An Open Letter to the Next School Shooter

A lot of Nazi records are public. And so are the records of a lot of the occupied countries. Including mundane details like how much SNCF and Deutsche Bahn billes per "passenger" ( of course usually in cattle/cargo cars), and the amounts. We also have ample witness testimony, and video and photographic footage from the various camps, be they concentration, extermination or transit ( which were in occupied countries and often were managed by the local collaborationist government).

> The second world war was a biological war with typhus as the primary weapon. All of "holocaust" was Germany trying to quarantine and treat the infection... which is why SS doctors were at the frontline of it all. They still lost millions of people. The most affected were low hyegine communities who did not listen to government recommendations

If it was a biological war, where did the typhus come from? And why were people "quarantined" to starvation/exhaustion from work from faraway places likes jews from Netherlands transferred to Auschwitz?

> but the 6 million number is downright retarded if you look at the population records.

6 million is for the jews only, there's an additional 2 million Roma, Sinthy, disabled, gays, etc. Not to mention hundreds of thousands of POWs.

> You can fabricate any story if you get to kill everyone who disagrees with it and that is exactly what the Soviet and American forces did.

Who was killed that disagreed with the story? And how do you think did the Americans, Soviets and all occupied countries get to the same story? Especially countries like Yugoslavia which liberated themselves and were neutral post-WW2? And why do we have stories from people who managed to escape telling of the horrors?

Also, if i might bring your attention to the words of the perpetrators themselves - none of them denied anything. You can go and watch a full recording of the trial of Adolf Eichmann if you want to. You can read the testimony from Nuremberg. You can watch the footage, including of freed inmates, from when the camps were liberated.

And of course you can go and visit any of the camp sites. I've been to Dachau and it's... powerful.

> My point is that if we keep saying "young white males have it all" when they don't, they will start to think "well why don't I feel complete, if I have it all?"

Not to discount this, but teenage angst has been around for generations. How come young men today decide to shoot their classmates instead of, idk, writing bad poetry or standing under the window of a girl that rejected them, the way their fathers did? I think the main deciding factor is being exposed to a certain brand of toxic masculinity that promotes misogyny and equates violence with power. One of the strongest red flags for mass shooters, leaving depression, bullying, etc etc far behind, is a history of misogynistic behavior and domestic violence.

You can disagree with my interpretation, of course.

The issue with "toxic masculinity" is that only non-toxic men can define it. and everyone has different definitions of what a non-toxic man is.

If i were to suggest what an "ideal role model" is for young men, it would be someone who doesn't drink, who is physically strong, boxes, labours, is capable of causing harm, but chooses not to, and one who isn't prone to loosing it if a girl rejects him.

Others would read my description and recoil in disgust, because they think the ideal man should be one who is romantic and perhaps a writer, and should drop their coat so ladies can walk over puddles, and be well versed in different types of whiskeys, who is incapable of causing harm, but perhaps wants to.

These are really the two ends of what young men have to try and model themselves as, and they do a botched job of it and get called a creep and loser for being a creepy loser. drinking to excess because that's the only socially acceptable thing to do when in large groups.

Perhaps the one thing that we need to train boys in is how to handle rejection properly, maybe that's the missing piece here.

Perhaps society should not encourage the archetype of "incapable of causing harm but wants to" and instead encourage "is able to cause harm, but won't" - like their forefathers were into adventure and war stories of strong heroes, etc.

(these are just thoughts at this point, going from what I know of being a man myself, and what I had to do to grow up.)

Who's to say. Good chat none-the-less. :)