Apparently, the shooter at the Gilroy Garlic Festival in California last July (three killed, two of them children) was a believer in “Might Is Right” and “Survival of the Fittest”:
GILROY, Calif. — The gunman who killed three people and wounded a dozen more at the Gilroy Garlic Festival in Northern California was an angry 19-year-old who had recently waded into the world of white supremacy.
Santino William Legan, who was shot dead by police Sunday before he could do more damage, posted online about an 1890 racist manifesto, “Might is Right or The Survival of the Fittest,” NBC News confirmed.
David Ingram, Brandy Zadrozny and Corky Siemaszko, “Gilroy Garlic Festival gunman referred to ‘Might is Right’ manifesto before shooting” at NBC News
Oddly, an FBI spokesperson thinks it’s “wrong” to infer a motive:
In a press conference Tuesday afternoon, FBI Special Agent in Charge Craig Fair said investigators had no reason to believe the shooter was targeting any particular characteristics Sunday. They were still reviewing his social media and digital media forensics, among other pieces of information.
In an Instagram post just before the shooting, a now-deleted account believed to belong to the gunman urged people to read “Might Is Right,” a late 19th century book that the Southern Poverty Law Center said is “widely popular” among white nationalists, Rolling Stone reported. …
Bennett said Wednesday that, just because someone posts about an 1890s book, it’s information anyone can put out.
Eduard Cuevas, “FBI: Media ‘wrong’ on Garlic Festival shooter’s white supremacy ideology, despite social media post” at USA Today
Huh? How many of us read 1890s “Survival of the Fittest” literature and recommend that others do so? It was really not a clue at all?
The Guardian tells us (July 30) that there is “no clarity yeton motive”: “Read Might is Right by Ragnar Redbeard,” the gunman reportedly wrote. “Why overcrowd towns and pave more open space to make room for hordes of mestizos and Silicon Valley white tw*ts?”
Perhaps there will never be clarity on motive. Maybe Darwinian naturalism can’t count as a motive in principle because it is Approved. So commentators cast around for other motives like “white supremacy” – which sounds good but doesn’t really account for the gunman’s hatred of the Silicon Valley palefaces.
But hey, these days, even asking critical questions like that could signify that one belongs to the deplorable enemy horde.
This story reminds some of us of two things: The Columbine massacre and Finnish massacre, where the shooters’ belief in Darwinism was even more explicit. And also the curious case of Eric Pianka.
It’s not a surprise that hardline Darwinism affects some people this way but it is a surprise that talking about it is so difficult.
See also: Darwin At Columbine (Barry Arrington)
The person who sent this tip recommends the Science Uprising series of films as an educational antidote. Well, it is a good start: