Mass-murdering man of mystery [Part IIIB]: Revisiting Columbine in the light of Las Vegas; revisiting Las Vegas in the light of Columbine
[NOTE: Here are links to Part I, Part II, and Part IIIA of the series. I figure that now—in the wake of the Parkland shooting—would be as good time as any to publish the last installment in this series, so here it is. In this piece I continue my discussion of the possible motives of the Las Vegas mass murderer Stephen Paddock and compare him to Harris and Klebold of Columbine. I find remarkable similarities in the two cases that I haven’t seen anyone else discuss.]
Eric Harris, the psychopathic half of the duo of Columbine killers, kept journals that offer an extraordinary glimpse into the double life of a psychopath—what Cleckley, who wrote the first definitive guide to the subject of psychopathy, called The Mask of Sanity. In his journals, Harris removed that mask:
Klebold and Harris had avoided prosecution for [an earlier robbery they had committed] by participating in a “diversion program” that involved counseling and community service. Both killers feigned regret to obtain an early release, but Harris had relished the opportunity to perform. He wrote an ingratiating letter to his victim offering empathy, rather than just apologies. Fuselier remembers that it was packed with statements like Jeez, I understand now how you feel and I understand what this did to you.
That’s the mask Harris wore, and it was a very convincing one. He fooled his parole officers, who are trained to spot that sort of thing but gave him glowing reports. What was he really thinking? Harris’ journal reveals the face behind the mask:
At almost the exact same time, he wrote down his real feelings in his journal: ‘Isn’t America supposed to be the land of the free? How come, if I’m free, I can’t deprive a stupid f—ing dumbshit from his possessions if he leaves them sitting in the front seat of his f—ing van out in plain sight and in the middle of f—ing nowhere on a Frif—ingday night. NATURAL SELECTION. F—er should be shot.’ “
That is a rare glimpse into the mind of a psychopath. It’s not a place in which you’d want to spend a lot of time. Psychopaths know they are different, and they know how to feign normalcy (or something that looks enough like normalcy) to keep people from being onto their game. But they themselves often consider their differentness (which seems so repellent to the rest of us) to be superiority.
Regarding Las Vegas—if you watch the interviews with Stephen Paddock’s brother Eric and listen carefully, I think you will hear hints of Eric’s estimation of Stephen as having been superior to the normal run of inferior men. My guess is that what Eric demonstrates is just a pale reflection of the vastly greater superiority/contempt estimation Stephen Paddock had of himself vis-a-vis the other people on earth.
So, if I am correct about the scope and grandiosity of Paddock’s original plans (remember, he not only had an enormous number of guns and a huge amount of ammunition but like Klebold and Harris he had some explosive materials in his car), then why didn’t Paddock kill more people than he actually did? Why didn’t he just keep going? Originally the word went out that it was because he was discovered by a security guard or the police, but now the timing is not at all clear.
If Paddock committed suicide because he thought his capture was immediately imminent (in a matter of seconds, that is), there’s no need to explain why he stopped shooting other people at that particular time. We don’t know, so let’s just assume that’s incorrect and that he might have kept on killing people for a while—a small while or even perhaps for quite a while—but that he voluntarily stopped for some reason. To continue the analogy with Columbine, note that Klebold and Harri stopped shooting voluntarily when they could have continued killing people. They had the ammunition, but they seemed to run out of killing energy at a certain point:
In just over 7 minutes [of shooting in the libary], 10 people were killed and 12 more wounded. There were a total of 56 people in the library; 34 escaped injury. The shooters had more than enough ammo to kill everyone but for whatever reason… they hadn’t.
From the library Dylan and Eric made their way back down the hall to the science area. They looked in through the door windows of some of the locked classrooms and even made eye contact with several students but they didn’t actually try to break into the rooms. Witnesses said that Eric and Dylan didn’t appear to be overly intent on gaining access to any of the rooms. They easily could have shot the locks on the doors or through the windows into the classrooms but they didn’t. Their behavior was rather directionless at this point.
After that they tried shooting at the ceiling of the art hall, then went back to the cafeteria. About twenty minutes after they had originally left the library (the place where the bulk of their killings had occurred) they re-entered it and committed suicide.
Their original plan had been to kill many hundreds more than they managed to kill (at least 600; their total was actually 13 people other than themselves) mostly through two large propane bombs and a series of smaller bombs. The shootings at Columbine were meant to supplement the bombs, but they had plenty of ammunition and could have shot many many more people before killing themselves. So why did they stop long before they needed to, and why did they kill themselves before they really needed to?
There is no way to know, but I believe there may be parallels to what happened with Paddock. Things just hadn’t gone as planned for either the Columbine killers or for Paddock, which might have left them disappointed and somewhat deflated rather than elated from the carnage, as they had expected. For example, another interesting parallel with Columbine is that Paddock apparently had tried to explode some fuel storage tanks near the concert by shooting into them, but they had failed to ignite, much like the propane bombs the Columbine killers had placed in the school cafeteria.
My theory is that the Columbine killers and Paddock then ran out of malevolent energy to kill others and what was left was the urge to die. Mass murderers often expect to commit suicide even if they also have plans to escape if they possibly can. The urge to kill others is often combined (paradoxically) with the same hostile impulse turned upon oneself.
The mass murder of other people that has been imagined and planned is part of a fantasy that has gone on in the person’s head for a long time, perhaps replayed over and over. It’s hard to fathom, but the killer expects to get something out of it—a thrill, an adrenaline rush, a feeling of great power. But maybe, just maybe, it doesn’t feel quite like that in real life, as the killer learns. Perhaps it isn’t as satisfying as he imagined it would be. Maybe not everything goes just right; he fails at something, or at more than one thing.
Or perhaps it’s satisfying for a while, and then the satisfaction starts to pall and ennui sets in. The fact that Klebold and Harris appear to have wandered the halls of Columbine almost aimlessly without killing the frightened students who were hiding in classrooms, defenseless and vulnerable, seems to indicate this possibility as well.
We have quite a bit of evidence from Columbine, including many witnesses and even videos of how the crime occurred, and journals and self-made videos of the killers’ original motives and plans. But we don’t have any videos of Paddock (unless there are some that haven’t been released or discussed), nor do we have any witnesses to his behavior, and no writings or videos of his discussing any of it prior to the murders. But if I had to guess, my guess would be that Paddock resembled Klebold and Harris (particularly the latter) more than one might ever have thought from the lack of superficial resemblance, although we probably will never know.
Better for all of us if they’d just skip ahead to the last bit.
It’s most likely because their desire was not purely for killing. Their desire was for the thrill of killing and causing fear in others. You can’t sustain an intense emotion for very long. After that, what else was there for them to do? Once they’d started killing people the rest of the consequences are out of their hands, the cops are going to come, there’s going to be a trial, etc. That time they had between killing and suicide was the last free time they were ever going to have, it’s not like they can go out for beers now or something, or go home. So I don’t find it surprising at all that they just quit after a while.
Violence successfully executed does produce a “high” (there is sime discharge of dopamine in one’s brain), but murdering defenseless humans (as opposed to prevailing in combat) may induce a much less positive result. And there’s no taking such action back. You’ve changed yourself and your life forever.
I know I used to (in my 20s, when I felt myself to be a complete failure in life, and went for long walks in the night — “looking for trouble,” to some degree, a switchblade in my jacket pocket) worry that I would never be able to sleep again if I crossed that line.
There may be a parallel with carnivorous animals, in particular cats. Cats which don’t get much killing opportunity–this is most contemporary housecats–prolong and expand the opportunities they do get, by playing with any mouse they do catch for some time. Cats which encounter more mice, as do some barn cats, become methodical and efficient in the killing. I have read that cats which encounter even more mice than that (this can only happen in a laboratory, I think) lose interest altogether and just look at the mice once they have killed a certain number. The cat has a certain amount of psychological energy for hunting and killing (two slightly different behaviors), which is capable of being fully discharged.
Of course, what is pathological in a human being is normal in a cat.
They had the ammunition, but they seemed to run out of killing energy at a certain point
neo: Interesting. I’ve never encountered this idea before regarding mass shooters nor seen the Columbine timing highlighted this way.
Sort of a Peggy Lee “Is That All There Is?” moment.
It’s hard to tell for sure from the wiki account of Anders Breivik’s shooting spree, but he killed the last victim an hour after he began but didn’t kill anyone for the next half-hour and then he was captured.
I followed the Columbine links and looked at the faces of teenage victims and read the minute-by-minute account of what was more havoc and mayhem and evil than I’d ever fully comprehended before. I finally had to stop, as it was making me sick.
Klebold and Harris were worse, more truly evil, than I knew. Van Sant’s film somewhat sanitizes the killings, which has the effect of whitewashing and glorifying the killers. I never realized how many times they talked to other students, who were hiding under small tables in the library or whatever, asking “Do you want to die?” or “Do you believe in God?” before then shooting them or not, on a sadistic whim, meanwhile laughing and saying, “This is awesome!” to each other.
Real sadism. Just the worst.
The brain gets so overloaded with the ‘high’ of quasi-combat that it actually starts to shut down.
All of the neuro-transmitters have been emitted// consumed.
It’s very much like being exhausted after the sprint of a life-time… but only within the brain’s neuro-chemistry.
This actually triggers a LOW… the perp crashes.
Then comes the suicide.
The crash reflects the extreme intensity of the high, the rush, the fulfilment.
Sure. Any of us who have really physically hurt another in a fight – not with a criminal or a national enemy, but with a “jerk” – are surprised at the sense of emptiness that follows.
You can if you try, kind of work through it in an imaginative exercise in which you posit that all the most obnoxious a**wipes you have ever met get their “comeuppance”.
Then what? Joy? No. As has been pointed out already, these guys are not trying to build a New Jerusalem on the ruins of the Moloch worshipers; they are just lashing out at a world that frustrates them and at the people who populate it and are thus “guilty” of not being what the psychopaths demand they be.
And in the end the would-be killers of all mankind lose interest, and have no human place to go. So they go to Hell.
Not satisfying …
Dawning realization they did this all for naught …
Killing the “worthless” out of spite, proves itself worthless in the doing.
Elevator down …
I have known a number of guys who have killed a number of men in ostensibly justifiable circumstances. None of them are ultimately happy about it.
Neo says,
A hint at the least … as I mentioned in Part 1
And
I think I see why the early suicides can happen with some of the killers.. they have a need to control their own exit.
After the first rush of elation or whatever there must come a time when the fear of losing control of your exit to say.. a police bullet (or even worse capture alive) becomes more important than continued killing.
This type of killer has planned the whole thing out with his own suicide part of the plan. Maybe he’s worked on a rough number to kill or has calculated how long it should take for a police response to build up.. Whatever, he needs to stay in control of his own death because its part of his overall statement.
Of course, for other killers the plan could be to stay alive to preserve bragging rights and continued enjoyment of the moment.
To be honest I’m finding myself less inclined to call all these people insane and more like they are following a logical path of evil. I think they are enjoying the whole process of conception, planning, resourcing, implementation and aftermath.
JC
miklos:
It does make for very difficult reading. No need to read it all, either.
Heart of darkness. Psychopathy is a mystery.
A lot of speculative guesses, comments on brain “chemistry” but no acceptable “Yes, that is correct” answer. Neuropsychology is in my semi-informed estimation a pseudo-science occasionally laced with fraud.
It is, I think, better to call Evil evil and leave it at that.
There is a post up at American Greatness that says some of these shooters have a history of animal cruelty that is often downplayed because they are minors. The author thinks we need to reevaluate such behaviors in determining what puts people on the NICS list. One thing is certain: a lot more thought and information is needed if we are going to improve things.
Going on neo’s Columbine analysis, it’s a glass-half-full tribute to humanity that even psychopaths don’t enjoy killing past the early rush.
…animal cruelty…
I read the “Little Orphan Annie” comic strip as a kid. It had long-arc stories before television got there.
There was one which haunted me about a maladjusted teen who became a super-evil villain. The early tip-off was torturing animals.
There’s something wrong with the number of active shooters who then later killed themselves.
It makes no sense. Why… just look at gangs in inner cities. They kill each other and bystanders all the time, but they don’t suicide when caught. If they did, the problem would half eliminate itself over time.
No, the whole suiciding assassin business sounds more like some type of mind control.
My theory is that the Columbine killers and Paddock then ran out of malevolent energy to kill others and what was left was the urge to die.
I don’t think that theory is correct.
That’s because the presupposition is that the agent has only one persona and that they are doing whatever they do of their own free will (such as Breivik or Oklahoma bomber).
That’s because the presupposition is that the agent has only one persona and that they are doing whatever they do of their own free will…
Ymar: How about some MK-ULTRA/Monarch links about how the Deep State is splitting these mass shooters into multiple personalities, then programming them to execute these strategic killings?
I love that stuff. I even re-watched “Conspiracy Theory” with Mel Gibson and Julia Roberts last night because of your earlier post.
“Conspiracy Theory” is a wonderful, underrated film with Patrick Stewart playing the MK-ULTRA programmer.
“Klebold and Harris had avoided prosecution for [an earlier robbery they had committed] by participating in a “diversion program” that involved counseling and community service.”
(serendipitously, I just commented thusly on the other post)
http://neoneocon.com/2018/02/22/parkland-its-not-enough-to-have-an-armed-guard/#comment-2368002
AesopFan Says:
February 23rd, 2018 at 12:57 am
It’s hard to not judge the guard, but this is the environment he was working in. What if he actually shot one of the criminals that his PD had spent years protecting?
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/02/21/its-too-late-broward-county-school-board-beginning-to-admit-their-mistakes/
huxley Says:
February 22nd, 2018 at 9:51 pm
…animal cruelty…
I read the “Little Orphan Annie” comic strip as a kid. It had long-arc stories before television got there.
There was one which haunted me about a maladjusted teen who became a super-evil villain. The early tip-off was torturing animals.
* * *
This is a commonly known connection.
“Ender’s Game” (the novel) trades precisely on that folk-wisdom to explain why Ender’s older brother was rejected for the same program that accepted Ender (although one might argue that the government got the same result in the end, sort of; people spend a lot of time on sf boards debating that book).
DNW Says:
February 22nd, 2018 at 5:18 pm
…
I have known a number of guys who have killed a number of men in ostensibly justifiable circumstances. None of them are ultimately happy about it.
* * *
Perhaps one of the reasons soldiers usually only talk to other soldiers. The reticence of the WW2 (and WW1) troops is well-known, but not perhaps uncommon.
One odd bit of research (somewhat disputed) is that soldiers in most wars weren’t really very effective in killing the enemy (one-on-one rifle fire, not bombs and so forth). The military training now has remediated that situation, but maybe that’s not such a good thing, psychologically speaking, for the troops.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killology
miklos000rosza Says:
February 22nd, 2018 at 2:48 pm
…
I know I used to … worry that I would never be able to sleep again if I crossed that line.
* * *
Isn’t this what Dostoevsky explored in “Crime and Punishment”?
JC…
You missed it.
They, the perps, are CRASHING in their brain chemistry.
The HIGH triggers the LOW.
Get it ?
&&&&
Without exception, execution squads find the event depressing.
In the case of the SD shooting up Slavs and Jews: they HAD to be — virtually ‘force fed’ Polish vodka.
The films don’t ever show it. They ARE show-cases, but the SD firing squads of the Holocaust were DRUNK.
This we know from SD survivors.
Survivors, you say ?
You’d be stunned at the suicide rate.
Shooting young, naked, females is, and was, so repellent that the actual shooters had endless nightmares.
This got so out of hand that the SD kept pistols and all ammo away from the actual execution troops.
Themselves, a PENAL formation.
That’s right, no-one volunteered to be the actual executioners.
This largely explains Zkylon B.
Even THAT crew wanted to deny ( self-deny ) what they’ve done.
Yes, the Zyklon B ‘crew’ ran away from the effects so that they didn’t have to listen to the effects of their discharges… nor SMELL them.
Hence Zyklon “B” — there was no Zyklon “A” — with the ordorant.. originally marketed // manufactured as rat poison within the walls of an old structure.
Its poison came from sugar beets, BTW.
Such is irony.
( A minor by-product, BTW. )
For those not aware: MOST victims of the Holocaust were SHOT… if not then… STARVED… only the last fraction made it to the death FACTORIES.
The idea that Hungarian Jews would’ve been saved by bombing the rail centers to Nazi Poland absurd in every dimension.
The death camps were the LAST NAZI ‘solution’ to Jewry.
At ALL times prior, they simply followed the Bolishevik ‘solution’ — they murdered civliianls, an masse, by my machine gun.
The USAAF// RAF has absolutely no influence what-so-ever.
My Uncle survived Dora.
He was on the burial detail. (Bare/
HIs expereinces were beyond your imagination ( I hope )
You DON’T want to imagine that far.]
[Anyone able to imagine my Uncles travails is a severe deviant.
His testimonly convicted one of Frances WORST Nazi collaborators // traitors.
ALL of her other victims had died — the HARD way.
Yes, she’, one of the WORST Nazi colaborators in recorded is history.
Married to the SS,// SD, in fact.
Her crimes add no limet.
The Nazis had a two fold problem. One, mass executions of civilians were beginning to make even the SS and derivative organizations, suffer from PTSD. Secondly, they were wasting valuable bullets.
A PTSD SS or German, was no longer combat effective.
