Another day, another shooting. If it is not an Aurora theater riddled with bullets, it is Virginia Tech struck with scorn conserved and returned in hollow points. Or it’s a messy love triangle and suicide at Columine, or Pekka-Eric Auvinen shooting up his school, or Jeff Weise blasting away on an Indian reservation.
Perhaps it is also Timothy McVeigh or Anders Breivik opening fire on those of their own people who they see as complicit. It might even be Varg Vikernes stabbing a bandmate in the skull, or another fellow musician luring a gay man into the woods to kill him just to feel what it is like. And now some fellow with illicit tattoos has blasted up a Sikh place of worship.
The press will bloviate in abundance. They will blame heavy metal, then mental illness, then hate. When that fails, time to trot out the psychiatrists to talk about unfulfilled sexual angst and fecal obsession. What they will not do is pay attention to the killers.
In the words of Auvinen, “Because… I just [expletive] hate this world.” The Columbine killers similarly believed they had no future, not on a financial or social level, but in the fact that their society annoyed them and frustrated them to no end.
It is hard to tell the motives of every shooter, but many seem suicidal. The true ideologues — McVeigh and Breivik — have no intention of suicide. If they go out, it will be fighting, but they prefer (generally) to be able to make a public statement, usually not as complete as the Breivik and Unabomber manifestos, and then live out their days in prison.
What drives people to this frustration is the general lack of organization, purpose and refinement to this society. Just as the science of 200 years ago seems backward and confused to us, in 200 years the social order of today will seem like a nightmare.
In particular, it will be recognized as disorganized and inefficient, causing frustration. Its bias against intelligent people, in favor of the merely clever, will be seen. Its products will seem inhuman and designed to fail. Its inability to stave off long-term catastrophe brought on by its own actions will be seen as a fatal flaw.
It is telling that when shootings happen, most of the talk is empty analysis or moralizing over the dysfunction of the killer. We should look in addition to what drove them, through a combination of desperation and rage, to want to destroy it all.
Our civilization is after all in demographic free-fall. Why are people not producing babies? If they are miserable, and do not want their children to be miserable, they will prevent those children from being produced.
In every classroom, the smart kids are bored; the clever are in the front row, adamant. In every job, the leaders are unconscious at their desks, while the chattering nobodies help themselves to leadership positions and then screw it all up.
Through the device of equality, but even more through its endorsement of the type of selfishness that has the individual believing he is welcome everywhere at anytime, this society has produced a self-sabotaging short circuit. Any good ideas that rise are immediately dragged back under by the personal drama of others.
It is reminiscent of how primitive societies turn on their learned people, call them witches and kill them, or how groups of primates will destroy those who are find a new way of doing familiar tasks. The individual is threatened, so it forms a group of other individuals, and by removing the messenger of unpleasant reality, they pretend they have changed reality.
Actually what they have done is to shoot themselves in the foot. They have traded a short-term solution for a long-term problem. The long-term problem includes the underlying frustration and pointlessness that leads to shootings.
Some shooters are clearly just nuts. The Aurora madman may well be one of those. Others are sensitive people, often of high intelligence, who just can’t take it anymore. They see the disaster that others ignore. Their last act is a combination cry for help, I-told-you-so, suicide and retaliation.
We should not reform our society because these people find fault with it. They are dead and cannot be helped. We should reform it because the same frustration lives in us, and instead of taking it out in a blaze of glory, we live with it every day and become increasingly bitter, taking it out on others.
This way, the frustration feeds on itself and increases to a constant background hum, never breaking into the realm of action but just as certainly preventing us from ever fully enjoying our time. The real shooters here are ourselves: daily we murder our hopes, and destroy ourselves, in the name of just fitting in.
43 queries. 0.873 seconds
“The long-term problem includes the underlying frustration and pointlessness that leads to shootings.”
Right on the point.
No matter how much ‘truth’ they have to shed on society, it has the worst possible result for that ‘truth’ with acts of violence. They taint truth by making it taboo.
Better to use blogs and such as the Sword. Eventually others will catch on when society continuously dwindles into the illogical.
It is a sad thing. I really like the general line of reasoning in this blogg post. The bored people must be challenged, school does not.
What is the problem with society? Where does it all begin. The killing and frustration.
Isn’t it so that the left favours those who are Left without?
And the self-righteous tries to stand errect and turns towards that which is Right and correct?
This is a pattern. Two words. Left and Right, opposite and arbitrary. They carry with them immense power. People fall for it Right then and there. Problems unfold, procreation in between make them grow bigger and bigger until there’s an explosion.
People Identify, with a big I, with being Right and so turns right. It may be we need politics. If we truly are Right and Good the politics will be aswell. Same goes for the left. It doesn’t matter much who leads.
When there is a fight he who yields first is considered the better man. The better man is more mature so he knows to rise above it. Fighting leads to more fighting.
It is like two neighbours with a picket fence in between. The right wants to be right and looks for things that are wrong in his neighbour that he may feel good and right. You’re noisy! he says to the left whos mowing his lawn. You’re greedy! replies the left as the right washes his expensive car. Both grown children, not mature adults.
If it was not for the picket fence, wouldn’t the first be happy the second mowed his very own lawn? Wouldn’t the second appreciate his very own car?
Leftwing and Rightwing cannot exist without each other or there would be no aircraft to carry society. To win vs the Left is simply suicide. The plane would crash down. They always fight each other.
Left gives birth to right, that is why we can complain about a Leftwing society. History proves conservatism gives birth to democracy, communism etc. and so it goes on. Left and Right ping-pong. It is a problem.
When we seize judging them we see them more clearly and become better men. Ignored and looked upon with compassion they will fade away. When Left to their own, fighting will happen amongst their own, instead. For they need an outlet for their anger. And when leftists die out, so will rightwingers begin to die out. Then politics get smaller and more easily manageable. The better men can become Good leaders. The drama of others couldn’t stop them anymore.
All begins with two silly words. Left. Right. Truly both try and create an ideal world, and rarely with any real success. Because they are not better men, but lesser men locked in combat.
We must not go back in time, like presented here, but backtrack our own steps. Unjudge the communist. Then there is possibility for what has worked in the past, conservatism like presented here could be possible. Left would have no choice but to look up to a better man. He’d rule sovereign but they will fight you when you judge them. No good ideas could come through.
Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. wrote an excellent short story entitled Harrison Bergeron about this problem. Anyone who is good at anything or different in any respect gets strapped to the Procrustean Bed. The result is frustration, anger, violence and the ultimate enstupidation of the entire society.
the article still doesnt explain why this guy targetted sikhs. this article should plainly say that some people are clearly fed up with people of other ethny/culture living next to them and bringing all the cultural attributes of their country of origin. this phenomena should be tackled in deep. maybe if those sikh came to the US and blended with the americans (no turbans, no curry, etc), this madman wouldnt have snapped and killed them. but they had to bring their country with them, temple and all. why do people do this? you’re fed up with your country and want to leave, then in your host country, you want to shove your lifestyle in the throat of those who are hosting you. this, i think, is the straw that breaks the camel’s back. refusal to assimilate, AND refusal to improve one’s own country instead of just immigrating…
The modern west has been invading other countries for the past centuries, destroying their cultures, religions and social hierarchies, shoving down their throats, instead, the democratic cancer, materialism, globalism, mcdonald’s, hamburgers and all every other slime production of the modern mentality.
So perhaps we shouldn’t target particular people, but certain ideas and subversive movements that have given rise to these things.
What the heck’s wrong with curry? Hundreds of years ago, Europeans were desperate for “spices from the east”; the Sikhs living here never shoved that particular aspect of their culture down our throats, we already had those spices in our cupboards for years before the south Asians showed up here in large numbers.
Haven’t you heard of the huge spice trade, an important part of Europe’s history. Nothing is healthier, as a daily food additive, than the spices that go to make up curry: turmeric, coriander, ginger, cinnamon, cloves and cumin among others. They have all been studied thoroughly and found to be wonderful for everyone, south Asian and European alike. The Sikhs don’t need to give up their curry to fit in. It’s other things that are the problem.
Do you find you have trouble with fine details?
Most people do.
That’s why we’ll one day soon have six billion political parties.
Depends what you mean with “trouble”.
If one is trying to make a legitimate point, all the details you include in your presentation are important. The history of Europeans’ desire for, and use of, asiatic Indian spice/food, should not be ignored or cast aside as a meaningless detail.
Further, one should not make foolish statements, such as how the avoidance of curry and turbans somehow constitutes “blend[ing] with the Americans”. Right. I know people who blend perfectly with Americans, you can’t recognize them when you see them on the street, and I can assure you they don’t have your interests at heart.
There is room for detail people.
Something these killers don’t seem to have been able to do is find their own group of people to work with, interact with, discuss with, love, stand together with, and find a common interest with, so they could have their own little society of people to believe in.
Why is that so difficult that massacring people is easier?
That’s the value of Amerika.
A community of people with something in common.
The occasional leftist interloper doesn’t recognize this, and immediately sets out to wreck the community, like they do to everything they come into contact with.
The more distinct our criteria of what a normal human should be like, the harder to find an example…
Those who [know | understand | can do] many things are always more or less lonely – especially in Kali Yuga.
“Some shooters are clearly just nuts. The Aurora madman may well be one of those. Others are sensitive people, often of high intelligence, who just can’t take it anymore.”
The Aurora madman actually was of high intelligence. He went to Harvard and there’s footage of him at a Science fair giving a presentation. Who’s to say he wasn’t sensitive too?
Life is lonely and it doesn’t make us happy, I’m discovering, and that’s good for me because it’s forcing me to connect to people and to do what feels like it matters.
It’s difficult to find and difficult to do things that really feel authentic because, well, it’s difficult to see what there is to do. You get the feeling you can’t just drop everything and leave because there’s nowhere to go to escape yourself.
I’m lucky because I have an artistic vision so if I give it the discipline it has to have, I can make something good.
So…a killer feels that empty void and maybe wants to replicate the terror? That must feel like some kind of a good thing in a flipped-over way, like a depressed person who suddenly cheers up because he or she has finally gotten the resolve to commit suicide.
But I’ve come to accept that life is painful, lonely and empty at times, and I know it’s all got to come from me then. I suppose there are people who are so frightened by the void, they will take anything to fill it with, anything at all.
They shouldn’t get excited by all the fame they’re going to get for being so deadly! That would fill an ego full, and yet the media doesn’t even see it. Their ego feeds on getting the name in their story. The one who owns the name gets their ego fed on the fame.
(p.s. I don’t really see any trolls in here. Big smile!)
Life can be lonely, if one depends upon others for a sense of fulfillment. But who is ‘us’? Life makes me quite happy. It’s only people that steal away that happiness. Connecting to people won’t do it; it’s more a matter of connecting to certain consciousnesses. The two don’t necessarily go together, as we often notice.
True, many are frightened by the ‘void’, but only when it is taken out of context. The void suits me perfectly: the absence of any man-made intrusion. Emptiness that is very far from empty, once you stop looking for people-stuff to fill it.
There is a big difference between being alone and being lonely. Of course, that is what you are getting at.
“When there is a fight he who yields first is considered the better man. The better man is more mature so he knows to rise above it. Fighting leads to more fighting.”
I disagree about the first part, though I may not be right about this in all cases. In real life, the one who yields the fight first will be run over. But force leads to opposite force, yes.
It isn’t just violence that wins over a hope that we can all be nice. Stringent moral codes also win over. Ex. In London and in Michigan right now, Muslims are setting up their own law in places where the old order fell. They won’t do business with people who have dogs, buy or use liquor, or don’t have the women dressing modestly. Being nice has failed.
It’s impossible to communicate with a leftist.
Whatever it reads, it translates into gibberish.
“When there is a fight he who yields first is considered the better man.”
In the real world, he who yields first is the loser.
He is considered the better man? Who’s doing the considering?
Everything a leftist thinks, sees, interprets, is through how it appears to somebody else.
Doh. No wonder civilization is plunging into oblivion.
It’s a yield to the situation. It dawns upon you it’s not leading anywhere but to more fighting and that you don’t care if he consider himself, or if other people consider him the winner or not.
He may lose the fight and still win the battle. In his own eyes, but other people may see the same thing. I dont know any other way to put it.
I’ve said a lot of crap. Reality is more important than fantasy, for one. Perhaps it is better for communication to say the winner is the winner. I still think he may have lost the battle. Yielding would be a battle strategy, but not always the best one.
Left, Right. Democrat, Republican. There exist words with immense power, they appeal greatly to people. It’s a problem. It can be dealt with in various ways.
It was not uncommon for a king to give his people something to settle them. A republican must give something appealing to a democrat while leading them. It is one way to deal with them, anyways. Giving is necessary when you rule over people. I want to lift it up. Leftists give stupidly to those left without when it’s due to these individuals unproductivity. But to some extent giving is a necessity. It should not be rejected that that is so.
Not to sway from the topic but I wouldn’t class the Norwegian black metal murders as part of the same frustration. I would argue it’s a different psychology at play.