there is no way to prevent it. If people are armed they might limit the damage. The cops are the last on the scene.

        I find these hoaxes extremely insulting. They are demonstrations of the contempt they hold for us.

        1. “I find these hoaxes extremely insulting. They are demonstrations of the contempt they hold for us.”

          I agree.

          I wrote several responses… tossed them. Just seemed to be pointless… and that is NOT a jab at you lophatt. It’s just the perverse reality of the #*%!@ up world we live in.

    2. Great points, wish we had you in tbe room when we were finishing this blog post up. This is another reason these events need to be staged is that there is no way for these narratives can be real on a prima facie basis. Like in the Oregon Shooting they sadi that kids would be asked about their religion and if they said Christian they would get shot in the head…. That just doesnt work because why would the second person say “yeah Im a christian please shoot me”… It doesnt make sense and the shoot to kill ratio point you make is a great one we will use in the next “Just Another C.I.A. False Flag” installment.

  5. These seem to always happen in “Gun Free” zones. What would happen if they were not in Gun Free” zones? Answer…Actors would get shot by gun carrying Americans not knowing it to be a drill with phoney actors and it would blow tthe gov’ts cover.

    1. This happened in a “Gun Free Zone” in a state that has the most restrictive gun laws in the Nation !

      How’s Obama going to top that short of total gun confiscation.

        1. Actually Mao, Lenin and Hitler had the most restrictive Gun laws and laws in general..

          I’m kidding you.

          I heard on the TEE VEE California had the most restrictive gun laws.

          Is it really getting down to where we have to Fact check MSM and our Local TEE VEE Stations….HeHe

  6. Thanks so much, that was an excellent piece. I think that, to most of us who have studied these things over time, these common elements are a constant. The scenes change to fit the message, but the overall methodology is the same.

    I think that these are the very definition of what they describe as “terrorism”. They are using violent (staged or otherwise) events to influence public opinion in support of their political agenda.

    That is the “false flag” element of the hoaxes. They themselves are the actual perpetrators. The others involved are actors, in some cases that may not be known to them at the time.

    The mention of the “leaked” cell phone footage is interesting. As you said, it doesn’t really show anything unless you consider being somewhere in “lockdown” and having a cop say “stay with me I’ll take a bullet….”. Of course you would be nervous while they lead you from the building. As usual, these little vignettes are injected to provide authenticity.

    Whatever the actual number of shooting events, they have recently been advertising 344 this year. This does not seem possible unless all of the various gang-related and other criminal events are included in the number.

    That said, our life experience alone should inform us that people simply do not act in this manner normally and the frequency of these productions is statistically anomalous.

    I use people I work with as a sort of “gauge”. It does seem that they are more frightened and the fact that they can’t assign a logical cause to this perceived violence only increases their level of fear. Beyond legislation, I think these events are particularly designed to do just that. Frightened people are illogical people.

    Fear and anger can be concentrated and channeled in ways that will ultimately lead to them presenting a “solution”. With every remedy they provide the populace becomes more cow-like. Perhaps that is the true meaning of “Zombie Apocalypse”.

    1. “Whatever the actual number of shooting events, they have recently been advertising 344 this year. This does not seem possible unless all of the various gang-related and other criminal events are included in the number.”

      Others tracking the active shooter/mass shooter phenomenon are coming up with more than a shooting a day, on average, without including any “gang-related and other criminal events”:

      1. What is amazing PFrog is that despite mass shootings growing at exponential levels and AR-15 sales at record paces, whereby manufacturers cannot keep up with demand, there continue to be lower and lower homicides reported based on FBI crime statistics. In particular homicides by rifle which are at record low levels.

        In 2014 there were 248 homicides by rifles including justifiable homicides. Sine the FBI does not break out “assault rifles” separately we can conservatively assert that the number of homicides by assault rifles are even lower.

        Blunt instruments accounted for 435 total homicides. So hammers, baseball bats and other blunt instruments caused almost twice as many deaths as all the AR-15s, AK-47s, 50 caliber, MP-15s, bushmasters, deer rifles, target rifles and all other rifles combined of every magazine capacity whether they were 30 round mags, 100 round mags or ammo belts.

        So why is all the effort directed toward registering, banning , limiting these so called “assault weapons”? Shouldn’t we spend more time registering baseball bats and hammers ?

        BTW – Ben Swan did a piece on the mass shooting statistics- they ostensibly include kids shooting bb guns and the like.

        1. Hands, fists and feet are responsible for 660 homicides – nearly 3 times the homicides by rifle (as adjusted for justifiable homicides)

  7. This is slightly off topic, but I just want to mention this. When I went to YouTube last night – their “home page” – I scrolled down, just looking as to what their algorithm had set up for me. Since I view both “conspiracy” vids and general consumer reviews, I often get a mix of them both on the home page (unless I’ve cleared my cache).

    As I scrolled past videos on some tech products and also an array of false flag call-out vids, there appeared, for the first time ever, a YouTube survey. Here is what it asked (sorry I stupidly didn’t do a screen shot – will screen shot if it ever appears again) along with bullets to choose for various answers (paraphrasing, but I think I have the gist): “Is there anything on this page that you find offensive?” I then had choices and one of them was “no” or “none” – so I clicked that one.

    This actually alarmed me a bit – can YouTube be doing this survey to further lock down the site? They already have something in place to get rid of vids (which I find, yes, offensive in the censorship), so what are they up to now? “Proof” that some vids are “offensive,” thus giving them “stats” to refer to as to what the “public” deems “offensive, and therefore, allowing them to preemptively screen and disallow vids before they even make the upload?

    Not good, that survey. Not good at all.

    1. I had the same survey on Youtube also.

      I looked at it as geared to more of the lame college students whining about everything.

      So in true libturd fashion Youtube is asking “does anything on this page hurt your widdle feelings?

      I screamed in fear for there was all sorts of crappy Pop songs featured and I unplugged my computer….kidding

      1. LOL – yes, Ric, true, but I see it as furthering censorship, in general, on the site. YouTube already puts certain vids behind a “sign in” wall for certain material, and they have the “three strikes” rule that will get a YouTuber banned from the site (truly offensive since those three strikes are never fully investigated and is abused constantly).

        “Offensive” videos, along the lines of politically charged vids, wouldn’t just pop up on the general public’s YouTube home page. What pops up is either YouTube’s generic video public home page, before one can then search and click around, or an amalgam of vids or similar that the viewer has previously clicked on. The algorithm shows us what we are ostensibly interested in by our past clicks. So why ask me if I find anything on the page offensive since I’ve obviously clicked on the topics previously and do not find them offensive? There is something fishy about that survey, methinks.

        1. I agree, that’s what the are really up. Display a cross of vid’s you have never seen nor ever plan to and then get you to down vote it. 3 strikes your out.

          Lil’ Devils…

    1. It’s so odd to see them going behind the trees. Kind of like a stage curtain. If you didn’t know to look you would not guess the action performed was turning in lanyards. Clearly, these are not regular employees who will need them the next day – they are people with temporary permission to use the facility, and the casual way in which they surrender the lanyards shows they have no further use of them.

      1. You think? To me, it looked like they were perhaps taking the employees to a “staging area” where they might give witness statements. Gathering IDs could be a way of organizing this.

        Just playing devil’s advocate…I’m leaning towards the “nobody died” side right now.

        1. Recynd,

          Those people may be the ones they bused in from down the street and were collecting the tags they had issued to them for the production.

          There is No way there was that many people there that came out from within the the building.

          That’s why they were “bused” away after the drill. And, they were also Not allowed to talk to the press and the cops made that Very Clear.

          If you worked there and had your car parked there would you get on a bus? To Where? A Safe place? I’d get in my car and drive home.


        2. Absolutely…my husband has said that in that kind of emergency, he’s outta there. He won’t wait around for permission.

          And yes, why would they be bussed out if their cars were there?

      1. Yeah, I have to do that too. People are rather sensitive to handing those to anyone. It’s a real pain if you lose them.

        This must be the group that they bussed somewhere.

        1. Yeah, I agree, lophatt. I worked on a studio lot and we had security ids. There’s no way you would ever give it to anybody. You’re responsible for that thing. Security is a big deal at a studio.

          And especially if you were leaving the workplace; how would you get back in? Would you give up your id and go get on a bus to someplace?

          I agree with Ric about the buses. Notice there are no cars in the parking lot.

      2. I just got holed so quickly. Those people were handing their tags from the production to the masters and getting on the bus back to 1270 N. Waterman where they met that morning.

        Trying to be quick here sorry

    1. wow – thanks, Russ (gee, sure looks like a real photo huh?).

      There’s the bombshell clip – landlord saying
      “It’s not real, that’s the problem”

  8. Very disturbing indeed! But even more alarming is the apparent complicity of organizations beyond the mass media that have motives and means that dwarf those of Niles and Frasier Mercado to expose fake shootings: the Oathkeepers, the John Birch Society, the National Rifle Association, etc. Instead, they may simply coin another fundraising slogan: “we need money more than ever, because we have to teach a hostile public that a few hundred random deaths per year at the hands of insane gunmen is a small price to pay for your freedom to bear arms.”

    If these hyped mass shootings are indeed acts of morbid theater, they could not succeed without the complicity of the principal gun rights advocates. One can only wonder what process could “persuade” them to work against their gullible supporters’ vested interests…

    To the extent that some hyped shootings have an Islamic component, Muslim leaders similarly bear much responsibility for the hoaxes’ continued success. But since the same leaders are “incapable” of watching with intelligence the Twin Towers’ video records, their brains may be overtaxed with the much more complex analyses of these shootings.

    At any rate, as long as most Muslim and gun rights bully pulpits keep playing their invaluable roles, the fake shootings may continue. Stay tuned for the next one…involving Santa, perhaps?


    1. Good point(s), Dan, and a reason why I quit supporting organizations like Oathkeepers (and yes, JBS). I can’t get my husband to see that the NRA is NOT protecting our rights, even if perhaps it started that way. It would be all too easy to infiltrate an organization like that and pervert its aims covertly. After all, that’s what I’d do…

      Yes, everybody is playing their roles, just like it was planned. So sad.

    2. Yes Daniel, I know of no “group” that has not or will not be infiltrated and co-opted. Once someone joins a group they are easily identified, the laziness factor sets in, and the pushiest members assert control.

      Those who seek to control us are certainly aware of group dynamics. Just like in the “comments” section of a blog such as this, it is not easy to be perfectly understood.

      When the USSR was no longer the “enemy”, they had to scramble to come up with a replacement. Today, Muslims are it. The extent to which a person’s religion plays a role in their actions is directly a product of that person’s personal ethos.

      There isn’t one element of our societal belief system that hasn’t been twisted to serve a purpose. Most are simply trading ignorance with the encouragement of the Controllers.

      All that is needed for the manipulation is an identifiable group. The more “alien” the group, the better. Without the manipulation these groups would either soften their positions and integrate into whatever society they inhabited, or they would remain where they are comfortable.

      It is completely predictable that a “clash of civilizations” will occur when such divergent groups are forced into contact with another. Once that match is lit it can be used to cause self-generated violence out of fear.

      It is no accident that the schizophrenic messages coming from BO and company are impossible to reconcile with each other. They created 9-11 precisely to enable them to do this. The product is fear and uncertainty.

      Gun confiscation is the goal of any dictatorship. The organizations purporting to preserve our rights do no good when they equivocate. Gun ownership should have nothing to do with hunting or any other “excuse” for ownership. It is simply none of their business why we would own firearms.

      Their push for gun control has nothing to do with crime. That should be obvious to anyone with half a brain. The fact of their insistence, like other efforts to stifle speech, betrays their fear of the populace.

      No one is going to ride forth on a white charger and save what we thought was our birthright. Compromise always results in loss. All of these events are designed to speed the oppression. Our goals should be to find creative ways to resist.

      1. In my opinion, lophatt, the first of your thoughts are muddled, and largely false, while the second portion are caracteriastically true.

        The issue ism’t “Moslems.” It is Islam. It isn’t about a group. It is about an ideology. The Ann Barnhardt presentation you linked to recently indicates that you know this distinction. Islam is toxic. No person who grew up with a Western Mind can “convert” to it. We recoil in disgust at the things Islam has inspired the people born into it to accept as normative. I have listed them here before, as Ann does in more detail in her various presentations. No one born a Westerner can ever instinctively begin to think like a Moslem. It’s impossible. 90% of Egyptians are Moslems (the rest are Coptic Christians). 90% of Egyptian girls have their genitalia sliced off by their families. This is something Moslems are PROUD of. No American born into a Christian traditional family can ever enter into that mindset. It is incomprehensible to us.

        The Clash of Civilizations is not looming: it has always been with us–that was Huntington’s point. It is like the Argentine ants that have taken over California. Once they were introduced, there was no possibility of coexistence: all native species would inevitably be destroyed.

        We all meet individual Moslems. They can be fine people, close friends we can trust. Or just the guy who owns a nice restaurant, who does not want to destroy America. But that is completely irrelevant.

        It’s not about “Moslems.” It’s about Islam–which is an undiluted evil.

        Most Moslems really don’t practice Islam, and have no desire to do so. Islam tells them, for instance, to murder all infidels, and have no Christians or Jews as friends (in fact, homicidal Jew-hatred is a core principle in Islam–on the last day, Allah will give trees and rocks the power of speech to tell the Moslem killers that Jews are hiding behind them, so that the last remaining can be murdered). They have no desire to do that. This is in perfect contradistinction to Christians, who know that they are poor practitioners of the faith, but wish to become more true to it.

        We should never fail to make this distinction, because it in fact offers Moslems their only hope of salvation. They have to leave Islam behind, and most would like to do it. Moslems are not the enemy. It is the diabolical ideology they were born into, that very few of them wish to adhere to, the is the problem.

        This is, incidentally, why the phony term “islamophobia” is so stupid. There is no such thing. Phobias are irrational fears. But to fear Islam is the most rational thing in the world; it’s goal is to have everyone submitting to Allah, who is probably Satan, which is the scariest thing imaginable.

        So we must expose Islam for what it is, while understanding that Moslems are its victims. It’s exactly why we accept Cubans who flee from Castro’s tyranny, and why the slogan back in the 70s “Save Soviet Jewry” was so potent. Evil ideologies that enslave people are the issue, not the slaves those system capture.

        1. Patrick:

          Your reasoning creates far more cognitive dissonance for me than the crap we’re fed from the media. It’s because I suspect you’re right (and have heard similar statements to yours from Christians from the Middle East (e.g., “Islam is a religion of death”, and “Islam is a primitive mindset”). One woman I spoke with told me, flat out, that the world would definitely be better without them.

          But I can’t help but see that the Muslims are being used by the Elite, to create such an intolerable situation for everyone that we will accept peace at any price.

          The Elite, I’d guess, are predominantly white. I think many white people take some splice in that, as though it offers them some protection. It doesn’t. We are all pawns. Regardless of color, we “little people” are expendable.

          Patrick, how do you view white Westerners (like Kevin Barrett) who convert to Islam? Are they misguided, or self-loathing, or what? When they tell us that Islam does NOT preach hate, are they lying? Maybe you’ve said before; if so, sorry to make you repeat yourself.

        2. This may be comparable to the Cold War when the communists were the bad guys, one hiding under every bed all over the world. In fact, ordinary people of the old Soviet were decent folks, but trapped in an evil political system after the revolution. The Christians belonged to various churches and others were followers of Judaism. The majority of Muslims there were Sunni.

          After the revolution the new leaders’ goal was to outlaw religion. They destroyed churches and church property, killed and persecuted bishops and priests by the thousands. And we were to shiver at the mention of Russian people because they were communists. I’m sure they all wanted to go back to the way life used to be before the revolution.

          Now we are supposed to shiver at the mention of Muslims. Could be one under every bed all over the world. I have to admit that I do not know any Muslims. Patrick is the expert here – question: If you are born into a Muslim family, does that automatically make you a member of the religion of Islam. If so, can you leave later if you choose?

          My old country had a state religion – Lutheranism. We were born into that religion. Later we could leave the Lutheran (State) Church if so desired. In 2012 it ceased to exist as a State Church and become People’s Church. PC?

          I really do not know much about Islam, except for what I learn here on the Internet. There are many practices I find disturbing and frightening, such as the burqas, the lack of freedom women have and the video with Ann Barnhardt that lophatt posted. I have nightmares about that one and admit I did not know the practice to be that gruesome.

          So my question now is: What are the benefits of practicing the religion of Islam? Patrick? Anyone?

        3. The only benefit to practicing Islam, in a Moslem country, is you get to stay alive. In American prisons, on the other hand, there are lots of special privileges Moslems get that no one else gets.

          Islam is a prison-camp for souls. The more you learn about it, the superstitions Islam embraces, the more bewildering it gets. It should break our hearts. Moslems are victims, and need to be rescued out of that prison–just as Cubans must be rescued from the tender mercies of the diabolical Castro brothers.

        4. Recynd first. All of North Africa and the Middle East was Christian at the time Mohammed started being demon possessed and babbled the vile words that became the Koran. It is an ideology of conquest, and if you really want to know how insanely vicious Moslem conquest was, read Paul Fregosi’s Jihad in the West ( You will never have sympathy for Islam ever again, when you learn what true, pure Islam makes people into.

          Additionally, it is important to know that you can’t learn Islam from the Koran; the faith and practice of the religious patina the Ideology sports is found in the Hadith, which is many times longer than the Koran, which is actually a slim volume (its contents are very, very similar to Mein Kampf). “Hadith” is actually a plural; it is the remembered sayings of Mohammed, collected in the decades after he died. The Hadith is considered exactly as “sacred” as the Koran, and it’s where you find the really nasty stuff.

          Now, once we started fighting back (the Crusades), the jihad’s vitality started to wane. Islam’s expansion into Europe stalled, and the Ottoman Empire settled into a sort of sleep mode. Athough not quite. The Turks made the Mediterranean into a vast piracy enterprise in those long centuries, capturing hundreds of thousands Europeans and forcing them into slavery. European countries got used to paying ransom for their people to the Barbary savages (this ended when Thomas Jefferson was president, and episode recalled in the first line of the Marine Corps anthem).

          So, after The Ottoman Empire ended with WWI, and England and France decided to carve it up into nation-states (bad idea–Islam can’t conceive of a separation of church and state, much less “democracy”), Islam was a spent force. Harmless to all who were not already its slaves.

          Then, oil was discovered in Arabia.

          As the 20th century progressed, the crafters of the New World Order decided to breathe new life into the old enemy, to use for the purpose of destroying the West. It has been very difficult to re-animate that corpse, but they’re giving it the old college try. Which is why most Moslem terrorism that is not directed against Jews is fake (the maniacal hatred of Jews, being intrinsic to Islam, never went away).

          Now, Moslems are really proud when Islam is given credit for the artificial terrorism cooked up by the New World Order crowd–because this jihad is ALSO intrinsic to Islam. It’s just that most Moslems don’t have it in them to actually kill the infidels any more. Islam is a failed civilization, and can’t be brought back to life. Their kind of like the American Indians–proud of the old warrior memories, but a defeated people that will never rise again.

        5. Pat: Thank you; that was a very helpful history-in-a-nutshell. I have read Washington’s letter (right? Not Jefferson?) with the warnings against the “Musselmen” (did I spell that right?), and it’s quite clear to me that whatever god Ishmael worshipped was probably not the God we worship. I don’t have any problems with angelic visitations, per se, but those angels that visit us MUST be tested, or they might be angels “from the wrong side of the tracks”, so to speak.

          I have not read (or skimmed) the Hadith. Never even HEARD of it. But I WILL look for it and I’ll give it a look. [Mormons have other scriptures as well that help form the doctrine of the Church; I welcome anyone to read these works: at no place is violence or harm proposed against perceived (or real) enemies. These works are “The Book of Mormon”, “Doctrine and Covenants”, and the “Pearl of Great Price”, which includes the books of Abraham and Moses. I include this only for transparency and because I brought up Mormon persecution in a previous post.].

          Your comparison between Muslims and communists is a good one. We are certainly being “nudged”, aren’t we? Makes me shudder.

        6. As for testing Angels, one theory as to why Moslems hate dogs is because Mohammed’s dogs went crazy when the demons were around him. So dogs became bad, “unclean.” Unverifiable theory, but for some reason, within Islam, dogs are verboten.

        7. Oh, and as regards Ishmael, remember that it was thousands of years before Mohammed. The Jews were very scrupulous about transmitting the Word of God exactly (even though it pretty much all was a condemnation of their failure to life up to it, sort of like the self-confessions of a serial killer). There was no such thing in Arabia, which was largely illiterate.

          Job was a contemporary of Moses. If you do a word study in chapter 4, verses 17-21, and think of the nature of the god Eliphaz is referencing, it sounds just like Allah. In other words, he is condemning Job based on a theological system quite distinct from the one of the God of the Bible.

          I mentioned that the Jews consistently failed to live up to the strictures God had given them at Mt. Sinai. They were constantly falling into the pagan idolatry of the nations around them.

          The God of the Bible is dramatically different (and a million times better) than the lesser gods He created. It is unfortunately tempting to side with the Allah types. It’s exceedingly hard to stick with the God of the Bible, the evidence indicates.

        8. Oh, as for Westerners who “convert” to Islam, they are delusional. They have the mistaken idea that it is a religion, and sort of scrape the veneer off the political ideology (which is pretty much the whole of Islam), and pretend that’s what Islam is.

          In Islamic countries, Christianity is close to illegal (it IS illegal in Saudi Arabia, because Mohammed said that only Islam can exist in the Arabian Peninsula). If an existing church building needs repairs, you are not allowed to do it; if Moslems, in their rage at seeing the cross, burn a church down (which happens all the time), that’s just too bad; it can’t be rebuilt.

          Can Barrett ever come to embrace things like that? Moslems feel that such restrictions are essential truths, part of the structure of reality–because eventually all human beings will submit to Allah. Can a “convert” ever acquire such a mind? No. He can call himself a Moslem all he wants, but unless he believes that all human beings must be made to submit to Allah, and be subject to Sharia, he’s just kidding himself.

          (Look up Anjem Choudary on YouTube, and listen to him say these things quite matter of factly. You will find his unflappable confidence about the eventual triumph of Sharia quite unsettling. Unless Barrett agrees with that loon, he’s not really a Moslem–because Choudary represents the genuine article.)

          The reason, incidentally, they say the world has more than a billion Moslems in it is because if you are born a Moslem, Islam says that to remain one for the rest of your life whether you practice it or not; you remain on the rolls. The penalty for leaving Islam (they call it “apostasy”) is death. Do you think Barrett feels deep in his heart that this is a very good thing? I doubt it.

          In Islam, there are only two ways to know that you will not be roasted by Allah over furnace-flames when you die: die on the pilgrimage to Mecca (all Moslems are required to go there at least once), or die in the attempt to murder infidels (they misuse our word “martyr” for that nasty business). Other than that, Moslems must attempt to do more good works than bad ones, because Allah will weigh them in a balance after you die, and too many bad ones sends you to the flames. But even then, Allah is a trickster, and completely fickle, and can decide to send you into the flames anyway (he LOVES roasting his enemies so much that when their skin burns off he regrows it for them so he can delight in roasting it off again–forever). You see, he’s completely inscrutable, and unsavory.

          Why anyone would want to submit to a vile creature like that is beyond me. They say Barrett is some kind of expert on Islam, so he has to know about the inscrutability and viciousness of Allah. It’s a mystery to me.

          By contrast, the God of the Bible is personal, making Himself known, and entering into covenants with people, He does not spend His time roasting his enemies over furnace-flames. Given the choice, to choose Allah seems the definition of insanity. And to pretend that these horrible things are not essential features of Islam is, as I said at the start, delusional.

        9. Patrick, I don’t wish to argue with you. You obviously have a strong emotional disgust for what you claim is “Islam” and a similar soft spot for things Israeli. I don’t think we’re ever going to bridge that gap.

          I actually see both as very similar. Whatever you think of when hearing the word “Islam” is apparently not what I think of. Just like I cautioned about Barnhart’s video, she admits that, as a Christian, we must hate the sin and try to love the sinner.

          There is little that can be found in the Koran that can’t be found in the Talmud. Both are “political” agendas masquerading as religions. I have no affinity for Moslems but I don’t “hate” them either. That would be subject to what they do, not what they say they believe.

          In my studies, there is no distinction between being Muslim (Moslem) and the practice which is called Islam. It means “submission”. Until the recent manipulations began the two were used as descriptive terms for the same thing. One was a Muslim who practiced Islam.

          Barnhart’s assessment is rather true, although a little simplistic. I don’t hate on command anymore than I would want the objects of her ire to.

          There are serious divisions in the Muslim world. There are also serious divisions in the Christian one as well. The main difference is that most Christians are not claiming to be a special group singled out by God among all others.

          If you asked one of the “nice” Moslems what they practiced they would tell you they practiced Islam. Being angry about it does not change anything. You may have noticed that the lady interviewed on Kevin Barrett’s video displayed anger at “white privilege” and a total lack of regard for Western culture. She was not “stupid” however.

          In general I do not care what one believes. I care what one does. If their beliefs lead them to do unacceptable things they are still responsible for their actions. As a Christian I value life. I am not perfect. I am a sinner just like everyone else in our world. I do not, however, compare Christianity as a religion to either of the other two commonly accepted “mono-theistic” faiths.

          I know the history of all three. Barhart said a mouthful when she said that in the Seventh Century one was either Christian, Jew or Pagan. Not to hard to determine what group Islam came into.

          So there is obviously a clash of civilizations because as much as the media and various schools would like us to believe that at least the “big three” are all alike, they aren’t.

          So on some levels I agree with you and understand your anger. Having anger is not going to fix this. This is being used as a weapon just like germ warfare. No good is going to come from this “blending”. In fact it is more like blending oil and water.

          It is much easier to understand in view of the Controller’s motto: “Ordo ab Chao”.

        10. Once you feel it is necessary to attack the underlying belief system of any religion, while this gives cover for uncharitable attitudes towards its inherent (which you consider prisoners of it), then you are headed for wars of religions. I have no doubt that Cromwell regarded Catholics as pathetic prisoners of a delusion. All-out force can be justified when you see this looming enemy of what you regard as a delusional system of belief. Now take a step back and apply reason to any number of religions and you see that none of them can stand scrutiny. Take that to the extent the Soviets and Nazis did and you have a totalitarian system which can give no quarter to competing ideologies. Unless the religious leaders within the borders of these states knuckled under and never challenged the secular leaders, they were imprisoned and executed.

          So your intolerance of those who practice Islam in moderate ways leads to this Reconquista mentality – where you more or less suggest taking back the territory claimed by the sons of the Prophet all over the mideast and North Africa. It’s an ambition which once gave us the Inquisition.

          Why would anyone rational want to sign on to that instead of a policy of toleration and compassion for suffering human beings?

        11. “So your intolerance of those who practice Islam in moderate ways leads to this Reconquista mentality”

          Not so much.

          As I said, I’m just fine with the guy down the block, or the restaurant owner, who don’t adhere to the core of the true Islam. Tolerance is my middle name, when it comes to apostate Moslems. Of course, it goes without saying that it would be to all Moslems’ favor to convert to Christianity and abjure the demon-god Allah and all his nasty works.

          Reconquest? Not a chance. After all, my base premise is that Western Civilization has come to an end, and a new civilization is emerging in our midst. Can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube, as I always say.

          The thing is, either the Bible is true or it’s not. I can prove that it is true, scientifically, philosophically, and theologically. Moslems can’t do that with their “sacred books,” because they are ridiculous on every level. Saying that is not an “attack.” It is a statement of verifiable truth.

          As for Cromwell, well, it was two factions interpreting an easily verifiable truth in different ways. It is comparable to shiites and sunnis in conflict, debating an interpretation of a nonsense belief system. These struggles to sort out what’s true within a given system are inevitable in this world. The question here is, again, is the Bible true? It either is or it’s not. And if it’s true, Moslems are on the outside looking in.

          The Bible, alone amongst philosophical systems, can withstand scrutiny. Consult CS Lewis, JRR Tolkien and GK Chesterton (not to mention Aquinas and Augustine, ad. infinitum).

          Finally, your closing words evidence a complete misunderstanding of my meaning. It is my toleration and compassion for these suffering human beings that motivates me. No one should have to endure that gulag. They should be freed from that spiritual prison. This is the essence of charity.

Leave a Reply