An autopsy on Las Vegas killer Stephen Paddock has revealed no physical abnormalities with his brain, according to the U.K. Daily Mail, discounting the possibility of a tumor or other physiological aberrance as a motivating factor behind his attack.
The findings were announced on Tuesday, along with other discoveries that seemed to discount earlier reports concerning Paddock’s mental state.
According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo told a news conference that contrary to previous accounts, Paddock’s girlfriend Marilou Danley had no concerns about his mental health.
Lombardo also said that investigators had scoured Paddock’s family tree and his ex-wives for evidence on his mental state. While Lombardo said it gave investigators insight into his upbringing, it got them no closer to a motive or evidence of mental illness. Likewise, in spite of Paddock’s heavy gambling, he had no heavy debts.
“We may never know” what caused Paddock to do it, Lombardo said. “All those things that you would expect to find, we have not found.”
So with no documentation of previous mental illness, no physical neurological problems to pin Paddock’s evil action on, and no proven external motivation so far (such as a covert conversion to radical Islam), the most obvious conclusion that remains the one that liberals in the United States cannot permit themselves to admit:
That the hedonistic lifestyle glorified by the liberal elites of Hollywood and the mainstream media is the likely biggest driving factor behind Paddock’s mass murder.
One clue in particular that seems to stick out as to the manner of the man is a report from a Vegas prostitute reportedly patronized by Paddock. In an interview with the U.K. Sun, she described heavy drinking and violent sex on Paddock’s part. She also showed a text message he allegedly wrote in which he seemed to identify with his father, a notorious bank robber who once escaped from prison.
“I didn’t have anything really to do with him but the bad streak is in my blood. I was born bad,” Paddock said in the message.
The left loves to downplay environment-based mental health conditions and moral turpitude as motivating factors behind mass shootings. The focus, instead, always goes to political motives (if they’re of the extreme right-wing variety) or the weapons used by the shooter (pretty much every case, regardless of politics).
Yet, everything we’ve learned about Stephen Paddock so far indicates that it was a combination of factors — namely, poor upbringing and a lifestyle that reflected and exacerbated that. It’s clear from reports that he drank and gambled to profound excess and engaged in coital relations of the most sordid sort — with women paid exorbitant amounts of money to tolerate his depravity.
That’s not terribly indicative of a man with a strong — or any — moral anchor.
We are, of course, going on media reports, but these facts seem to be relatively well-established. Even if there was some genus or species of mental illness involved here, investigators don’t seem to believe at present that it was the sole motivating factor. So, what are we left with? A dissolute man who indulged in a sea of vice in a postmodern society where vice is no longer considered immoral.
That’s not a motive, mind you — merely a diagnosis of the culture that produced Stephen Paddock. But pointing it out, and noting its deleterious effect, is the left’s worst nightmare.
Let’s assume that, at the end of what will no doubt be a protracted investigation into the motives of this murderous degenerate, that we are still no closer to determining a motive. Let’s say we cannot definitively determine why, on one October night, Stephen Paddock took position inside the perch of an absurdly expensive hotel suite on the 32nd floor of a garish casino, aimed at tens of thousands of innocent concertgoers, began firing indiscriminately, and ended up snuffing out 58 innocent lives.
Will we then look at this man’s lifestyle? Will we look at the drinking, the gambling, the prostitutes, the glorification of an absent father who robbed banks at gunpoint, the seeming lack of any moral core? The predictable result of the society the left glorifies?
Or will we just look at the guns that he owned?
I hope it will be the former. I will admit to not holding very much hope.
Please like and share on Facebook and Twitter with your thoughts