Just fire up Elvis’ “Viva Las Vegas,” because everybody loves the smell of a good conspiracy in the morning, especially if the conspiracy is true:

Right, let’s get to it. The aim is to turn Republican/ Rumper/ Trumper types against guns, because everybody else hates White guys having them. Why, I can even hear from here the din by the Australian politicians and bum class that we should have their gun laws, which means, banning private firearm ownership, at least for Whites, while the ethnic criminals, as in Australia, are free to get their illegal guns.

First, while the gun banners have been jumping up and down with glee, using the shooter, Stephen Paddock as an example of an ordinary gun guy, who went “postal,” so by implication, all White men could do so as well, it was actually a private security guard who stopped the massacre:

This Black American conservative gives an intelligent analysis of the many puzzles raised by the Las Vegas shooting:

As always, there are numerous questions outstanding about such a shooting. Who was Paddock’s hotel room guest? Who warned concert-goers 45 minutes before? What does his girlfriend know? Were dying victims prevented from receiving treatment?

The main issues are neatly summarised below in a post from:

and I will comment after the quote:

“#1) Dozens of concert-goers reported the presence of multiple shooters

Although law enforcement says there was only one shooter, multiple witnesses are openly reporting the presence of multiple shooters. This could reasonably be the result of confusion and chaos, but it’s also highly suspicious that the shooter had “full auto” weapon which is usually limited to law enforcement or military personnel.

This question about multiple shooters was also raised after the Aurora, Colorado “Batman movie theater” shooting, in which numerous witnesses reported the presence of multiple shooters.

If this shooting was carried out by multiple shooters, it would obviously indicate planning and coordination among a group of people who sought to carry out the shooting for a political purpose of some kind.

#2) Who warned concert-goers they were “all going to die” a full 45 minutes before the shooting started?

Via the UK Express:

One woman, who was at the Route 91 music event, claimed an unidentified woman had told other concert-goers they were “all going to die” after pushing her way to the front of the venue.

The witness, 21, told local news: “She had been messing with a lady in front of her and telling her she was going to die, that we were all going to die.

“They escorted her out to make her stop messing around with all the other people, but none of us knew it was going to be serious.”

She described the lady as Hispanic. The lady was escorted from the venue along with a man.

The unnamed witness, who was attending the event on her 21st birthday, described the pair as short, both around 5 ft 5ins to 5ft 6ins tall, and looked like “everyday people”.

It’s clear that neither of these two people were the shooter, as the shooter is a much taller Caucasian man. Thus, this is not a “lone gunman” massacre. There was coordination. At least three people were aware this shooting was about to take place.

#3) The weapon you hear on videos was FULL AUTO, which is almost impossible to acquire through legal means

The multitude of videos that captured the event clearly indicate that at least one shooter was running a full auto weapons system. Such weapons are almost impossible for “civilians” to acquire. Although some pre-1986 full auto weapons are available for sale, they require extensive ATF documentation, background checks and extremely long wait periods approaching one year. Plus, they tend to cost $25,000 or more, and they’re extremely rare.

Full auto weapons, however, are widely owned by police officers, federal officials and military organizations. It will be very interesting to find out where this weapon came from and how it was acquired.

#4) Why were the exits blocked, trapping victims like rats in a maze?

Numerous reports from witnesses who were on the scene reveal that nearly all the exits were blocked. One witness described the situation as “being caught like a rat in a maze” with numerous “dead ends.”

Why were nearly all the exits blocked? In essence, the concert created a kill zone that amplified the casualties. So far, according to the Clark County Sheriff in Vegas, 515 people have been injured and 59 people have so far died. These are unthinkable numbers, approaching war-time casualty counts. It’s clear from the coverage that this shockingly high body count would not have been possible if people had been free to flee the concert venue.

In essence, the concert trapped the people, preventing them from escaping, and denying them the ability to seek cover. From there, sustained, full-auto gunfire is almost impossible to survive.

From Fox News, a caller named Russell Bleck, who survived the shooting, said live on air, “There were ten-foot walls blocking us in. We couldn’t escape. It was just a massacre. We had nowhere to go.”

In addition, once the shooting started, the stage lights were turned to the crowd, lighting up the crowd and making them an easier target for the shooter(s). Was this deliberate?

#5) Why did the shooter have as many as 10 firearms in his room?

According to news reports, the shooter — identified as Stephen Paddock — had as many as 10 firearms in his room, including several rifles. If he was the only shooter, what’s the point of having so many rifles? One man can obviously only shoot one rifle, and since he had a full auto rifle, he could obviously achieve his evil aims by focusing on his one rifle. There was no need for him to have multiple rifles.

So were the other rifles brought to the room to “stage” the crime scene with an abundance of guns? Why would one elderly man bother to carry 8 – 10 weapons to a hotel room in the first place? That’s a lot of work. Rifles aren’t lightweight devices.

I find the idea that a lone, elderly man would carry so many rifles to a hotel room for no practical reason to be highly suspicious. It makes no sense at all.”

Perhaps the last point is the strongest; the media and Paddock’s brother have painted him as the normal Joe. But how does a 64 year old man manage to lug so many rifles and bullets up to a hotel room, physically, since the weight would be great? How was the transportation of this weaponry not noticed by hotel staff, who surely would have found it suspicious? His brother said that he was apolitical, rejected the ISIS claim of being a convert (which the FBI dismissed in record time, of less than 24 hours, hardly time for a thorough investigation), and did not have guns. So where did the massive stockpile of weapons come from? One answer to this given by the MSM is that he actually was a gun collector, and “The Australian,” claims to have interviewed an Australian relative who saw his gun room:

In this article, which is inconsistent with Paddock’s brother’s statement to the press, that his brother was not a gun collector, the unidentified relative, who is married to the sister of Paddock’s girlfriend, says that he is “totally against weapons.” Sure, we believe you.

And, most importantly for the gun banners, where did Paddock get the supply of explosives, which the main stream media said was also found with his weapons cache? Doesn’t this alone indicate that there must be something more to merely the notion that he was a lone White guy who went crazy because guns make you do such things, so ban all guns? Explosives? That is inconsistent with the Aussie relative narrative that Paddock was just a gun nut. Gun nuts collect guns, not every fucking thing that goes bang.

The mainstream media are pushing the idea that Paddock used bump stocks, to make legal semi-auto rifles fire seemingly full auto, and already, Feinstein is off to ban them:

The bump stock uses the recoil of the gun itself to fire off the next round. The MSM claim that this is the reason why we hear what we think is full auto fire in all of the tapes of the massacre:

Now, that may satisfy the plebs, but for those who know guns and have experienced full auto fire in war, I think there are some questions to be answered here. It could be that the bump stock fire may not be distinguishable from full auto, but in my opinion the fire rate sounds like full auto, at least as I remember it. In either case, a normal 30 shot AR 15 magazine under such fire is emptied in about 4 seconds or less:

There would then be a pause to either reload, or get another gun. But, what we hear is continuous gun fire for most of the period. That is not consistent with the video evidence. There are extended magazines available, known as beta-magazines, which have as many as 200 bullets. AR 15s usually overheat after 100 rounds fired full auto through them, but let’s ignore that. The beta mag, if it functioned flawlessly would empty in probably less time than that of the continuous gunfire we hear. Assume for the sake of argument that the bump stock approaches the ideal cyclic rate of fire of the AR 15 style weapon (up to 750 rounds per minute, mechanically), then it would not be possible for one shooter to generate continuous gunfire without switching weapons. So, the sound evidence is inconsistent with the media reports. However, there is no evidence presented to us of beta magazines in the hotel room, and all we see are AR 15s with 20 or 30 round mags. Houston, they have a problem.

Further, full auto fire does not guarantee hits. In the Vietnam War, we Americans fired the MI6 on full auto, and missed most of the time, or at best hit the jungle. The guns were eventually changed to a three shot burst, to try and get some hits. The point here is that a 64-year old man, who is said not to be a trained shooter, was able to kill 59 people and injure around 500. Of course, the people were in a crowd, but they did not stand still but immediately began to run, some taking cover. In other words, they dispersed, which would make the type of concentrated fire from a full auto, less effective than perhaps aimed semi-auto sniper fire. In other words, it is doubtful that an inexperienced shooter could have been able to achieve the carnage that we saw.

It is interesting to note that the WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGE: of Paddock’s suicide depicts him dying of a shot to the heat, by his revolver, but the revolver is way behind him, which is impossible for a suicide victim to do. Either the gun was moved, violating CSI crime scene protocol or the killer’s slipped up, when planting the gun after they murdered Paddock.

This is the future that is being planned:

#

Relevant links for further thinks:

Own the collected works of John Saxon, Professor X, Eirik Blood Axe, William Rapier and other counter culture critics, on Kindle, via the link below. Amazon:

.