What happened at Sandy Hook? We need to have the courts adjudicate that question

Is it not baffling—and a bit macabre—that people tend to be enraged by the suggestion that maybe all those children were not slaughtered? Is that possibility not good news?

Of course it is. But one cannot take comfort in that counter-narrative if one (a) unconsciously enjoys the pathos of the official story (and the self-righteous indignation of defending it, “for the parents’ sake”), and (b) would rather think those kids were massacred than that the authorities—and “our free press”—would pump out so egregious a Big Lie.

So let the courts adjudicate the matter at long last, as Mary Maxwell argues here. Why not?

Those who are not up to speed on this as-yet-unsettled matter should check out what James Fetzer’s lawyer, William Scott, 
is up to.


Real Adjudication Is Called For in the “Sandy Hook” Affair

by Mary W. Maxwell, LLB
Dec. 4, 2021

by Mary W Maxwell, LLB

It is time now to wrap up nine years of “Sandy Hook.” I’ve put quote marks around the name Sandy Hook to imply that I am not talking about the district of Newtown, Connecticut known as Sandy Hook, I am referring to “the Sandy Hook story.”

As or the actual district, I have no criticism, nor do I think ill of its people.  If anything, I sympathize with the large number of residents there who were ordered to tell lies.

“The Sandy Hook story” says that a massacre occurred there on December 14, 2012. No such thing happened.  It is all fictional. It’s very important for Americans to grasp this as soon as possible. It is quite common for the MSM (mainstream media) to put out stories — some big, some small — that are fictional.

What can we do about this? In the old days, journalists had a Code of Ethics. It required that they not publish, as fact, an item for which they had only one source. They needed to find a second source, or go out and personally investigate the allegation to determine its worth.

False Flags

I do not know the solution to today’s lying by the media.  On four occasions, I have been so annoyed by false-flag stories that I have gone out and investigated them myself, to the extent of writing a book. The first three were: Port Arthur massacre of 1996, the Sydney siege of 2014, and the Boston Marathon bombing of 2013.

I hadn’t considered the 2012 Sandy Hook story to be false. I thought it was true and assumed that the hoopla about it on the Internet was perhaps a psy-op unto itself. I was particularly disgusted when a Connecticut citizen named William Brandon Shanley sued various newspapers. That looked to me like a way for those newspapers to mock conspiracy theory (the judge dismissed the case). But I later concluded that Shanley knew the truth. Too late to apologize to him, as he is now deceased.

Here, in a nutshell, is the false story of Sandy Hook Elementary School: A guy named Adam Lanza, age 20, broke into the school at 9.30am on a school day, went into a classroom of first graders and shot dead 16 kids. Then he went into another classroom and shot dead 4 more, plus he shot dead 6 staff members. He also shot and wounded a staff member named Natalie Hammond, but she has never appeared in an interview as far as I know. There is also a wounded child whom we have never seen. Adam then killed himself.

Here, in a nutshell, is the correct story: It has been common for over half a century for powerful persons in the US to arrange for real violence to occur, to make us think our neighbors are to be feared. A possible early example of a shooter killing randomly is that of Charles Whitman in 1966. He reportedly stabbed to death his mother and his wife and then climbed a tower at the University of Texas to shoot students. He killed 15 and wounded 21, until a policemen shot him dead. His motive? Wikipedia “settles the matter” by saying:

“In the months prior to the attack, Whitman had sought professional help for “overwhelming, violent impulses”, including fantasies about shooting people from the tower. An autopsy conducted after his death revealed a hypothalamic tumor.

To the contrary, I think Charles may have done all of that under hypnosis. 

Whole Cloth — Gulf of Tonkin

At some point, the powerful realized that they could make up a story “from whole cloth.” This happened in the Gulf of Tonkin episode.  In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson told Congress, deceitfully, that a US ship in a Vietnam harbor, had been torpedoed by the Viet Cong (the communist enemy).  It did not really happen, but the telling of it was enough to make Congress approve LBJ’s large escalation of the Vietnam war.

The purpose of a false flag is to blame the enemy for some atrocity which will galvanize the domestic public. Often, a government itself carries out an atrocity so that a false flag can be hung on the perpetrator. He will be labeled a Viet Cong, or a Muslim jihadist, or whatever.

In that example from 1964, the atrocity was very inexpensive — no ship was torpedoed at all! I guess you could say our brain was torpedoed.  Note: a German analyst of false flags, Elias Davidsson, looks at the 9-11 false flag where 19 Arabs were — absurdly — credited with hijacking 4 planes.  He entitles his book “Hijacking America’s Mind on 9-11.”

So there we are, torpedoed and hijacked.  We had better improve our game, and soon. Anyone with a working intellect needs to join this effort.

The Purpose of Sandy Hook

To create a fictional story of a school massacre would naturally require a lot of money and a lot of effort. So why bother? What was gained? I have heard three purposes suggested.

The first is gun control. Certainly much is made of the shooting by persons who do not want the public to easily acquire a gun. And the bereaved families (I mean the “bereaved” families) at Sandy Hook have taken a prominent role in the anti-gun movement. A helpful book, co-edited by James Fetzer and Mike Palecek, is entitled: “Nobody Died at Sandy Hook: It Was a FEMA Drill To Support Gun Control.”

The second possible purpose of Sandy Hook was to use it as a try-out for later events, such as the Boston Marathon bombing. In other words, the powerful were testing the public’s gullibility. It seems we passed with flying colors.  Although there are many critics of Sandy Hook who publish comments on the Internet, no official action has taken place in opposition to this false flag. (Note: It took Congress nine years, from its Gulf of Tonkin gullibility in 1964 to its official opposition in the 1973 War Powers Act.)

I go along with those first and second purposes of Sandy Hook — nuking the Second Amendment and prepping for the Marathon affair — but I am especially devoted to a third purpose. Namely, the powerful want us to stop making any distinction between fact and fiction. This is the premise of my book “Unreality: Sandy Hook Messes Minds.” I claim that the Sandy Hook issue is meant to expose us to huge lies, whilst we sort-of-realize they are lies, and finally give up on trying to distinguish between reality and unreality.

Click on the link for the rest.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.