printer-friendly version



a) the mass shootings are the acts of crazed individuals (the official narrative)


b) the mass shootings are staged events in which people didn't really die or events in which people really did die but the killer(s) was (were) people induced to commit the killings by the ruling class for some evil purpose (the 'false flag' narratives)


The conclusion that follows in either case is that the ruling class is using mass shootings (real or false flag, it matters not) to divide-and-rule us.

Here is why.

Assume the Official Narrative is True, If Only for the Sake of Argument

Then entirely on this basis one can see that the ruling class* does not really want to reduce the frequency of mass shootings. This follows from the facts that a) the official narrative's alleged killers have been almost all receiving anti-depressant drugs WELL-KNOWN to have an occasional side effect of anti-social violence and b) the ruling class-controlled media and politicians are absolutely ignoring this fact. If the ruling class genuinely wanted to reduce the frequency of mass killings it would identify the problem of violence-inducing anti-depressant drug use and enact legislation to prevent people receiving such drugs from having access to dangerous weapons. This legislation would be extremely popular with all parts of the general public, including conservatives who think that everybody else besides people receiving such drugs should be allowed to own an AR-15. So there is no excuse for the ruling class ignoring the role of violence-inducing drug use.

Furthermore, there is no excuse for the ruling class not directing public discourse to the question of whether schools and similar places should have metal-detecting devices and trained guards at them to prevent unauthorized people from entering with a dangerous weapon. There would likely be great agreement in the general public for doing this.

The fact that the ruling class ignores these kinds of common sense responses to the mass shooting problem--responses that would unify most of the general public whether liberal or conservative--and instead uses its media and politicians to promote very divisive public debates over solutions--such as, on the one hand, arming teachers and, on the other hand, partially or completely disarming the general public in the name of "gun control"--that are clearly DESIGNED to be maximally divisive, shows that the ruling class is actually USING the mass shootings for divide-and-rule and has no intention of reducing their frequency.

To read about how and why anti-depressant drugs are indeed a major factor in causing mass shootings read this article ( ) by Peter Breggin, MD, a psychiatrist with top-notch credentials who has been relied upon by the FDA for expert advice and about whom you can read more at . For more scholarly evidence on this see this footnote**.

Breggin says that psychiatry (by which he is referring to the prescribing of psycho-active drugs instead of non-drug-based treatment) is a major contributor to mass shootings, and that this is--for whatever strange reason--being very wrongly ignored. He cites as one example how Nikolas Cruz was dealt with (wrongly!) by the local authorities after they knew he was mentally unstable and wanted to get a gun. Breggin doesn't mention that a likely explanation for why the authorities persist in leaving people like Nikolas Cruz free to commit mass murder is that it is part of the ruling class's divide-and-rule strategy.

Note that there is a huge difference between people who are 1) receiving drugs that are known to have anti-social violence as an occasional side effect versus people who are 2) "mentally ill." The latter category is so vague that almost anybody can be included in it, and it includes people who are no more prone to commit anti-social violence than anybody else. Legislation denying "mentally ill" people the right to posess a dangerous weapon could be used to deny somebody who has officially disapproved opinions (like mine!) a weapon. There have been reports that this is exactly what some authorities are already advocating--using people's social media comments to declare them "mentally ill" and some even advocate doing this before any due process (see .)

Assume the False Flag Theories Are True, If Only for the Sake of Argument

Obviously, if the false flag theories are true then the ruling class is manipulating the public Big Time. The ruling class goal is clearly a) to make us fearful and insecure and thus more easily controlled and b) to use our fear and insecurity specifically to make us take one of two opposing sides in deliberately divisive questions such as a) whether or not to arm teachers and b) whether or not to partially or completely disarm the public (gun control).

Why Does the Ruling Class Refuse to Have Investigative Journalists Truly Investigate the Anomalies that Seem to Contradict the Official Narrative?

It is overwhelmingly evident that there are lots of videos of eyewitnesses to many of the mass shootings telling local T.V. reporters things that contradict (or at least certainly seem to contradict) the official narrative of the mass shooting. There are also other kinds of evidence that seem to contradict the official narratives. The most recent example is the widely seen video (re-posted at after YouTube took it down) of a student at Parkman High School telling a local T.V. reporter that as she was exiting the building during the shooting she was talking to Nikolas Cruz who was exiting alongside her (in regular dress now) when, at that same time, there were shots fired from elsewhere in the school, obviously (she said) from a second shooter. But there is no investigative mainstream journalist following up on this. Why not? The student was one of many other students who likely could corroborate (or refute) her story.

One explanation for why there is no serious investigative reporting is that the mass media have been ordered by their owners (the ruling class) not to do it. This seems to be the true explanation, because otherwise any investigative reporter trying to make a name for him/herself and maybe get a Pulitzer Prize would be EAGER to do such reporting.

This raises the question, why would the ruling class want to prevent such investigative reporting?

One possible answer is that the ruling class has indeed orchestrated the mass shootings as false flag events and doesn't want the truth to be found out by the public.

But there is another closely related pair of possible answers that are seldom considered. It is possible that the official narratives of the mass shootings are true (in the sense that the ruling class deliberately--for the divide-and-rule reasons discussed above--lets crazed individuals commit mass murder, as truthfully reported by the official narrative) AND that either a) the anomalous eyewitness reports would, if truly and thoroughly investigated, turn out not to conflict with the official narrative in any substantive way OR b) the anomalous eyewitness reports are phony, i.e., are reports that the ruling class somehow orchestrated for the reason I will discuss next.

Why would the ruling class orchestrate phony evidence that seems to contradict the official (ruling class) narrative of a mass shooting? Here's one possible reason. The effect of such phony evidence is to further divide-and-rule us.

It works like this. Good people (with good reasons for mistrusting the ruling class, such as the fact that the evidence is overwhelming that 9/11 was an inside job as my own website at shows) see the phony evidence and based on it declare that some particular mass shooting is a false flag. Sometimes they even declare that nobody really died (although there can be false flags such as 9/11 in which people really do die.)

What invariably happens next is that LOTS of people get VERY angry at the skeptics who say it was a False Flag, ESPECIALLY angry if the skeptic denies that anybody really died.

If the official narrative is true, then the skeptics' arguments will fail to be terribly persuasive to many people. The result is that the population will become polarized into a large group that believes the official narrative (and hence falls into the divide-and-rule trap discussed above) versus a small group of good people who know that the ruling class does indeed use manipulation to divide-and-rule us (even if they "got it wrong" about a particular mass shooting.)

The result is another kind of divide-and-rule; this time a version that pits people inclined to believe official narratives (such as WMD back in 2003, the Gulf of Tonkin fabrication back in 1964, etc.) against people who are suspicious of official narratives (for good reason!). It means that the general public is persuaded to ignore anybody who challenges the lies of the ruling class, as a crazy "conspiracy theorist."

So, regardless of whether the official narrative or the false flag narrative is true (and I do not claim to know the answer!), we need to remove the rich from power to have a good world to live in. Here's how we can do that (it's not easy but it is possible):


* The ruling class (a.k.a. the billionaire class, a.k.a. the plutocracy, a.k.a. "the rich") has the real power in our society. If you need convincing on this matter, please read the evidence provided at . Most people already know that we live in a fake democracy ruled by the rich, and you can see random people on the streets of Boston saying that they want to remove the rich from power to have real, not fake, democracy with no rich and no poor in this video: .

** Here are more sources regarding anti-depressant (SSRI) drugs and violence:

This link gives a long list of violent events linked to SSRI drug use:

This link discusses how many of the recent mass shooters were receiving SSRI drugs:

This link is to an article by Kelly Brogan, MD, who cites sources as follows:

"Relevant to this insight is a meta-analysis of 46 studies published in the Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, which illuminated that, “An association between benzodiazepine use and subsequent aggressive behaviour was found in the majority of the more rigorous studies,” especially in those individuals with an underlying propensity toward anxiety and hostility (6). In addition, a prospective cohort study of nearly one thousand Finnish subjects published in the journal World Psychiatry demonstrated that current use of benzodiazepines elevated risk of homicide by 45% compared to controls (7).

"Data compiled from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) adverse event reporting system similarly highlights that use of some antidepressant medications is disproportionately related to an increased number of violent events (8). The authors report that, “Varenicline, which increases the availability of dopamine, and antidepressants with serotonergic effects were the most strongly and consistently implicated drugs” in case reports of “homicide, homicidal ideation, physical assault, physical abuse or violence related symptoms” (8).

The references are:

6. Albrecht, B. et al. (2014). Benzodiazepine use and aggressive behaviour: a systematic review. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 48(12), 1096-1114. doi: 10.1177/0004867414548902

7. Tilhonen, J. et al. (2015). Psychotropic drugs and homicide: A prospective cohort study from Finland. World Psychiatry, 14(2), 245-247. doi: 10.1002/wps.20220

8. Moore, T.J., Glenmullen, J., & Furberg, C.D. (2010). Prescription drugs associated with reports of violence towards others. PLoS One, 5, e15337.

When one uses the data on mass shootings in the U.S. reported by the Washington Post ( ) and notes that SSRI drugs were first approved by the FDA in December of 1987 ( ) then one can see that the incidence of mass shootings per year is, on average, substantially higher in the years after the first SSRI drug was approved than in the prior years. The average number of incidents per year (followed by the lowest and highest number) before SSRI drug use was 1.36 (ranging from 0 to 4); after SSRI drug use began the average shot up to 3.7 (ranging from 1 to 8). It would be hard to identify a substantial national change that a) distinguishes these intervals of time from each other AND b) is a very plausible CAUSE of anti-social violent behavior by lone individuals.



This article may be copied and posted on other websites. Please include all hyperlinks.