Speculation about Adam Lanza's motives and timing
The mainstream media follows strict rules about never reporting anything
that might politically harm Democrats or feminists, so it falls to someone
like me to try to figure out what's going on.
Right now, the only thing that the mainstream media wants to talk
about is gun control. That's a sure sign that something's going on
that the mainstream media would prefer to hide, since it might hurt
the administration.
Gun control is one of those issues that politicians use to bash each
other or to make money from. Other issues in this category are drugs,
abortion and climate change. Like it or not, there are already 310
million non-military firearms in the United States, and you'd have to
be a total moron to think that some gun control law, even if it
passed, would have any effect on that number.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/09/politics/ ... index.html
As the financial crisis was starting, I posted the following story in
January 2008:
** Subprime mortgage executive kills wife and jumps off bridge to his death
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... b#e080121b
In that situation, it was pretty clear what was going on. A
high-flying real estate financial executive had made millions of
dollars selling subprime mortgages, and now his firm was collapsing,
because subprime mortgages were defaulting. The gravy train was
ending, and his wife saw that this was the right time to cash out of
the marriage, making as much money as possible. The husband was faced
with losing his money, his home, his job, his wife, and his kids, left
literally with less than nothing. He took revenge by killing his
wife, and then killing himself.
The facts of that situation contain a lot of similarities to the facts
in Friday's school massacre. The most obvious similarity is that in
both cases we have deeply disturbed men committing murder-suicide over
family issues. There are several important similarities.
Here are some facts about Adam Lanza that are buried deep inside
stories, where the mainstream media hopes you'll never see them:
- Adam's father Peter and mother Nancy and father divorced around
the same time, in 2008.
- Adam's father Peter was also a financial executive, at GE Energy
Financial Services, which apparently is a hedge fund investment firm
associated with GE. I'm going to guess that this company was also
in financial trouble in 2008, as many financial firms were, and these
financial troubles triggered Nancy's decision to seek divorce, in order
to make as much money as possible.
- It's worth point out here that divorces are overwhelming sought by
the mother and opposed by the father. When I was writing about gender
issues, I interviewed thousands of men and women, and it's clear that
money is a major motivation, and that the mother typically lies in
divorce court. The rule in divorce court is that if the father is at
fault, then the father gets screwed; if the mother is at fault, then
the father gets screwed; if neither or both are at fault, then the
father gets screwed.
- Peter was paying Nancy alimony of $240,000 per year, increasing to
$298,800 by 2015, according to news reports. I'm guessing that Peter
also had to make large child support payments, and also had to pay for
both his old and new home. With the financial crisis deepening, it's
quite possible that Peter was financially unable to continue all those
payments, which would mean that he would be left with less than
nothing, facing bankruptcy, homelessness, and possibly prison, while
his ex-wife would make huge gains financially.
- Adam was born in 1981, so his time in elementary school was a time
when most children lived with single mothers, after the mothers had
followed feminist policies and dumped the fathers for as much money as
they could get. Adam's peer students mostly had no fathers, except
for a stream of men in their mothers' beds.
- Those circumstances may have had a huge emotional effect on Adam's
troubled mind. Perhaps he gloated because he had a father and his
classmates didn't. Or, perhaps he was contemptuous of his classmates,
because he was better than they were. Or, perhaps he felt guilty
because he had a father and they didn't. But it's certain that the
circumstances would have had some profound effect.
- News reports indicate that Adam was took the divorce of his
parents very hard. Since he was 16 at the time, one might think that
he could go on with his life, staying in contact with both parents,
and not be too affected. But apparently he took it very hard, and
it's reasonable to believe that it's related to the fact that he was
now no different from the other students he had grown up with, and
been contemptuous of.
- People who commit suicide, especially when they commit
murder-suicide, are almost always trying to end their lives by making
some kind of statement to the people who are left behind. A typical
statement is, "The person I'm murdering deserves to be murdered, and
I'm committing suicide so that you'll feel sorry for me."
- It's reasonable to assume that his motive for killing his mother
and himself was to relieve his father of alimony and child support
payments.
- However, Adam's extremely troubled mind took him a lot farther. He
saw how alimony and child support payments were destroying his father's
life. After killing his mother, he went back to his own elementary
school and killed as many children as he could. In his troubled mind,
he may have been making a statement that this was the way to save other
fathers from the same situation.
- An alternate possibility is that he partially blamed himself for
his parents' divorce, and may have thought that killing children
would save other parents from getting divorced.
- What triggered the murder-suicide to occur at this time? In the
2008 case quoted above, the trigger was the collapse of the subprime
mortgage firm, and the wife's subsequent move to divorce. In the current
case, it wouldn's surprise me to learn that there had been some recent
bad news -- perhaps Peter had lost money, or lost his bonus, or lost
his job, and could no longer make alimony and child support payments.
- In fact, there have been some (unconfirmed) news reports that
Peter involved in the Libor scandal, and would have to testify.
Perhaps this is related.
- Another possible trigger was that, for several days, the mainstream
media was full of news about union violence in Michigan, and how the
victims of that violence "deserved what they got," which I heard several
times on TV myself. At the same time, President Obama refused to condemn
violence conducted on his behalf. It may well be that this violence
against people who "deserved what they got,", supported and condoned by
the president, motivated Adam violence against his mother and other
school children, because they would also "deserve what they got."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... bled=false
I've been accused of being "low class" for criticizing President Obama
for not condemning union violence on his behalf, and for turning
Friday's massacre into an opportunity to further divide the nation
by bashing his political opponents.
So let's do a little analysis. As we shall see, I'm not the one who's
being "low class."
