When I started this blog, my stated purpose was to promote counter-intuitive thinking which forces us to challenge conventional wisdom. It encourages us to ask “what if,” opening our minds to new possibilities. Let me be clear. Contrarian approaches to events and issues does not necessarily lead you to truth, but it ensures you do not overlook alternative interpretations of the facts.

Today, I was watching the continuing coverage of the tragic events this weekend in Orlando. The intersection of possible ISIS influence and homophobia makes this a complex case. Was the shooter’s declaration of support for ISIS a cover for homophobia or was the selection of an LGBT nightclub as his target consistent with avowed ISIS persecution of individuals with alternative lifestyles?

There is, however, one other possibility. What if the anger which brought about Sunday morning’s massacre at the Pulse nightclub resulted from a need to disavow the shooter’s own sexual preferences? There are numerous instances in which the most anti-gay politicians and clergy have voluntarily admitted or been forced to confront their own homosexuality. These include George Reker, co-founder of the Family Resource Council; former conservative California State Senator Roy Ashburn; Pastor Ted Haggard, former leader of the National Association of Evangelicals and Glenn Murphy, Jr., former head of the Young Republicans.

My purpose is not to shame these individuals. In fact, I feel sorry for them. They were surrounded by people who believed they were unnatural and sinners. I can only imagine the personal hell they endured pretending to be something they were not. Which brings us back to Omar Mateen and a counter-intuitive explanation of his motives and actions. An alternative conclusion could be it was both a hate crime and influenced by ISIS, but not the way we normally think of these situations. Did Mateen hate himself? When, as his father reports, he railed at the site of two men kissing in Miami, did he hate these individuals or did he hate the fact that they were living the life he wanted but could not have? And to what extent was this self-hate confirmed and magnified by visits to ISIS websites which reminded him he was emblematic of the worst of western culture? Is it possible, sometime this past week, Mateen realized he could not live with himself, decided it was unfair others were able to pursue their preferred sexual orientation, purchased a handgun and assault rifle and planned the attack at the Pulse? I do not pretend to have unraveled the mystery which led to Sunday morning’s massacre. The eventual narrative will come from more rigorous due diligence by law enforcement and psychiatrists.

Earlier this evening I shared this hypothesis with my wife. I acknowledged it was far-fetched. However, it gained a bit more credibility when I turned on the news after dinner to learn several members of the Orlando LGBT community thought they recognized Mateen. Some said they had seen his photo posted on Grindr, the social networking app geared toward gay and bisexual men. A couple of people believed they had seen Mateen at the Pulse on previous occasions. And this makes sense. If there is any truth to this counter-intuitive perspective, Mateen would not frequent gay establishments near his home in Ft. Pierce where he might be recognized and outed. His secret existence would have to play out somewhere else.

Bottom line? Maybe Mateen did not hate America or Americans. Maybe he did not hate the fact there were gays and lesbians. Maybe, he was the victim of another kind of hate, hating oneself. And regardless of the source or target, hate too often manifests itself in violence. While we were shocked by the magnitude of bloodshed in this latest case, the number of dead and wounded should not matter. One life, cut short by hate, is one life too many.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP