Will El Paso Be “Investigated” Like the Las Vegas Massacre? Already Happening…

This is neither the time of week that I prefer to post at IC nor the beat that I feel comfortable covering… but I am frustrated beyond endurance over how Patrick Crusius has been projected from all mainstream quarters as a “white supremacist” and a “white nationalist”, with FOX News repeatedly voicing its nolo contendere.

Crusius is white, apparently: that’s about where clarity begins to fade. (Is he also Jewish? His father at some point posted a YouTube video while standing in front of a Star of David… but we mustn’t diminish the boy’s KKK credentials.) Beth Baumann, confidently titling a piece on Sunday’s Townhall Tip Sheet “Here’s What We Know About the El Paso Shooter”, manages to misspell Crusius’s name. En route to noting that El Pasoans are lining up to donate blood, she uncritically reproduces the Associated Press capsulization of the lunatic “manifesto: “The document posted online expressed concern that an influx of Hispanics into the United States will replace aging white voters, potentially turning Texas blue in elections and swinging the White House to the Democrats.”

Many photos of the young killer are circulating on the Internet, and a few social-media protests have insisted that these do not all belong to the same human being. That kind of reaction is overdone, and I’m trying to resist it myself… but with so little concrete evidence made available, the scent of rat grows as strong around this story as over a Baltimore dumpster. Why couldn’t Ms. Baumann have cited the actual document? I suppose the principled refusal to name a homicidal perpetrator or to publicize his lunatic screed is generally commendable; I’ve now heard several “high road” journalists proclaim with proudly lifted head that they are deliberately suppressing details in just such a surge of nobility. Yet when hit-and-run references to the facts leave too much truth bleeding in their wake, then maybe it’s time—yes—to look at the concrete evidence.

And the manifesto itself, I find today, has virtually disappeared from the Net; at least, I don’t have the time to dig it out from wherever it’s now holed up. Sebastian Gorka cited it helpfully in a piece on his personal website—but his link to a copy on Twitter has (surprise!) gone inactive. Dr. Gorka, sweeping all virtuous contempt of detail aside, makes this desperately necessary point: “this killer supports some of the most openly socialist policies in American political discourse today, including universal income, socialized medicine, and a belief in ‘global warming.’ Yet, according to the media, he is somehow just another ‘far-right’ shooter who has been motivated by President Trump.”

Gorka concludes that the mainstream media’s “determination to promote a one-sided narrative, which runs directly contrary to the truth and the facts, is playing into his [Crusius’s] hands and fulfilling his sick predictions. That is the Truth, and the Truth is what matters above all else.” Accepting Crusius as an angry, homicidal Klansman and then smoothly pivoting to insist that we monitor the mentally ill more effectively is advocacy, in a way (looking at you, FOX). It just isn’t basic journalism, any more than CNN’s chorus of Delendus est Trump harpies.

For, like Dr. Gorka, I actually saw substantial portions of the manifesto before our Fourth Estate denied it the “glory” of being publicly available. The version of it prepped and staged for the cameras ignores a mountain of contradictory and disturbing evidence. Crusius is not a Klansman. His shoddily connected and admittedly featherweight manifesto indeed deplores the volume of illegal immigrants pouring into the country; but it also insists that people of many races reside here legally and have every right to remain here. The statement’s concern over illegal border crossings appears to stand in conjunction with a concern about the planet’s imminent demise due to climate change, and also to an anxiety that a guaranteed minimum income cannot become the law of the land if too many Johnny-come-lately’s climb on board. Your standard white supremacist carrying torch and pitchfork isn’t an exponent of the Green New Deal and doesn’t believe that Uncle Sam should cut paychecks to every citizen who has a pulse.

On Sunday night, the virtuous commentators on Steve Hilton’s New Revolution were sighing, “So the Left says, ‘He’s one of yours,’ and the Right says, ‘He’s one of yours’… but the important issues aren’t being discussed behind all this bickering.” Excuse me: this is a crucially important issue—and FOX’s coverage is itself part of the issue. Shifting the discussion to mental health, the dissolution of the family, video games, or somewhere else, while a useful inquiry to pursue down the road, brushes aside the downright eagerness on the part of all mainstream media (including the conservative impersonators in question) to embrace a very precipitate and arguable packaging of Crusius as a rightist wacko.

The manifesto—at which we are not to look too closely, because to do so only gives a sick mind its coveted day in the sun—envisions an American “confederacy” whose separate states will be designated, one by one, for separate races. The word “confederacy” is said to be a clincher: think Stars and Bars and plumed gray hats. May we shake off the Hollywood-level word-associations long enough, however, to notice that this scheme isn’t remotely nationalist, or even strictly racist? In fact, it would fragment the nation (there, at least, it echoes the Confederate cause that moved the nationalist Union to arms). Furthermore, the allotment of different territories to different races expresses no intent of giving “lesser” races poorer land or otherwise elbowing them to the back of the bus. On the contrary: the scheme directly reflects such campus Identity Politics programming as recently inspired students at Evergreen State College, for instance, to ban white students from the institution’s grounds for a day.

At least one private observer on Parler has published his suspicion that the document was engineered to broadcast what a 21-year-old nincompoop might imagine to be right-wing views—but that the idiot ideologue cannot keep his own cherished fantasies from leaking into the creation. This is actually not an improbable explanation. Yet whether it’s true or not, the views that Crusius claims to hold do not qualify as “white supremacist”, “white nationalist”, or “nationalist”. And I should like to know why we are to accept their qualification as an exemplar of all such views as a starting point? Are the ladies and gentlemen FOX determined to ease this killer’s prosecution under “hate crimes” statutes (themselves a grim “God-playing” harbinger of an Orwellian world, where thought shifts act into a different category of atrocity)? Or do these comely talking heads just not want to burn up their bull pen fighting against the MSM when they’re already ten runs down?

If the latter, then something on the order of a mild conspiracy would be afoot; and don’t rush too quickly into laughter as soon as someone utters the “c” word. After all, if conspiracies don’t really exist, then Christopher Steele’s dossier is as good as gold and Robert Mueller’s team is Woodward and Bernstein. This would be a rather benevolent conspiracy, in any case: “Let’s just concede the right-wing thing and move on. Local police departments aren’t cooperating, and the optics of challenging Crusius’s KKK bona fides aren’t good.”

Yet I very much fear that an even deeper conspiracy is possible—much deeper. Somewhat more marginal sources like The Washington Standard are muttering about it. I am reluctant to sign on without confirmation… but this is precisely the snag when you don’t have a reliable Fourth Estate: who will provide confirmation? And then, many of the red flags are thrown up by common sense. Query: why did Patrick Crusius drive 650 from his parents’ elite Dallas suburb (or his grandparents’ slightly less elite domicile) to wreak havoc in El Paso? Tony Elliott of WS remarks, “supposedly the shooter wanted to kill illegal aliens. If this were true, why travel all the way from Dallas to El Paso when the goal could have been achieved in Dallas?” This is true. Maybe broadcast crews in the Beltway believe that you have to cross the Pecos to find a Mexican influence… but I’ve visited Little Mexicos in the Metroplex where you can hardly buy bottled water at the Dollar Store if you have no Spanish. For that matter, Crusius was attending Collin County Community College (and actually living with his grandparents while doing so). He could have strolled the broad halls of that institution and brought down scores of Latin victims without much fear of an immediate, robust response from security.

So… why El Paso? Here’s my own additional question: was Crusius looking for a quick escape route across the border? Did he expect accomplices to join him from Juarez and then spirit him away with them? Did accomplices, in fact, join him?

On that score, Elliott writes further, “An eye witness on the scene reported seeing 4 men, all dressed in black run into the store shooting.” That makes sense. For how could the killing have been spread over such a broad area—parking lots, a Wal-Mart, a shopping mall? (Was Wal-Mart actually in the mall? No one would answer that, of all the reporters scurrying around to gather “feelings”.) And why, in such a crowded space on a Saturday morning right before the start of school, did police need so long to respond—unless they did respond instantly to multiple and confusing reports, and… and two or more shooters got away. Elliott adds, “There is also Walmart video footage showing the suspect entering the store wearing fatigues, however, when he was apprehended from his car, just moments later, he was wearing khakis. He would not have had the time or even thought of changing his pants.” It’s been suggested to me that a clever psycho might have changed his look instantly to favor his escape… but that would be a very un-clever waste of time when authorities had not even obtained a rudimentary description.

Are investigative bodies giving us the full story, or are decisions being made at high levels to suppress certain facts so as not to panic the public… or so as to favor a certain political party’s spin? When our FBI is indubitably corrupt at the top, can we afford to assume that the high command of any local law enforcement agency has remained untainted by politics? Was the Las Vegas “investigation” of a much more sanguinary massacre not evidence to the contrary?

What are we to make of the fact that Crusius’s father, Bryan Crusius, is a psychotherapist who has actually raised money for a shooting victim over the past year and gives every superficial sign of profiling “soft” on the Second Amendment? Is Patrick’s rampage, then, supposed to be a rebellion against his father’s values?

Is that the portrait of a “white nationalist”: a frustrated, sociopathic boy who wants to stick it to Daddy? Is that the face of Trump’s America? No… no, better to keep the grieving father out of the news entirely. He’s suffered enough… and so on, and so on.

Would anybody else like a little genuine clarification on these matters? Or do we just let political grandstanders seize upon the “meme” of a punk in a MAGA hat as the crime’s truth drains away to the universe’s dark gutter, there to cool to absolute zero beside Fast-and-Furious and the Las Vegas massacre?

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

  

  

  



Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner