Conservative Serial Killer-ism
So I started watching Dexter tonight. For those who don’t know, it’s a really good show about a serial killer who has a moral code to only kill evil people.
This made me curious about the typical serial killer psychological profile, so I decided to enter Ted Bundy into Wikipedia. This is what I found (my emphasis):
After his discovery, Bundy became a more focused and dominant person. In 1968, he managed the Seattle office of Nelson Rockefeller’s Presidential campaign and attended the 1968 Republican convention in Miami as a Rockefeller supporter. […]
Bundy graduated in 1972 from the University of Washington with a degree in psychology. Soon afterward, he again went to work for the state Republican Party, which included a close relationship with Gov. Daniel J. Evans. During the campaign, Bundy followed Evans’ Democratic opponent around the state, tape recording his speeches and reporting back to Evans personally. A minor scandal later followed when the Democrats found out about Bundy, who had been posing as a college student.
Dear George Soros:
Please, please, please hook me up with a book deal so I can write a 500-page masterwork showing how all Republicans are really serial killers. I swear to God it’ll be better-researched than Jonah’s crappy book. Hell, just by using Wikipedia, I’ve already drawn upon more credible sources.
It’s old news that Bundy was a Republican. Ann Rule wrote about it in “The Stranger Beside Me”.
Still, it bears repeating at every opportunity.
Me- it’s old news, but I didn’t know about it.
Even so, I find my lack of knowledge about Bundy to be central to my point that Republicans enjoy killing people.
God, this is fun.
And, and and, Ann Coulter is fat! Or skinny! Whatever!
Ann Coulter is also a serial killer. The only reason that she hasn’t been caught yet is that she eats the bodies of her victims.
Everything, even the teeth.
Neighborhood legend has it that Bundy lived in the house across the street from were I now live back when he was attending the University of Utah law school. So we’ve got that going for us!
So I started watching Dexter tonight. For those who don’t know, it’s a really good show about a serial killer who has a moral code to only kill evil people.
I read the book that must have been the inspiration for the show. Blackburn by Bradley Denton. Perhaps a peek into the psyche of the ordinary everyman conservative? The Blackburn character did in fact show a striking resemblance to members of the Republican base…anger looking for a target, a rigid personal code of what’s acceptable and the will to enforce it upon others…it was an interesting story.
The house we just moved into the spring has a crawlspace with a dirt floor. Just like John Wayne Gacy’s house. That means that it must have been owned be Republicans. That PROVES that all Republicans are serial killers!!!
You’re right Brad, that was fun! And central to my point!
Jonah replies:
OK we have Bundy but you Democrats have John Wayne Gacy, at least Ted killed chicks, not that’s anything wrong with raping and killing young men and boys (scratches nuts)….
Hey – take this careful constructed argument seriously…
Doesn’t count. He was a Rockefeller Republican.
Unfortunately, John Wayne Gacy was a Democrat. On second thought, I think that is actually central to your point.
You might want to look into Randy Kraft, who attended my alma mater, a very conservative Southern California school, and killed young men. — including members of the armed forces!
Obama just saved a kitten!
Ummm.
Shit. Just kinda wondering.
How many people you gotta kill to be considered a “serial killer”.
What was Bundy’s body count?
If you just adjust the mortars or the arty does it count?
What about Claymores?
See, the whole rules around killing people have always been just too slippery for my tastes…
mikey
Thou shalt not kill*
How many people you gotta kill to be considered a “serial killer”.
If you have to ask…
Gacy was a Democrat, but the typical serial killer is far more likely to be a Republican than a Democrat. I’m not making this up. It has something to do with their preference for authoritarianism and order. Randy Kraft, Gary Ridgway (Green River Killer), Dennis Rader (BTK), and kevin Coe (South Hill rapist)–all republicans.
I linked the ‘bible’ of profiling, but I don’t remember if the republicanism is noticed there or somewhere else. It’s definitely mentioned somewhere in the literature on serial killer profiling: serial killers are likely to be social conservatives and to vote Republican, if they vote at all.
Oh! Oh, yea. Thanks for that reminder, God. It had slipped my mind.
How many people you gotta kill to be considered a “serial killer”.
Rule#1: Don’t kill up on bread first.
I agree with Ben! IT’s about time the Xenu gets his proper credit for creating the human race!
How many people you gotta kill to be considered a “serial killer”.
Does that include “Dubious executions authorised while Governor”? “Civilians dying in an elective war”?
See? God? You fucked this one up badly.
The rules are freakin all over the place.
Bush isn’t considered a killer.
Nobody, least of all me, can even say how many deaths I’ve caused.
A teenager with a new driver’s license and mom’s SUV is putting a new CD in the stereo and runs over five kids on bicycles, she goes to prison.
I dunno. Seems like killing ought to be a more exact science, is all.
But what the hell do I know?
mikey
It’s about timing and attention to detail, not quantity. You could kill thousands – but do it all at once and you’re nothing but a common mass murderer.
Thou shalt not kill*
Physician, heal thyself.
How many did ya kill with those tornados last week, 55, 56? And Katrina. And the tsunami – dude, MAJOR Scrabble points for that one. And the plague, and the 1918 flu epidemic, and smallpox, and AIDS and starvation and…
Stalin and Hitler were pikers compared to you, dude.
Mikey, the difference is simple. The element of a conscience. Either you have one or you don’t. I’m pretty sure from reading what you write here that you’ve got one.
Dexter isn’t a show I could get into or enjoy. I think I’ve read too much about real psychopaths and serial killers to buy into the fantasy this show is.
The only way to get back at Doughpants and his Liberal Fascists is to call the dirties, vilest word they know. <\Call them “Liberals”
Republican Liberals
How George Bush, Dick Cheney and Ronald Reagan Spent Us Into The Poor House While Losing A War To A Guy In A Cave.
Herman the One-Armed War Surplus Store Owner: First, you’ll need a
declaration of warauthorization for use of military force. That way, everything you do will be nice and legal.Thing is? Killing isn’t really that hard.
It’s not as hard as getting a degree, or learning to play the piano or cook crank. It’s just another thing, and the rest is just the baggage we pile on top.
The consequences of killing are hard. Take away the consequences, and you’re capping the kid at Burger King for forgetting your fries.
The consequences inside? The thing it makes you into? That’s just cultural, really. They cushion a lot of that with manufactured hatred, demonize the fucker, call them Gooks or Nips or Haji or Zips or Krauts or whatever. Not humans, just another pop-up target.
Of course, when you police them up in the morning, and you find the sobbing, bled out dying kid with his guts in the dirt hanging in the wire you have a very difficult time making that horror fit within the fairy tale, but you eat a couple Darvon and slam a beer and smoke a joint and it gets blurry. Then you turn it into heroic or funny stories and the pain mysteriously goes away.
I get that the Bundys of the world are bad because they killed for “no reason”.
But frankly? We’ve come up with some pretty goddam weak “reasons” to keep ourselves from being no different from him.
G’night, you guys…
mikey
Just wanted to step in here to note that among circles of U. of Oregon alums, we usually lean on the “Ted Bundy went to UW” piece more than the “Ted Bundy was a Republican” piece.
But that’s us…
And killing is wrong, except when it isn’t. Therein lies the trouble of most of the human race.
OMG !!! My kid’s a freshman at U-Dub…THEREFORE !!!!!!!!!
Republican Liberals
Naw make them Republican Communists- that will REALLY piss em off
mikey:
Here’s where I put it. They’re all killers. You killed someone, you’re a killer. The morality of that is cultural, but being a soldier is primarily about murdering folk and that’s all.
It’s a bit lacking in nuance, and I recognize that thinking this way can fuck you up inside and out, but it’s what I think the line is. And even then there’s still hurdles to hop through. Is abortion killing (I don’t think so, but fuck, maybe it is)? How about eating cow? is mowing the grass killing? Maybe, maybe not.
I came to terms a while ago that when I die, and if I do in fact meet God for a tabulation of my score, I’m probably going to have broken some rules. There’s no way around it, and I shouldn’t really go wringing my hands over the matter, just try to do right to make up for it.
Now, are you a serial killer? Well, the definition of serial killers are people who of their own volition go out and hunt down people according to their specifications or personal hang-ups and kill them.
Bundy killed chicks, Gacy killed young men, Dahmer killed young men, so forth, so on.
Does state sponsorship sufficiently bend those rules to your satisfaction, or does it seem just as arbitrary and fucked up?
Even so, I find my lack of knowledge about Bundy to be central to my point
that Republicans enjoy killing people.
If you really want a scare, Google some photos of Bundy and the younger GW…the resemblance is astounding.
If you really want a scare, Google some photos of Bundy and the younger GW…the resemblance is astounding.
Well, it is obvious what happened. The real GW had a massive coke overdose right around the time that Bundy made it big and the corporate overlords saw a way of slipping the psychological profile that they were looking for into a name that people would recognize.
Thing is? Killing isn’t really that hard….the consequences of killing are hard.
Psychopaths aren’t concerned with consequences and they become enraged when consequences are imposed on them (i.e. hard time). Although I have no doubt there are psychopaths in Iraq killing people and enjoying it (like that troubled fuck who raped the 14 year old and slaughtered her family.*) ; the vast majority of conscripts are decent men who suffer the consequences of what they’ve been ordered to do. If these soldiers had the minds and souls of serial killers they wouldn’t suffer from PTSD and become alcoholics and drug addicts because there’d be no pain to numb, no nightmares to suppress.
*How his accomplices can be explained remains a mystery. I’m not sure how anyone could participate in something premeditated and cold blooded like that and claim they were “caught up in the moment.” You either have that shit in you or you don’t.
Whoever asked what makes a serial killer — it’s a matter of methodology, rather than body count. Some serial killers have killed only one; Ted Bundy had thirty-odd. There are people out there who could be classified as serial “killers” if they put their fantasy into practice.
It’s sociopathic tendencies with violent ideation, and usually a ritual in how they kill.
Take away any of that and all you have is a killer. Which is somehow central to my point.
I get that the Bundys of the world are bad because they killed for “no reason”.
Bundy had reasons. Most of the reasons for the motivations of serial killers and psychopaths can be found in their childhoods. Bundy’s childhood was massively fucked up.
There are always reasons. Don’t kid yourself.
As I recall, Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy BOTH had their picture taken with the first lady of the United States.
That woman? Rosalynn Carter.
Now you know…the rest of the story.
Which is, of course, central to my point.
And do you know what Jeffrey Dahmer said to Lorena Bobbitt?
“You gonna eat that?”
(dammit, someone had to say it.)
Mikey, you remember that sobbing kid…
Be proud of that fact!
There was a study mentioned maybe a year ago, which mentioned that mentally ill/unstable would were more likely to vote for Bush then Kerry (in previous election). It had something to do with the image of strong leadership, and authority.
Also, I have to point something out. Patkin said being a soldier is primary about murdering people, and I have to disagree on that. It might seems minor, but I don’t think murder is proper word for military action. While technically soldiers action is premeditated, and might be overly cruel, it is still not murder, IMO, because it is not aimed at the person. Of course he is going to kill someone, yes. But he is not aiming to kill private Omar or Sergeant Tranh, he is just aiming to kill the guy from the other side. If it was someone else fighting against him, he would kill that guy. So the person (private Omar) is not the target, it is the entity (soldier of opposing side).
Murder is not proper word to use in terms of soldiers. The fact that it should be called killing is not making it any different. It still end the life of someone. But the automatically negative feeling with word murder is IMO not correct here.
But enough of the my linguistic opinions, back to the insanity in politics.
(Is “insane politics” more like “hollow tube” or “honest crook”?
Pssh. If you wrote a book called Republican Pedophiles, it would be as long as War and fucking Peace, and you wouldn’t have to go making shit up like JLoad, either.
“Of course, I’m not saying all Republicans are pedophiles. Just this list of 50 or so.”
How many did ya kill with those tornados last week, 55, 56? And Katrina. And the tsunami – dude, MAJOR Scrabble points for that one. And the plague, and the 1918 flu epidemic, and smallpox, and AIDS and starvation and…
Stalin and Hitler were pikers compared to you, dude.
Don’t go blaming me. You brought it on yourselves when that chick ate that apple that I told her not to eat, after I put it in front of her fully knowing (as I know everything) that she would indeed eat it.
“So the person (private Omar) is not the target, it is the entity (soldier of opposing side).”
Thannks a bunch, that made a world of difference to me!
Well, since you brought it up, God….
God – “Don’t eat that apple, or there’ll be consequences.”
Eve – “What are ‘consequences’?”
God – “That’s when something bad happens.”
Eve – “What’s ‘bad’?”
God – “It’s, y’know, the opposite of good.”
Eve – “What’s ‘good’?”
God – “Just eat the damn apple.”
Someone on SN might have some fun with the New York Times‘ cheerful “F*** Y**” to starving peasant farmers of Mexico who dare question the totally awesome awesomeness that is NAFTA which has made all of us better off, if by “all of us” you understand you’re only talking about the investor classes of the 3 countries.
Yay! Egalitarian! It hurts both fabulously wealthy sugar producers and starving peasant farmers scratching a pathetic subsistence + trade crop out of the sh*tty crap lands they were deeded by the cynical bureaucrats of the Mexican Revolution of 1910! YAAAAAYYYY!!!
Cha! Yeah, like, NAFTA is awesome, and if only the Mexican government would do something else to help all those stupid starving farmers who are stupid stupid-heads because they grow corn when they could be, like, growing organic expensive stuff, that is, if they weren’t so stupidy stupid.
The fact that the Mexican government never has and shows no signs of any potential serious assistance to getting these starving peasant farmers out of poverty is central to my point that they should love NAFTA and somehow magically start helping these people they never help.
Also, the sudden influx soon-to-come of these displaced peasant farmers into the United States looking for work to feed their desperate and starving families is completely and 100% coincidental and has absolutely nothing to do with their crops being undermined by subsidized U.S. mega-producers.
I’m not sure how anyone could participate in something premeditated and cold blooded like that and claim they were “caught up in the moment.” You either have that shit in you or you don’t.
Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo would like to have a word with you.
If I am a hitman taking $ to kill someone, it is not personal and part of someone else’s objective, and this person is a bad person anyway, how is this different from warfare, other than the actors are not states?
There is a difference, and it has to do with law. Like you, I disagree with LD that the impersonal nature of a soldier’s killing function is significant. The soldier, though, is, at least theoretically, killing to protect their state, not to make money like the hitman, or to get an emotional rise, like the murderer. Whatever I may feel about war in general, I think there is a difference between a soldier and murderer.
If I decide to start killing people randomly, like that guy who went up into the water tower in Texas years ago, that’s impersonal. But its still murder.
Ted Bundy drove a Volkswagen.
Serial killers are yesterdays news, these days Republicans are into massively parallel killing.
This young republican looks a bit like Mitt Romney, so there you go.
(May not be suitable for work. But go ahead and click it anyway. Or suck the bossman’s cock until you have swallowed all of his essence.)
PS: If you work at GooTube please spit in the bossez coffee for me or burn the place down if you have time thanks. The fascist bastards put the clip I wanted to link behind a login screen.
Let’s see…
Target the weak and defenseless? Check.
Have lots of psycho-sexual problems? Check.
Hate women? Check.
Get off on violent fantasies? Check.
Strong sense of entitlement and belief they are above the law? Check.
Lack of empathy for other human beings? Check.
So the line between your average serial killer and your average right-wingnut is….what, exactly?
(Note that I’m separating “Republicans” from “right-wingnuts”–many members of the GOP are just greedy bastards.)
Serial killers are yesterdays news, these days Republicans are into massively parallel killing.
Hell, yeah! Dual-core, multi-threaded, over-clocked parallel killing! Fuck Megadeath. If we can hack that military machine enough, we can hit TERAdeaths.
Bundy, Bundy, Bundy! I’m sick of hearing about Bundy! What about me? That poseur got caught in the middle of his career. I was a pillar of society for years! But all I ever hear about is Bundy! I’ll tie you up, I’ll choke ya! I’ll eat your dog!!
And stop laughing at my middle name!
Ted Bundy drove a Volkswagen.
Just like Hitler!
And Janis’ friends all drove Porsches!
Is the killing a solider does “not murder” because it isn’t personal? Well, a soldier kills others because they belong to a certain group right? “the enemy”.
Okay, what do we call it when one person/group kills people simply because they belong to another specific group? That’s called Genocide.
Where is the soldiers excuse? The ONLY justification a soldier can give is self defence. An armed enemy can be presumed to be out to kill you right? That is a good enough excuse when you are actually being shot at by somebody.
But as soon as a soldier crosses the line, and shoots a civilian, or an unarmed soldier.. That is murder, of the genocidal flavour.
As established in the Nuremberg trials, being under orders is not an excuse for war crimes. I quite agree with that. But that does mean that a soldier bears responsibility for ANYTHING they do under orders, whether right, wrong, or morally ambiguous.
So what status does military killing carry when the soldier in question is the aggressor? When the solider is not under any personal risk, nor is the state they act on the behalf of under any risk. Say, a bomber crew dropping bombs on Iraq?
That ISN’T self defence, in any sense of the term, but it is premeditated. The fact that it is on orders does not absolve the individual of responsibility for that act.. And it definitely is the killing of human beings. So yes, that counts as plain old murder to me.
re Serial Killers and number of victims:
I read somewhere that an individual is not classified as a plural murderer (serial killer, spree killer or mass murderer) until he/she has killed three people. The exact classification is based on the nature and timing of the murders. A serial killer kills his victims over an extended period of time, and in the interim leads a normal (by his own standards) life. A spree killer kills his victims over a short period of time and is on the run in the interim, and a mass murderer kills all his victims at once and in one location.
There are some exceptions to these rules. Hitmen, robbers and anyone else who kills for money or property are generally not counted as plural murderers (though there are some exceptions if the robberies were incedental to the murders). And there seems to be some dispute over the status of someone who kills with an instrument of state power (such as Elizabeth Bathory or Vlad Dracula) or commands someone under his control to kill on his behalf (such as Charles Manson or Indian cult-leader Bash Thugram).
And for what it’s worth, I could never enjoy a show like Dexter because my real-life knowledge of serial killers precludes me from accepting a good serial killer. Same reason I can’t watch anything with con men or mobsters.
I’ve never seen the show, but the books that its based upon are disturbing, precisely because you start to empathize with the killer.
Darkly Dreaming Dexter
Dearly Devoted Dexter
Dexter in the Dark by Jeff Lindsay
If you really want a scare, Google some photos of Bundy and the younger GW…the resemblance is astounding.
Yes, Bundy was secretly replaced by GW right after “Revolver”. You can clearly hear the difference in bass styles from “Sgt. Pepper” onward.
Oh, I don’t mind what they do on their own time but, please, can we stop electing serial politicians.
I swear to God it’ll be better-researched than Jonah’s crappy book.
You’ll have TWO boxes of cereal at the breakfast table???
LD:
While I appreciate you putting together your disagreement, I still don’t think it follows. Military action *should* be thought of as automatically negative. For fucking thousands of years people have made this neat little separation between murdering folk during peacetime and murdering a whole bunch of folk during wartime because… of reasons made because we don’t want to think of a number of our fellow citizens being murderers freely walking about.