+31
Why do people assume a mass shooter's manifesto is honest?
I mean, if somebody's willing to blast a bunch of innocent people, they're obviously not a "good person," so why do people assume they're being honest when they say why they did it? amirite?
The El Paso guy said it was a suicide mission, but not only did he surrender to police, he wore hearing protection, so it's reasonable to assume he was lying about that. Also, at this point in history everybody knows how an event like that will be used, so it seems like fertile ground to sow a false narrative.
So the attack
A, won't do anything to solve illegal immigration
B, will be used to demonize the shooter's purported ideology (American nationalism)
C, will make it harder to criticize illegal immigration for fears of inspiring someone else to attack illegals.
So you have the stated goal, and you have what was actually accomplished, and they're diametric opposites. So the shooter is either absolutely clueless, or his stated objectives were not his actual objectives. Which makes me wonder why people assume his manifesto is what he thinks rather than what he merely wants everyone to think he thinks.
In my opinion, the real target was the image of guns, and of conservatives. They were willing to take a bunch of innocent lives because in their minds the ends justify the means. It's more of a theory than a provable fact, but that's how I see it.
Political insanity.. .
I think because those people are the type who never like to see a crisis or tragedy go to waste for their ideological, political expediency.
Outside of that, most people would have their doubts if the manifesto was all there was to go on without solid, historical, physical proof.