I’m supposed to issue an opinion on Donald Trump’s run for the President, or at least my impression on the impression that he deliberately impressed upon the public, for whatever goal or gain possibly manifested in his combed over mind.

(By supposed to, I mean someone posted the question on my personal page on the Facebook, and a young lady “Liked” the question, so I’m obligated to answer).  It is my duty, as both a patriotic American and a gentleman.

But then there was a racially-tuned terrorist attack in Charleston, South Carolina.  I’m unclear on whether the evil bastard was motivated by racial hatred or whether racial hatred was simply a means to fulfill his narcissistic demand for attention.  People will tell through endless punditry that you have to declare a belief in one or the other and then they will mock you for dogmatically attaching yourself to the wrong theory, that is to say what they dogmatically think is wrong.  This is nonsense. We don’t read minds.  And evil murderous traitorous monsters are traditionally very hard to read and sympathize with.  What are his motivations?  Political, ideological, or sick, twisted form of personal gain through fame? Naturally in response to his demand for attention, the media cast a spotlight on him like a bunch of chumps.

Because they’re chumps.

Naturally I figured out that trying to divine the why an evil murderous assbag would murder people is giving him the attention he wants.  So morons on the Facebook condemned me for not declaring him a racist.  He is probably a racist.  I know he is probably a racist.  But you won’t hear or read me say that he is a racist because I’m not affirming his intentions.

This often misses part of the point about attention-starved serial killers is that deliberately shape how they want other people to see them or see their motivations.  They may be idiots or sick and twisted, but actions can be cold and deliberate.  He drove 100 miles to target the church of an anti-gun activist, because he deduced that no one in the edifice would be armed.

By the way, victim-blaming is not cool.

So whether this was racially motivated or not narcissism at work, the murderous terrorist assbag that clothed himself in Confederate iconography got people talking about this racism and his motivations and his intentions to…. start a race war.  First, we’ll discuss the Confederate iconography after I pass

this certification exam that I am working on.  I don’t particularly want to, and am doing it in more in the light of the General Lee than the state capital of a Carolina because that discussion is overlong, cliched, repetitive so it happens every couple of years or so, and the Master Douchebag chimed in on it, so it surely has the illusion of being important rather than actually being important.  Secondly, the usual politicization of the death of innocents happened again, and unfortunately that politicization starting within 20 hours of the shooting is about an average speed now.  The Left decries all guns as sources of death and apocalypse, and members of the Right indulge in victim-shaming,likely unintentional, with a round of “if only one of the victims had a gun he would not be a victim”.

All crass and no class.

NWO: the New World Order

(Now you don’t have to like him yet there are very few Boss-level campaigners that successfully elected Presidents in the last twenty years, especially since only three men were President since 1992) but naturally old school political titan Karl Rove, in his role as panelist on Sunday morning show Fox News Sunday, chimed in off-the-cuff.  His mockery of the idea of removing guns to remove gun violence caused the morons and liars to compel social media echo chamber residents to all start mewling to the high heavens about gun owner Karl Rove’s grand fantasy to suspend the Second Amendment.  This so he can confiscate all the guns, and let the New World Order sweep in.  All of that is in regards to an attack on a church by a murderer whose name I still have not mentioned.

The fact is that whether or not the murderer is a neo-confederate racist, he wants you to think he is a neo-confederate racist.  I do enjoy smoking cigars, having intelligent conversations, drinking white Russians, coining neologisms, and watching Star Trek; I also enjoy beautiful women and football.  I want you to believe I enjoy all those things as well.  Yet it is possible to keep those preferences completely private and deliberately cast the impression that I’m a humble Catholic with an oath of poverty.  That’s what makes the “Why?” question of the terrorist and his attack on black Christian parishioners a bit useless, because the answer you get is the answer he wants you to hear, which possibly is not his real motivation.  How many of these vile people do terrible things with a desire to keep their motivations or a public version of themselves completely  unknown?  The Unabomber had a manifesto.  I think the Oklahoma City bomber tried to keep himself and his motivations in hiding but once caught we certainly got an earful and that created a stereotype for the right-wing domestic terrorist.

Which is another galling, tiresome thing: hearing and reading pundits of opposing political orientations attempt to determine the political orientation of the killer-person and then convince their respective audience that that ideology is necessarily the Ideology of Death and Hate, and more importantly the killer votes for the other party.  So naturally while I don’t doubt that the killer is a leftist, just as the Giffords killer was a leftwing Democrat and so many others, you’ll find a lot of people asserting that killing sprees are derived from Republican ideology and possibly Sarah Palin. Because Sarah Palin wanted Gabby Giffords shot in the head.  That’s all a red herring anyway. Castigating Republicans or Democrats for the voting habits or beliefs of a psycho-murderer is a form of blood libel.  There is no mainline political thought that leads to mass murder.

Evil people twist common ideas into their own warped use.

All of which leads me away from the question I was initially asked before all the violence, chaos, and stupidity started.  I’ll talk about Donald Trump hopefully next week.  I have work to do to get me a living, and prosperity.

Yet about the Rove thing from last Sunday?  Karl Rove being anti-Second Amendment is completely

inconsistent with his actions that occurred in the real world.  Karl Rove desiring a world without guns only exists inside the minds of certain people, because that’s a fictional Karl Rove that wants to rid the world of firearms.  The Daily Caller lies to you for clicks and ad revenue; some people just want some things to be true so damned badly they’ll actually convince themselves that something is happening when it’s a complete fantasy.  Those people are less useful in actual political work. Truthfully, Karl Rove is mostly retired and definitely rich; he doesn’t care what you think of him.  He doesn’t care what we low-level citizen activists type on the Facebook or the Twitter. He doesn’t care who we are so much anymore.  So I’m not defending Karl Rove.  I’m defending the truth…. because anybody that believes a convenient lie is harming themselves, and if I can casually prevent idiotic self-harm I will.

And I’ll go more into it later, but in the name of casually preventing self-harm, I caution any reader (all three of you, and please get me a few thousand more) to not get too head-over-heels for the presidential bid of Donald Trump.