There has been another mass shooting in Oregon, this time at Umpqua Community College. The inevitable question of whether or not this is a government-inspired false flag has arisen, as it always does, now almost immediately after such a tragedy. The author of the article I am summarizing, with the sourced link at the bottom of this page, discusses various characteristics that are normally associated with false flags.
One is media headlines. Media coverage is often 24/7 on cases like this. However, my personal take on this is that news outlets have quickly moved on to the 2016 election.
Another is the immediate call for gun control. My take on this is that all of these supposed false flag events happen but actual gun control legislation is not passed (and martial law, another false flag characteristic that is not mentioned in this article), so what is the point of staging the events in the first place? It’s possible, but it becomes increasingly unlikely with each new tragedy that transpires.
A third false flag characteristic is President Obama calling specifically for gun control. Some believe that Obama is part of the New World Order, and there is some evidence for that. However, if Obama wanted gun control so desperately, wouldn’t he just do it? Most people didn’t want Obamacare. And yet Obamacare exists. So if he really wanted gun control, then wouldn’t the States have it by now?
A fourth is that the shooter is dead. As soon as I heard this story, I immediately predicted to people this would happen, although I got it wrong. I thought the shooter (who will remain unnamed here) would kill himself. It remains to be seen if my other prediction will come true (if he was on a specific drug or set of drugs). However, my problem with this characteristic is that often the police are criticized for not following correct procedure. Police are sometimes wrong. But criminals are always wrong, and especially terrorists. Violence is never, ever the answer to society’s problems except in cases of extreme self-defence. The police need to do whatever they can to neutralize these vicious threats.
The fifth is that the identity of the killer is not known. This does seem weird, I admit. But on the other hand, conspiracy theorists in general argue that Sandy Hook is basically a fake town. My argument for that is: Wouldn’t someone who live in a nearby town know that the town doesn’t actually exist? I know the towns around mine and if there was a mass shooting in a town that I know didn’t exist, the whole game is going to be up very quickly. So you can’t have the argument both ways. Yes, it’s strange the shooters are often unknown, but it’s equally odd to think that an entire town can be made up.
The sixth is conflicting reports about the number of casualties. This, in my opinion, is just the media operating on inaccurate information because a lot of people in this world are incompetent. And I don’t understand why the government would direct the media (which is the implication) to offer such conflicting reports. To muddy the understanding of what happened? I don’t get that at all. You would think they would orchestrate something where the data is more certain, to increase the credibility of the event.
The seventh is Michael Bloomberg has been putting money into Oregon because he wants to influence legislation, and the relevant characteristic is that those with political influence are interested in certain states at different times.
The eighth is what happens on social media. Information is controlled by the government. But if information was controlled in such a way, wouldn’t conspiracy theorists be rounded up and summarily taken care of?
The ninth is the lack of physical evidence being shown. I find this a strange argument. I don’t want to see deformities as a result of such tragedies, and I’m sure most people agree with me. Take, for example, the hero, Chris Mintz, who charged the gunman and helped to stop him. I’ve read theories where this is a lie, because as he lays in his hospital bed, he has no clear gunshot wounds. However, I do see bandages on him. I read something interesting, though. Someone posted on Facebook that they don’t allow cameras in the ICU. That makes sense to me, so I reserve judgement on this.
The tenth is that there is a religious twist. In this case, of course, if the victims said they were Christian, they were shot in the head, and if they said no, they were shot in the legs. The article suggests that at a future date, Muslims will be blamed. But if this was a false flag attack, wouldn’t the narrative be clear from the very beginning?
The eleventh is that no witnesses. I’ve heard on television, though, about witnesses. One was a veteran who was in a club outside the school (this did seem odd, why is there a club outside the school?) and he wanted to get in (he was armed) but wasn’t allowed. So there were indirect witnesses, at least who heard the attack going on.
The twelfth is that the victims were treated as suspects. The author of the article I’m summarizing mentions they were gotten out of the scene of the crime as soon as possible. And they made jokes, which he doesn’t understand. However, it is human nature to try to lighten the mood if you are in the centre of such a horrific event. It reminds me of when Robbie Parker was criticized for smiling before he gave a news conference. But surely we can understand human nature to the extent that people laugh and joke when they are nervous.
The 13th is that there are always social media messages which announce an event is going to happen. In this case, there was such a warning on Twitter. It seems understandable that since these shooters often want fame as one of the reasons why these commit these mass murders, they announce beforehand what’s going to happen to fit their sense of drama about the whole thing.
It’s possible this was a false flag, of course, but I always tend to believe these things are the results of individual actors (and not crisis actors!). Never underestimate the human element. Maybe the real conspiracy is that no one wants to admit that violence on TV and in the movies glorify such violence. It’s easier to think people behind the scenes orchestrate such events, because it allows the everyday person to ignore our own part in the violence which is becoming increasingly more frequent. There are some other characteristics, which I think are also common. The killers are male. They love violence for the sake of violence. They are mentally unhinged. They are on drugs, often antidepressants. They often are lonely. We need to stop worrying about conspiracy theories (although I certainly believe in the global elite trying to divide and conquer us) and ask ourselves how we, as a community, as a society, can stop people from falling through the cracks. Help the lonely. Help those addicted to drugs. Help people see the value of peace. Gun control legislation won’t stop these vicious crimes (gun-free zones are an invitation to killers because the victims are easy targets), but love will. It sounds like a cliche, but if we have love and emotional intelligence, we can change the world.