Redefining Heroes & Villains

Redefining Heroes & Villains

Originally Published On November 17, 2009

On 9/11 this year I was filling in for Alan Stock on KXNT’s Morning Source. I usually tell the story of someone who was a victim of the terrorist attacks, but the morning drive format doesn’t permit me such a segment. This year I would have to come up with something new to convey the importance of those events on our society. As always, I was hoping for a teachable moment. But what to say?

I did the first couple of hours of the program with normal morning drive topics and waited for most of my audience to be awake before I addressed the day’s anniversary. I had several ideas about what I was going to say in my head, but none of them seemed to satisfy me. Sometimes in radio, you do your best work when you haven’t prepared at all, and your worst when you have.

For most of my relevant life, I’ve lived by a few different credos. The most important of which is …

All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing.

Edmund Burke

It’s served me well over the years, and I knew it wouldn’t fail me now.

As I discussed the events of that day, and how evil succeeded, I had an epiphany. Evil did succeed that day … because good men did nothing. Not because bad men allowed it to happen, or because we were caught off guard. It happened because good men did nothing.

Society teaches us that there is good and bad people, that’s it. A zealous few try to preach that a grey middle ground exists. It doesn’t. Society has been too narrow in its teachings of right and wrong, good and bad. Furthermore, they’ve been too generous with bestowing the title of hero. So what is a hero? What is a villain for that matter?

Time to open my trusty dictionary. I know my president says I shouldn’t, but I just can’t help myself. Before I found the definitions I was looking for I pondered, how could the dictionary possibly define such abstract concepts as hero and villain? You see, heroes and villains are not the same as good and bad. They are their own entities. Good people are rarely heroes, and bad people don’t always rise to the level of villain. I just can’t bring myself to call a petty thief a villain, I’m sorry. Heel maybe, but not villain. When I was in the Army I was called both, frequently. I was no villain, and could easily dismiss such nonsense. When I was called a hero I became very uncomfortable. I believed I was a good person doing an important job, but I’d done nothing that warranted my being called a hero. I didn’t deserve such praise.

Society says I’m a hero for just that reason, that I don’t see myself as such or seek praise. In fact, society has many definitions of what a hero is. It’s not that society has perverted yet another word’s definition as it so frequently does. It’s that hero really is too abstract to properly define for all circumstances. So is its counterpart.

So what is a hero, and what is a villain? Some say a hero is someone who does a dangerous job to help others. Most hero-heaping is bestowed upon the military, police, and firefighters. Can you really be called a hero based on your employment in a dangerous field, and accepting risk? Can it really be that easy? I suppose this could be one of those ‘I’ll know it when I see it’ moments, but doesn’t the word hero deserve more than that?

All arbitrary definitions society may have don’t mean a thing. Only the wisdom contained in my dictionary matters.

Hero:

1 a : a mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent endowed with great strength or ability b : an illustrious warrior c : a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities d : one that shows great courage

2 a : the principal male character in a literary or dramatic work b : the central figure in an event, period, or movement

3 plural usually heros : submarine 2

4 : an object of extreme admiration and devotion

Wow … how very vague of you Webster’s.

Really, the two definitions that apply are “one that shows great courage” and “an object of extreme admiration and devotion.”

Do they seem a bit watered down to you too? Great courage is no doubt a trait of the hero, but a person can show courage without it rising to the level of heroism. I do that when I do any electrical work in the house, and I’m afraid I didn’t cut the right breaker. Extreme admiration and devotion seem to fit society’s behavior towards a hero perfectly. Can that mean anyone they admire, or are devoted to is now a hero? Seems weak to me.

The dictionary is just as vague for villain.

Villain:

1 : an uncouth person : boor

2 : a deliberate scoundrel or criminal

3 : a character in a story or play who opposes the hero

4 : one blamed for a particular evil or difficulty

Come on! Work with me here!

Common criminals are not worthy of the title villain, uncouth means strange and clumsy, and what is a “particular evil?” The only thing that fits is that they are the ones who oppose the hero. So to be able to properly define villain, I must properly define hero. A task so tough Webster’s Dictionary can’t do it with any conviction.

Therefore, I submit to you that a hero is defined as a good person who acts. A good person who does something. Most often to prevent the success of evil. That is a hero! A good person who acts, most often to prevent the success of evil.

As I discussed 9/11 that morning this concept of what a hero is was so clear. Only people who spring into action on behalf of good with little regard for themselves are called heroes. That became my message that morning. I asked my audience if they were merely ‘good’ or if they were ‘heroes.’ Were they going to be good people who did something, or were they going to allow evil to succeed?

Speaking of evil. What about defining a villain? That’s the beauty of defining a hero. We now have the definition of the villain as well. A villain is someone who acts, in opposition to the hero, in order to ensure the success of evil.

With that, I leave you with some parting questions. Are you good or bad? Are you a hero or villain? Will you allow evil to succeed, or will you be that good person who does something?

That Time The CDC Fabricated A Pandemic That Wasn’t Real – The Swine Flu Fraud of ’76 – 60 Minutes

In 1976, the CDC invented a fake pandemic.

They used fear, media stories, and celebrities to promote injecting experimental vaccines into people. Thousands suffered negative side effects of those vaccines.

The CDC claimed they weren’t made aware of any negative side effect risks, but as you will see in the 60 Minutes segment, they lied.

I’ve covered this story on my show several times. I’ve gone viral on TikTok telling people about it. I’ve been censored for that.

The video I used for this story was deleted by YouTube as they try and censor this very real news story from 1978. Presumably, they are taking it down because of how it might affect people’s opinions about the current pandemic.

I have seen a few versions of this on Rumble but I wanted to make sure I had a copy on my video channels for all of you. I can’t control if others will take the video down from their channels but I won’t take it down from mine.

Here you go, enjoy.

Daily Radio Show Live Stream (3pm Eastern):
https://Rumble.com/CaseyTheHost

 

———————————————————————————————–

My Website
https://theburningtruth.us/

My Knives and Holsters
https://asdefense.com/

All of my social media links:
https://MySlink.app/caseythehost

———————————————————————————————–

Casey Hendrickson is a conservative radio talk show host based out of 95.3 MNC in South Bend, IN, and covering all of Michiana (Indiana & Michigan).

He’s been featured on @Fox News , Tucker Carlson, Fox & Friends, Brian Kilmeade, Lars Larson, @Tony Katz , and much more.

———————————————————————————————–

FAIR USE NOTICE

This video may contain copyrighted material; the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available for the purposes of criticism, comment, review, and news reporting which constitute the fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, comment, review, and news reporting is not an infringement of copyright.

What’s Really Going On With The January 6 Commission?

I always ask the audience to take a step back, take a deep breath, then read the story again. Does what you read make sense? This exercise will allow you to see a whole lot more clearly.

Now, follow me down the rabbit hole.

In spite of the media and political rhetoric, January 6, 2021, wasn’t an armed insurrection by any definition of the word. Anyone who repeats that claim is an unserious person not worthy of your time.

The FBI says there was no insurrection.

No firearms were confiscated by authorities.

Protestors didn’t bring handcuffs as the media reported.

So why does Nancy Pelosi, Liz Cheney and the other swamp dwellers continue to repeat that debunked claim?

Why are they still lying about police officers being killed during the riot? No officer died.

Why are they covering up potential police abuse during the protest?

Why are they covering up protestors being killed by the police that day?

Why did they lie about Ashley Babbitt for over a year after she was murdered?

Why did prosecutors fight to withhold the Capitol surveillance video from being released to the public? Shouldn’t they have wanted all of you to see how evil these Trump ‘insurrectionists’ really were?

Especially since they think January 6 was as bad as the war in Ukraine.

They’ve even claimed it’s worse than 9/11.

Maybe they want to hide those videos because they also show peaceful protestors being let into the Capitol and not rioting?

Why do they continue to ‘investigate’ members of Congress for helping the rioters when the real investigation already found that no member of Congress aided the rioters?

In spite of that investigation clearing all members of Congress, why is Pelosi still doing illegal searches of Congressmen’s offices?

Why doesn’t Pelosi want videos and emails from about January 6 from the Capitol and members of Congress released? Why does she say those records are not in the ‘public interest?

Why did they claim there would be over $30 million in damages to the Capitol building. The total only ended up being $1.5 million.

Why did the DOJ say that a Capitol rioter had a mockup of the Capitol in Legos then admit that he didn’t?

Why did they withhold exculpatory evidence that could have cleared protestors who were charged?

Not only did they withhold exculpatory evidence but they lied about other evidence and even fabricated fake evidence.

They even lied about President Trump doing nothing for 187 minutes.

No wonder those in custody have been documented by the legal system to have been abused while in custody.

Constitutional rights violations are common. Even egregious.

Why are they hiding the fact that a lot of federal agents and informants were in the crowd that day? Some may have even participated in the riot, or worse.

Why are they ignoring the fact that some BLM and antifa members were at the riot?

Even a prominent New York Times reporter says the media is overblowing what happened on January 6.

Yes, this is obviously about preventing Trump from running for President again.

It’s so much more than that though.

Look at what they did to citizens following the riot.

Gathered bank records without warrants.

Built databases on citizens.

Raided people’s houses with no evidence.

Used non-standard law enforcement to spy on citizens.

There’s a very real plot to nationalize the Capitol Police.

All of the big tech censorship, character assassination, and fake news stories used against conservatives were just a trial run. It may seem like a Hollywood plot but you’ve watched it unfold right before your eyes. The big tech and corporate media war against conservatives was then used to spread COVID lies and fear. Now it’s being used in the Ukraine/Russia conflict.

Make no mistake, they are coming for you.

 

 

 

 

Western Media Is Openly Embracing Real Nazis Now?

Western Media Is Openly Embracing Real Nazis Now?

I know, you are sick and tired of everyone flippantly throwing around the word ‘Nazi.’ So am I. The frivolous use of the word as a catch-all slur for anyone liberals disagree with is annoying. However, real neo-Nazis do exist. A lot of them are in Ukraine.

Point of clarification since people are inevitably going to take this out of context.

Ukraine is not a Nazi country. Most of the country is very tolerant. In the east, however, there are Nazis. Not as many as Putin would have you believe, but they are there and they have committed war crimes against the people Putin is claiming to protect.

Recently, the UK Daily Mail ran this headline:

Russian separatist warlord who led Neo-Nazi ‘Sparta’ mob is shot dead during battle in eastern Ukraine town in fresh blow to Putin’s floundering invasion

Interesting that the Russians are alleging the Ukrainians are Nazis and now the Western media is declaring Russian allies as Nazis. Zhoga is called a neo-Nazi in dozens of Western media outlets after he was killed. No one provides any actual evidence of this.

For the record, Zhoga has been accused of and appears to have admitted to war crimes. He’s no peach. But is he a neo-Nazi?

I can’t find anything about Zhoga or the Sparta Battalion (who DM refers to as a ‘mob’) being Nazis. I have found a LOT about them accusing Ukrainians of being Nazis and fighting against those Nazis murdering their people.

In fact, even in the Daily Mail’s article accusing Zhoga of being a neo-Nazi, they printed that the announcement of his death accused the Ukrainians of being Nazis.

Sparta fights for the DPR. Denis Pushilin is the head of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR). He announced the death of Zhoga on his Telegram.

He was mortally wounded while ensuring the exit of civilians from this settlement. Scouts “Sparta” covered the evacuation of civilians, mostly women and children. The Nazis opened fire on them…

The Nazis in this announcement are the Ukrainian forces. The head of the DPR said Zhoga was killed protecting civilians from the Nazis who opened fire on the civilians.

The Daily Mail published that nearly halfway down their article after they accused Sparta of being neo-Nazis. Daily Mail either missed it, as did everyone else repeating the claim, or they are intentionally lying to you.

It gets worse …

Look at this screengrab from just a few minutes before I wrote this article.

That’s the Wikipedia page on the Sparta Battalion. There is no reference to them being neo-Nazis in the entire article. Zero results for ‘neo’ for ‘Nazi’ and for ‘white.’ No one has considered Sparta Battalion to be neo-Nazi before now when it suits the Western powers that be to push that narrative.

Now, look at this from the search results for that exact same Wikipedia article:

The search results for that Wikipedia page claim Sparta are neo-Nazis but the actual article doesn’t … yet.

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger recently:

Larry Sanger has warned that the website can no longer be trusted — insisting it is now just “propaganda” for the left-leaning “establishment.”

“If only one version of the facts is allowed then that gives a huge incentive to wealthy and powerful people to seize control of things like Wikipedia in order to shore up their power,” he said.

“There’s a global enforcement of a certain point of view on issues like COVID,” he insisted.

The Ukrainian AZOV Battalion is widely recognized as neo-Nazis. The US government attempted to ban any funding of them with Ukrainian aid packages. A ban that was removed for … reasons.

AZOV Battalion – NBC News

NBC – News: German TV Shows Nazi Symbols on Helmets of Ukraine Soldiers

The Ukrainian AZOV Battalion and the DPR Sparta Battalion are enemies. Are the neo-Nazi groups fighting each other? Why does Sparta constantly refer to their enemies as Nazis in a derogatory way?

It seems that Sparta Battalion and their former leader Vladimir Zhoga are not actually neo-Nazis but are, in fact, in a war against actual neo-Nazi units.

Sidebar: The AZOV Battalion used to be a privately funded gang that was funded by rich oligarchs but was officially absorbed into the Ukrainian National Guard by former Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko. Poroshenko praised AZOV as:

“These are our best warriors,” he said at an awards ceremony in 2014. “Our best volunteers.”

In fact, so did NATO’s Atlantic Council.

40 members of the US Congress tried to have AZOV declared a terrorist organization. This is a great writeup about that situation:

Is the Azov Battalion a terrorist organization as 40 US House Democrats claim?

This brings me to the next story.

Russian soldier THREATENS Ukrainians with two grenades in his hands, demands surrender

Remember that story? The mayor of Konotop appealed to the city and asked if they wanted to fight or surrender. They chose to fight. I even covered it on my show. A harrowing story of bravery, right? What I didn’t know is that the mayor being lionized by the West is a for-real neo-Nazi.

His name is Artem Semenikhin. He’s the mayor of Konotop in the North East of Ukraine.

From 2015:

Local Jews in shock after Ukrainian city of Konotop elects neo-Nazi mayor

According to reports, Semenikhin drives around in a car bearing the number 14/88, a numerological reference to the phrases “we must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children” and “Heil Hitler”; replaced the picture of President Petro Poroshenko in his office with a portrait of Ukrainian national leader and Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera; and refused to fly the city’s official flag at the opening meeting of the city council because he objected to the star of David emblazoned on it. The flag also features a Muslim crescent and a cross.

Oh my.

From 2019:

Anti-Semitic politician beaten in Ukraine

Ex-mayor of Konotop severely maimed, attack linked to his political activity

Semenikhin attempted to run for Parliament and a new mayor was elected in Konotop but died of COVID shortly after that in late 2020.

Oleksandr Luhovyi, who was elected mayor of Konotop in the October 25 election, has died from an illness

New elections were held and Artem Semenikhin regained his old post as mayor of Konotop.

Given that Artem Semenikhin is a neo-Nazi with a criminal history, why did PBS put him on their programming to promote his bravery?

PBS Hosts Neo-Nazi Ukraine Mayor, Blurs Image of ‘Hitler Accomplice’ Behind Him.

Now, when I covered the story of Konotop’s ‘surrender or die’ predicament, I didn’t know who Semenikhin was. I could forgive PBS for the same except they tipped their hand.

You see, behind Semenikhin in the PBS story is a painting of Stepan Bandera. Bandera was a Ukrainian politician and Nazi sympathizer during WWII. PBS knew that and that’s why they blurred the painting out.

Here’s the picture blurred on the wall of Stepan Bandera:

Screenshot for posterity:

I suppose you could say PBS didn’t do this intentionally and it was just a standard blur filter that streamers use all the time, but I’d find that claim dubious, at best.

Just so we are clear … Western media seems to have falsely accused a pro-Russian commander and his whole unit of being neo-Nazis when they are actively engaged in hostilities with a confirmed neo-Nazi unit while PBS knowingly put neo-Nazi on their programming and hid a painting of a well-known Nazi ally hanging on his wall while they did it.

Good thing the West has banned all Russian media outlets so their narrative doesn’t get challenged like with so many fake Ukrainian stories exposed so far in the conflict.

 

 

Study: Teen Boys 6x More Likely to Suffer Heart Problems From Vaccine Than be Hospitalized by COVID

Yesterday, Biden gave the most dictatorial speech in American history that sets the stage for the government to mandate any injection they want. Not only was the speech full of flat-out lies, divisive language, and pearls of tyranny with lines like: “This is not about freedom or personal choice.” Biden’s speech also had potentially dangerous advice for parents.

The safest thing for your child 12 and older is to get them vaccinated. They get vaccinated for a lot of things. That’s it. Get them vaccinated.

At no point did Biden point out that the vaccine is not FDA approved for children under 16. The vaccine is approved for people 16 and older. Children 12-15 are still considered under the emergency authorization. The FDA has plainly said not to vaccinate children under 12.

This is important because a growing body of research shows that the younger you are, the more likely to have serious side-effects.

As I’ve always said, you should assess your risk from COVID vs the vaccine. Luckily, most people are not in danger from COVID. People with obesity (regardless of age) and comorbidities are at risk.

Well …

“A team led by Dr Tracy Hoeg at the University of California investigated the rate of cardiac myocarditis – heart inflammation – and chest pain in children aged 12-17 following their second dose of the vaccine,” reports the Telegraph.

“They then compared this with the likelihood of children needing hospital treatment owing to Covid-19, at times of low, moderate and high rates of hospitalisation.”

“Researchers found that the risk of heart complications for boys aged 12-15 following the vaccine was 162.2 per million, which was the highest out of all the groups they looked at.”

This compares to the risk of a healthy boy being hospitalized as a result of a COVID infection, which is around 26.7 per million, meaning the risk they face from the vaccine is 6.1 times higher.

Even during high risk rates of COVID, such as in January this year, the threat posed by the vaccine is 4.3 times higher, while during low risk rates, the risk of teenage boys suffering a “cardiac adverse event” from the vaccine is a whopping 22.8 times higher.

This is just the latest study to sound the alarm on young people and the vaccines. I’ve been talking about this research for months.

Biden and his acolytes haven’t been following the science at all from the very beginning, but his assertion that the ‘safest thing for your child’ is to get vaccinated appears to be very wrong according to the current body of clinical research.