Pages

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Blaming a victim, Nancy Lanza. She didn't kill anyone...

The Psy-Ops War on Preppers

by Daisy Luther


First of all, where is the headquarters of this “Doomsday Preppers Movement” I’ve been reading about? And where can I sign up? I didn’t realize there was an organized movement, one deserving of capital letters. Who is the leader of this “movement”? I’d like to meet him (or her) immediately!

The propaganda machine is not only going after guns in the wake of the terrible tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School – this has become a two-for-the-price-of-one crisis, allowing the government and media to yet again, demonize preppers.
Psychological Warfare:

Various techniques are used, by any set of groups, and aimed to influence a target audience’s value systems, belief systems, emotions, motives, reasoning, or behavior. It is used to induce confessions or reinforce attitudes and behaviors favorable to the originator’s objectives, and are sometimes combined with black operations or false flag tactics. Target audiences can be governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.

Yesterday the mainstream media began churning out articles about Nancy Lanza, the mother of the shooter, Adam Lanza. When you read the following quotes, ask yourself: “How many of these comments could describe ME?”

A few descriptive quotes:

Nancy was a member of the Doomsday Preppers movement, which believes people should prepare for end of the world. (Riehl World View)
According to reports, Nancy Lanza was a so-called ‘prepper’, a part of the survivalist movement which urges individuals to prepare for the breakdown of society by training with weapons and hoarding food and other supplies. ( The UK Independent)
Reports are starting to emerge of the troubled young man and his unusual upbringing. (Yahoo)
Dan Holmes, owner of a landscaping firm who worked on the family’s home, said she was an avid gun collector: ‘She told me she would go target shooting with her kids.’ (UK Daily Mail)
Marsha Lanza described Nancy as ‘self-reliant’.( The UK Independent)
He was reportedly homeschooled by his mother, a school principal and gun enthusiast, who wasn’t satisfied with the education her son was receiving.. (Yahoo)
As America searches for answers, investigators are turning towards Nancy Lanza’s supposed identification as a survivalist. (Yahoo)
Her former sister-in-law Marsha said she had turned her home ‘into a fortress’. (UK Daily Mail)
Mother of Sandy Hook school gunman Adam Lanza was a ‘prepper’ survivalist preparing for economic and social collapse, say reports. ( The UK Independent)
Mrs Lanza is thought to have trained her sons, Adam and Ryan to shoot, even taking them to local ranges. ( The UK Independent)
‘Nancy had a survivalist philosophy which is why she was stockpiling guns. She had them for defense. She was stockpiling food. She grew up on a farm in New Hampshire. She was skilled with guns. We talked about preppers and preparing for the economy collapsing.’ (UK Daily Mail)

Gee…they say this stuff like it’s a BAD thing.

Let’s see.

Stockpiles (or hoards) food….check.
Takes children target shooting….check.
Preparing for economic and/or social collapse….check.
Serious about home defense….check.
Home is well-fortified against criminals….check.
Skilled with weapons….check.
Survivalist philosophy….check.
Self-reliant….check.
Believes that we are capable of educating our children at home….check.

Nancy Lanza’s description could apply to nearly any prepper. Preppers have been cast in an ugly light for quite some time. We are painted as camo-clad survivalists, clenching a knife in our teeth while unloading an automatic weapon into some real or imagined threat. After our Rambo-esque rampage, we will crouch in the forest by a campfire, shoveling down an MRE while glaring suspiciously into the dark, a large Katana hunting knife close at hand with which to dispatch the next enemy.

The assault on preppers through the media is becoming more and more focused. Let’s look at some recent examples.

We were described last month by emergency manager Valerie Lucus-MacEwen as “socially selfish” – even though the existence of prepared people makes her supplies go further to help the unprepared. In an editorial meant for other emergency managers, Ms. Lucus-MacEwen arrogantly asserted, “You might wonder why someone like me, who has been in the business of encouraging disaster preparedness for a very long time, is so critical of people who are doing just that. It’s because they are being socially selfish – preparing themselves and the hell with everyone else. Instead of spending time and energy making changes that would benefit the larger community, in their very narrow focus of loyalty they are more concerned about themselves.”

The National Geographic program Doomsday Preppers also has had a lot to do with the demonization of preppers – it’s a full-court press propaganda attack against preppers. The program finds the most outrageous examples of preparedness possible and edits to make them look foolish. An article on the American Preppers Network explains the modus operandi:

The show severely skews Preppers in an effort that can be summed up as “making good television”. This is evident not only through viewing the show itself, but through the format they have built the show around. Some highlights of that format include:

Featuring one Prepper for 15 minutes only, ensuring that you don’t get too comfortable with them or learn very much about them
Requiring each guest to pigeon-hole themselves into one thing they are preparing for – almost always a “doomsday” scenario
Creating conflict and drama via their “experts” who review the segment and then condemn or condone what the Prepper has done – all within the context of the “one thing” they’re preparing for

Do you really believe that each of the families on that show only focus on one particular scenario? No – they are portrayed in a way to marginalize the philosophy of preparedness. We, as preppers, are a threat to the powers that be.

One participant on the show, David Sarti, learned that his appearance could have serious ramifications. Mr. Sarti “took one for the team” when, only days after the program aired, however, David Sarti was declared “mentally incompetent”….and his guns were seized. All of them. Mr. Sarti, who has no criminal record, is no longer allowed to own guns. He tells his story here.

Apparently, the constitution no longer applies to those who are categorized as preppers.

The accusation of insanity came after he went to see his cardiologist for some chest pains and shortness of breath. So far, it sounds sane and rational to me. The cardiologist, Dr. Andre C. Olivier, whose name and contact information I am delighted to publish, had Mr. Sarti held at the hospital for psychiatric evaluation and broke doctor patient confidentiality by contacting the authorities.

Then it really went to hell on a greased slide. Mr. Sarti, because of his stay in the psychiatric unit, was then declared “mentally incompetent”. His very large collection of guns was then stolen removed from his possession. He is no longer allowed to own weapons.

Earlier this month, Maryland resident Terry Porter had his home descended upon by 150 armed federal agents and local police officers. The raid also included helicopters, SWAT crews, armored vehicles and excavation equipment.

His crimes? He was known as a prepper, he was unhappy with the reelection of Barack Obama, and he owned guns. He “openly admitted being a prepper.”

So, why all the vilification? Why are preppers the new “boogeymen”? Why are we being pigeonholed as people who homeschool our kids and turn them into mass murderers of elementary school students?

Simple…because we don’t NEED help. We do not require the assistance of the government. We don’t need to line up for 5 hours to wait for a paltry bottle of water and an MRE after a hurricane strikes. We don’t call 911 and hide in a closet waiting for the police to arrive.

Preppers threaten the very existence of all of the social safety nets that are set up. We can’t be easily manipulated by the offer of a free flu shot and a grocery store gift card in exchange for our weapons. We think critically and don’t automatically accept the programming of the mainstream media, whose job it is to provide people with the opinions that they should hold. We don’t shovel in the HFCS-laden genetically modified crap, otherwise known as “food”, killing our brain cells and dumbing us down into cattle to be easily led to slaughter.

We are the last bastion of independent self-reliant thinkers. And the powers that be are very afraid of those who think for themselves, rather than regurgitating the media-presented party line.

I don’t know why Adam Lanza went on a rampage and killed 26 people last week. But I do know that it wasn’t because his mother was a homeschooling prepper who stored up food and taught him to fire a gun at a paper tar


Link:
http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/luther3.1.1.html

4 comments:

  1. The more I find out about the background circumstances, the more disturbed and angry about it I get. The failure on Nancy's part is two-fold: her failure to properly treat or institutionalize her son (which might by itself be excusable) and her recklessly irresponsible gun ownership. (I am not arguing that ALL gun ownership is irresponsible, that possessing a firearm is inherently irresponsible. It is inherently risky however.) I will focus on the latter. Some key questions:

    Guns are weapons designed to kill or result in grievous bodily harm. This is NOT to say that all gun owners are killers, but with that in mind it helps to have good reasons for owning a gun or guns. (Personally, I consider the need to own firearms for the sake of owning guns pathological) Are there legitimate reasons? Some have guns for hunting, or target shooting. Others for self defense. Why would any civilian need an AR-15? Why own more than one high-capacity semiautomatic handgun? And why have a Saiga assault shotgun?

    The question of owning guns for self-defense is controversial and is a somewhat dubious reason. But you can legitimately argue for one pump-action shotgun and/or one handgun.

    If you are a gun collector, who keeps guns purely for decoration with no intention to shoot, then WHY HAVE ANY AMMUNITION? For extra safety, it might be a good idea to remove the firing pin as well.

    If the firearms are for hunting or sport shooting, first off the same objections regarding types of firearms justified for self defense above apply here. Furthermore, many if not most gun clubs and hunting lodges have lock-up facilities. She could have had the guns safely stored at the range.

    I found out that not only was Nancy purchasing all these high-end guns for her son Adam, and stockpiling ammo, the stupid cunt would regularly take her killer-in-training shooting. She buys an antisocial retard an arsenal, trains him to kill, and I'm supposed to feel sorry for that dumb cunt when he does just that?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi, I found your blog post after searching on "demonize Nancy Lanza". I haven't read the rest of your blog so have no idea of your viewpoints on other things and whether or not I would agree with them. I am just grateful for an opportunity to express my disquiet at what is happening.

    I did not know Nancy Lanza. Perhaps she was the demon they are all making her out to be. But whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

    As a European I do not understand the US attitude to guns. I prefer my culture's attitude which is that gun ownership is rare. But I do recognise that there is a cultural difference here and that I do not understand. So I think this is a debate for Americans to have, not for me to pass judgement.

    But I do recognise when unproven assumptions are being bandied about and used to condemn someone. The only reports that I have seen by people who might know say that Nancy Lanza kept her guns securely locked and that she was very safety conscious. So why are people assuming it was her negligence that caused her son to get hold of the guns? We do not know what happened.

    Likewise with the ammo. Would he have been able to buy that himself? He was 20 and I don't know how that works in US. I assume that the body armour was bought by him. That is as valid an assumption as that his mum bought it for him.

    Why call her a "gun nut"? The people who knew her best said that she had only in the last few years taken up "target shooting" as a hobby. So, she enjoyed a sport that I find difficult to understand. I also find it difficult to understand why she had so many guns and why they were not kept at a range. But I do not understand the hobby or the culture. So I do not condemn her but recognise that I do not know. Why then are people who quite likely own guns or their friends own guns condemning her for her hobby and calling her a nut on basis of hearsay of publicity seeking aquaintances and irresponsible media speculation?

    We have had media frenzies in this country too and with hindsight it became clear that people make things up when they talk to the media. Or they speculate on the basis of very little information. All for their 5 minutes of fame or because the media badger people until they say something, anything.

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing. As far as she knew her son was not a danger to anybody except possibly himself. If she had known what he would become of course she would not have allowed him to learn to shoot even in strictly controlled "target shooting" conditions. She paid with her life for that mistake.

    My son had archery lessons once with his youth organisation. Safe controlled conditions so I thought nothing of him trying this sport, shooting at targets! If he had later got hold of a bow and killed me would I have been to blame? Would the youth organisation have been to blame?

    Who says she was a prepper? The wife of the brother of her divorced husband who seems to not have been that close to her but is happy to freely talk about this woman's psychology on TV. Her own family, her mother, brother etc are keeping a respectful silence!

    AS you say, even if she was a "prepper" does that mean she was a nutter? My guess is that there are all sorts and kinds of people who might identify with different bits of that idea. Some might be a bit strange. Some might just think it a good iidea to keep some extra cans and candles in case of unforeseen emergencies. A whole spectrum of people I suppose. Isn't the Girl Scout motto "be prepared"? What is so evil about that?

    I don't know whether Nancy Lanza made bad decisions as a mother or as a human being. I know that I do not know unlike so many of the people so quick to demonize her. What I do know is that she is dead by the hand of the child she bore and raised and probably did her best for. She was cruelly shot in the face several times so that she was unrecognisable. She was the first victim.

    ReplyDelete
  3. But whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?
    Does not apply, as she was NOT innocent. Definitely proven guilty post-mortem.

    As a European I do not understand
    I very much doubt that you are a “European” as you seem VERY stupid (based on your idiotic commentary), yet your English is remarkably good. English is obviously your first language. (Lying to make a point perhaps?) Though, assuming you are telling the truth you must be British.

