Search Box

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

"Man headed to gay pride parade had assault rifle, 15 pounds of explosives"

Evidently at the same time that Omar Mateen was in the middle of his murderous rampage in Florida, James Howell was planning mayhem at the annual West Hollywood gay pride parade.


The most interesting excerpt from the article:

Friends in Indiana described Howell as a gun enthusiast with a short temper. In October, he twice was accused of pulling a gun and making threats, once against his then-boyfriend and once against a neighbor.

There's a lot of publicity these days about prejudice against the LGBT community. And, well, yes, it definitely exists. But, it would be interesting to find out what percentage of murders of gays are committed by other gays. 

Judging from recent evidence, it would seem to be quite high. 

There's a parallel here with the murder of blacks. To hear the Left tell it, the biggest danger blacks face is rampaging, violent whites, especially the police, who have nothing better to do than hunt young black men. 

The statistics, of course, tell a different story.

There's also a lot of talk from the left about how the poor, victimized LGBT community needs to be protected from prejudiced heterosexuals. After all, just look at their poster child, Mathew Shepard. For a long time, he was the gay martyr, an innocent youth murdered in a fit of homophobic hatred.

You don't hear Shepard's name as much anymore, because that story was debunked, though the debunking received very little publicity. It turned out that one of the two men who tied Shepard to a fencepost and left him to die on that freezing Wyoming night -- because of a drug deal gone bad -- was his occasional lover. 

I've heard that NYPD detectives can usually tell if a murder is a gay-on-gay killing, because the victim is so often disfigured.

Perhaps from now on gays should carry placards that read, "Save us from ourselves!"

Or, "Stop LGBT-on-LGBT violence!"

Straight guys may feel a mild revulsion for gay men, but nobody quite hates gays like other gays.


Anonymous said...

That was a bizarre news story, two men pretty much simultaneously trying to commit mass murder against gays. What's the likelihood of that happening. I wonder what the white man's motive was?

- Susan

John Craig said...

Susan --
It sounds as if he was crazy, the way he pulled his gun and made threats earlier, back in Indiana. He was basically just a pressure cooker waiting to explode. A gay pressure cooker, I guess.

Fitzmac said...

In the leftist media, all gay-on-gay violence is the fault of the Christian religion, which makes them feel hatred for themselves and their sexual partners. So the more there are incidents like this, the more they will be spun to direct blame at Christianity, and not at the sexual competition and bitterness caused by the sexual practices of gays themselves. The media colludes in destroying any belief in personal responsibility, and personal selfishness, as it becomes more widespread, brings us closer to social collapse.

Anonymous said...

My ex worked in law enforcement & he told me that when you are reading a newspaper account of a grisly murder, the dead giveaways are "no forced entry" "victim didn't seem to put up a struggle" and yes, the sheer grisliness of the murders. A lot of these things are too gruesome to put in a newspaper and only the most titillating end up written about. He was a hard man but these murders always depressed and disgusted him.

This Howells thing is bizarre because as they say, he doesn't seem gay. Granted I haven't met the guy but he strikes me as the kind of average straight shlub. Believe me John, I know that not all gay men are faaabulous high earning guys in the arts or allied professions but most of them, even when they are losers, are losers with a kind of gay flair. I think this Howells character would have worked in a factory a generation ago and been married. Maybe.

I have a sick sinking feeling about American culture. Do you ever get the feeling that we've simply cracked up?


Anonymous said...

Here's another article about Howell, this one about his boyfriend:

BF also doesn't strike me as the stereotype - he was a car enthusiast, and worked on Howell's car. I am wondering whether the "gay identity" has taken a foothold among mainstream youth and rotting their minds. Howells didn't come from a bad background at all. I thought he was prole-class but he wasn't.


John Craig said...

Fitzmac --
In the West, I don't think it's Christianity itself that makes gays feel bad about being gay, it's more just the general stigma that starts in junior high school with kids calling each other "fag" or "gay." But to the small extent that Christianity's teachings actually do result in lessened self-images, that's still nothing compared to what Islam instills.

Agree about personal responsibility.

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
Agree, Howells looks more like a blue collar worker than a fashionista. And yes, his boyfriend didn't seem all that gay either. But the boyfriend did say that Howells was weird, and said that in no uncertain terms, which made me wonder if Howells wasn't autistic. The boyfriend didn't say anything about Howells being evil, or manipulative, or sly or crafty or anything like that. Just "weird," as in off-beat, and probably socially unaware.

The sort of mayhem he seemed to have been planning, a mass murder, is more typical of autistics than it is of sociopaths (who specialize in serial killing, an altogether different thing). My guess, once he's analyzed, it'll turn out he's an Aspie. Like the VA Tech killer, like Elliot Rodgers (the Santa Barbara shooter), like the Roseville Oregon shooter, and like Adam Lanza.

Coincidentally, Fitzmac just said effectively the same thing about social collapse that you just did. I think we're headed in a demographically destructive direction, but as far as the culture, I see the stirrings of backlash all over the place, with Trump's popularity maybe the most visible signal of that.

Dave Moriarty said...

My father in law was homicide detective in NYC for years. He mentioned once the gay killers frequently mutilated their victims in ways hetero killers never did. so upon seeing a mutilated corpse he had a strong hint about the perp.

John Craig said...

Dave --
Thanks for the corroboration.

Anonymous said...

Have you ever read Hemingway's "A Moveable Feast"? I looked it up on Amazon to check my memory, because I remembered that in it Hemingway recounted a conversation with Gertrude Stein, who was as you know a lesbian. She told Hemingway that male homosexuals were ashamed of what they do sexually whereas lesbians weren't and that accounted for their self-hatred. You can look it up on Amazon, in the look inside feature.

About Howell being Aspie's, maybe, but that doesn't really disprove my point. In the past low status, awkward guys found mates. Or maybe someone like Howell would always have slunk around to gay bars, etc., but in the 1950s gays didn't expect to "have it all." They went to gay bars and got on with life. I think that's pretty terrible and I'm glad we don't have that anymore but it's equally cruel in a way to tell them that being gay is great, and they can have anything a straight person can, because they can't.

Yeah, there's a backlash, but backlashes and collapses can come together. In fact, I think that's what we are seeing. I see signs of collapse everywhere. It's horrible. I never thought I'd see this.

Puzzled - and Sad

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
Never been a big Hemingway fan, to be honest, in fact have never been a big fan of any writer I was forced to read in school. In any case, haven't read the book. I think Stein was right, though.

Hmm. Are we collapsing? I just don't know. We're going downhill in a lot of ways, but complete collapse? Not yet. And hopefully it's just a matter of the zeitgeist having swung as far as it's going to before common sense takes over. Sorta the way the 60's came to an end.

You're saying it's more like Rome in 400 AD though. Could be, I guess.

Anonymous said...

What era of history we are echoing is anyone's guess. I just hope it's not Weimar Germany. (I don't think it is.) I don't think it's Rome 400 AD. Not here anyway - maybe in Europe. Strange & ironic that the Germans are the ones now hosting the barbarian hordes, eh?

Howells has a very thick neck. Do you think he's juicin'?

I've never liked either Stein or Hemingway either, just mentioned it because Stein's observation was perspicacious, and she was a lesbian. This was before the "gay & lesbian" coalition came to be so she told the truth of what she had seen of gay life. Her perception was that no amount of social acceptance would wipe away the self-disgust of gay men because - well, you get it.

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
No, don't think Howells was juicing. If you look at the larger uncropped picture, it's obvious from his arms that he's not on steroids. Plus, a large neck isn't really one of the steroid signatures; I've seen guys who have juiced, and strangely, most of their necks have remained thin. Look at pictures of Mike Sorrentino ("The Situation") from the old Jersey Shore TV show. He was constantly posing shirtless, and you could see his bulked up torso and arms, with his neck having remained disproportionately skinny.

There are some parallels with Weimar Germany, too. Who knows. I guess there are parallels with a number of different empires.

Good point about Stein. Whenever I see a gay guy really gay it up (think Carson Kressley), I see a certain self-hatred there. It's as if they feel obliged to make themselves even queerer than they are, they're sort of running with it since they know they're freaks. But it's must rarer to see lesbians who feel obliged to ham it up the same way. There are diesel dykes, but with them, it's more as if they're just expressing their natures rather than as if they're putting on an act for public consumption.

Mark Caplan said...

Anonymous wrote: Gertrude Stein "told Hemingway that male homosexuals were ashamed of what they do sexually."

Speaking generally, do male homosexuals commonly switch roles or is one partner always the "punk"? A definition of punk, aside from the sexual meaning, is an inferior, rotten, or worthless person. It's understandable that someone who gets regularly punked might start to view himself as a punk.

John Craig said...

Mark --
I don't know the answer. You always hear of "tops" and "bottoms" but, technically, a bottom would never get off, at least the same way. So I'm guessing there's a lot of alternating roles that goes on. Also, a lot of times when I look at a lesbian couple I can see one who is plainly more masculine than the other, and I always think, aha, she's the one who wears the strap on. (I could be dead wrong, but that's the impression I get.) But when I see two gay men together that dichotomy isn't always obvious.

But who knows. I also remember hearing at one point that some West Coast lesbians were so politically correct that they would have sex side by side, since it wouldn't be right for one to take the "superior" position. I'm guessing that was a "fad" that passed quickly.

Yes, in jail, "punk" has both connotations, which probably stems from the fact that guys who couldn't defend themselves ended up "pinked out," i.e. taken advantage of sexually.

Shaun F said...

John - Not directly related to this post but hopefully providing some additional clarity with regards to societal changes. A friend was over for dinner, and in his 13 year old's daughter class - one person had self identified as transgendered and three had self identified as gay. So that is significantly different from when I was in middle school in 80-82 - I just wonder how pronounced this is becoming.

John Craig said...

Shaun --
Honestly, I don't think it's a bad thing that gay people no longer have to hide in the shadows, in fact I think it's a good thing. What bothers me is all the dishonesty attached to the movement, with everybody on the left lying about -- and studiously ignoring -- so many things to do with this movements. We're supposed to pretend that gays are in dire danger from straights, when in fact they kill each other far, far more often than they get killed by straights. The rate of domestic violence in lesbian households is significantly higher than it is in heterosexual households. Gay male-on-gay male killings are particularly ugly, with higher rates of mutilation. A vastly disproportionate share of serial killers have been gay, especially among the most prolific killers. And where gays are in far more danger from heterosexuals in Muslim countries than they are in Christian countries, but we're supposed to ignore that too. There are so many obfuscations attached to this movement that it makes it hard to sympathize with them, which I'd be inclined to do otherwise.

Another example of the hypocrisy of the Left. At the same time they decry the Catholic church for the many priests who have turned out to be molesters, they castigate the Boy Scouts for not allowing gay troopmasters, even though the BSA has already been sued over 2000 times for molestation cases. Where's the consistency, and the honesty?

Shaun F said...

John - I agree with your above statement about the duplicitous nature of the left and gay people no longer having to hide in the shadows. Asking for consistency and honesty from the left? Well - add that to your bucket list, and drop me a line when you've got that item crossed off! I was just trying to illustrate how the current cultural (as it is so amplified by the media) is affecting the way young confused people perceive themselves.

John Craig said...

Shaun --
Ha! No, I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Gotcha, you're right, the media presents nothing but propaganda on the subject.

Anonymous said...


I think Shaun was referring to what I was - the mainstreaming of homosexuality, to the point where kids identify with it. I think it's widespread and spreading rapidly. There is an excellent sociologist (yes) named Mark Regnerus who the gay movement hates, who has pointed out all the things you allude to. He also has some original insights, such as, gay male sexual practices will spread to heterosexual couples, because men are sexually adventurous. He means things like toleration of playing around on the side, and anal sex.

I agree with you that the 1950s closet wasn't a good thing. Not everyone should be married heterosexually. No one should have to lie about themselves. But what's going on now is just as much of a lie as in the past.

Also, when a society's morals change so rapidly and radically, there may be some good to it, but the underlying truth is that that society is over and done with. It no longer has the courage of its convictions. Something else will take it's place, but the America you and I grew up in is dead, my friend.


Anonymous said...

in re Mark Caplan's question as to which dude pitches and catches:

in the video above Gad Saad mentions in not much detail (it's after the 45:00 mark, I think) some new research showing that there is a tendency for whichever guy has the longer rifle to use the other guy as the target, as it were.
If I were less busy I would obtain the exact clock-time in the video where this is referenced.
Anyway it's in there. The whole video interview is pretty okay but relevant to other topics.

