1991 Book Predicts School Shootings By Drugged Individuals In Order To Disarm Public

To think about the political climate in the 1990s a second time, I did come across talk about weapons. It usually comes around a financial crisis with propaganda from an exterior political force trying to weasel its way into the landscape. Usually, a bunch of lawyers with a big pile of money and a bunch of executives who are not USA citizens but who want to establish equal rights with them from outside. It's an intimidation tactic towards politicians to suppress international financial and deal-making access until the politicians cower to the idealists and write away the rights of their people. Basically, the threat of you do this or we will make you a poor country type of threat. And it's usually sort of blackmailed in, with the threat of you do this or we will expose you type of threat.

I think in the 1990s the threat was coming from Canadian and European investors. These international deals, okay we did this in our country, now you do this in your country. It's not even about US governors and senators having rights over their states anymore. Basically a bunch of filthy wealthy investors from outside the country are holding back their investments until the guns are removed, and the local government has gold-fever and wants an economy for their local populations.

The tactic to make an ideal scene for the outside international investors is that they want citizens to be disarmed, but private security -- their private security -- has a loophole, mostly because they are an island surrounding someone with diplomatic immunity. They want to take their private investment, plow through the nation with their private army, and thrive off of the population's suffering. Not unlike what contract groups are doing in the Middle East these days: making policy to disarm, and profiting from the poverty that comes when people don't have their defense mechanisms and freedom of choice of who will lead them.

So now in reflection of the past, what kind of dirt do these gun-banners have already against them that is pushing them to take rights away from citizens they have never met? Who is pushing them? Whoever it is will have lots of money and will be coming from somewhere outside the country.

Knowing how this happened in the 80s with the Reagan assassination attempt, in the 90s with the other scares, and currently with the Sandy Hook massacre, we are being persuaded by the press, which can be bought, to blame ourselves when there is an exterior international force pushing this. It happens every time there is an economic hardship, the attacks. Then the attacks are used to threat-in policy without giving the nation a window of time to grieve. Always. They push it before people recover from the shock. It's a scare tactic.

Now I want to read that book. The author could have been a prophet. You usually have to be drugged to get to the point of hurting a child.

Originally posted by GrandStrategy

Originally posted by Klassified
reply to post by GrandStrategy

 

On ATS everybody is saying there was no shooting, that everybody is just an actor.

Everybody? I read my fair share of those threads. Not "everybody" was saying that. Just a handful. Seems to me the vast majority of ATS believed there was a shooting, and people died. No offense meant, that line just happened to catch my eye.

None taken, wasn't meant to be taken literally, was just making a point that most on ATS pushing the conspiracy angle were going with the whole "they're actors!" thing, which doesn't really tie in with Coopers 'prediction'

It's not "most" either. It's a very small percentage of ATS posters who come out with theories like no shooting took place at all, and everyone is an actor.

...and of that small percentile I'd hazard more than half are disinformation. The rest are just well way out there imo.

I'd argue that "most" posters who are questioning the "ever developing and changing story" as there's no official story yet still.., would agree that children were killed that day, and that in itself is a tragedy.

But imo, if anything was to be learned from 9/11, it's that letting ones initial emotional reaction to these types of events results in hasty decision making. Decisions that are allowing our government to gradually take away our freedoms one by one. Actually they aren't even taking them, we are willingly giving them up out of fear of these types of events. (this is just my opinion of course, I'm not speaking for anyone when I use the word "we".)

Originally posted by MisterMaster
Strangely, last night, Obama sighned the Warrantless Wiretap Bill...behind closed doors, and noone anywhere has read the entire thing, just like healthcare. Perhaps theres something in that Bill we cannot see until they pass Feinsteins malarky, who knows.

WOW....taps without oversight or qualification. We live where?

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by MisterMaster
Strangely, last night, Obama sighned the Warrantless Wiretap Bill...behind closed doors, and noone anywhere has read the entire thing, just like healthcare. Perhaps theres something in that Bill we cannot see until they pass Feinsteins malarky, who knows.

WOW....taps without oversight or qualification. We live where?

Amerika!

All salute our fascist masters!

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by MisterMaster
Strangely, last night, Obama sighned the Warrantless Wiretap Bill...behind closed doors, and noone anywhere has read the entire thing, just like healthcare. Perhaps theres something in that Bill we cannot see until they pass Feinsteins malarky, who knows.

WOW....taps without oversight or qualification. We live where?

Amerika!

All salute our fascist masters!

Whats sad is they have been running warrantless taps for many many years. But now they just come right out with it. Its offical now, this is the true nature of our relationship with the government.

reply to post by 110240



The goal is to prevent people organising a revolution. The economy is close its end (mathematic functions) and we will soon face monetary problems tgroughout this world. A reset is necessary. Today's billionaires want to live save and rich in the future, too. They know that people will uprise. However, an uprise will be unsuccessful when there are no guns in private hands.

I strongly suggest to read BF Skinner's "Walden Two".
It's explaining how our world is being ruled for the past 15 years.

You cant tell people "do this or do that" without any use of force. However, if you deliberately change some environment variables, people will EXACTLY ASK THE GOVERNMENT what the governement originally wanted them to do. 9/11 and similar events organised by billionaires were Walden Two experiments and it worked well enough.

Quote:

Walden Two embraces the proposition that the behavior of organisms, including humans, is determined by genetic and environmental variables, and that systematically altering environmental variables can generate a sociocultural system that very closely approximates utopia.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by GrandStrategy

 

James Holmes admitted to being brainwashed by his psychiatrists and acted as if he was under the effects of a drug, I can't recall the name of, but it comes from Colombia, and is called the devil's breath. Adam Lanza was on Fanapt, which can produce the same memory loss, and susceptibility to persuasion as the drug listed above.

in one of the three new batman films....there is a purple lotus type plant...used by scarcrow (i think)

also a haarp looking machine.....

i always refer to batman nowadays lolololol


the thing is....when do we investigate the investigators....its slowly getting to that point!

too many people...in too many positions...are getting complacent (or comprimised)....time to reshuffle the deck in some of these "corporations"......then maybe society would start perking up and acting norma, for a month or two. lol

This guy also believed that aliens were part of many conspiracies
Just saying...

Originally posted by davjan4
They had to get us to buy guns by the hundreds of millions.

Just think of the new tax revenue stream nearly 300,000,000 guns will produce at even $100 a pop each year.

Disarm? I dunno. New tax revenue? Maybe...

Yes this is The initial reaction before a law is passed so money is made.

Then the law is passed, it is calling for every gun even grandfathered to be registered.

Banned guns will include Even guns that shoot 6 bullets but you Could attach a larger magazine to. That is a lot of common guns.

Clearly this will stop no gun violence and a gun can be had by someone who really wants it by theft or getting someone without a mental health record to buy it.

Most violent deaths are not caused by guns so again why?

So WHY???

The only possible purpose would be to prepare for the taking of other civil liberties and the possible fight the people will put up for their freedom. They will know who has a gun and what kind, those can be taken and when demanded if not given over you will be arrested.

Why would anyone think this could not happen? The Government has not been OUR Government for the longest time. If votes are honest and working why is someone like house leader Boehner still there and all the others, are they doing a Great job?

Look to history to teach you what is possible for a nation to fall to and how.

Smart people will not be on these threads as I am sure they know who we are.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


But didn't he also eventually come to admit that the whole alien thing could have been some kind of a psy op on him.

I think Bill deserves better treatent than he usually gets on here. Whatever the truth is I believe he was sincere in what he did, something which cant be said about Alex Jones. I never did find out what they had a bust up over but my gut tells me Alex was to blame.

Bill also has some good info on Kennedy as well. I'd never have seen Oswald in the book repository doorway in the video still without Bill.

Originally posted by MrSpad
So we have been tricked into to easing the gun laws for the last 20 something years just so we might see some of them come back? Also since when is a gun ban even being considered? Worst we will see is the assault weapon ban we had from 94 to 04 come back. Crazy people do crazy things. They always have and the always will. Trying to make it into a conspirecy just comes off as trying to avoid the real problems we have in this country.

You asked "When is a gun ban even being considered"
You also said "Worst we will see is the assault weapon ban"

Assault weapons are guns, an assault weapons ban is a "gun ban". Thats the whole point.

""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.""

A gun ban is clearly an infringement of the right to bear arms.

The supreme court has already ruled this Amendment is referring to the individuals right as defined by the phrase "the right of the people"
The term "bear arms" means weapons being carried and thus, it refers to assault weapons since those are weapons meant to be carried by people.
"To Infringe" means to actively break the terms of a law. The law here states the people have a right to bear arms, a gun ban of ANY sort if an active attempt to break the terms of the law (2nd Amendment) and thus a complete violation of said Amendment.

Regardless of what one thinks about guns, this whole pursuit is an attack on the 2nd Amendment and the integrity of the Bill of Rights as a whole. The issue here is far bigger than "guns" but rather an issue of freedom being under attack by those who wish to take it away.

reply to post by GrandStrategy

As for Lanza... i don't see as suspicious that a psychopath who shoots up schools was on anti-psychotic medicine. I expect insane people to be on medication, that's part and parcel of being insane, somebody medicates you - what would be really crazy was if he wasn't on something!

Have you seen the statistics relating to school shooting massacres, not to mention other random incidents of this nature? There have always been mentally ill people in this world, but there have NOT always been such high statistics relating to shooting massacres. They've gone through the roof in the past couple of decades, and, coincidentally, in that same time period, the pharmaceutical industry has flooded the market with many new varieties of psychiatric meds that have been proven to cause suicidal and homicidal ideations in some of the patients who use them.

Your argument is weak, and it leads me to believe that you are either naive, or you choose to live in willful ignorance.

Originally posted by Merinda
It isnt the government whom wants guns off the streets, its concerned everyday people. Those whom make money with the legal gun trade do not want it to stop. They can afford security and ivy league schools with armed guards for their children. They do not care how many Americans die. Somebody dying in a shooting in a middle class school is to them as it is to us hearing about somebody dying in africa. Tragic but too far removed to be seriously sad about it.

That makes no sense at all, or you would have to ban vehicles and anything that can kill.
What of the druggie bus driver that killed the bus load of kids, the rarest cause is guns.

People cannot be that stupid, a person can attack with a bottle of gas and a rag and match!

Originally posted by MisterMaster
This cannot be about controlling guns. They cannot ever take away the second ammendment without a 2/3 majority of states agreeing to it. Even if that happened, theyd still have to get beyond the Dick act of 1902, which cannot ever be undone...says so in the act. Then, lets say tptb somehow get beyond that...they would then have to work on tossing the preamble of the Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta to remove guns. If they somehow manage all the above, tptb would then have to get past the Supreme Court which has set so many precedents by siding WITH the second ammendment that thats a statistical impossibility that there would be a majority vote against.

Lets say Obama somehow gets beyond all those impossible hurdles mentioned above...they would still not have the right to confiscate anything or force you to grandfather anything without somehow getting past the fourth ammendment.

Today, a confiscation would go something like this," Mr Master, we see you have 5 Armalite weapons purchases in the last ten years. We need those weapons sir, NOW!"

My reply would go something like," I sold those guns on armslist two years ago in a personal transaction. I have no receipt, and no proof, but if you dont remove yourselves from my property, I will have you removed by the State Police. Have a super day!"

Without a warrant, they cant search. No judge would ever issue warrants to search all suspecting gun owners' property today. It would violate your 4th ammendment to be safe from illegal search and seizure of weapons as any law which violates the constitution is non-binding on the people.

The government has forced itself into a corner on this issue. Granted, they want guns gone, and this is a golden opportunity, but in order for it to work, they must tip their hand because IF grandfathering starts, so does the war in my opinion.

So, if this Bill passes and knocks begin, someone somewhere will fire the shot heard around the world. If it doesnt, then we win the battle and this gun grabbing nonsense should end. Either way, I feel alot will be learned about this so called NWO when the dust settles on this issue.

All is only my opinion, and doesnt mean I want to debate it or argue the finer points as I have no proof to back them. Common sense just says they will force some regulation of the fourth ammendment as a lesser of two evils. Probably something to do with mental health evals for gun purchasers...for the safety of the kids.

Strangely, last night, Obama sighned the Warrantless Wiretap Bill...behind closed doors, and noone anywhere has read the entire thing, just like healthcare. Perhaps theres something in that Bill we cannot see until they pass Feinsteins malarky, who knows.

You only have to either get the public to WANT to lose their rights give away their own freedom of "safety" and or OWN the Supreme Court.

Look how easy it was to "consolidate" agency's, for the sake of safety, making a large SS like operation of the Homeland Security people accept things as they are led to believe it is FOR them.

Im afraid it takes more than making people want to get rid of a right...a VOTE must take place in order for any bans to be lawful. Just because Feinstein has a Bill that may pass, you have to realize there will be years and years of court battles regarding the issue. It will be years and years until some cop comes knocking to confiscate.

The Federal courts will block this bill immediately after the first civil rights challenge. The government cant work that quickly. BUT...to play Devils Advocate against myself....if they DO ram something barbaric through, at least they will tip their hand and as a consequence, many may open their eyes.

Respect your opinion though. Only time will tell....

reply to post by PatriotG


Check out 'Orion Trading' who supports Susasn G. Komen, sustainability, bartering among many other NWO projects.

www.oriontradingworldwide.com...

These people are committed to setting the industry standard.


.

Originally posted by MisterMaster
Im afraid it takes more than making people want to get rid of a right...a VOTE must take place in order for any bans to be lawful. Just because Feinstein has a Bill that may pass, you have to realize there will be years and years of court battles regarding the issue. It will be years and years until some cop comes knocking to confiscate.

The Federal courts will block this bill immediately after the first civil rights challenge. The government cant work that quickly. BUT...to play Devils Advocate against myself....if they DO ram something barbaric through, at least they will tip their hand and as a consequence, many may open their eyes.

Respect your opinion though. Only time will tell....

I honestly hope you are right, but I am seeing things that make me believe votes can all be fixed and change can come suddenly if you look at history. Money and power can control courts and sadly it seems more and more people do not understand the reason they had rights to begin with...give them legal pot and big screen and all is well.

Sure theres a thread with this out there but take a look at Drudge, third row, red headline about Feinstein.

Link goes to another conspiracy based site, but the YT vid, bout 40 seconds long shows Feinstein doing an interview in 1995 stating how she wanted to outright ban all guns.

She is scary.

reply to post by MisterMaster

The Federal courts will block this bill immediately after the first civil rights challenge.

Well, one would hope so.

Did the courts support the Second Amendment when they passed the Gun Control Act of 1934, or the Gun Control Act of 1968..... or the Brady Bill?

I am not going to hold my breath waiting for the courts to support my rights.

" They're gonna have kill me before I die. " I think that's from the movie 'Yellowbeard'.