Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Saturday Night Card Game (Analysis: Colorado shooter likely not wingnut because didn’t target gays, Muslims or foreigners)

    Saturday Night Card Game (Analysis: Colorado shooter likely not wingnut because didn’t target gays, Muslims or foreigners)

    We’re making progress, of sorts.  Not everyone jumped in with Brian Ross and ABC News in trying to link Colorado shooter James Holmes to the Tea Party.

    One left-wing blogger quickly wrote that he did not suspect a Tea Party connection because, in his view, a real wingnut would have targeted a more artsy film or one related to gays or Muslims.  Another left-wing blogger, the father of right-wing eliminationist theory, also left open the possibility that this could be the exception to the usual rule of right-wing nativist psychopathy.

    Like I said, progress “of sorts.”

    I know I shouldn’t take the bait, like I did before.  But anyway, here goes on the “real wingnut” theory:

    I wouldn’t be surprised if this gun fan [“Jim Holmes”]  is the Aurora tea party guy, but I bet it’s not our shooter. The age is just wrong.

    This won’t turn out to be motivated by right-wing politics. A wingnut shooter would shoot up an indie film or a Sean Penn film or a film with Susan Sarandon or Rosie O’Donnell in it. Or something gay-themed or maybe sympathetic to Muslims.

    This is going to turn out to be just plain old American apolitical weapon-loving craziness. That’s my guess.

    The eliminationist theorist-in-chief, who keeps looking for “the Next Timothy McVeigh” at right-wing rallies, did not dismiss the possibility of a Tea Party / right-wing connection.  No, he kept an open mind in the absence of proof since so many violent psychopaths are, at heart, nativist Tea Partiers:

    But that does not mean that there is never an ideological component when a psychopath perpetrates some horrendous tragedy, either. Indeed, certain right-wing movements are highly prone to attracting psychopaths and mentally ill, unstable personalities, because their rhetoric and appeals so closely replicate the discontents of these people’s interior lives….

    The rhetoric of the Minutemen and their related nativist organizations – including, nowadays, the Tea Party – appealed to psychopaths ….

    We’ll have to wait and see what motivated James Holmes to open fire on a theater full of innocent moviegoers. But if he turns out to be a psychopath with an unholy attachment to some right-wing ideology, it will not really be surprising. Indeed, it will be all too familiar, all too predictable.

    All too predictable?  Indeed.


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    Shameless self-promotion:

    Perhaps the first parody of the Aurora, CO shootings:

    BannedbytheGuardian | July 22, 2012 at 2:51 am

    A bit of old fashioned basic parenting would have saved one life. A 6 year old should never be taken to that movie anytime but especially not at midnight.

    Ditto little Heaven Sutton killed at 7 at 10.30 pm in a Chicago gang war.

    Both should have been fast asleep in a bed like normal kids.

    FX Phillips | July 22, 2012 at 5:42 am

    The left are the advocates for ordering our society along the lines of those that killed >100 million people and enslaved and impoverished billions more.

    But we’re the psychopaths.

    Pasturized | July 23, 2012 at 9:03 am

    I completely comprehend the fatuousness of your ravings. Your commentaries on the Gospels must be a laugh riot: “Rich men are totally analogous to camels?”

    While you may question the completeness of the analogy, I believe it was Pope John Paul who said (when someone else suggested the establishment while debating where to eat one night during his visit to Denver for World Youth Day): “More satisfying is the fellowship of the body of Christ to the unbeliever than a meal at Hooters to those unmoved by the physical charms of its waitresses.” Or was it Archbishop Chaput?

      Awing1 in reply to Pasturized. | July 23, 2012 at 10:40 pm

      You clearly still don’t understand my point about the difference between evidence and conclusive proof. That’s why you took “we have some evidence he wasn’t an atheist” and analogized it with “he can’t possibly be gay”. A simple course in Aristotelian logic would have taught you that the difference between some and all is actually quite big.

      Awing1 in reply to Pasturized. | July 23, 2012 at 11:27 pm

      Also, you have yet to provide any evidence that Holmes was, in fact, an atheist. Until you do, your ramblings about how evidence is useless unless it is absolutely conclusive contribute nothing to the debate about whether its appropriate to blame atheism for this tragedy, and whether such accusations are on par with, or perhaps even worse than, what liberals do to the tea party.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend