Rittenhouse Case: Facts Are Irrelevant To Propagandists, Liars and Idiots!

Facts surrounding the self-defense shootings by Kyle Rittenhouse and the subsequent trial verdict of not guilty on all counts.

1. There is absolutely no evidence to support any claims that Rittenhouse is a white supremacist, at this point in time stating or implying otherwise is not voicing an opinion, it’s an intentional lie.
2. Rittenhouse has direct connections to Kenosha, WI, at this point in time stating or implying otherwise is not voicing an opinion, it’s an intentional lie. Rittenhouse works in Kenosha, WI and much of Rittenhouse’s family lives in Kenosha including his father.
3. Rittenhouse did not drive across the state line with a firearm, at this point in time stating or implying otherwise is not voicing an opinion, it’s an intentional lie.
4. Rittenhouse was not illegally in possession of a firearm, at this point in time stating or implying otherwise is not voicing an opinion, it’s an intentional lie.
5. There is no evidence to support the claim that Rittenhouse went to the protest looking for a fight, at this point in time stating or implying otherwise is not voicing an opinion, it’s an intentional lie.
6. There is no evidence to support the claim that Rittenhouse went to the protest to shoot BLM protesters, at this point in time stating or implying otherwise is not voicing an opinion, it’s an intentional lie.
7. The three people that Rittenhouse shot were physically in the process of assaulting Rittenhouse or actually aiming a firearm at Rittenhouse’s head, at this point in time stating or implying otherwise is not voicing an opinion, it’s an intentional lie.
8. Rittenhouse has the same rights to self-defense as any other human being, at this point in time stating or implying otherwise is not voicing an opinion, it’s an intentional lie.
9. There was absolutely no racism involved in the trial, at this point in time stating or implying otherwise is not voicing an opinion, it’s an intentional lie.
10. There was absolutely no racism involved in the verdict, at this point in time stating or implying otherwise is not voicing an opinion, it’s an intentional lie.
11. Rittenhouse is NOT a murderer, at this point in time stating or implying otherwise is not voicing an opinion, it’s an intentional lie. Murder is a legal term that is defined as the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Rittenhouse was found not-guilty by a jury of his peers therefore what Rittenhouse did was not illegal and therefore not murder.

What’s your narrative on this topic:

• Are you one of the people who ignores facts about the Rittenhouse case that don’t fit your social justice narrative and only render judgement based on the things that do fit your narrative?
• Are you one of the people that’s dominated by activist journalism in the mainstream media and their propaganda narratives and allow those narratives to become your own without any critical thinking?
• Are you one of the people that is basing their judgement of Rittenhouse on pure consequentialism? Consequentialism: the doctrine that the morality of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences.
• Are you one of the people that wants Rittenhouse thrown in prison regardless of being found not-guilty of the charges so he can be made an example of because you believe that this should be a tit-for-tat equity retribution incarceration based on your belief that the justice system is systemically racist against black people? In other words, to you two wrongs make a right.
• Are you one of the people staring reality straight in the face and actually telling the real truth and using the actual facts to support the truth not innuendo, propaganda, and lies?

“The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.”
Malcolm X

Propaganda, Liars & Idiots!
It’s really clear that information presented to people by the 21st century media in the USA is activist journalism that’s terribly biased and rooted in ideology instead of being rooted in unbiased facts, this is pure propaganda presented by liars to unsuspecting idiots that swallow it whole and it’s a clear and present danger to our culture, it’s undermining the building blocks of our society. I’ve been discussing this cancer to our society for quite a while, most recently in my post Lying Political Attack Dogs In The Media Are Enemies Of The People! There are brazen race hustling liars out there trying to tear down the United States while they use their divisional tactics to build up themselves. There are social justice warriors, a 21st century scourge, out there trying to undermine the very core of our Liberty. Propaganda truly is destroying the fourth estate and wreaking havoc on society and in the end it will cause Liberty to die a slow death in the USA. What we are witnessing is what appears to be an effective campaign to brainwash a swath of the population and steer the USA towards totalitarianism. We as a nation need strong leaders to face down totalitarianism.

Your thinking and choices with a topic such as this can directly reflect your character and integrity. Take a look at yourself away from the intentional propaganda fog that’s intentionally created by our gaslighting media and see what you honestly find.

If you had to make a choice right this second, would you choose to be a propagandist, a liar or an idiot? Who do you really want to be? Are you currently the person you really want to be?

I choose actual facts.

I choose actual reality.

I choose actual integrity.

The choices are yours, the consequences of your choices are also yours.

Here are some related articles:
The Media’s Verdict on Kyle Rittenhouse

A Rittenhouse Verdict Inventory Of Ethics Heroes, Dunces, Villains And Fools, Part III: Facts Don’t Matter

When All The Media Narratives Collapse

Rittenhouse Revisited: How Media Misinformation Can Fuel Social Unrest

Unrequited Rage: The Demand for Mob Justice in the Rittenhouse Trial

The Rittenhouse Trial: A Legal Scholar Responds