Maybe they want to ban individuality

Hear me out

I was thinking that the one thing all of these shootings have in common more than anything else is that the shooters are usually people who don't fit in.

They are sometimes known for being a little mentally ill in some way or another but nothing that would generally give any warning they're going to kill a bunch of kids. No. What is the media really trying to tell us about these people?

They're different. They don't conform. They don't have many friends. They're quiet. They're loners.

If you wanted to put them in a category, you wouldn't call them collectivists, would you?

What is more dangerous to a collectivist police state than individuality? The collectivist mentality despises and fears those who refuse to conform. For any reason.

The media keeps asking the question - What was in his head? How can we predict this? What are the warning signs. Well, usually, there weren't many until very shortly before the shootings. So what are they really asking? They're saying being quiet and shy and being a loner is a bad sign.

Collectivism is all about unquestioning conformity and loyalty to the group.

And what does the collectivist police state do best? It controls large numbers of people by making sure the only acceptable way to live is to conform in every way. If you look funny or act strange or think unorthodox thoughts or express yourself in the wrong way, you stand out like a sore thumb immediately and you can be labeled mentally ill and sent away for treatment.

We have been mostly focusing on the idea that they're trying to ban guns. And maybe they are. But I have had a growing feeling that their agenda is way bigger than that. They can achieve more complete control by declaring certain people dangerous to public safety. They can put anyone they want on their list and make up a new mental disorder.

What is the profile of the typical Libertarian?

How convenient, huh? How much do you want to bet that there will eventually be a shooting or something and the perp will be a conspiracy theorist? And when that happens, the media will likely seize upon it like a pack of wild dogs

Am I saying real mental illness does not exist or that it isn't possible that such a person could be dangerous? Of course not. I'm saying it's mighty convenient for the people who need reasons to tighten their grip on society and reasons to demonize people who act and think differently.

Maybe they’d want to go get f*cked? I’m called “quirky” and “different” constantly.

Think of Obamacare. What did they base the mandate on? If you're not insured, you're burden on society. Well, if the uninsured are a burden on society, the mentally ill surely are, right? So they can use the same kind of logic to force people to get "treatment". After all, "mental illness" is a health problem and the government has just basically taken over the healthcare industry, complete with the blessing of the almighty SCOTUS.

They can say you don't know what's good for you. You're crazy, after all. You don't realize you need "help". Crazy people never do, right? Big Brother knows best. That's basically the idea that Obamacare is based upon and it survived the phony constitutional challenge they threw at it.

If you've never heard of it, look up "Sluggish Schizophrenia"

Restricting individuality and promoting conformity has been part of the plan since the first pyschotic caveman picked up a rock and killed another caveman. The real concern though is this is the first time that there's actually been any real chance of them accomplishing there goal globally.

Thousands of years of studying the human pysche have now been coupled with technological advancement. We better hope there's somekind of civilisation wide disaster to knock us back to the pre-industrial times otherwise we're screwed. Personally I favour a massive EMP producing solar event. If we don't have a global equalising event humanity is going to evolve into a hive mind species with us worker drones and them elite kings and queens. EMP ftw!

I was looking for a thread like this. Good thoughts and well written. I was livid when the media began to talk about the fact the shooter has no facebook profile. Like it matters? They said the same about previous shooters (no facebook profile) and were actually incorrect. Is this a new way of catergorizing killers and dangerous individuals to society, by whether or not they bare their life online for others to read? I do not have a facebook profile. I will never have a facebook profile. So I am particularly livid that this is being pointed to and implied as a sign of a personality disorder. Why should I have to give a private corporation data about my life just to be a healthy, well adjusted individual? That is an insane concept. Making an issue out of non-facebook users is either the dumb actions of a hive mind or a very devious political agenda.

Of course TPTB want a calm consumer livestock and docile workforce. Slave owners do not want educated, free thinking slaves. People are bred like livestock. Cities are pens. Retailers are troughs. Welcome to reality.

Having said all that, the premise of this thread presupposes that this incident was orchestrated and I refuse to believe that.

People snap all the time. Sometimes it is minor and sometimes it is major.

1 million in 7 billion is not even statistically viable to study. And clearly there are not 1 million people going crazy at any given moment.

reply to post by BrianFlanders

I kind of agree, but I think it's a lot easier to say what you said when you DO think weird thoughts. People who don't normally think weird thoughts will find all of this to be disturbing simply because you've expressed a conspiratorial opinion based on insubstantial evidence. I think that normal people are just a whole lot more practical with their imagination and so when they're confronted by people who let their imagination loose, it can be unsettling (or worse), like a pair of shoes that don't fit.

Weird thoughts can be indicative of exceptionalism or just diversity or isolation, but they can also be symptoms of an underlying mental illness or absence of rational thought.

I have been thinking about this topic for a few days. In my case, I was thinking about porn and violence in books, magazines, movies, cartoons, television shows, video games, sports and so on. I was asking myself, WHY do we desire things from our imagination or from fictional things that we would NOT want to exist in reality? For example, we look for violence and disaster and sex and murder and mystery and conflict and challenges in these fictional things, but yet if we were asked if we wanted those things to be real, we would have to say no. I am guilty of wanting things in fiction that I obviously would NOT want to be real. So the question is do these things cause me or you or other viewers of fiction to eventually pursue these interest in REAL LIFE? So if I like to watch movies with natural disasters in them where people have to overcome and survive, does this mean that I'll soon want to live in an area where natural disaster is of greater likelihood? Or if I like to read murder mystery, does this mean that I'll wait excitedly for new murder cases to appear in the newspaper?

When was the last time you watched a movie with blood and gore and wished it were real? Or when was the last time you saw a rape in a movie (barbarella) and awkwardly felt aroused, but wished it were real? Or maybe you saw in a movie a man get pulverised in the face and wish you could do the same to the guy next to you? How much does fiction reflect a inner desire for the real thing?

Did you ever play cops and robbers as a kid? I did. Me and a friend grabbed branches as stand ins for rifles and ran around in the woods shooting at each other, claimed that the other was dead and wasn't playing fair! I also remember using squirt guns, which actually shoot something at your enemy. I remember dart guns and cap guns and bb guns. I even remember we found an old rusted frame of a pistol and were so enamored by it we must have studied it for several hours.

From my single perspective, I see few links. I want fiction to stay fiction. This is because so much of it's filled with chaos and conflict and struggles and deaths. I believe that our imagination is a mirror reality that's only used to explore ideas, fears, desires, predictions, recollections and so on. It's not meant to be reality. It was meant to prepare us for the good and bad. Someone who doesn't use their imagination will not be using this god given tool, as I see it. Use it or lose it!

Originally posted by zroth


Having said all that, the premise of this thread presupposes that this incident was orchestrated and I refuse to believe that.

People snap all the time. Sometimes it is minor and sometimes it is major.

1 million in 7 billion is not even statistically viable to study. And clearly there are not 1 million people going crazy at any given moment.

I did not say I believe it was orchestrated 100%. I do not know what to think about that. I agree it would be unlikely they could pull something like that off as a complete hoax. But I do absolutely believe they will exploit it and the fear, hostility and anger for their various agendas.

I completely believe it's possible they're just waiting for these things to happen and then seizing upon them and maximizing the impact through the massive power of the media.

This thread merely presupposes that they can and will abuse any such incident in order to gain more power and control and to marginalize and neutralize the types of people who typically create the greatest resistance to the various things they are doing.

Originally posted by SteveR
I was looking for a thread like this. Good thoughts and well written. I was livid when the media began to talk about the fact the shooter has no facebook profile. Like it matters? They said the same about previous shooters (no facebook profile) and were actually incorrect. Is this a new way of catergorizing killers and dangerous individuals to society, by whether or not they bare their life online for others to read? I do not have a facebook profile. I will never have a facebook profile. So I am particularly livid that this is being pointed to and implied as a sign of a personality disorder. Why should I have to give a private corporation data about my life just to be a healthy, well adjusted individual? That is an insane concept. Making an issue out of non-facebook users is either the dumb actions of a hive mind or a very devious political agenda.

In response to your thoughtful reply....

I have been noticing for a long time that they seem to be determined to force everyone onto "social media" sites like Facebook. I think it's safe to assume these sites were probably created by them for the purposes of things like surveillance, research and propaganda. Occasionally, someone comes right out and asks everyone on a given site or forum "Do you have a Facebook page and if you don't, why not?". To me, it seems pretty creepy. I don't think a normal person asks that question out of sheer curiosity. Or if they do, it only happens once in a million. It shouldn't be happening every other day.

Of course they have correctly guessed that people who are not mindless drones are unlikely to follow stupid trends like Facebook or Twitter. They realize these people are likely to be harder to control through the usual means of things like propaganda and conditioning. These are the people who are going to notice when they are being asked to do things that go against their better judgment. These are the thought criminals.

Another one of my old threads that seems appropriate for a bump today. I hate being right about this stuff. Let the witch hunts begin!

a reply to: BrianFlanders

Always relevant, Brian. Enforcing conformity is some of the worst of human behaviour. The message is always this: A safer society is one without individuality. Groupthink is what matters. Total conformity to the given paradigm. And if you think for yourself, or speak for yourself, you're a problem. This is really a much, much wider topic and encompasses so many things going on in the west today. Notice how the youngest generation find it shocking when someone expresses a view their peers don't, and they readily ostracize anyone that does. Hostility becomes legitimate against people who think differently. With social media, conformity is ever more rampant and a young person's peer group is now effectively hundreds of millions strong. Too much uniformity, too little thought. It's very dangerous.

You're on to something important here. The seed of peer doubt when you are a teenager can be devastating. The stereotype of the mass shooter is the loner, always. Not a one of them was socially-active; Lanza, Holmes, Cruz, Kleibold and Harris. Making kids dwell on mass shootings is what gun control is all about - making noise they know teens will hear. It has turned many against the 2nd Amendment while having zero personal experience with firearms. So yes, you're right about the psy op here and it's aimed at children, to make them afraid, to fear guns and to fear loners. Keep putting more space between the outcasts and the rest, sadly we know what will happen.