Rushin’ To Destruction, 2019 In Review, Part 12-- Lawrence O’Donnell Details The Fantasy World Of Trump Followers

-by Noah

During the 2016 campaign half of me was amazed that anyone could watch candidate Trump speak even for two minutes and not realize that they are watching an insane person who had managed to not be confined to asylum only because of his money and economic status. It wasn’t even entirely about what he was saying, it was the persona itself. Sometimes it’s all in the vibe, the eyes, and a certain vocal quality.

The other half of me, of course, knew the answer to the mystery perfectly well. The answer lay in his hypnotic hand gestures and the fact that anyone who found what he had to say profound, believable, or even interesting probably had an IQ south of 80. There was also the fact that some people just liked his message of grievance and blame, particularly when it came to race issues and minorities. Remember those hand gestures? It was more than his acting like he was waving a lantern or playing an accordion (two of his favorites), or even the clenched fist style of dictators throughout history. There was also the number one Trump hand gesture-- the white power WP, three extended fingers signifying the W with the thumb and index finger forming a P. Yes. Many people just see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear, especially when they are led right to it.

Even given all of the above, it can still be hard to understand that 62 million fools would buy the crap this huckster is selling but they do. A lot of it has to do with Trump appealing to humanity’s baser instincts, i.e., the driving forces of what it means to be a Republican: greed, blame and the need to kick somebody, preferably if they’re down.

Back in mid-October, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell expanded on all of this in a piece he called “The Fantasy World Of Trump Followers” as follows:

To be a Trump voter, a Trump supporter is to be to varying degrees, a fantasist. Some businessmen supporting Donald Trump might like to live with the fantasy that they just vote to support his giant tax cuts that bankrupt the treasury of the United State and want his racism, not his vulgarity, not his rank ignorance about every subject he ever speaks about publicly.

Some Trump supporters live in a complete fantasy about Donald Trump himself, the fantasy that somehow Donald Trump will still get Mexico to pay for the wall. The fantasy that there will be a wall to pay for. The fantasy that Donald Trump is smarter than anyone else in politics, the fantasy that Donald Trump is a tough guy, even though he grew up a spoiled rich kid. The fantasy that Donald Trump is brave, even though he got repeated draft deferments to avoid the war of his era and has never once since then exhibited a single moment of bravery of any kind in his life. Still, the Trump fantasists see him as tough and brave and even thin and energetic as they do in this video that was shown at a Trump campaign event at a Trump property in Florida.





That’s about the only place where people would show this video publicly. We aren’t showing the video, and I noticed today the CNN hasn’t been showing the video because in this video, this fantasy version of Donald Trump shoots and kills someone from NBC, and someone from CNN, someone from CBS, and someone from BBC News, along with many other murder victims from many other news organizations. The fantasy Trump character shoots and kills Congressman Joe Kennedy whose grandfather was shot and killed while campaigning for president, and whose great uncle, President John F. Kennedy, was shot and killed, assassinated.

... In the video, the fantasy Trump kills more people than you can count, including Rosie O’Donnell, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and, of course, of course, the fantasy Trump completes what is perhaps the most rewarding of the fantasies in this video for Trump fantasists by breaking President Obama’s neck and killing him. Everyone named Trump is now claiming they knew nothing about this video, including Donald Trump, Jr., who was at the event where the video was shown. President Trump has, through a White House spokesperson, condemned the video after claiming he has not seen the video.

...What are the chances Donald Trump has not seen that video? That is code language for his followers to understand that he really doesn’t condemn the video. When he tells them he’s condemning the video without having seen it, he’s telling them that this is just a political thing that I have to say right now about the video, which I hope you watch and I hope you think of me this way, especially the thin part, fantasy.

As I always say, context is everything. This video is not a one-off. Remember back in 2017 when Trump tweeted out a short fake video of him beating on a CNN reporter at a wrestling match?





The newer video, this year’s model, described in such detail by Lawrence O’Donnell is really, in essence, just a longer and even more graphic version of that. It’s no longer Trump wrestling a reporter and delivering a beating. This time Trump is shooting and stabbing political opponents and journalists to death. It is the stuff of Republican dreams. This extended video is an altered form of a scene filmed in a church from the movie Kingsman: The Secret Service and it takes place in what the video names “The Church Of Fake News.” It was shown at an event held by a pro-Trump group that calls itself American Priorities. The event was held at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort which Trump himself now calls his legal residence and the “Southern White House.”

