Feb. 22, 2018 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:34:30
4009 The Ugly Truth About Mass Shooters
There has recently been a movement to suppress the names, photographs and backgrounds of mass shooters in an attempt to reduce any "fame" such individuals receive from committing murderous actions.A recent study by Jennifer Johnston and Andrew Joy titled “Mass Shootings and the Media Contagion Effect” which breaks down the impact of media coverage on future mass shootings and makes some startling conclusions. Stefan Molyneux breaks down the widely cited study, highlights significant jumps in logic, outright incorrect information and an leftist bias that is paving the way for social media censorship. Study: Mass Shootings and the Media Contagion Effecthttp://www.fdrurl.com/media-contagion-effectYour support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
We're going to descend into the bathyscape, into the heartless of darkness that is mass shootings.
We're going to talk about some of the facts, some of the rumors, and what I think is some of the causality and it's a very very important issue and I hope that you will join me.
I promise it will be rewarding.
So this was actually stimulated in me by a lot of the ideas floating around that The mass shooters, they thrive on this media attention, and you've got to take the oxygen out of their motivations and willpower by not publishing the names or the photographs of the mass shooters, and that's going to help.
And there were a number of people prominent in the alternative media in particular who talked about this, and I was curious.
I certainly don't want to be doing anything to serve the Any of these shooters' motivations, so I wanted to go a little bit more in-depth into what is going on.
So, the way that this was justified, this idea, don't Publicize the shooters is there's a study by Jennifer Johnston who's a PhD and Andrew Joy who has a BS I guess Bachelor of Science and the study was entitled Mass Shootings and the Media Contagion Effect and this study supposedly breaks down the impact of media coverage on future mass shootings and the study Begins,
or near the beginning, they say, we would argue identification with prior mass shooters made famous by extensive media coverage, including names, faces, writings, and detailed accounts of their lives and backgrounds, is a more powerful push toward violence than mental health status or even access to guns.
Now, I'm using my voice of bewildered wonder because I'm feeling bewildered wonder.
So publicizing these shooters is, and I quote, a more powerful push toward violence than mental health status or even access to guns.
This is the hypothesis that is being advanced.
That it's not mentally unstable people.
It's not crazy people.
It's not evil people. It's not chaotic people.
It's not psychotic people.
It is not their mental health status that is primarily responsible for this push toward violence, but it is whether they have read about a shooter on Twitter.
Now, I know this is not an argument, but we do have to be kind of efficient in life.
And just, I mean, tell me if you disagree, but isn't there kind of a common sense, like, what that happens when you hear that?
Doesn't matter if you're sane or crazy.
The only thing that matters, or it doesn't matter much whether you're sane or crazy, the only thing that matters is whether you saw any publicity regarding these shooters.
It's a more powerful push toward violence, this publicity, than mental health status or even access to guns.
So in other words, if you're sane and you see publicity about these shootings, it's more likely to make you a shooter than if you're crazy but don't.
That is an extraordinary statement, and by God, the amount of data that would be required to back that kind of stuff up.
Well, let's just keep going.
So, from the study, quote, Whereas other Americans live with sometimes inadequate mental health identification and intervention, liberal gun laws and fascination with violence, including on the news, they are not influenced to commit mass murder.
The mass shooters are influenced, we believe, due to personal characteristics.
Hmm. Now, again, I'm no scientist.
I'm no mental health professional.
But I'm pretty good with the old logic.
And it's like, okay, well, which is it?
Is it that you are publicizing these shooters or is it their personal characteristics that is causing this?
You can't really say that their mental health status is not that important relative to exposure to media talking about shooters and then say, well, no, it's personal characteristics, right?
So this is... I wish people would just read the studies, just read the studies before you start commenting.
Now, that having been said, to just jump out of the study for a moment and into the real world, the desert of the real, there certainly is media coverage that convinced people to support mass murder.
Iraq, for instance, the media were like a bang bunch of Shakespearean bloodhounds letting slip the dogs of war and the general population, talking up Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and all of this.
And so news does trigger and support mass murder.
But that's not really talked about as much.
And that caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and displaced millions more and pushed a lot of people to flee into Europe, which is destabilizing European civilization.
Not to... It doesn't undermine any of the horrifying experiences of those who are close to the victims of these shooters, but from a big picture perspective, the media support for war and the media cover-up of the effects of war,
when was the last time you saw any Iraqi dead or Yemeni dead, for that matter, given that America, including America under Trump, has sold hundreds of Billions of dollars worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia, which it's using to wage an unjust war.
Do you see the victims of that?
No. Of course not.
And so, yeah, the media does a lot to promote violence, just not in the way that people talk about.
And there is this kind of wearying repetition once you start to see this kind of stuff going on.
Because, boy, people will do a lot to avoid violence.
Pointing out the elephant in the room, which is bad parenting, single motherhood, SSRIs, or the drugging of children, a very, very bad psychiatric profession, government funding of parents who, if they can get their kids on SSRIs, will often get extra money.
Because their kids are now disabled, they get extra money if they're on welfare, and just a massive bunch of terrible incentives that contribute to a lot of this stuff.
But in particular, people want to avoid parenting.
And I scammed through this whole study and didn't find anything about parenting really at all.
And that's kind of changed.
See, in the past, when there was...
Mothers and fathers together, for the most part.
Well, fathers got blamed a lot.
Like, it used to be bad fathering, bad parenting on the part of the father.
Now there's a lot of single moms.
The narrative has to shift to society and media, right?
You can't talk about this kind of parenting.
So, to go on with the study, they say, all of the large assessments of mass murderers and public assassins agree that three characteristics are rampant.
Depression, social isolation, and narcissism.
Hmm. Depression, social isolation, and narcissism.
End quote. Well, that's millions of people in America.
I assume it's most of the people in Washington, D.C., to put it mildly.
And is it really social isolation?
Again, these are all the studies.
I haven't read them all. But just, to me, the common sense reaction to that is, well, the two shooters at Columbine, they were each other's best friends.
They weren't completely isolated.
The shooter, the recent shooter, the guy who shot up the school, he was living with a family and was part of that family.
I'm not sure if they mean from their peers at school or anything like that, but that doesn't narrow it down a lot.
Now, not a mass shooter, but Lee Harvey Oswald was not socially isolated.
He was actually married to a Russian because Lee Harvey Oswald was a communist and had trained in Russia.
So, it doesn't seem to narrow things down very much.
And just by the by, inventing a new word for something doesn't really, to me, add a whole lot.
Like, there's this word narcissism that floats around a lot.
I mean, what's wrong with selfish?
What's wrong with evil? Why do we need these new words?
I mean, I know it's not a new word.
It goes all the way back to narcissism.
Ancient mythological character who was so beautiful, he stared into a lake and starved to death, staring at his own beautiful reflection in the lake and so on.
He says, as he looks at the camera, looking at him back again, but...
I don't know. Like, how do you know someone is narcissistic?
Well, they act in a selfish manner.
It's like, okay, well, they don't really care about the feelings of others and view others as objects to be used to feed ego needs.
Okay. But what is that?
How do you know? Can you predict them?
No. It's like you, based upon what they do, I just don't know that it adds very much.
Shooters are mean, horrible, selfish people.
Yeah. So we're going to call them narcissistic.
Okay, well, if they hadn't acted in that way, would you know?
No. So, I don't know.
It just seems a bit reasoning after the fact and doesn't add a huge amount to the discussion.
But anyway, the study goes on to say murder, it would seem, is in our blood.
That's some science for you.
Research by noted evolutionary psychologist David Buss indicates that about 90% of men and a majority of women have had at least one vivid murder fantasy.
One vivid murder of fantasy, and therefore what?
Murder is in our blood?
Fantasy. I don't know.
People fantasize about threesomes.
How many people have actually had threesomes?
The majority of women fantasize about being raped.
Does that mean that rape is in women's blood?
And the majority, sorry, 90% of men and a majority of women, first of all, I'm always suspicious when they give percentages for men but not for women.
Always suspicious, just letting you know.
And a majority of women have had at least one vivid mode of fantasy.
But if this somehow contributes to violence, then why are there so few female mass shooters?
Let's say it's two-thirds of women and 90% of men.
Well, then there should be, if this has something to do with it, then there should be many, many more female shooters, but there isn't.
The study goes on to say, we will show how the media's misguided attempts to inform the public about these tragedies may ultimately be contributing to the perpetuation of them.
In the past, warnings have been lost in the din of the public's right to know and First Amendment protections, but ulterior motives must now be called into question.
Two.
Ah, ulterior motives.
They go on to say, a growing body of evidence now suggests that it may be in society's best interest for news organizations to better regulate both the amount and type of information that they supply.
And it must ultimately be determined what it considers to be the value of human life.
Again, let's go back to the warmongering that occurred in 2002, 2003.
Sorry.
Unbelievably horrifying.
The warmongering that talked about how bad Gaddafi was before Obama and Hillary Clinton took him out and she giggled about it, thus destroying Libya, opening up the gateways of mass migration to Europe, and now in Libya there are open slave markets where you can buy a human being for $400.
I thought black lives mattered.
Anyway, so...
The study goes on to say, So why do they necessarily exclude terrorism?
Why do they exclude gang-related activities?
So, they exclude terrorism, and they exclude political or religious terrorism.
They also exclude gang-related shootings in these statistics.
Why? Well, of course, there's the narrative that it's white men who are the shooters.
Now, if you slice and dice any particular aggregation of data, you can get to some particular demographic.
And if you exclude, well, religious terrorism, well, that takes out a lot of fundamentalist Muslims and others, and Timothy McVeigh, of course, to be fair.
And if you exclude gang statistics, well, according to the National Gang Center, and I quote, the most recent figures provided by law enforcement are 46% Hispanic-slash-Latino gang members, 35% African-American-slash-Black gang members, more than 35% African-American-slash-Black gang members, more than 11% white gang members, and 7% other race-slash-ethnicity-of-gang members.
that's very interesting.
So, whites are about 70% of the population, but only 11% of gang members.
So, if you include gangs in mass shootings, and there certainly are gang-related mass shootings, just as there are, of course, as we know, Religiously motivated mass shootings, well, you can then start talking about white males more than other groups, and that, of course, fits into the leftist general narrative of hostility towards white males, because White males want free markets, free speech, and smaller governments, which the left currently opposes.
So how did the study describe gang violence?
Here's a quote. Gang-related and criminally motivated murder is usually caused by entrenched poverty and community issues, which direct some to believe that the only way to get their fair share or get ahead is through crime.
Hmm. Gang violence.
Ah, the poverty explanation.
By the way, not true.
Not true. Not true at all.
I won't get into the whole thing, but the Appalachians regions is the poorest regions in the United States.
They're very low crime. Very low crime.
And it's not poverty that causes crime.
It's crime that causes poverty and And the prevalence of single motherhood is the biggest single predictor for criminality, not poverty.
But again, that's making female agency or female roles in the cycle of violence visible to people, which cannot be allowed, because women vote for the left as a whole, and the left doesn't want to annoy them with facts.
Well, we saw that in the recent change to more ruling from the Labour Board.
So... The quote.
The Mother Jones magazine dataset has been cited by a number of authors, but its incidents prior to 2012 reflect the old definition of mass shooting as four or more fatalities since 2012.
The dataset has followed the new rule of three or more fatalities to classify as a mass shooting.
Now, here, when you start talking about mass shootings that exclude gang violence, that exclude political or religious terrorism, then there's going to be a larger proportion of white males.
And, of course, what you're doing is, since you're not including the murder of intimates or the murder of children, right, intimates people you know, then you're going to exclude significant swaths of female violence, right?
And that is quite a lot of lovely blood-soaked ladies to exclude from the annals of criminality.
When it comes to the murder of intimates, and this is something that a criminologist, Coramay Richley Mann, documented in her 1996 study of female killers called When Women...
Well, of course, the standard thing is, well, women kill in self-defense because they're being abused and they can't take anymore.
And, you know, there are so many layers of defense that women have regarding why they become violent.
But the facts are not really that way at all.
They're not like these helpless, couch-fainting angels.
78% of the women in man's study had prior arrest records, like the murderers.
And 55% had a history of violence.
Only 59% of them claimed self-defense.
And women's role in the cycle of abuse, in the cycle of violence, has to be talked about if we want to solve.
The problems of violence. If we want to end up with fewer satanic evil people stalking the halls of school waves with smoking guns, black hearts, and a trail of bodies.
If we want fewer parents to be weeping and wailing at the tiny coffins of their children being lowered into the ground never to see the light of day again.
If we really actually want to solve problems, the problems of violence and of abuse and of coercion and of the initiation of force, we need to talk about the cycle of violence and the cycle of abuse.
And women are strongly implicated in the cycle of abuse.
And if we don't talk about women's role in the cycle of abuse, well, we're just not interested in solving problems.
And... If you're talking about violence without talking about women's roles in it, you are contributing to the problem.
So don't give me all of this virtue signaling.
I want to help reduce it by not talking about the names of the other.
That is not the fundamental issue.
In the book, When She Was Bad, Patricia Pearson points out that, and I quote, Women commit the majority of child homicides in the United States.
A greater share of physical child abuse, an equal rate of sibling violence and assaults on the elderly, about a quarter of child sexual abuse, an overwhelming share of the killings of newborns, and a fair preponderance of spousal assaults.
All right, I'm gonna...
I hate to have to keep doing this.
I gotta tell you again, because I need it to stick.
Women commit the majority of child homicides in the United States, a greater share of physical child abuse, an equal rate of sibling violence and assaults on the elderly, about a quarter of child sexual abuse, an overwhelming share of the killings of newborns, and a fair preponderance of spousal assaults. an overwhelming share of the killings of newborns, and a The sole explanation offered by criminologists for violence committed by a woman is that it is involuntary, the rare result of provocation or mental illness.
As if half of the population of the globe consisted of saintly Stoics who never succumbed to fury, frustration or greed.
Though the evidence may contradict the statements, the consensus runs deep.
Women from all walks of life, at all levels of power, corporate, political or familial, women in combat and on police forces have no part in violence.
It is one of the most abiding myths of our time.
But you see, if you slice and dice the data, you can bring up the giant evil penis of white male privilege and pretend that you're dealing with violence as a whole.
You're not. You're covering up.
Okay, let's go back to the study that's cited.
Regarding, don't publicize these guys.
Quote, In her threat assessment report to the FBI on school shooters, O'Toole lists depression as a major predisposing factor.
Malloy et al. echoed this finding in his team's analysis of school and adult mass shooters.
Of adolescents, approximately one in every four had had earlier psychiatric treatment, and 50% of the adult mass shooters had a history of psychiatric treatment, with one of the three primary diagnoses being depression.
In a study of 83 assassination-determined individuals from 1949 to 1999, Fein and Voskelkuhl found that 44% had a history of serious depression and despair, including suicidal thoughts.
And Voskelkuhl, Fein, Reddy, Borum, and Mozzeleski determined that 78% of the school's shooters they had studied had thoughts of suicide or had prior attempts at suicide.
Depression, is it?
Well, women are twice as likely to be depressed.
And it's far more rare for women to be mass shooters as defined by this.
Shooting of strangers in the same place, three or more.
No political or religious motivation.
So, how does this help?
Evil people are unhappy.
Well, Shakespeare, if not the Bible.
If not, Socrates could have told you that.
Study goes on, and I quote, for instance, Weick and Fraser determined that a high degree of social stratification with a clear hierarchy among students existed in schools that were ultimately victimized by one of their own.
Malloy, Humple, Mohandy, Shiva, and Gray noted that 70% of the 34 adolescent mass shooters they studied were characterized as loners.
In Weisbrot's analysis of 115 potential school shooters over nine years, she determined higher levels of threat were present in the most socially lonely or teased kids, and who were harboring secret retaliatory thoughts.
She also determined that half of all the at-risk shooters that were referred to her were severely teased and social loners.
There is, of course, this tendency to blame the peers.
You can't blame the school, you can't blame the FBI, you can't blame the social environment, you can't blame that kind of stuff, because, well, we'll get to all of that, but there is this temptation to blame the peers.
Oh, if we had more anti-bullying programs in school...
But my question is, what about the family?
What about the mom?
What about the dad? What about the extended family, the aunts, the uncles, the siblings?
What about the family?
It's like the genie.
Why don't you just tell the truth?
What about the family? Bullying doesn't come out of nowhere.
Bullies take risks.
And the risk is that the kid is going to get his dad to come over and get you in trouble with your parents, that the kid is going to turn out to be a secret ninja and beat the crap out of you, that the kid's going to have an older brother that is going to beat the crap out of you.
So if you're a bully, you pick your victims very, very carefully.
Very carefully. So the question is, how do the bullies know that they can pick on the victims?
I'll tell you how. The bullies know that they can pick on the victims because the victims don't have a close bond with the parents.
It's really that simple.
Because if the kids have a close bond with the parents, then the kid goes home, says to the parents that there's this bullying going on, the parents leap into action, and the bully experiences humiliation, negative consequences, punishment, expulsion, you name it. So...
How do they know? How do they know who to bully so that it works?
It is not primarily a horizontal phenomenon, bullying.
Bullying is preying upon the weak.
And the weak are defined as those without strong parental support of the child.
This is the lack of bonding, this is the lack of connection, the lack of communication, the lack of intimacy, the lack of love, the lack of parental protection.
I mean, who do the lions go for in the herd?
They go for the sick, the weak, and the old.
Right? And, hmm, maybe John McCain should go on safari.
Anyway, so...
That's who the lions go for.
They go for those who cannot defend themselves.
And with regards to children, children cannot defend themselves.
And it is up to the adults to defend and protect them.
I just want people to understand that if you're going to start talking about socially isolated and bullied and so on, the first place you have to talk about and the first place you have to look is the family of origin, the immediate family structure that is around the child.
If you have no family support.
And look, here's another thing too.
If you come from a single mom household, most times your mom is barely holding it together.
It's hanging by a thread, like one more thing, one more straw that's going to break the camel's back and she's going to freak out and she's going to collapse or go nuts or something like that.
There is that sense in a lot of single mom households.
And given that your mom is usually really, really stressed and overstretched and overwhelmed If you have trouble at school, and you think of bringing home those problems and sitting down with your single mom and saying, I'm being bullied by this boy at school.
Come on, we all know this generally would be handled by the dad, right?
So if there's no dad around, the single mom is going to resent you a lot of times for bringing that up, for making her life more difficult, for making her life more complicated.
And you get that as a kid and you don't bring those problems to your mom because she's just kind of barely hanging in there as it is.
So don't get me wrong.
The kids who bully are wrong and it's bad and it's absolutely wrong to bully.
But my question is, how do we solve the problem?
Do we solve the problem with a greater intimacy and trust between the children and their parents?
The study goes on to say, Molloy, Mohandy, Noll, and Hoffman write that from a psychoanalytic perspective identifying with or copying the behavior Of admired others is a primary defense of narcissistic individuals.
Typical mass shooters want to believe they are as aggressive, as militaristic, or as badass, if you will, as their weapon-wielding idols.
Seeking fame keeps narcissism intact.
Attaining fame, or the certainty that one will, is an effective antivenom to the constant risk of the individual's low self-esteem or feelings of hopelessness seeping through the thick skin of narcissistic thinking and behavior.
I don't know. Maybe I'm just an old Lockheed empiricist, but...
Well, they write that from a psychoanalytic perspective, there are all of these words and there's this theory.
How do you know that's true?
How do you know? What's the null hypothesis for this?
This is just theorizing about the way people's minds work.
How do you know? Just because somebody wants to be famous, look, the majority of British kids, or the number one thing that British kids want to be is famous, that doesn't mean they're going out and shooting people.
It's just, it's a lot of, do you have any data, do you have any facts behind all of this, or is it just spinning your web of words, web of words?
Study goes on to say, We find that a cross-cutting trait among many profiles of mass shooters is desire for fame.
Quote, End quote.
End quote. End quote.
Words, words, words, words, words.
What does this mean? What's the proof?
What's the prediction value?
Quote, In the form of a desire for special attention, like celebrity recognition, in a study of assassins, the second most common motive was for notoriety or fame, and among school shooters seeking special attention or recognition was the third highest motivator.
So a desire for fame leads you towards violence, like presidents who start wars in order to make it into the history books.
And here... I mean, does it bother anyone?
Maybe it's just me. I mean, I'm perfectly open to the hypothesis that it's just me.
But going into, I don't know, the central motive for many historical assassins.
So what we're going now is back in time, decades or hundreds of years, to try and figure out the motivations of historical assassins.
Now, you can't interview them.
And I guess you have to go with what they said to other people or what they wrote or what they confessed or what they reported.
But I tell you this straight up, my friends, I will tell you this straight up.
If you are an assassin or a mass murderer, I'm going to go with that you're not above lying.
Just going to go straight out.
You're not above lying if you're willing to slaughter a huge number of innocent people or just shoot someone you dislike.
You're pretty much okay with lying.
So, given that murderers, assassins, mass murderers, are fully capable of lying about their motives, and given that they're cruel, why would they tell you the truth?
Why would they tell you the truth?
The other thing, too, of course, is that you hear all of this stuff about how good psychiatrists are at identifying these kinds of characteristics.
Okay. So, why are there so many shooters?
If you're really, really good at figuring out who these people are, ah, they have this characteristic, and this characteristic, and they have the wounded narcissism, and the vanity, and the grandiosity, and the depression, and the isolation, and the bullying, then why do they keep slipping through your fingers?
Why do they keep slipping through the cracks?
It's not that complicated to predict the past price of a stock.
It's not that complicated to figure out what the weather was yesterday.
It's tomorrow that the science is.
Study goes on to say, and I quote, fame is again echoed as the ultimate goal of mass shooters by Lankford, who suggests that the seemingly random nature of many shootings may be instead be by design, and that both the act itself and its suicidal denouement has meaning in and of itself.
Yeah. Maybe this, maybe that.
Could be anything. Sure.
Ask the Crystal 8-Ball.
Quote, Lankford attempted to quantify how many mass shooters explicitly state a motive of notoriety.
He determined that 11% of the 225 shooter statements he analyzed since 1966 were obviously fame-seeking.
11%. That is not a very high percentage.
I mean, that's not a very high percentage.
11% were what he called obviously fame-seeking.
How do you know? They're shooters.
They murder people. How can you take anything that they say as honest or truthful or factual?
I was motivated by X. And X was the voices in my head telling me what I was motivated by.
Come on! These guys wouldn't be competent witnesses in a trial and you're using them to judge their own motives.
I don't know. How many of these shooters are without fathers?
Without Jesus?
We'll get to that. Study says that to CNN's list of the 27 deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history, only one of the mass shooters was raised by his biological father since childhood.
Huh. That is a lot more.
That is a lot more.
What is that, north of 95%?
So if 95% of the shooters were not raised by his biological father since childhood, that's higher than the 11% of the 225 shooters who this guy thinks were obviously fame-seeking.
So if you want to deal with the problems of shooters, maybe we can talk about Fatherhood.
A little bit more than should you publish a picture of the person.
Peter Heston, writing in The Federalist, said, and I quote...
As noted above Roof, that's Dylan Roof's parents divorced even before he was born.
Not only were Adam Lanz's parents divorced, but he hadn't seen his father in the two years before the Sandy Hook shooting.
Jeff Weiss, the 16-year-old school shooter who killed 10 people, came from a depressingly broken home.
His parents separated before birth, and both his parents were dead before he was even a teenager.
The list goes on. From Charleston churches to the Boston Marathon, the victims change, but the narrative remains the same.
Unstable homes produce unstable individuals.
All that remains to be seen is whether we decide to keep destabilizing American homes or wake up and give our kids the upbringing they deserve.
Learning to control aggression is a foundational aspect of fatherhood.
Fatherhood. We all know this.
Come on. I know it's not an argument, but we know it anyway.
Moms and dads, they parent kind of differently.
So dads work on this rough-and-tumble play.
And rough and tumble play is here's how to manage your strength, here's how to control your strength so that it's enjoyable and productive rather than destructive and dangerous.
And this is what fathers do.
It's not just with sons, it's with daughters as well.
Boundaries, empathy, these are all foundational in the post-seven or post-six or seven-year-old involvement that fathers have.
Yeah, with moms, it's very much early on.
With fathers, it's latency period like 6, 7, 8 through to puberty and beyond.
Well, some of the characteristics of mass shooters.
Okay, let's talk about fatherlessness.
Violence, there is a direct correlation.
Between fatherless children and teen violence.
Oh, you find that they're suicidal?
Fatherless children are more than twice as likely to commit suicide.
Oh, do they use a lot of drugs?
Well, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and I quote, fatherless children are at dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse.
Guns! Well, two of the strongest correlations with gun homicides.
A growing up in a fatherless household and dropping out of school.
So, these are related.
Now, of course, school shootings started in the 1980s.
The great experiment in dissolving marriage began in the late 1960s and the 1970s.
Hmm. How interesting.
Because now, I mean, it's a complete disaster in America and other places as well.
About 36 million kids or so under the age of 18 have experienced their parents getting divorced.
About 40% of all American children don't live with their fathers.
Significant proportion of those don't have any contact with their father at all.
And the family courts are disastrous.
Family courts and the welfare state seem to be working as hard as humanly possible to make sure that children don't have contact with their own fathers.
Soul or primary custody crap is almost always the money.
The mother, sorry. The money.
It is the money. We'll get to that in a sec.
But it's the mother.
And the welfare state will often not give you benefits or give you reduced benefits if there's a father in the home, if there's a man in the home.
So the women are paid to have fatherless children.
Maybe that's the law of unintended consequences.
Maybe it's completely evil social engineering.
I don't know. But over 82% of custodial parents are mothers.
and of the fathers who end up being custodial parents, a lot of them, and only end up because the mothers don't even show up to the hearings.
And that's horrendous.
High divorce rates are heavily correlated, not just to no fault divorce.
You know, in the past, to get divorced, you had to show infidelity, abuse, substance abuse, or violence, and so on.
And then, it was under Reagan.
It started with just no-fault divorce.
I mean, Canada, up until the 1960s, you needed an act of parliament to get divorced.
And there's a research, and again, the sources for all of this are below.
There's research that show that the reason that 70% of divorce filers are women is that women know they're not going to lose custody of their kids.
They also know that they're going to get child support that's pretty high.
They're going to get alimony.
So what's the number one reason for women getting divorced?
Dissatisfaction, not abuse, not infidelity, not violence, not my husband's a drunk.
Dissatisfaction, just not that satisfied.
I mean, if you want to understand what it's like for these women and some men, you know, everyone's job is sometimes annoying.
Sometimes you're dissatisfied with your job.
You don't like your career. You're not happy with the way you are.
Now, imagine if those times your boss comes to you and says, you know, just don't come in.
Just go do anything you want.
Go do anything you want. We're going to continue to pay you anyway, and you're going to get full benefits.
In fact, you might even get a raise.
Now, if you get paid for not going to work, are you going to go to work?
Well, some people would, of course, right?
But very few.
Most people work so that they get money so that they can survive.
And if you're married, then the husband, if you're married and you have kids, in general, if you're staying home, your husband is obligated to provide for you.
Now, if you can go to the court and get your husband to provide for you to continue to be paid to do your job...
While quitting, well, then if you're dissatisfied, you understand, the incentives are just completely horrifying.
And courts, of course, often will fail to enforce the visitation rights of fathers.
They don't really track much about parental alienation, you know, like the mom whispering all of the horrifying poison hamlet dripping in the ear about how bad the father is.
And so this parental alienation stuff, how do you deal with that in a court of law?
She's turning my children against me by lying to me about how bad I am when I'm not.
Good luck with that. And there are moveaways by custodial parents.
I had a friend who went through this.
Moveaways where they're, I'm going to Nebraska!
Yeah, well, good luck stopping that.
And there's a big fork in the road.
A big fork in the road for boys.
Testosterone, if it's well-channeled by an involved father, boys are about the greatest things for society in the world.
And if they're not, if the testosterone, the aggression, if it's not channeled into productive uses by an involved father, then boys become some of the most destructive elements in the world.
You can wish it was different. Oh, you know, another thing, too, is that when it comes to single moms, moms often don't really have a very good habit of letting go of children, of encouraging them to take risks, of encouraging them to go out and explore the world unaccompanied by adults.
For a lot of moms, every falter is an imminent paralysis through horrible neck injuries and so on.
There's a reason why there aren't any diving boards.
Man, I spent... When I was a kid, I'd go swimming all the time, diving boards, do double flips, and I just loved diving all the time.
Can't find diving boards anymore.
And this worry, this fear, this panic.
Childhood is safer now than it's ever been, but now because we have so many moms, moms worry.
And women score higher in neuroticism than men.
You need men to peel back the moms and just give some breathing room to the kids, particularly the sons.
This is just stuff we all know.
But everything has gotten so messed up.
And yeah, the stats are fairly clear.
72% of adolescent murderers grew up without fathers.
60% of rapists grew up without fathers.
And if you want to know, one of the best predictors for violent crime in a community is not poverty, it's the number of single-parent households, single-mom households.
If there are a lot of single-mom households, you're going to have a violent community.
Don't shoot the messages, man.
It's just data. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but it's just facts.
Now, this is tough.
This is tough because the left, I mean, there are good-hearted people on the left who care about these kinds of shootings, this criminality, this violence and so on.
And there are more radical elements on the left that want to destroy the family.
And in particular, wish to get children away from white males because, as I said before, demographically, statistically, white males want free markets, they want smaller governments, they want free speech, they are fine with gun ownership and so on.
And so the left can't really talk about family dysfunction because family dysfunction in many ways has increased, has increased since the disintegration of the family.
Women are the safest.
In marriage, that is the safest place for women to be.
Children are safest in a two-parent married family.
The rates of child abuse go up 30 times or more if there is a non-biologically related father in the household.
Just look at the lions and what the new lions do to the existing cubs.
And so when the left is upset about stuff, they have a very, very tough time staring directly at family dysfunction.
Because a lot of leftist policies have contributed to the disintegration of the family that has left women unprotected, men alienated, and children abused.
And so for the left...
The solutions generally are more state, more laws, more spending.
It's totalitarian. And when you start to introduce more laws and more coercion and more resource transfers and money transfers, that's violence.
The state is an agency of violence.
If you want to take from Peter and pay to Paul and you want the state to do it rather than it be charity, then you're talking about the use of violence.
And then the left says, well, we're really good at analyzing violence, but all of our solutions tend to be coercive.
I mean, it's really astonishing.
So, let's talk a little bit about Christianity.
Now, we're going to dip into here some political violence, because the question is, how many shooters...
Are Christians who actively go to church and who come from a stable family where they're raised by their biological fathers?
How many of them are atheists or nihilists or leftists, socialists, communists?
You name it. How many of them have a personal relationship with Jesus?
How many of them respect the Ten Commandments?
How many of them have the community of the church to help guide them?
How many of them can either bear being bullied through having a relationship with the church and with Jesus and with God, and how many of them can overcome the social isolation through prayer and through self-knowledge, and the self-knowledge that comes through prayer?
So let's look at political violence and its relationship to atheism.
So these are broad strokes, and I'll just touch on them here.
You can look at them in more detail below.
So there have been about 28 countries in world history that were ruled by atheists.
So there were 89 atheists in charge of 28 historical regimes.
Now, of those 89 atheists, more than half of them engaged in demicidal acts against their own citizens, usually after disarming their citizens.
We're talking Stalin and Mao and so on.
Now, the total body count, and this number varies, but it's shockingly large, even at its lowest estimate.
The total body count...
Just going the 90 years between the infliction of the communist regime in Russia, under the Bolsheviks, under Lenin, between 1917 and 2007, total body count, about 148 million people.
And that's 52 atheists in charge of the slaughter of 158, sorry, 148 million people.
That is a shock.
And you can look up democide if you want, D-E-M-O-C-I-D-E. It's the murder of your own civilians, of your own population by governments.
And so these 52 atheists, and you can say, well, they were communists for sure, but the question is, why is communism so focused on getting rid of the church?
Why is the left so focused on getting the church, the Christian church, out of public life and out of people's minds and hearts?
I saw it was James Woods, I think, shared a picture, a tweet.
And the question for a kid was, describe a relationship with someone that's changed your life.
And the kid started talking about Jesus.
And he got an F and red marks.
And the teacher wrote, please remove Jesus.
Remove Jesus. And what do you get?
And put this in context.
1917 and 2007, 148 million dead.
At the hands of 52 atheists, that is three times the number of people killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire 20th century combined.
And you hear a lot, of course, about Christianity and the Spanish Inquisition, not just from Monty Python, who are very funny but nihilistic atheists as a whole.
But if you compare the death count of atheistic totalitarianism with the death count of The Spanish Inquisition, well, the atheists are 182,716 times worse.
That's a lot.
Now, you could, of course, say, well, there are wars of religion and so on, and I accept all of those.
I accept all of that, and I'm still going to challenge you to add it up to anything close to the 148 million, or 100 million, as some have estimated.
Okay, let's say that it's a third lower.
So if you have a leader who's an atheist, there's an almost 60% chance that that leader is going to murder a substantial portion of the population.
Atheism, of course, has Darwinian elements.
Atheists have not solved the problem of morality.
You cannot get an is- Sorry, you cannot get an ought from an is.
The very facts of reality do not produce morality.
Morality, and talked about this in Dennis Prager.
Now, I have my own solution. I'm going to talk about this right now.
Historical atheism has not solved the problem of morality, and there is a Darwinian brutal struggle which manifests itself in totalitarianism and in politics.
So, yeah. If you look at atheist leaders, they are 18.3 million percent worse than the Christians and the Spanish Inquisition.
Now, even though atheists have had less than 5 percent the number of opportunities to commit atrocities, so they've done Far, far worse.
18.3 million percent worse, while only having 5% of the opportunities to commit atrocities.
That is astonishing stuff.
It is crazy.
60% of the atheist leaders commit these atrocities, like one in a thousand religious leaders in the West.
There's some causation there, which I have And if you want to talk about mass shootings, I don't know, lining up your political enemies and putting them in a shallow grave, sometimes thousands of them a day, the Holodomor in Ukraine in the 1920s and 1930s,
where millions and millions of the political enemies of Stalin were starved to death in a systemic form of stealing a food, of destroying the market, and that is massive and significant.
Why doesn't The left to talk more about that.
Well, are they really so concerned about violence?
Don't you start with the highest and widest prevalence of violence and start working back from there?
And if you look it up, where the information is available, the young mass murderers, they do have a bit of a tendency towards leftism and nihilism or atheism.
over the last little over half century in america not one mass shooter was a member of the national rifle association and um if you look at assassins remember the guy was talking about assassins so let's look at assassins And if you look at assassins, remember the guy was talking about assassins.
So let's look at assassins who've targeted U.S. presidents.
Andrew Jackson was shot at by Richard Lawrence.
It was a suspected Democrat plot, although there was no decisive proof.
There were three attempts on the life of Abraham Lincoln.
Democrats, Baltimore, 1861.
Democrat Confederates, August 1864.
And then shot at from ambush, shot dead by John Wilkes Booth, a Democrat, April 1865.
James Garfield, shot and killed by Charles Guto, who's a utopian communalist, which is kind of like a modern progressive or maybe a Fabian socialist.
William McKinley, shot and killed by Leon Ksoltz, a far-left socialist.
Theodore Roosevelt, shot and wounded by John Schrenk, who was an anti-third term.
He had an anti-third term motive.
FDR, shot at by Giuseppe Zangara, a Marxist.
He actually missed and killed Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak.
Harry S. Truman was attacked by Oscar Colazzo, Griselio Torresi.
They were leftist revolutionaries who wanted a socialist paradise in Puerto Rico.
I guess they kind of got it much, much later.
John F. Kennedy, of course, shot and killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, who was a communist.
Richard Nixon. Well, Samuel Bick thought that Nixon was oppressing the proletariat poor and attempted to hijack an airplane to crash it into the White House.
So kind of lefty there. Gerald Ford.
Ah, Lynette Fromm, anarchist who was a Manson girl.
She waved a gun, failed to properly load it.
Sarah Brady shot at the president.
She was a progressive socialist and not a good shot.
So, if you're looking for characteristics that may indicate Violence or propensities towards violence.
Well, I've just listed a whole bunch, but they don't really show.
Bad parenting, absent father, single moms, and leftist tendencies.
We'll get into SSRIs briefly in a moment, but there's a lot that you can focus on that's not being focused on.
Maybe there's some fantastic reason I'm not aware of.
I'm just saying, just putting it out there.
So let's go back to the study.
And I quote, At this point, there is irrefutable evidence that most perpetrators of mass shootings are white, heterosexual males.
The very nature of this demographic profile holds many answers.
Kimmel and colleagues were the first to suggest that being white and male and middle or upper class, suburban as many of the school shooters they studied were, may convey a particular vulnerability to loss of social capital, and more importantly, a belief that one has been wrongfully cheated out of one's rightful, dominant place, a white, middle-class male with a belief that one has been wrongfully cheated out of one's rightful, dominant place, a white,
They seem unable to realize or unaware of the fact that their social humiliations are neither uncommon nor extreme when compared to other individuals, especially women, impoverished minorities, and marginalized homosexuals.
Thank you.
Right. Well, here you can see that this is leftist bias all over the place, right?
I mean, this is the white lash, the white rage.
Males are being displaced, white males are being displaced, and they're lashing out in rage and so on.
I don't know. It's interesting to me as well that they would say that white heterosexual males, how do they know that these men are heterosexuals?
How? I mean, have they never heard of a beard?
I mean, that's wild.
And the idea that not getting what you want means that you're going to lash out and it's immature and it's bad and it's wrong and all that.
Well, if blacks don't get a conviction that they want, they sometimes riot.
I mean, just ask Daniel Holtzclaw.
Or the fear of the riot, I think, is what put that poor young man in jail.
And, you know, try cutting back on welfare.
Try cutting transfer payments.
Try raising rent or whatever.
I mean, it's strange.
If the capacity for violence is somehow related to immaturity and lashing out and instability and mental illness and so on, well, I mean, we all know this.
Blacks in America commit way more crimes.
Than whites do per capita.
Way more! Does that mean that blacks also are lashing out at loss of status?
Well, they'll say, well, it's because they're poor.
And they're poor because they're oppressed by white males.
Okay, so the way it works is if you're a white male and you're violent, you're bad because you're a white male.
If you're a minority and you're violent, you're not bad because the badness accumulates to white males.
Huh! I think I can see a tiny, tiny little bit of a pattern here, but I can't quite...
Put my finger on it.
So in this study that was cited by a bunch of people, the authors, quote, recommend that researchers base their analyses on the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training, ALERT, data set, because it is the most accurate, all right? So they say, well, these are all white males, or the majority of people are white, the majority of these shooters.
Oh, let me get the actual quote, sorry.
At this point, there is irrefutable evidence that most perpetrators of mass shootings are white heterosexual males.
Boy, the only group that you can continually attack, and well, until they fight back, they don't.
And so that's where the study's coming from.
And they say, use this alert data set.
Okay, so tootled off to the alert data website.
And I found very quickly, and I quote, at 59%, the majority of active shooters were Caucasian.
Wait, what? They're saying white males who are heterosexual.
And they say, use this data set, but on that website itself, it says that 59% of the majority of active shooters were Caucasian.
African Americans made up 19% of active shooters.
These percentages closely match the national average and do not indicate that one race and or ethnicity is more likely to commit an active shooting than another.
Well, I don't mean to overly correct you, but it kind of does a little bit, because whites are well north of 59% of the population and Africans are well south.
African Americans are well south of the 19% of active shooters.
African Americans about 13%.
And whites I think around 70% in the States.
Something like that. So the data set that they cite as the one you should use specifically rejects their ideologically driven anti-white male hatred of statistical manipulation that is right there in the article.
But you see, they're very, very concerned about ulterior motives on the part of the media.
Anyway, in an article for Slate titled, Mass Shooters Aren't Disproportionately White, Daniel Engber broke down a mass shooting dataset created by Mother Jones.
Mother Courage and her kinder.
It's a pretty lefty outlet.
And I quote, in this bigger data set, the proportion of white mass shooters drops down to 56% by my count.
Judging by those newer numbers and the most current census estimate that 76.9% of Americans are white, the whites are overrepresented among mass shooters meme appears even less accurate.
Perpetrators that Mother Jones classifies as Asian make up 7.4% of the data set versus an estimated 5.7%.
of the population, while those Mojo identifies as black represent 17% of the mass shooters in the database versus an estimated 13.3% of the population.
According to this dataset, then, Asians and black Americans are overrepresented among mass shooters by about the same proportion, a bit more than one-fourth, that whites are underrepresented.
This means the population rate of mass shootings by whites, at least according to the tiny sample measured in the Mojo database, is 0.021 per 100,000 people, while the corresponding rate of mass shootings by blacks is 1.7 times higher at 0.037.
I'm just going to be straight up with you.
This shit pisses me off. It really, really, it's so racist and so bigoted and so wrong in general and in specifics.
How can you say this stuff?
Oh, it's all white heterosexual males.
No. Wrong.
Bigoted. Wrong.
Whites are underrepresented in mass shootings by about 25% relative to population.
Black's 1.7 times higher than the population.
Oh, than the white prevalence.
Astonishing. So the original cited article goes on to say and I quote, In the four years preceding,
violent media as a cause for the shootings was discussed in less than 2% of the stories across all eight years.
So we've got gun control, which is a central lust of the left and of the often atheist left.
For reasons of murderousness that has been amply displayed in history, of course they want to disarm the population because they want to grow the power of the state and they're afraid that the population might have something to say about that if the population is well-armed.
So there's a growing emphasis on gun control, there is a decreasing emphasis on mental health issues, and virtually no emphasis on media.
And of course, you know, the media, they want to sell their ads, and so they're going to do eye-grabbing stuff, and of course, if it bleeds, it leads.
But what's conspicuously absent is any mention of parenting.
Any mention of parenting.
Now, of course, there is the white knighting, protection of women.
The left relies upon women for the expansion of state power because women are statistically very keen on selling freedoms for free stuff.
And so the left doesn't want to annoy women.
And so the left won't hold women accountable, won't hold women responsible for just about anything, which is why you get this weird feminist empowerment along with the scouring of personal agency from the choices that women make.
You know, if you ever want to find this out, you know, when...
Just say women are responsible for the husbands that they choose.
Women are responsible for the men that they choose to be the fathers of their children.
They won't accept that.
And so as single motherhood has grown and as school shootings have grown, the correlation seems to be fairly clear.
Is it 100%? No, it's not.
But is it very high in my opinion?
It certainly is. And let's just say it's worth examining further.
Why is it not talked about?
Why is it not talked about?
Well, it's not talked about, of course.
Because as single motherhood Discussing deficient parenting means you're talking about single mothers, particularly if you're talking about violent male youth.
You're talking about, to a large degree, single mothers.
So you have to now scrub parenting from your lexicon of dealing with these issues because you're on the left, you want a bigger government, you want gun control, and you don't want to annoy the women who vote for a bigger and bigger government, which is the majority of women, except, of course, for women who have husbands because they want the free market for obvious reasons.
So they go on to say, The most disturbing finding is that for every three incidents, at least one new incident is guaranteed or copied within 13 days.
The contagion for school shootings is slightly weaker.
For every four to five incidents, a new incident is copied within 13 days.
The authors note that although it is clear a contagion is present, they cannot determine what caused the contagion based on the model alone.
Such as our assumption that the contagion is mass media coverage, they can only determine presence or no presence of contagion.
So, right there.
The study itself clearly and explicitly states that they can't break down this contagion into specifics.
They can't say whether it's naming the shooter, whether it's showing his photo, whether it's discussing his background or his origin story.
And they can't tell whether it has to do with the media or Twitter or something else.
They're just... they're barely making an educated guess about the source of this contagion.
Now, yes, human behavior is contagious.
If one woman gets pregnant, it's likely that other women around her are going to get pregnant.
The same thing is true in divorce.
If a sibling of yours gets divorced, your likelihood of divorce goes up enormously.
And it's dose-dependent, depending on how genetically proximate or emotionally proximate people are to you.
If your best friend gets divorced, your likelihood of divorce goes up.
If your distant second cousin gets divorced you're not that close to, it goes up but just a little bit.
You ever say, well, I don't really want to have anything to drink tonight.
You go to a party and people are like, have a drink.
You're like, okay, I'll have a drink. Because people are drinking, so I'd have a drink.
Drug usage, risky behavior, bashing white males, publishing anti-empirical research.
These are all contagious to some degree or another.
Memes are contagious.
Everything is contagious.
That's why we folks fight so hard to have our voice heard in public.
So what does that mean? We don't talk about anything?
Can't talk about divorce.
Can't publish articles about divorce, you see, because divorce is contagious and it's bad for kids.
And it leads to school shootings.
Fatherlessness leads to school shootings.
So we can't talk about anything that might destabilize families.
Yeah, good luck with that.
The study says, I quote, The authors also determined that school shootings are more influenced by social media than other mass shootings.
However, social media is still able to predict That the first 10 days after an attack are the most contagious for another attack, especially when tweets about mass shooting reach more than 45 per million.
Also, unfortunately, the number of tweets about a shooting is linked to a higher number of fatalities in the next few shootings.
So, people talk about mass shootings.
They do, and they're interesting, they're fascinating, they're extraordinarily rare.
But they are, of course, of great interest to people.
And so, is it just that it's in the air that people are talking about it?
We don't know the cause and effect, right?
Is it that people are talking about a huge amount and therefore there are a lot of tweets about it?
Or is it there are a lot of tweets about it and that makes people talk about it more?
Because if it's people talking about it as a whole, that's going to be more vivid to the shooter or the potential shooter.
Anyway, because you, you know, so...
And, of course, you could follow the tweets.
Like, if you could get access to these shooters' accounts, you could see who they follow, and you could see the prevalence of what was discussed and all of that.
But a lot of times, these accounts are kind of scrubbed pretty quickly and then only available, so maybe even to law enforcement and stuff, and who knows what happens from there.
The authors of the study say, we also must not be incredulous that a potentially simple solution is available that could greatly reduce mass homicide solely because it is too easy, too simple.
We may not need to wring our hands in endless grief over tragic losses and bang our heads against a seemingly impossible wall of changing gun laws or redesigning the entire mental health system.
Instead, we can agree to cut off the oxygen to one powerful flame of the fire that fuels mass shooters.
Undeserved fame. We are not the first to make this plea, but we would like to be the last.
If the mass media and social enthusiasts, I think they're supposed to be social media enthusiasts, make a pact to no longer share, reproduce, or retweet the names, faces, detailed histories, or long-winded statements of killers, we could see a dramatic reduction in mass shootings in the span of one to two years.
Even conservatively, if the calculations of contagious modelers are correct, we should see at least a one-third reduction in shootings if the contagion is removed.
Well, I don't know if these people don't understand evil, but I don't think that's true at all.
Because if the shootings are bad enough, then people will talk about them no matter what.
And so it'll now be a race to create more bodies.
Like, oh, you don't talk about regular old shootings?
I'm going to do a crazy shooting.
I'm going to poison something.
I'm going to create even more bodies and then see if you can overlook.
I mean, it's just going to be an escalation to be bigger.
I mean, censorship, not talking about things that are important.
How about we talk about things that are important?
Which is how to prevent this stuff, to rebuild the family, to change the incentive so that mothers and fathers stay together, to change the incentive so that children don't end up on these horrible SSRI and psychotropic drugs and so on.
Anyway, we'll get to that in a sec.
They say, quote, Pre-1970s, right? See, now that? That, I would say, begs a wee question or two, wouldn't you say?
Pre-1970s, right?
Gosh, I wonder what changed in the 1970s.
Hmm. Because, you know, in America, in the 1920s, you could order a machine gun and get it sent to you through the mail.
There are pictures. You can find them online.
Kids in the 1950s with their gun clubs and their rifle clubs wandering through the school with fully functioning weapons and shooting on the schools.
No school shootings. What changed in the 1970s?
A couple of thoughts pop into my mind.
Well, a tripling of the divorce rate changed in the 1970s.
There was the 1965 Immigration Bill, which flooded America with third-worlders and caused some tensions, let's just say.
There are these mental health drugs.
The development of SSRIs happened in a very short period of time, starting in the 1970s.
And it's kind of an interesting story.
Let me just give you a bit of a backstory as to what has happened.
So there's a whole other presentation I could make on this.
But just... Very briefly, psychiatrists, you know, there's a kind of jokes, like they're not real doctors and so on.
It's not a real science. And the DSM-5, I think it is now, like they just vote on a whole bunch of stuff.
They just make up a bunch of language.
There's no blood tests. There's no tests really of any kind to determine.
It's just, you know, it's a war of adjectives.
And... One thing that happened in the early 70s, so there's, it's called the Rosenhan Experiment.
It's also known as the Thud Experiment.
And it was a psychologist who was questioning the validity of psychiatric diagnosis.
So this psychologist named David So Rosenhan, in 1973, conducted this experiment, which ended up being published in the journal Science.
The title was On Being Sane in Insane Places, but enough about being a non-leftist on campus.
So the study was, it was like a two-part study.
So the first had what were referred to as pseudo-patients.
So these were just mentally healthy people who didn't know mental health issues and so on.
And what they did was they reported having auditory hallucinations.
And they ended up being admitted to 12 different psychiatric hospitals in five different states throughout the U.S. And, you know, they would say, oh, I hear the word thud.
And then they would get admitted and they would be diagnosed with psychiatric disorders.
And after they were admitted, the pseudopatients acted perfectly normally.
They told the staff, they said, well, I feel fine.
I don't have any more hallucinations.
I feel alert. I'm happy.
I'm coherent. I'm cogent.
And so on. And what happened?
Well, one syllable, they said they heard the word thud.
They get admitted. And what?
Well, some of them said, oh, I'll be out in a day or two.
They were there for months.
The hospital staff, the nurses, psychiatrists, psychologists did not detect even one of these pseudo-patients.
And they believed and wrote and made notes that all of these pseudo-patients were mentally ill.
And some of them were confined for months.
Now, what's interesting about this is Well, they kept taking because they ended up writing up these studies, right?
So they took notes on the behavior of the staff and of the other patients, but none of them were identified as imposterous.
Although what's interesting is many of the other psychiatric patients figured them out.
They were able to correctly identify them as fakers.
In the first three hospitalizations, out of 118 patients, 35, like almost a third, They expressed their belief, their suspicion that the pseudo-patients were in fact not crazy.
And some of them said, oh, these guys, they're not real.
They're researchers, they're journalists, they're doing an investigation at the hospital.
And none of the psychiatrists, psychologists, nurses, orderlies, you name it, none of them figured it out, but almost a third of the patients did.
Interesting that the patients are better at diagnosing and figuring out reality, The lunatics have taken over the asylum.
Now, all of the pseudo-patients had to admit that they were crazy.
They had to take anti-psychotic drugs and so on.
Boy, taking a mental bullet for the cause.
So, when this came out, of course, the psychiatrists were humiliated and upset and angry and so on.
And so... Basically, there was this, oh yeah, okay, come on, let's do it again.
We'll figure these people out.
And so he said, okay.
And what happened was there was a staff at a psychiatric hospital.
They finally did identify a large number of patients who were impostors.
We've got your number.
We figured it out. We figured out who are impostors.
But... Then the guy said, actually, I didn't send any fake patients at all.
So the impostors that they found, the pseudo-patients they thought they found were actual mentally ill people.
So not only could they not detect the fake patients, they had a false positive of fake patients for the real patients.
Come on. I mean, this has gone on a bunch of times, right?
1968, Morris Temerlin split 25 psychiatrists.
He put them into two groups, and he had them listen to an actor who was portraying a character who was just like normal, not mentally crazy, not mentally ill at all.
Now, one of these groups of psychiatrists was told that the actor, quote, was a very interesting man because he looked neurotic but was actually quite psychotic.
But the other group wasn't told anything.
So 60% of the first group diagnosed psychosis, the man's psychotic, and most often they diagnosed schizophrenia, but none of the control group did so.
So if they weren't told that he was crazy, they never figured out that he was crazy, but if they were told that he was crazy, even though exactly the same thing was happening, or pretty much exactly the same thing was happening for both groups, well, you get the point.
2008, BBC had a science program called Horizon, and...
They did two episodes called How Mad Are You?
So there were ten subjects, and five had previously diagnosed mental health issues, and five had no diagnosed mental health issues.
And they were watched by three experts in mental health diagnoses, and the mental health experts were challenged to identify the five who had mental health problems, just on their behavior.
They didn't speak to them, they didn't learn anything about their histories.
And the experts correctly diagnosed only two of the ten patients.
They misdiagnosed one patient and incorrectly identified two healthy patients as having mental health problems.
So it's not really much of a science to put it that way.
And what happened was the psychiatrist said, well, man, this is terrible.
We look like voodoo practitioners.
And, well, I guess voodoo practitioners at least would have the benefit of the placebo effect.
And this is one of the reasons why psychiatry moved to the medical model and began pumping drugs into people.
And the drugs have been around before, I mean, Valium and so on in the 60s, but the focus on these SSRIs really became very strong in the 1970s.
Not just, but partly because of some of the exposure stuff that had happened.
This goes back to Nellie Bly way back in the day.
But anyway, to return to the study, the don't name them, no, no, The Don't Name Them campaign and the No Notoriety campaign suggest that once killers are either dead or are captured, no names or likenesses of the killers should be given press.
Names and likenesses are directly useful to law enforcement for many reasons, catching, booking, sending mass shooters to trial, as well as studying, profile, and tracking new potential shooters.
While that information may be interesting to the public, it does not serve the public good to know it.
Nor does it give the public any information that could help intervene in or prevent future mass killings.
As we have illustrated above, it seems to do the reverse.
Scholars who develop psychological and sociological profiles of mass shooters also need access to some of the information about mass shooters to do their jobs.
But the FBI often employs such experts and shares their data with any scholar requesting information, if the case is not currently pending.
Information is available if people are willing to dig a little for it.
Media sources are also welcome to report on aggregate trends, interview scholars or professionals in the field to inform the public about the overall problem of mass shootings, but the naming of specific killers adds no further knowledge for the viewer or listener on the topic, save that of sheer gossip.
Quote, Especially given that many would-be killers identify in themselves similarities with the troubles of past killers,
are inspired by their quote bravery and fame, are fascinated with the weapons and planning they did, and may even feel a competitive desire to surpass fatality counts of their homicidal idols.
Don't name them!
Urges the media to spend the same amount of airtime on victims' names, likenesses, personal writings, or histories, families, etc., as they now spend on killers.
Well, I do remember that there was a black shooter that didn't share his manifesto.
I wonder why.
The study goes on, quote, Tufekci also recommends that details from law enforcement should be delayed if released at all.
And law enforcement should request that platforms remove social media content on killers.
Ooh.
Okay.
Time out.
Time out! Let's just take a break here for a moment and have a look at what they're saying and its implications for, I don't know, free speech about facts, the liberty to speak truth to the world.
Law enforcement.
I don't know what these people don't have a clue what the government is or what law enforcement is.
Quote, law enforcement should request the platforms remove social media content on killers.
Okay, see, law enforcement does not make requests.
You understand? Law enforcement does not make requests.
Law enforcement is the paramilitary arm of the state that brings guns to things to make sure people comply.
Okay, so don't talk to me about...
How do we take advice from people who fundamentally do not understand the world that they live in?
They do not understand how government works, how police works.
Oh, I'm from the law enforcement.
I'm just here to make a request.
That's right. Just like the tax collection department just takes donations voluntarily.
I mean, how can we take anyone seriously who has such a fundamental misunderstanding and can toss out in America...
First Amendment violations, so foundational.
Law enforcement should request that platforms remove social media content on killers.
Just astounding.
Anyway, the study goes on to say, the media has come together before to work for good, to incite social change.
They have done it, and they can do it.
It is time. It is enough.
Ah, yes. You know...
That you're in the realm of Cicero-style Socratic dialogue when you hear the phrase, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! Often with caps.
The phrase, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, it's not an argument.
And it is terrible the way people...
What they do is they just get this general sense of frustration and impatience and table-pounding.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! It's designed to have you react emotionally and not rationally process the proposals that are there.
Giving the police the right to remove content from social media?
Are you kidding me?
And this has gone unremarked upon because, well, the left has always been into censorship.
So... I don't know.
It's pretty wild stuff.
But regarding the general don't talk about the shooters, there's no specific data to support this don't-name-the-shooter hypothesis.
And the data, there's some empirical support for completely ignoring all mass shootings, not reporting them in any way, shape, or form as a solution.
But I've seen people out there saying, well, we're not going to name the shooter, we're not going to use pictures, but we're still going to discuss all the background details.
And that is in opposition to the admittedly questionable guidelines suggested by this study, which says, no, no, no, you can't discuss the shooter's background or influences or family history or anything like that.
Well, it's magic.
I mean, turning shooters into Voldemort is not going to save the world.
You understand? He who shall not be named.
It's of course going to drive...
It's going to cause young people to be more fascinated by these shooters.
It is the explicit lyrics advisory warning that used to be slapped on albums and CDs back in the day.
It's like these people have never been young.
You have no concept of how young people view forbidden fruit.
It's going to create mystique.
It's going to create curiosity.
It is not going to solve the problem.
When you have Multi-facet and complex, deep societal problems, such as this kind of gun violence, which I've gone into a lot of background as to why this stuff arises, you have one of two choices if you are interested in solving the problem.
What you can do, you see, is you can tamp down on the symptoms, or what you can do is you can actually address root causes.
Now, if you want to tamp down on the symptoms, then you are heading down a totalitarian direction.
Because by not solving the problem, but merely dealing with a symptom, the rot gets deeper.
If you take some sort of painkiller to get rid of the agony of a toothache rather than go to a dentist, what happens is the rot in your tooth goes deeper.
It goes into your jaw, it goes into your heart muscles, and you might die.
So if you're going to play whack-a-mole with the symptoms of deep social problems themselves arising from immorality, sexual immorality, the immorality of using the welfare state to coercively transfer trillions of dollars from one group to another, the terrible schools that parents are forced to pay for and children are generally forced to go to without choice, without competition you know once you socialize or turn into communist entities
the school there is a natural drift towards the left because kids spend their first 12 years in a socialist or communist environment called government schools state schools used to have a chilling ring but now somehow thinks that everyone thinks that they're essential to education when they're not you end up dumber after your exposure to government schools in general Well, not dumber. Misinformed.
Right? It's like that old statement, if you don't read the newspapers, you're uninformed.
If you read the newspapers, you're misinformed.
Except that the educational opportunities out there in the world vastly outstrip anything that's available in government schools.
So we have all of these root problems, root causes of these kinds of issues, breakdown in the family and breakdown in communities to some degree a result of Diversity.
And so we have all of these huge problems.
Boys growing up by their fathers. Now we can deal with these root problems, which generally means bringing back, restraining, and shrinking the size and power of the state.
Or we can use these problems and the symptoms thereof as a way of playing whack-a-mole and increasing the size and power of the state.
As soon as we say, well, we can't publish the names of these people, we are surrendering truth To what?
To dysfunction. Well, there are copycats.
Okay, but the question is, why are there copycats?
Why were there no school shootings in the 1950s?
Why? Nobody wants to...
Well, there was no welfare state in the 1950s.
There was virtually no diversity in the 1950s.
There was very little fatherlessness, at least in the white community.
It was like 6% or something.
In the 1950s, there was no...
Generally, forced or bribed drugging of children for noncompliance with terrible schools in the 1950s.
So we can either do good or we can seem good.
And the seeming good is like, well, the problem is, you see, naming the killers is the problem.
I mean, that's not the problem. The problem is all the root causes that we're talking about here.
All of the root causes, the fall...
Of morality. The fall of religious morality.
And we also know now there are genetic influences, significant and strong genetic influences on personality and intelligence.
So, IQ later on in life is 80% genetic.
Personality types, significantly genetic.
They have not been able to find a single measurable aspect of personality with no genetic influences.
So who you pay to have babies influences the kind of society that you're going to get.
That's just science.
Get mad at me all you want. I'm just going to keep telling you the science until it sinks in.
Parenting matters.
Family structures matter.
Fatherlessness matters.
Psychotropic drugs matters.
Decrease of social trust in communities matters.
Decrease of values and moral authority within society matters.
The fact that boys are almost exclusively raised by women in school matters.
This all matters.
The fact that boys face ridiculous levels of anti-male prejudice in government schools.
And the studies are very clear.
Boys are marked down by female teachers who know that they're boys.
If you randomize and take sex off papers and tests, boys get marked significantly higher.
There is an anti-male prejudice in schools.
You don't think that builds some kind of resentment?
The lies that white males commit the majority or almost all of these kinds of shootings is a lie!
And it is a viciously propagandistic lie.
Try and think of any other group in society that you could make that lie about without being called out.
This stuff is everywhere.
So with all of these root causes, all of these root problems, if people think, well, I'm going to wave the magic wand and take these killers' names off the internet through mass censorship of truthful information, I don't even know what to say.
We are not on the same page, to put it nicely, at all.
There are problems in the world.
And we, who want to solve them, you need to make informed decisions based on quality, data, and moral principles.
So, it is important to push back against these pseudo-magical voodoo solutions.
If we don't name it, it'll all go away.
How about looking at times in the past, before there were school shootings...
And saying, well, what has changed for the worst?
And what has changed for the worst is what I've talked about.
Fall of values, fall of religion, fall of morality.
Worsening schools, worsening social neighborhoods, worsening community trusts, increasing fatherlessness, increasing drugging of children, destruction of vast swaths of family structures, and a lot of anti-male and anti-white propaganda.
Ah, white privilege, it's just a phrase that lets you pretend you're being anti-racist when you are in fact just being racist.
If whites were so powerful and had all this privilege, you wouldn't be saying it.
I mean, you understand.
So, what are the factors which can drive an individual to become a mass murdering monster?
I have been talking about this for years.
Peaceful parenting, keeping your children out of the toxic environment of government schools, And don't drug your children for failing to conform to an anti-rational institution.
You know, this is what the Soviet Union used to do.
This is what totalitarian regimes always do.
Our system is perfect.
If you fail to adapt positively to our system, you must be mentally ill and you must be drugged.
They used to take people unhappy under communism, throw them in asylums and drug them.
The failure to conform to an anti-rational, racist and sexist system is not a sign of mental illness.
And ignoring these root causes and imagining that you can just play flyswatter with the truth using the power of the state To suppress information counter to truth and reality and basic information.
If we ignore these symptoms, if we simply mask the symptoms, the underlying causes will continue to get worse.
We have to rewind.
We have to reevaluate.
And we have to have the courage to look at the kind of system that we have inherited and look at the kind of system that we support.
Where there seems to be a coercive law to every problem.
Where we're mass-drugging young boys in particular.
Where there is prejudice against the race and gender of children in schools.
We have to look at everything from the ground up.
We have to start with a blank slate and say, is this what we want?
Is this the best system?
Is this the right system? Is this the best and most moral and voluntary and free way to organize How we instruct the next generation, how we raise the next generation.
Freedom is always and forever only one generation away from being extinguished.
And freedom is like wealth.
There's an old story about a rich man, a very, very rich man, who became bankrupt.
And somebody said, you had so much money.
How on earth could you become bankrupt?
And he said, funny the way that worked.
I became bankrupt very slowly.
And then very quickly.
And so it goes with our freedoms.
If we lose our freedoms, and this study is recommending the mass censorship of factual information by the state in the world, we say, how did we lose all our freedoms?
