Modern medicine did not help Germanwings pilot, it may have damaged him

In an op-ed on FoxNews.com, Dalrymple doesn’t mince words in explaining the actions of Germanwings pilot Andreas Lubitz:

Andreas Lubitz was not depressed, he was of bad character, for the improvement of which there is no drug. He was an angry narcissist, murderous at least as much as he was suicidal.

Suffering reverses in life, Lubitz sought revenge on what he thought was an unjust world. Many people like him who commit suicide, or try to, imagine a continued shadowy existence after their deaths in which they are able [to] witness the doleful effects that their death has had on others, and they enjoy the prospect. He didn’t want to slip away quietly, he wanted fame, even if it were only notoriety.

If he had killed himself by jumping from a building, say, which requires no more courage than crashing an airplane, no one would have heard of him. By crashing his plane, everyone has heard of him. The 149 people were sacrificed to his wounded vanity and his desire for fame.

5 thoughts on “Modern medicine did not help Germanwings pilot, it may have damaged him

  1. Noah

    I agree with what Dalrymple says but I have to say I’m surprised to see he’s writing for Fox News. However much you hate the Guardian, at least is isn’t as vulgar and dishonest as this network. Is this just an example of a writer needing to earn his bread? Or is Dalrymple blind to the vulgarity of his new employers?

    Reply
    1. Clinton Post author

      I cannot even begin to imagine what you are talking about with respect to Fox News. Various hard-leftists like to refer to it as you do, always without being able to add any specificity to their critique. If you consider Fox News dishonest and The Guardian trustworthy, you are an extraordinarily atypical Dalrymple reader.

      Reply
      1. Noah

        I’ll admit to having no hard evidence that Fox News is blatantly dishonest, although I could point to various articles and/or videos which allegedly show that the network is less than scrupulous. But I won’t do that because (1) you can probably find them for yourself; and (2) you probably won’t believe them anyway; and (3), as mentioned, I can’t verify the sources. So I regret calling Fox News dishonest. You’re right – I can’t back myself up.

        However, I still think that the network is vulgar. It’s hard to imagine that Theodore Dalrymple is a fan of Sean Hannity or Bill O’Reilly. I don’t read the Guardian on a regular basis (or very much at all) but based on those few occasions in which I have read it, I prefer it to Fox News, if only on aesthetic grounds. Btw, at no point in my comment did I say I think the Gaurdian is trustworthy. I just implied that it’s preferable to Fox News.

        And I am probably an atypical reader of Dalrymple. But I don’t see anything wrong with that – I appreciate his wit and wisdom, even if I don’t agree with everything he writes or says. You obviously don’t need to have a complete overlap with another person’s worldview in order to learn from that person.

        And, before I go, I have to thank you for running this site; it’s nice to have everything in one place. I come in peace.

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *