Connecticut Elementary School Massacre

[compared2what?]

I normally stay as far as I can from talk of these ‘tragedies’ because I am forced to compare them with daily tragedies times one thousand that are inflicted all round the world. I tend to feel like a stupidly indulgent American when I let this resolve slip. What about those unfortunate 60,000 Syrians that our proxy fundamentalist forces have killed recently? It seems they are getting their asses handed to themselves even as we speak; embarrassing, no? What mayhem is currently being planned for South America?

I don't think it's possible to comprehend that the slaughter of any is a tragedy without comprehending it for all. And vice versa.

[geogeo]

I normally stay as far as I can from talk of these ‘tragedies’ because I am forced to compare them with daily tragedies times one thousand that are inflicted all round the world. I tend to feel like a stupidly indulgent American when I let this resolve slip. What about those unfortunate 60,000 Syrians that our proxy fundamentalist forces have killed recently? It seems they are getting their asses handed to themselves even as we speak; embarrassing, no? What mayhem is currently being planned for South America?

WQhatever, as much as I might aspire to differ with mulebone in style, I do appreciate the ‘spread the blame around’ element of his voice.

jcivil

a few dozen Americans die and it is a big deal, millions are starved to death and raped and slaved and slaughtered each day and the "news" gives us shite.

I love me innocent little kids, enjoyed being one too, and the pain their families and communities now bear is frightful. Yet greater suffering is systematically ignored and even denied each day by the scum feeding us kid traumaporn.

Barracuda wrote….

It's become apparent that this killing, which is really a local news story, is now functioning as a sort of tarot card reading of its own distanced viewers. Each person is able to overlay their own, personal concerns and issues onto the event and derive a meaning which replicates and satisfies their own worldview in a highly fulfilling way. If you want gun control, it's a gun issue. If you're concerned about mental health, it's a mental health issue. If you're wary of video games, he's a gamer. If broken families cause you to fret, here's a divorced mother. If violence in movies is your nemesis, there's that. If you're worried about the state taking your weapons, here you go. If you sense a vast conspiracy manipulating the masses, there it is in the conflicting details. If you don't like rich people, here's a whole bunch.

So this is a gun issue then?

Mac wrote….

A very good and obvious question. I've already asked it myself, as have many other people on this thread and elsewhere. You ask the question because you are, like most people, a fairly sane, decent and honest human being, as opposed to a professional organiser or perpetrator of black ops.

However: Since everyone and his dog clearly feels free to worm his way into THE MIND OF ADAM LANZA, THE EVIL AUTISTIC WEIRDO LONER MASS-MURDERER, and since it's by now been established beyond all reasonable doubt* by the telly and the tabloids and the serious press that HE DUNNIT, perhaps you'll allow me to speculate for a moment on what it might be like to be an untouchable and anonymous organiser of black ops for the US government.

A possible answer to your question (and mine): They do it because they can. Because it's their idea of fun.** Because (this at least is uncontroversial) the perpetrators of any such crimes are heartless psychopaths. Perhaps, then, they -- or at least some of them -- get a thrill out of testing the waters and seeing how far they can go. Perhaps it's even of practical use to them, as an opportunity for research on a global scale. Or perhaps by now, since 9/11 at the very latest, they are perfectly confident that they can get away with literally anything, however absurd, brutal, implausible, unproven, or indeed blatantly dishonest and demonstrably untrue.

All this (perhaps) because they know -- through experience -- that any decent human being, however critical of his government and however suspicious of his nation's intelligence agencies, will be repelled by anything that smacks even vaguely of disrespecting the victims and will find it practically impossible to even countenance the thought that if Sandy Hook was a black op, they would either dare to have a guy doing "a really bad acting job"***, or be so incompetent as to let the cat out of the bag on CNN.

But that's all speculation, and in the worst possible taste, of course. As opposed to referring to Adam Lanza as "the killer" at length, in print and on TV, while offering reams of po-faced crackerbarrel psychology (and sociology) as to why He Dunnit. That's in good taste.

*What are you, a conspiracy nut?

**It's not unheard of for powerful people to get a thrill out of their own power and ruthlessness. It's not unheard of for brutal murderers to disrespect their victims and repeatedly taunt the public. Jack the Ripper, for instance, demonstrably did just that. And he was just one sadist among too many to list, and certainly not the most powerful or destructive one in history.

***It wasn't in fact "a really bad acting job". If it was (by any chance) an acting job, then he performed it highly competently, if you happen to like that kind of thing.

They do it because they can. Because it's their idea of fun.**

I imagine that the Roman Senators got quite a laugh out of throwing the ‘Christian’ victims of their psyops to the lions. ‘Shit man, the more you torture them, the more they believe in the psyop.’ What could be more fun than that? Well maybe having your progeny taking over the administration of those new kinds of ‘believers’ a few generations later through the “Holy Roman Empire”.

Yes Jack, loose I know.

The shits (element within the human mentality) that steal and corrupt the fire of the eternal or the wisdom gathered by true seekers will certainly be burned by that fire at some point. Enjoy your loot while you still can boys.


There is surprisingly little consideration of deep-state Gladio type actors on this thread. That seems odd for a site that calls itself Rigorous Intuition. But maybe that’s just me.

Mac wrote….

Jesus christ, I have only just realised that that video was recorded and broadcast only one day after the massacre. The father must literally have spent practically all of the intervening period answering phone calls from what he refers to as "people and agencies" (presumably he means news agencies), making arrangements with CNN, and writing his memorial speech, complete with the thanks and the forgiveness and the little joke about food.

Also (and this really does beggar belief): a Facebook page collecting money in the name of the dead child was set up by "close friends" of the father on the very day of the massacre, and it is still up there, with his express support. (https://www.facebook.com/EmilieParkerFund#) On the 14th (the day of the massacre), it already contained at least one photo of him and his wife actually at the scene of the massacre. By the 15th (the day of the CNN interview), it contained two more. It is an appalling spectacle.

Now to really step into the muck. Cuda posted these pictures awhile back. This first picture shows Emilie Parker on the right with a red polka dot dress. Please correct me if this is wrong.

Then the next picture has Emilie Parker in the same red polka dot dress positively beaming along with the rest of her family. All this, shortly after having been murdered.

Please correct me if this is wrong.

One may think the sister is wearing Emilie’s dress. Maybe that is the case.

I did bring that up awhile ago. The Belgian Brabant massacres seem to be quite relevant, though there was no attempt to cover up the existence of a mysterious hit squad targeting women, children, and the elderly in supermarkets. Daniel Ganser gives a good account in NATO's Secret Armies. Seems to have been Gladio-linked and US-directed campaign to sow fear and drive people into the arms of the extreme right police state. I've also suggested precedents in Condor and Phoenix, and lineages through MKUltra, MKOften, and etc.

BTW there were also some threats and other odd activities at the Catholic church the Lanzas attended, and the priest who presided back when Lanza was very young moved somewhere else and is now known to be a pedophile. In terms of the school being some sort of USAP. of course you have the very famous Fairfield Hills State Hospital with its tales of horror, underground tunnels, and etc., now the Newtown City Bld or something, among other things. There are some intriguing blogs about this. There was an ADAM program for troubled youth.

I can compile these links and post if folks or interested, or not, whatever.

In the old days RI was principally about reasoned discussion of conspiracies, and there was far less silliness and gatekeeping than there is now. I do remember one poster, however, by the name of "qutb", who spent apparently all of his waking hours posting perfectly-written arguments shooting down 9-11 conspiracy theories. He disappeared after awhile.

[compared2what?]

I try to remain mindful that one person's silliness and gatekeeping = another person's reasoned discussion of conspiracies. But that's more for the sake of the thing than it is anything else. It doesn't really make any difference.

[geogeo]

I try to remain mindful that one person's silliness and gatekeeping = another person's reasoned discussion of conspiracies. But that's more for the sake of the thing than it is anything else. It doesn't really make any difference.

I didn't mean you. I just don't think that anonymity, even on a surveilled and public thread should be a cover for people to be childish, insulting, and treat each other with anything less than lack of respect. We're all in this together.

[JackRiddler]

Right, the Belgian Brabant massacres demonstrate that death squads can target children at random just to create tension. But as you point out, there was no attempt there to cover up multiple shooters.

The existence of a category doesn't show that any given case fits into that category.

In other words you can invoke the Belgian Brabant massacres all you like. Invoking it doesn't make Sandy Hook another identical case of the same. Invoking it doesn't raise the quality of the evidence you've presented for that, which is pathetic. The existence of past cases doesn't mean you get a free ride in any claim you please to make.

And RI discusses conspiracy all the time. And back in your imagined halcyon days there was the exact same tension between skepticism and speculation. And that is how it should be. So you can make your case more credible, retreat on claims you can't support, or keep whining about how Old RI would have been kinder to your presentations. It would not have.

[barracuda]

I just don't think that anonymity, even on a surveilled and public thread should be a cover for people to be childish, insulting, and treat each other with anything less than lack of respect. We're all in this together.

Some ideas are deserving of mockery within the scope of a reasoned discussion.

You know what I consider childish? Watching a low rez YouTube video 5000 miles away from the scene of a murder and without taking the slightest advantage of one's critical faculties continuing to smugly proffer the absurd theory that these murders didn't happen at all, and that the families and the victims are all part of some simulated event. Dispensing once and for all with the notion that the victims are still alive here may allow the discussion to proceed with examinations of actual issues of conspiracy minus the idiotic sidetracking and copy-paste fantasy speculation we can find anywhere on the paranoid web.

[compared2what?]

I try to remain mindful that one person's silliness and gatekeeping = another person's reasoned discussion of conspiracies. But that's more for the sake of the thing than it is anything else. It doesn't really make any difference.

I didn't mean you. I just don't think that anonymity, even on a surveilled and public thread should be a cover for people to be childish, insulting, and treat each other with anything less than lack of respect. We're all in this together.

That's what I meant, too. You just put it much better.

[compared2what?]

That said, though. It's not really all that difficult to understand why or how things get heated. I mean, when you feel that you're pointing to what you can clearly see is some kind of danger or horror so that no more people will be hurt by it and you're going unheeded, the distance between "be careful" and "what's the matter with you, are you some kind of fucking idiot?" can be a pretty quick trip.

Because it's panic-inducing. How could it not be?

True for all, I think.

[geogeo]

Right, the Belgian Brabant massacres demonstrate that death squads can target children at random just to create tension. But as you point out, there was no attempt there to cover up multiple shooters.

The existence of a category doesn't show that any given case fits into that category.

In other words you can invoke the Belgian Brabant massacres all you like. Invoking it doesn't make Sandy Hook another identical case of the same. Invoking it doesn't raise the quality of the evidence you've presented for that, which is pathetic. The existence of past cases doesn't mean you get a free ride in any claim you please to make.

And RI discusses conspiracy all the time. And back in your imagined halcyon days there was the exact same tension between skepticism and speculation. And that is how it should be. So you can make your case more credible, retreat on claims you can't support, or keep whining about how Old RI would have been kinder to your presentations. It would not have.

Wow. I've not really tried to present evidence. But you are certainly mean-spirited. I haven't made a claim, I'm just trying to keep the thread open to discussions of this as a possible black op of some type. Do you really talk to people like this in real life, or only in our phantom world here? Wow.

[geogeo]

I just don't think that anonymity, even on a surveilled and public thread should be a cover for people to be childish, insulting, and treat each other with anything less than lack of respect. We're all in this together.

Some ideas are deserving of mockery within the scope of a reasoned discussion.

You know what I consider childish? Watching a low rez YouTube video 5000 miles away from the scene of a murder and without taking the slightest advantage of one's critical faculties continuing to smugly proffer the absurd theory that these murders didn't happen at all, and that the families and the victims are all part of some simulated event. Dispensing once and for all with the notion that the victims are still alive here may allow the discussion to proceed with examinations of actual issues of conspiracy minus the idiotic sidetracking and copy-paste fantasy speculation we can find anywhere on the paranoid web.

Ma'am/Sir: you have me confused with someone else. I NEVER asserted these murders didn't happen; dozens of pages ago, I suggested that 'they' might try to muddy the waters by putting out a whole bunch of crap about how these didn't happen, to discredit any 'conspiracy theorists.'. And now it's much worse--there's a fellow academic in Florida at The Memory Hole blog claiming they didn't happen, offering warmed-over Youtube videos, and the story is coming up at the top of my Yahoo feed. As I mentioned to another poster, I think you've misconstrued my purpose. I'm just trying to keep alive critical reflection on this event, and that should also include reflection on the reflection. But, like JackRiddler, I'm wondering if you're this intellectually sloppy and, frankly, rude, in real life. Wow.

[geogeo]

I don't like this Memory Hole crap, but this one linked on there is somewhat intriguing in that it was tweeted within 10 minutes of the completion of the massacre:
https://twitter.com/BreakingNews/status/279645424908918785

[geogeo]

That said, though. It's not really all that difficult to understand why or how things get heated. I mean, when you feel that you're pointing to what you can clearly see is some kind of danger or horror so that no more people will be hurt by it and you're going unheeded, the distance between "be careful" and "what's the matter with you, are you some kind of fucking idiot?" can be a pretty quick trip.

Because it's panic-inducing. How could it not be?

True for all, I think.

I guess it depends on one's culture and upbringing. It is extremely easy to treat each other like enemies on here; it is less easy on Facebook, but it does happen. In real life, out in the open, it is near-impossible to escape the consequences of telling off even the biggest a-hole in the world. My practice is to never tell or call anyone online, anonymous or not, anything that I wouldn't tell or call them to their face.

[DrEvil]

I just watched that youtube video. Lots of intuition. Severely lacking in the rigorous department.
That's also my main gripe with this thread. Several posters have already decided this is a black op, and are now trying really hard to fit the evidence (or the complete lack of evidence, which apparently is evidence in itself) to that theory, and anyone who disagrees is a gate keeper.

[geogeo]

I just watched that youtube video. Lots of intuition. Severely lacking in the rigorous department.
That's also my main gripe with this thread. Several posters have already decided this is a black op, and are now trying really hard to fit the evidence (or the complete lack of evidence, which apparently is evidence in itself) to that theory, and anyone who disagrees is a gate keeper.

I'm suggesting we keep our minds open to the possibility that this, as well as at least the Sikh Temple shooting last year, where several witnesses were quoted as having seen multiple shooters with their own eyes, could have been some type of black op. I personally haven't decided that it was a black op, by any means. I doubted the official line on 9-11 starting on 9-11, but I can't say I decided anything for a good number of years. I'm a bit unclear why this might be turning into some sort of a taboo subject, though--could it be because so many are saying that it was actors and no children were killed? It's like not being able to talk about Israel in a critical way without feeling unclean, tainted, lumped in with the Holocaust deniers. At this point, given the MSM coverage today of both the professor at the Memory Hole, and Alex Jones, my interest is quickly being drawn into tracking the public perception of conspiracy theorists--and no, I'm not saying that the event was staged to crack down on conspiracy theorists.

[barracuda]

Ma'am/Sir: you have me confused with someone else. But, like JackRiddler, I'm wondering if you're this intellectually sloppy and, frankly, rude, in real life. Wow.

I wasn't talking about you. I was involved in that very conversation with you dozens of pages ago. I was trying to explain just why I had sounded off to Sounder on the preceding page, which I had understood was the reason you had decided to invoke childishness and lack of respect as a proper subject for discussion here in the context of...

Okay, merry-go-round. Please clarify exactly who you were referring to when you said, "I just don't think that anonymity, even on a surveilled and public thread should be a cover for people to be childish, insulting, and treat each other with anything less than lack of respect. "

Or don't, according to your needs.

My practice is to never tell or call anyone online, anonymous or not, anything that I wouldn't tell or call them to their face.

Agree entirely. This is a fine explanation for the state of my nose.