Understanding the case of the Aurora massacre.

In broad political terms, rather than analytical scientific ones, the Aurora massacre is to be understood for its effect on the social and political framework in which the incident occured and is occurring. This broad effect, we can all guess fairly well, will amount to a stress on the system. The participants in this system, largely limited to just the United States population, are equally, under the hypothesis that bacteria regulate all CNSs, regulated by bacteria like the alleged shooter. But as the hypothesis holds that human violent tendencies are controlled by bacteria and used to offset human idiosyncratic practices of treatment of corpses, the play that this massacre gets in the media and under discussion will all take a turn in keeping with the hidden agenda of bacteria. There is no doubt in my mind that bacteria are responsible for all crimes just as all wars, and also for all the greatest achievements of men, or more properly said, must be assigned an equal share in such responsibility given that the exact proportion is way beyond the current state of progress of scientific argument about bacterial regulation of CNSs, and probably is not a simple proportion anyway but rather a complex array of weights regarding the myriad factors that determine mammal behavior, or indeed any animal behavior.

If we withdraw the measure of penalty for crime then we must necessarily also withdraw the reward for enterprise, which is the protection under the law for men to keep the fruits of their labor, for without bacteria labor would not be fruitful. While withdrawing penalty inspires a certain altruistic sympathy, withdrawing protection of fruits can safely be assumed to have no sympathizers outside of a miniscule set of extremists, or those criminals who fail to project beyond the initial booty. Yet these two changes of law would be equally necessary under an, excessively  naive, revision under the hypothesis. Evidently a morph of the hypothesis to theory status would parallel developments with respect to the actual extent of shared responsibility with bacteria, and what revisions to law are necessarily called for on scientific grounds. Every implication of the hypothesis, at the current level of evidence, requires for its appreciation a vastly greater scale of time assissment than the perspective of law today. The course of events that lead to a man doing something like the Aurora massacre involve interventions, and taken opportunities leading to establishing a territorial hegemony, by bacteria at key times and places across millions, but moreso even billions of years.

The results of careful observation and deliberation will alone settle the matter, for it is well enough along in discussion that an end of uncertainty is within expectation, since a place for the discussion has been prepared here and, to some extent, elsewhere.

the Aurora massacre and bacterial regulation of CNSs

My perspective on the massacre in the Aurora movie theatre is that it brings up the question of whether it can be determined that it was, or wasn't, a result of bacterial regulation of the shooter's central nervous system, and since the suspect was a Ph.D. candidate in neuroscience this question is steeped in implications bearing on regulation of CNSs by bacteria, if it is in fact a valid hypothesis.

The first look, in investigating the evidence for regulation, must be directed first at whatever level of bacterial organization deals with the whole of animal taxonomy, for it is that level at which one species will be found to be measured in its value to bacteria compared to other species. Day to day events, particularly in a time of international peace, can be expected to get their examination by bacteria at a lower place in the division of labor that characterizes bacterial regulation, than the level of comparison of the species, and may not exhibit any recognizable traits if the investigation limits itself to details strictly within Homo sapiens.

Examination of bacterial organization of regulation of the whole animal population will be unfruitful if animals are considered the way humans typically, if not universally, view animal hierarchies within a species. In my experience animals have highly differentiated ranks, and evidence to this fact is not allowed to be witnessed by those who do not value highly the logistical powers of all species, which is mainly a valuation that comes about when logistics of one's own species is viewed as the only game in town. Animal species certainly are better understood by bacteria than by Homo sapiens. For Homo sapiens to understand bacteria better than they do now, I can only offer the suggestion that contact is only possible if one separates himself from the paradigm that "God gave Man dominion over the Earth." A delusion is no less so when it is adhered to by nearly a whole species. Communication with the higher ranks of another species is only possible if one sets down his immersive habit of language use and asks himself what does he really have that is more than a convention. It is that freedom from convention that typifies communication between the higher ranks of animals, and which is regarded as noise by humanity.