are Often the Ones Never Expressed Plainly." - Me
Propaganda 101-0004 - "Active Shooter Response"
Yesterday I saw this article on Yahoo. What You Should Do in an Active Shooter Situation.
This information apparently comes from the Department of Homeland Security.
I could tell immediately it was a message that was delivering a message that it was not openly saying.
(I would like to point out that when normal people have others do this to them, its simply called “manipulation”.)
However, I just ignored it and moved on until today when I saw this article.
Fox News Just Gave the Most Terrible Advice to Kids for Surviving a Mass Shooting
So propaganda was then clearly exposed.
I would like to break this one down a little bit more from this point.
1. What is the message behind the message?
There are several, but first and foremost the underlying assumption to the entire schema of recommended actions to take, is that the person receiving is unarmed.
The assumption that everyone involved is unarmed paints the picture in the readers mind of a gunless and unarmed society.
It never bluntly says that however, and that is why it is propaganda.
Its assuming the social standard to create the political expectation to make it the cultural norm.
2. What is the agenda / purpose of the message “you cant”?
The foundation to the directions being giving, is that the victim cannot, and is incapable of defending themselves, let alone others around them.
A disempowering message of “you can’t”.
The “you cant” message is one of the, if not the, main pillar to Progressive Humanist thinking.
(I just realized that while one main message of humanism is "Humans dont need gods they can do things themselves."
one main message of Progressive philosophy is "Humans need government do do things, because they cant do things themselves."
Interesting... Ill need to think on that more, and write about it separately later on.)
If you, the individual cant, then you will be much more open to accepting a government that will do whatever it is for you.
I will try to clarify using an example…
In the second debate between Obama and Romney, during the presidential campaign this question was asked,
“In what new ways do you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?”
At that moment I wished I could appear right on the stage to give the correct answer...
“Who told you that you need me to rectify anything? Who convinced you, that you as a woman, and women as a whole cannot solve this problem yourselves?
You do not need me, you do not need the government to come in like a knight in shining armor to rescue all of womanhood like a damsel in distress.
You are your own power, and you can women can organize, use your own strengths, your own resources and your own self-esteem to rectify the problem yourself.
I refuse to insult and demean women by insisting to them that they need me to do anything for them.
What I will do, is rectify your belief that it is a requirement that the government rectify this problem for women,
and insist to you and all women that you are capable enough to achieve this, and any goal so desired on your own.
If you want someone who will tell you, ‘Since you can’t, I’ll do it for you.’ Vote for the other guy, not me.”
Remember this, everything the government does for us, is something that it insists that we cannot do on our own.
Every choice that anyone says they will make for you, is a choice you cannot make for yourself…a robbery of your freedom.
3. Cowardice vs Bravery, Self-Preservation vs Rescue
Step one, the 1st thing the instructions recommend, is “Run”.
First of all, that is a horridly disempowering message.
“Run away”, do not confront, do not hope to conquer, do not seek to overcome… just run away.
These are some of the points made…
“Evacuate regardless of whether others agree to follow.”
You know what, if I were to run away on instinct, the 1st one of such a person as was so wracked with terror they would not move that I met,
it is they that would convince me to not flee, but to stay, and try to help. Yes, even if it got me killed, because there are people that need to be saved.
“Prevent individuals from entering an area where the active shooter may be”
So then, apparently, on my way towards the shooting, someone dutifully would then attempt to stop me.
I would politely remind this individual of the countless internet memes that say in one way or another that “Hero’s run towards danger, not away from it.”,
Even if it gets them killed.
“Do not attempt to move wounded people”
Leave… the wounded…behind?
Now, there is some legitimate medical basis to this.
It is true that by moving someone who is wounded, it is possible, for a variety of reasons to make the injury worse.
However, when considering the risk of making the injury worse, verses what chances the injured may have by leaving them behind in an environment where there is
“an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area”, it is clear, that if possible, is is far better to try and get wounded out.
Its what heroes do. This is why the motto isn’t, “Always leave a man behind”.
I could continue to write, nearly line by line, but its very draining to focus on such an anti-character message for long. So I must stop.
The bottom line to all of this is the conflict between these two combating concepts, “Don’t try to be a hero.” and “Try and be a hero.”
All I can say is, if you never try to be a hero…it is assured you will never be one.
I, personally, believe that the lives of others are worth risking my life for.
So that is my intention, and that is is what I deeply hope I will have the courage to do in any situation were the choice is up to me.
My success will be made much more difficult, since there will be no one there to help me help others…they will all be trying to run and hide first.
4. Terrible Advice
It was the second piece where the propaganda was clear, because it did three things all at once,
1. It dismissed, demeaned via mockery the argument that “children (CHILDREN)”, should actually know how to attack and fight evil when it walks into their school.
2. It reinforces the original message by repeating that the correct response is always to run and hide, because running and hiding always conquers evil.
3. It targets by name Fox News. Why is this important? Because its Fox News? No. That is also the wrong question.
The question is, Why attack Fox News? Why not just focus on attacking the merits of the idea of fighting back, if it’s the idea one has a problem with?
Clearly because its not just the idea, its also the source of delivering it that one wants to tear down.
Why are they attacking Fox News anyways?
Shouldn’t they be running and hiding?
Other items on courage.
William Rodriguez - 9/11 World Trade Center Hero
Mike Kehoe - 9/11 World Trade Center Hero
Plato - Laches "What is the nature of courage?"
- kehoe.jpg (11.97 KiB) Viewed 9970 times