Elliot Rodger and Osama bin Laden

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


Screen_Shot_2014-05-26_at_8.56.46_PMElliot Rodger is only the latest mass murderer whose creepy videos and massive manifesto will be pored over for clues to his state of mind. Rodger is in good company with killers like Osama bin Laden, Anders Behring Breivik and Christopher Dorner who exploited their murderous celebrity by running their mouths and fingers while unloading their deep thoughts on everything.

Osama bin Laden told everyone to read Jimmy Carter’s Palestine and Walt and Mearsheimer’s The Israel Lobby. Christopher Dorner regretted missing out on the next season of The Walking Dead. Breivik discussed his favorite video games and Elliot Rodger had to tell us about every movie he watched.

Mass murderers act like aspiring celebrities because that’s what they are. They want to be famous. They are compulsive narcissists who need everyone to pay attention to them.

Analyzing their manifestos for motive is a waste of time. Rodger, like Dorner, Breivik and Bin Laden, was obsessed with power fantasies. These men killed people to gain power over them and over the larger audience beyond their victims. They wanted to make the rest of the world see them the way that they saw themselves.

Their videos and manifestos were a studied pose like everything else about them.

A hundred years ago we would have called them evil. Today we pore over their writings trying to understand what made them snap. And when we do that, we make the mistake of assuming that their complaints made them kill, instead of being the excuse that allowed them to kill.

A million young men go around complaining about being alone. They don’t go on a killing spree. A million workers hate their job and their coworkers. They don’t kill them. Millions of ordinary people resent their spouses, their parents, their bosses, their neighbors and their garbage men.

They don’t kill them.

The significant thing about Elliot Rodger or Christopher Dorner is that they began killing. It’s the only thing about them worth paying attention to.

The manifestos tell a story that has been playing out inside the heads of the killers, but killers are unreliable narrators. They need the story they tell to be true so that they can be free to kill.

Elliot Rodger needed to feel rejected by women so that he could justify his killing spree. Dorner needed to alienate everyone around him. Breivik needed to believe that he was leading an international movement. Osama bin Laden needed to draw the United States into a conflict.

Their manifestos encourage us to see things backward. They play out the familiar story of the man who was pushed too far. But these aren’t men who were pushed too far. They were men who pushed themselves until they were exactly where they wanted to be.

Once they carry out their acts of violence, the linkage between act and manifesto breaks down.

Rodger killed four men and two women. Dorner murdered the daughter and fiancé of his LAPD representative and Breivik shot up a camp. Osama bin Laden ranted about Israel, among his dozens of other motives, but did little to go after it in any concerted way.

Manifestos don’t tell us what a murderer will do. They don’t even tell us why he’s doing it. All they tell us is what he wants his potential sympathizers to believe.

The modern mindset assumes that dismissing a man as evil is uninformative. But understanding that a killer is evil tells us far more about him than we can learn by studying his manifestos.

Evil seeks power over others. It sees the rest of world as evil and wants to dominate or destroy it. Its definition of evil is the gap between its own power fantasies and the real world. Paranoid schizophrenics interpret this gap as a global malignancy directed at them. The more conventionally evil see the world similarly, but with fewer fantastic elements.

Evil has a great deal of self-esteem and no empathy. It turns its own power fantasies into a narcissistic ideology and if it can’t pass along that ideology to someone else, it kills. That’s why this type of killer usually has a history of negative social media involvement.

Osama bin Laden or Mohammed, his prophet, became successful narcissistic killers with armies of followers murdering in their name. Rodger, Breivik and Dorner were unsuccessful and had to act on their own, but they all shared common ambitions that transcended race and nationality.

The Caliphate, the ultimate goal of Islam, is also the embodiment of the power fantasy. Breivik dreamed of founding a kingdom. Rodger wanted to rule the planet as a fascist dictator and round up women into concentration camps. That is something that Mohammed actually did as nearly enough as he could at the time. One reason why Islamic terrorism is so widespread is because Islam’s Jihad is unique in providing a socially acceptable outlet for its Rodgers and Breiviks.

Evil wants absolute power over others. If it can’t rule, it will destroy. If it can’t control everyone, then it will enforce absolute control over a few victims by taking their lives.

The narcissistic mass murderer is striving to eliminate everyone who is not made in his image. He wants to be worshiped and his preferred forms of worship are conformity and death.

Evil is not limited to the occasional spree killer. It’s only the failed narcissistic killer who goes on a suicidal spree. The successful ones go on to become dictators.

In the last century Hitler and Stalin oversaw cults of personality under which millions died so that one man could exercise his power fantasies. And here in our own country there is an ideology obsessed with concentrating and controlling every aspect of life under their rule.

We call that ideology by names such as “liberalism” or “progressivism” but it’s more accurately a diseased narcissism whose followers strive to stamp out everyone who doesn’t think like them.

Every society is caught in a struggle between freedom and power. Our society is no different.

Evil in all its forms wants absolute power over people. The ultimate form of absolute power over another human being is murder. It is the acts that killers commit that tell us what they truly are.

If freedom is to defeat power, we have to judge evil not by its deceptive motives and manifestos, but by its bloody consequences. We have to ignore its pretense of idealism and its sense of victimhood and look at the bodies left in its wake.

Anyone can tell a story, but not everyone can take a life.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • HiPlainsDrifter

    Another member of the mentally ill party strikes with violence against perceived enemies who have kept him from what he thinks he deserves.

    No one deserves anything until they’ve earned it. This kid earned nothing except perhaps a trophy just for showing up on the soccer field.

    ‘Self-esteem without empathy,’ …like livin’ in a powder keg and givin’ off sparks…

    • MrPong

      What about respect ?
      It has to be earned, too ?

      Lame.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        Lame Game.

      • CowboyUp

        Of course respect has to be earned. You appear to be confusing respect with tolerance and civility.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Except that everyone is told these days that they are entitled to things without earning them on account of who they are.

      It’s the gateway to evil.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        Cap and Gown graduations from Kindergarten.

        I guess they’re done with education.

      • HiPlainsDrifter

        ‘self-esteem without empathy’ sez it all…
        Mayhem, of caring degrees, to follow.

  • truebearing

    For too long Cultural Marxism has tried to blur the distinction between good and evil. Hollywood led the way with cinematic celebration of the anti-hero. Rock music supplied the sound track and large segments of America lost their ability to see the sharp contrast between good and evil. Professors chimed in with moral relativism and the confusion and chaos has grown ever since. If Americans are to survive as a free people, the clear, stark distinction between good and evil has to be understood.

    Cultural Marxism didn’t accidentally pull people from their churches. It worked at it by mocking traditional values, parents, institutions, the existence of God, etc. The malignant narcissism at the core of the Left was at work destroying good so it could acquire power, then total power. The intent has been evil from the start. Antonio Gramsci’s template for a successful Marxist revolution in America hinged on the destruction of Judeo-Christian morality…the very thing that Cultural Marxists have mocked, laughed at, and supplanted with the insanity of political correctness.

    Daniel’s point about trying to divine the motives of malignant narcissists from their manifestos is brilliant. Evil is neither restrained nor motivated by truth. Evil people aren’t writing to reveal truth. They are writing to obscure it. Evil has always been associated with lying, so why take the word of an evil person, whether an individual mass murderer, or a tyrant who wants absolute power?

    Evil groups and individuals always operate according to the same anti-ethic, the ends justify the means. That ruthlessness used to be scorned in this country, but was adopted from the teachings of Saul Alinsky by both our current president and Hillary Clinton. Alinsky also taught his followers to lie. No wonder then that Alinsky dedicated his book, “Rules for Radicals,” to Lucifer, and no wonder that Obama lies with every breath. They represent collective political evil in this country.

    Islam operates according to the same dark principles, inculcating its adherents with beliefs that turn them into evil minions of a malignant narcissistic cult that openly admits it intends to kill or enslave as many people as necessary in order to rule the world. This is the evil we are up against.

    Great article Daniel. This topic needs your clarity.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      “Evil has always been associated with lying, so why take the word of an
      evil person, whether an individual mass murderer, or a tyrant who wants
      absolute power?”

      We’ve unfortunately been conditioned to empathize with evil and relate to its movies. It’s been done through entertainment and literature as you pointed out.

      That is what’s going on here.

      • bigjulie

        So true, Daniel. The “empathiz(ing) with evil” is yet another means of trying to make a rational argument that “evil” doesn’t really exist. It is only another means of arriving at “justice” (whatever the hell that is) and, since “justice” is “good”, its means of arrival has got to be “good”, too!
        Therefore we have yet another method of getting ignorant and low-info people to wholeheartedly support “evil” because “evil” is really “good”!
        The wonders wrought through the twisting of language by the left…the “miracles” of how we got the current mayor of New York and the current resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Justice in their case is the implementation of their will through absolute power

          hope, change and all that

        • truebearing

          We just need to “re-educate and re-socialize” the poor evil people and everything will be fine, but we need to eradicate all things associated with the Judeo-Christian values because they don’t need to be re-educated, re-socialized, or controlled. Self-control via morality is the great enemy of state control through “re-education.” The Left has to have a reason for indoctrination. How else would it get power?

          • bigjulie

            Well said, tb! You often make as much or more sense as the posters whom you comment on!
            The left needs to completely eliminate “morality” based on age-old so-called “traditional” values, especially those with a religion base. It’s part ego on their part, but mostly a perceived “need” to be THE authority (like God) for all rules of everyday conduct.
            “We don’t need no stinking God…especially when we are “in charge”! Who the hell ever elected Jehovah as God anyway??

      • truebearing

        One of the media’s biggest lies is promoting “meaning” in these manifestos. Upon careful analysis, these things turn out to be incoherent word salads, with traces of everything from Marxism to Libertarianism woven into a veil of deception. These malignant narcissists will use whatever they are familiar with to rationalize their evil, but they seem to instinctively avoid simply admitting that the real root of their evil is unbridled ego. The same is true of people like H!tler, who went from being a socialist to a N azi when he saw an opportunity to manifest his malignancy. Ideologies can be evil, but evil isn’t ideological. It is opportunistic to a predatory level.

        The ultimate irony of Marxism, and derivatives, is that the malignant narcissists who inevitably end up in power as a result of the utopian lies are the last people on earth who care about egalitarianism or any kind of justice. They aren’t true ideologues. They are malignant narcissists that recognize that promising fools what they want to believe leads to power. Obama is straddling the fence with dual loyalties to Marxism and Islam, both of which are evil. I am convinced he’d dump one in a heartbeat if he saw his opportunity increase with the other.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Ego is at the root of it. Other people are not truly real to them. And their magical thinking is rather similar to what governs the US now.

        • joba

          Obama is controlled by the gays…we are at odds with gay hating Russia for this very reason…they either have something on him or raise him so much money that he is willing to take on Russia in an unpopular and dangerous undertaking that will heat up more than you are willing to admit is happening….you will be incredulous at the lengths gay control will go to…

        • Americana

          Now why, at this point in his second term, would Pres Obama EVER be thinking about choosing between his (LOL>>>>) “dual loyalties” — Marxism and Islam — when they’ll be of absolutely ZERO IMPORTANCE in the next phase of his life post-Presidency? Even more importantly, since he’s got absolutely no chance of elevating either philosophy to any degree of (LOL>>>) functional strategic importance in the United States given the current era, why would he throw over one to elevate the other for the sake of achieving strategic “importance?”

          • truebearing

            In between your LOLs and your score keeping, you should meditate on this and maybe you will understand some day…maybe.

            To help you in your quest to finally figure something out, ask yourself why would a narcissist and pathological liar, such as Obama, who has shown no regard for the constitution or laws of this country, and is still relatively young, automatically step down at the end of his second term? And since Obama has never stopped campaigning, here, in the UN, or abroad, why would one assume he is going to just sit around writing his third, fourth, or perhaps fifth autobiography?

          • Americana

            You’re suggesting that Pres. Obama is going to stage a COUP to enable him to remain in office? I find that so highly unlikely for all sorts of reasons, I’m not sure what to write further! Continuing to proselytize about programs is something Pres. Obama must continue until his term ends. If you consider that to be “campaigning,” then I’m not sure how to comment further on your post.

          • truebearing

            He’s already staging a coup, Scarecrow. The question is whether he will decide to continue it himself, or make sure Hillary does.

            I sincerely hope your “reasons” return some day. You appear to be dangerously low.

        • Americana

          The various media don’t promote anything about the manifestos but simply present them. If a writer sees evidence (just as Daniel Greenfield has seen evidence that leads him to lump all these various murderers together alongside Osama bin Laden and slap on a “narcissism” label) that there are specifics about the killer’s reasons, the journalist will generally mention them. But what the MSM makes out of these manifestos is nothing if not based on what the writer has put down on paper themselves,

          Did Jared Loughner’s writings lead you to believe he was sane? Did the MSM’s interpretations of his Loughner’s writings lead you to believe he was sane? I don’t recall any writer who ever persuaded me that Loughner was anything but what he was. As for the very different classifications of EVIL, let’s not lump large-scale POLITICAL EVIL on the same scale of INDIVIDUAL EVIL like that of Jared Loughner. Besides, Loughner was patently crazy whereas Hilter was not patently crazy up until perhaps the point where his insane world domination plan came crashing down. When Hitler’s realization that his vision was imploding began to impress upon him that he and his Cabitnet ministers such as Goebbels would pay w/their lives for what they had done to the Jews throughout Europe, he truly began to go mad.

          Trying to embellish an American President w/conflicting ideologies produces the same kind of analytical schizophrenia because you can’t skewer one ideology without running afoul of the other. These are fundamentally opposing ideologies. If they weren’t, you’d find more Marxist Muslims or Islamist Marxists or however you want to combine them. Besides, Islam doesn’t need to combine Marxism in its belief system because it already has an economic and financial system worked out within its tenets.

      • joba

        its an agenda…everyone is evil, dirty…so homosexuality, the real power of the left can be legit…they are always striving for legitimacy…

    • Americana

      Perhaps the best solution to this dilemma would be to consult some psychiatrists and see what they say about this group of selected murderers being melded into one group w/the diagnosis of “malignant narcissist” slapped on all of them. It would be fascinating how psychiatrists would interpret these individuals’ personalities juxtaposed w/the conclusions drawn in this article about how they arrived at committing their crimes. That would cut through all the personal perspective on psychiatric qualifiers each of us has brought into the discussion and would give true experts in the field the opportunity to comment on what has been discussed. Off to see if I can recruit some psychiatrists for a brief stint on Front Page Mag!

      • truebearing

        You are making at least two assumptions that aren’t true. One is that psychiatrists and psychologists see eye to eye. The other is that all psychologists or psychiatrists see eye to eye.

        If you are looking for “settled science” you won’t find it in those fields. All but the most eccentric, or self-protective, will agree that narcisissism is a human trait that expresses itself in various forms of self-obsession. If the narcissism is extreme enough, it borders on psychopathy. Psychopathy or extreme narcissism are conditions where the only things that matter are the delusional desires of the one so afflicted, resulting in evil behavior. That is necessarily simplified, but you can find plenty of information on the internet.

        • Americana

          I’m not looking for “settled science” and I’m not looking for psychiatrists/psychologists who see “eye to eye.” I’d be looking for professionals who can read the material here and identify the presence of psychological factors in the written words of all of us. From the articles that serve to form the intellectual core of the discussion to the subsequent statements by FPM members, It’ll be enlightening and fun! It’s probably more important to have psychs w/a diversity of opinion on the articles and the posters… Professionals may highlight totally uncharted territory for Front Page Mag and for various writers. It could be fascinating if I manage to get some psychiatrists/ psychologists who have some background in these issues interested in participating. If it’s becoming a huge issue in politics, it’d be best to increase our understanding of the psychological/psychiatric interface w/politics.

          • truebearing

            It’s your project. Go to it and see how many you can get, but it will cost you some money, most likely.

          • Americana

            I’m looking at it as a citizens’ initiative and, no, I would ask them to do this pro bono. We’ll see how that sells!

    • Americana

      You know, some of this stuff, that you see as a big cultural conspiracy just happens. I was arguing w/a Marxist professor about American culture and violence and she came out w/the “proven fact” that Hollywood movies and video games are leading to the violence in our culture. She said there was a huge conspiracy to produce movies and video games that kept Americans narcotized and passive and focused on entertainment rather than on life. I had to laugh at her theory because if you’ve ever met any gamers and game designers, they are as funky and as capitalistic as anyone else in the U.S. They’ve even begun to hold national gamer professional tournaments where serious money can be made and serious sponsorships are negotiated. So which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

      The same holds true for identifying and analyzing the motives from someone’s manifesto. Someone like Rodgers is very likely to reveal his true motives either directly or inadvertently, whereas someone like Hitler, while selling his suitability to be Chancellor of Germany early in his career to his fellow Germans, is liable to couch his own personal needs in the guise of national needs. Regardless, manifestos are rarely, if ever, mysterious documents, whether they’re from some nutter like Rodgers or from some vicious sociopathic punk like Hitler, not if you’re willing to do research and compare them w/other material from the person’s life. I totally disagree w/the premise we’ve been conditioned to EMPATHIZE w/EVIL and relate to it via movies or any other cultural means. My belief is we are seeing iconic EVIL on display in movies and comic books and literature and we have a heightened AWARENESS of the existence of the potential for evil around us. But to believe that cultural artifacts are meant to inculcate in us that we empathize w/evil, NO WAY. What does SUPERMAN represent? The ultimate badass who kicks evil out of the universe. Ignoring the fact that evildoers are generally always given their comeuppance in our cultural milieu of books and movies disputes this belief we are meant to empathize w/evil.

    • submitter

      that’s where you are wrong. Islam is the exact same teaching brought by past prophets , e.g gentile prophet Noah and all past Israelite prophets preaching about One God, creator of universe.

  • UCSPanther

    With Elliot, I see three of the seven deadly sins at play: Pride, envy and lust.

    • David

      Don’t forget Wrath and Sloth.

  • Judahlevi

    Elliot Rodger is the product of a child given everything they want (hence the BMW), sheltered from the consequences of their actions, and made to feel that the world owes them something. In other words, he is a spoiled brat who couldn’t take ‘no’ for an answer or handle any form of rejection.

    I talked to a Doctor of Behavioral Health who works with military families. She said that children today are being overly protected by parents which leaves them emotionally underdeveloped to cope with adult life. This is also one of the possible explanations for the numerous military suicides.

    • Lanna

      Very True and money does not take the place of real love, or spiritual healing. These liberals in Hollywood don’t understand where true happiness comes from, their lives are a mess…..they blame everyone but themselves for what happens to their children.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      We have an excess of self-esteem that is not based on anything. Empty self-esteem is simply narcissism training.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        “social media”, who dreamt that up?, is Electronic Narcissism.

        • zoomie

          yup, never before have so many said so much to so few about so little
          zuckerburg is the new wrigley. he could buy a dozen Santa Catalinas

        • DB1954

          As I understand the phenomenon of narcissism, virtually all children are narcissistic (Freud), and many adults remain narcissistic to some degree well after physical maturation.

          To an extent, human narcissism is normal. What’s abnormal is malignant narcissism, which has been equated with the phenomenon of evil.

          Obama is a malignant narcissist who empowered himself politically by kindling envy among large segments of American society. Among black Americans, I believe this took the form of veiled race-baiting or what could be called “racialism.”

      • Americana

        Empty theorizing based on nothing but fictionalized psychiatric interpolation is what exactly to you? Empty theorizing that is entirely propaganda-driven is propaganda, as near as I can tell. In this case, it’s strange propaganda, at best, to put Osama bin Laden in the same category as this BMW Boy. You want to ridicule Osama bin Laden, let’s have you produce a better SNL live skit than this one!

        Denigrating the writer of an opposing opinion is simply the weakest form of intellectual defense one can produce.

        • Judahlevi

          Your opinion – nothing more.

          Anyone who writes as many posts as you do should think twice about the true meaning of the word “narcissism.”

          • truebearing

            Perhaps that meaning is why he’s upset.

          • Americana

            Hahahahaha, trying to imply QUANTITY is in inverse proportion to QUALITY!!!!! That’s pretty darn amusing.

            Only folks who are concerned about the quality of the thinking would bother RESORTING TO INSULTS this early in the debate. Narcissism would be in the eye of the beholder in this instance and, since it’s self-serving to dish out such insults, it’s a foregone conclusion why you’d prefer I not write posts.

          • Judahlevi

            Symptoms of narcissism personality disorder according to DSM-IV-TR:

            “Is preoccupied with thoughts and fantasies of great success, enormous attractiveness, power, intelligence”

            “Is arrogant in attitudes and behavior”

            It seems to fit.

          • Americana

            From Psychology Today:

            * Reacts to criticism with anger, shame or humiliation
            * Takes advantage of others to reach his or her own goals
            * Exaggerates own importance
            * Exaggerates achievements and talents
            * Entertains unrealistic fantasies about success, power, beauty, intelligence or romance
            * Has unreasonable expectation of favorable treatment
            * Requires constant attention and positive reinforcement from others
            * Is easily jealous
            * Disregards the feelings of others, lacks empathy
            * Has obsessive self-interest
            * Pursues mainly selfish goals

            Also, narcissists are usually physically attractive and charming at first glance, so they may have advantages when they first meet people (making a sale, getting a first date, gaining popularity). However, the long-term outcomes for narcissists are usually quite dismal, especially socially (e.g., long-term relationship difficulties). On average, levels of narcissism drop quite dramatically by age 30.
            ______________________________________________

            (I’m over age 30, I guess my narcissism has bottomed out!)

          • truebearing

            But you’re not average, by your own estimation. And your reaction to criticism is what drove you to copy and paste something that actually substantiates Judahlevi’s implied correlation between your behavior and narcissism.

          • Americana

            Sorry, but this comment of yours bears repeating….

            (truebearing, who’s nonetheless always off course) “The fact that you deny obvious facts and can’t understand others, or worse, comment on things you know nothing about, hardly makes you qualified to keep score, does it?”

          • truebearing

            And your point is?

            Do you just enjoy quoting observations made about yourself?

          • Americana

            If the sentence fits, wear it like you wrote it! Wear that one w/pride because it was fully illustrated in the Benghazi thread and it’s once again being demonstrated in this thread.

          • truebearing

            Your delusions about “the Benghazi thread” notwithstanding, you are the one who just used the phrase: “the man who utterly failed to score any points in the Benghazi thread.”
            Are you denying that? Are you disturbed by people responding to you by holding up mirrors? You seem a bit apoplectic. Are you having a bout of narcissistic rage?

          • hiernonymous

            Hold on, I’ve seen this script before.

            Truebearing levels accusation of mental disorder, waits for any hint of objection, and announces that other’s “rage” is evidence of accuracy of observation.

            If you have a substantive point to make, make it by all means, but this bit of repetitive inanity is, as ever, unbecoming.

          • truebearing

            Look at the sequence, genius. I wasn’t the one who perceptively first noticed Americana’s narcissistic tendency. In your zeal to attack me, you proved yourself to be not only wrong but petty.

            If you have a substantive point to make, make it. If not, spare us the self-righteous posturing.

          • hiernonymous

            So, wait – your defense is “someone else said it first!” Oh, my.

            Truebearing: “And your reaction to criticism is what drove you to copy and paste
            something that actually substantiates Judahlevi’s implied correlation
            between your behavior and narcissism.”

            Americana objects

            Truebearing: “Are you disturbed by people responding to you by holding up mirrors? You
            seem a bit apoplectic. Are you having a bout of narcissistic rage?”

            I think you’re hewing to your script pretty well.

            The substantive point I have to make, of course, is that this surfeit of accusations of mental disorder is not substantive. I thought that was rather clear.

          • truebearing

            No, I am simply pointing out that your feigned outrage isn’t over someone using the terminology of psycholgy to characterize another commenter/troll, but a dishonest excuse to get revenge against me because of past battles which apparently left you feeling inadequate or perhaps defeated.

            “I think you’re hewing to your script pretty well.”

            Now that was a perfectly wonderful example of projection. Make sure you explain to Americana that projection is a common attribute of narcissists.

          • hiernonymous

            “…but a dishonest excuse to get revenge against me because of past battles
            which apparently left you feeling inadequate or perhaps defeated.”

            That must be it.

          • truebearing

            It’s as good a theory as any.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            ” If not, spare us the self-righteous posturing.”

            Without that hiernonymous would have nothing to say.

          • truebearing

            That was my plan! :)

          • Americana

            Thanx for pointing this behavior pattern out, hieronymous. (Bosch is one of my favorite painters of that period by the way!) I’ve seen this pattern before, that’s why I’m so quick to level the accusation as to what’s being directed at me. Are you a lawyer? I’ve noticed you’re very perceptive on the question of drone attacks and the protections granted by the Bill of Rights…

            truebearing, it doesn’t matter which of you begins the whole process of labeling a poster as mentally ill or on medications and then others proceed w/antagonizing a poster adding to the CLASSIC PSYCHO PILE ON. The whole narcissism/mental illness thing is a HALLMARK TACTIC of what Jihad Watchers do under Robert Spencer’s direction. The fact the identical process is done here and is done often enough other posters recognize it as a strategy should tell you something about how transparent you are. ***This is the last comment I will make quite this directly about the practice.***

          • hiernonymous

            No, I’m a retired Army officer, now a teacher and coach. I was in intelligence most of my career, so we had to be well versed in those aspects of the law that dealt with matters such as collecting on U.S. persons, and just who a U.S. person is. My area of specialty was the Middle East, hence my interest in such matters.

          • Americana

            Ahhhh, now I understand why you’re one of the nuanced people. I wish it was possible to grab a coffee because there’s just no way I’ll post anything and everything here. You can see how it’s used and abused!!!! ;O :O

          • truebearing

            Poor widdo Americana. His word salads aren’t being treated with the respect he deserves and now he thinks he has found a buddy whose shoulder he can cry on. Boo-Hoo.

            Wise-up, cry-baby. hiernonymous is just using you to attack me, or Greenfield, or anyone else that is the focus of his malice. He has as little respect for your maunderings as anyone else here.

          • Americana

            Oh wow, are you ever off in left field!!#$!#@$!#@$#$
            WHY would you think I need anybody’s shoulder to cry on? Does that post sound whiny to you? Not to me, but then I know why I’m interested in people like hieronymous who’ve obviously had REAL EXPERIENCES concerning our wars and our security issues and the legal conundrums we’re facing thanx to our need to upgrade our security systems because of the jihadi terrorism threat. It’s a matter of being more interested in FACTS rather than RANTS. That’s why I was so thrilled to finally see stories about the Joint Chiefs having re-designed the Rapid Response Forces because that SINGLE FACT illuminated the whole Benghazi debacle in ways that other comments simply didn’t. If hieronymous chooses to attack me at some point for something I’ve written or he’s decided I’m factless and full of it in future, so what?#$# I’ll live to dispute another day.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            A fancy way of saying that hiernonymous is an apologist for Islamists for reasons best known to him.

          • Americana

            I have never met ANY members of the Armed Forces, State Department, CIA, or Department of Homeland Security who are apologists for Islamic militants. They may not answer questions w/the populist sound bytes of the day based on their knowledge and experiences but they don’t qualify as Quislings.

          • truebearing

            Just because you haven’t personally met them means they don’t exist? Non sequitur response. You are not the epicenter of reality, nor the arbiter of all truth. Your experiences, while undoubtedly inflated in your grandiose world view, comprise an insignificant percentage of all that happens in the world.

            What about the military people who called the Fort Hood shooting “workplace violence” instead of an obvious jihadist attack by Hasan? Does your average Post Office worker shout Allahu Akbar before killing fellow workers?

          • hiernonymous

            Well, yes, that interpretation would be “fancy” indeed.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            It’s your comment that was “fancy”. I simply stated a fact.

          • truebearing

            Hence your interest in attacking anyone who exposes Islam for what it is.

          • truebearing

            I don’t recall anyone saying you are on medications, but that implication has been used by so many leftists when attacking conservatives, I can’t count them, so don’t waste your time pretending that only conservatives do it. The fact that it got you so wound up tells me that you are uncomfortable with the truth of your narcissistic traits.

            Saying that pointing out mental illness is a “hallmark tactic” of Robert Spencer, or anyone else, doesn’t de-legitimize it, nor does it prove the “tactic” to be wrong or untrue. You basically said nothing other than show your disaproval of something that makes you and hiernonymous uncomfortable. Too bad.

          • Drakken

            You an facts in the same sentence is an oxymoron, but you keep believing your own press, it might actually work out for you.

          • Americana

            Thanx for reminding me (via your sentence above) that one’s perspective on the facts vs manufactured factoids often is dependent on whether or not your ox is the one being gored or if you can cause other morons to believe their ox is in imminent danger of being gored.

          • Douglas J. Bender
          • tagalog

            You want man boobs?

          • Douglas J. Bender

            Those aren’t “man boobs”. Those are glorious pectoral muscles showing great strength and diligence. But it was a joke, anyway.

          • Americana

            Yes, it certainly seems he does! He also seems to go in for waxing. (Look at that polished armpit!) To what extent he takes his WAX ON/WAX OFF fetish we won’t know until the next installment of his game avatar. ;O

          • truebearing

            You blew right past his somewhat subtle, but accurate point. Your obtusity seems to be a willful avoidance of a personal truth.

          • Americana

            true bearing, hahahahahaha, hysterical! You call that subtle? You think I blew by it????? Hahahaha, the man who utterly failed to score any points in the Benghazi thread is now trying to harness himself to the self-serving claim dished up by JudahLevi that I’m a narcissist. The fact lots and lots of insults are thrown around by protectionist individuals on these web sites nullifies those insults. Everyone knows who’s lobbing the insults and WHY.

            You know, on the web, it’s important to learn the difference between serving your own wounded ego and actually writing out cogent thinking that wins adherents to one’s perspective. It’s also helpful to recognize that protectionism of the kind that’s practiced by certain web sites frequently has unintended consequences.

          • truebearing

            Now you’re the arbiter of who “scores points?” That would mean you are necessarily the arbiter of what is true, and that smacks of serious narcissism. The fact that you deny obvious facts and can’t understand others, or worse, comment on things you know nothing about, hardly makes you qualified to keep score, does it?

            What “insult” did you percieve in JudahLevi’s comment? He was making a simple correlation. If it is true, then you see the truth as an insult.

          • Americana

            Honestly, truebearing, you’re just an incorrigible, hanger-on doodledork who’s always trying to score points by tagging along behind folks you think are the big dogs in the dog park and barking like they do. Either develop a bark of your own or learn how to piss up a rope, but this hanger=on act you’ve got going on is just unsuitable for a full-grown adult.

            Not to plagiarize or anything, but ***The fact that you deny obvious facts and can’t understand others, or worse, comment on things you know nothing about, hardly makes you qualified to keep score, does it?***

          • truebearing

            A “doodledork?” Are you sure you’re over 30? Do you think that is suitable for a full-grown adult? You sound rather infantile for someone who claims to be over 30. More of that narcissistic rage coming out?

            Again your obsession with scoring points. Maybe if you were less obssessed with scoring points than with making coherent, intelligent points, you wouldn’t be fighting with everyone on FPM.

            Is this point scoring you keep referring to based on how you get paid as a troll — kind of like piecework? I’ve never seen anyone on FPM, or anywhere else, this obsessed with scoring points. It’s especially odd that you would want to keep score.

            I see you really liked my observation about you. That’s good. You have to start somewhere if you hope to unravel your bird’s nest.

          • Douglas J. Bender

            “Doodledork”. That is the ultimate insult coming from Middling Dorks. As defined in the most-recent DSM.

          • truebearing

            Aren’t the Middling Dorks the ones that can’t master potty training, or are they they ones that suck their thumbs until they are forty? I can never keep them straight.

          • Americana

            I’ve got an obsession w/scoring points? Not something I’ve noticed about me, but you folks certainly do. You folks choose to begin to barrage people whose opinion you don’t like by first declaring their thoughts to be opinuendo rather than facts even if they’re opinions backed up by facts. Then you opt for insults as your next go-to tactic. Then you call on other FPMers for support. It’s a highly predictable and highly puerile behaviour pattern. Maybe if you were more concerned w/making coherent, intelligent points, you wouldn’t resort to these tactics.

          • truebearing

            Now you’ve descended into paranoia.

            Excuse me while I laugh. The person who called me a “doodledork” is accusing others of being puerile?

            Then you end your latest post by plagiarizing mine, again.

          • Americana

            I believe you mean “obtuseness.” but maybe you think “obtusity” works better alongside “rotundity,” and “profoundity.”

          • truebearing

            I will leave it to you to decide which form you feel most comfortable with. It is your obtuseness, after all.

          • Americana

            I thought the two had effectively been segregated into obtusity being more related to mathematical, botanical, etc. applications and obtuseness being the human noun. Then again, you’d like to portray yourself as the sharpest knife in the drawer so we’ll let you keep your edge!
            _____________________________________________________

            Obtusity

            Variant of obtuse

            adjective

            not sharp or pointed; blunt

            greater than 90 degrees and less than 180 degrees: an obtuse angle

            slow to understand or perceive; dull or insensitive

            not producing a sharp impression; not acute: an obtuse pain

            Origin of obtuse
            Classical Latin obtusus, blunted, dull, past participle of obtundere: see obtund

          • truebearing

            You went through all of this just to make admitting you were wrong more oblique?
            Of course, your real motive was getting even with me, but you needed to give yourself a facade for both. Very narcissistic of you.

            You’ll have to bother someone else now. I have work to do.

          • Americana

            There’s a reason why obtusity isn’t the preferred form. No, I don’t get even. I simply explain myself. “Very narcissistic of you” is going to be your freakin’ refrain for every post now? I’ll remember to return the favour because, frankly, I’m sick of the insult tactics used by certain web sites as an abbreviated form of writing rebuttals. They chose to do this because it’s less labour intensive, it’s takes no effort and its takes no brainpower. It’s predictable, it’s classic misdirection, and it’s the most cheap-ass tack to take. Only those who are intellectually bankrupt of intellectually bereft of better rebuttal material resort to it. But have it your way, I’ll happily oblige since it was your choice.

          • tagalog

            OK, skip the “obtusity” and substitute “density.”

          • Americana

            Are you an actual Filipino tagalog speaker? How do you feel the Philippines is holding up to Islamist pressure?

            No, I wouldn’t substitute the word “density” unless you’re speaking about the density and layers to my arguments.

          • tagalog

            Q.1: No.
            Q.2: I have no idea. The Filipinos often show good sense, but I was not a fan of the Marcoses or Quezon.

            No, that wasn’t where I was going with the “density” thing.

          • Americana

            So why’d you pick that BB handle then? The reason I pointed it out is that I worked w/a Filippino immigrant journalist for years. He’s always trying to get me to give him those partly developed duck eggs that they open up and eat. (I can’t remember the tagalog word for them.)

          • tagalog

            What do you care why I picked it?

          • Americana

            It’s a VERY straightforward question. (Cue some paranoia!) It’s pretty evident I’d had a Filipino friend for a long time if I mentioned ‘tagalog’ being a language and that he wanted me to supply him w/fertilized duck eggs. You’ve gotta admit, it’s not very likely that all that many others on this web site would have picked up on what your BB handle ‘tagalog’ means. Consider the question voided. ;(

          • tagalog

            I picked it as a matter of free association when I registered with Disqus.

          • truebearing

            ” (Cue some paranoia!) ”

            Using psychological diagnoses as insults? Throwing around terms of psychology to win an argument? But you are opposed to that kind of thing, according to this comment you previously made:

            “”Very narcissistic of you” is going to be your freakin’ refrain for every post now? I’ll remember to return the favour because, frankly, I’m sick of the insult tactics used by certain web sites as an abbreviated form of writing rebuttals. They chose to do this because it’s less labour intensive, it’s takes no effort and its takes no brainpower. It’s predictable, it’s classic misdirection, and it’s the most cheap-ass tack to take. Only those who are intellectually bankrupt of intellectually bereft of better rebuttal material resort to it.”

            And this…

            “Of course, the whole point of understanding that sentence (or sentences) would involve making some admissions about the excessive reliance on throwing around psychiatric pronouncements in these political arguments (as if laymens’ opinions carried any real kind of psychiatric weight!!) instead of the various “diagnoses” merely providing the wild, insane coloring the person is trying to convey w/their most rabid and most emotional graffiti. But it’s becoming waaaaayyyyy too prevalent a political tactic, I’m sorry to say. Those of you who don’t recognize it, you’re not looking hard enough or you’re using it too much yourself as a debate tactic to feel you can give it up.”

            And then there is this…

            “Kevin would have been a monster regardless as evidenced by his early sociopathic actions that his parents didn’t recognize for what they were. You don’t stop someone like that from becoming what he is. Jeffrey Dahmer became a mass murdering sociopathic sexual cannibal by traveling along that path from his childhood. That question of nature vs nurture will always be there but, to me, if someone becomes a Jeffrey Dahmer, the potential was there and it found EARLY EXPRESSION in his childhood which fixated the child on these sorts of sexual fetishistic experiences. That’s NOTHING like the schizophrenic anger this guy seems to have begun to suffer.”

            You were really flinging those psychological terms around with reckless abandon!

            I guess you proved one thing. You’re a hypocrite.

          • Americana

            No hypocrisy involved anywhere, I didn’t throw around psychiatric diagnoses to win the arguments. I used simple logic. I’ll break down those responses for you one by one since they’re not all identical in content. The first one you cited — (Cue paranoia) — is simple recognition of the fact that a poster (tagalog) was fearful about revealing something as simple as how he arrived at his name. I freaked him out because I’ve got Filipino friends and I knew the word ‘tagalog’ meant a Filipino language. It also could have been he found it even more weird that I knew about the habit of Pacific people devouring duck embryos in the shell? Who knows, but writing out >>> (Cue paranoia) — was a shorthand way for me to say OK, enough, who gives a rip about who you are, I won’t ask another question. I wasn’t trying to WIN AN ARGUMENT. I was trying to say shove it, it’s not important, don’t get your undies in a wad.

            I’m not sure why you chose these examples as illustrating me being hypocritical since I’m NOT THROWING AROUND diagnoses at people in these statements. Being critical of someone’s posting behavior and throwing around psychiatric diagnoses are TWO different things. As for your modus operandi, it’s still THRIVING, and you’ve shown that you’re simply incapable of discussion without throwing insults. So, to add to my narcissism, you’ve now said in another post that I’ve got problems w/PROJECTION. Your running tally of PREDICTABILITY is extremely high on my Richter Scale of the Ridiculous. Should I tell you what your next insult will be?

            1) The first post is a straightforward acknowledgement that you’ve called me a narcissist in almost every post for the last 20 posts or so. Caliing you out on that is not an insult if it’s been the modus operandi of several FPM posters and it’s also your principal tactic of choice. Also, if your point is that I insulted you by giving you a diagnosis, I DIDN’T LABEL YOU w/a diagnosis. Care to give it a second read and confirm where I was throwing around a diagnosis directed at you in that post? That post is entirely a statement of fact, no diagnosis anywhere in sight.

            2) Second example is also a DIRECT example of you folks trying to denigrate my posts by claiming they’re garble. If hieronymous was able to decipher my meaning, all of you folks should have been able to do just as well using the same tools that hieronymous did — your brains and a pair of reading glasses. As for my mentioning that use of psychobabble is a regular debate tactic, you’ve admitted that in other posts it’s what’s done (“because the libtards and the Dimocrats do it”) so I’m not sure why you consider it a big deal I’m pointing out the tactic in that post. ***POINTING THAT OUT AS A TACTIC IS STILL NOT me assigning diagnoses to individual FPM posters in that post or any other post.*** Certainly, I’m not calling anyone a narcissist NOR HAVE I EVER CALLED AN FPMer poster a narcissist.

            3) The Kevin post? That’s NOT ME labeling this kid, that’s the premise of the movie. The Kevin post was about a movie that directly addressed psychopathology in a child as he grew to adulthood and his parents realized too late he was a true psychopath. Not my diagnosis and since he isn’t a Front Page Mag poster child, you can’t count him! Jeffrey Dahmer was diagnosed before his trial and, if you followed the trial at all, you would have read that. I think since he’s NOT a politician and he’s not an FPMer that I know of (certainly not now, he’s dead from a jailhouse beating), it’s a moot point that I wrote about him. You, on the other hand, MADE THE CLAIM THAT MOST OF THESE SORTS OF KILLERS COME FROM LIBERAL HOMES. My god, now that takes supreme balls-to-the-wall gustiness to make that kind of demographic wild man claim! I was simply BREATHLESS when you pulled that one. And then, to have the first person I thought of as a killer prove to NOT be from a LIBERAL home, but he was from a MIDDLE CLASS HOME, well, it did kind of sink that statistic.

            So I believe I’ve cleared myself of all charges of hypocrisy and of throwing psychobabble diagnoses around willy nilly. But if the charge is already considered to be judged and sentenced (kind of like the Islamic kangaroo courts) then I’ll certainly join the rest of you and begin dishing out accurate diagnoses fast and furiously. Otherwise, if I were you, I’d simply fold my tent and live to riposte another day.

          • truebearing

            This brings up an interesting epistemological question: can the dense understand their own density?

          • Americana

            I’m well aware of that, that’s the whole point of making such a sarcastic remark.

          • tagalog

            Was it sarcastic? I guess I missed that.

          • hiernonymous

            At the time of this post, you have written 714 to Americana’s 508. Just saying….

          • truebearing

            How long has each one been posting here? The ratio is more telling than the total. Also, Americana posts over and over on one thread, whereas Judahlevi usually posts once or twice, sometimes a few more. There is no comparison when it comes to frequency per thread. Why didn’t you see that? Jerking the old trigger finger again?

          • hiernonymous

            “There is no comparison when it comes to frequency per thread. Why didn’t you see that? Jerking the old trigger finger again?”

            No doubt. But Judah invoked the total, not the ratio, so I was obliged to respond to the post as he wrote it, not to the post as you think he should have written it.

            My trigger finger may be old, as you indelicately point out, but it squeezes, thank you very much.

          • Americana

            One also posts relative to the number of personal challenges THROWN in one’s direction! So let’s not forget the breakdown of how many challenge posts I’ve had to answer vs how many original generative/original thought ones I’ve pumped out. I’d say the ratio is about 15-1, challenge to original thoughts.
            ____________________________________________________

            You lay off the STUPID CHALLENGES like this following one and I might not make so many responses to them. Also, please note that right at the end of your following post you’ve added yet another PSYCHOLOGICAL DIAGNOSIS to my list of character flaws:

            truebearing Americana • a day ago

            (AMERICANA) “It’s sheer bombast to try to conflate them all.”

            (TRUEBEARING) Interesting choice of words. You tend to conflate things, and bombastically at that. Now we can add projection to the list of characteristics of narcissists that you have shown.

        • truebearing

          “Empty theorizing based on nothing but fictionalized psychiatric interpolation is what exactly to you?”

          That was incoherent. It made no sense. If you write things like this, expect criticism of your writing. The goal of writing is to communicate ideas clearly. Read Daniel’s work as a tutorial. If you can’t follow his clarity, you have major comprehension issues.

          • Americana

            Jeepers, dig around very much in hopes of finding SOMETHING you can hang your hat on?

            I’m responding TO THIS THREAD because Daniel communicated his thinking all too CLEARLY. Got it?

          • truebearing

            Your first sentence makes no sense. perhaps it isn’t fair to single it out for criticism when so many of your sentences are gibberish, but I’m trying to figure out what your point is. Maybe I’m asking the wrong person.

            Please explain what “fictionalized psychiatric interpolation” means, if possible.

          • hiernonymous

            Let me take a stab.

            Interpolation is the act of trying to predict the values of missing data by using available data to establish trends and probabilities.
            Psychiatric interpolation would be the attempt to use a small set of data, presumably behavioral, to try to establish a broader psychiatric diagnosis.
            It would be fictional because the practitioner, lacking psychiatric training, would not be in a position to meaningfully interpolate the data, and would be engaged in an exercise in incompetence, malice, or both. It’s a bit like financial or military analysts who, having plotted a few data points on a graph, simply draw a line that runs somewhere through the mass of points on a slope convenient to the conclusion he wishes to reach and announces that this is his “assessment.”

            I’d say that the phrase adequately captures the now-habitual practice on this board of labeling political enemies as “sociopaths” or “narcissists” or whatever diagnosis suits your momentary snit.

            Of course, that comment, rather than discouraging you, will lead you to double down on the pseudopsychiatric babble, much like a toddler who has discovered that repeating the f-bomb gets a very interesting reaction from mommy. Not sure how you imagine that this sort of thing is more sophisticated than “doodle dork,” unless you’re completely unable to distinguish between content and package.

          • Judahlevi

            Another one who believes that condescension makes one a more intelligent poster – wrong. Condescension says something about you, but it has nothing to do with intellectual ability.

            You have also labeled the intelligent individual you are writing to with your own “momentary snit.” Leftists don’t notice their own hypocrisy even when it is right in front of their face.

            Greenfield is more cognizant of the human condition than either you or “Americana” – whatever that is. If there was missing data, I would trust his ability to connect the dots to establish a trend or end result than either one of you.

          • hiernonymous

            “Another one who believes that condescension makes one a more intelligent poster …”

            You have some curious ideas on causality. And condescension, for that matter.

            “Leftists don’t notice their own hypocrisy even when it is right in front of their face.”

            You may be a perfectly bright fellow, but when I see people ranting about supposed general unsavory characteristics of “the left” or “the right,” I find it hard to credit them as such. You’re letting your fanaticism slip into the open.

            “If there was missing data, I would trust his ability to connect the dots to establish a trend or end result than either one of you.”

            Of course you would. It’s human nature to trust those who confirm that our own viewpoint is valid. What’s not clear from your post is why you think that anyone not personally interested in you should be interested in whom you trust.

          • Judahlevi

            You may like playing this game, but you don’t do it well.

            You are not the first individual who tried to play the “teacher” role on the internet. So this is where your condescension comes from.

            You do know it comes across as extremely smug and arrogant – don’t you? And you may be a “perfectly stupid fellow” but who knows? I guess you try to be enigmatic.

            Actually, you are perfectly transparent.

          • hiernonymous

            I appreciate your attempt to teach me.

            After a bit of reflection, you might come to savor the irony implicit in your post.

          • Judahlevi

            “I appreciate your attempt to teach me.”

            Anytime.

          • truebearing

            “I appreciate your attempt to teach me.”

            That was a blatant lie. You’ve done nothing but express contempt for his views. You don’t appreciate being taught by anyone, as that would put you in the inferior role of the student, as opposed to the omniscient teacher.

          • hiernonymous

            You really don’t understand a thing you read, do you?

          • truebearing

            Yes. Yes I do, and that is why I responded accordingly. The only thing that exceeds your contempt of others is your hubris.

          • hiernonymous

            Judah: You are not the first individual who tried to play the “teacher” role on the internet.
            Hiernonymous: I appreciate your attempt to teach me.
            Truebearing: That was a blatant lie…You don’t appreciate being taught by anyone…

            Here’s hoping that the juxtaposition helps.

          • truebearing

            The only things you understand about human nature are the negative characteristics and motives. It is all part of your tendency to project.

          • truebearing

            “Interpolation is the act of trying to predict the values of missing data by using available data to establish trends and probabilities. Psychiatric interpolation would be the attempt to use a small set of data, presumably behavioral, to try to establish a broader psychiatric diagnosis.
            It would be fictional because the practitioner, lacking psychiatric training, would not be in a position to meaningfully interpolate the data, and would be engaged in an exercise in incompetence, malice, or both.”

            You took a stab and got yourself. That was nothing more than an attempt at grandstanding to show everyone how clever you aren’t.

            First of all, Daniel wasn’t interpolating anything, so the word is misused. He wasn’t plotting the probability of narcissists to commit specific acts, which is obvious to anyone who thinks straighter than a corkscrew (yourself and Americana duly exempted). We were all talking about the already established psychological traits of narcissists, and in particular, malignant narcissists, then comparing them to the dishonest, ruthless, malignant behavior of the Left. No interpolation needed, nor was it appropriate.

            In addition, the original comment began as a declarative statement which suddenly turned into a poorly focused question. You didn’t address the entire comment because you knew it didn’t make any sense either, but you attacked anyway because you are driven by malice.

            “Not sure how you imagine that this sort of thing is more sophisticated than “doodle dork,””

            That doesn’t surprise me. You will twist meaning in any way necessary to level an attack on anyone who has questioned your superiority. Whether the topic is narcissism, sociopathy, or malignant narcissism as it relates to evil, you seem to always take umbrage.

            I know it bothers you no end to see the Left labeled as evil, but not because you are opposed to applying negative labels to groups. Your maunderings on collective white guilt and the need for “atonement” on the part of all whites spoke for itself. No, you bristle at using psychological terminology to describe the Left because you know it is accurate and effective.

            As for your arrogance regarding “pseudopsychiatric babble,” you are no more expert than anyone else opining here on these topics, furthermore, you google information frequently when cornered, then act as if exhaustive knowledge is solidly in your possession, proving yourself to be a rank hypocrite for assailing others who research a topic and then employ terminology to make a greater point.

            Then again, you never do attempt to make a constructive point. Your modus operandi is pure Procrustean Method, where you try to lop off the heads or feet of your opponent to make yourself appear taller. I must say, despite your inevitable whining, this tendency is quite in line with the traits of a narcissist, or perhaps a malignant narcissist.

          • DB1954

            Hierno is best described as a contrarian. He doesn’t reveal his own political views. He seems content merely to knock down others.

          • Judahlevi

            I know his political views – I have met his kind before.

          • truebearing

            He’s afraid to state his because he can’t handle criticism. Curiously, a classic trait of narcissism. He also avoids revealing his views because it reduces his tactical/strategic advantage.

          • hiernonymous

            “We were all talking about the already established psychological traits
            of narcissists, and in particular, malignant narcissists, then comparing
            them to the dishonest, ruthless, malignant behavior of the Left. No
            interpolation needed, nor was it appropriate.”

            That is interpolation, whether you acknowledge it or not.

            “Your maunderings on collective white guilt and the need for “atonement” on the part of all whites spoke for itself.”

            Apparently not. My own posts explicitly and repeatedly rejected the idea of “atonement” on the part of whites; your use of the quotation marks indicates that you either didn’t understand what you were reading, or that you are not being honest in your characterization of the conversations. Neither casts you in a particularly complimentary light. Not sure why you think that the unvarnished truth isn’t sufficient to make a point.

            “As for your arrogance regarding “pseudopsychiatric babble,” you are no more expert than anyone else opining here on these topics…”

            Which is why I do not turn to the DSM when talking politics.

            “…furthermore, you google information frequently when cornered, then act
            as if exhaustive knowledge is solidly in your possession, proving
            yourself to be a rank hypocrite for assailing others who research a
            topic and then employ terminology to make a greater point.”

            So let’s see if we have this straight – you’ve imagined a behavior on my part, and in the same breath (figuratively speaking, of course) you offer your imaginary portrait as “proof” of my rank hypocrisy…hmmm.

            “I must say, despite your inevitable whining, this tendency is quite in
            line with the traits of a narcissist, or perhaps a malignant narcissist.”

            Of course, that comment, rather than discouraging you, will lead you to
            double down on the pseudopsychiatric babble, much like a toddler who has
            discovered that repeating the f-bomb gets a very interesting reaction
            from mommy.

            Called it.

          • DB1954

            Except that there have been medical professionals who have used the term “narcissist” with specific reference to Barack Obama. To be sure, none have “diagnosed” him with that mental illness, but several have at least described him in this way.

            “Sociopath” isn’t a medical or psychiatric term, and thus the category of sociopath was never found in the DSM, either the DSM-IV or the new, DSM-V. If I’m not mistaken, and I could be, the term sociopath is recognized and used largely by psychologists but not by psychiatrists. Further, just because sociopathy doesn’t appear in the DSM, doesn’t mean that it’s not a real phenomenon. Surprisingly perhaps, the new DSM (V) no longer lists “narcissism” as a mental illness.

            My point is that what you call “pseudo-psychiatric babble” was always babble to someone but served others as a legitimate descriptor. As a practical matter, you simply can’t restrict the use of these terms to medical professionals. How will sociologists or teachers or others who aren’t medical professionals be able to communicate concepts from the medical/mental health community?

          • hiernonymous

            As a teacher, I don’t attempt to make diagnoses of my students or use psychiatric terminology. I describe their behaviors. If a psychiatric professional has made a diagnosis and needs to communicate that to me, that’s an appropriate time to use the terminology.

            Plainly, that’s not the context on this board.

            As for the term sociopathy, that’s currently contained in the ICD as part of antisocial personality disorder. Antisocial personality disorder was referred to as sociopathic personality in the DSM until 1980, though you correctly note that it’s no longer found there.

            In previous posts, I’ve noted that I don’t object to the use of terms that gave both clinical and colloquial usages, as long as the latter is intended. For example, I specifically noted that the objectionable aspect of one of truebearing’s uses of the term “narcissist” was that he specifically referred to the DSM, making it clear that he wasn’t using the term casually.

            I should hope that it would be obvious why habitually slandering one’s political opponents with such accusations is logically empty and, to use the term I’ve applied here, unseemly.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            “I should hope that it would be obvious why habitually slandering one’s
            political opponents with such accusations is logically empty and, to use
            the term I’ve applied here, unseemly. ”

            Tell it to the DNC, BSNBC, nancy pelosi, harry reid, joe biden.

          • hiernonymous

            If and when I observe such behavior, I disapprove, regardless of the political affiliations of the offender.

            You appear to have mistaken me for one of the zealots.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Fight fire with fire.

            WW2 wasn’t won at the Peace Conference table.

          • Americana

            Likening what is done in what should be substantive debate w/what needs to be done on the field of battle are two entirely different things.

          • truebearing

            You couldn’t coherently articulate the difference, as you have so generously proven.

          • Judahlevi

            And who cares if you disapprove or approve?

            Anyone?

          • hiernonymous

            Nobody here should have any reason to care about my disapproval as such. It’s the reasons expressed for the disapproval that matter. I would say that, based on the comments, truebearing cares about it very much indeed.

            In your case, judging by the vehemence with which you’ve tried to make sure that I understand my shortcomings in tone, style, and role, I’d infer that you care quite a bit. But your underlying point is accurate – my disapproval shouldn’t carry any weight as such; it should carry weight only in proportion to how well-supported it is.

          • Judahlevi

            Your inference would be incorrect.

            And I don’t see anyone lining up to say they care much about your judgmentalism one way or another.

          • truebearing

            I will defend myself from your snide swipes, as I will defend others. If you construe that as caring about your disaproval, you are truly delusional.

          • hiernonymous

            Of course.

          • Judahlevi

            “In previous posts, I’ve noted that I don’t object to the use of terms that gave both clinical and colloquial usages…”

            Yes, it is so important that we know what you “object” to and what you don’t. Without that knowledge, how can we even begin to express ourselves?

            Talk about “unseemly”…

            How many “I”s in your post?

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            hiernonymous is in love with himself.

          • Judahlevi

            I have heard that narcissists are like that too.

            You don’t think that…

          • truebearing

            At least someone is.

          • hiernonymous

            Just the ones necessary to make the meaning understandable. As truebearing has brought up and miscast my previous comments already on this thread, I thought being precise about what I was objecting to was helpful.

            That is “unseemly” in what way?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            It’s a little “I” Obama problem.

          • Judahlevi

            Yes, I see the connection. Thanks.

          • Americana

            DO TELL!!!! Please produce the “medical professionals” who have used the term “narcissist” w/specific reference to Barack Obama. I’m dying to know where they went to school and how large their practices are and what their psychiatric specialities will turn out to be!! Oh, and what their political affiliations might be. Because, based on the demonstrated demonizing use of psychiatric terminology on this BB, it’s quite obvious why these terms are being bandied about w/such desperate, lame-ass, reckless abandon.

          • Americana

            By George, he’s got it! Of course, the whole point of understanding that sentence (or sentences) would involve making some admissions about the excessive reliance on throwing around psychiatric pronouncements in these political arguments (as if laymens’ opinions carried any real kind of psychiatric weight!!) instead of the various “diagnoses” merely providing the wild, insane coloring the person is trying to convey w/their most rabid and most emotional graffiti. But it’s becoming waaaaayyyyy too prevalent a political tactic, I’m sorry to say. Those of you who don’t recognize it, you’re not looking hard enough or you’re using it too much yourself as a debate tactic to feel you can give it up.

            @Judahlevi — hieronymous simply explained my thinking as he interpreted that sentence (or was it 2 sentences?). Since there were many of you who simply chose to denigrate that post and pretend it held no contextual value, I find it strange you’d find hieronymous’ very accurate understanding of it to be “condescending.” What, he shouldn’t have bothered explaining it to you? I should have just sucked up the rudeness and the criticism OR come back and written basically the same explanation? NO WAY. I just won’t do that each and every time some people pull this sort of pathetic one-upsmanship.

            You’re more than welcome to laud Greenfield and claim he’s “more cognizant of the human condition” than I am based on the very brief acquaintance you’ve had w/my writing vs the long-term acquaintance you obviously have w/Greenfield’s writing. You can believe Greenfield is more capable of “connecting the dots” than I am, but, regardless of biases, I expect you to read editorials and posted comments as an information stream and be able to differentiate between facts, fallacy and fantasy.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Thank you for your contribution to the Journal of Unread Leftard Rants.

          • Debbie G

            Americana says “…..lay off the stupid challenges and I might not make so many responses to them…”
            Just wondering if there is a diagnosis for someone who always has to have the last word.

          • Americana

            Listen, Debbiedowner, I don’t have to have the last word. But, as in this instance, I’m not going to simply ignore all the stupid challenges you folks pump out. Some I’ll ignore, others I won’t.

            Look at the post you chose to reply to. It’s hidden deep in the thread, it’s critical of my thinking, it’s also critical of my writing while lauding Greenfield’s writing, so wow, it’s got the TRIFECTA of propaganda potential for ya. Why not challenge me on the CONTENT in a post of mine? Instead, you pull this kind of ankle biter action. Well, you’ve screwed the pooch w/your choice of post, it’s pretty clear.

          • Debbie G

            Thanks for proving my point. Let’s see if you’ll do it again.

        • Drakken

          You really should stick to training dogs, because your observations of human behavior leaves a lot to be desired and most often are utterly wrong.

          • Americana

            Ah, so after umpteen MONTHS of claiming I’m not involved w/canine Search and Rescue and that I’m not training dogs for SAR work, you’re all willing to admit that maybe, just maybe that is a true detail about my life? HOW FUNNY! Of course, you’re only using this as a slap upside my head to make me face up to my personal failings, nonetheless, it works both ways. It’s also an admission that you were flat-out wrong! I’ll have to remember this reverse psychology trick to get you to admit all the other Jihad Watch denialist commentary you pumped out about my life that was false!

            Maybe the next truth I should get you to acknowledge should be that my eldest sister was a dean at a women’s university in the Middle East. Because, despite the ADAMANT statements from JW regulars that it just wasn’t possible based on HADITHS they posted and because of SHARIA law, it’s actually happening that Middle Eastern women are going to university and women educators are in charge of their education. I’m rather dogged in pursuit of things like this and I’m howling w/laughter over this admission about SAR dogs being made only in a vain attempt to make me bemoan my lack of understanding of human behavior. By the way, this is what makes me a very effective dog trainer. I’m good at psychological evaluation.

      • Douglas J. Bender

        Self-esteem is an attribute, a characteristic, that has different “degrees”. But maybe it’s unhealthy to focus on that characteristic, especially at the expense of other characteristics such as humility, perseverance, and so on. Can someone have too much self-esteem esteem? (Not a typo.)

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      If he was given everything, his parents should have given him hookers too – given him a season pass to the Bunny Ranch in Nevada.
      .

    • BS77

      Check out the film We Need to Talk About Kevin, Tilda Swinton in leading role…..awesome film that depicts the inability of parents to be honest about their spoiled , demanding narcissist psychopath child. Instead of setting limits, weak parents appease the child , enable the the child and infantilize the child all the way to adulthood….giving them whatever they want and creating a a monster.

      • Americana

        Kevin would have been a monster regardless as evidenced by his early sociopathic actions that his parents didn’t recognize for what they were. You don’t stop someone like that from becoming what he is. Jeffrey Dahmer became a mass murdering sociopathic sexual cannibal by traveling along that path from his childhood. That question of nature vs nurture will always be there but, to me, if someone becomes a Jeffrey Dahmer, the potential was there and it found EARLY EXPRESSION in his childhood which fixated the child on these sorts of sexual fetishistic experiences. That’s NOTHING like the schizophrenic anger this guy seems to have begun to suffer. But then again, it’s early days for reading about this latest murderer and analyzing him and his actions.

        • truebearing

          Then why do similar childhood experiences seem to produce mass murderers, serial killers, etc? Childhood development has a lot to do with pathologies manifested later in life. Like the maxim, “evil men rule when good men don’t,” children who are loved and taught positive moral values develop a conscience that resists evil.

          Notice that most of these mass murderers come from homes where the parents were liberal, therefore the parents don’t teach them morals and allow them excessive freedom to experiment with drugs, etc. Likewise, look at the near monopoly on terrorism by Muslims, then consider the teachings of Islam. Muslim children are inculcated with hate and destructive beliefs from day one. Childhood development is inseparable from the values taught at a very early age.

          • Americana

            I didn’t disagree about childhood experiences leading to psychiatric and psychological pathologies later in life. What I’m objecting to is the idea that liberal homes produce more pathology than socially regimented, highly religious or otherwise dogmatic homes where the rules are very clear and where they’re instilling highly regarded rules among many different social groups.

            Jeffrey Dahmer came from a LIBERAL home? I must just not be reading the same news reports as others here!!! Most of the truly heinous murderers I know of came from middle class homes w/fairly nice families who were unaware of their children’s predilection for antisocial behaviour because the parents had communicated enough good social behaviour to their child the kid realized he’d have to hide his hideous behaviour from their parents. Off to check on Dahmer’s history.. I truly believe we’re often trying to identify demographic trends we see in the news and we’re assigning them to groups we don’t approve and we simply don’t have the demographic statistics to back up our assertions. We’re just pointing and that’s that.

      • Drakken

        Spare the rod, spoil the child comes to mind.

    • Drakken

      You nailed it brilliantly!

  • David

    I’ve read some of Elliot Rodger’s manifesto/autobiography. This manifesto in terms of style and what it says about the writer actually reminds me a lot of Mein Kampf. I’m a history buff and so I’ve been reading some of that in order to get an idea of Hitler’s psychology. There seem to be a lot of similarities in terms of
    narcissism and hatred. This guy seems to hate women as much as Hitler
    hated Jews. Difference is that he also had a strong desire for women. If
    this guy had gotten control of a country imagine how much suffering he
    would have caused.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      There’s a common denominator. These types of people are narcissistic and would rather die than live in a world they don’t control.

      I doubt he had a strong desire for women. His real desire was to kill.

      • Douglas J. Bender

        He had a strong desire to exert power over others. Attractive women rejecting him simply forced him to confront his own apparent powerlessness. Rather than admitting his powerlessness, he simply decided to do the only thing he could think of that would force others to acknowledge his power — take their lives.

      • Americana

        Somehow I really doubt this social rejection wouldn’t have been moderated if he’d been luckier in love (i.e., he wouldn’t have turned into a murderer until possibly later in life). Screwing himself to oblivion every couple of days wouldn’t have given him time to think about rejection. To be in that state and be a virgin at that age or to be unmarried when you’re driving a BMW is a sign of someone who’s just not with it socially… Let’s not overcomplicate the psychological complexities of his case. It’s fairly clear why he went batsh*t and it’s not because of craving ultimate power over tons of people.

  • rodin

    I think one of the commonalities of these people is that they want the world to pay attention to them. It validates Osama’s beliefs if we all cringe in shock and terror at what he did, rather than ignoring his beliefs.
    Bad people will be drawn to anything that gives them power over others – that is why Iran is developing nukes, and why North Korea has them.
    In my experience, there is a Mafia that has gained access to drugs that affect behavior – drugs that can knock you out, interrogation drugs, drugs that affect urges, etc. These people are among us (like many Mafias obviously are), and I assume that they have hit many more targets than just little old me.
    Clinton once declared his decade “the decade of the brain”, and it was indeed – he didn’t know the half of it.
    But I think Greenfield is onto something here, in looking at the commonalities of a person who kills for an ideology, and a person who kills for something on the surface that seems to have nothing to do with ideology.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Evil is obsessed with controlling other people. It has nothing of value internally. If it doesn’t have power, it has nothing to live for.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        “Evil is obsessed with controlling other people.”

        Socialism in a nutshell.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          exactly

      • Douglas J. Bender

        Huh. That’s a nice summary of a comment I just made about Eliot Rodgers.

  • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

    You make a dozen good points not noted anywhere else.

    Understanding evil does not make it “understandable.” It isn’t a mistake; nor a mere moral failure in a moment’s weakness. Evil festers; it has to be cultivated until it is heightened and ripe for harvest. As you note the evil person wants to bring himself to the point of deliverance.

    Most importantly one has to keep evil from power. Envy allows evil to take over. Weakness, or a lack of diligence, allows evil to infest a society. But most of all, the belief that there is no evil, only illness, blinds us to the danger.

    When my wife heard the media regurgitate his “reasons,” I told her they weren’t the “reasons” and it is not even worth hearing them out. The “manifesto” is part of the attack. It’s the humiliation part: adding insult to injury. It’s the “you brought it on yourself” blame-the-victim psychological component of the attack aimed at those who are vulnerable enough to feel they had a role or should have done something for the perpetrator to assuage his hatred.

    I often feel the media becomes an accomplice after the fact. If coupled with an editorial like yours the “manifesto” would be denied and exposed for the propaganda and self-promotion that it is. But reporting it straight is exactly what the perpetrator wants.

    • ron44

      well said..

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Exactly. It’s the killer explaining why his victims deserved to die.

      The people trying to politicize it one way or another are playing into his game.

      I’ve written before about the fact that the media plays a significant role in breeding these killers.

    • nimbii

      If the media can continue to convince us it’s society’s fault, the socialist blank checks will be written to restructure institutions to produce conforming people.

  • Lanna

    These killers kill for the joy of it, they are possessed by evil, and lack any kind of happiness, they want to take their hatred out on innocent people!

  • Webb Cook

    I want to remind everyone decent that this type of evil is exactly what we see on the part of the FPM trolls who pop up desperate to engage us in their phony arguments. They also seek attention and fame, and in their twisted minds, they get it with their long running screeds against racists, righties, death penalty supporters, you name it. They live vicariously through Obama, Hillary, bin Laden, and now this latest guy Rodger. Their manifestos they post on FPM are intended to shock us and scare us.

    • Americana

      Boy, you are COOKING THE WEBB if you think those are the reasons for disputing notions on Front Page Mag! Attention??? FAME???? Who are you kidding??? It’s all about ensuring the reality is what’s presented. Or disputing the unreality.

      I’d say Daniel Greenfield wouldn’t be able to have this list of mass murderers pass muster as one group w/the psychiatric descriptors he chose if he showed the list to some psychiatrists because only some of these people have shared commonalities. Not all mass murderers share the same motives. These guys certainly don’t.

      • Daniel Greenfield

        You’re assuming that psychiatric classifications are an absolute truth rather than flawed and constantly evolving categories, as any psychiatrist will admit

        • Americana

          Of course I’m not suggesting that psychiatric classifications aren’t evolving all the time!!!! Who would ever claim that? But certainly no psychiatrist would ever countenance you conflating these various murderers into a single category of similar/identical NARCISSISTIC rationale basis for their committing the murders they did on the scale they did. Besides, it’s patently clear that Osama bin Laden had PHILOSOPHICAL REASONS for targeting the West while this kid had SELFISH REASONS for targeting women. You may not wish to grant Osama bin Laden any moral latitude for his terrorism, nonetheless, if you took this article’s premise to a psychiatrist, you’d get no psychiatrists who would be willing to put their office’s stamp on it for approval. On that basis of that single instance where you make an egregious comparison between a political murderer and a personal murderer motivated by mental illness you nullify your article’s thesis.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            osama wasn’t selfish?

            osama and the rest of the cult believe that the Middle East belongs SOLELY to Muslims – and not one inch to non-Muslims.

            Isn’t that serfish?

            Isn’t socialism selfish – wanting the state to own everything – taking away what others have created, earned?

          • Americana

            Let’s keep to one discussion premise per thread. Otherwise my brain will explode. I don’t know about yours or Daniel’s but mine would go PFFFFFTKAPOW…

            There is no equivalency between Osama bin Laden’s political Islamist perspective and this poor deluded rejected guy. Some Saudis may have rejected Osama bin Laden while others lauded bin Laden, but the fact some rejected bin Laden doesn’t bring him down to the level of this deluded guy’s rationale for rejection as a motive for his murders. Same for the selfish narcissist motive. You can’t say “All murderers are selfish narcissists” and expect to sell that premise case after case after case in a court of law. WHY? Because it’s just not APPLICABLE to most cases, never mind this particular list of characters w/extremely diverse motives.

            Osama bin Laden attributed all the social degradation in the Middle East to the presence of Westerners and the Middle East’s dependence upon the oil business. Osama bin Laden was infuriated over the failure of the world to achieve a Palestinian state. Like most Muslim zealots, he was a religious zealot who didn’t evolve to a point where he should have recognized that Muslims SHOULD be oblivious to any negative influence from Western cultures. He wanted the ability to dictate the religio-cultural values of the Middle East by bringing back a renaissance of Wahhabist Islam. He sure isn’t the classic nut case like the guy who bitched about women not sleeping w/him. Let’s keep our perspective on the perpetrators!

          • Daniel Greenfield

            “There is no equivalency between Osama bin Laden’s political Islamist perspective and this poor deluded rejected guy.”

            Both dreamed of ruling the world. Both wanted absolute power over others. Both had issues with women.

          • Americana

            That BMW idiot “dreamed of ruling the world???” Both men wanted “absolute power over others?????” We must not be reading the same stories about this delusional head case. “Both had issues w/women”???? I’m not sure I’d say bin Laden “had issues w/women” simply because he was a Muslim and he was divorced once.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            It was in his manifesto.

            Bin Laden was championing an ideology one of whose major aims is the repression of women.

          • Americana

            That has NOTHING to do w/whether he’s got “a PROBLEM” w/women in the psychiatric sense that this guy had a problem w/rejection by women! The status of women is stipulated in the tenets of his faith and he DOESN’T HAVE ANY CONTROL over their expression. He was simply interested in maintaining the status quo and/or REINSTATING the status quo where an “erosion of Muslim values” had occurred (according to him). Besides, bin Laden’s “manifesto” has nothing to do w/this character’s “manifesto.”

            We may WISH men like Osama bin Laden would get thoroughly thrashed by the Muslim Women’s Liberation Movement but for now, in the throes of these revolutions, its impossible to tell who’s going to come out on top in each and every country.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Give Muslim girls guns and let them take revenge on the Muslim men who beat them.

            Give the 300 girls kidnapped by boko haram guns.

            Let’s see what happens.

            More Nakba for the prophet of Satan called Muhammed.

          • truebearing

            Did you read his manifesto? It doesn’t look like it. And if you did, you didn’t understand it very well.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Socialisma,

            OBL was “political”? Not ultra orthodox theogractic supremecist salmist?

            How dumb can you be.

            Maybe your head already exploded – pressure release from all the socialist crap you’ve been fed.

          • Americana

            How dumb can you be? Just because you’d like to be able to put bin Laden into a nice little category of Islamist supremacist and address his political ambitions only within that Islamist supremacist context. Or, rather, you’d like to JAM his theological political ambitions into the same narrow little box simply because it’s easier for you to look at geopolitically. It doesn’t mean that’s the case.

            I’m not a Socialist, not a Marxist, not a liberal, not a conservative, but most assuredly, I’m not interested in swallowing crap nor digesting crap.

          • Judahlevi

            One person’s “crap” is another person’s…? Don’t worry, no one is asking you to eat it.

            Anyone who claims to be the arbiter of ‘truth’ is someone with an inflated ego. They usually purport to be independent or neutral, but always know what is wrong with another’s post. I have seen this numerous times.

            The fact is that ‘truth’ is highly elusive, and your comments hold no more of it than anyone else. Your posts are very opinionated, but strong opinions do not equal truth.

            But keep telling yourself you know exactly what the truth is and what is “crap.” It is good for your self esteem.

          • Americana

            Did I say in the above that I’ve got a universal grasp on truth? Not at all. I just said I’m not interested in digesting blatant crap. I’m also not interested in PRODUCING blatant crap theories for others to consume. I’m tired of misinformation, disinformation and advocacy journalism that is guiding the American people off into a NeverEverEnding Land of political conspiracy theories and improbabilities. Most of the time, if you know enough history, you can arrive at the truth or a close approximation of the truth. In the sense that I can differentiate “crap” from “the good stuff” or distinguish between “good opinions” from “strong opinions,” that’s an indication of whether I’m allowing myself to reason or I’m simply giving a knee-jerk, jingoistic reaction.

            The “truth” is highly elusive in SOME CASES but NOT IN ALL CASES. This is one of those cases where no one would put together these personalities and claim they overlapped in any way, shape or form in the psychiatric sense. It’s sheer bombast to try to conflate them all.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            You have ZERO grasp on reality.

            Can you please offer yourself as a hostage to boko haram – in exchange for several girls? A dumb white broad like yourself must be a hot item – and boko haram would probably not care how fat you are.

          • Americana

            I’m sure Boko Haram would certainly love to take on a BSer like yourself who’s young enough he’s still got a few decades worth of tread to serve an Islamo-supremacist master in need of a barbecue slave. Be sure and take your spices! (You never know what you’ll find over there!!!!)

          • truebearing

            “It’s sheer bombast to try to conflate them all.”

            Interesting choice of words. You tend to conflate things, and bombastically at that. Now we can add projection to the list of characteristics of narcissists that you have shown.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Nah. How could ANYONE put your OBL in the Islamosupremecist box.

            it would be Islamophobic – and Islamophobia is WORSE than Global Warming/Global Climate Change or ETERNAL NAKBA.

          • Americana

            Obviously you’re missing my point, which is there were limits to OBL’s jihad dream. Where would Osama bin Laden have stopped his jihad? He said he had specific aims and that didn’t include taking over the entire world. His manifesto basically said get Westerners out of Muslim lands and get Westerners out of Saudi Arabia (because, don’t you know, that’s just the holiest of holy spots on the globe$#!!$!?).

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Islam’s Jihad’s ultimate goal is to bring the Dar al-Harb, namely us, into the Dar al-Islam.

            There’s a reason why Western Al Qaeda members call themselves Al-Amiriki or Al-Irlandi. They’re not planning to stop with the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

          • Americana

            No, Daniel, they’re called that because they’re American jihadists serving that cause in OTHER countries, not because they’re planning on carrying on w/jihad all around the world. If they had intentions to take over the United States why wouldn’t they call themselves al-Amriki el Berkeley? That stupid Tokyo Tina Adam Gadahn guy is called Al-Amriki because it identifies him. Gadahn is not planning on returning to the U.S. He think California is a hedonist hell-hole. There may be a percentage who believe that the world will eventually become Islamic by default or be forced to convert to Islam but since specific jihadists like Osama bin Laden spoke about driving Westerners out of Islamic lands, it’s more likely that’s their aim.

          • DB1954

            Why do you believe jihadists like Osama bin-Laden when they speak about their goals? You assume that they are telling the truth, by why should you believe them when they’ve said that they don’t owe non-Muslims anything?

          • Americana

            This world domination concept may be something that is being bandied about by imams but the reality of that kind of geographic sociological takeover is far more difficult to accomplish than is being acknowledged on any of the anti-jihad web sites. This is BIG TALK by BIG TALKER IMAMS who really don’t have the strategic chops to make anything happen viz world domination and their respective countries and governments certainly won’t go down that path of initiating war (w/the exception of some countries w/specific regional axes to grind). No, these loud-mouthed imams are like Jerry Falwell and the rest of our Crystal Cathedral religious salesmen. A move for a world takeover by Islam is not going to happen in the Western world for a century, IF EVER. Why not? Because we’ve got the armed forces superiority and we will have that tactical superiority for the foreseeable future. We’ve also got the ability to isolate ourselves strategically. Something which Europe does not.

            For now, the cultural imperatives behind the elevation of Islam are directed at historically Muslim countries. Considering that is exactly what Osama bin Laden has said was his aim in some of his longest manifestos, yes, I believe that, for now, the reality for Osama bin Laden was that he would have been content w/eliminating the Western presence in the Muslim world and achieving the creation of a Palestinian nation. At some point, you have to put strategic pictures together and say this is the percentage of probability to attach to this possibility. World-wide Islamic domination throughout the Dar-el-Harb? I gauge that at ZERO probability of success.

            Adolph Hitler did claim to have only limited aims on Western Europe however it was patently clear from his achievement of the Axis alignment that his intentions were INTERNATIONALLY UNLIMITED. So, no, I don’t see Hitler representing a parallel political threat to militant Islam. Political Islam has its very own self-limiting factors including sectarian schisms and no means of achieving a regional hierarchy that would enable a war machine to function on a worldwide scale.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Omar M. Ahmad of CAIR proclaimed that, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran…should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”

            http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/cairprofilestand.html

            and that’s a ‘moderate’ organization

          • Americana

            Daniel, many Muslims may be saying things like that because it is part of the theology of the faith. I believe CAIR and those who are dispatched to speak to the public proselytize in this way for all sorts of reasons. But CAIR and its connected individuals are only one part of Islam in America. More important, to me, is the fact that Islam hasn’t evolved to the point where it’s undergone a reformation that has fundamentally transformed the faith in ways we find less threatening to our way of life. Islam hasn’t begun to evolve until recently because evolution and interpretation of the tenets of the faith was violently eliminated. Apostasy that ends at the point of a sword effectively shuts down the discussion before it even gets going. But there have been relatively few true reformers over the lifetime of Islam who have made progress in ways I believe will be taken even further by American Muslims and European Muslims. Mustafa Kamel Ataturk arose from somewhere, so what made him able to create a SECULAR TURKEY at that point in time? He wasn’t a perfect individual, look what he allowed to happen, but he built a SECULAR Turkish state and it LASTED until the present day in the heart of the Middle East. We need to discover more men w/Ataturk’s philosophy and capabilities who are willing to undertake a fundamental reformation of their faith.

            We’ve arrived at an era when there are a great many Muslims who are outside the ring of the Middle Eastern countries where they are automatically likely to lose their lives if they run afoul of the imams over an apostasy charge. American and European Muslims stand a better chance of getting a reformation movement started and carrying it through to fruition than any of the Middle Eastern countries. But those Muslims who stand up to their faith and say “NO MORE” and who either leave their faith and proselytize against Islam like Hiirsan Ali or who choose to become militant Muslims against Militant Islam, they may be able to destroy the worst, most pernicious tenets of Islam from within. However the fight is carried on against the societal challenges of Islam, America faces a unique situation because of our continental isolation, our geographic neighbors and our present demographics.

          • DB1954

            Similarly, Adolph Hitler said that the 3rd Reich had limited claims on European real estate. At one time, he claimed that Germany’s legitimate claims were limited to Austria, the Rhineland, the Sudetenland, etc. But AH’s thinking soon “evolved” so that the Wehrmacht embarked on Operation Barbarossa and found itself fighting for German “Lebensraum” in Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and all points east.

            Of course there were limits to AH’s dream too. In the east, the limits were imposed by the Red Army.

          • truebearing

            You just used an insult, yet decry insults directed at you. You can’t have it both ways. Don’t dish out what you can’t take.

          • Drakken

            What you fail to grasp and understand is islam, and all that it brings to the world. Let me help you with your mental confusion where islam is concerned, and I have made it so simple that even you can understand it. Islam is islam, and where ever is goes, the blood always flows, without except, see? All better now.

          • DB1954

            Socialism is false altruism.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Obviously Bin Laden acted in the name of Islam. But that’s a general motive. What psychological profile led him to that motive?

            Murder in the name of an ideology appeals to certain kind of people.

          • Americana

            Daniel, there may well have been some narcissistic characteristics that led Osama bin Laden to commit himself to a life of jihad. But the signifiers of narcissism are different in these two cases in the same way their expression vindicates my making the distinction between their motivations. Conflating all narcissism as being roughly identical in the psychological profile of these two highly different individuals is psychiatric license of a kind that just won’t fly in a legitimate argument.

          • truebearing

            So now you’re arguing that Bin Laden’s philosophy was the root of his evil?

        • Douglas J. Bender

          I doubt that narcissistic psychiatrists will admit that, though.

    • laura r

      but, most of us are used to it. we just scroll on by, or answer them & they look foolish. the worst is twitter, but they have a block factor. stevie is mild next the real sickos. he just likes th play head games.

  • nimbii

    The difference between those on death row and the rest of us is they created perfectly good reasons for killing someone and then did so.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      exactly

  • D Brown

    The jury is still out Rodger. I say this because of his age and his family’s claim that he was suffering from mental illness. His age may be an indicator that he had reached a critical level of mental illness. 22 – 24 is the common age for males who suffer from severe depression and/or schizophrenia to reach the peak of it’s affects. And which if untreated can last indefinitely and leads to a cycle of decline, commonly resulting in suicide. He may have been a spoiled brat on a rant and hell bent, but if he was also suffering from an illness, that illness would be the reason for his violent behavior. His odd behavior could have been exactly the reason he was rejected. Mentally ill people rarely recognize their abnormal thoughts and actions as being the result of an illness, rather they blame everyone for treating them differently, particularly their parents. For more info go to: http://www.nami.org

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Indeed. They often view the gap between them and everyone else as malignant. But based on his manifesto, he wasn’t all that detached from reality.

    • DB1954

      I’d like to know if Rodger was using alcohol and/or cannabis, not only at the time he went on this rampage, but also in the time frame of late adolescence to age 22. I’d bet my last dollar he was.

  • http://www.clarespark.com/ Clare Spark

    The problem of evil is best understood in its historical context. I tried to do that with all the recent mass shootings. See my blogs on the subject here: http://clarespark.com/2014/05/25/links-to-blogs-on-mass-murderpop-culture/. “Links to blogs on mass murder/pop culture.” And please don’t blame “cultural Marxism”–an anti-Semitic game.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Osama bin Laden needed to draw the United States into a conflict.

    OBL did it in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam supreme. Like all Muslims, he was part of an Islamic movement that is obligated to wage jihad (holy war) in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam supreme. Indeed, he was a Sunni Muslim dedicated to fighting jihad (holy war) violently. His many attacks were acts of jihad (holy war) in the cause of Allah. The movement he was loyal to is greater and much bigger than he was.

    As a matter of fact, all Muslims in the world are jihadists in one form or another, either violent jihadists like OBL, or non-violent jihadists like the millions of Muslims that have migrated to the infidel world for the nefarious purposes of mass Muslim infiltration and eventual demographic conquest, and they are not all morally equivalent to Elliot Rodgers, Christopher Dorner, Anders Brievik, etc., as all Muslims are trapped within a system of totalitarianism posing as a religion. As there is no freedom of conscience within that movement.

    No wonder you cluelessly conflate and morally equate what are acts of jihad with being terrorism exactly like the so-called MSM that is run and controlled by the delusional Marxist totalitarian left. You are as clueless as they are, and this article you just penned demonstrates it! Indeed, you have some very obvious leftwing tendencies.

    The Caliphate, the ultimate goal of Islam, is also the embodiment of the power fantasy.

    Actually, the Caliphate is not the ultimate goal of Islam. That’s the fantasy created by sensationalist writers. The goal of Islam is the subjugation of all infidels and all religions into Islamic totalitarianism through both violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia (Islamic totalitarian law) to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world. Indeed, that’s the sole fundamental purpose of Islam as set forth by Muhammad shortly after the Hijra. It was his revenge for being ousted from Mecca.

    • Americana

      If this were true, Osama bin Laden wouldn’t have told the West to “get out of Muslim lands.” He would have said something more along the lines of, “Leave the Earth and take up residence in the Asteroid Belt or a Moon base.”

      (This is simply meant as a flippancy — which accurately represents Osama bin Laden’s stated aims — it’s not meant as a serious comment.)

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        The West should tell OBL’s followersw to get Out of Infidel lands.

        Two can play that game.

        • Americana

          Western nations could certainly could tell them to leave and point at the pressure from radical Islam as well as theocratic Muslim states to force their non-Muslim residents to leave.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Which Western nation should be as Muslim free as Saudi Arabia is Infidel free?

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Why don’t you humor us and explain what “radical Islam” means to you?

          • Americana

            The easier approach might be for you to write out YOUR definition of radical Islam and for me to write to your premise. I think you’d find I’m writing too long and too diffuse if we did this the other way round.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Okay. There is no such thing as “radical Islam.” It’s figment of your overactive imagination. There is only mainstream orthodox Islam as that is all there can be. Apparently, you are equating Islam with faith-based religions. Don’t do that because Islam is not a faith-based religion.

          • Americana

            You’re obviously ignoring all the sects within Islam by saying there can ONLY BE ORTHODOX ISLAM! Care to explain how all those schisms coexist under your big tent of orthodox Islam? Orthodox Islam isn’t like the Russian Orthodox Church. Care to explain how well those sects get along and what their political aims are? Care to outline the various permutations of national identity throughout the traditionally Muslim parts of the world? There are some commonalities but there’s an awful lot of wiggle room.

            If all Islam is radical, our international situation would be in the same identical political boat all over the world. It’s NOT. You cannot simply dispense w/evaluating the underlying SOCIOLOGY of these regions of the world where jihads are occurring simply because you’re mesmerized by the fact there are Muslims involved. There are distinct geographic boundaries to most jihads. Simply because you say there is no such thing as “radical Islam” from your ideological perspective, the fact is that the world’s Muslims make that distinction in their choice of Muslim sect and their choice of whether to wage jihad and the LOCATIONS where they choose to wage jihad. There may be a professional class of Muslim jihadists and Muslim radical clerics but they’re something to be dealt with on their own.

            If you fail to acknowledge that Islam is a faith and that it was unfortunately DESIGNED w/certain sociological intentions inherent in its precepts then you fail to understand how Islam can be managed and reformed. You also are choosing to follow mankind down its continuing rabbit hole of who’s got the “better faith.” Since that question of who’s got the better faith is not a problem that’s going to be solved any time in the near future simply based on the demographics, it’s best to simply acknowledge that Islam is a faith and find ways to manage Islam.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Islama, Orthodox Islam is the version that kills 160,000+ in Syria, kills 5,000 Kurds in Halabja Iraq with poison gas WMD, hijacks ordinary passenger planes and flies them into buildings, kidnaps 300 Christians girls in Nigeria, bombs London transport on 7/7/05, beheads British soldier Lee Rigby IN Britain, kidnaps journalists and behead them and post the video, stones women to death to restore family honor, disfigure girls, shoot girls for wanting an education…

          • ObamaYoMoma

            You’re obviously ignoring all the sects within Islam by saying there can ONLY BE ORTHODOX ISLAM! Care to explain how all those schisms coexist under your big tent of orthodox Islam? Orthodox Islam isn’t like the Russian Orthodox Church. Care to explain how well those sects get along and what their political aims are? Care to outline the various permutations of national identity throughout the traditionally Muslim parts of the world? There are some commonalities but there’s an awful lot of wiggle room.

            Oh okay…then that must mean that Islam is equivalent to Christianity after the reformation in that there are different sects within Islam. However, when it comes to waging jihad perpetually against all infidels and all religions until such time as Islam is made supreme, there is no difference whatsoever between the sects. Indeed, the two biggest sects, Shia Islam and Sunni Islam, for instance, differ not on the texts and tenets of Islam, but instead on how the Caliphate would be decided.

            Muslims can’t differ on the texts of the Koran since the Koran, unlike other holy texts, contains the direct verbatim text of Allah as dictated to Muhammad by the archangel Gabriel. Hence, any mere mortal man perceived as changing just one word of that divine text would be branded a blasphemer and instantly executed.

            In faith based religions adherents have the freedom of choice to believe, i.e., to have faith or not to have faith. It is their individual choice. However, Islam, in stark contrast, is a so-called religion of submission, whereby the first and foremost perquisite of Islam is the total, complete, and unconditional submission of all adherents to the “will of Allah” under the penalty of death for apostasy and blasphemy.

            In other words, there is no individual freedom of choice to choose to have faith or not to have faith as in all faith-based religions. Thus, if a person of Islamic persuasion decides he or she no longer wants to adhere to their total, complete, and unconditional submission to the “will of Allah” under the penalty of death for apostasy and blasphemy, that person is executed for apostasy per the texts and tenets of Islam.

            Likewise, if a person of Islamic persuasion denounces Islam publicly or otherwise publically refuses to adhere to his or her holy obligations as set forth under Islam, that person is also guilty of blasphemy, and blasphemy, like apostasy, is another capital offense under Islam.

            Moreover, the “will of Allah” that all Muslims in the world totally, completely, and unconditionally submit to under the penalty of death for apostasy and blasphemy in essence is Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law, and Islamic totalitarian law is incredibly draconian by today’s standards since it is the product of a 7th century ruthless barbarian.

            Is there faith based religions that uses death for apostasy and death for blasphemy to control the minds and actions of its adherents similar to Islam? The answer is no!

            In addition, waging jihad in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world is a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims in one form or another. Hence, all Muslims are jihadists in one form or another. Otherwise, they are blasphemous apostates that per the dictates of Islam must be executed. What faith-based religions similarly make waging a holy war on their behalf a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all adherents similar to Islam? The answer is none of them.

            Not to mention, that the sole fundamental purpose of mainstream orthodox Islam (the only kind) is to subjugate all infidels and all religions into Islamic totalitarianism through both violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia (Islamic totalitarian law) to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world. Is there a faith based religion that has similar aspirations? The answer, of course, is no.

            Therefore, it couldn’t be more obvious, Islam is not a religion but a very totalitarian cult instead, and you don’t have the first fricking clue what you are talking about. No wonder your posts have been so incredibly idiotic!

          • Drakken

            There is no such thing as radical islam, there is only islam period. The sooner we deal with the islam problem the less bloody it will be, but make no mistake, there will be blood one way or another.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        Then why even make it? You are obviously oblivious.

        • Americana

          People contribute comments like that because it’s the truth. Osama bin Laden had very specific aims. He wasn’t just committing jihad for the sake of committing jihad. We run the risk of never solving individual jihads if we try to pretend there are no underlying premises for each one.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            We run the risk of never solving individual jihads if we try to pretend there are no underlying premises for each one.

            How would you propose that we solve individual jihads?

          • Americana

            Let’s, again, do this the other way round and you tell me what you see being able to be done to solve individual jihads? I think you’d find I’m writing w/far too much complexity unless I’m writing a specific response to your concerns.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Let’s, again, do this the other way round and you tell me what you see being able to be done to solve individual jihads?

            The jihad being waged by the Islamic totalitarian world through its proxies the so-called Palestinians against the Jewish infidels can’t be solved by Israel alone. The same goes for the jihad being waged by the Islamic totalitarian world against the Hindu infidels in India, the Buddhist infidels in Thailand, the Orthodox Christian infidels in Chechnya, the animists and Christian infidels in Sudan, and against any and all infidels throughout the world.

            The only way to solve our collective jihad problem is to act together collectively to either destroy Islam utterly altogether, which would naturally be a very bloody affair, or to otherwise render it into total abject poverty whereby it would be isolated until such time as Islam as a force would cease to exist within that world.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      islam will only be supreme in the eyes of Satan.

      islam creates more ill will towards itself every day.

    • Americana

      You haven’t read Osama bin Laden’s 9/11 manifesto. He had every specific points in that manifesto, the main one being the creation of a Palestinian state. A secondary point was that the U.S. should get out of Muslim lands and stop the degradation of their society w/our free-for-all lifestyle. That manifesto certainly wasn’t all about making Islam supreme throughout the world.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        You haven’t read Osama bin Laden’s 9/11 manifesto. He had every specific points in that manifesto, the main one being the creation of a Palestinian state. A secondary point was that the U.S. should get out of Muslim lands and stop the degradation of their society w/our free-for-all lifestyle. That manifesto certainly wasn’t all about making Islam supreme throughout the world.

        Who hasn’t read OBL’s 9/11 manifesto? Did your mother drop you on your head when you were just a baby? I’m wondering since you are as gullible and as dumb as John Kerry.

        OBL was using the tactic of saying one thing in English and another thing in Arabic. It’s the same exact tactic Arafat employed to perfection to convince that idiot Bill Clinton that he was really serious about making peace with Israel.

        Have you ever heard of the book The Al Qaeda Reader by Raymond Ibrahim, who happens to be one of the regular writers here at FPM? Let me suggest you read it to find out what OBL was saying in Arabic behind the scenes before you continue to make a bigger fool out of yourself with every posts.

        By the way, the so-called Palestinians are the proxies of the Islamic totalitarian world, which is waging a perpetual jihad in Israel against the Jewish infidels to ultimately make Islam supreme in Israel and to subjugate the Jewish infidels into Islamic totalitarianism via the eventual imposition of Sharia (Islamic totalitarian law), i.e., to render the Jewish infidels into harsh and degrading dhimmitude.

        Moreover, the perpetual jihad waged by the Islamic totalitarian world against the Jewish infidels in Israel is not significantly different in any way from the jihads the Islamic totalitarian world is also waging against the Hindu infidels in India, the Buddhist infidels in Thailand, the Orthodox Christian infidels in Chechnya, the Atheist infidels in China, the Christian and animist infidels in Sudan, and indeed in too many other places around the world to mention. As the sole fundamental purpose of mainstream orthodox Islam (the only kind) is the subjugation of all infidels and all religions into Islamic totalitarianism through both violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia (Islamic totalitarian law) to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world, and please don’t say again: what about the other sects? Because there is no freedom of religion in Islamic totalitarian society. Unbelievers, if they are former Muslims, are executed and infidels are rendered into harsh and degrading dhimmitude if they are lucky. In any event, since the subjugation of the world into Islamic totalitarianism in order to make Islam supreme is the sole fundamental purpose of Islam, it is impossible for Israel or any of the other victims of jihad to make peace alone with the Islamic totalitarian world.

        Indeed, the only way for there to ever to be peace between the Islamic totalitarian world and the infidel world is for the infidel world to act collectively together to either destroy Islam utterly by killing every Muslim or to otherwise render the Islamic totalitarian world into total abject poverty and then isolate it until such time as Islam becomes discredited as a false ideology within that world.

  • Christopher Riddle

    Adolph Hitler,Josef Stalin,Mao Tse Tung in a”Nutshell”.These are but a FEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      You left out “muhammed”.

      • Christopher Riddle

        I left out a BUNCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          True, but “muhammed” belongs on any Top Ten list of people who brought death and destruction to the world.

          • Christopher Riddle

            I get your point.Has he EVER offered Anything but”Death To The Infidels”?Nope!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • SCREW SOCIALISM
      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        Clarification, Nixon does NOT belong on any list of the Worst of Humanity.

        Socialists like SHlTer, Stalin, Mao do.

  • MrUniteUs1

    Interesting. Right wing Jewish writer makes no mention of the fact that the killer was Jewish. No mention of Columbine or Son of Sam or other cases involving Jewish murders. Instead he mentions an Arab Muslim terrorist and a disgruntled Black cop that thought he was fired unjustly.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      His mother was Malay Chinese. So not Jewish.

      His paternal grandfather is listed as being of Scottish descent. His biography states that his ancestors were a mix of Swiss Calvinists and Scottish Presbyterians.

      http://books.google.com/books/about/George_Rodger.html?id=KVm-e4YcdY0C

      • MrUniteUs1

        I stand corrected. Thank you Daniel.

        Read up on his grandfather. He took some graphic photos at a concentration camp. Terrible.

        http://forward.com/articles/198835/grandfather-of-california-killer-elliot-rodger-too/

        Ironic that his father would help direct a movie about young people killing each other. Then Elliot goes out and shoots a bunch of young people.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Ironic that the self proclaimed “religion of peace” is so violent.

      • American Patriot

        So his paternal grandfather is from the UK? In any case, his grandson was a lunatic.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          yup

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      uptownsteve,

      You lose – again.

      Cry to the racist Congressional Black Caucus.

    • laura r

      sam of sam (berkowitz) was not jewish. he was adopted by a jewish couple. he is polish catholic descent. you may be wrong about adam lanza as well. nice try, we know you feel inferior. we know you jew bash & white bash because you jealous have little self esteem. you made your life the way it is, no one else.

  • tagalog

    Lunatics like Jack the Ripper used to write single-page screeds.

    Today, our modern-day loonies like Ted Kacynski and Elliot Rodger give us hundreds of pages of their bizarre ramblings. And we read them and publish our Deep Thoughts about them in the New York Times. I bet they love it.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      One of the mixed blessings of the internet. Distributing a 100 page manifesto has gotten a lot easier.

      • laura r

        who cares about their stuff? its irrelevant. they killed, they are crazy thats it. the books they read the movies they liked? what is this? TMZ?

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      The Koran is a manifesto of Hate too.

  • Fred Glass

    One of the dominant elemental human drives next to survival itself is the drive for status. Status is gained through the acquisition of power, wealth. fame or high respect for accomplishment. When this elemental drive for status by means of acquiring power over others runs amock, it is as close to the definition of Evil as I’ve ever heard. This is the brilliant, simple yet so obvious observation in this article. It is the common denominator between Bin Laden, Rodgers and all the others. Every thing else that can be said is only commentary to this central idea.

    • MrUniteUs1

      Rodgers “status” was based on his He father’s success. He had the fancy BMW, and the designer clothes. But his privileged lifestyle couldn’t get him the women he wanted. He couldn’t accept that.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        He should have bathed in money.

        Eau d’Cash.

      • laura r

        your not getting it. IF a guy is nuts & behaves weird, women run. doesnt matter if hes rich or not. we dont know the “lines” he used to pick up girls. i hate to think of wht he said. im sure there will be an expose: “why i ran from rodger”- i myself have senced weirdness in people. i almost always was correct. the 2 times i gave my phone #, i had calls round the clock.

  • MrUniteUs1

    Elliot had many Issues. He hated seeing “full – blooded” Asians and Black Americans talking to white women on campus. He longed for blondes.

    From
    http://aaldef.org/blog/elliot-rodgers-manifesto-shows-self-hate-fueled-anti-asian-violence-that-kicked-off-isla-vista-rampa.html

    “With his sexless life, he turned up the self-hate:

    I came across this Asian guy who was talking to a white girl. The sight
    of that filled me with rage. I always felt as if white girls thought
    less of me because I was half-Asian, but then I see this white girl at
    the party talking to a full-blooded Asian. I never had that kind of
    attention from a white girl! And white girls are the only girls I’m
    attracted to, especially the blondes. How could an ugly Asian attract
    the attention of a white girl, while a beautiful Eurasian like myself
    never had any attention from them? I thought with rage. I glared at them
    for a bit, and then decided I had been insulted enough. I angrily
    walked toward them and bumped the Asian guy aside, trying to act cocky
    and arrogant to both the boy and the girl. My drunken state got the
    better of me, and I almost fell over to the floor after a few minutes of
    this. They said something along the lines that I was very drunk and
    that I needed to get some water, so I angrily left them and went out to
    the front yard, where the main partying happened. Rage fumed inside me
    as I realized that I just walked away from that confrontation, so I
    rushed back into the house and spitefully insulted the Asian before
    walking outside again.”

    Note his first 3 victims were Asian men.’
    I rarely make Hitler comparisons.
    But Hitler hated the fact that he was part Jewish.
    He also put blondes on a pedestal.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Sinister Louie Farraklan hates the fact that he’s part White.

      And you uptownsteve hate the fact that you’re 100% jackass.

      • laura r

        still just a college kid in the dorm doing the internet. proberly a self hating wht boy putting on blk face. just returned from his race study class.

      • American Patriot

        I believe that skf1999 is also uptownsteve.

    • emptorpreempted

      The above commenter is himself a mentally diseased psychopath, as a glace at his comments would reveal.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        The authorities should get his ID from the NSA or Google.

    • laura r

      this hitler part jewish is a stretch. its a rumor. if not- maybe he was 1/64th jewish. thats fine maybe i am 1/64th german or 1/16th. in general its an anti semite rumor to blame the jews. once again, this is injected into everything. btw, the killer was a freak. the parents screwed himup, he would kill no matter what he was. nuts is nuts. women ran from him they sensed he was crazy. they were right.

    • laura r

      oh i forgot who i replied too. your the person who does the pro blk crime anti white anti jewish nonesence. oh well……..my comment still stands.

    • neils60

      What part of Hitler was Jewish? Please, please provide some proof, excluding the commentary of your friends at “The Stormfront.”

    • neils60

      What part of Hitler was Jewish? Please, please provide some proof, excluding the commentary of your friends at “The Stormfront.”

  • Renaissance Nerd

    I would like to add that the desire for power is ultimately a rejection of reality, because power is an illusion. To rule over others requires deception; they must be deceived into believing they must obey, and the ruler must be deceived into believing they’re not deceived, but under control. The quest for this particular illusion is the cause of nearly all of the ills and suffering of the human race, whether it’s the up-close-and-personal desire for women to obey their ‘masters,’ or the Hitlers and Maos of the world erasing millions from the world to demonstrate just how completely they embrace fantasyland. The same impulse is what causes fathers to damn their children for embracing another religion or none, mothers to command their children in all things, mayors to accept bribes as just due, and presidents to believe they can simply wish and we will all see it as command. Free will is absolute; it not only should not, it cannot be removed from human beings. Only through deception and ignorance can it be intentionally reduced, but never wholly, not even by mental disorders.

  • cxt

    Excellent article—both in the banality of evil and its goals.

  • Fred Glass

    One of the dominant elemental human drives next to survival itself is the drive for status. Status is gained through the acquisition of power, wealth, fame or high respect for accomplishment. When this elemental drive for status by means of ACQUIRING POWER OVER OTHERS RUNS AMOCK, it is as close to the definition of Evil as I’ve ever heard. This is the brilliant, simple yet so obvious observation in this article. It is the common denominator between Bin Laden, Rodgers and all the others. Everything else that can be said is only commentary to this central idea.

  • Steeloak

    I don’t know about the motivations of the others, but with Osama Bin Laden it was quite clear – he was a devoted follower of Islam, the faith whose holy book teaches believers to kill non-believers whenever they can. The others seem to be nothing but attention seeking losers while Bin Laden was just being faithful to his religion.

    I don’t think they should be lumped together.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      The question is why does Islam teach that. What’s the origin of that mindset.

      That’s part of what I’m addressing.

      • Atikva

        An ignorant, vicious, depraved camel trader, a murderer into the bargain, imagined to justify his own vices by pretending they were dictated by God 14 centuries ago. Since his so-called divine commandments exalt the worst in human nature, it was bound to be successful and attract large crowds. Now these primitive people didn’t have to control their worst impulses, they could not only indulge in them all but also be rewarded for their crimes. How could they have resisted the temptation?

        • liz

          Yes, like a centuries long experiment which we now witness the results of. Several centuries of exalting the worst in human nature does, indeed, produce people who consistently display the worst in human nature.
          Who woulda thunk it?

      • Steeloak

        Ah, well there you have the rantings of a bandit turned supposed prophet who was a psychopathic killer, robber, and pedophile. The people who believe those rantings don’t have to be insane, just pious.

        • DB1954

          Jesus taught that self-seeking was sin. Mohammed taught that self-seeking was godly.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          and what of those who convert, and have even higher rates of participating in Jihad

          • Steeloak

            Islam and Jihad have a strong appeal to those young people who are alienated, social outcasts like John Walker Lindh because it promises easy answers for why they are in the state they are in (our corrupt Western culture) and what to do about it (convert and wage Jihad). It is particularly true for young people whose families are Muslim immigrants to Western countries, but who grew up in the West. They tend to be the most radical, violent Jihadis, much more so than their parents.
            In this aspect, your point is very apt. Psychosis attracts psychosis. An example close to home is Charles Manson and his “family”, nearly all of who remain as viciously psychotic as he is. In fact, had Manson claimed divine visions and not engaged in a murder spree until much later, he could have founded an Islam like religion. Jim Jones did much the same thing too, with his twisted blend of Marxist class warfare, cult of personality, and blind faith.

    • DB1954

      Bin Laden’s purpose can be found in the vast sea of acclaim and the admiration of millions of Muslims which followed 9-11. This was the narcissistic supply narcissists seek but on a global scale.

  • Douglas J. Bender

    Satan is the “god of this world”. And the following is true about those who (knowingly or unknowingly) follow his ways:

    “You are of your father the Devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.” (John 8:44)

  • YoshiNakamura

    I think it is a huge mistake, — and a surprising one coming from Daniel Greenfield, — to neglect the Islamic ideology which motivated Bin Ladin and which motivates every other Moslem terrorist. Bin Ladin is in a totally different class from the other mass murderers mentioned in the article because Jihadist violence is not a vehicle for the personal power fantasies of the jihadist. It is a vehicle for personal eternal salvation. The actual perpetrators of the mass murder of 9/11 died in the process, and they knew beforehand that they would die in the process. They believed they were serving their god by killing and being killed in god’s way, as verse 9:111 of the Koran says.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      I don’t neglect the ideology. If you read the whole article, you’ll see that.

      • YoshiNakamura

        And yet, you call the Moslem jihadists Islam’s Rodgers and Breiviks. They are not that at all. Rodger and Breivik were errant, socially outcast individuals, whereas Moslem jihadists are followers of Islamic ideology with wide support from the Islamic religious community. So was Bin Ladin. To put Bin Ladin into a group of psychopathic individuals obscures his motives and the motives of his millions of supporters.

        • liz

          The point is, Islam creates psychopaths, since it was founded by one.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Islam is a framework for these types of killers founded by that same type of personality.

          It’s an ideology that sanctifies narcissistic killers.

          • YoshiNakamura

            Killers, yes, but “narcissistic”? I don’t this that word is appropriate for the jihadists. For Muhammad, yes, certainly, but not for his religious followers.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            not all are, but consider all the videos and self-promoting material, quite a few of the Jihadis drawn to it are narcissists

          • Americana

            They are asked to produce propaganda videos as well as martyrdom videos that serve an even more grandiose propaganda purpose. Think of these as being the U.S. equivalent of Marine Corps recruitment videos. It might make the situation a little clearer for you.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            They do so on their own. And a lot of the videos are no different than Rodger’s, only bloodier.

          • Americana

            Sorry, Daniel, but no. This is absolutely not the case. If it were there would be more PERSONAL VARIATION in these videos and there would be actual upscaling over time of the PRODUCTION VALUES, as would be shown by the art direction and the cinematography and the general overall quality would be getting higher and higher and higher to meet the personal needs of individual jihadis and their “narcissism.” That’s NOT the case. These are POLITICAL STATEMENTS by these men going off to certain death.

            These videos are identical in intention to the videos produced by the Japanese Kamikaze pilots of WW II. I’m off to find some of the Kamikaze pilots’ video statements for the Japanese news media and we can compare.

  • SamZebra
    • De Doc

      A silly retort. Rodger was not a White male, but half Malaysian Chinese. Read his manifesto and you get a sense of this creep’s view of the world. It is a picture not of White privilege, but that of a spoiled brat who knew no needs or wants ever in his life. Like some post-pubescent guys, he was socially awkward and not able to get a lady. But, unlike most, he decided violence and retribution was needed to correct this injustice to use his own words. Eliot Rodger was a product of his elite upbringing that had little to do with race.

      The so-called White Guy Killer Syndrome is very rare statistically.

      • SamZebra

        rare?: mcveigh, nichols, aurora, columbine, newtown, giffords, ..you want more rare?

        • De Doc

          *FACEPALM*. You obviously are not a student of statistics. Mass murders of this nature are indeed rare events. You pick events that span over 20 years! Compared to the murders that occur everyday in the US, these are chump change in the body counts. However, because of the sudden and multiple loss of lives in time and space, they are naturally shocking.

          This is similar to aircraft crashes, which result in mass casualties, but still do not compare to the number of deaths due to auto accidents over a longer span of time. So I stick to my original assessment that these are thankfully rare events, though horrific in nature when they do happen.

          The white male privilege argument is weak at best and the source (an African American professor of Ethnic Studies) is most certainly spinning bias into the event, because she sees everything tainted by the Evil White Male Devil. Read Rodger’s manifesto yourself and then tell me it was white privilege. It reads more like spoiled brat, fantasy obsessed, rich kid privilege.

          • SamZebra
          • De Doc

            More BS. Rodgers would never be considered White anyway according to the logic of this writer (or the whacko ethnic studies prof). BTW White males are not the ones killing most Black males – that honor goes to other Black males. As they get whacked by the thousands each year by their own, what do we hear from your references? Naught but cricket chirps.

            Rodgers sure didn’t define himself as a White Male (he used the word ‘Eurasian’ to describe himself and no doubt thought himself privileged) and he had a measure admiration for his Malaysian roots. Read the manifesto and stop being lazy and stubborn – you’re wrong.

          • SamZebra

            you sadly and badly missed the point; get some help!

          • Americana

            Rodgers would most certainly have identified as a white American male because most kids take their father’s position and status as their social arbiter. Besides, facially, Rodgers is not all that idenfitable as a mixed-ethnic individual, certainly not necessarily as a first-generation mixed-ethnic American. And, let’s not forget, there’s been a huge increase in the level of acceptance of mixed-race Americans throughout America but particularly where Rodgers was from. It’s JUST NOT PART OF HIS ISSUES. His issues were SOCIAL and PSYCHOLOGICAL.

  • GUEST

    “We call that ideology by names such as “liberalism” or “progressivism” but it’s more accurately a diseased narcissism whose followers strive to stamp out everyone who doesn’t think like them.” And it is a fear-driven pathology.
    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2014/01/leftism_a_radical_faith.html

  • SoCalMike

    Insightful and illuminating parallels.

  • joba

    unbelievable article….truly inspiring in wanting this to be the accepted wisdom…some real classic insights…manifestos as pretenses of idealism…Islam as a socially acceptable outlet for narcissistic, power hungry killers…the genius that is Sultan

    • Daniel Greenfield

      thank you

  • cathnealon

    Well if we believe in God but not the devil then we are lost. That said, there is a great book by Scott Peck, a very spiritual man who believes in good and evil, People of the Lie. I read it while working as an adolescent substance abuse counselor on a locked unit. Many of our patients had been green warranted.

    It made me understand that the family is a sacred institution. So why wouldn’t the devil attack?

  • mikegiles

    Elliot Rodger, should have become a professing Moslem; then he wouldn’t have to worry about being a virgin – for killing those infidels he could expect to receive his 72 virgins in Paradise. Just out of curiosity, was his mother a Muslim, considering she was from Indonesia.

  • pfff

    explication hilarante

  • CurmudgyOne

    Of course, we can always blame these evil acts of individuals as being consequences of a monolithic “Left,” and I actually do agree with that assessment. But the acts are still those of individual, diseased personalities who think themselves more important than they really are, give themselves the “right” to try to prove it in whatever way they deem necessary, and carry out acts of violence toward that end.

    Not excusing the influences that lead them to act out their evilness, it is still a fact that certain individuals, no matter whether raised a Preacher’s Kid or a Satanist’s, will do these things. We can’t identify them by sight, and most of them are not known for such violence beforehand. Regardless of their motives or what has led them in those directions, they will always be with us — thankfully a tiny minority. It makes one wish Philip K. Dick’s imagination could lead to a real solution.