Triumphant Evil in Liberal America - The Story of Nathan McCall

[jordan179]

While reading a book entitled Evil - Inside Human Violence and Cruelty, by Roy F. Baumeister, I was horrified by the story of a particularly despicable villain by the name of Nathan McCall. Apparently he had written a book called Makes Me Wanna Holler, in which among other things he had detailed his commission of terrible crimes. McCall, as a

Comments

[scottks]

not only brings diversity to the newspaper staff, he brings real variation

They've taken the word diversity as far as it can go. "Real Variation"? Heaven forbid that we discriminate against real evil. It's come to this.

[polaris93]

Thank God for the Blogosphere. Without it there would be no coverage at all of this monster's crimes and utterly unrepentant attitude -- nor any exposure of the bastards who are enabling him. Whcih has me very worried: just how much longer will the powers-that-be stand for the existence of the Blogosphere?

[jordan179]

Well, the irony is that McCall himself covered his own crimes, in his book Makes Me Wanna Hurt Innocent People, or Makes Me Wanna Whine About How Nobody's Fair To Me, or whatever he called it. But, of course, he's never been prosecuted or sued for any of the crimes to which he's admitted, save the two ones he named (attempted murder and armed robbery) probably because he was a minor when he did many of them.

I don't think that the powers-that-be will be able to kill the blogosphere. Too big, too decentralized, too much damage to their own interests in the attempt.

[polaris93]

Well, the irony is that McCall himself covered his own crimes, in his book Makes Me Wanna Hurt Innocent People, or Makes Me Wanna Whine About How Nobody's Fair To Me, or whatever he called it. But, of course, he's never been prosecuted or sued for any of the crimes to which he's admitted, save the two ones he named (attempted murder and armed robbery) probably because he was a minor when he did many of them.

If he ends up being taken out of play by an angry citizen whose child or other loved one was hurt or killed by him and, who was able to track him down because of McCall's own writings (though you've said that McCall has kept his address and so on hidden, for obvious reasons), it would serve the bastard right. Hoist by his own petard! It would be poetic justice of the highest order.

I don't think that the powers-that-be will be able to kill the blogosphere. Too big, too decentralized, too much damage to their own interests in the attempt.

I could see them trying, though, maybe by trying to ban or heavily restrict the use and

[chocolate_frapp]

I am a liberal and THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR RAPE. NONE.

[galadrion]

If you can honestly say that there is no excuse for *fill in the blank*, then you are not a Liberal by today's American standards. Perhaps a Libertarian, but not a Liberal. You see, to a Liberal, everything is excusable - unless the perpetrator doesn't happen to agree with the Liberal (any point of disagreement will do), in which case, nothing is excusable, and in fact, the Liberal can condemn said perpetrator for anything or nothing at all.

Does this sound exaggerated? It isn't, really - the only difference between the way I'm stating it and the official party line is the fact that I don't sugar-coat or obfuscate the matter. 'Course, it doesn't look anywhere near as acceptable when it's out there in language that just anyone can understand, now does it?

[jordan179]

McCall's excuse, incidentally, was that Evil White Men had damaged his self-esteem, causing him to seek status by raping young black teenagers. This explanation should have been met by at least derisive laughter, at best, by an impromptu beating administered to him by his audience for daring to mix with real human beings (white or black); instead, it was purportedly respected by white liberals as providing an insight into the causation of violence on today's Mean Streets.

[kitten_goddess]

I did a little digging and found this gem from a bio of him

[pasquin]

Now if only Nathan could become a Muslim, and his journey to the dark side would be complete.

[jordan179]

He actually did, at one point. I don't know if he stayed a Muslim. For some reason, the heroic Muslims seem a bit more nervous about enforcing death for apostasy on big scary guys with violent backgrounds than on small teenage girls. Go figure.

[cutelildrow]

everything I've read here sounds damn horrific. I remember the 'white journalist woman' story from somewhere. I don't remember where. I remember thinking at the time, 'deal with it. You look like a thug, just don't act like a thug.' I don't remember knowing more about the guy, beyond that.

But the whole 'boo hoo, I was looked down on by whites, I needed to rape little girls, commit murder and other crimes to boost my self esteem' excuse is bullshit unleaded. By that reason, I have license to kill.

[benschachar_77]

Wow! Libs putting their pets above the rule of law, in other news the sky is blue.

"Socially Friendly Elements"

[jorrocks_j]

That phrase crops up in The Gulag Archipelago. Solzhenitsyn reports it as being the Gulag's bureaucratic term for actual criminal inmates (meaning rob-rape-and-murder ciminals) as opposed to political dissidents like himself. They were seen as more amenable to rehabilitation and tended to get preferential treatment.

The Left has this fascination with naked criminality because...well, I can't imagine why. I've had friends who were raped, one who was raped and murdered. I can't imagine glorifying, excusing or even tolerating the people who did these things.

The only reason I can imagione for for feasting and honoring homicide--"dining with panthers" as Wilde put it---is it acts out their fantasies of revenge and amyhem, fantasies which the founders of the feast are too cowardly to enact themselves.

Re: "Socially Friendly Elements"

[jordan179]

The Left has this fascination with naked criminality because...well, I can't imagine why. I've had friends who were raped, one who was raped and murdered. I can't imagine glorifying, excusing or even tolerating the people who did these things.

They don't see themselves as the potential victims. And in an instant are willing to abandon any of their own who become victims of violent criminals, because to them avoiding the pain of cognitive dissonance is more important than the lives of their friends

Re: "Socially Friendly Elements"

[marycatelli]

Because it allows them to feel morally superior. Explain away their criminality, and then look down on those who are not so compassionate.

If your moral superiority is based on real virtues, someone might emulate you and take it away. By basing it on real vices, you cut off that venue.

moral superiority

[ilion7]

I agree. But I also think that such folk (even the self-proclaimed atheists) are trying to morally one-up on God.