why did the gook kill at V tech? pt 2

---

• From: burn-again satanist <cerebureaucracy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: 25 Apr 2007 19:40:18 -0700

---

some people may wonder why was there such lack of pity in the gook
kid? why such hatred, meanness, brutality, and such? for some
people, pity is pitiful. this varies from family to family, culture
to culture. what passes for warmth and kindness in one group may be
deemed pussyass and 'faggoty' in another group. a white college crowd
might sing along to a nice happy folk song. blue collar heavy metal
crowd or rap negro crowd might deem such stuff as totally 'gay' and
wimpy. some peoples and cultures tend to be more brutish, macho,
badass, and such. now, stoicism and toughness are virtues but some
cultures and peoples twist those values into brutality, pitilessness,
and callous regard for the weak. to hug a warm puppy may be nice,
but some cultures and peoples may disdain such as a sign of weakness,
childishness, wimpery. among blacks, dog fights are all the rage.
among koreans, torturing dogs to death to make dog soup is considered
essential to koreanness. neither culture puts much emphasis on pity
and warmth. there is much self-pity as in 'we have been soooooo
oppressed by OTHER peoples', but, there is very little pity for
others. also, this self-pity often leads to self-loathing. because
the culture emphasizes toughness and strength to such degree, self-
pity makes one feel weak and ashamed. so, the members of that culture
try to cover up that show of weakness(self-pity) with alot of rage and
aggression. so, you see so many korean left-wing students on tv news
pull their hair as victims of US imperialism and THEN shake their fist
to tell uncle sam to fuc* off(it's self-pity feeding murderous
rage).
even among whites, there was always a big divide between middle class
culture and blue collar culture. though mike royko was a humanist and
a liberal of sort, he retained much of his working class disdain for
what he called wimpy sensitivity. he often liked to be write columns
about how okay it was to eat dogs and cats. he often enjoyed being
politically incorrect to ruffle up the feathers of the well-heeled
wasp types. he saw himself as the robust and hardy working class
polack-ukrainian ethnic up against soft, wimpy, hypocritical wasp
upper crust. there was some of this also in michael novack's 'rise of
the unmeltable ethnics'.
this is all very fine but at its extremes, it can be ugly and
pitiless. and gook boy was pitiless. yet, he was so pitiful. indeed,
he was a self-pitying person who loathed his self-pitying weakness.
he wanted to be hard and tough. he tried to convince himself and
others that he was tough and badass. but, like most people, he had a
soft side. instead of recognizing it for what it is and tending it
like a garden so flowers could grow, he saw it as a sign of weakness,
of wimpiness, of helplessness. it could be that he grew up in a
pitiless family-cultural environment. it could be that he came to
disdain weakness or pity from all the tough guy/badass pop culture he
consumed. it could be that he was bullied often and came to loathe
weakness as just a social liability.
consider dogs raised in the home and those grown up in the wild. dogs
raised in the home are rewarded for being loving, loyal, warm, and
such. we feel much pity and love for the dog. but, dogs that grew up
in the wild come to learn that the ONLY way to survive is to be nasty,
tough, dog-eat-dog, and ruthless. there is no room for pity in
nature. if there is some pity and sympathy, it is only among those in
the same pack or herd. all outsiders are seen as predator or prey.
this is also true of humans. we all have soft sides. some cultures
allow that soft side to flower. if it's allowed to flower TOO much,
it turns so wimpy, gayish, self-pitying, and goo goo; it even becomes
whiny and bratty, like a spoiled dog that whimpers everytime it cannot
have everything its way. so many liberals are like that.
but, some cultures don't allow the soft side to grow. it's trampled
before it can grow. any show of weakness, pity, mercy is seen as
weak, wimpy, and dorky. think of ancient spartan society. pitiless
and merciless. the problem is devastating psychologically. when
animals are not allowed to be soft and forced to be only tough,
ruthless, and mean, they are just being animals. but, humans cannot
live that way. if a society is too pitiless and expects its members
to be only tough and hard, our hearts become savagely cold. now,
'savagely cold' may sound oxymoronic. isn't savagery hot? it is
naturally, but a society may expect us to be pitiless yet also lawful,
savage yet also orderly. this was the nature of stalin's russia,
hussein's iraq, and kim's north korea. people are turned into mad
savage dogs... yet utterly obedient to the state. this leads to a
major kind of contradiction. on the one hand, the people are told
that there should be no mercy, pity, or sympathy. yet, they are
expected to be obedient to social principles. we saw this during the
cultural revolution in china when mao unleashed the savagery of the
masses... yet demanded that this wild savagery be obedient to his
priniciples of socialism. basically, this says be a crazy animal in
the name of higher civilization.

problem of this is obvious. once pity is stamped out from the human
soul, civilization itself loses its heart and warmth. only the Form of
civilization is left without the blood. this is why all
civilizations that loses a sense of heartful morality eventually
crumbles despite all the bombs, armies, and etc. look at the fate of
nazi germany and USSR. and it should also be a warning to ultra
secularists who think cold science can answer everything. richard
dawkins is a heartless man. of course, too much warmth and pity turns
into another kind of suicide, one which the west is engaged in now.
west wants to be so understanding and compassionate that it has no
will to criticize or demand anything from people-of-color, illegal
immigrants, troublesome minorities, thuggish anti-establishmentarian
youths, etc. too much heart in the name of civilization is
suicide(mr. rogers neighborhood cannot stand up to thugs). too little
heart in the name of civilization is also long term suicide(it's WWF
where everyone eventually ends up with broken bones and bloody
noses). finding the balance isn't easy. we need pity but not
wimpery. the problem with the gook kid was he was filled with a
great deal of self-pity but rejected pity. so, this led to a cycle of
rage within his soul. he wanted to be hard and tough. he had no pity
for others. yet, he felt tremendous self-pity. so, he came to hate
himself as he felt weak. but, did he blame himself? no, he blamed
others. why? because he felt self-pity in comparison and in contrast
to others. others were richer, cooler, happier, etc, etc. he felt
left out.

on some subconscious level, he may have wanted pity from others, like
a puppy wants to be loved. but, he may have figured that others
cannot and should not pity him since he doesn't pity others. people
often project their own mindsets onto others. a thief thinks everyone
is a thief. a crook thinks everyone is a crook. a pitiless person
who disdains others thinks everyone else is a pitiless person who
disdains others. and if someone comes across as a genuinely pitying
and sympathetic person, such person is seen as either naive, stupid,
or phony.
gook kid may have wanted pity subconsciously, but he couldn't accept
it consciously. he couldn't accept the notion that he, mr. tough guy,
could possibly beg for pity or want a shoulder to cry on. this is why
he prolly didn't respond to counselors. he may have seen such as only
for 'pussies'. he couldn't open up to them. and if he did, on
occasion, open up to others, he soon felt sick afterward for being
such a sissy weenie. after all, he himself laughed at other
weaklings. why should he expect others to really care about him?
people project their sense of reality onto others. often, empathy
doesn't so much mean seeing thru others people's eyes as seeing thru
one's own eyes thru other people's eyes. we may think we are
understanding someone else when in fact, we are only grafting our own
consciousness onto their souls.
(in some ways, the anxiety of the korean-american community following
the massacre may illustrate the problems of those people. korean-
americans expressed much fear about being scapegoated or vilified as a
group by the american majority. this fear could largely be a product
of koreans projecting their own mindset upon everyone else. we know
that koreans--at least in korea--tend to be insular, chauvanistic,
enraged, and such and readily vilify or target entire groups. when
apollo anton ohno<skater at the olympics> was awarded the gold medal
over some korean kid who was disqualified, alot of koreans blamed ALL
of the US, ALL americans. traditionally a homogeneous cultural and
racial group, koreans are used to seeing things in us-against-them.
this is prolly not so true among younger koreans who have adapted to
american culture. but, there are many immigrant korean-americans in
the US who have no interest in becoming part of america. anyway, they
could well be projecting their own ugly character on all of america.
since they are so distrustful and vilifying of others, they may feel
americans are like that too. but, we know from 9/11 that americans
have come a long way. in the past, americans too could be viciously
prejudiced against the irish, negroes, japanese-americans, etc. but,
US is no longer like that while korea still seems like that. of
course, some of the fears of the korean community is understandable
since they make up such a small part of US population. it's the kind
of fear held by a small minority under any circumstances. and there
is also the memory of the LA riots which may be raw among many korean-
american folks. in that incident, the grand narrative spun by the
media was that korean-americans largely had it coming to them because
they were not nice to black customers. given these factors, we can
understand the fears of the korean-american community more.
still, it seems so petty for korean-americans to mainly express their
fears and collective shame--always a stupid and childish attitude--
than express their sympathy for the victims and show trust/confidence
in america as a fair and just nation--at least among the whites if not
the blacks who are often under the sway of the likes of al sharpton
and worse).


if gook boy had believed in the value of pity, he might not have been
as dangerous. he would still have been nuts--as he most certainly
born with screwy brain chemistry--but there may have been less tension
in his soul. a sociopath is someone who has zero emotions and
feelings; such a person is truly nihilistic and unfeeling. gook boy
was not coldly sociopathic. he had raging emotions hidden in his
soul. it shows there was tension between opposites. what were they?
it was prolly a cry for pity/love and a laughing contempt at pity and
softness. perhaps, his only chance for pity was some girl of his
dream. when that seemed totally out of his reach, he became totally
whacko. think of stalin who said he lost all compassion after his
second wife committed suicide. hitler said as much after the suicide
of his niece. now, stalin and hitler were nutjobs to begin with. but,
there may have been still some link to some soft/kind feeling or
emotions before their loved ones died. think of strolnikov in 'dr.
zhivago' who loses his humanity after he finds out that his girlfriend
was sexually/morally compromised and contaminated by some filthy
bourgeois pig.

anyway, gook boy was not robotically sociopathic. he killed
methodically like the terminator but he was raging inside. there are
some killers who really do kill coldly and chop up people with zero
emotion. they do it like it's some lab experiment. that was not the
case of gook boy. he was someone who wanted pity and warmth deep
inside but whose outer consciousness came to hate all signs of
weakness, softness, and pity. he came to believe that such stuff is
not manly, not tough, not badass. yukio mishima started out as a
wimpster. he was originally an effete homo who wrote poetic stories.
but, he felt wimpy and shi* and later decided to pump up his body and
become really strong. he came to disdain the weak or feminine side of
japanese culture. he tried to suppress his effete gay past. he was
gonna be super macho man samurai from now on. something similar may
have happened with gook kid. he may have felt weak, wimpy, and such
in early days in school. he may have been a gimpass dorkboy. as he
grew older and gained more freedom and independence, he may have
discovered that he can define himself than be defined by others. he
was gonna be like chow yun fat in 'better tomorrow'. like chow in
that movie, gook boy wore sunglasses. and like chow, he killed with
two pistols.

you can find this kind of reaction among all peoples who previously
felt de-masculinized. think of the negroes in the 60s. ossie davis
eulogized malcolm x and praised him for making black men feel 'like a
man'. prior to the 60s, blacks were either seen as either funny
coons, lowly toms, or nice respectable middle class negroes. blacks
felt that their manhood was compromised under such conditions. so the
black power movement in the 60s went for ultra negro machismo. black
panthers loved to pose with shotguns, wearing berets and leather
jackets. they were not just some tom, negro, or 'house ***'. they
were badass 'field ***' rebel badass mofos out to kill the pig and
honkeys. and che guevara's anger at the US was also of a sexual
nature. his sense of latin male pride was deeply hurt by the
economic, political, and military dominance by the US. alot of people
see che as a man of ideas but he was essentially a man of latin sperm
rage. he looked forward to a nuclear war with the US cuz he saw
nuking america as an act of unloading his latin cum on those damned
yankees. indeed, this feeling is shared by many latinos. why is hugo
chavez so popular? it's his macho swagger, his display of latin
virility and badassness. and i'm sure there is a sexual aspect to
iran's nuclear project. iranian men can feel real powerful with the
bomb. not only will great satan US and zionist israel have the bomb.
islamic IRAN will have the bomb. international macho powerlust, like
in dr. strangelove. or, on a smaller level, one can see such
mentality in the figure of mr. glass in the excellent movie,
'unbreakable'.

it's natural for us to have soft feelings. we wanna hug puppies and
listen to nice ballads and be kind and such. but, in some cultures or
under certain circumstances, one is made to feel ashamed for feeling
or showing such emotions. ironically, people who are naturally the
most sensitive often become most distorted under such circumstance.
suppose there is a homeless puppy in need of love and help. suppose
some kid tries to help it but other kids taunt him, ridicule him, and
call him a '***' for showing such affection. suppose other kids
throw rocks at the puppy and kill it. the sensitive kid watches and
weeps, and others taunt him and spit at him for being such a wimp.
now, the sensitive kid can do two things. he can remain sensitive and
be mocked by his social environment. or, he can harden himself and try
hard to suppress what is so human within himself. a naturally
insensitive person suffers less than a naturally more sensitive person
under such pressure.
a third way is to maintain the compassion for the puppy and develop a
murderous hatred for those who dare hurt the weak. this is to turn
the crucifix into a sword, always a tricky business. we saw in The
Passion that jesus was whupped and tormented but forgave and loved
everyone. the bullies couldn't beat the love out of jesus. and
jesus never fought back.
in contrast, some people succumb to the bullies and become one of
them.
but, some people hold onto pity/compassion but harden themselves
against all those who lack pity and compassion. this is the story of
'Perfect World', a fine eastwood movie. in that movie, kevin costner
plays a serial killer who had been terribly abused as a kid. he sees
himself as a defender of the weak and innocent. yet, his rage is so
all-consuming that he kills anyone that he perceives as a tormentor of
the weak. he kills any adult who strikes or hurts a child.

indeed, there is something of this in the gook boy. his videos and
photos exhibit both pitilessness and pity. he says he will have to be
ultra pitiless against the pitiless in the name of the weak and
pitiful. so, who are the weak and pitiful? it is, well, himself.
but, to say he's doing it to avenge his own anger and hurt would be a
confession of self-pity. so, he says he's doing it for OTHERS, just as
jim jones said he's doing it for OTHERS, just as che guevara said he
was doing it for OTHERS.
this is all a bogus kind of pity, bogus kind of compassion. when che
guevara was willing to sacrifice all cubans in a nuclear holocaust, he
was doing it for his own sense of macho glory, not for the proletariat
around the world. when gook boy decided to kill a whole bunch of
kids, he was doing it for himself, not for the weak and oppressed.
indeed, he was so demented that he killed alot of perfectly fine kids--
most of whom were hardly richer or better off than he--in the name of
the oppressed. ever notice that in many cases, all the megalomanical
cases impose their 'compassion' onto others. did cubans ask che to
sacrifice all of cuba in the name of international socialism? no, che
imposed his idea of righteousness on everyone else. he was willing to
have millions in cuba and US die for his funny idea of revolutionary
glory.

now, we should be careful to distinguish between sensitivity and
pity. it looks like gook boy was very sensitive without having much
if any pity. indeed, one can be highly sensitive while having zero
pity. hitler was very sensitive but didn't have much pity. and some
people are not sensitive but full of pity. some people have very
thick skins but great love for other folks. they are like big shaggy
dogs that ignore kids poking it with a stick and love to slobber their
love and affection onto other dogs and people. gook boy was ultra-
sensitive and ultra-pitiless in the worst way. bad combo. he took
every perceived slight as torture yet was totally blind to his
trangressions against others. he felt so persecuted, tormented, and
tortured that he failed to see why HE had to feel anything for
others.

in this sense, gook boy was different from david chapman. chapman was
no less self-absorbed, but if gook boy had no sense of others,
chapman really had no sense of himself. gook boy saw--or wanted to
see--himself as hard/badass and the world as soft, flabby, phony, and
full of ***. it was full of *** because even as the world and its
people were soft and flabby, it was filled with prickly needles.
chapman, on the other hand, saw himself as a soft muppet charater
against a very hard world. he only shot one person and the shooting
was a kind of love/hate letter. it was like a bittersweet valentine
that said 'john, you really let me down'.
in his rantings, gook boy talked as though the world was cruel and
oppressive but there is a sense that he despised the world because it
was too soft, too rich, too spoiled, too flabby. he had to bust it
and let all the hot air out.

if gookboy resembles any pop cultural figure, it's tetsuo in Akira.
Akira is a superb series of manga(japanese comic books) and was made
into a lesser movie. in that story, tetsuo is some mentally disturbed
kid, a weakling pushed around or belittled by others. his friends
actually like him but he feels such inferiority complex that he
regards pity and compassion as insults. he resents being regarded as
either a punching bag or someone who needs special help.
it turns out that his headaches and psychic traumas are actually some
tremendous latent force which, if unleashed, can destroy the world.
meanwhile, tetsuo learns to harness this force and wreak havoc on neo-
tokyo(post apocalyptic tokyo in the year 2032). suddenly, tetsuo, who
had been a nothing and a weakling, feels like a god. he's utterly
pitiless. before he had this power, he had to face pitiless bullies
or friends whose pity only insulted his pride.
as master of the universe, he's beyond pity. he's beyond good and
evil. he makes his own rules. he makes his own world.
in a way, 'akira' was a warning about how mankind is still so childish
yet coming up with bigger and bigger ways to destroy itself. it's as
though, just as our technology is growing exponentially, our
mentality remains the same. today, nuclear technology is spreading
from nation to nation. yet, mankind isn't any smarter or wiser than in
1945. indeed, nations like iran which is still mired in medievalist
mentality is on the brink of obtaining the bomb. imagine that:
medieval mindset, 20th century weapon. in africa, tribalism is as
alive as ever but the tribal wars are not being fought with sticks and
spears but with tanks, bazookas, automatic rifles. also, as
technology becomes more and more available and accessible thru open
markets, internet, etc, etc, younger and younger kids are gaining
access to weapons of tremendous destruction. here's a 23 yrs old kid
with all the multimedia gizmo and two automatic pistols to mow down
dozens of people. internet also has info on how to make bombs.
and medievalist barbarians in iraq are killing countless people and US
soldiers with weapons made of high tech explosives and cell phones.
in a way, AKIRA was prophetic. our technology grows mightier and
mightier and more widespread, yet we remain the same; worse, this
technology is more and more readily accessible and available to
younger and younger kids, to less and less developed societies. when
a feudalistic hermit kingdom like north korea and medievalist
theocracy can attain nukes, something is really screwy in the world.
it's the akirazation of the world.
case of modern japan was dangerous for exactly this reason. up to
its defeat in WWII, japan was still mired in feudalistic emperor
worship and spiritualist-clannish mentality yet was armed to the teeth
with modern weaponry. and, in a world of growing technology and
globalism, western radicals are still mired in discredited 19th
century ideology called marxism(as a spiritualized faith).

-----------------

even though there is much mystery to this craziness, we must not dwell
on such in the national media. whackos out there love nothing more
than the idea of some great dark mystery, some superduper enigma. if
we say gook boy was some unfathomable prince of darkness, we are
romanticizing him, goth-ifying him. we are turning him into servant
of satan, into some heavy metal icon. or, worse, someone beyond good
and evil.
the fact is he was a murderous idiot. and there are other murderous
idiots who are dying to be seen by others as some grand, mysterious,
dark, disturbing, unfathomable figure. they may be shallow, idiotic,
infantile, and such, but after watching this gook boy incident covered
by the news media, such idiots may figure that if they do something
similar the world will see them as the princes of darkness.
in our culture, that's sort of cool. so many dementos in rap, goth
music, movies, tv shows, etc are seen as 'fascinating', awesome, cool,
hip, or badass for their evil or nihilism. let's face it. hannibal
lecter and tony soprano are cult figures, indeed heroic icons to
many.
culturally, we live in a gangsta paradise. go to any poster shop and
the most popular posters are of terminator, tony montana, che guevara,
tupac, eminem, 50 cents, etc.
the crazier, darker, insaner, or more unfathomable the better. the
sick films of park chan wook are not only loved by horror fans but by
serious cinephiles. japan's moronic takashi miiki--of 'audition'
fame--is considered a great artist by many.
i say leave the big questions to the shrinks and psychology experts.
all we should say is that the kid was a murderous idiot. and we should
be honest and straightforward in discussing him. but no more deep
sighing about the dark mystery and unfathomable nature of all this.
this is precisely what the gook boy wanted us to think. like steve
dahl said, he prolly just needed to get laid. all that clogged up
jism went to his head and made him nuts. plus he was born whacky.
that's about all we laymen need to know. we are exaggerating his
darkness because he had two pistols which he used to kill many. yes,
it was a terrible massacre but we should understand that to this idiot
kid, it was a childish tantrum. he was a dork, an idiot. a murderous
idiot but just that.
shallow idiots like him always like to shroud even the trivial things
they do with great mystery or aura of enigma. we must see thru the
smoke and mirrors. how stupid to even ponder the meaing of 'ismail
axe'. it means: 'i'm a sorryass idiot', period. dork boy was just
trying to send us on a wild sheep chase.

-------------------------

also, we must stop being kicked around by whackos. whenever something
like this happens, 99.9% of the people sympathize with victims. but,
whackos and/or childish clowns always have to exploit our fears and
send bomb threats to this and that campus. and guess what? they are
all being evacuated left and right and media is covering all of this,
and whackos are cracking up. as a policy, we should NOT respond to
any of these pranks which ALWAYS follow some sick evil deed by a
whacko. all the whackos feel emboldened and come out of the woodworks
and play games. and they see us running back and forth. they feel
the power. they see that a phone call makes all those squares run and
hide like chicken. enough with this.
as a policy, we should ignore ALL bomb threats and such after a major
tragedy. in 99.999999% of these cases, it's all a joke. other
whackos are just toying with us. and when we respond to their pranks,
they only feel emboldened. we must stop responding like *** to all
these whackos. like FDR said, the 'only thing to fear is fear
itself'.

if some good came out of all this, it's certainly the coverage of the
victims. such coverage show us the human side of this tragedy. it
turns cold numbers of statistic into warm images of human lives. we
are used to identifying with the man with the gun in the movies.
those who get shot are usually faceless. take any john woo movie where
the hero shoots 100s of guys, all faceless. in the news coverage,
we've seen the faces of so many lost lives.
but, will this do any good to prevent future killings? prolly no.
yes, we may be moved by those images, but WE are not gonna go around
shooting up people in the first place. as for whackos who are sick in
the head and soul, such images of human lives mean nothing.
no amount of historical research or 'night and fog' or 'shoah' will
convince holocaust-deniers that the holocaust really happened. and no
amount of historical truth will convince the likes of eric hobsbawm,
bob avakian, and noam chomsky that marxism has been a murderous and
evil ideology. sickos will be sickos.
we can't appeal to whackos. we just gotta call them by name:
murderous idiots or bloody fools.

