Pulse Mass Casualty Event: “Too Soon. TOO SOON!!!”

by Scott Creighton

Yesterday I was hanging out at a restaurant letting my car cool down after it was chugging a bit on the road (damn thing) when I struck up a conversation with a couple people sitting there. Very nice people, very casual place. I was actually watching a soccer match between Belgium and Italy in the European Cup or something like that.

Anyway, the conversation eventually turned to Orlando and “ISIS” and all of that.

One of the people I was talking to was a woman. Seems very nice, educated, maybe middle of the road politically, perhaps leaning a bit on the left. I don’t know.

As the discussion progressed, and we hadn’t really gotten into it, I mentioned the fact that the head of the FBI said there had been no discovery as of yet of any communication between Omar Mateen and “ISIS”.

I could tell immediately, this upset this woman deeply.

But I was speaking more to the man sitting there as well and I paid little attention to her apparent distress and I went on too say that both the chief of police from Orlando and the President of the United States had said the exact same thing yesterday morning.

Suddenly the woman announced “It’s too soon. TOO SOON!” and was so clearly distraught that she could barely contain herself.

I was shocked. I shouldn’t have been. That’s on me.

Too soon for what? Was it too soon to talk about evidence being made public by official sources in the ongoing investigation in-spite of the fact that these official sources seemed to want to get that information out there?

Too soon for that?

At first I was taken back by her emotional outburst. And it was emotional. How could people, reasonable people, be so emotionally upset about a developing story that 2 days after it breaks, any accounting of evidence that conflicts with their perceived understanding of the story is immediately countered with anger and resentment? Especially considering the fact that the information didn’t  come from Joe “Conspiracy Theorist” or Di$info Jone$ but rather directly from the official sources conducting the investigation.

The power of the media to play on the emotions of their audience is incredible. The news organizations understand this quite well and take advantage of it as they use the time they are provided by authorities to shape various narratives in such a way as to serve the interests of those power structures which rule behind the scenes.

Her understanding of the shooting in Orlando rests entirely on the story about “ISIS” being responsible.After all “ISIS”=Evil and Evil=”ISIS” so it’s horrible but easily understood in that context. You can comfortably place uncomfortable facts and events in your understanding of the world when things are this black and white.

But if you change that perception, if you challenge it, even with information provided by officials in charge of investigating such things, it throws everything out of perspective. And I guess that is what she meant by “too soon”

As she has such an emotional connection to the event, it seems to me she was just incapable of trying to realign that understanding of the root cause of the evil behind the attack without letting the emotional connection interfere with the process. Her ability to understand the event was based more on an emotional context of “ISIS” than it was the facts surrounding the case and it was true to such a degree that she simply didn’t want to hear any relevant facts that challenged her understanding of the event.

She understood the event through an emotional context and therefore any new relevant information had to be screened by the emotions themselves instead of by any form of logical evaluation of the information.

I don’t blame her for that. In fact, I have been guilty of the same behavior.

Many years ago, and I have written about this in the past, I myself was having a conversation with a friend, Jessica. She lived next door. And she started to tell me about this professor at her college that was saying there were serious problems with the official story of 9/11 to which I immediately turned into an asshole and tore her a new one while she tried to calmly explain some relevant facts to me. But I was hearing none of it and for that, I ended up losing a friend.

But I also ended up getting madder as I stewed on it and I decided I would look into these “truthers” (though they weren’t called that back then) so I could debunk their bullshit stories about 9/11.

It took me about 9 months to come to an understanding… that “oh shit” moment when I realized she had been right and I had been dreadfully wrong.

My history of 9/11 Activism from then on is pretty well established on this blog and others (9/11 Blogger for one)

She had moved out before I came to my more nuanced understanding of the events of that day and I never had a chance to apologize to her, which I certainly regret. I would like for her to know one day that everything I did for the Truth movement, as little as it was/is, is because of her and she deserves all the credit for it. I think she would be pleased knowing that.

So I understand this nice woman’s reaction yesterday. I do. Been there myself. But it’s still striking to see just how much emotional context is involved in our understanding of the world around us. I don’t know if it’s a bad thing or a good thing but I do know it is used as a weapon against us sometimes. Not by this woman, but rather by those who prey on us and use our emotions against us to keep us from better knowing just how the world we live in really works.

