BBM
Agree. Historically churches did control the assorted forms of governments, currency/money, and at the very least encouraged social stratification, paternalism, control etc so there could be something there. In more recent history (and currently) though religion might exert pressure on how people should "behave" or be the "opiate of the masses" but corporations and elites control the government and other institutions (agents of the government) and are responsible for the issues he addresses. In other words I get the connection he makes to religion but I absolutely don't get why he focuses on it the way he does (the context). Maybe being able to see the rest of his manifesto would help clarify where he was going with that and it might give more insight into what he plans on doing.
I totally agree there is truth in those 35 pages, and skimming past the parts that feel like ramblings or just too much information, he points out very real concerns. Anarchy - real anarchy that is - could bring about solutions, but I'm not convinced that's where he's going with this. Some / many anarchists do share a lot of the basic beliefs he expressed and he might even self id as one, but like you said guns kill people not institutions and the anarchists I know are well aware of that and aren't deluded enough to think one person (or even a handful of people) can bring down the government etc with a few guns. Which goes back to where my questions and concerns come in. Is this a man that will try to target those he thinks are responsible for the problems or is he only concerned about getting his message out by any means necessary? I would think LE would have a better understanding of his intentions based on talking to people that know him, his background and the rest of his manifesto. Don't get me wrong, I do believe that if he decides to carry through with his plan(s) he is dangerous - I just think he's more so if his main motive is to bring attention to his manifesto / beliefs (by a mass shooting or something).