As O’Donnell mentions, Donald Trump, Jr. was in attendance. That we’ve had mass-shootings in churches and a Trump fanatic mailing pipe bombs to many of the victims depicted in the video should never be seen as a coincidence. Rather, it should be seen as another Trump attempt to incite violence against perceived Trump enemies, people he and his supporters call “enemies of the people.” It is a pattern. When that mass-shhoting or other violent event does occur, Trump will again “condemn’ the action and deny any responsibility or connection. Then he will go off camera and laugh.

Republicans Deserve The Blame They Get-- But There Are Still 25 House Dems-- Led By DCCC Chair Cheri Bustos-- Who Refuse To Back An Assault Weapons Ban

Three freshmen members of Congress who no one in their right mind will ever accuse of being courageous are Kim Schier (New Dem-WA), Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA) and Colin Allred (D-TX). Schrier's district is 72.3% suburban, the rest being about equally urban and rural. Luria's is over 95% urban and suburban; just 4.5% rural. And Allred's is 100% urban and suburban-- no rural precincts at all. On Friday Schier, Luria and Allred became the 209th, 210th and 211th members of Congress to sign on as co-sponsors to Dave Cicilline's bill to ban the sale of assault weapons, H.R. 1296. Pelosi has had the bill bottled up in the House Judiciary Committee since February 15. It took 3 more GOP/NRA gun massacres to get cowards like Schier, Luria and Allred to support it. I'm sure they feel like they're heroes now. The bill even had it's first official Republican co-sponsor, Peter King (August 16), before they-- pardon the metaphor, pulled the trigger. In all, 20 members (19 Dems, almost all of them New Dems and Blue Dogs) signed on after the spate of massacres, during the summer recess. Most of them represent suburban districts where support for banning assault weapons is more than just a majority; it's now an issue that will help determine who wins in 2020 and who loses.

Opposition to banning assault weapons still exists with some significance in backward rural areas. Few of the cowards who signed on represent backward rural areas. Better late than never. There are still 25 Democrats refusing to back the bill-- primarily Blue Dogs like top NRA-champions Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX) and Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN), "former" Republican Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ), DCCC chair Cheri Bustos (New Dem-IL), Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK), Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY), Ron Kind (New Dem-WI), Jeff Van Drew (Blue Dog-NJ), Lauren Underwood (IL), Vicente Gonzalez (Blue Dog-TX), Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA), Sharice Davids (New Dem-KS), Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT), Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR), Terri Sewell (New Dem-AL), Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC), Lizzie Fletcher (New Dem-TX), Andy Kim (Suicidal-NJ), Elissa Slotkin (New Dem-MI) and Xochitl Torres-Small (Blue Dog-NM).

A new poll for ABC News and the Washington Post was released yesterday that shows widespread support for gun control, including the assault weapons sales ban. Mike DeBonis and Emily Guskin wrote for The Post that "Americans across party and demographic lines overwhelmingly support expanded background checks for gun buyers and allowing law enforcement to temporarily seize weapons from troubled individuals." They wrote that Señor Trumpanzee and Republicans "face fresh pressure to act" but forgot to mention all the Blue Dogs and New Dems still sitting on the fence. Instead they point out that the poll shows that "More Americans say they trust congressional Democrats over Trump to handle the nation’s gun laws, 51 percent to 36 percent, with independents siding with Democrats by a 17-point margin-- a divide that could have political ramifications for the 2020 presidential and congressional elections."

On The Fence by Nancy Ohanian

Trump, the NRA, Blue Dogs and Republicans will no doubt put up a weak and useless background check bill and say "ok, happy now? It won't do any good." And they're right; it won't. The 89% of Americans who support expanding federal background checks include massive majorities of Republicans, of gun owners and even of lunatic fringe white evangelicals. Right now McConnell is the main problem, saying he won't allow the Senate to vote on anything until Trump agrees to back it.

Cicilline: "This is a pattern. They sort of hope time passes and people forget about it. The good news is, the American people are not going to let them forget about it. They’re going to demand that Congress and the Senate do something to reduce gun violence in this country." Sloppily, DeBonis and Guskin reported that "A growing number of Democrats-- and a few Republicans-- have signed on to a Cicilline-authored bill reimposing a version of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that was in place from 1994 to 2004. The House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing Sept. 25 on the bill-- a significant step for Democratic leaders who have long treated an assault weapons ban as too politically risky." They reporters are incorrect about "a few Republicans" signing on to Cicilline's bill. Several have agreed to vote for it on the House floor but only one-- Peter King-- is a co-sponsor. "In a sign of the changing politics, several of those joining the assault weapons bill are freshmen Democrats who won suburban districts previously represented by Republicans. “I don’t really see any reason for ordinary citizens to own weapons of war,” said Rep. Susan Wild (New Dem-PA), who represents a moderate Lehigh Valley district."

The obstacles continue to be Republicans who argue that the Democratic bills would infringe on law-abiding gun owners’ constitutional rights while doing little to prevent the actual causes of mass shootings. That is a perspective shared with a highly motivated slice of the party’s conservative base and promoted by its most aggressive advocacy group, the NRA.

“My concern is that what’s being proposed is not going to solve the root-cause problem,” Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) told reporters in mid-August when asked about red flag laws.

But there is a rising concern in the GOP that the party is putting itself at risk if it doesn’t take some kind of action to address the epidemic of mass bloodshed.

“If we’re not willing to do the common-sense stuff, probably legislation will occur that we’ll regret, that will actually, I think, infringe upon Second Amendment rights down the road, so I’m going to be one that’s going to look to try to do something,” Sen. Mike Braun (R-IN) told reporters Friday.

Several Republicans have expressed openness to federal legislation on red flag laws, which are also known as “extreme-risk protection orders,” including such influential lawmakers as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey O. Graham (SC) and Sen. Marco Rubio (FL).

Daines suggested instead that juveniles who commit serious crimes or make felonious threats be prevented from purchasing weapons as adults-- a proposal that is getting serious consideration for inclusion in the White House package.

ABC News added that some groups are more likely to support gun control than others. "Among those who are very or somewhat worried that a mass shooting could occur in their community, 67 percent support banning the sale of assault weapons. That drops to 39 percent support among those who are less concerned about an attack occurring in their area. There are other big differences among groups when it comes to the assault weapons question. Women are 20 percentage points more likely than men to support banning the sale of these weapons, 65 percent versus 45 percent. While support is higher in urban areas than elsewhere, there’s a broad gap between urban women (of whom 73 percent support a ban) and urban men (of whom 52 percent do). And among political independents, 72 percent of women favor a ban, compared with 43 percent of men. Education is also a sharp divider. Support for banning assault weapons rises with more education, ranging from 72 percent of those with postgraduate degrees to 46 percent of those with no more than a high school diploma. But here, too, gender influences attitudes. Among women who haven’t gone beyond high school, 55 percent back an assault weapons ban; among their male counterparts, it’s 38 percent. Support for a ban reaches 71 percent among blacks, compared with 52 percent among whites. It differs by age, ranging from 63 percent among seniors to 49 percent among young adults. (Perhaps counterintuitively, support for banning assault weapons sales is higher among seniors even though they tend to be more conservative politically.) And politics is a very prominent factor, as likely will soon be on display in Washington. Eighty-one percent of Democrats support an assault weapons ban, compared with 55 percent of independents and 33 percent of Republicans."

Trump's Brown Shirts

There were gays, Hispanics, African-Americans, Jews, union members... even Muslims, who voted for Trump in 2016 and some of them plan to do so again next year. Are they all crazy? Ignorant? Stupid? Some thing like that. I always wanted to know-- but never found anything definitive-- how many Jews voted for Hitler in the 1932 presidential election and for Nazi Party in the Reichstag elections in 1932 and 1933. The elections in July and November of '32 and in March of 1933 led to the deaths of 6 million European Jews. Between 1932 and 1939 about 300,000 German Jews wisely fled the country. Subsequently, 180,000 German Jews were murdered. Wouldn't you like to know how many of them had voted for Hitler and his party?

In 2016, about 24% of Jews who voted, voted for Trump. Blacks were much smarter; only 8% voted for Trump. 29% of Hispanics-- many of them Cuban rightists-- voted for him. 29% of Asian-Americans did. And 14% of LGBTQ voters pulled the levers for Trump. 16.8% of Muslim voters, picked Trump. Are all these people suicidal? Maybe.

Yesterday Wall Street Journal reporters Georgia Wells and Ian Lovett wrote about The Toxic World Where Mass Shooters Thrive. This is part of Trump world-- no Antifa here, just Trumpists, wall to wall Trumpists. And they would like to kill all these gays and Jews and blacks and Hispanics and Asians, including the ones who voted for their man. Suspects in recent attacks posted to hate-filled forums in this dark, fringey corner of TrumpWorld, such as 8chan, which brim with racist content. They tout "kill scores." Wells and Lovett wrote that "Less than two weeks after a gunman killed more than 50 people at two mosques in New Zealand, law-enforcement officials found a disturbing piece of graffiti outside a San Diego County mosque that had been set on fire. 'For Brenton Tarrant -t./pol/,' it read. The cryptic message, which paid homage to the alleged New Zealand shooter and a dark corner of the internet where such shootings are celebrated, foreshadowed a string of violence."

I'm the least racist... by Nancy Ohanian

In April, one month after the graffiti appeared, John Earnest, the man who police say vandalized the mosque, allegedly attacked a nearby synagogue, leaving one person dead. Then, in August, a shooting in an El Paso Walmart killed 22. One week later, a Norwegian man allegedly opened fire at an Oslo mosque.

The trio of suspects don’t appear ever to have met, but they all idolized Mr. Tarrant and were part of a hate-filled online community that is emerging as an important front in law-enforcement efforts to ward off future attacks.

The online forums, known as /pol/ for “politically incorrect,” offer a platform for hate speech where posts are almost always anonymous, making it difficult for law enforcement to identify who is using the sites. Hateful ideologies, including white supremacy, are promoted across the sites and used to incite violence, forming a chain of influence that appears to have led from one mass shooting to the next. When one site is shut down, users swiftly migrate to another.

Mass shooters are revered on the forums, which brim with racist and antigay content. Posts encourage attacks against mosques, synagogues and immigrants. Large numbers of fatalities are celebrated as “high scores.”

When a gunman in West Texas opened fire on Saturday, the forums lit up, with users demanding to know his “kill count” and saying they hoped he was white and his victims Hispanic. The alleged shooter doesn’t appear to have ties to the forums.

The most popular site among extremists, 8chan, has been largely knocked offline in recent weeks after tech-support providers cut off service. But extremists and violent rhetoric are popping up elsewhere. The alleged attacker at the Oslo mosque posted on another site, Endchan. A letter New Zealand authorities said Mr. Tarrant sent from jail, which warns of bloodshed soon to come, was posted on another site, 4chan. The sites are unconnected.

Lawmakers and law-enforcement officials are trying to better understand how the sites function and what can be done to combat the calls to violence posted there. Democratic and Republican leaders of the House Homeland Security Committee subpoenaed Jim Watkins, 8chan’s owner, to testify Thursday about extremist content. The committee is weighing whether the government should take a more active role in trying to prevent the spread of such content, and how the sites can flag potential violence to law enforcement, according to a person familiar with the committee’s plans. Committee Chairman Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS) has vowed to hold hearings to discuss how to better fight what he calls domestic terrorism.

Counterterrorism experts and others who study the forums say they provide inspiration for some participants to act, catalyzing a succession of lone-wolf shooters who try to one-up one another. Shutting them down entirely will be all but impossible, said Robert Evans, who has investigated internet extremism for years with research collective Bellingcat. “I expect we will see shootings that are inspired by these manifestos but posted on places other than 8chan because the site is down,” he said.

Law-enforcement officials say Mr. Earnest, the 20-year-old accused in the San Diego attack, Patrick Crusius, the alleged shooter in El Paso, and Mr. Tarrant all posted racist pronouncements to 8chan’s /pol/ forum ahead of their attacks. In each case, other users responded while the shootings were going on.

“He at least did something, thats respectable,” one 8chan user posted about Mr. Earnest’s alleged synagogue shooting.

“So what’s his kill count?” said another.

Tore Bjørgo, director of the Center for Research on Extremism in Oslo, said: “You have this idea that they should outdo each other.” Sites such as 8chan, he said, are “where they find their inspiration….That’s where they expect to get fame and recognition.”

Messrs. Tarrant and Earnest have pleaded not guilty. Mr. Crusius hasn’t yet been arraigned. Mr. Earnest’s lawyer declined to comment. Lawyers for the other two suspects didn’t respond to requests for comment.

8chan didn’t respond to requests for comment. In postings on Twitter and YouTube after the subpoena, Mr. Watkins, who resides in the Philippines, said he isn’t an extremist, and he defended 8chan as a bastion of free speech.

Mr. Watkins said the site had a million users, and 4chan has said its site has more than 20 million. SimiliarWeb, an internet traffic research firm, estimates 8chan has 10 million to 20 million visits a month.

Founded in 2013, 8chan gained popularity the following year when 4chan, a similar site with less hate speech and more moderation, cracked down on users who were harassing women who developed and reviewed videogames. 8chan embraced those users.

The site calls itself “the darkest reaches of the internet.” Its home page carries a disclaimer saying that some topic sections, or “boards,” might “have content of an adult or offensive nature,” and only content violating U.S. laws is deleted.

Anonymity is protected. Users are given a random ID number for each discussion, and frequently use jargon alien to outsiders-- derisively referred to as “normies.” The stripped-down user interface seems straight out of the 1990s. It contains lists of links to discussion boards on such topics as anime, pornography and videogames.

Unpaid moderators on 8chan’s /pol/ forum promote certain ideologies, according to one researcher of radical online communities who has studied the site for years. One moderator deleted anti-Trump statements, the researcher said, while others argue about whether to support patriotism or white nationalism. Recruiters for the Atomwaffen Division, a neo-Nazi terrorist group, lurk on the site, he said.

Often users show up on 8chan airing vague frustrations. The tone often starts as mocking and sarcastic. Then other users encourage them to express anger at groups they identify as the enemy-- often Jews, feminists, black people and other minorities-- giving the newcomers a sense of purpose, according to the researcher.

Anti-Semitic cartoons, diatribes against race mixing and proclamations of a coming “race war” dominate 8chan’s /pol/ board. A popular meme depicts images of murdered white women, a message intended to persuade white women not to associate with nonwhite men and justify promoting race-based violence. Another popular meme asks users: “What have you done today for the white race?”

Anders Breivik, the Norwegian neo-Nazi who killed 77 people in 2011, is lionized, and his 1,500-page screed, which was frequently shared on 8chan, is a touchstone. Mr. Tarrant cited Mr. Breivik as his guiding light.

Mr. Evans, of Bellingcat, analyzed how 75 extremists on the internet said they had become radicalized. In about half of the cases, their paths started with a radical YouTube video, typically anti-Semitic or Holocaust-denying, which pushes conspiracy theories. YouTube has said it has taken steps to reduce extremist content.

“8chan’s /pol/ board is the end of a journey of radicalization,” he said. “It’s to radicalize you into taking the next step.”

8chan played a major role in Mr. Earnest’s transformation, according to his online message and people close to him. He wrote that he had a lot going for him-- a loving family, great friends, a church-- and that he was doing well in nursing school. He said his family never taught him the ideology behind his attack.

The people close to Mr. Earnest said he began diverging politically from his family in 2016, when he began supporting then-candidate Donald Trump for president. He then started watching YouTube videos from right-wing commentators.

By late 2017, Mr. Earnest wrote, he had found his way to 8chan. People close to him said he began talking about Pepe the Frog, a cartoon character appropriated by white supremacists as a sort of mascot, and started tossing around clichés of anti-Semitism: Holocaust denial and the supposed existence of a Jewish conspiracy controlling government, Hollywood, major organizations and trade unions.

“He made it clear that 4chan was like amateur league, and he had risen to 8chan,” one of the people close to him said.

He also started using the N-word, prompting objections from family members, who noted that the pastor’s wife at their Orthodox Presbyterian Church is black. Mr. Earnest would respond that it wasn’t a big deal.

His family grew concerned and warned him that he could be manipulated by the anonymous people he was talking to online, said the person close to him. “That was not enough to overcome the grab that these ideas had on him that he gained from these anonymous sources,” this person said. Mr. Earnest always had a “canned” response defending his ideology.

In the months before the attack, he seemed more sullen and slower to laugh, the people close to him said. Still, those around him didn’t think he was dangerous. They hadn’t visited the site themselves or seen what he may have been posting there.

“I believed this was going to resolve,” one of them said. “We obviously did not understand the trajectory of where this would land.”

In the statement Mr. Earnest allegedly posted to 8chan shortly before the shooting began, he offered gratitude to 8chan and said Mr. Tarrant had inspired him.

“I’ve only been lurking for a year and a half, yet, what I’ve learned here is priceless,” the statement said about 8chan. “Tarrant was a catalyst for me personally….I only wish to inspire others.”

Mr. Tarrant had worn a camera and live-streamed his New Zealand attack, a practice that experts say turns shootings into a twisted form of entertainment. Mr. Earnest allegedly planned to film his attack, too. During the shooting, a link to a Facebook Live stream was widely shared on the 8chan /pol/ board, although people on 8chan said they couldn’t load it. Users joked and offered critiques, some mocking him for failing to kill more people.

“What the f— shooting style is this,” said one. “Garbage.”

“Go over to the synagogue and finish this retard’s work,” said another.

“I don’t think you get the title of ‘mass shooter’ unless you score at least 2,” said a third.

Still another weighed in: “Contrary to popular belief, shooting them in the nose doesn’t kill a jew?”

For law enforcement, 8chan postings and discussions are potential evidence-- and a breeding ground for more violence. After the San Diego area attack, the Federal Bureau of Investigation served a warrant to 8chan, seeking IP addresses and information about all the people who responded to Mr. Earnest’s posting or commented about it. “Some of the individuals may be potential witnesses, co-conspirators and/or individuals who are inspired by the subject posting,” the warrant said.

Mr. Crusius, the El Paso shooting suspect, cited similar motivations to Mr. Earnest’s in the statement he allegedly posted on 8chan. He wrote: “I support the Christchurch shooter and his manifesto,” a reference to Mr. Tarrant. “This attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas.”

Commenters on the site celebrated. “The new guy deserves some praise, he reached almost a third of the high score,” one wrote, a reference to the largest death toll in any mass shooting.

Under pressure following the El Paso massacre, internet-infrastructure provider Cloudflare Inc. stopped supporting 8chan, making it difficult to access. Cloudflare called the site “lawless by design.”

Some users circulated a document with instructions for finding 8chan on a hidden server on the dark web, a network of computers that use special software to conceal their true locations. Others migrated to other sites or to encrypted chat apps, where they are finding a thriving community similar to the one they left, according to Megan Squire, a professor of computer science at Elon University in North Carolina, who studies online extremism.

“They are following ISIS. They are under the same pressure to avoid detection,” she said.

Exactly one week after El Paso, Philip Manshaus, a 21-year-old Norwegian, allegedly posted a message on Endchan, another fringe site that has more moderation and less focus on violence than 8chan.

“It’s my time,” said a posting that carried his name. “I was elected by Saint Tarrant,” a reference to the New Zealand suspect. He also posted a meme celebrating Messrs. Earnest and Crusius as “disciples” of Mr. Tarrant.

Mr. Manshaus then allegedly went to the Oslo mosque and opened fire, injuring one person before being subdued by congregants.

The post attributed to him said he tried to set up a live stream of his attack on Facebook but wasn’t able to get it to work.

Endchan moderators quickly deleted the post and briefly took their site offline. They said a “large influx” of 8chan refugees had hit their site and many sites like theirs.

“This shooter is NOT representative of our regular user base,” Endchan said in a post on Twitter. “We have operated since 2015 without any incidents like this.”

Mr. Manshaus’s message was reposted on 4chan, where it spread quickly, generating scores of comments.

“God i hope he got a solid kill count on some actual shitting islamic invaders, not women and children,” one anonymous poster wrote.

When it became clear no one had died, many commenters mocked Mr. Manshaus in posts riddled with racist, anti-Semitic and anti-Islamic slurs.

“what a f—ing disappointment tho. no deads. no livestream,” one commenter wrote. “how many times will this happen? f—ing train at least”

“Some people aren’t made to kill,” wrote another. “He probably freaked out. Anders Breivik was stone cold, he went out like a terminator.”

4chan didn’t respond to a request for comment.

A group on chat app Telegram called The Bowlcast-- a reference to the bowl-style haircut of Dylann Roof, who killed nine black churchgoers in Charleston, S.C., in 2015-- posted a series of podcasts about which of these shooters they should canonize, according to Ms. Squire, who has viewed the posts and listened to the podcasts. Mr. Earnest, from San Diego, earned sainthood, they decided, but not Mr. Manshaus, because he was overtaken by worshipers at the mosque.

Shortly after the Oslo shooting, Mr. Tarrant surfaced again, this time via photographs posted on 4chan of a letter he allegedly wrote from his New Zealand prison. The letter, which received hundreds of comments on 4chan, concluded with talk of a “great conflict” on the horizon that would involve “a great amount of bloodshed.”

“Enjoy life,” he signed off, “but do not forget your duty to your people.”

Andrew Whitehead teaches sociology at Clemson University and is the Assistant Director of the Association of Religion Data Archives. Samuel Perry teaches sociology at the University of Oklahoma. They have a book coming out in February, Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States. They penned a piece yesterday for NBC.com with Landon Schnabel a sociology teachers at Stanford (whose book, Is Faith Feminine? What Americans Really Think about Gender and Religion, is also due out soon), about mass shootings and evangelical Christian who put their faith in guns instead of Jesus. They noted that "Trump, as he has after other shootings, offered thoughts and prayers but no promises on how he will respond. On Sunday, he said that the Odessa shooting 'really hasn't changed anything' about how lawmakers are approaching gun control legislation. Given Trump’s support and then opposition to gun control legislation in the weeks after the shooting in El Paso (but before Odessa), his most recent comments aren’t surprising."

74% of evangelicals-- about 40% more than normal Americans-- believe that "the absence of God from our public schools and places" contributes "a great deal" to gun violence. This is evangelical dogma, taught as fervently as the word of Jesus. About 44% of evangelicals see a connection between gun violence and the easy availability of guns. Most evangelicals are taught to blame gun violence on the mass media and pop culture "despite the rejection of this causal link by most criminologists who study violence in popular media."

No political appetite... by Nancy Ohanian

[T]he idea that evangelicals don’t want to “politicize” this issue, as the above quotes might suggest, rings untrue. Rather, it is certain political solutions that they oppose.

Evangelicals are far less interested in laws that limit the number of guns or restrict who can buy them. But evangelicals are more in favor of policies that increase the number of “good guys with guns” (security guards, teachers and school officials, all law-abiding citizens).

...In other words, the solution to mass shootings for evangelicals is less about eliminating the possibility of gun violence (which evangelical leaders are often quick to point out cannot be done), but to ensure that evil gun violence can be conquered with “righteous” gun violence.

So why are evangelicals so different from other Americans regarding guns? One explanation is because of how guns make them feel.

Significantly more gun-owning evangelicals than all other gun-owning Americans report that owning a gun makes them feel safe (77 percent), confident (59 percent), patriotic (48 percent), and more valuable to their family (44 percent) and their community (41 percent).

For gun-owning evangelicals, more so than other gun-owning Americans at least, gun ownership and rights go hand-in-hand with being an American and a good citizen.

The pervasiveness of Christian nationalist ideology and rhetoric within the evangelical subculture inclines them to view their Second Amendment rights as sacred, handed down by God for the benefit of the nation (which helps us understand why owning a gun would curiously make them feel more patriotic).

But in addition to their more “spiritual” concerns, social and psychological drivers matter for those in the evangelical subculture as well. Gun ownership is an expression of civic responsibility and helps them feel useful to those they care about. And it makes them feel secure and self-reliant.

When guns evoke such positive (even sacred) feelings of security and national belonging, is it any wonder that so many evangelicals refuse to consider gun control as a possible solution to America’s epidemic of mass shootings?

One of the newest Blue America-endorsed candidates, Jason Butler in northeastern North Carolina, has a very different view of morality. Jason is a very progressive pastor running for the 2nd district seat occupied by Trump rubber-stamp George Holding. Yesterday he wrote that he's running for Congress largely because the country is facing a moral crisis. Like I said, a very progressive pastor. He's worked as a community organizer, has founded two non-profits to help care for the vulnerable, has a history of fighting for racial justice, LGBTQ+ inclusion, and the economic flourishing for North Carolina's under-resourced communities. Please read what Jason has to say about the moral crisis informing his campaign and if it appeals to you, click on the thermometer and contribute what you can. Jason:

We are in the midst of a moral crisis in America and we cannot move forward without recognizing that we have allowed fear to drive us to do things to people we would never want to be done to us. Where is our “golden rule” or our collective moral integrity? We are separating families at the border; allowing record profits for corporations while millions go uninsured; and allowing the environment to die a slow death while we chant, “send her back…” No, these are not just policy issues-- they are issues of life and death and we must face them with a courageous conviction for the common good, or we will never be the same.

A few months ago I had an experience that pushed me to face this choice. I was at a prayer vigil with a group of over 100 Latinx men and women pleading to our legislators to veto a bill that would give ICE unfettered access to our communities. I was standing in the back near a group of their children who were playing nearby. They were playing like there were no problems in the world. They were playing as kids should.

As I watched them, I was struck by the sobering realization that many of these children would go home to their communities and live in the fear of their families being torn apart. That some may grow up with only one parent, because the other was taken.

While I watched them play follow-the-leader, a scripture came to mind and resonated in my heart. In Exodus, Moses has a conversation with God about the enslaved Israelites, and from the burning bush God says, “I have indeed heard the cry of their suffering…”

I believe that God hears the cries of those who suffer. I also believe that God sends us out to fight injustice and relieve suffering, as God did with Moses. Reflecting on that scripture while surrounded by that group of children-- each one of their lives subject to the powers that be, each with uncertain futures and tomorrows-- a conviction rose up in me to run for public office and to work to create a future where these kids, and so many like them, can have a future free of fear and full of liberty.

People sometimes ask, “What qualifies you to run for Congress?” Well, for the last 15 years I’ve worked not only as a pastor but also community organizer and and non-profit leader. In this work I spend my time listening to people, caring for them in their time of need, and organizing communities to develop innovate solutions and push the powerful to do all we can for the common good. Shouldn’t this sort of community service be at the heart of what it means to be a politician?

In this moment of political chaos, we need to see more elected officials consistently offering courageous leadership as a response to the suffering of our communities, and then taking strong action in order to ensure a flourishing future for every single person. Politics, at its best, is not about big money or corporate influence but rather, about the public negotiation of how a society cares for its citizens. I don’t know about you, but I feel like a lot of people are not being cared for right now. Even those who you may disagree with.

As Americans, we are a people who have the morality of liberty and justice for all etched into our collective imaginations. But when we are consumed with uncertainty and economic struggle, personal survival takes precedent. In this, we fight to hold on to what we have instead of fighting for liberty. Here, we find ourselves looking backwards instead of looking forward and allow the fear of what may be paralyze us from the hope filled future we can create. But it is precisely in these moments of uncertainty and struggle that seeking liberty and justice for all rallies us together, pushes against this paralyzing fear, gives us a collective purpose, and re-ignites hope in the future. Seeking the flourishing of my neighbor is the antidote to fear.

The issues we as a country are facing today are not just political issues but rather issues of morality that will define the nation we leave to the next generation. The separation of Latinx families and the detention of immigration children is immoral. The massive economic inequality that leaves many without healthcare while corporations record historical profits is immoral. The predatory behavior of pharmaceutical companies to push opioids on rural communities is immoral. The disregard for our environment’s health is immoral. The discrimination against our black, brown, and LGBTQ+ communities is immoral.

These are pressing issues, and while some politicians might give us complicated excuses to justify their inaction, I think the real problem is that many of our leaders lack the moral courage to do the right, and usually obvious, thing-- to stand up to big money, to ensure affordable healthcare, to refuse to legislate suffering, to inspire us to care for our most vulnerable, and to help us face our historical truths that we would like to pretend do not exist. Although we face challenges as a nation, we have within us the capacity to rise above our differences, push back the forces of fear, and reach towards the American dream of liberty and justice for all. But in order to realize this new future we must build it upon a foundation of equality. A foundation fortified by doing good for one another. We have to learn from our history and stop treating people different from us as less than us.

Fear is a poison that will slowly destroy our hopes and dreams and corrode our faith in each other-- and we must root it out. We don’t need to be afraid of the future-- we can enter it with courage and conviction, together. We need political leaders who can inspire us to these ideals, and who will boldly lead the way in creating a tomorrow that can be better than today.

I’m running for Congress because I know so many in our communities are suffering and need their voices to be heard. I’m running because I believe every child should be free to play without the threat of violence. I’m running because I believe we have the capacity to create a more perfect union if we all summon our deepest courage, work together, and embrace the strength of our diversity.

I’m running for Congress because I believe in equitable and flourishing future for us all and my conviction to fight for this future compels me to action-- even such an action as this. Yes, it may be unconventional, but we may just need some unconventional right now. Sure, I’m an outsider and a deep underdog. I don’t have big money or corporate influence. But maybe that’s exactly the way it should be: Everyday Americans running to create an America for everybody. Yes, it’ll be hard, but I’ve learned that most things that are worth doing are hard to do.

What I do have is a moral conviction for justice and a commitment to grassroots leadership…and well…I’ll take those over big money any day.