The Texas killer, whose name I omit, was a proselytizing atheist, which puts him in the same circle as Lenin, Stalin, the Austrian demon Schickelgruber, Mao, Pol-Pot, and Che Guevara, to name but a few, and not merely for his atheism. As Richard Cocks pointed out to me in an email exchange earlier today, main-stream media have let the homicide’s religious convictions go unmentioned, but even the alternate sources of information seem not to know how to deal with it. I am struck by a couple of additional details.
Earlier photographs of the gunman show him looking quite stupid and wicked, but between the occasions of those likenesses and recent days, he altered his appearance with a mustache and beard, in a remarkable, as it seems to me, simulacrum of the aggressive Musulman-style. The stupidity and wickedness have not vanished, but a new, even more sinister impression has manifested itself. Even the tonsure seems right. The killer made himself up, in other words, so that he looked like a jihadi, and he then behaved like one. I have no sure knowledge that he had that intention, but the result is nevertheless remarkable, so that he might as well have had that intention. Neither am I asserting that the killer had converted by submission, and was therefore an actual agent of jihad, but his hostility to the God of the Christians is the functional equivalent of Islamic wrath against the so-called infidels.
Another thing: The terms “mad,” “insane,” and “mentally disturbed” have been trotted out, as usual, to describe of the killer’s mood and his deed, but try to find the word “evil” anywhere in the torrent of journalism. Of course, the killer’s victims fall into a non-mascot category. Maybe the brave SJWs who now dominate the reportorial profession cannot bring themselves to conjoin those victims with the concept of an evil perpetrator, and thus with evil itself, an ascription which they reserve only for those who injure or kill members of the mascot-classes, like Sarah Palin and Donald Trump.
The story of the Las Vegas killer, whose toll was higher than the Texas killer’s, has meanwhile slipped away down the memory whole. Once again, I find it hard not to conclude that the identity of the victims has something to do with it. (And maybe the perpetrator’s convictions or ties supplied him a motive, but since the reporting of the incident has evidently been shut down, we have way way of knowing.)
The Columbine murderers, like Leopold and Loeb, were adolescent dimwits who believed that they understood Nietzsche, that they were supermen, and that they were therefore beyond good and evil; they also, like the Texas-killer, singled out Christians. Of Dylan Roof’s beliefs, who, like the Texas killer, assassinated Christians attending a service in their church, I can find no account. My intuition is that he would find himself much in agreement with the Columbine duo concerning theology, were they available to be his prison pen pals.
Journalism categorizes Roof as a killer of black people, but not as a killer of Christians. (The Wikipedia article, which I will not link, treats the Baptist affiliation of Roof’s victims as incidental, as though it could have played no role in Roof’s selection of them whereas the only evidence we have says it did.) Journalism never described the Las Vegas shooter as a killer of white people, but only as a mass-murderer; nor will journalism categorize the Texas killer as the mass murderer of white people although the category of white people is a stock of journalism where the said people are always the who and never the whom. Journalists will only reluctantly acknowledge — because there is no way around it — that the victims were Southern Baptists.
I’d bet money that the Sanders-supporter who shot Congressman Steve Scalise was a Dawkins-sympathizer; and so too in the case of the man who, more recently, physically assaulted Congressman Rand Paul.