Liberalism Created the WDBJ Killer

SellwynThumbby Selwyn Duke9/1/15
Barack Obama won’t be saying, “If I had a psycho son, he’d look like Vester Lee.” But he might as well. Because Vester Lee Flanagan II, the bigoted maniac who murdered the WDBJ reporter and cameraman Wednesday on live TV, was a philosophical offspring of the Left.

It’s well known now that Flanagan was a professional victim, nurturing grudges against all and sundry based on his “status” as a homosexual black man. He had an axe to grind with white women because they supposedly made racial statements to him, and against black men because they supposedly directed anti-homosexual remarks his way. And it didn’t seem as if he liked anyone very much.

Of course, most of the bigotry he perceived from others was in his head, a function of his own prejudice, inculcated via decades of liberal indoctrination. When you dislike others, you view them through tinted lenses and ascribe negative motivations to everything they do. Where a fair-minded individual might interpret a comment as innocuous, simply a misunderstanding or an example of the issuer merely having a bad day, you see malice. “Of course it was racial! That’s the way white people are.” And, “That had to be ‘homophobic’ in this society, which macro and microaggresses against everything that I am!” (of course, certain things are supposed to be stigmatized). These notions, again, were put in Flanagan’s mixed-up head by liberals and liberals alone. They disgorge hateful, pure and utter nonsense such as microaggression theory, “white privilege,” critical-race theory and 1000 other things designed to divide with lies. It is evil.

Flanagan had described himself as “human powder keg,” but what was he so angry about? He lived in the most prosperous nation in the most prosperous time in man’s history; he could walk into any supermarket and avail himself of thousands of delicious foods from the world over at reasonable prices, a luxury that would have made the jaws of people existing in former ages drop. He was living, as we all do, in Shangri-la. But his attitude was hardly inexplicable.

To paraphrase G.K. Chesterton, “Goods look a lot better when they come wrapped as gifts.” Everything is a gift, but the Left teaches just the opposite: to have a sense of entitlement, to believe you’re owed, to ever and always view our very large glass as half empty. Some have asked, quite naively, how it is that despite Flanagan’s pathetic performance as a reporter, he was hired by more than one media outlet and given chance after chance to right the ship. Well, golly gee, Cletus, it’s a mystery.

Flanagan was clearly an affirmative-action hire, enjoying the daily-double victim status of being black and homosexual. And that was part of the problem: too much was given to him on a silver platter — because of liberalism.

There have been many articles in recent years about how college graduates today enter the workforce with unrealistic expectations about their economic self-worth and starting salary. We hear about how so many of them can’t tolerate criticism and rejection; act as if their own feelings are inordinately important and should command respect; and how they lack a sense of propriety, a grasp of their place in a workplace’s hierarchy. As a consequence, they may barge into an office to vent their feelings, even if it’s neither the time nor the place.

This is all the result of liberal parenting, of the psychobabble disgorged by the likes of Dr. Benjamin Spock. It’s no wonder many young people today have little sense of just hierarchies — their permissive liberal parents didn’t establish a just hierarchy in the home. Instead, they acted as if their family was a dysfunctional democracy and junior a special-interest group that political correctness dictated must be coddled and catered to. Junior seldom heard the word “No!” uttered in exclamatory fashion; junior seldom had to delay gratification; junior got participation trophies just for showing up. He was treated as a little prince around whom the world revolved. He was marinated in “self-esteem” pap in schools, telling him how great and special he was. The result? Junior and many of his peers (not that he imagined he had any peers) grew up to be narcissists.

As for Flanagan, it has been reported that his refrigerator was covered with pictures of himself. We know what this means. A mother may display numerous pictures of her children because she loves her children. And a man would display numerous pictures of himself because…?

It all reminds me of the Satan character’s line in the film The Devil’s Advocate: “Vanity is my favorite sin.” “Pride” is probably even more accurate. But it all gets at the matter’s heart. We don’t need some hard and fast psychological diagnosis here. Whether Flanagan was most correctly characterized as a “narcissist” or just a self-centered, entitled jerk, the bottom line is that his state was attributable to a philosophical disease, a disordered way of thinking that masquerades under an ideological banner:

Liberalism.

Of course, liberals will blame guns. This is partially because, unlike with Dylann Roof, they can’t blame Confederate flags or 19th-century statues. But it’s also because they’re incapable of putting the blame where it really belongs: the man in the mirror.

Guns don’t kill people. Liberalism does.


Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com • (984 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Liberalism Created the WDBJ Killer

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    This is all the result of liberal parenting, of the psychobabble disgorged by the likes of Dr. Benjamin Spock. It’s no wonder many young people today have little sense of just hierarchies — their permissive liberal parents didn’t establish a just hierarchy in the home. Instead, they acted as if their family was a dysfunctional democracy and junior a special-interest group that political correctness dictated must be coddled and catered to. Junior seldom heard the word “No!” uttered in exclamatory fashion; junior seldom had to delay gratification; junior got participation trophies just for showing up. He was treated as a little prince around whom the world revolved. He was marinated in “self-esteem” pap in schools, telling him how great and special he was. The result? Junior and many of his peers (not that he imagined he had any peers) grew up to be narcissists.

    Holy smokes, Selwyn. As they say, tell us how you really feel. 🙂 But I couldn’t agree more.

    I’ve been wanting to write something on “love” and “compassion” with the mind that “compassion” is a meaningless concept (even a harmful one) without wisdom. It’s easy to hurt more than help, no matter that one has “compassionate” good intentions.

    But I haven’t written much about this yet because I’m stuck in a somewhat apathetic mode. I doubt many people would understand it. Good god, I just read that the weirdo “Caitlyn” has his own TV show. There are few people left to reason with. “Compassion” is now giving in to every kook, anarchist, and degenerate who has (or says he has) a “cause.” We’ve become so simple-minded and corrupt, we don’t know how to say no. We have no rationale for doing so, for “no” implies doing that nastiest of all things: enforcing your standards over that of somebody else. And we all know now that “What’s right for you may not be right for me. We all need to live by our own guiding lights.”

    In a truly compassionate world, people such a Bruce Jenner would be handled like you would someone who is mentally ill. You would not give him a cable show. You would tell people who engage in homosexual behavior that marriage isn’t for them because ass-fucking doesn’t qualify as an act that has anything at all to do with family business.

    Blacks would be told that they need to stop blaming others and mind themselves. Women would be told to quit being victims. If they want equality, then be willing to compete on a truly level playing field where you might not be the first picked for more physical roles like cops, firefighters, and the military.

    Illegal aliens would be told that “the path to citizenship” is the road back to where they came from where they are already citizens. It is not “compassionate” to force legal Americans to bear the burden of your illegalities.

    And “the poor” would stop being used as cannon fodder for narcissism and various political power plays. Unless you haven’t noticed, tens of millions of “the poor” have been killed over the last hundred years by people whose very purpose was supposedly to reorganize society to help “the poor.” Instead, compassionate people would recognize that what “the poor” need are good morals, a good work ethic, a good education, and feeling the pain of failure and the healthy glow of success.

    If compassion was true, we wouldn’t be talking about “black lives matter.” We’d be talking about “all lives matter,” including the unborn. If “compassion” were true, we would note that our president is aiding and abetting the terrorist in the Middle East (Iran) by helping to get them the bomb. Instead, we make excuses for evil lest we be “divisive.”

    But most people’s “compassion” is false. And the kumbaya “compassion” you see in many libtard Christian circles is doubly so. This kind of “compassion” has said it has never met a foul act it can say is outside the bounds of decency.

    So I won’t spend a lot of time on this subject because I think it would resonate with few people. Just go get another tattoo and keep devolving toward the apes. That seems to be America’s real passion.

    • David Norris says:

      “”But most people’s “compassion” is false. And the kumbaya “compassion” you see in many libtard Christian circles is doubly so. This kind of “compassion” has said it has never met a foul act it can say is outside the bounds of decency.”

      Brad… As usual…well said. I concur.

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    Flanagan was likely an affirmative-action (i.e., pro-black discrimination) hire, but he also would have been helped by the increasing reluctance of managers to give unfavorable references — especially to abrasive blacks who choose to live their lives as professional victims. (I remember my mother mentioning some Greek guy in Kifissia way back when who would regularly arrange “accidents” in order to pick up compensation from the drivers — likely tourists — who hit him. There would be virtually no real damage, but they wouldn’t know that. Flanagan might have appreciated that scam

    Liberalism is indeed harmful, and Flanagan isn’t the only murderer inspired by that hateful cult. Floyd Corkins was another, and so are many of the recent cop-killers (including the one last weekend in Houston). Chanting “What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!” or “Pigs in blankets, fry ’em like bacon!” can have real consequences, and if liberals really cared about the police they would condemn those marchers and their leaders.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      but he also would have been helped by the increasing reluctance of managers to give unfavorable references

      Some of the words this guy considered racist were incredible…but normal. This guy was hearing exactly what they are now teaching in college and other places.

      Thank god Selwyn put part of the blame where it is due. I’ve read too many articles on this at conservative sites that say, “Of course we can’t blame anyone’s politics on this…he’s just a crazy.”

      But how about a simple convergence of influences? This victimhood stuff may indeed have pushed him over the top. In any case, the language of victimhood was paramount in his mind. And he didn’t make that up himself. The Left is poison. Nothing less than poison.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        The Geraghty types who reject blaming such crimes on liberal ideas are engaging in moral equivalence between liberals who make false linkages of crimes to conservatives (such as blaming the Gabby Giffords shooting on Sarah Palin) and conservatives who point out the genuine links in some cases between liberals and such murders (or attempts) as the attack by Floyd Corkins, the attempted mass murder of Vester Flanagan, and numerous cop-killings. They can’t seem to gather that there’s a difference between a false link and a true one.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          And they wonder why Trump is ahead in the polls. The Republican Party needs to be fumigated or dismantled.

          These guys are soulless pricks. God only knows what their agenda is.

      • David Ray says:

        Flanigan was kinda like that other self indulgent loser Jayson Blair – coddled & pampered which yeilded, yet again, predictable results.
        At least he only manifest his unthankfulness by allowing a liberal publishing house to coddle him further. (I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for Lord Nelson to reveiw his book)

        So it appears that loading incompetent idiots with self-esteem yeilded us a murderer, another reporter and a president.

  3. M Farrell says:

    “Holy smokes, Selwyn. As they say, tell us how you really feel. 🙂 But I couldn’t agree more.”

    Holy smokes, Brad. As they say, just tell us how you really feel. 🙂 Great article, Selwyn– Great comment on so called “compassion” Brad– Don’t lose heart, there are still some of us with an aversion to tattoos and socializing with apes– This webpage continues to be one of my favorites– Thank you for a wonderful place to come and read discussions devoid of nonsense– hat tip to you all–

  4. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    I believe I saw somewhere that this asshole bragged on social media about being a male prostitute. What a perv. The only positive which has come out of this story is that he killed himself, thus saving society both money and further pain.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I believe I saw somewhere that this asshole bragged on social media about being a male prostitute.

      I had no idea that was a career option. Let me get back to you.

      Okay, after consultation with my official Love and War man who is versed in all things worldly (and some things other-worldly), I’ve been informed that the career choice of male prostitute might not be quite what I was thinking. Apparently the clientele would be mostly older men, not Swedish bikini models. Damn.

  5. ronlsb says:

    Very perceptive piece, Selwyn. Keep up the good work!!

  6. David Norris says:

    Selwyn – Great piece, you covered all the bases.

    This may be an academic question, but it keeps coming up for me. It seems that today’s left is so far left, calling them “liberals” is a disservice or even an insult to actual liberals.

    Would it not be better to always call the left, socialists or Marxists or communists? If we used those names consistently, maybe they would publicly admit it, even as a slip-of-the-tongue, and stop pretending it is otherwise? Using the name they chose to identify themselves as…”progressives”… seems to validate them and their Utopian fantasies of progress and human “evolution”.

    Is this a case where labels do matter? What do you gentlemen and ladies think?

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Allen Drury once pointed out (I believe in Capable of Honor) that those he called “professional liberals” were in fact very illiberal. It’s one of the ironies of modern politics. Of course, those liberals are totally dishonest (as Harry Truman once noted, “No professional liberal is intellectually honest”), so it’s appropriate that those called “liberal” are very illiberal, those called “progressive” are very regressive. A better term would be “fascist” or “socialist” (liberals are actually a mix of both forms of totalitarianism). Their party would best be known as IngSoc (as in their political guide, 1984).

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Is this a case where labels do matter? What do you gentlemen and ladies think?

      Watch it. Who are you calling a gentleman. 😉

      David Horowitz writes that the Left used to call themselves Progressives when he was young and amongst that crowd, thick as thieves…and then moved to liberal when Progressive had garnered a stigma.

      They have since moved on to Progressive again. Rush Limbaugh is of the mind to not quibble over such distinctions and just call them liberals.

      And for all practical purposes, it probably enlightens very few to parse the difference between liberal, socialist, Leftist, Communist, Marxist, Marxist-Leninist, Progressive, etc. I doubt that yours truly could give a distinction that would stick.

      But there are general traits all on the Left (a good moniker indeed) share: A pining for Utopia, a belief that man is a blank slate devoid of a human nature (thus is infinitely malleable), that most of the world has been in conflict because they didn’t share the enlightened and benevolent viewpoints of the Left, that government in the hands of themselves can solve all important problems, that rights are what government says they are (thus they are all de facto atheists), that people are good by nature and warped only by the greed induced by capitalism and competition, that society can be understood as a conflict along the lines of race/class/gender, that all values and truths are relative (and always subservient to The Plan), that real meaning (such as can ever be had in an atheistic concoction) is found through the state, that white Christian capitalist males are inherent exploiters and their opposites are worthy victims due endless recompense.

      What do you want to call that? Does it really matter considering that there isn’t a politician in the world ready and willing to call a spade a spade and dig down into the roots of this poisonous belief system and refute it?

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Other aspects that tie all these names together — liberal, socialist, Leftist, Communist, Marxist, Progressive, etc. — is the desire for “equality.” But not equality as “equal under the law” or “equal worth under the eyes of God.” They want equal outcome and different things (such as men and women) to be treated always as equal as if there were no differences — well, sort of.

      This “equality,” however, is not so equal for it rests on this simple foundation: white Christian males have had “privilege” and thus “equality” is a means for punishing the one and raising up all the supposed victim groups (various “minorities” and “people of color”).

      When conservatives go on and on about “personal responsibility” (which is a good thing), it’s unclear if most of them understand the roots of personal un-responsibility. If you’re deemed part of a victim group, there is no such thing as true equality or justice (this, for instance, is why you have “social justice”). Victim groups don’t have to play by the rules. They have extra favors coming. That this creates little monsters is clear to you and me but not to those who, for whatever reason, can’t morally reason their way out of a wet paper bag.

      And there is no end to this game. Even if we were to relent that some groups, in certain times and places, had a raw deal, there is no end to this game. We will never reach a point where somehow things have been equalized and justice is served and we can then wave a banner of victory and can all heave a sign of relief and then dismantle the apparatus of state-imposed unfairness and prejudice. This is not about recompense but gangster-like politics. Power. Money. Ego. And racial prejudice coming from the other side.

      And the trump card in all this (and it is not Donald Trump) is your “average” person out there who simply thinks this whole game is about being nice to homosexuals, equal pay for women, and saving the planet. They have no idea the real game being played and this is why Lenin himself purportedly invented the term, “useful idiots.” This is also what Rush euphemistically calls “low-information voters.”

      Until the rank and file understand that there are the equivalent of political gangsters running this scam, it will be impossible to change it. But deluding yourself about other people’s motives is easy, especially if by doing so you get the ego-rush of thinking of oneself as one of the specially compassionate, the specially anointed.

      Aiding and abetting the confusion of names and terms is that society is just getting too complicated for any one person to have a handle on what is going on. Much of this confusion is intentional, of course. (“We’ll have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”) Big bureaucracies and too many laws, let alone the bastardization of truth and facts as the Left has done, makes it very difficult for anyone to navigate the current culture. The best one can do is grab a few points and pound your drums.

      Few still have an idea, for example, of what caused the housing boom and bust. Even very smart people such as Ben Carson believe that it was a lack of government regulation when (at least according to Thomas Sowell) it was specifically because the government was rigging the markets that a bubble was created. Nearly every other important issue we face is obscured by clouds of obfuscation and misinformation.

      Obfuscation surrounds us on all subjects…including the increasingly traitorous Republican Party that pretends to be friends to conservatives but is more their enemy then they are of the Left. What one word could possible describe what is going on now? Maybe someone out there has it. I don’t.

  7. David Norris says:

    Okay then, speaking of obfuscation and misinformation, here is a ‘wrench for the works’:
    I’ve been reading a couple of posts this morning that suggest this “killing” was another “false flag” event created in the hope of sparking the much heralded race war that folks have been waiting for. I reckon the puppet masters are frustrated so they asked themselves, “what will finally get white America to take an action against the injustice of it all?” So they came up with a narrative black, gay, mentally ill, progressive that all whites could get behind in hating.

    Can’t speak for the credibility of these allegations, but, if true, does that mean we are spending time debating and analyzing in the wrong field? Who IS the ‘enemy’ after all?

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Can’t speak for the credibility of these allegations, but, if true, does that mean we are spending time debating and analyzing in the wrong field?

      First of all, those would seem to be tin-foil-hat allegations of a conspiracy. No doubt conspiracies happen and pawns are used (such as that one guy in “Narcos” who takes a bomb in the guise of a cassette tape recorder aboard an airliner and thinks he is supposed to be secretly recording a conversation of a couple of the passengers in the next aisle).

      Stuff like that does obviously happen, but it is likely very rare in regards to specific cases with a specific object. (That there is a culture-wide conspiracy of BS bamboozling by the Left, I do not at all deny.)

      The problem with posts that suggest that this killing deserves to have the word “killing” put in quote marks is that it shows that people aren’t taking it seriously. They’re more concerned with displaying their “secret knowledge” and showing how they supposedly really know what’s going on (while completely ignoring the highly plausible and somewhat boring truth of the matter). This kind of political gnosticism is exactly what propels libertarians, for example. And it wouldn’t shock me if you told me that you found these comments on a libertarian site.

      Once the established order is thoroughly de-legitimized, then everyone then takes this onboard as a fait accompli and as their implicit premises for how to parse the world. And then out come various nihilistic and narcissistic conspiracy theories.

      Certainly there are many enemies. But one first has to decide, “Enemy to what? What is it you wish to believe, build, or uphold that you think is good and beneficial?” Then you can sort out your enemies and find out what it is they want and why it is contrary.

      And one of those enemies is the kind of “loose lips sink ships” mentality (for whom that slogan was needed) that fills the airwaves with thoughtless blabber instead of engaging the facts at hand. And perhaps that shows us one of our prime enemies: ignorance. Many people have little idea what is going on. But they’ve been given a simple formula for how the world supposedly works and been given a gold star just for showing up and told how marvelously wise they are for believing this bullshit.

      That’s a tough nut to crack.

      • David Norris says:

        Well said Brad.

        It does seem that part of the disinformation game is to get us so confused that we don’t who or what to trust…including our own reasoning and ability to discriminate truth from lie.

        In the meanwhile, since I can’t crack it either, I’ll just hold on to that nut…gingerly.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      The use of quotes for “killing” would seem to indicate that these bloggers don’t think anyone was actually killed. The likelihood that this whole incident was a complete fabrication is too small to be worth considering. Anyone who thinks that’s a serious possibility is unlikely to be worth paying attention to.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        The use of quotes for “killing” would seem to indicate that these bloggers don’t think anyone was actually killed.

        Issue:

        + Yes, the media can’t be trusted. But let’s talk about that instead of putting quote marks around “killer.” Does someone have hard evidence that this was completely staged? If so, please give reasonable evidence or else one is just contributing to the cloud of misinformation and distortion that exists out there.

        This isn’t a trick question or a particularly difficult intellectual argument. That this common sense is so routinely bypassed is evidence to my mind that people react to this stuff out of ignorance, if not also with little other than a sense of being entertained (or entertaining).

        In other words, objective truth “out there” has come to mean very little compared to the immediate ego-gratification that can come “in here.”

        • Timothy Lane says:

          If people like that aren’t careful, they can end up like Winston Smith at the beginning of 1984, who writes the date of his first diary entry and then has to think about whether or not the date (even the year) is actually correct. Total paranoia is a bad way to spend life, even if it turned out to be true (cf. “They” by Robert Heinlein).

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            I don’t think this widespread love of conspiracy theories is born only of ego gratification. I think another large part of it is that we live in such times of misinformation that widespread distrust is justified. People on some level know they are being lied to.

            The problem is that these “gold star just for showing up” generations don’t want to do the work of peeking behind the false fronts. So they reach for the fast-food equivalent of knowledge which is conspiracy theories.

  8. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Speaking of liberalism, here’s a great line from Cartoonish Colleges by George Neumayr:

    The rationale for higher education grows less and less serious. It has become little more than training for how to live in a politically correct society that is at once puritanical and pornographic.

    The article concludes:

    Duke’s motto is “Eruditio et Religio,” meaning knowledge and religion. It should be changed to pop culture and political correctness. Christian students at Duke seeking wisdom and virtue have been told to find them not in classical works or traditional religion but in “Tony Award”-winning lesbian propaganda, and if they don’t like it, too bad. That’s life in 21st century America.

    Glenn! Glenn! Where are you? George is stealing your stuff!

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I would like to see Republican state governments look into their state universities to see if the purse strings could be used to control them, and thus mitigate (you can probably never eliminate) the harm done by the intelligentsia.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Timothy, I think it’s safe to say by now that the Republican Establishment has no interest in, or stomach for, confronting what they dismiss as mere “social” issues. (Everything they want to do may be socialism, proper, but I’m just saying what they would say.)

        I would like to see Republican state officials do any number of things. But with perhaps a very few exceptions, they have shown that they don’t have the desire to do so. And I suspect this isn’t cowardice as much as it is the fact that they are liberals in disguise. They went to the same back-slapping, towel-snapping Ivy League schools and sucked at the same PC teat. They pretty much hold the same beliefs.

        This is what people will begin to find out about both Ben Carson and Carly, for example. It’s not that they’re bad people. But in no way are they thoughtful conservatives with a foundation of beliefs in anything but some murky mix of pop culture combined with a few conservative-sounding sound bytes they’ve picked up here and there.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *