Anti-government extremist kills and decapitates federal worker (his father) and displays head during online rant

[ThatRobGuy]

For whatever reason Trump lies, whether he is delusional or aspirational or both, he has proven to be able to manipulate people into doing violent acts. Justin Mohn appears to have been motivated by some of the same lies as Donald Trump, such as voicing the need to fight against a "deep state" in Federal Government.

...but I'd be careful of attributing blame simply because a person is motivated by the same things as a high profile person.

For instance, this guy...

https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/14/homepage2/james-hodgkinson-profile/index.html

...was clearly motivated by the same things as Bernie Sanders, and saw the same groups of people as "the impediment to the ideal" as Sanders. However, that shouldn't be construed or twisted to place blame on Bernie Sanders for that. Bernie has every right to call out corporatism, up to, and including, mentioning the names of the CEOs and entities that are creating, what he feels, are the problems, along with the politicians on the other side of the fence that are aiding them.

A) because, ultimately, people are responsible for their own actions
and...
B) people shouldn't have to withhold their strong viewpoints about the policies and behaviors of others (that they see as deeply problematic) just because an unstable person may end up attacking someone from that group

For instance, if a local CEO is dumping toxic waste in a town's water reservoir, and paying off local councilman and state reps in exchange for them allowing him to do it, I should be able to call all involved parties every name in the book, in very direct and harsh terms (even if it means using words like scumbag and evil), and say that I feel that they're an example of everything that's wrong with corporatism in America. In that scenario, I shouldn't have to muzzle myself, or avoid telling, what I feel in that scenario, is the truth, simply because an unstable person may hear me and decide to do something irrational like grab a gun and try to confront that CEO.


I don't think we want to live in a society where people are immune from having their actions lambasted on the basis of "well, if you tell everyone about this thing I'm doing and criticize it too harshly, some nutjob may get mad and shoot me, so you just have to let me keep doing my thing and keep your dialog about me tame"


By that standard, the media and politicians shouldn't be allow to speak too harshly about Alex Jones...as that could inspire some lunatic to go after him and his family. Is that really the framework you want to operate in? A society where he have to be "polite" when speaking about Alex Jones because of what someone else may do?

 

[childeye 2]

...but I'd be careful of attributing blame simply because a person is motivated by the same things as a high profile person.
For instance, this guy...

https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/14/homepage2/james-hodgkinson-profile/index.html

...was clearly motivated by the same things as Bernie Sanders, and saw the same groups of people as "the impediment to the ideal" as Sanders. However, that shouldn't be construed or twisted to place blame on Bernie Sanders for that. Bernie has every right to call out corporatism, up to, and including, mentioning the names of the CEOs and entities that are creating, what he feels, are the problems, along with the politicians on the other side of the fence that are aiding them.

Good post and I appreciate the insight.

I first want to point out some false equivalency between these two incidents. Sanders is not a demagogue and Sanders argues a valid political ideology. Whereas in an earlier post I have pointed out that Trump is a demagogue, and also that Trumpism as a cult would revolve around belief in Trump and therefore is not a valid political ideology.

But apart from that, I also think you brought up a good point about some similarities. That point being that the above example shows that even an individual who has a valid political ideology similar to Sanders can also be motivated to kill people.

Words are expressed sentiments and sentiments are spirit wherefore words have power to convince/move/animate. As a Christian, I look at it as a spiritual war and these two incidents bring to mind the reasoning of Jesus, who taught to return good for evil and to love your enemies; whose Love as told in scripture also suffered a cross and prayed for those who even crucified him. To this theist the imagery of the Eternal determines the terms identifying the spirit that sacrifices oneself to save others and the spirit that sacrifices others to save oneself. This is what the servants of the god of this world (an unholy image of god) which is in darkness does not comprehend. In other words, I don't want to judge or blame Trump or Mohn, I want to identify the positive spiritual energy from the negative.

A) because, ultimately, people are responsible for their own actions
and...
B) people shouldn't have to withhold their strong viewpoints about the policies and behaviors of others (that they see as deeply problematic) just because an unstable person may end up attacking someone from that group.


For instance, if a local CEO is dumping toxic waste in a town's water reservoir, and paying off local councilman and state reps in exchange for them allowing him to do it, I should be able to call all involved parties every name in the book, in very direct and harsh terms (even if it means using words like scumbag and evil), and say that I feel that they're an example of everything that's wrong with corporatism in America. In that scenario, I shouldn't have to muzzle myself, or avoid telling, what I feel in that scenario, is the truth, simply because an unstable person may hear me and decide to do something irrational like grab a gun and try to confront that CEO.


I don't think we want to live in a society where people are immune from having their actions lambasted on the basis of "well, if you tell everyone about this thing I'm doing and criticize it too harshly, some nutjob may get mad and shoot me, so you just have to let me keep doing my thing and keep your dialog about me tame"


By that standard, the media and politicians shouldn't be allow to speak too harshly about Alex Jones...as that could inspire some lunatic to go after him and his family. Is that really the framework you want to operate in? A society where he have to be "polite" when speaking about Alex Jones because of what someone else may do?

It can be questioned whether unstable people can be trusted to act responsibly, but there are unstable people, this is true. And we can't let unstable people alter our need to speak openly and honestly, I agree. But there's also a difference between making sound policy within a valid left/right political dichotomy and projecting cult-like populism. That distinction can be observed.

 

[FireDragon76]

How long does it take to become observable and provable evidence? America is certainly feeling and witnessing the effects of electing Donald Trump as president. There is no sense in trying to ignore or downplay this reality. Elections have consequences. Some are easily seen. Just go surf some videos on Facebook or Twitter, apparently. Or watch cable news.

This wasn't lost on watchdog groups that monitor extremism, either. There have been more hate crimes directed against minority groups since Trump was elected in 2016, and it didn't subside after he left office (partly due to QAnon and other conspiracies about "stolen elections"). Trumpism has become a cancer, a green light for people's worst instincts.

 

[FireDragon76]

I did a search on the article and could find no mention of Maga nor Trump. Other than the last sentence, I agree with your post, though. There have been a handful of stories like this over the years, and usually they are young men that lean hard left, but this guy seems to have hit his wits end with the changes rapidly happening in our culture.

The amount of vile demagoguery and hate directed against minorities by certain politicians and right wing media influencers has nothing to do with it? It's just "changes in the culture"? C'mon, that's lazy thinking.

 

[durangodawood]

.....
For instance, if a local CEO is dumping toxic waste in a town's water reservoir, and paying off local councilman and state reps in exchange for them allowing him to do it, I should be able to call all involved parties every name in the book, in very direct and harsh terms (even if it means using words like scumbag and evil), and say that I feel that they're an example of everything that's wrong with corporatism in America. In that scenario, I shouldn't have to muzzle myself, or avoid telling, what I feel in that scenario, is the truth, simply because an unstable person may hear me and decide to do something irrational like grab a gun and try to confront that CEO....

What if you called him a child molester - based on no evidence of that...... would that be ok?

 

[Reasonably Sane]

The amount of vile demagoguery and hate directed against minorities by certain politicians and right wing media influencers has nothing to do with it? It's just "changes in the culture"? C'mon, that's lazy thinking.

Well, I'm an enemy of diversity within a nation, though I think it's great to have different nations with different cultures. I don't have "hate" against minorities, but I'm no fan of "minority" cultures attempting to take over, as has happened in Flint, Michigan and London, UK. Sure, it's what we did with the natives in north America a couple hundred years ago but that was the norm worldwide back then.

I used to live in a neighborhood in the Seattle area for about a year that was pretty much all Korean. The family behind us was great and we enjoyed visiting with them and loved their children. But that was the only one. The others really had nothing in common with us. The difference? The family behind us was second generation Americans and were born here. They spoke clear English and we were all part of the same culture. They did bring some fantastic recipes to the table from "the old land", but we all had similar lifestyles and were part of the same culture. The other families were first generation and even though they had all (as far as I know) been in the US for over a decade, none of them could speak understandable English. And culturally we had nothing in common. That's fine when they are the minority. They can assimilate or they can have their own little subculture. Like "Chinatown" in many cities.

I did hear Trump say something that gave me pause about Mexicans, but the comical part is that it was not that he was wrong. It was that he said it out loud. For the record, my grandfather made a living trucking mexicans to work in the fields in southeast Washington state before WWII. Nobody cared and they got along with the locals fine. But back then they got no taxpayer benefits. They did their jobs and got paid. The root problem today is the actual dollar an culture cost of allowing illegal aliens into the country. A LOT of americans have a problem with that. And it's not about race, though race can, on occasion, make them easy to identify. Especially when they try to verbally communicate.

But I'm all for LEGAL immigration. And I've known many in my lifetime.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well, I'm an enemy of diversity within a nation, though I think it's great to have different nations with different cultures. I don't have "hate" against minorities, but I'm no fan of "minority" cultures attempting to take over, as has happened in Flint, Michigan and London, UK. Sure, it's what we did with the natives in north America a couple hundred years ago but that was the norm worldwide back then.

What about Boston? The Yankees are no longer dominant in Boston. Was that bad?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What if you called him a child molester - based on no evidence of that...... would that be ok?

If there's no shred of evidence suggesting that it's a valid accusation, then that'd fall under libel & slander laws...

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I first want to point out some false equivalency between these two incidents. Sanders is not a demagogue and Sanders argues a valid political ideology. Whereas in an earlier post I have pointed out that Trump is a demagogue, and also that Trumpism as a cult would revolve around belief in Trump and therefore is not a valid political ideology.

But apart from that, I also think you brought up a good point about some similarities. That point being that the above example shows that even an individual who has a valid political ideology similar to Sanders can also be motivated to kill people.

It can be questioned whether unstable people can be trusted to act responsibly, but there are unstable people, this is true. And we can't let unstable people alter our need to speak openly and honestly, I agree. But there's also a difference between making sound policy within a valid left/right political dichotomy and projecting cult-like populism. That distinction can be observed.

The thing to remember is that demagogue and populist are very close to one another (and can sometimes even be interchangeable, or at the very least, have a high degree of overlap)

Even the definitions are close and have points of overlap...
a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument.
vs.
a person, especially a politician, who strives to appeal to the desires of ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.

Being that Bernie had a populist following, and much of the rhetoric that got his supporters mobilized and fired up were arguments talking about maligning "the 1%", and saying "Millionaires and Billionaires don't pay their fair share, and here are the politicians helping them do that" (fair share being subjective, therefore not a purely rational argument), it's in a grey area.

I'd say the primary difference between the two (Trump and Bernie) is that the former sought out a "cult of personality" situation, where the latter did not.

I'd also posit that when it comes to the worst effects of demagoguing and populist movements (IE: people lashing out in extreme ways) and which ones are perceived to be worse (based on the extremeness and frequency of those lash-outs), Democrats are, let's say, "helped" to a degree by the fact that their camp is less armed and less male than the opposing camp.

We know that males are much more inclined to be physically aggressive than females (the right wing skews more male)
We know that people in the GOP are far more likely to be gun owners than their Democratic counterparts

For example:
Let's say we had two populists, call them Joe Smith and Dan Jones, both with very different viewpoints, and both with a message of appealing to peoples' frustrations.

And let's say we had two target audiences
Audience A) 62% Women/38% Men, only 20% owning firearms
Audience B) 60% Men/40% Women, 60% owning firearms

I'd theorize that regardless of which populist rallied which audience, you'd see more frequent (and more extreme) lash-outs from Audience B.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Do beheading murder suspect Justin Mohn's lawsuits, writings show path to radicalization?​

From high school class clown to disillusioned college graduate to anti-establishment murder suspect, the radicalization of Justin Mohn can be traced for decades in his now deleted online writings, music, social media posts and a string of court documents.

Before the 32-year-old Levittown man allegedly killed and beheaded his father,Michael Mohn, 68, and issued an online "call to arms" for bloody revolution on Jan. 30, Mohn complained that his status as an “over-educated white man” was keeping him from achieving his American dream as a financially secure artist.

...

In 2018, Mohn’s social media posts caught the attention of the FBI, after its National Threat Operations Center received a tip about “concerning” content.

It was the first of four tips the FBI investigated involving Mohn, but found no evidence of illegal activity or imminent threat requiring further action, said spokesman Ned Conway.

...

Days [after killing his father] authorities would say the crime was not the work of a "crazy" man, and that their investigation was just beginning.

“It was evident to us that he was of clear mind in his purpose and what he was doing, aside from what his beliefs are, he was of clear mind doing this — acting with a clear mind, aware of his actions and proud of his consequences,” Bucks County District Attorney Jennifer Schorn said.

 

[FireDragon76]

Do beheading murder suspect Justin Mohn's lawsuits, writings show path to radicalization?​

From high school class clown to disillusioned college graduate to anti-establishment murder suspect, the radicalization of Justin Mohn can be traced for decades in his now deleted online writings, music, social media posts and a string of court documents.

Before the 32-year-old Levittown man allegedly killed and beheaded his father,Michael Mohn, 68, and issued an online "call to arms" for bloody revolution on Jan. 30, Mohn complained that his status as an “over-educated white man” was keeping him from achieving his American dream as a financially secure artist.

...

In 2018, Mohn’s social media posts caught the attention of the FBI, after its National Threat Operations Center received a tip about “concerning” content.

It was the first of four tips the FBI investigated involving Mohn, but found no evidence of illegal activity or imminent threat requiring further action, said spokesman Ned Conway.

...

Days [after killing his father] authorities would say the crime was not the work of a "crazy" man, and that their investigation was just beginning.

“It was evident to us that he was of clear mind in his purpose and what he was doing, aside from what his beliefs are, he was of clear mind doing this — acting with a clear mind, aware of his actions and proud of his consequences,” Bucks County District Attorney Jennifer Schorn said.

Patricide is an especially heinous crime.

This kind of anger and resentment has its origins seemingly in the demonic.