    The only reports that I have seen by people who might know say that Nancy Lanza kept her guns securely locked and that she was very safety conscious.
    HEARSAY! Some witness alleges that she had “locked” guns (how securely?) but it clearly was not very secure if her hostile retard son was able to gain access without her being aware.

    Likewise with the ammo. Would he have been able to buy that himself? He was 20 and I don't know how that works in US.
    As far as I am aware, firearms, certain firearm components, and ammunition are all similarly restricted to those of legal age and with proper licensing. I do know that he attempted to purchase a gun days before the massacre but was turned down. Thus, the logical conclusion is that the ammo was purchased by his mother.

    I assume that the body armour was bought by him. That is as valid an assumption as that his mum bought it for him.
    Pulling that out of your ass I see! Even assuming that either assumption is equally likely, it is most parsimonious to assume that his mother purchased the armour as well. We know for a fact that she purchased all the guns and all the ammunition after all. But even so, it is a moot point. Body armour sans guns is a non-threat and it did not play any factor in the massacre.

    Why call her a "gun nut"? The people who knew her best said that she had only in the last few years taken up "target shooting" as a hobby. So, she enjoyed a sport that I find difficult to understand.
    Oh, I don’t know, maybe because SHE WAS A FUCKING GUN NUT! She owned assault weapons for fuck’s sake! An AR-15 assault rifle is in no way necessary for target shooting.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AS you say, even if she was a "prepper" does that mean she was a nutter?
    Well because, in addition to being whack jobs, “preppers” are FUCKING MORONS. Survivalists in general are pretty off, but the “doomsday prepper” subset adheres to a simplistic strategy: stockpile an overabundance of guns, ammo, and canned foods (or other non-perishables). Well first off, the probability of any of the apocalyptic scenarios for which they prepare ever even unfolding is extraordinarily low. But suppose their worst predictions come to fruition. What happens when their canned food runs out? Presumably they can resort to cannibalism thanks to their personal arsenals of overpowered weaponry. But without genuine survival skills, all the guns and ammo in the world will not keep you from starving to death. If you really want to prepare for an apocalyptic disaster scenario, your best bet is to learn genuine wilderness survival skills (including pre-industrial agricultural practices and metal working), and skills useful for rebuilding society after the collapse, and building a COMMUNITY of people with the KNOW-HOW. (That latter suggestion would go unheeded by preppers as they are genuinely anti-social types who fancy themselves “rugged individualists.”)

    What I do know is that she is dead by the hand of the child she bore and raised and probably did her best for.
    Oh yeah, she REALLY did her best for him. She trained her deranged retard son how to shoot and become a prolific killer. She provided him with many guns and stockpiles of ammunition. (Because you know, guns are toys, y’know?) She prioritized her prize weapon collection and her own personal hedonic indulgences over her son’s mental health… until it was much too late to do much about it. She really did her best for him… Are you seriously that brain damaged?!?

    She was cruelly shot in the face several times so that she was unrecognisable.
    Oh, boo-hoo-hoo-fucking-hoo! Cry me a fucking river! That bitch had it easy. FYI, being shot multiple times in the face is one of the best ways to go. She was caught unawares and dead before she could realize what was going on. Sudden death! Nancy Lanza escaped justice but had she lived and saw what havoc her precious guns wrought, she would have had HELL TO PAY. Also, she was unrecognizable well before that first bullet hit her. She had so many bad facelifts she couldn’t even smile properly, but then her deranged son lifted her face right off her with several bullets.

    She was the first victim.
    Oh please! Anybody who dies in a tragic outcome is not automatically a victim. Is a drunk driver who dies in the collision a victim? No. That status is reserved for innocent bystanders: the driver of the other vehicle (assuming (s)/he is not DUI and at fault) and any passengers in that vehicle, any pedestrians in the way, perhaps passengers in the drunk driver’s car. We may feel bad for the drunk driver but we do not bestow victimhood status on him or her. But going by your retarded “logic,” Adam Lanza was a “victim.” He died by his own hand! I guess we should mourn the killer with his victims.

    Seriously, Nancy Lanza was not a fucking victim, and fuck you for even suggesting that!

    ReplyDelete