Andrew Sullivan, Gabrielle Giffords, and Friday's massacre
When Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in January, 2011, many
people in the loony left blamed Sarah Palin for "causing" the shooting
because of a map she had on her web site.
Here's how left-wing commentator Andrew Sullivan described the situation
in his January 8, 2011, column:
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
An Assassination?
When a congresswoman is shot in the head in the very act of
democracy, we should all pause. This is fundamentally not a
partisan issue and should not be. Acts of violence against
political figures destroy democracy itself, for both parties. We
don't know who tried to kill congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (she
appears to be still alive) and we should be very cautious in
drawing any conclusions yet about why. But we can know that,
whoever tried to kill her and for whatever reason, political
rhetoric involving words like "target" and "gun-sights" is
inherently irresponsible.
For a public figure who has appeared on a national ticket and who
commands a cult-like following, the irresponsibility is even more
profound. And so one reads the following sentences from the
Arizona Wildcat last September with the blood draining from one's
face:
Arizona Wildcat wrote:Palin Reloads; Aims For Giffords
Earlier this year, Palin drew sharp criticism for featuring a
map on her web page riddled with crosshairs targeting
Democrats in vulnerable congressional districts. Tucson's
Gabrielle Giffords is among the 20 Democratic incumbents whom
Palin intends to use for target practice.
Giffords was one of twenty members of Congress placed within
metaphorical "gun-sights" in SarahPac's graphic. That is not the
same thing as placing a gun-sight over someone's face or
person. No one can possibly believe - or should - that Sarah Palin
is anything but horrified by what has taken place. But it remains
the kind of rhetorical excess which was warned about at the time,
and which loners can use to dreadful purposes. It is compounded by
the kind of language used by the Arizona Wildcat as well. Maybe
"Palin Reloads; Aims For Giffords" is good copy as a headline. But
next time, an editor should surely pause before enabling forces
whose capacity for violence is real.
http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/a ... on/177553/
Andrew Sullivan's implication that Sarah Palin was responsible for
Giffords' shooting was repeated by the mainstream media constantly
for weeks, even though it's unlikely that the shooter ever even saw
the Sarah Palin web page.
Now, fast forward to last week in Wisconsin. Where we have union
leader James Hoffa declaring "civil war," and we have union thugs
running around beating people and destroying property.
The mainstream media barely mentions any of this, and when it does, it
justifies it by saying that the union thugs had a right to be angry.
A number of left-wing loonies said that Fox commentator Steven Crowder
"deserved what he got" when he was beaten by union thugs, and of
course President Obama said nothing, condoning and supporting the
violence with his silence.
Now, to state the obvious, if you're a left-wing loon that believes that
Giffords' shooting was triggered by a little cartoon target on
Sarah Palin's web site, then you MUST believe that repeated union violence,
condoned and supported by the President, created a social atmosphere
where violence was all right, as long as the target "deserved what they
got."
And if you have a troubled mind, as in the case of Adam Lanza, you
might well believe that the union violence provides a justification
for murdering his mother and the schoolchildren, because they also
"deserved what they got."
Andrew Sullivan was right, in January 2011, when he wrote, "For a
public figure who has appeared on a national ticket and who commands a
cult-like following, the irresponsibility [of using violent symbols]
is even more profound."
But it's equally true, paraphrasing Andrew Sullivan, that:
Andrew Sullivan paraphrase wrote:"For the President of the
United States, who commands a cult-like following, the
irresponsibility of failing to condemn violence committed on his
behalf is even more profound."
Union violence has been growing in the United States, as it has in Europe,
James Hoffa has threatened violence repeatedly for years. President
Obama has had plenty of opportunity to criticize the calls to violence,
as well as the actual violence, but he never has.
Even after the horrific massacre on Friday, President Obama could be
nothing but more divisive by bashing his political opponents.
I remember very well the soaring rhetoric used by Ronald Reagan
in 1986, the day that the Challenger exploded. Here are some excerpts:
Ronald Reagan wrote:We've grown used to wonders in this
century. It's hard to dazzle us. But for 25 years the United
States space program has been doing just that. We've grown used to
the idea of space, and perhaps we forget that we've only just
begun. We're still pioneers. They, the members of the Challenger
crew, were pioneers.
And I want to say something to the schoolchildren of America who
were watching the live coverage of the shuttle's takeoff. I know
it is hard to understand, but sometimes painful things like this
happen. It's all part of the process of exploration and
discovery. It's all part of taking a chance and expanding man's
horizons. The future doesn't belong to the fainthearted; it
belongs to the brave. The Challenger crew was pulling us into the
future, and we'll continue to follow them. ...
There's a coincidence today. On this day 390 years ago, the great
explorer Sir Francis Drake died aboard ship off the coast of
Panama. In his lifetime the great frontiers were the oceans, and
an historian later said, "He lived by the sea, died on it, and was
buried in it." Well, today we can say of the Challenger crew:
Their dedication was, like Drake's, complete.
The crew of the space shuttle Challenger honored us by the manner
in which they lived their lives. We will never forget them, nor
the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for
their journey and waved goodbye and "slipped the surly bonds of
earth" to "touch the face of God."
http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/s ... enger.html
Ronald Reagan used the Challenger disaster as an opportunity to unite
the nation. President Obama could have done the same thing on Friday,
if he had used his oratory skills to unite the nation, by calling for
"an end to all violence by Americans against Americans, whether they
be Republicans, Democrats, rich, poor, left, right." If he had
done that on Friday, and similar things in the past, then I would
think more highly of him, and so would a lot of other people.
Instead, President Obama used Friday's massacre as an opportunity to
divide the nation further, by ostentatiously wiping his eye every 10
seconds and then bashing his gun control political opponents with the
line, "regardless of the politics." His performance deserves a great
deal of condemnation.