I have been particularly alert to media deceptions for years now. One of the main deceptions that I have focused in on is the profile of the shooter as a 'quiet loner'. For the text below, I will define 'loners' as voluntary (those who prefer aloneness) and involuntary (those who are socially awkward). I am not a professional writer, just an average person who is disappointed by the complete lack of professional writers covering this issue and I had to make a personal stand on it. If this comes across as sloppily written, I'm doing my best. It's a pity the 'professionals' care more about engaging reading than the value of research or disputing what they have been told.
The 'loner' tag is a flexible label that can apply to almost anyone, especially when canvassing for the one or two opinions that are in alignment with what you want to print while filtering out ones which contradict it. Thus you will often find media reports citing neighbours, usually one of a half dozen or more neighbours they interviewed (notice they seem to almost never use the words 'next door'), who is the one who uses the 'l' word. Polls show that the majority of people do not socialize with their neighbours. This would be dramatically higher for the population who is overrepresented in mass shootings: men. It is the norm for men to not have much in the way of social contact with their neighbours. It is even less likely when he is a child. Why would a child be expected to interact with this middle-aged or elderly man or woman next door (or 6 houses down)?
It is often a relative word: 50% of the population on average would be connected with more loner tendencies than the other 50%. When you combine in multiple perspectives by those who have no insight into this persons day-to-day life besides their ill-informed assumptions and people who overuse the word that percentage could rise much higher (there would also be a gender bias on the average). It is hardly surprising that you'd find a few people who will throw about the 'loner' word if you interview enough people and combine this with rampant selection bias and bigotry by the idiot journalists and you are almost guaranteed to hit the nail on the head every time.
Even when they get their 'l' word from someone close to the suspect, they have a tendency to strip away cautions such of "a bit of a" or "somewhat of a" from the label. A "bit of a loner" is just an unremarkable below average social person. It is not pointing to isolation so profound that it could (in theory) cause one to snap. But this portion is frequently removed to make the killers social isolation seem more profound than it is. When they use the word 'loner' they are emphasizing that it is notable, it is the one the average reader, the average 'bit of a loner' and sociable person agree with: the killer is marked by profoundly irregular social interaction.
Often they do not even encounter the 'l' word but extrapolate it from something else someone said failing to convey what originally may have had a degree of ambiguity. Often the authors do not explicitly suggest it was said by others and use it as their own interpretation of the killer and later contradict it in their own articles by citing the (notable) loners friends and intimates without being smart enough to see the contradictions in what they write. Because journalists like to parrot one another, as soon as they see the 'l' word they take this as authentication and post it in their own articles to the exclusion of the contradictory info contained in the original article. Is it any wonder the 'l' word is so frequent when it appears whether or not it has been used by those who knew the individual?
They will also use the 'l' word or variations of it ('reclusive', 'misfit', 'outcast') multiple times in each article. Once may come across as them trying to be factual, half a dozen times when it is not otherwise necessary comes across as trying to forcefully imprint the suggestion into their readers heads. Often the 'l' word will precede the name of the perpetrator as if it were a title. Sometimes they use 'loner' in a different sense, such as acting alone rather than being part of a larger network; some will later fail to see the distinction, often willfully because of prejudice. Many also see antisocial (often undesirably very socially engaging) and unsocial (socially non-engaging) as part of the same continuum and fail to see a distinction between them.
Despite their methods and childish glee in using the 'l' word, sometimes they fail to get it. These killers get forgotten the very next time there is a shooter and 'they always fit the profile'. There were several such shooters, such as the Marysville Pilchuck High School shooting by a boy who was the homecoming prince and always popular. Or the Arapahoe High School shooter who was champion of the debate team. Or the Sparks Middle School shooter who was described by fellow students who have been drilled by the media in what to look out for as 'not the type'. Going back further we have the Navy Yard shooter, although some in the media attempted to pin the loner tag on him. And the Clackamas Town Center shooter: "He was a popular guy. Lots of people liked him, loved him. He was really nice ... He had so many friends." A few more in recent years: Omar Thornton, Radcliffe Haughton, Michael McLendon and Steven Kazmierczak, as well as the pilot Andreas Lubitz. Sometimes killers who get described as socially normal get bundled into a group of 'loner' killers in later summaries or revisions.
With family man Robert Bales, it was in the media's interest to show how normal he otherwise was beyond his alleged PTSD affliction. If they could accentuate a link between his violence and PTSD they could lip service the call of 'bring the troops home' that appealed to the politics of their audience even at the risk of persecuting those afflicted with that condition, despite no proof of a diagnosis before or after the event ever being presented. He never turned it into a defence at trial and according to some the prosecution was set to counter it if he did. As I recall, he didn't put his own expert on the stand during the sentencing hearing. Mainstream media articles gave him probably unprecedented benefit of doubt for a mass murderer. According to him, he was diagnosed with PTSD and the media took this on faith reiterating it as an established fact to their readers without qualifying it to their readers as 'in his words' or 'allegedly'. Even if he were diagnosed there is no question in the media about whether such a diagnosis actually caused his act rather than primarily being motivated by bloodlust or revenge (couple this with the fact that he watched a film about revenge, Man on Fire, a few hours prior).
The origins of what became known as PTSD was a condition known as 'shell shock' in World War I. The condition sensitizes a person, not desensitizes. It does not embolden people, it causes flight and hypervigilance. People do not go out of their way to put themselves in a threatening situation that might provoke their condition, instead they flee or try to avoid things that set them off. Revenge may be a factor on a PTSD afflicted persons mind but it is probably a lot further away in execution than with a normal person due to their flight response also being triggered. Whilst he might theoretically (probably without nonfictional precedent) get put into a dissociative trance and leave the base if he 'snaps' and go on to murder, accounts seem to suggest very clearly he started off in a very aware and lucid, clear-eyed state whether or not it persisted.
Dissociation is a condition that we all experience and were we to do something serious we might enter into a dream-like fugue and autopilot whether or not we have PTSD. It is a well-known fact that people can be talked out of killing hostages if they haven't killed their first victim. After their first kill, their mindset changes and it may equate with autopilot. Indeed, it is even possible we might develop PTSD or amnesia from our own actions. It is apparent that even if he did have some level of PTSD prior to the shooting it did not rise to a level that even began significantly impacting his ability to perform his duties in far more stressful conditions let alone rising to such severity where he would, in the relative peace of his camp, downing beers and watching movies, uniquely just 'snap'. And even if he did, there is nothing in his account that suggests he was flashing back whilst engaged in the act of killing which is probably the only valid defense under PTSD for his actions in killing innocents in the first place.
As an example of how badly the neighbours could get it wrong, a TalkTalk cyber-attacker was described by neighbours as 'reclusive' ("He’s always inside, in there 24/7 and up all night in his bedroom.") and an unspecified relative as someone who never left home and never hung out with "other lads". But one neighbour recounted differently: “You would see him walking about with his skateboard and his girlfriend." These observations were spread out across different articles: you'd think as they were canvassing the neighbourhood for observations they'd have both and they would print both but it would seem most media sources were deliberately selecting out which accounts conformed to their intended narrative and made print. One wonders if the neighbours were even aware of the nature of his alleged crime when the media and police swooped in as if the boy was a mass murderer and whether the accounts of his isolation would be less sensational were the nature of his crime known.
With the above example, I cover some of what is explained:
- Neighbours are not the fountains of boundless knowledge. They do not have round the clock surveillance of one another (this is not a Hitchcock thriller) and accounts will contradict one another in not inconsiderable ways especially as we remain selective in who to socialize with.
- The media appears to have picked out accounts which would emphasize their intended slant, isolating only the 'good' ones that confirm that all the worlds ills come down to those evil 'quiet loners' that their readers love to hear and omitting the contradictory ones (this contradiction happened to make print in an article, how many do not?).
- The authors appear to have invented the loner label in this case (I haven't seen any quotes where the word was used). Although it may be (but not necessarily) a fair approximate for someone who "never goes and hangs out with other lads of his age" (he may have hung out with people not of his age or girls), in other cases this practice ranges from justified to absurd. It also risks making a deeper and more authoritative behavioral analysis of the person than what was actually intended (sometimes, for instance, extrapolating that he was a loner from a limited context such as being by himself in a nightclub). And they used their own artistic license a second time in emphasizing he "rarely leaves his bedroom" which appears to be extrapolated from "he's always inside, in there 24/7 and up all night in his bedroom" which seems to actually refer to him being indoors all day long not necessarily in his bedroom.
- This is in addition to assumptions the neighbours themselves may be making (eg. that he may have spent all night awake in his room because his light was on in that part of his house when they go to bed at 10 or 11pm, or he was in there when they were not spying on him like nosy creeps who I assume must have some normal social occupations when not engaging in surveillance because they couldn't possibly be a bunch of hypocrites now could they?) in their cursory observations. Assumptions piled upon assumptions which then become regarded as fact by sadly respected 'researchers' (those who trawl the media).
Many shooters were made to seem more marginalized than they were (almost all of the below were called 'loners') and the media changes narrative with every case acting as if they have hit upon the sacred truth every time:
1) The Carrie theory - social isolation during formative years (all about upbringing...)
- After Sandy Hook a lot of emphasis was on social marginalization during the shooters formative years, in particular the year of his removal from school and subsequent home schooling despite being on the honor roll at his school for 3 of the 4 quarters of that year in lists which may have since been removed from the Newtown Bee (http://ablechild.org/2014/12/01/local-newspapers-in-conflicts-with-ocas-report-on-adam-lanza/, I personally saw those lists before they were removed). In his adulthood it is alleged it became total despite the friends he would play DDR with, see movies with and discuss topics at length with for over a year leading up to the shooting, a fact which certainly didn't receive as much coverage as his fictional 2 years of total withdrawal.
- Despite these facts (see CFS_1200704559.zip/Book 7/00109542.pdf, 00109765.pdf, 00179957.pdf and 00180016.pdf), Dr. Harold Schwartz of the Sandy Hook advisory commission in 2015 (post report) decided to adhere to the media profile rather than recognize the abundant contradictory first hand evidence direct from the friend and employees (even video evidence exists) in favor of not entirely correct cursory second hand accounts relayed by mother to friends: "And so he lived out his last years of his life alone essentially in his room, communicating to his mother only by email and online to a micro society of mass murder enthusiasts."
- Even the accounts of Adam Lanza's childhood social awkwardness may be prone to some level of distortion and exaggeration given the fact that he did engage in social activities in school and out as part of a club, even after the disruption caused by his alleged year of home schooling. There are accounts of him socializing in his younger years (after some initial social awkwardness).
- With the Virginia Tech shooting the official report doesn't include much detail about the shooters social contacts especially in his teenage years (where it notes that he had extracurricular activities) but includes mention that he was socially fairly normal before he left Korea having a group of friends who he did socialize with out of school ("Cho had a few friends that he would play with and who would come over to the house") and in the US had at least 1 friend he would do things out of school with while growing up, a neighbour no less ("Cho’s only known friendship was with a boy next door with whom he went swimming", which ("only known friendship") seems to be time contextual with his early elementary school years in the report not necessarily over his entire life and disregards at least 1 child he hung around with during recesses. It is very hard to go school recesses without having some level of friendly social engagement eventually, but a noted stretch of aloneness or careful examination of those activities (whether it occurs, for instance, all on the basketball court and ceases there due to a like attraction of the sport or whether it is more varied and they go and do multiple additional activities together) is more helpful to determine social abnormalities).
- Despite these accounts of his friends (few or solitary) some so-called 'expert' in an appendix in the document came up with his own theory as to why Cho done what he did proposing a key part of it was because he was sensationally friendless for his entire life despite it being a contradiction to what was written earlier in the report ("For all of his 23 years of life the most frequent observation made by anyone about him was that Seung Hui Cho had absolutely no social life. During all of his school years he had no real friends.", he is using generalities (most frequent) as an excuse to dismiss contrasting claims (less frequent) that seep through the cracks: waterproof case or waterproofing? This author (and possibly the other authors as well) are clearly prone to exaggeration. There are many points in his profile that suggest he is incapable of seeing Cho in any shades of grey: his theory is full of absolutes and binary black-and-white conclusions.
- I wouldn't trust the media to not exclude his friends from their articles just like other researchers have (in particular more recent to the attacks), especially as his friends might not have been as forthcoming and more private due to their cultural background. The need for a translator may also have limited enquiries. But if it were the case that he was dramatically isolated and friendless for a significant stretch of his formative years, it is probably extremely tough migrating at such a young age to a location with no large community of fellow countrymen (being Korean, for instance, as opposed to being Vietnamese). How many new immigrant children experience similar intervention based on their social deficits (as opposed to violent writing) as Cho that the report seemed to think was remarkable and how much of the attention afforded to his reported deficits was also afforded to his sister? Are they saying socially isolated communities which are more likely to produce socially isolated children are also more likely to produce mass murderers?
- He was also earning good grades throughout his childhood so may pass off as someone who was more education minded than social minded (education is a very strong emphasis in South Korea and South Korea also has a tradition of militarisation and strictness with respect to schooling as it has a long history of military dictatorship). He also didn't shut himself off from the world by avoiding higher education and opted for a big university and that is counter to profound social phobia which makes me wonder how much of what we know is embellished. In any event, Cho's and Lanza's reported isolation are among the exceptions not the rule as you will find out.
2) Normal social childhood, alleged (but not really) adult social isolation (it turns out it wasn't the childhood upbringing after all, do we now profile socially normal kids who may alienate themselves in adulthood? not a chance! for every one of these, let's persecute the socially awkward kids instead!)
- With the Columbine shooting we have the parents of victim Rachel Joy Scott advocating profiling 'quiet loner' children as being prone to that kind of act when neither Harris nor Klebold were quiet or loners. They had a quite normal group of friends in school and out that they socialized with. They may have become paranoid and distrustful of their friends but whether or not they considered those friendships genuine they were not loners. The mother of Dylan Klebold has come out insisting that her son was fairly normal socially.
- With the Charleston Church shooter they shifted the narrative to one of social isolation in his later life since he was a such a normal child socially speaking with a number of friends, despite the fact that the shooter did socialize and live with others at the time he was alleged to be a loner by his aunt.
- With the Orlando Nightclub shooter, various accounts that emerged from school friends and acquaintances included 3 quotes from 2 people in particular which portrayed him as somewhat socially normal in childhood included minimal hits in Google using exact quotation searches (a partial exact quote encompassed in quotation marks) at the time of writing: "At lunchtime, all the different social groups in the school would sit with their peer group. Omar was the only kid who would be popular enough to sit with all of them." returned 1 hit; "He was cool. I used to see him at house parties ... he made people laugh ... he didn't talk about religion or politics. He must've changed a lot." returned 10 hits; and "He communicated with everybody, wasn't someone that I would describe as a loner, but didn't know really much about him." returned 1 hit. The prevailing accounts classify him as a 'loner', citing witnesses such as the local imam and people at the nightclub who don't appear to have actually used the 'l' word (authors extrapolation from what was said based on a limited social context).
- The not shy Anders Breivik is another example of a normal upbringing and alleged adulthood social isolation despite having his circle of friends in adulthood and the average male person has fewer friends and less contact with them as they age. He threw a barbeque with his 'few' friends (whenever they do have friends it becomes about how many constitutes a remarkably alienated individual) months before the shooting. "It seems as though he has taken a completely different direction than what we knew of him from junior high school."
- Another example is Jared Loughner who had a significant number of friends when he was growing up, but once again despite what the media said he continued to have friends until adjacent the act: far from being a loner he was considered to be a bit of a pest constantly bothering his more loner minded friends who found work and other obligations limiting their capacities to socialize (as happens when one reaches adulthood). He was also the exact opposite of quiet, he was extremely disruptive.
- The Aurora shooter was said to be socially normal growing up by his friends who described him as "not a loner" as later described, an account that was completely drowned out in preference to one of his neighbours opinions on him. "He kept to himself more than he socialized. But he was social. He wasn't a hermit or an introvert. He wasn't a loner."
- Vester Flannigan had a normal social childhood and was said to be a frequent appearance at parties: "Vester was popular but he was a square at the same time!".
- Even though not a shooter he is a mass murderer and I was forced to research him so I'll bring it up here: Timothy McVeigh had quite an above normal social childhood, was athletic and even awarded for being the most talkative student in his senior class.
- The most prolific alleged mass murderer of recent times (the Germanwings Flight 9525 pilot) was also a social normal in both childhood and adulthood: "He had a lot of friends, he wasn't a loner."
- In Australia the debate of Islamic fundamentalism has shifted to social connectnedness, with several youths who were athletic, involved with groups of children and had intimate partners being labelled socially disconnected. The theory is that they pull away from these relationships and the massive period of suggested isolation of months is enough to transform them into the 'typical loners' (inhuman, unfeeling, soulless and dormant mass murderers and serial killers).
3) Lack of ability to form intimate bonds (unappealing to the opposite sex? get profiled for those who are!)
- When it comes to the Isla Vista shooter, it becomes a matter of a lack of intimacy that makes men snap. And worse, they cite as an example the never-had-a-girlfriend Timothy McVeigh to substantiate their beliefs, despite there being evidence that Timothy McVeigh had girlfriends that the press appears to have withheld (http://www.constitution.org/ocbpt/ocbpt_02.htm).
- The twice married Orlando Nightclub shooter had two reasonably attractive wives, including one he was still married to at the time of the shooting. The responsibilities of fatherhood don't appear to have changed this guy from being a substantially "maladjusted" social deviant according to the eternal wisdom of journalists.
- They call Martin Bryant a loner despite the fact that he was sleeping with what should have been his best friend on the very day of the shooting, a fact that was seldom brought up before a recent documentary that needed fresh material 20 years on, and the fact that he was not homebound and tried socializing with people often (he was not shy).
- With the Planned Parenthood shooter they had their ideal hermit: a father who rather than lived alone as most reports suggested, lived with his girlfriend (which was scarcely mentioned) and was married several times in his life, and they didn't have any regard for the fact that your average 58 year old is significantly more socially marginalized anyway (he was also known to be disruptive, not quiet).
- The Hartford Distributors shooter, Azana Spa shooter, Clackamas Town Center shooter, Sikh Temple shooter, Aurora shooter, one of the Columbine shooters (Klebold, a date to the prom ... his accomplice also had dates previously), Northern Illinois University shooter and Marysville Pilchuck High School shooter were also connected with intimates adjacent their attacks. The Germanwings Flight 9525 pilot was also coming off an intimate relationship, and Robert Bales was married with children.
- Another noteworthy incident that I have researched was the École Polytechnique shooter who was alleged to have never been able to form meaningful intimate bonds due to his alleged social awkwardness (which actually seems to have had little to nothing to do with social anxiety and more to do with repellent personality) according to the authors at Wikipedia, yet he impregnated a girlfriend (that he allegedly couldn't get, colored on certain sites as him finally finding "a woman who liked him a little") and there was a planned abortion. This planned termination which he did not agree with doesn't even make the Wikipedia article despite it being a potentially inciting factor in his anti-feminism and rampage. Some cite his opposition to abortion as being definitively linked to his need to keep attached to a person as opposed to, for instance, his ethical beliefs, probably a theory without any kind of justification beyond their desire to scapegoat his motives as having socially dysfunctional causes.
4) Academic and work related social isolation and forced integration (are we now to profile hard workers and the aspirational who seldom get the chance to socialize? not a chance!)
- With the Aurora shooting, they call the not timid shooter a 'loner' despite the fact that he had intensive academic expectations that hindered his time to socialize, which he did apparently find the time to do (at a bar) and also had a girlfriend relatively recent to the attack.
- Whenever there is an unemployed shooter the narrative once again about social disconnectedness, but when there is a an employed not camera shy (remember when the media made a huge deal about Adam Lanza's 'camera shy' missing photo in his yearbook, which originally was his 2010 high school year book, a year he didn't actually attend high school) middle-aged shooter no less in the very profession that is spreading these lies (and former sex worker, too), Vester Flanagan, they find some other ways to profile their social disconnectedness.
- The middle-aged Dunblane shooter was called a loner despite being in a very social profession, in addition to having his adult pals and associates.
- Whenever these arguments surface it's like the whole issue of workplace related violence ('going postal'), where people are enraged by forced integration not social withdrawal, never existed. There is nothing that could ever be bad about forcing people together even if it makes them unhappy or over-stressed?
- In the profile that concludes the VT report, the 'expert' said social interaction is important to give people 'reality checks'. He makes it sound like Cho never left home, never had a roommate, never went to uni and was never insulted by others ... like he was totally disconnected from society, shut-in, no contact with the outside world and seeing delusions as Polanski might depict. You could equally turn the table on that theory and argue integration with others gave him too much of a 'reality check', maybe taking a step back gives you a reality check and insight into people that humanity are not triumphantly lovable as these socially delusional authors might think (a truth that will be more apparent to some of us than others) before getting their hearts chewed up and spat out. Hatred is often borne of negative social interactions and by far most violence directed at us will be by people we 'reality check' with.
- These people haven't experienced wildly dramatic bullying, something is going on that blows perceived slights out of proportion and it happens to all people, socially connected or not. You could, for instance, theorize we have created a precipice where people must succeed and they are driven into a frenzy when it looks like the only option if they fail (they may have failing grades at school or they may lose their jobs or girlfriends/wives) is suicide, which they equate with their murder. They may have extreme sternness over matters of respect caused by their upbringing. It could be for any number of reasons and it could have any number of causes (eg. parenting, the strain to succeed or common ambition), and they do not all revolve around scapegoating disadvantaged children (as much as that may sadden hypocrites). There could be no commonality at all.
5) The 'Burbs theory (maybe it is about those uncommunicative neighbours)
- Vester Flanagan (who had polarized relationships with his neighbours, including what was said was friendly relations with his female neighbours which was scarcely mentioned), the Dunblane shooter (who had a close elderly friend who was a neighbour) and the Hungerford shooter were all regarded as socially engaging with their neighbours.
- Formerly married One L. Goh was described as normal by his neighbour: "You would never expect it out of him. He just don't seem like that type of person."
- The Jo Cox shooter was characterized as a friendly neighbour (the words "ideal neighbour" also surfaced but was published once) who helped people with their gardens. This middle-aged (where some degree of isolation is somewhat natural) "bit of a loner" (according to the wisdom of one neighbor), shortened to 'loner' in the press where together with 'quiet' it became a title preceding his name, had a 'mate' who 'stole his girlfriend from him' (unknown proximity in time) according to relatives. It's also a wonder how his neighbours knew his mental health history when according to one speaking for all he "kept himself to himself", which he clearly didn't except for one or two neighbours he wasn't too close with that the media isolated from the bunch for their unrelenting 'loner' profile.
- The 2016 Munich shooter was said to be a 'quiet mentally unstable loner' by neighbours, yet quite a few of his neighbours called him relatively normal, including one of which had friendly engagement with him. They had to go to a neighbour on another floor before they got their catch quote. He was said to have had a few friends (aka. "few friends" as the media would articulate it). He was also said to have been in possession of the book Why Kids Kill: Inside the Minds of School Shooters which has several paragraphs devoted to the fact that the people the author researched were not what he would define as loners (pages 10 and 11, yet contradicts himself elsewhere in the book by suggesting being a loner could be a factor).
- Robert Bales was described as a good neighbour.
Besides the alleged and highly questionable accounts of Adam Lanza who was so debilitatingly racked with social anxiety he routinely played DDR at shopping malls (and done it well) for hours at a stretch during the time he was suppose to have been locked away in his bedroom and more so the accounts of Seung Hui Cho who seems to have had adjustment issues after migration and was afforded quite a bit of attention for his social deficits throughout his schooling years (didn't do a lot of good did it?), few of the killers were marked by substantially debilitating social anxiety and the ones who are may be just part of the normal distribution. I may be able to add some other killers with seemingly exceptional social alienation, but then I would also be able to add an exceptionally social person and 8 social normals (normality ranging: some less social than average, some more social than average corresponding with age) for every one of them.
The narrative time and again by the idiots in the press is that the majority of the killers have some degree of extreme social isolation that is causing them to snap (and it always comes back to the quiet kid in school with social difficulties who is the one you have to look out for, not the normal kid who becomes a loner in adulthood or the hardworker who hasn't the time to socialize). Even if this were true, which it is almost always not, do they have science to back up their assumptions that being a social outcast causes one to snap? Surely they have that not just perception? No, they have no more than their conventional wisdom fuelled by their theories, their books, their movies, their peers lies and most of all their pure bigotry. And these assumptions are as good as science to them.
But they have used science before! After the Virginia Tech shooting CBS claimed that Cho fit the profile of a "school-aged assassin" as being that of a loner in the article titled 'Warning Signs From Student Gunman'. The profile they were citing was referencing a Secret Service study called the 'Safe School Initiative' (see preventingattacksreport.pdf). So they have a respected study to back up their biases after all? No, CBS outright lied about the contents of that report: the report concluded only a 3rd were described as 'loners' (bearing in mind that as much as 50% of the population on average could be described as 'loners') and the vast majority (88%) were not significantly marginalized. Since that time there has been continual reference to this loner 'profile' in the media but the report also cautioned against the notion of a profile which it claimed didn't exist again in contradiction to the CBS report.
In 2018, two more reports surfaced, one from the FBI and another report from the Secret Service, both concluding that severe social isolation is not evidenced in their samples of mass shooters. A couple of independent media articles (MotherJones and News18 for the FBI report) declared these findings. No one else did. The FBI report found 43% were either married, divorced, widowed or living in marriage like relationships. It did not go into detail about what proportion had been dating but the figure would be higher. It also discredited the stereotype that shooters have mental illnesses with only about 1/4th previously diagnosed with any disorder, mostly depression. Autism spectrum disorder (which is disputed as a mental health disorder) accounted for only 1 of the more than 60 shooters (probably Adam Lanza). PTSD was not mentioned. The mental illness revelations were posted by many more sources than those revelations concerning the social profile of shooters, but was still limited in coverage.
2018 also saw the first shooter that I know of who allegedly had been previously institutionalized (at 12, no less; is that even realistic?) in the Madden Tournament shooter (there was some talk about whether the Virginia Tech shooter should be institutionalized but he was only an outpatient), despite their being legislation denying such people the use of firearms even though they may have overcome whatever mental health issue they faced. Obama signed into law the banning of guns for any dependent person on Social Security paychecks for mental health disorders despite there (to my knowledge) not being a single shooter who has ever matched this profile, which is discrimination for the sake of discrimination. I'm sure some racist groups could pull out statistics to restrict firearms to certain groups (especially regarding gang violence), but in stark contrast not only is it socially okay for this other group to be discriminated against they don't even have statistics of a general correlation or even singular examples to justify their persecution that has been codified into law. (Trump ended the second law, much to the alarm of leftist writers.)
I have no doubt some studies corroborate their claims probably using select media profiles of their social lives as the basis for their conclusions (such as 'Neurodevelopmental and psychosocial risk factors in serial killers and mass murderers' which claimed many shooters were undiagnosed autistics by opening up the field sufficiently wide that would result in equally as many males in the general population also being undiagnosed autistics https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/my-life-aspergers/201405/serial-killers-autism-and-mass-murder-once-again and even erred on some of the ones who were allegedly diagnosed, eg. Martin Bryant who wasn't). While other studies would be ignored (when they aren't being twisted) as not newsworthy because they do not support the media's profile. In order to be taken seriously now they would have to find some methodology that would allow them to create the impression that coincides with the conventional wisdom, such as fishing for the poorly defined 'loner' description and extending the search to any number of people away from the suspect until they find it. Any honest study that looked into their current and former friends and intimates and correspond it with male gender and old age (or even young age for children in the era of computers and social networking) where social alienation may be natural in the general population would be ignored if not perverted.
Beyond the language used to describe them where are the demonstrated tangible extremes in these shooters? If so many of these shooters are goths who are so intensely low in self-esteem why are the accounts of self-harming almost non-existent besides one account of Adam Lanza burning himself that wasn't corroborated in any report (where are the killers with self-mutilation scars)? If these shooters have a long history of depression and suicidal thoughts why is it I can't think of a single one who had a previously known suicide attempt (as opposed to killing themselves due to the gravity of their acts)? If PTSD is speculated to be a cause why do the likes of lawyers and journalists cite 'bad dreams' but not severe dissociation: the public assumes alleged PTSD afflicted soldiers like Robert Bales are triggered and think they are in a war zone fighting enemy combatants yet no one ends up backing that up beyond bad dreams the night prior? They are so shy and unable to speak yet of the half who are quieter than average none of them are paralyzed around telephones (both Cho and Lanza seemingly freely used telephones, in fact there is an alleged audio tape of Lanza talking about chimps on a radio program with noted ease)? And if these shooters are so debilitatingly racked with social anxiety how is it even the extreme outliers attend such public places as university and comfortably play DDR in shopping malls (there are people who have trouble putting out the rubbish who are not amongst the ones going on shooting sprees)? People have poor concepts of extremes.
The media has undoubtedly destroyed many mother and father-son bonds over the years (and this practice goes back decades) by feeding them with the suggestion that their child may be a psychotic because he is unable to socialize through disability or shyness. Fathers who wish to take their 'quiet loner' sons to the gun range may cause tension with the mother that will result in the breakup of a childs parents (I have read of this happening) that will also significantly adversely affect the childs development. The same also applies to fathers: children who have what the public regards as 'abnormalities' may shame fathers who may be more inclined to want absolutely nothing to do with them. After Sandy Hook, there was an account by a teacher (http://www.xojane.com/issues/i-am-adam-lanzas-teacher) who said that while she had to take out a restraining order against a student the one child she was truly scared of was the quiet kid who didn't do or say anything violent towards her just 'gave her the creeps' (another disgusting article based on this "I am Adam Lanza's..." craze: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/my-brother-is-not-adam-lanza-but-he-could-be-20121221-2bql1.html). Some children may embrace the stigma because it scares away threats, but it could cause them to develop complexes.
There is also the possibility if you tell children they're innately evil often enough for their disadvantages and disabilities, they may start to believe it or respond to how they are being treated. They may alienate themselves further because they do not wish to hurt others because they have it drummed into them which carries over into adulthood. They may never have an opportunity to put it to the test. Women actively screen out odd men when dating, branding the unusual ones as creeps and psychopaths, further entrenching true loners isolation. Apparently, this pro-normal guy only screening didn't work out for at least one woman who was murdered recently. In this case, the defendants name was suppressed but some media outlets published his name anyway and interviewed people who knew him. I will not name the victim because in truth I don't know the circumstances she met and screened him and I don't want to misrepresent the case. But of the people the journalists interviewed were teammates (he was sporting) and one woman who was due to date him after interacting with him online for several months. This woman described him as normal seeming but for a foot fetish. The victim trusted him so much she was seen going to a hotel with him. This idea that you can pick out the bad ones by looking at them or them being honest on their profiles about their issues and quirks may have given the victim a false sense of security resulting in her death.
There is this phenomena where people equate the act with broad mental illness, which is a way of always confirming your suspicions. For instance, if someone goes on a murder spree they must be crazy so it makes sense they're all mentally ill. Or if a normal seeming guy ends up raping and murdering the person he is seeing, he isn't normal after all. They're all abnormal so in the aftermath no matter if he seemed normal and social it is the transparent people with genuine issues who get further stigmatized by the acts of someone who seemed normal. Murder is now a mental illness, and worse it is a mental illness that crosses all mental illnesses, in particular autism and post-traumatic stress disorder. Being driven mad by people you interact with becomes a symptom of social isolation. Everyone who seems normal is abnormal once they prove normal people can be murderers. It is all labels and how you define those labels. Everyone on this planet can be described as having a mental illness if we adopted more labels to describe their specific mental illnesses, it's called having a brain. Everyone on this planet has a quirk, no matter how outwardly normal they may or may not be. Anger, hatred and revenge are presently defined as emotions, not mental illnesses, and everyone of the planet experiences them.
[Before reading the points below, bear in mind that the judge in 2021 found
Minassian had lied about his 'incel' motivations and ever having known
Elliot Rodgers and Chris Harper-Mercer, who is otherwise not connected with an incel
community. He done it for attention. The vast majority of the media
chose to bury this inconvenient part of the verdict, and now feminists
are calling for an inquest on 'incels'.]
In 2018, we had what was an alleged 'incel' killer (Alek Minassian). In truth, this person absolutely called himself an incel and also cited Reddit and expressed sympathy with the movement in a Facebook post but there has been no evidence linking him with an online community or any community where he may have been radicalized (may have pulled those words out after perusing news articles for all we know), which is strange for someone so militant to a cause: you'd think were he a member of a Reddit or other community he would use his profile to post his murderous thoughts (and rest assured, if someone had, the media would have turned it up as they uncovered everything else that wasn't related to mass murder). It also appears akin to a lone-wolf terror attack where terrorists may pledge allegiance to a cause but act on their own accord. UPDATE: An interview has surfaced where this man alleges that he was in contact with two other incel murderers (Chris Harper-Mercer's links to incel anything are tenuous) and he did participate in incel communities, although nothing has been dug up to prove either to my awareness. At no point does he describe the community as indoctrinating him, and his perhaps deranged claims of being in contact with the other two occurred in private correspondence. In my personal opinion, he was possibly a deranged man who acted out more because of the media hysteria. Only one out of many articles bothered to point out that his defense team may be preparing for an insanity defense.
Worse is when they conflate being unable to find a mate with being an 'incel' (whether or not you share the ideology) and sexism by people who may or may not be incels (however it is defined) as meaning they must be incels because only incels can be that way sexist. Recently, one journalist gave loners a Christmas present posting just before Christmas (not NYE) that this was the year of incel terrorism citing two cases over a number of years (the other being Elliot Rodger; sometimes they also cite the LA Fitness shooter despite him dating at the time of the shooting and in his own words having had a sexually prolific young adulthood, or the Ecole Polytechnique shooter who impregnated a girlfriend prior to his massacre, a fact which has been removed from most of the internet) which some may call isolated incidents. One male respondent suggested (again, in the Christmas spirit) sending off all 'incel' men to be killed off in wars on their behalf citing it improving the gene pool.
In fact, if you go back in mostly reverse chronological order as I have done I have found 2-3 mass killers [infact, now 2; see 2021 update] who may be loosely defined as incel-like (Elliot Rodger, Alek Minassian and Scott Bejerle). In contrast, I have also found 4 female mass killers in the same period (Tashfeen Malik, Snochia Moseley, Nasim Aghdam and Maya McKinney) and 7-8 killers who are either lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender including shooters from other periods as I also amassed data of the most prolific mass shooters before going backwards chronologically (Howard Unruh, Maya McKinney with evidence to suggest her accomplice Devon Erickson was also gay, Adam Lanza who posted under "gayfor..." profiles online, Snochia Moseley, Travis Reinking, Randy Stair who believed he was really suppose to be a woman, Arcan Cetin and Vester Lee Flanagan II). Often portrayed as white male entitlement, the 3 most major of these 'incel' killers (Elliot Rodger, Alek Minassian, and allegedly Chris Harper-Mercer) all were of ethnic backgrounds (Asian, Iranian and African American).
If I go back a number more years, I expect to find two more incel-like mass killers (and additional female and LGBT killers), including the aforementioned Chris Harper Mercer and George Sodini. Of the 5 incel-like mass shooters, you have evidence Elliot Rodger and Alek Minassian [Minassian was not; see 2021 update at bottom] participated in online incel communities whether or not the communities indoctrinated them (no evidence has been presented to suggest they have despite the medias assertions). You also have word from Alek Minassian that Chris Harper Mercer was another. With the final two, Scott Beierle and George Sodini (who collectively killed 5 and injured 14) you have no link to any online community. You just have their personal points of view. If you define incel killers as those who have been shown to have frequented online echo chambers, you have just two: Elliot Rodger and Alek Minassian, and potentially Chris Harper Mercer according to Alek Minassian who may experiencing delusions, fewer than the amount of female killers which is suppose to be rare to the point of virtual non-existence. So why is every killer being portrayed as an incel?
If you want to get into defining incels as single men incapable of forming any relationship with women, I have found evidence of intimate partners or former intimate partners for 56-60 killers of the 89 (63-67%) I have so far researched, including 30-31 (34-35%) who were currently or previously married (underrepresented because these men on average haven't lived their full lives). (For the record, the fact that there was one uncertainty in this group allows me to show why such uncertainties appear in my data: the uncertainty was Seth Ator, who I read one account out of thousands cite a neighbour that he first moved in with a wife and child, otherwise the media made NO mention of this 'incels' marriage.) This is not to say there were 29-33 loosely definable as 'incel' killers, as not all relationships are revealed by the media which is what I had to trawl to find such relationships; often, it takes something newsworthy such as the killer being abusive to his wife/girlfriend before the media publishes such accounts. As for them being developmentally maladjusted 'man children' who live with their parents, I have calculated 66-71 of the 89 (74- 80%) as either living independently of their parents or being under 18 and not expected to be living independently. Be mindful that a significant portion of adults live with their parents well into adulthood. 20-26% may be expected. If there is anything that has turned me off feminism, it is this feminist crusade against single white males or males with social development issues.
After the 2019 Christchurch attacks, feminists labelled the shooter an incel despite there being no evidence to back up this conclusion. Their best evidence was the non-existence of evidence he ever had a girlfriend, despite me personally encountering a once posted picture of him when he was younger with a beautiful woman which was labelled his girlfriend, and additionally there being accounts people refused to come forward who knew him. This same feminist went on to cite the case of 2 other incel murderers to prove her point of the mass murdering incels, one of whom (the 17 year old Sante Fe shooter) was allegedly enraged by the rejection of a girl who rejected him on her mothers suggestion that (paraphrased) "you do not date someone who once dated your best friend" (ergo he had a previous girlfriend) and according to accounts he was dating someone at the time. There was no evidence linking either of the two with the incel community or any incel ideology, just dimwits basing it on their gut feelings.
People like to pretend they are not paranoids but most of them are afraid of the quiet kid at the back of the class without actually understanding a thing about them as individuals (yes, there will be some who will be threats but little to no more than in the general population). They perceive all those who they don't understand as threats plotting to murder them yet in 2016 they act holier-than-thou as militant 'progressives' fighting wars on some other forms of socially unaccepted bigotry, including some on mental health and developmental disorders except for where social deficits are concerned. They won't question the objectivity of the assessment, if anything these hypocrites join in in the fun.
I have seen some articles defending the mentally ill and autistics (not that defending such people is wrong) but not a single one defending the quiet friendless kid who is experiencing enough challenges already as it is. Some of these people that persecute loners (withdrawn people, either voluntary or involuntary) based on their paranoia are the very ones defending others with general mental illness issues (Dr. Harold Schwartz is one example). After the Germanwings Flight 9525 event, psychiatrists swarmed to shield those with mental illness (in particular depression which is the extent of the conditions he was reportedly experiencing) from being stigmatized (few have any previously diagnosed mental illness, in addition pure hatred and paranoia are so widespread they transcend branded mental illnesses). But not a single person comes out in defence of the socially inept.
The significantly socially marginalized are obvious scapegoats. People don't like to think it could be their friends or their lovers, so they dump it all on the most voiceless section of society possible. We have such films as Pleasantville ridiculing the '40s or '50s for their attitudes to conformity, but today we have programs in schools that are now being aided and abetted by the likes of Disney that teach us to identify outliers, especially the quiet type, and make them conform while also telling them they have innate homidical tendencies. We don't do it out of consideration for that person but because society are paranoid about perceived threats to their own children. It is poisoning minds, and worse it is based on an articulated lie propagated by the mainstream and alternative media.
Time called Albert Einstein the person of the century. While Albert married twice in his life and wasn't truly isolated for most of his years, he was an advocate of social isolation because it allowed people to explore their inner creativity and possibly see outside the box and lead to innovations of thought (“Be a loner. That gives you time to wonder, to search for the truth. Have holy curiosity. Make your life worth living.” Source: Einstein and the Poet: In the Search of the Cosmic Man. (1983)). We no longer embrace diversity and difference and are ruled by rampant paranoia based on campaigns of falsehoods that very much resembles brainwashing in their blanket coverage and continual repetition. We also have this falsehood that society is becoming more progressive in embracing difference but are creating different rules for different groups. Most people are astounding hypocrites who frankly have no right to claim the likes of Albert Einstein and other introverted personality type thinkers as their own.
UPDATE: Happened again with Alexandre Bissonette. The media focused on his classmates to portray him as a loner, almost completely ignoring this account from his friend: “He could have asked for help. He had a family, a brother, friends. He
didn’t have enemies. He was not the anti-social being that has been
described.” which gets 4 hits from a Google enquiry usual a partial exact quote. He was not an isolate, instead he put himself in debate groups. He was living away from home. He was outgoing according to this friend (hikes, pubs, dancing). Yet, the lying sacks spun their sickening web of lies all over again
UPDATE 2021: Alek Minassian was found to have lied about being a member of an incel community. The media have since pretended such revelations never occurred. He lied about ever being in contact with Elliot Rodger and Chris Harper-Mercer, which means there is no connection with Chris Harper-Mercer and an online community of 'incels', and he lied about a rejection at a party. This means I only know of one 1 killer, Elliot Rodger, who ever participated in anything like an incel community (Pick Up Artist Hate). Despite the judge ruling that Minassian had lied and incel ideology wasn't his primary motivation (she then went on to suggest the comments he made about visiting forums which she branded lies may have had some degree of truth, hence a secondary motivation, without providing any evidence such as known profiles just statements she otherwise accepted were lies), advocates in Canada are seeking to get an inquiry into his non-existent connections with the incel community! Additionally, other killers who were not incels are continuing to be branded incels by feminists and journalists, notably Robert Aaron Long who has no known connections with an incel community, was not motivated by incel ideology (he was motivated by religious stigma regarding his sex addiction) and had a meaningful relationship with a girl 1-2 years prior.