I remember something about Edward Bernays designing a marketing campaign for the cigarette industry revolving around using “freedom torches” (cigarettes) to get women to smoke back in the day. Women by and large didn’t smoke back then. Wasn’t “lady-like” and the cigarette manufactures wanted them to start because they figured they were missing half of their potential market. So the emotional context Bernays decided that would best suit their marketing was “freedom” and that’s the emotional connection he used to sell women cancer and lung disease.

I wonder if someone had come out back then saying smoking is linked to cancer would have been met with cries of “too soon” by woman hoisting their freedom torches. Probably.

Just thought I would share that with you guys. Was it too soon?

10 Responses

  1. Children of abusive parents blame themselves for bringing on the beatings [after all if they hadn’t spilled a drop of milk they wouldn’t have been beaten within an inch of their life]. Somehow that seems more comfortable than to face the other possibility: my sole protectors are despicable predators.

    Similarly it is too scary for many people to believe their own government is abusing them.

  2. It’s not too soon for Barack and Hillary and Donald to put their spin on the atrocity or for the MSM to play on the emotions of anyone looking to them for coverage and analysis of the events. But yes, it is too soon for the bulk of ordinary people to open themselves to doubt while they are still in the early stages of grief over what for them was a tragedy that played out roughly along the lines that the MSM reported. But that’s no reason not to keep presenting them with facts.

  3. This is a very useful anecdote. Thanks, Scott. My guess is that many of us have had similar experiences. Denial is the current watchword, it’s what one is most likely to encounter.
    Thing is … You’re sitting in the middle of a pitch black room … It only takes one second of full, clear light to see what (or who) is in the room. Once the lights go out again and you’ve seen what’s in the room, either you continue to lie to yourself or you get to work.

  4. It is difficult when the obvious to me isn’t to others. My first thought anymore when the snews puts something out there is ‘who benefits?’ and ‘what fraud is it are they pulling today?’.

    One would hope the truth would dissolve the lies, but many are so invested in those lies.

    Not to be picky, but change your ‘pray’ to ‘prey’. I pray all those that prey on others would spontaneously combust. That would be some awesome fireworks. Maybe it can start with hillary. 🙂

  5. Well said. All of the false-flag events play heavily on emotions. Trauma based mind control is what it is. Frankly, the news in general, constantly plays on the viewers emotions, but in particular FEAR. Actually ‘mass media’ in general plays on the consumers emotions.

    Even though the below is not quite appropriate for this thread, I though ya’ll would appreciate it.

    Remember when the reporters broke into the alleged shooters home from San Bernardino?? Here we go again. Univision reporters inside home,… and what’s this on the countertop? Why an expired firearms license… imagine that.

    I guess police allowing reporters inside the alleged shooters home, which by definition is a crime scene, is the new trend.

    Also Univision = One Vision. Which is exactly want the Globalists are trying to create. One mind controlled vision for the entire world’s population. Brave New World indeed.

    • “Trauma based mind control is what it is.”

      It’s terrorism. Using violence or the threat of violence to change either social, economic or political structures. That’s what it is, whether or not they sent some assets in there to shoot people or it was all staged with crisis actors, it’s the same and that woman’s deeply felt emotional connection with the story two days later shows it.

    • holy shit. did you see his dresser? how many bottles of perfume did he have? and what was that they blurred out, a dildo? holy shit.

  6. Not too soon. The cycle of awakening is happening faster and faster. The degree to which our individual efforts contribute to this awakening can be debated, but it’s a piece of what we have and offering that to each other is a form of love. I wish you had drawn her out a bit and perhaps planted a seed or two but undoubtedly (and regrettably) there will be other false flags opportunities in the months ahead.

  7. Scott, are you sure you’re thinking of all the possibilities about “too soon”? Why didn’t you ask “What’s too soon?” That is a VERY odd thing for someone to say in that context – it doesn’t really make sense in the context, except perhaps…

    I might think something entirely different because of the strangeness and non-sequitur quality of “too soon” phrase in that context – especially with a rapid change of demeanor.

    Coincidences happen a lot more frequently than we often assume. Is it possible that you happened upon a couple of plain clothes government agents (maybe even placing themselves in your path)? She may have been a government agent with knowledge of the event and accidentally let slip that it was “too soon” for the press and president to be putting out the story that Islamic terrorism wasn’t involved, before the terrorist narrative had the time to create the desired amount of deep anti-gun and anti-Islam feelings in the media-thrall public mind. Not everyone is good at clamming up. She may have been bumming that by revealing his lack of affiliation with Islamic terrorists, they were reducing the effectiveness of the operation.

    Just a thought.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: