Marjory Stoneman Douglas School Shooting: Random, Hoaxed, Urged Or FBI Created?
by Ryan Cristian
February 15, 2018
I spoke briefly yesterday about the recent school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, and about how it is very important that we not jump to conclusions before we see the facts at hand. So, to follow up, officials are now reporting that 17 people were killed in this shooting. It is my opinion that this was a real event, that sadly took the lives of 17 innocent children, as I now have first hand reports of parents connected to this tragedy. However, it is important to note that history has shown that such an event being created, or simply urged forward by sinister or ambitious entities in positions of power, in order to accomplish a greater agenda, is not outside the realm of possibility.
That being said, it is my feeling that this was simply a troubled individual, who was apparently expelled the year before for getting into a fight with his ex-girlfriend’s new boyfriend on school grounds, was disgruntled, and choose to carry out this horrible event. Was he coaxed or pushed to do so, I don’t know. Is it possible, absolutely.
The FBI’s Connection
Considering all that we know, we should be very leery about the ongoing coverage of this shooting and how it is being used, created or not. The headline story on many mainstream channels, is that the “FBI was warned” prior to the shooting. Which should first of all give us pause that the corporate media is focusing on such a story. Yet, this is something we now hear in almost every such event. That the FBI had foreknowledge of this event does not surprise me for many reasons.
First of which, is that it has been documented, even by the New York Times, that the FBI is involved in creating and or coaxing the vast majority of the terrorists acts that take place in the US. They claim that they simply seek out and find those who they see as a “potential threat” and simply nudge them to do what they were already going to do, so they can be there to stop them.
Yet, there are many issues in this logic. The most important of which is the fact that these individuals, perceived threat or not, have yet to actually commit any crime in this regard. Sort of puts a damper on the whole, “innocent until proven guilty” mantra that has long since been inaccurate in this country, especially following the 9/11 false flag event.
In many past cases, it was revealed that the individual was openly opposed to doing what the FBI was almost forcefully urging them to do — providing them with weapons, vehicles, and cover from the authorities. This is all documented and openly, yet grudgingly, admitted by the FBI. The real question, is what happens when something goes wrong? What happens when they fail to stop the very event they created to begin with? This is what many have suggested has taken place in some of the past shootings in this country. And to state plainly once again, the fact that the FBI creates such events for the very purpose of being able to trumpet their success of saving the day, is an open secret, and is very much on record.
So when we hear yet again, that the “FBI was warned prior to this attack,” should we not at the very least consider the possibility that this was just such a case? And that it could be possible that they were warned, and instead of stopping the attack before it even materialized, they chose to urge it forward so they could step in and save the day? It would be irresponsible not to consider such a possibility with all that we know.
Another reason that hearing the FBI was warned does not surprise me in the least, is that our intelligence agencies are so inundated with information on every American citizen, due to their now widely know illegal surveillance, that they simply don’t know what anything truly means until after the fact, and they know where to look. A multitude of studies have confirmed this, proving and demonstrating exactly why mass surveillance simply does not work. Yet, as we should all know by now, our protection is not why they collect such troves of data on Americans, despite what they claim.
The larger issue to consider, and why I have been hesitant to cover this story, is that it’s very clear that the “FBI was warned and did nothing” narrative is clearly being used in this case by both mainstream media and political officials, to push for more regulation, more invasive surveillance and control, that which we know does not work — along with a further loss of rights, less liberty for more security. Which is always why many argue that these events are at the very least urged forward, to create the context and justification for the masses to call for their own subjugation. It is a horrifying prospect to consider, but based in reality nonetheless. The claim is being made that we need more of the currently ineffectual and invasive government control measures to make sure that such a lapse does not happen again. It seems that the FBI is sort of the scapegoat in this regard, likely due to its horrendously smeared credibility in recent months.
And I would be remiss if I did not again point out that despite all that we know of the agency’s recent criminal acts, no one has seen any repercussions. However, that should not be a surprise at this point, yet should anger us all the same. And with this new event, the idea of any accountability will only fall further into the background.
Now again, I stress the fact that, as far as I can tell, and as the evidence shows thus far, aside from the fact that the FBI was warned, I feel this was a very sad and random event. But just as I said yesterday, this is now very obviously being used to push political and governmental agendas.
Medication And Mass-Shootings
An important aspect that never gets enough attention in these situations, and for many well-documented reasons, not least of which is that the vast majority of politicians are in bed with the pharmaceutical companies, is the very clear connection that medications have to these events and the obvious correlation between those who carry out these horrendous acts, and the amount of medications they are on prior to the act.
As The Free Thought Project has extensively covered:
Las Vegas shooting suspect Stephen Paddock was prescribed the anti-anxiety drug diazepam in June, a few months before he is accused of opening fire out of his bedroom window at the Mandalay Bay Hotel, and killing more than 50 people.
The side effects from diazepam include “confusion, hallucinations, unusual thoughts or behavior; unusual risk-taking behavior, decreased inhibitions, no fear of danger; depressed mood, thoughts of suicide or hurting yourself; and hyperactivity, agitation, aggression, hostility.”
Aurora shooting suspect James Holmes killed 12 people and injured 70 when he opened fire inside of a movie theater in 2012, and he was also found to have been taking the antidepressant Sertraline, a generic version of the Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor (SSRI) Zoloft.
Sertraline has side effects that include “aggressive reaction; mood or behavior changes; and fast talking and excited feelings or actions that are out of control.”
Gavin Long, the veteran who went on a shooting rampage in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, was prescribed Lunesta and Ativan, both of which have an extended list of adverse side effects.
Both Lunesta and Ativan have overlapping side effects of aggression, agitation, changes in behavior, hallucinations, suicidal thoughts — and homicidal ideation.
Homicidal ideation is a common medical term for thoughts about homicide. There is a range of homicidal thoughts which spans from vague ideas of revenge to detailed and fully formulated plans without the act itself.
There have been 150 studies in 17 countries on antidepressant-induced side effects. There have been 134 drug regulatory agency warnings from 11 countries and the EU warning about the dangerous side effects of antidepressants.
Despite this deadly laundry list of potential reactions to these medications, their use has skyrocketed by 400% since 1988.
Currently, 11 percent of all Americans 12 years of age and over take antidepressant medication, which is a higher rate than all other countries in the world.
An investigation conducted by the BBC found that in the United Kingdom, antidepressants have been linked to 28 reports of murder and 32 cases of murderous thoughts referred to the UK medicines regulator in the last three decades.
As details emerge from the shooting, causing several lawmakers to call for gun control, many will ignore that fact that the suspects from most of the deadliest U.S. mass shootings in recent years also had access to dangerous pharmaceutical drugs that can lead to violent behavior and can worsen the mental illnesses they are prescribed to treat.
The fact that such a clear connection can be made, and that the very side-effects of these drugs cause the very things for which they are prescribed to stop, is not only absurdly alarming, but should raise the alarm as to why they continue to be prescribed, and more so, why no one ever seems to address this issue, other than independent media of course. It is being reported that the shooter in yesterday’s case, Nikolas Cruz, was in fact on many medications, yet that should not be surprising, as in this country alone, there are almost 9,000,000 kids, under the age of 17, on psychiatric drugs.
The Fallacy Of Absolute Security And Safety
It is a comforting idea to imagine that we can create a situation in which there is no danger for our children, or for ourselves, but that is simply not possible. Anywhere there is an individual with bad intent, intent to do harm, harm will always be possible. We can take actions to minimize the breadth of that danger, but it can never be completely eradicated. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either being disingenuous, or has larger intentions beyond just your safety. That is not to imply that we shouldn’t try to create a safe environment, or do all within our power to do so. Yet, at what cost do we strive for this idea which can never be fully realized, save for an all-encompassing totalitarian-state-like atmosphere? And even then, such an atmosphere is not without its dangers, while creating new dangers all its own, the likes of which only history can fully demonstrate, and that the false promise of safety and security has always preceded. These dangers are the ones history has always repeated, yet the masses always fail to remember until it is too late, consumed with propaganda about the need for ultimate control to ensure ultimate safety. This of course has always been precisely the plan of those consumed with domination and control — to promise safety, if only we are willing to give our right to think, act and live for ourselves.
Those who have had to suffer the horrifying and unbearable loss of a child, might say that such a thing is worth the safety of our children, and I would not pretend to understand the pain and suffering that such a loss creates. Yet, knowing full well that such a system of control — that some would call oppression — will always lead to a greater and more sustained level of suffering, for everyone, I argue that there are other steps that can be taken to ensure the safety of our nation’s youth. This ever-present political push for more control, more security, more surveillance and more government, is simply not the answer. Especially not at the loss of that which so many sacrificed their lives to allow us to experience, and that which many over the years have warned us never to exchange for more security or more safety; our very liberty.
It is indeed a sad day when anyone’s family is taken with such a flagrant disregard for human life, especially that of a child. And regardless of whether this event was to one degree or another created, staged, coaxed or urged forward — that which has no doubt happened in this nation’s past — there are those suffering in this loss, and that should be respected. Yet, at the same time, there is nothing more despicable, more sinister, than those who would use such an event to further their goals, save for those who would allow such an act to take place to do the same.
Sources: https://www.rt.com/usa/166060-usa-fbi-terrorism-prosecutions/, https://theintercept.com/2015/03/16/howthefbicreatedaterrorist/, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html, https://theintercept.com/2015/11/17/u-s-mass-surveillance-has-no-record-of-thwarting-large-terror-attacks-regardless-of-snowden-leaks/, http://thefreethoughtproject.com/family-members-say-florida-school-shooter-antidepressants-emotional-issues/,https://theintercept.com/2015/02/26/fbi-manufacture-plots-terrorism-isis-grave-threats/