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
Ah, then in that case I misinterpreted. (Apologies, Shaun.) Are you saying that with this mainstreaming, more kids are "identifying" with homosexuality to the point where they become effectively "recruited" into their ranks? I don't know. I suppose there are a few borderline cases where it could work that way, but my gut feel is that most people's sexualities are deeply enough ingrained that they're not going to be swayed by propaganda.

I'm not so sure that the norming of homosexuality would really affect heterosexual practices all that much. I think playing around on the side, and anal sex have always happened.

Yeah, no question, the gay movement is swathed in a lot of half truths and evasions, like the ones I mentioned in yesterday's 5:01PM comment. I wouldn't say the America we grew up in is dead, but it sure is changing, and in a lot of ways not for the better. (I was born in 1954, so I grew up in the 60's and 70's, when it was already changing.) The only permanent, ineradicable change I see, though, are the demographic changes. While cultural fads come and go, and the zeitgeist swings in both directions, once you've lowered a country's average IQ, there's nothing that can be done about it.

John Craig said...

Anon of 2:45AM --
That was interesting, thanks. I watched about 15 minutes of the video, including the segment right after the 45:00 mark. I'd never heard of Gad Saad before; he seems quite honest and straightforward. And Yiannopoulos, whom I'd just become aware of recently, is always a breath of fresh air.

Anonymous said...


If you don't think that recruiting children as soon as they can read will change their sexuality, well, we will just have to agree to disagree.

Check out the web page of the NY Public Library:, and you will see the first thing right in the middle is "LGBTQ Books For the Youngest Readers." Look at Greece - 15th Century Florence, Japan in the Middle Ages. Pederasty was the norm.

I'm not too crazy about Milo. I understand why some people are falling for him, but he really is a woman-hater. And IMO the stunt he pulled off with Gavin MacInnes (they kissed in public to troll Muslims) was degrading to MacInnes and I no longer respect him.

I heart old fashioned patriarchy. A patriarch keeps his dignity no matter what the provocation.

Puzzled - AND Sad

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
Hmm, well, as I said, I think the recruitment could work with borderline cases, but I can't imagine it swaying most of the male population, at least. Males seem to have much more "fixed" sexualities, whereas females tend to be more fluid.

You do bring up a good point about how in different cultures a certain kind of pederasty has flourished. And I'd add some of the Muslim cultures to that. And yes, certainly young people -- very young, as in middle school or even elementary school -- would be more susceptible.

Milo is a breath of fresh air because he's honest. I haven't heard the "women-hating" stuff, I guess, but I've found that simply describing group differences honestly is often equated, wrongly, with "hatred."

Anonymous said...


Assuming that one of your readers is some idiot who rejects groups differences as "hate" is a bit presumptuous. I think a better response would be, "I haven't seen evidence of this. Got any?"

Sure, he scores a few good points against feminism (who can't? target rich environment) but the entire article is shot through with hatred of women.

I thought your post about "Oscars So Jewish" was very funny and spot on. There are also people who would say the same thing, who are genuine anti-Semites. Milo says a lot of stuff about free speech - and feminism - I agree with. But he hates women. Beware of guys like him. He is seething with bitterness & resentment.

Puzzled, not Pozzed

John Craig said...

Puzzled, not Pozzed --
I wasn't suggesting that any regular readers here think that way, merely that that mode of thought is out there (and not rare). And anyone who does think that way is going to be turned off by this blog in pretty short order, though I'm guessing there are at least a couple of "hate readers" who drop in occasionally. Anyway, I certainly wasn't accusing you of that.

I just read that piece. I honestly didn't interpret it as women-hating; it was feminist-hating, which is an entirely different thing. At one point he said "eww" in reference to women in general, but that was just a jokey reference to his own sexuality.

As far as bitterness and resentment, I can't read minds. I can only speak for myself. I've never hated anyone of this or her race or sexuality or gender. Honestly. (And as a half-breed Eurasian, I'd look foolish doing so.) What I hate are hypocrisy and dishonesty. I see much more of that from the Left than I do from the Right. And those qualities fill me with bitterness and resentment. So you could say I'm a bitter, resentful person. And you'd be right. But I think those are just natural reactions to hypocrisy and lies, of the sort I saw in that NY Times article and which I wrote about on 2/28/16, which I assume is the post you're referring to. Now, you could say that that particular article showed a peculiarly Jewish flavor of hypocrisy, and that would be true. And just for having said that, a lot of people -- not you -- would accuse me of anti-Semitism. But I don't judge individual Jewish people any differently than I judge anyone else; I just judge them on the basis of their personalities.

Similarly, I like most black people I meet, even as I'm aware of racial differences in IQ and so on. The only black people I hate are those of the Sharpton/Jackson/Holder/Obama type who are just incredibly hypocritical and dishonest on racial issues. Anyway…you get the point: it's a fine line between seething with bitterness and resentment against a gender or race and seething with bitterness and resentment against hypocritical organized representation of that race or gender. I don't think Yiannapoulos has crossed that line. I hope I haven't either.

Boy, I just re-read what I just wrote; please pardon the long-winded self-justification.

Anonymous said...


Re long windedness, NP. It's your blog!

Re: Milo, you'll only disagree (now who is being presumptuous?) but I do think he seethes with bitterness and resentment against women, because he's smart enough to realize that (attractive women at least) will have access to the 98% of men he can't. Here is another example:

I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder, but I think he's simply venomous towards women. I actually agree with some of his observations, but the tone (not to mention the ridiculous conclusion) are textbook misogyny.

JMO & enough about him. Another area we disagree is the death of old America. John, it is dead as the dodo, and won't come back. The degree of family breakdown and psychological breakdown is breathtaking. I just found out that the younger sister of a top baseball player (won't say who) is a butch lesbian, shaves her head, tatts, the whole thing, who looks to me as if she is on her way to surgical transformation. This is total middle America, John, not some east coast liberal girl. The rot runs deep. MAGA my ass.

Puzzled and Sad

John Craig said...

Puzzled and Sad --
Well, I hope this doesn't make you any sadder, but I just read that article and found it quite amusing. I do see why you say Yiannopoulos is anti-woman, but I also think that much of what he aid was true. And, by the way, I'm all for sex-bots. They're just machines, toys, and feminists have no more right to say they should be banned than men have to say that women shouldn't be allowed to have vibrators. In fact if any man did suggest that, not just feminists but all reasonable women would be outraged. So why should women get to ban men's toys?

There probably is something to what you say about him being resentful of women because the good-looking ones can pull far more men than he can, if they're so inclined. But by the same logic, you have to then admit that most feminists are, deep down, resentful of men mostly because the men simply aren't attracted to them. And this is why, as has been pointed out by many before me, such a high percentage of hardcore feminists are plain-looking, at best. I mean, as long as we're looking for the deep-seated REAL reasons for venomousness……

Well, old American has evolved, no question. Family breakdown, no question. And the whole Obama administration Life of Julia and all of its antecedents are largely responsible. Why marry a man when the government will support you? Psychological breakdown? I'm not sure. I honestly think that a lot of this stuff has always been around, it's just more out in the open now. For instance, to take a totally nonpolitical, noncontroversial issue: PTSD. WWII veterans got it, but it wasn't called that back then, in fact it wasn't really labeled at all; the worse cases were said to have "shell shock," and the rest of the guys were expected to just suck it up and be men and earn livings and support their families. (Maybe that's why they were called the greatest Generation.) I think it's actually good though that soldiers who are suffering psychologically are attended to more. Just like I think it's good that homosexuals don't have to lurk in the shadows anymore. Again, the only thing I hate are the lies which come attached to all these movements.

As far as that baseball player's sister, honestly, that doesn't bother me. She's just being herself. I don't think she should be celebrated, I don't think she should be assigned any sort of moral superiority, and I don't think she should be held up as a role model. But I also don't think she should have to feel ashamed of herself because she is a misfit. There have always been people like that (even if they weren't as "out" as they are now, and they tend to lead pretty sad, constricted lives, but I see no reason why their lives should be any sadder than they already are.

(Did I just use the word "sad" in that last paragraph twice because you signed your comment that way? Hmm, guess I'm as susceptible to the power of suggestion as anyone.)