The Good as an alibi for evil

The Good as an Alibi for Evil

I don’t judge people who take their own lives, even if it is probably always a bad solution. I don’t judge people in general and try to abstain from making any moral judgment on any behavior; as for myself, I acknowledge I’m a flawed human being, and if ever I judge somebody, I try to judge myself in a constructive way.

All this boring introduction is to expose the main point:

The “Suicide-Shooting” Psychological Game

Suicidal shooters: they make up 100% of young college/university shooters, and 70% of overall mass shooters.

In raw terms, these guys want to end their own lives, but they need the havoc, adrenaline, and guilt of a mass shooting to shoot themselves during the events. They take the alibi of a more horrendous crime to cover up their own final purpose. This is the proverbial “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.”

There is no good in any of those actions, but this is an extreme psychological mechanism that engenders chaos and suffering among an innocent, uninvolved, random public. These acts create a wide social commotion, instigating fear as the common idea of “security” is dented.

Humans, as a great herd of animals, sense the sting of such events and broadly feel fear and insecurity on a large scale. This is the definition of widespread fear among the population that we commonly call “terror,” and its derivative, “terrorism.” Terrorism is used here without the meaning of a “political ideology” used in a political contest; but by using this term in this context, it implies a common ideology. Well, if there is a silver thread between these events, it would be the suicide-shooting psychological game most of these people are playing.

The “Unabomber” Type and the Paradox of Manifestos

The second kind of events I discuss here is the “Unabomber” type of terror. We have seen many mass shootings, acts of terror, and mass casualties linked to so-called “political manifestos.” These events are used by some people to purposely disseminate and make known their political or societal views. Not long ago, such an event happened in Montreal: a mass shooting and a manifesto.

Would it be a manifesto without the violence, or the Unabomber “books” without the negative celebrity associated with them? Maybe some would consider them and use them in their reflection. The violence actually does the contrary of whatever self-proclaimed goal was in the mind of these people.

The truth is that the manifestos, which I don’t really read much, are a blend of expired ideas, idiosyncrasies, and expressions of prejudicial hate and incomprehension; they have no real merit by themselves. How could it be otherwise?

Can you see Kant going into a public square and exploding a bomb so people will read his Critique of Pure Reason?

This is the worst alibi somebody can pick up for their violence: the desire for change, which makes suspect anyone who is militating for it. They use “good” to cover for their evil; they justify their crimes by their so-called “political views.” This is the real ideological terrorism that only harms any idea of reformation, because it makes suspicious any push for a societal change.

State Opportunism and the Erosion of Liberty

The government is using these kinds of acts to crack down on anybody who dares to have another opinion, using the pretext of “radicalization.” We have seen it again and again, using these “Unabomber-like” events to justify harassment, mass surveillance, and intrusion into the legitimate privacy of citizens.

The Unabomber guy himself was supposedly subject to psychological experiments by the infamous MKUltra program; the Manson story too. A lot of lone shooters, like L.H. Oswald, have erratic behavior and some link to the secret service. Beside that, a scared population, a population to whom you repeat these traumatizing events ad nauseam, is easy to direct and manipulate into silence and compliance. We see that the government is not innocent, neither in the inception of these events nor in the political exploitation afterward.

Without being conspiratorial, there are many unanswered questions about 9/11, as well as logical flaws in the official narrative. The same goes for the JFK assassination and other historical events where state involvement has been alleged, such as the CIA’s proposed false flag terrorist project against Cuba submitted to JFK. We will never really know the full truth of these events.

However, I am not claiming they are orchestrated by the same hand. What I am pointing out is that they share a pattern of consequences: they cause mass terror, they are vilified and give legitimacy to the authorities, they justify the restraining of personal liberties, and they consistently benefit the state (along with the media control of the narrative, the surveillance and security industry, gun industries, and politicians).

Redefining Privacy

This is not about who really did it, it’s about who benefits from the aftermath.

Before 9/11, people felt safer on planes; today, security measures constantly remind us of danger, inducing a continuous feeling of over-vigilance and justifying privacy abuse. Today, nothing is private under the premise that “if you have nothing to hide, it should not bother you.”

But privacy and intimacy are not about hiding anything; they are about owning one’s own inviolable space. Otherwise, why have clothes in summer? We should then all roam naked on the streets, as there is no utility in having clothes when it’s hot outside.

Finally, as a conclusion, violence is the best way to crush an idea by embodying the “Unabomber type,” and the best way to ensure no change will happen and enforce the status quo and the power of the government.