1991 Book Predicts School Shootings By Drugged Individuals In Order To Disarm Public

reply to post by MrSpad


The second amendment was made to prevent take over by hostile forces. Hence the American Revolution where armed citizens held of the British. Are you going to fight a war with handguns? Or assault rifles? So yes we are being disarmed if the at AR ban goes into effect.

Originally posted by thePharaoh
it seems like someone put thought into sandy hook

trying to "hit" society as a whole

i mean...the safest places...young children in class....

its as if its an attempt to get a strong reaction..

How about the case of that guy who set some houses on fire and then started shooting fire men and first responders after they arrived. Happened not long after SH..

I predict Israel will do a false flag to start a war with Iran.

reply to post by Sandalphon


Cooper has problems. For one he wasnt the first to notice much of the info he talks about and yet he is stingy about giving others credit. His intel history has issues. For just one, there is no reason, at his level and the level of the command he worked with, that the sort of intel he claims he saw would be passed down to that level.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by GrandStrategy

 

James Holmes admitted to being brainwashed by his psychiatrists and acted as if he was under the effects of a drug, I can't recall the name of, but it comes from Colombia, and is called the devil's breath. Adam Lanza was on Fanapt, which can produce the same memory loss, and susceptibility to persuasion as the drug listed above.

Possibly Burundanga or Scopolomine:

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by SubTruth

The biggest question is do we trust the people taking our guns away? Have TPTB grown past the point were they want to limit freedoms especially speech?

LOl. No in fact it's the opposite. As the ability of the INDIVIDUAL is diminished, his reliance on The State increases. This is the very idea behind making citizens defenseless, the communist model, I honestly don't believe it has anything to do with so called saving lives, as the state disarms it's citizens, it puts up more and more cameras and is even now working to get the human microchip into the population. I think the question for me is "Do I prefer to live in a world where I am defenseless and totally reliant on Big Nanny to provide for my safety and well being, while giving up any right to privacy and the abiliity to fend and manage for myself, all the while being forced to tithe my earnings in tribute to such a system?"

If the government had attempted to do away with the 2nd amendment in 91', they would probably have failed, as the public would not have gone for it. So the idea of gaining support for the banning of firearms is actually a practical idea, and I am not naive enough to think that certain individuals running this country would not orchestrate a project that kills innocent civilians, because it has been done in the past.

And what is the deal with all the talk of "assault" weapons? I have stated multiple times on this forum that theoretically the public should be allowed to own any firearm that the military uses, considering the whole point of the 2nd amendment is to allow the citizenry to defend their Constitutional rights against their own government by utilizing force...This is because the military is part of the government as it is commanded by the president. Even if the laws stand as they are now, the citizenry would have a hard time defeating the US military if a coup was staged, despite the fact that many members of the military would not participate. The weaponry is so advanced when compared to what civilians are allowed to own that the numerical advantage is basically nullified.

Of course I do not really believe that high-grade explosives and the like should be available to just anyone, and I was only trying to illustrate the fact that the 2nd amendment was drafted so that we have something to fall back on if our own government pushes us into a corner, threatening or attempting to take away any or all of our Constitutional rights.

As I was saying, what is this talk about assault weapons? I think the government uses the term to refer to weapons that are fully automatic, or have a detachable magazine. First of all, I don't think fully automatic weapons are legal anywhere in the US, as far as civilians are concerned. And I do not see what the big deal is about detachable magazines. There are many types of bolt-action rifles with detachable magazines, and obviously those are not "assault" weapons. To my knowledge, every single firearm that is made to resemble a military rifle, like an M4 for instance, are semi-automatic. This means that one must squeeze the trigger every time they wish to fire a round, as compared with the military version that allows one to squeeze and hold the trigger to fire as many rounds as the magazine allows. Depending on the weapon, there are also bursts of three rounds, and very rarely four or more.

I see why the government would not want people owning fully automatic weapons, but terming a semi-auto weapon as an "assault" weapon is just dumb. Any weapon can be termed an "assault" weapon, if it can be used to assault, which all weapons can. I think the government should be allowed to keep the public from legally owning military grade explosives, like C4, or any explosive material that is manufactured purely as an explosive, like TNT or RDX. I also think the government should only allow certain calibers of weapons. For instance, they could outlaw weapons chambered in anything over .50...I'm pretty sure that is a legal caliber now, or at least in Texas I believe it is. The reason being that no civilian should have need of anything greater.

I actually feel that people should be allowed to own over this caliber, but I am making concessions, lol. And of course I could live with not having automatic weaponry. Other than stuff like that, what else is there? The federal government has become so invasive that the Founding Fathers would literally crap themselves if they were here to see what was going on. Anyway, I think it is entirely possible that these shootings are false flag attacks aimed at taking our guns away.

If some of the crap that I read on ATS is true, regarding the overthrowing of our Republican democracy and the installation of a more totalitarian or similar state, then obviously whoever is running the show would want to take all of our weapons away, so that we could not really defend ourselves. Until that was done, there is always the possibility that we the people would not just roll over and die, but instead would oppose and possibly win. So many people think a scenario like this, with the government waging war on the people, is never going to happen. I am here to tell everyone that I hope it does not happen, but it very well could...Especially with things the way they are now all around the world. Volatility. Plus, just look back throughout history, as it happens all the time. It is happening right now, and has been happening off and on, but mostly on, in various parts of the world for decades if not centuries.

There are so many examples of a people being basically run over because they had no firearms to oppose those who would take away their rights. I mean think of the ludicrous idea of a government telling you that by taking away certain rights, you are better protected. The majority of people are responsible gun owners, and criminals will always get them.

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by Sandalphon

 

Cooper has problems. For one he wasnt the first to notice much of the info he talks about and yet he is stingy about giving others credit. His intel history has issues. For just one, there is no reason, at his level and the level of the command he worked with, that the sort of intel he claims he saw would be passed down to that level.

The question though is 'was he right'?

Though I've never read his book(s?) I am certainly familiar with his mindset, his death from what I remember certainly seemed to me that he may have been 'stepping on toes'.

there are 200 million guns in this country

how are we disarmed ?

and all they are going after is the high capacity clips

like they already did, remember ?

lol

It is called:

Behold a pale horse

Because without hypnosis the unstable would be fine. Who comes up with this stuff?

Originally posted by MrSpad
So we have been tricked into to easing the gun laws for the last 20 something years just so we might see some of them come back? Also since when is a gun ban even being considered? Worst we will see is the assault weapon ban we had from 94 to 04 come back. Crazy people do crazy things. They always have and the always will. Trying to make it into a conspirecy just comes off as trying to avoid the real problems we have in this country.

The AWB will be new and improved, it will have some of the same things as the 94 one but it's essentially the big brother to that one.

reply to post by PatriotG


what page is that on? I just leant that book to a co-worker and want to see if we can find it quickly.

Originally posted by SOLIDSNAKE101
It is called:

Behold a pale horse

I'm familiar with the book, have read excerpts from it, have watched utubes in the past, but haven't read the whole thing. So were his predictions right? Are they coming to pass?

Originally posted by NightGypsy
reply to post by GrandStrategy

 

As for Lanza... i don't see as suspicious that a psychopath who shoots up schools was on anti-psychotic medicine. I expect insane people to be on medication, that's part and parcel of being insane, somebody medicates you - what would be really crazy was if he wasn't on something!

Have you seen the statistics relating to school shooting massacres, not to mention other random incidents of this nature? There have always been mentally ill people in this world, but there have NOT always been such high statistics relating to shooting massacres. They've gone through the roof in the past couple of decades, and, coincidentally, in that same time period, the pharmaceutical industry has flooded the market with many new varieties of psychiatric meds that have been proven to cause suicidal and homicidal ideations in some of the patients who use them.

Your argument is weak, and it leads me to believe that you are either naive, or you choose to live in willful ignorance.

Well, that's rich. I don't remember denying that meds don't cause suicidal tendencies, i've been on them and it says that clearly on the back of most of them. Where do you get the idea that I'm denying that?

But that's a surface problem, so it's a bit rich of you to tell me I'm naive while you willfully avoid the root problem.

I'd posit that mental illness is driven by capitalism and the tediousness and superficiality of modern society.

If you want to delude yourself into thinking it starts and stops with big pharma, while not addressing the root causes, that's on you. There are lots of slaughters around the world in places where people ARE NOT medicated. That's just fact.

You know what else goes hand in hand with these mass killings in America? The rise of high powered, sophisticated weaponry. The rise of violent media. The rise of people using the internet. The rise of people eating chinese food.

This just goes back to what I've been saying all along, though. Everybody has an agenda and wants to hone in one thing that fits their agenda, you're guilty of doing this yourself. You focus on big pharma. The next man focuses on guns. The next man focuses on video games. The next man focuses on hip hop music. Some other moron comes along and points the finger at liberalism.

Where as I'm not pointing the finger at anything. All that i've said in this thread is that these people aren't brainwashed by the CIA and the supposed evidence people are using is daft.

From the book....at the footnotes on photo posted.

On the crazy shooters....

Exhume the bodies of the murderers and check for a brain implant. I think you are going to be surprised.

He also says in the same chapter that Linda Howe was shown the same documents that he had seen in the navy. But he says this....

She has exercised good judgment and great restraint in not revealing the contents of those documents to the public.

page 229

So why is it ok for Bill not to exercise the same good judgment? This looks to me like Bill doing a smear job on Linda in a back handed way. In addition is not Bill then undermining the base of his own position? If Linda was being used as he says.

Since the first listed school shooting was in 1902 followed by others, 3 in the 70's and another in 1989 (the book was released in 91), it was more than likely someone of the "conspiracy theorist" nature, yes they existed back then too, who decided to use his theory in his writing to try to sell book.

It wasn't a prediction that told us what would happen now, it was a statement of what was going on at that time. Just as people on ATS say "those shootings are a way for them ta take away our guns", they didn't have ATS back then and this particular person was an author. He voiced his opinions in that way instead of on an internet message board.

reply to post by PatriotG


That is odd. But I don't think the middle class is begging for the end of the second ammendment. If anything, the plan has back fired. Everyone is buying guns

like many have said here..WILLIAM COOPER IS A LEGEND and well worth reading and learning about

reply to post by EllaMarina

Booming gun sales aren't an indication of a population wishing for the abolishment of civilian arms.
I'm bracing myself dreadingly for news of yet another terrible shooting. Those will not stop happening until the majority of the public want guns removed completely. Or so I theorize.

I think that the word majority gets taken too literally. When the word majority is used, what is often meant is "enough plausiblility to allow the desired action by the Powers that Be". The PTB need only that the majority be unsure and inactive.

Like the word Jew would often make more sense if it were defined as; massively wealthy people of any religion who dicreetly, occultly, and covertly influence the relatively poor government leaders.

Milton William Cooper was appearantly considering genuine war with the authorities, which Alex Jones is not.