Hence rail lines and gas factories. The allies didn’t bomb them because it was to the benefit of their war effort in WW2 for the Nazis to spend so many resources on killing their own workers and populations.
If they had merely absorbed the Jewish high IQ into their V2 rocket and second gen propulsion systems, the Germans would have acquired the jet engine and various other “high tech” much sooner. Perhaps in time for the war even. If they hadn’t gotten impatient and invaded Stalin…
But many of the Nazis believed in the Gotterdamerun, the Nibelung of faith and legend. When humans start believing in the Divine, they sometimes act recklessly.
Consider how much of a difficult time the Nazis had with psychologically conditioning people to kill what to them were inferior sub humans.
Now consider how the US military has created a conditioning process that removes most of these problems in the police and armed forces. We can obtain over 95% shoot to kill rates, although healing the PTSD afterwards is still not sure fire. Firing squads were used to prevent the shooter from knowing that they were the ones that hit the target. Thus some people just fired into an obvious open space. This wastes bullets but was a primitive way to get people to kill other people. The ancients had their own methods, which were harsher as melee executions were quite more traumatic.
The Japanese creation, Sword of the Stranger, is highly recommended for those who wish to see an application in communication of how people deal with killing other humans.
How about some MK-ULTRA/Monarch links about how the Deep State is splitting these mass shooters into multiple personalities, then programming them to execute these strategic killings?
I’m not a fan of watching the movies you watch, Huxley.
You still haven’t shown us the details of who was persecuting and suppressing Ohm. That should be easy for anyone that looked his name up online.
miklos000rosza Says:
February 22nd, 2018 at 4:42 pm
I followed the Columbine links and looked at the faces of teenage victims and read the minute-by-minute account of what was more havoc and mayhem and evil than I’d ever fully comprehended before. I finally had to stop, as it was making me sick.
Evil? Mayhem? To me, it is merely another combat field. Kill or die, shrugs, seems to be a natural result of humanity’s “survival of the fittest” strategy to me.
I wouldn’t call such scenarios to me normal, but they are far more normalized to me than evil or mayhem is. Evil or mayhem would be far worse than Columbine and other fields.
AesopFan Says:
February 23rd, 2018 at 1:14 am
In WW2, I recall there was a psychological study done about why soldiers killed or fought. The number 1 reason was “to protect their buddies and comrades”. Number 2 was “fear of dying”. Number 3 or 4 was something like patriotism or their family.
This study was also ostensibly divided up by new recruits vs battlefield vets. The new recruits said patriotism, loyalty, and family were the primary reasons. The vets put their comrades as the number 1 reason instead.
It easily explains why teachers will try to shield their students.
The explanation, as some analysts outputted it to me, was this. Before a person becomes desensitized to the horrors of war and fighting, they are motivated by classical ideals of patriotism, nationalism, and loyalty to family/blood. Later on, when these long term idealistic ideals break to the trauma of war, what replaces it is the short term goal of saving their comrades.
Is this because their comrades are more important than their lovers, family, and country? Not necessarily. The short term goal being valued over the long term goal was because few people can deal with pain and horror without a short term goal supplying them with immediate gratification and motivation.
Who knows if all this pain and suffering for this one battlefield and hill is enough to save the country or free a people? But they know that if they fight harder and better, they will save their comrades from death and despair. The more enemies they kill, the more bullets they can soak up and tank for their comrades and battle buddies. Whether this helps their country or not, becomes an after thought.
The number 1 cause of PTSD in Vietnam wasn’t even the killology military conditioning that increased the intent to shoot to kill up to 90% and above, from WW2’s below 51%, which was still better than the 10% in previous wars.
The number 1 cause, in my pov, was that each soldier in Vietnam campaign had their own callback number. That means they never got to the point where they felt they were fighting and dying with their comrades, as they would just need to wait x months and their tour would be up. The rest of the comrades and “newbies” would still be there, so it was easier to let the newbies be the cannonfodder to keep themselves alive longer.
That allowed them to survive and return home, maybe for a John Kerry style purple heart… but it caused humongous trauma as a result. They could not return with their buddies, as WWII generation did, and celebrate everyone’s survival. No, they were the “lone survivors” who let their comrades die in war. This guilt ate away at them and they refused to talk about, because who amongst all of civilian society could understand the guilt produced by the independent tours used in Vietnam?
I’m not a fan of watching the movies you watch, Huxley.
Ymar Sakar: So what? I was curious if you had any good links on MK-ULTRA/Monarch programming you found persuasive to support your conjecture like:
That’s because the presupposition is that the agent has only one persona and that they are doing whatever they do of their own free will (such as Breivik or Oklahoma bomber).
I’ve been tracking MK-ULTRA and Monarch for years. However, I haven’t found anything convincing that there are multiple persona robot assassins out there.
The Monarch mind control sites have developed an impressive X-Files-like mythology seemingly based on nothing more than the testimony of a few high-profile Monarch victims buttressed by a legion of internet commenters who are sure something like that happened to them too.
It reminds me of the Satanic Ritual Abuse panic (which has been absorbed into the Monarch mythology) of the 80s and 90s.
I was curious if you had any good links on MK-ULTRA/Monarch programming you found persuasive to support your conjecture like:
That was not conjecture. I was pointing out that Neo’s argument rests upon a presupposition. One, I notice, that has been assumed to be true rather than proven to be true. The candidates in question demonstrate enough split personality traits that there’s a reason psychologists don’t make a mention of it. They link it to psychopaths instead. I’ve seen interviews with psychopaths. They are not suicidal for the most part. Their mask is also usually not all that good, BTK being an outlier. The problem with taking as evidence and at face value, psychological profiles is that most of the psychologists are Leftists or Demoncrats. Taking at face value what the government says and what elites say, is inferior to utilizing primary sources and analysis methods.
The conjecture or theory would actually be that the Deep State has resurrected or improved upon the old mind control methods, no matter what one chooses to call them. Leftist zombies are also a byproduct of mind control, from both progressive ideologues and KGB spy craft.
However, I haven’t found anything convincing that there are multiple persona robot assassins out there.
Why would anyone have evidence of this?
We don’t even have official evidence that FDR put Halsey and the Enterprise in a radio silence position to wait for Pearl Harbor to be attacked. That was only less than a century.
Nor do we exactly know what happened with Operation paperclip and why so many Nazi scientists were imported into the USA and set in charge of our space and military institutions. People don’t even know about the existence of Operation Paperclip, so what evidence would there ever be.
If “evidence” is presented about so called deep secret operations, more than half of it will be disinformation. Cronkite’s disinformation coup is a great example of how easy Americans fall to deception and cons.
The recent DC treason fiasco is another. What happened to the ‘evidence’ that the IRS and HRC had on their hard drives, did the government somehow lose them or delete them?
There is no evidence of the Deep State or truly covert operations. There is no reason for there to be as professionals are professionals.
Now what people can do is to make up conspiracy theories and point out conspiracy facts, such as Hogg or “weird things” in the FBI. Eventually it gets to the point of saturation where nobody knows who is telling the truth. They just know something fishy and covert is going on.
It reminds me of the Satanic Ritual Abuse panic (which has been absorbed into the Monarch mythology) of the 80s and 90s.
That was a disinfo operation to cover up the people behind Pizzagate and the Vatican’s problem with child hunters and some exorcists.
The Religious Right are easy to provoke and manipulate, since many of the pastors are corrupt and interested in gaining political leverage or fame. There’s nothing wrong with that, such as Olsteen making more money from getting more converts (Trum also made money using the rules of ruthlessness). It is little different from a corporation or arm of government to me.
If you want sources, I can provide them, but they (nor I) are here to convince people. I do not specialize in dealing with evidence but in revelations and connecting the dots (clues like a detective).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRJIQNM4pJc
Michael S Heiser is my go to expert on Hebrew and ancient Semitic languages. Somebody has to explain why English translators made some changes in the Bible, so called Word of God…
Another data point. https://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/the-hidden-life-of-marilyn-monroe-the-original-hollywood-mind-control-slave-part-i/
If such a thing as the Deep State exists (deeper than the Federal Bureaucracy at least), then I assume they were professional enough to leave no tracks. Thus there would be no evidence, hard evidence, of their operations. Circumstantial evidence, perhaps, but lawyers only use circumstantial evidence if they lack sufficient hard evidence.
A disinformation operation is designed to blend facts with inaccuracies, so that nobody knows what is true from false. Even if a person somehow “leaked” some classified secrets, they would be seen as a conspiracy actor or loon, due to that “X files mythology” which is quite extensive. The field is seeded with fertilizer and bullsh. Any genuine article comes into contact with it and nobody wants to touch it any more. That is useful as a cover up though.
Even now, the FBI could maintain their innocence if only it wasn’t for the various leaks online. Kind of hard to cover that up… If Hollywood, politicians, and Leftists had associated in the public eye for the last 3 decades, that anyone who questions the FBI were loons and UFO cultists, it would have been easier to hold up their front. Unfortunately for them, parts of the Deep State needs to get rid of certain people in the FBI. The useful idiots are no longer useful.
So what?
That’s why I don’t pay attention to movies or the X Files mythology. That’s what.
The only thing I’m known for advocating is that in 2007 I started repeating that Civil War 2 was inevitable. I seriously doubt anyone took that seriously until some time later. I didn’t advocate any theory concerning Satanic whatever or CIA whatever or FBI whatever, in those eras.
Human knowledge comes from learning and testing and yes evidence.
Divine revelations starts in reverse, with the conclusion coming first and then the rationalizations coming later. Unlike the 50-70% accuracy of most human rationalizations (or guesses), divine revelations are 100% accurate. People just don’t know how it works. They can’t explain it. If they can’t explain, neither can I.
conjecture
1 a : inference formed without proof or sufficient evidence
b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork The criminal’s motive remains a matter of conjecture.
c : a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disproved
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conjecture
Ymar Sakar: Thanks for the effort but it all still sounds like conjecture.
I’ll stick with Occam’s Razor that “Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity.” One need not disprove multiple personality robot assassins — or agents of Lucifer for that matter — before proceeding in the straightforward, minimal manner that crazy people sometimes do crazy, violent things.
I had hoped you might have better links than I’ve found, but VigilantCitizen is the same site I linked in an earlier topic for an intro to Monarch programming:
https://vigilantcitizen.com/hidden-knowledge/origins-and-techniques-of-monarch-mind-control/
I had hoped you might have better links than I’ve found, but VigilantCitizen is the same site I linked in an earlier topic for an intro to Monarch programming:
Your conjecture that two articles about different topics at the same website is equal under Occam’s Razor is incorrect.
Thanks for the effort but it all still sounds like conjecture.
In other words, you’re not really paying attention or listening. That’s why I said I don’t watch the same movies as you do.
Whether I had a conjecture about Civil War 2 in 2007 or not, is easily proven. All they had to do was wait another 10 or so years.
They were 10 years too early to be judging anything.
One need not disprove multiple personality robot assassins – or agents of Lucifer for that matter – before proceeding in the straightforward, minimal manner that crazy people sometimes do crazy, violent things.
The application of Occam’s Razor is also incorrect.
Occam’s Razor means to use the least complicated solution set for a problem, such as a mathematical problem. Even if another solution exists that is correct, choosing the simpler solution is better as it saves time and is harder to fudge or make mistakes on. In engineering, people understand this.
The problem is not proving the movies you watch or things about Monarch. You have few clues whether they are crazy or not. Just because an article or movie says so, isn’t proof.
The problem is nobody can explain my 100% accuracy without utilizing the complicated supernatural sources.
What is the Occam’s Razor solution for how Ymar knew about Civil War 2 and the Demoncrats, in 2007?
If a person said “I have an Occam’s razor solution to the problem of why water boiling temperature changes. The solution is that sometimes water does crazy things”.
That is a speculative theory perhaps that may be true, but it is not the solution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#Other_philosophers
Maybe the public consensus said Occam’s Razor was some kind of indomitable magic elixer solution for finding the truth… reality is a little bit different, Huxley.
Since you are good at looking up people online, such as how to spell Ohm’s name, why don’t you try reading that and see if you can comprehend it.
Noticeably, these portions.
In the philosophy of religion, Occam’s razor is sometimes applied to the existence of God. William of Ockham himself was a Christian. He believed in God, and in the authority of Scripture; he writes that “nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture.”[53] Ockham believed that an explanation has no sufficient basis in reality when it does not harmonize with reason, experience, or the Bible. However, unlike many theologians of his time, Ockham did not believe God could be logically proven with arguments. To Ockham, science was a matter of discovery, but theology was a matter of revelation and faith. He states: “only faith gives us access to theological truths. The ways of God are not open to reason, for God has freely chosen to create a world and establish a way of salvation within it apart from any necessary laws that human logic or rationality can uncover.”
If only you hadn’t fallen into the Lucifer or Satanic whatever trap, Huxley… it could have still been feasible for you to make an argument based upon scientific methodology that you were correct, if you hadn’t tried to include those two topics in after proclaiming Occam’s Razor.
In chemistry, Occam’s razor is often an important heuristic when developing a model of a reaction mechanism.[44][45] Although it is useful as a heuristic in developing models of reaction mechanisms, it has been shown to fail as a criterion for selecting among some selected published models.[2] In this context, Einstein himself expressed caution when he formulated Einstein’s Constraint: “It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience”. An often-quoted version of this constraint (which cannot be verified as posited by Einstein himself)[46] says “Everything should be kept as simple as possible, but no simpler.”
In the scientific method, parsimony is an epistemological, metaphysical or heuristic preference, not an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result.[3][4][47] As a logical principle, Occam’s razor would demand that scientists accept the simplest possible theoretical explanation for existing data. However, science has shown repeatedly that future data often support more complex theories than do existing data. Science prefers the simplest explanation that is consistent with the data available at a given time, but the simplest explanation may be ruled out as new data become available.[1][4] That is, science is open to the possibility that future experiments might support more complex theories than demanded by current data and is more interested in designing experiments to discriminate between competing theories than favoring one theory over another based merely on philosophical principles
The reason why I brought up movies is simple.
In the scientific method, Occam’s razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives. Since one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable.
Movies are not what scientific methodology uses to derive hypothesis, theories, facts, data, or conclusions.
People looking for infotainment, information that entertains them, such as movies about conspiracies, cannot at the same time say they are using Occam’s Razor. It’s an automatic fail.
The user of OC can reply that they are not using OC for science or religion, but philosophy.
the razor’s statement that “other things being equal, simpler explanations are generally better than more complex ones” is amenable to empirical testing. Another interpretation of the razor’s statement would be that “simpler hypotheses are generally better than the complex ones”. The procedure to test the former interpretation would compare the track records of simple and comparatively complex explanations. If one accepts the first interpretation, the validity of Occam’s razor as a tool would then have to be rejected if the more complex explanations were more often correct than the less complex ones (while the converse would lend support to its use). If the latter interpretation is accepted, the validity of Occam’s razor as a tool could possibly be accepted if the simpler hypotheses led to correct conclusions more often than not.
The Deep State theory has some predictive success. Huxley’s theory that crazy people do crazy things, thus that accounts for everything, does not have the same predictive success. For one thing, it leaves out who the crazies are and how to detect them. It also doesn’t explain why some people are crazy and harmless while others are not. These suppositions stack on top of each other, rendering OC incompatible with the “crazy people” theory.
If people settled for that type of solution, we would still be answering questions in basic chemistry about water with “oh, that is because water is crazy that it boils at that temperature”.
When humans say “I don’t know why people are crazy, but being crazy explains everything because OC”, that’s not OC, that’s incorrect (IC)
https://infogalactic.com/info/Occam%27s_razor
If multiple models of natural law make exactly the same testable predictions, they are equivalent and there is no need for parsimony to choose a preferred one. For example, Newtonian, Hamiltonian and Lagrangian classical mechanics are equivalent. Physicists have no interest in using Occam’s razor to say the other two are wrong. Likewise, there is no demand for simplicity principles to arbitrate between wave and matrix formulations of quantum mechanics. Science often does not demand arbitration or selection criteria between models that make the same testable predictions.
To what extent is Huxley’s theory that crazy people do crazy things, sufficient of a predictor for the events in question? It doesn’t even account for 10% of the variables, let alone 50% of the events.
Since the killers say the demons and/or voices made them do it, how does one differentiate that from Lucifer whatever theory vs crazy did it to whomever theory?
By the statistics made by humans, they would be equally predictable as to the variables. Thus under OC, they are not true or false but equal. People are going to have to do the hard work of finding evidence and testing their theories, rather than doing it the lazy way and proclaiming OC as a general principle, as if it would tell them where darkness and light is.
For the error of people that use OC as a general guiding principle that illuminates the Truth of Existence, to be destroyed by the existence of OC itself, is quite ironic. It’s like a SJW blaming JP for being offensive to transgenders, while asking offensive questions in gotcha journalism.
Your conjecture that two articles about different topics at the same website is equal under Occam’s Razor is incorrect.
Ymar Sakar: The claim in your topic was that Marilyn Monroe was a Monarch-programmed Sex Kitten. The claim in my topic was that Monarch programming exists and it provided a summary.
Your topic even linked my topic. So the topics aren’t equal (whatever that would mean in this context) but they are parts of the same whole.
Anyway. I’ve been through the Vigilant Citizen website and enjoyed it. I had hoped you might have more, better links on MK/Monarch but apparently not.