---------------

it's funny how some news events happen in tandem. there has been the
don imus scandal. it started out as a debate on some insensitive
remark and then spilled over into the sickness and violence of much of
black culture saturated with bloodlust, violence, muderousness, and
insanity. the cult of the psycho badass thug ties into what happened
with gook boy.

but, the gook boy massacre also ties in with the duke lacrosse 'rape'
scandal story. in both stories, there was a great deal of rage
expressed at 'rich kids'. gook boy said 'rich boys' had it coming to
them. rich kids MUST BE evil since they are rich and privileged.
hollywood has often given us the image of evil wasp rich kid. in
every college movie, the villain is some tall blonde wasp fraternity
guys. so many liberals and leftists rushed to judgment in the duke
lacrosse case and were willing to declare 'rich white kids' guilty
while the black stripper was honored as a noble person of color
victim.
in 'thelma and louise', there's a scene where the two women throw a
white state trooper into a trunk of his squad car and trap him there
under a hot sun. then we see a black guy come by on a bike and upon
hearing the trooper, the negro blows marijuana smoke into the trunk.
the audience roared with laughter and approval. why did the state
trooper deserve such derision and hatred? he's a white male. why was
the black guy cool for not helping the cop but blowing smoke? he was
black and therefore automatically noble and righteous.
this is the the mentality that has spread thru our culture. though
the leftists didn't kill those lacrosse players, they were rabid and
virulent and blind with hatred and rage against 'rich white kids'.

on some level, the leftists shared the same kind of rage, insanity,
and hatred exhibited by gook boy. for so long, we've justified the
murderous rage of rap culture as black rebellion against oppression
and as 'poetry' of the streets. now, art can reflect, explore, and
examine social reality in an honest way. but there is difference
between exploration and exaggeration, between analysis and
celebration. 'goodfellas' is an exploration of gangster culture;
'scarface' is a glorification. imamura's 'vengeance is mine' is a
great honest movie about a serial killer. 'hannibal' is a celebration
of a serial killer as cultural icon.
in the liberal attempt to be sympathetic to the rage of the
'oppressed', 'disenfranchised', and so on, our culture has allowed and
even welcomed all sorts of insanity and hatred from either the left or
'people of color'. 'sophisticated' liberals consume tremendous
amounts of hip hop idiocy, japanese horror, bloodthirsty leftist
literature, paranoid fantasies about christian fascist corporate
alliance to enslave all of us as in V for Vendetta and the remake of
manchurian candidate, and so on and on. liberals in the media say
gook boy was rambling and paranoid, but i say, wake up and smell the
coffee. it's moveon.org folks who can't tell bush from hitler, who say
we are living in a christian fascist state, and beer companies are
committing 'genocide' against blacks for selling beer in the black
community. i wonder how a people who can regard the rantings of
michael moore and noam chomsky(khmer rouge apologist among other
things) as rational and intelligent are suddenly shocked and disturbed
by all too similar rantings by gook boy. i mean, in essence, what's
the difference? evil rich kids, big bad capitalism, blah blah blah.
it reminds me of one of che's rantings about how revolutionaries must
hate and hate and hate. hate americans with absolute prejudice. how
hate is a great virtue for a freedom fighter. and che said a
revolutionary must show no pity, no mercy against the great enemy(or
satan) which was americans and their allies. a revolutionary must be
'a cold killing machine'. hollywood gave us 'v for vendetta'. and
now it's giving us the Passion of Che Guevara, a man whose heroic
vision of the future was that of revolutionaries mercilessly gunning
down fat, rich, ugly, disgusting americans. cho sung hee could be
called cho guevara. it's almost like he took che's words to heart.
even if he never read che, he surely came to the same conclusion.
yes, americans, those 'little eichmanns'.

the rich kids, those evil rich kids. those evil duke lacrosse
players--rich white kids. those evil V Tech students. rich kids.
gook boy would have been nuts under any circumstance but our culture
of leftist and multicultural hatred(against white america) has added
fuel to those who want to find any excuse to hate and to kill.

-----------------

looking at the guy's history, it seems he was bullied or at least
belittled or taunted or ridiculed as a kid. now, most kids go thru
some form of bullying or such, and many do have fantasies of
vengeance. but, they learn to overcome their anger or control it.
many look upon bullies as idiots not worthy bothering about. some
really do rage with anger and murderous hatred but fear the
consequences of violent actions. if they could get away with it,
they probably would kill their tormentors. but there is the fear of
the law and of going to jail. so, many kids figure it's wiser to just
let it go than go after their tormentors. most kids who are bullied
lose their anger over time. indeed, considering all the 'losers' in
highschool who get bullied, many don't become violent. many do become
a bit disturbed and gravitate toward alternative or underground
cultures. they come to disdain all idea of mainstream and normal
society. or, if the bullies are of the alternative crowd sort--
punkers, greaser ruffians, gangbangers, etc--, the tormented kids may
seek refuge in the mainstream(by doing well in school, finding a good
job, and settling in the suburbs).
some others become bullies themselves, indifferent to the feelings of
others. in a way, we can see this in gookboy. he became a murderous
bully of sorts himself.

now, a bullied person may be affected especially hard (1) if he has
mental problems which make it hard for him or her to let the anger go.
in such person, the anger simmers and simmers and becomes exaggerated
and potentially explosive; (2) if he's a loner. social relationships
have a way of defusing inner turmoil. indeed, people who are on the
verge of violence acts against others often emerge out from such
danger if they can talk with friends and such. the main benefit of
counseling isn't so much the advice of the counselor but the presence
of the counselor. just the chance to talk to someone, express one's
anger, and such can defuse what might have ended in terrible tragedy.
(3) if he or she really feels that his or her tormentors have a
point. a handsome intelligent guy can take bullying as a case of
jealous losers taunting him out of jealousy. but, an ugly 'dumb' guy
may feel that he's being bullied because he really is a loser and
worthless. (4) if he or she feels a member of some marginalized or
'oppressed' group. in such cases, his or her torment is identified
with the suffering of ALL the innocent victims out there.
in the case of gook boy, it seems like all these factors were in
play. it was a combination of various factors that led to this multi-
media, multi-cultural massacre.

it also didn't help that he was in a college setting. in our
imagination--especially in the US--college is a time for fun,
celebration, parties, sex, friendship, etc. it's supposed to the
greatest time of one's life. up to highschool, you're just a kid.
after college, it's all work and paying the bills. but during college
yrs, you can have everything: privilege, freedom, idealism, fun,
pleasure, respect, etc. yet, gook boy felt outside of all of that.
he looked at his peers and they were prettier, handsomer, having more
fun, and such and such. this is what he may have meant by 'it's not
enough that you had your trust funds, vodka, etc'. he may have been
saying college kids were extra phony because they are essentially
materialist hedonists pretending to be seeking higher knowledge,
higher truth. he felt belittled by all the people around him. he
felt uglier, weaker, and loserish. what pissed him off was that these
people who seemed so cool, hip, and happy were actually 'charlatans'.
if college was just a big party, he could look down on the revelers as
a circus of fools. but, college was also supposedly a place of higher
ideals, principles, knowledge, values, etc. he found it all so
pompous and bogus.
in a way, he was a product of the college experience. so many
professors--especially the radicals--impress upon college kids that
america is a disgusting, ugly, materialistic, imperialist nation that
oppresses the poor all over the world. there are billions of poor all
over the world because of fat, ugly, disguting, consumptive, neo-
imperialist americans. in that sense, gook boy's rage was a product
of the college experience.
yet, he was also an (self)exile from the college experience even as he
was in a college environment. it's my guess that he even hated leftist
professors. it's possible that he hated them even more for the same
reason why chapman grew to hate john lennon.
'progressive' college professors and lennon could be seen as the
ultimate hypocrites. even as they railed against the materialistic
world, they were pigs of privilege. lennon was a multi-millionaire.
and college professors have their tenures, honors, pats-on-the-back,
money-in-the-bank, benefits, vacations, and upper middle class
security.

in some cases, disturbed kids find highschool harder to deal with. in
highschool, peer pressure is much greater. in the case of columbine
massacre, the killer kids were obviously angry at many of their peers
on a personal level. yet, for some kids, highschool is easier to
handle because you can still be someone in highschool. you can still
matter even if you're not popular. you can be a 'character' and feel
significant. besides, you're close to home. so, even if you're having
problems at school, you may feel loved or wanted at home.
college environments produce a different set of problems. you don't
have the kind of bullying you have in highschool. unless it's a small
school, there is no community culture as in highschool. people belong
to their own niche among many other niches. there are cliques in
highschool but most are noticed even if disdained by others. in
college, among 10,000s of students, you are just a drop in the bucket.
one can lose oneself in college. for some disturbed kids, this is a
plus. they can finally feel safer. they like being anonymous and
left alone, unlike in highschool.
but, some kids find it more painful to be ignored than to be taunted.
gook boy was taunted in highschool and it must have hurt him badly.
but, in a way, it might have given him a sense of importance. he could
have felt that he was being picked on because he's 'special'.
in college, no one picked on him. you'd think he would have been
happier. but, he might have felt truly empty. it's possible that in
highschool, he secretly relished his role as the tormented crucified
kid. he was filled with anger and loathing but felt justified in such
feelings. kids, after all, pissed on him.
but, in college, kids just left him alone. he felt ignored and
neglected. he really was nothing. as he was shy, withdrawn, and a
loner, the ONLY way he could communicate with others was to have
others push him around. in highschool, he could have felt connected
to everyone else thru this kind of persecution. he didn't enjoy the
bullying, but the bullying may have made him feel connected to others
and gave him a sense of meaning in life. in college, he really was a
nothing, a zero. no one hated him, no one bothered about him. he may
have seen this as the ultimate insult.
it's like alot of eastern european artists and intellectuals who were
persecuted and bullied by communist authorities defined the meaning of
their lives thru such relationship to rest of society--dominated by
commies. while some left for the west to gain freedom, many willingly
remained in their own repressive nations even they could escape
because being persecuted--and resisting it--gave them a sense of
purpose in life. just being a dissident writer--even if not a good
writer--was enough to make one feel like a courageous freedom fighter
under communism.
when such people came to US, they were ignored by all of society. as
free folks, they were expected to just make a living. there was no
special meaning to their lives.
indeed, this is why christians have maintained the cult of victimhood
for so long even after they became the masters or victors. the meaning
of being christianity was written in victimhood, in being fed to
lions. similarly, this is why so many blacks cling to the notion to
the victimhood even as they are totally free like the rest of us.
being free means facing up to mundane tasks of life. it's good to be
free but once the euphoria of freedom wears off, we feel empty. this
is why blacks want to be free but want to maintain the myth of
victimhood. such mindset imbues their lives and problems with
historical and political meaning and significance. one feels ennobled
thru the idea of victimhood in our christo-humanistic society.
in highschool, gook boy was a victim. he felt bitter but also morally
superior thru his victimhood. in college, he was a nothing. and he
felt betrayed. the kind of people who had tormented him so much in
highschool were now acting like decent kids in college. of course,
gook boy failed to realize that the kind of people who tormented him
most viciously in highschool prolly never even made it to college.
good colleges usually tend to weed out the idiots and losers and only
admit industrious, decent students. most highschool jerks don't go to
college. they become auto shop workers or bag boys or truck drivers or
some such right after highschool.
the gook boy didn't understand that. in his demented mind, all the
college kids were like those rotten kids in highschool pretending to
be nice decent kids.

a democracy and freedom can be the most alienating thing for alot of
people. you are free, but if you had been used to defining your SELF
under an oppressive environment, you may feel truly empty in the US.
freedom means you can strive to reach the top--if you're smart,
outgoing, ambitious, etc. but, if you're shy, withdrawn, and such,
being free means you're nothing. indeed, this is why some people
who'd been in jail for too long have a hard time adjusting to
freedom(solzhenitsyn, in some ways, seem more bothered by freedom in
russia than by commie oppression in the past). in prison, they were
given a position in that enclosed society. there was some structure.
even with all the torment and pain, gook boy may have felt some sense
of 'importance' in highschool. he could have taken pride in that fact
that others 'hated' him so much, was always 'crucifying' him. yet, in
college, most kids seemed pretty cool and leave him alone. they were
nice. since his mentality was shaped largely in highschool, he may
have seen this 'niceness' among college kids as phony. after all, all
these college kids had once been highschool kids. so, how did they
become so nice overnight? they must have been full of shi*. they had
to be taken out.
suffering may hurt but it makes one feel ennobled and morally superior
to one's tormentors. when someone used to being bullied is released
in an environment where he's left alone, he may feel troubled and
lost. now, most bullied kids who are left alone would be happy to be
left alone. but, some kids with intense mental problems may have a
hard time adjusting.

now, one may ask... why did gook boy see EVERYONE as his tormentors?
the easist and best and prolly truest answer is he was schizo
paranoid. true enough.
but, there's more to humiliation than suffering under tormentors or
bullies. there is the element of being bullied IN FRONT of others. if
you're bullied on a one-on-one basis after school away from other
students and the faculty, you may only come to hate the bullies. it's
bullies against you. but, if the bullying takes place in an open area
or public sphere with everyone looking on, your hatred may be
dispersed onto EVERYONE. there are two reasons for this.
one could be if the onlookers laughed or encouraged the bullies--or
perceived as doing such. oftentimes in school, when a kid is getting
beat up, bunch of other kids will gather around and laugh, encourage
the bullies, or just stare without sympathy. the guy who's getting
beat up doesn't just feel humiliation vis-a-vis the bully but with
everyone else. he feels he's being attacked or belittled by
everyone.
he looks around. he sees everyone--good kids, smart kids, popular
kids, bad kids, loser kids, stupid kids, etc--all look and do nothing.
now, most of these kids may not laugh or even taunt the the kid who's
being bullied but the bullied kid may feel this way. it's like in a
movie theater; suppose only 10% of the audience laugh REALLY loud at
a particular scene. it may feel like the entire audience was laughing
or responding to the scene. so, suppose a kid's being bullied.
suppose there are 30 onlookers out of which only 5 are encouraging the
bully. it may seem like all 30 kids are helping the bully. usually,
goodness/decency raises its head far less eloquently than badness.
badness is often active and passive. goodness is often gentle and
passive. it's like when jesus was on his death march, the bad guys
yelled out loud and made themselves known. the good people just looked
silently and wept. now, jesus was a great man because he found it
within himself to love even those who tormented him: they knew not
what they be doing. but, most of us get mighty pissed at those who
torment us and those that seem to fan the flames. this is why a lot
of negroes were pissed at all of white society. while only a small
number of whites did KKK stuff and lynchings, blacks may have seen ALL
of white society as wanting to 'hang niggers' or at least support such
thing. and gook boy may have felt that american society is giving the
green light to all those pick on '*** or gook nerds'.
anyway, badness is usually far more eloquent than goodness. when we
are bad, we say 'FUC* YOU!!' when we are good, we don't saying
anything and simply leave other people alone. in the crowd, badness
gets heard while goodness--even if far more numerous--doesn't get
heard. this is why alot of kids are more in awe of badass mofos--mafia
goons on tv, rappers, heavy metal satanists, etc--than goodass folks.
badass mofos come across as 'masterful' and 'powerful'. goodness
comes across as weak. one is more likely to be enthralled by tony
montana than by mr. rogers. this is also true of intellectuals. karl
marx has been the most admired figure among intellectuals. marx was a
badass, aggressive, intolerant, and venomous prick. so were lenin and
trotsky. so is michael moore and noam chomsky. it's all badboy style.
it's all 'look my middle finger and fuc* you if you don't lick my
arsehole'. che guevara is revered among leftist intellectuals.

of course, show of goodness or active goodness is no guarantee to
helping the bullied. one reason is what passes for goodness is just
another form of bullying. communism was supposedly for the exploited
masses but it was a means for radical intellectuals to bully all of
humanity to conform to their idea of the 'new man'. che guevara was
venomous, hateful, and aggressive in his relationship with others.
he was a revolutionary bully, always holier-than-thou, dismissive and
insulting, etc. and look al sharpton who poses as defender of the
poor. he's a classic bully.
so, bullying can be in the name of the good as for the bad. in a way,
gook boy was an extreme anti-bully bully.

but, even when active goodness is heartfelt and genuine, it can be
humiliating for someone who depends on it(this is why alot of welfare
mothers feel humiliated as well as helped by the compassionate big
government). suppose a kid is being bullied at school. suppose that
among the onlookers is a girl he likes and nice people he wants to
socialize with. suppose he's cowering before the bully and is saved
by the intervention of a very goodhearted teacher. he's saved from
bullying by a kindhearted teacher BUT he feels extra-humiliation
because everyone saw that he was so *** that he had to saved by a
nice teacher(remember that bullied jewish kid in 'dazed and
confused'?). the bullied kid may feel totally humiliated. he had to
rely on the kindness of a stranger to have his ass saved. especially
if the girl of his dreams was in the presence, he may feel truly truly
humiliated. he may come to hate goodness too. goodness saved him but
it also humiliated him in front of others; everyone witnessed his
pitiful ass saved by active goodness. to build up his sense of power,
he may turn to rage and violence. and such may have happened with
gook boy. it's obvious that some people in his life did sympathize
with him. especially that english teacher ms. roy really tried to
help him. yet, he didn't respond to her concerns at all. he prolly
felt it humiliating that someone took pity on him. there he was,
feeling lonely and insignificant, and someone comes along with
compassion. not because he's worthy of love and affection, but because
he comes across as lonely and insignificant. while ms. roy may have
thought she was trying to do good, she might actually have made things
worse. suppose someone's a midget; that's bad enough but if some woman
shows sympathy for his shortness, he may even be more hurt. of
course, not all people react this way. some people react fondly and
gratefully toward people with sympathy. but, some people naturally
don't have much pity or compassion themselves. they wanna be badass
and powerful. yet, they find themselves weak and gimpy. and they
don't want from other what they themselves would not give to others:
pity or sympathy.

in a way, gook boy's problem is similar to the muslim killers in
europe. those young men who strap bombs onto themselves and blow up in
subways. now, as muslim acts of terrorism are far too common, i would
guess that alot of these cases are different from gook boy's. in
life, one can go from sickness to ideology or from ideology to
sickness. in the case of gook boy, i would wager it was the former.
yes, he did produce a manifesto and had reasons for doing what he did,
but he was a troubled person. he was mentally sick to begin with. he
formulated reasons to suit his mental delusions. so, we can say his
reasons grew out of his mental illness.
with muslim terrorists, oftentimes it seems to be case of inherently
normal people being driven mad by an ideology of hatred and
murderousness. now, it's possible that many muslims who volunteer for
acts of terrorism aren't mentally all there. but, there can't be THAT
many mental sickos in iraq, west bank, or even london--where many
muslims seem to sympathize with terrorists even if they don't actually
become terrorists themselves. in the muslim case, i would wager that
it's normal people being driven mad by an insane ideology. such can
happen. consider north korea. consider nazi germany. most germans
were NOT clinically crazy, but they were spellbound by a mad ideology.
or, consider all those japanese who died for the emperor in WWII. so,
an entire people can be spellbound or become blinded by an ideology.
even in the US, alot of normal kids have been turned nutty or at least
loopy by our pop culture. there's something wrong when middle class
kids think it's okay to go on the dance floor and dance like they are
having sex in public. indeed, being 'crazy' is often considered far
more cool and badass than being normal or 'square'. just go to
myspace.com and there are plenty of people who wanna come across as
edgy, weird, outrageous, crazy, dark, disturbing, and such. indeed,
one of the most popular cult items among youths has been 'pink floyd
the wall' album and movie. it's a great but very demented piece of
work about a young man who's sexually maladjusted, angry about
politics and society, has a weird complex about his mother, hates
school, etc. indeed, many many american kids grew up embracing this
kind of wallowing in psycho-social pathologies and such(think of
gangsta rap, violent and 'revolutionary' punk music, satanic heavy
metal, and stuff like Rage Against the Machine which call for
bloodbath and leftist war).
thru such, kids feel vindicated and validated in their own social
problems. in the popular image, it's cooler to be socially
problematic or 'fuc*ed up' than to be well-adjusted and a good student
liked by teachers(even teachers of leftist bent feel a greater
affinity for problem students than to good students who cause no
problems). they feel that their problems have something in common
with a great artist like roger waters(and rest of pink floyd).
"tommy" by The Who has also been a great cult classic among kids. it
too is about a very troubled kid. most kids are not talented, so they
feel close to rock stars who are talented and inflate, aggrandize,
glorify, even beautify the problems of youth. suppose there's some
ugly nose-picking loser kid who sucks at school or has no friends or
has only fellow loser friends. by listening to stuff like pink floyd,
the who, or such, he can feel he's a member of the great Teenage
Wasteland. some rock music is about affirming life--springsteen--or
it's about love--grateful dead. but, alot of rock music is about
youthful frustration, anger, and maladjustment. most loser kids
cannot express themselves. but, there is a small number of loser kids
who are intelligent and talented, like pete townshend and roger
waters. both townshend and waters were not well-adjusted kids. had
it not been for their talent and acute intelligence, they would have
been losers. emotionally, they were certainly loser-ish. but, as they
were talented and made great music, they became patron-saints of all
the loser kids out there.
of course, even normal well-adjusted kids gravitate to music of floyd
and the who. normal kids oftentimes feel 'lame', 'generic', and
'whitebread'. they wanna come across as complex, disturbed, dark,
etc. of course, many people love the who and floyd simply for their
great music. but, being 'normal' is generally thought of as 'lame' in
our culture. if one wants to be normal AND cool, one has to be
superduper successful. this is why shows like 'the apprentice' with
donald trump is so successful. it means you get to be superduper rich
and successful normal person. if you're just well-to-do successful
and normal, you aint much.
in most cases, you have to be crazy, outrageous, or extreme to be
special.
just think of roger ebert's high marks for the movie 'Monster', which
validates some female serial killer as a heroine against male
patriarchy or domination.

this is true in politics as well as in culture. this is why pretty
jane fonda felt a need to go to hanoi and make a fool of herself. she
felt all those ugly feminists were better than her: more committed,
more intellectual, more serious. in contrast, she felt frivolous and
inane as a just a pretty faced actress. she had to prove that she
could be politically badass and crazy too. in the 60s, being crazy
was cool. just look at woodstock and altamont rock festival.

gook boy mentioned jesus and false christians. in a way, it just
sounds like a lot of rambling nonsense, but in a way it makes sense.
why did jesus go apeshi* at the temple? that was one time he really
lost his temper and may even have whupped some ass. jesus accepted
spirituality as spirituality and he accepted worldly power as worldly
power. he could accept dogmatic jews--even as he disagreed with them--
and he could accept people of worldly power or wealth. but, he could
not tolerate the worldly stuff desecrating the spiritual stuff. so,
gook boy wasn't angry at christianity but the false christianity in
our overly materialistic culture. he was saying most christians are
not really christian in thought and behavior. most christians really
care most about money, sex, power, fancy cars, big houses, and such.
and he's not exactly wrong. problem is most of us accept such
hypocrisies. we may be offended or even appalled by certain rank
hypocrisies in the world, but we know reality is such and that's that.
gook boy was mentally ill so he found it as an excuse to rail against
the whole world. one of his plays 'mcbeef' is about some stepfather,
and there is verbal exchange about 'buggering little boys' and such.
is this an allusion to the catholic church sex scandals? these
scandals were especially appalling because spiritual folks did it;
worse, spiritual elders oftentimes tolerated or suppressed these
heinous crimes. catholic church had to pay dearly for this hypocrisy.

anyway, most of us have an easier time accepting spirituality/morality
as such and materialism/self-interest as such. what's troublesome is
how some people who really want power and wealth fool us(and
themselves)into thinking they are so spiritual and moral.
madonna is the best example of this. it's not so much the madonna/
whore complex. it's madonna IS whore simplex. her idiocy is truly
amazing. she was some bimbo idol in the 80s, then was an inflateable
sex doll for the NBA, lurid stage performer, a convert to
kabbalahism(making her jewish?), and then now she's doing a twist on
the virgin mary image by going to africa, shaking her *** with the
natives, and carrying off a black baby on her lap.
if such idiot wins so much of our attention, affection, and respect,
there must be something wrong with our culture. not enough for us to
get shot to death by a lunatic, but there IS something wrong with our
imbecile culture.

anyway, it's very possible that gook boy was especially disgusted by
how moralism is mixed with materialism in our culture. indeed, it's
getting to the point where one must have alot of money to be
fashionably moral. in order to buy the latest green environmentally
friendly gadget, you must have alot of disposable income. who has
such? urban yuppies living in pricy high rise condos. and how did
they make their money? by being doctors, lawyers, accountants,
businessmen, etc. they love and love money, but they also wanna buy
moral consciousness. consider all the rich people in NY who have it
all, live the most materialistic of lives, and then put on airs of
being socially 'progressive'. tom wolfe laughed at the radical chic.
but, some cannot laugh. some grow genuinely angry at such hypocrisy.
the hatred comes from both the right and left. people on the far
right see these radical chic folks as using their privelege and power
to destroy american values. far left folks see these radical chic
folks are scum who are merely giving the left the rope to hang them
with. or, the left sees the radical chic folks as mere pretenders who
would withdraw their support of real revolutionary change if such came
to the fore. indeed, alot of blacks came to see jews this way. in the
60s, there were alot of rich, privileged jews who supported stuff like
black panthers. but, as the 70s arrived, the radical groups in the US
lost much of their backing from the so called radical chic crowd.
also, alot of white or jewish radical students who spoke of
revolutionary violence in the 60s were soon looking for yuppie jobs
once they were out of college in the 70s and 80s. so, blacks felt that
all these radical white boys were just a bunch of fakers.
indeed, while soderbergh is making a movie about che guevara, we
wonder what soderbergh would really do if guevaraist revolutionaries
came to knock on his door and demanded that soderbergh hand over
99.999% of his wealth to be 'distributed' among the people.
two kinds of people are appalled by the hypocrisy of the rich
moralists. one kind is the radical purists who have committed
themselves totally to the cause. the other kind is the 'poor losers'
who enjoy hating the rich cuz the rich are supposedly greedy and vile.
but, when the rich put on airs of social concern, these poor folks
feel doubly insulted. the rich are not only economically oppressing
them but also acting like the most socially concerned, wonderful, and
compassionate people on earth.


anyway, mental illness aside, it's obvious where gook boy and muslim
terrorists have something in common. it has something to do with
maladjustment with the larger society. partly, it's a matter of racial
discrimination or perception of such(even when there isn't any). but,
it's also partly due to a sense of alienation from rest of society.
using the liberal paradigm, non-whites turn to extremes because of
white bigotry or oppression. but, in many cases in europe, kids of
muslim origin rediscover or return to islam because they want some
strong and meaningful identity in society. as far as they are
concerned, they don't want to be accepted by european western liberal
decadent society. it's not so much a problem of discrimination as a
problem of alienation and disgust. it's not that society is
intolerant of muslims but that muslims are intolerant of society.
they find much of western(european or american)society too
permissiveness, ugly, demented, putrid, yucky, and sickening. as
minorities they feel weak and marginalized. joining the larger
society doesn't change any of this. indeed, they may feel that even
weaker and more marginalized as they find themselves ignored in
actuality than by law.

if there's a law saying 'no muslims allowed' in london, muslims may
feel oppressed by the law. they may feel that if the law is changed,
it will be better for muslims.
but, suppose there is no such law. muslims are allowed to go anywhere
and do anything. BUT, the ACTUAL fact in the UK would be that whites
are still favored by most whites who make up most of the nation. or,
even if there is no discrimination, muslims would realize that they
are still a small minority in a culture that has little respect or use
for islam.
under such reality, the muslim may actually feel even more
hopeless.

in a way, this is what has happened with blacks in the US. during the
civil rights era, alot of blacks thought that ending discriminatory
laws would make blacks feel alot better. but even with more just laws,
alot of blacks felt marginalized by society. indeed, alot of blacks
in the post-civil rights era were actually more depressed than in the
past when there was discrimination. in the past, they could fixate on
unjust laws. after those laws were taken off the books, blacks
realized they were still a minority group that was economically
backward and with a long way to go. many began to feel that due to
'subtle racism' or 'white boy's network', blacks would be left out of
power altogether.
one wonders if gook boy might have been less crazy had there been a
law saying 'no gooks allowed'. he could then fixate on the law and
changing it. but, there is no such law. gook boy had total freedom to
attend school, socialize, etc. but even with this freedom and
liberty, he was nothing. being delusional, he felt like there must
be something operating in society to keep him down, to insult him, and
so on. and there may have been some instances that bolstered this
sense. americans pride themselves on racial tolerance and such.
schools and tv teach such virtues all the time. yet in reality, gook
boy may have experienced instances of hatred, hostility, and animosity
toward his kind. he may have felt there are two americas: the
official america and the real america, and the twain shall never
meet.

it's like this: suppose there's a loser gook and there's a law saying
'gooks can't get any ***'. he would then be angry with the law. he
might think that once the law is removed, he can get ***. but,
suppose there is no such law. he's free to get *** but no girl
wants the gook. then, he becomes angry with reality itself. it's not
the unjust laws that oppress him but reality.

we wonder which acts of violence in the world are cases of sickness-
into-ideology or ideology-into-sickness. of course, the two arent'
necessarily exclusive. che guevara was prolly both. he was a man
with a serious latin macho complex. he was a supreme narcissist--
physically and spiritually. he saw himself as an handsome latin lover
and as a noble saint working to liberate all of mankind. the
perceived enemy of both narcissisms was the USA. americanos
undermined his latin macho male ego; and americanos stood in the way
of worldwide communist revolution. so, che's adoption of communism
was partly due to his own psycho-sexual complexes vis-a-vis united
states. but, he wasn't naturally as crazy as gook boy. he was made
truly crazy by the ideology of marxism, surely one of the most
demented and violent and ruthless ideologies created by man. an
ideology that says radical intellectuals understand EVERYTHING and
should have control over EVERYTHING.


we might understand gook boy's craziness better if we mulhollandize
his particular case. i'm referring to the movie by david lynch, and
in a way, it's appropriate for not just understanding gook boy but
millions of americans. hollywood is the ultimate expression of mythic
america. it is also an expression of the mythic aspect of every life.
no one simply lives his or her life. he or she lives in his life
within a larger mythic context. consider 'purple rose of cairo', the
film by woody allen. in that movie, a lonely woman wants love in her
life. but, she can't find any love in real life so she finds it thru
hollywood movies.
now, there are two kinds of mythicisms. there is pure fantasy of
longing. this is the purple rose of cairo scenario. the woman's real
life was loveless and she sought real love thru movies. but, there's
another kind of mythicism, which one might called parallel mythicism.
this is where some guy in real life inflates the reality of his own
life thru the myths of movies. it's like a cop might watch 'dirty
harry' and feel he aint no ordinary cop but someone like harry
callahan. or, suppose someone's training to be an FBI agent. he might
be an avid fan of 24(with kiefer sutherland) and have a very inflated
sense of what his 'mission in life' is about. he may end up pushing
papers in some FBI office but in his mythic mind, he's a badass secret
agent. or, consider Godfather. we know every mafia goon or lowlife,
upon seeing that movie, saw themselves as a kind of don corleone.

these kinds of mythicisms existed before the rise of cinema, but
cinema, as mass entertainment accessible to all, have filled up all
our minds with a sense of life bigger than life.
movies mythify all our emotions thru grand spectacle. so, suppose
some guy breaks up with a girl. that, in and of itself, may be just
some normal thing. but, suppose he sees a movie where some guy
tragically loses a girl. he may identify his mundane sadness with a
grand myth.
either as fantasy myth or parallel myth, movies and related products
inflate, aggrandize, amplify, and magnify all our feelings, longings,
hatreds, etc, etc.
this is why the coming che guevara movie will have a devastating
impact on the US. the fastest rising group in the US are hispanics
and all those impressionable hispanic youths are gonna be encouraged
to see che as their main role model, their main hero, their main god,
their main inspiration. movies have that power. suppose some hispanic
kid in the US feels somewhat alienated and works at some crappy job.
upon seeing the che movie, his social reality will not just be seen as
social reality. he will take a mythic grand narrative view that he's a
poor saintly noble victim of evil white american anglo imperialism.
delusional and removed from reality? yes, but, this kind of leftist
'intellectual' mythmaking is considered 'progressive', ennobling, and
beautiful according to many who control our media and culture.
marxism was really nothing more than a myth, but it claimed to be
scientific. indeed, its scientism was its primiary myth: the notion
that here was a unifying theory that rationally and morally connected
all the dots thru culture, history, and disciplines. talk about a
delusional myth, but it won over so many converts. and it's still not
dead yet. in fact, the fall of USSR may have strengthened it because
now it's more a spiritual force than a political force. spiritual
forces are more powerful. you can topple the shah but can you topple
muhammad? you could kill jesus in flesh but could you kill it in
spirit? you could defeat the soviet empire, but can you kill its
guiding spirit? because marxism was so materialistic, one might
assume that the fall of its material product would lead to its
demise. not so. marxism has been spiritualized, and we can see it in
"pan's labyrinth", a kind of marxist twist on 'chronicles of narnia'.

especially as capitalist culture has grown so ugly, putrid, hateful,
greedy, excessive, etc, etc, more and more people are seeking some
kind of meaning thru spiritualism or mythic narrative. some go for
old fashioned christianity, but many associate such with oppressive
western power. so, they seek spirituality in buddhism, new age,
scientology, etc. and more and more are finding it in a kind of
spiritualized neo-marxism. this is nothing new. in fact, marxism was
spiritualized from early on with statues of lenin, stalin, mao, etc.
but, lenin, stalin, and mao gained power and brought much misery.
marx died before all that. and che died before he did real damage. so,
marx can be twisted into a saint and che can be twisted into a
martyr.

anyway, when we mulhollandize the case of gook boy many things will
become evident.
in every individual, there is the person as he seems to society and
there is the person as the person sees himself(or as he wishes to see
himself). this double identity is not uncommon. just look at
myspace.com. all those kids may simply seem like normal teens in
the eyes of society, but in their own websites they clearly want to be
thought of as great artists, great musicians, sexy stars, supermodels,
spiritual leaders, or some such. in real life, they come across as
average folks. but, in their delusional minds, they are the next roger
waters, the next tori amos, the next sylvia plath, the next john
lennon, the next marx, the next che, the next angelina jolie, the next
brad pitt, etc.
now, there is no great danger in any of this. it's kid stuff. kids
play cowboys and indians, and young adults play artists, poets,
celebrities, etc.
but, we must be mindful of how this double identity works. and, in
some cases, the contradiction between what one is(or how one appears
to others) AND what one wants to be(or how one wishes to appear to
others) can be so great that it can lead some psycho problems. for
example, this is especially true if one is both ugly and narcissitic.
or, if one is humorless yet appear funny to others. some people are
ugly and accept it. they may not be happy but they live with it. some
people are ugly but wanna look so handsome and want to be loved much.
they go nuts. some people are ridiculed and laughed at and know how
to laugh at themselves and laugh along. but, some people wanna be
taken seriously but are seen as goofs or clowns by others. such folks
get mighty angry, as they cannot laugh much, especially at
themselves.

if we mulhollandize the case of michael jackson, we are struck by the
contradictions. thru most of his youth, people saw michael jackson as
a talented young black singer. that's what he was and that's how he
appeared to most people. yet, that's not how michael jackson saw
himself nor how he wished to be seen by others. in his self-
perception, he was not some nappy headed broad nosed thick lipped
negro kid from gary; he was mickey mouse, peter pan, and cinderella.
no one suspected this until he got so rich that he could make all his
fantasies come true. he had many facial operations, made his skin
white, straightened out his hair, and other stuff. alot of people
were amused, shocked, or fascinated. so, that was how jackson REALLY
saw himself!!!! if jackson didn't have talent, he would have been just
another black kid in gary, indiana. we would have seen him only as he
appears--some black kid in gary.
but, we didn't have to wonder too much when he got embroiled in all
those scandals. because we saw how michael saw himself, it wasn't so
shocking when all those revelations came out about his relations with
kids. michael jackson sees himself as peter pan. in his mind, he
never grows up. he's a kid himself. so, how could be guilty of child
molestation? it was a kid playing with other kids. or so michael
thought.
michael jackson's insanity makes sense once we understand what he
really wished to be and how he really wished to be perceived by
others. he wanted to be see himself and wanted to be seen by others
as a disney cartoon character. of course, we couldn't play along so
jackson got in trouble.
indeed, i think the problem with alot of hollywood and pop industry
folks is that they really make alot of money, win so much adulation,
and are surrounded by so many sycophants and such that they really do
lose a sense of reality--if by reality, we mean how people APPEAR TO
OTHER PEOPLE. living in a kind of secluded fantasyland, celebrities
don't see themselves as we see them. they see themselves thru the
prism of a rather insane and unreal celebrity-hungry media. paris
hilton may think she's hot because she's on so many magazine covers.
protected and privileged, she doesn't know how most of us really think
of her: stupid skank.
or, think of john lennon. once he made his millions and started
dropping acid, he lost all connection to reality. he was off with yoko
ono, making avant garde music, posing naked, making a 20 minute movie
on his penis, adopting maoism, staying in bed with cameras all around
in the name of peace, etc, etc. yes, chapman who killed lennon was
crazy, but in a way, so was john--even if not in a violent way(though
some of his revolutionary songs were violent in the 70s). it was a
nut attracting a nut. but, it says something about all of us that
some of the most successful and even admired people in our culture
have been lunatics like lennon, reverend mhoon, minister farrakhan,
madonna, kurt cobain(of nirvana), tupac shakur, eminem, and much
worse.

anyway, the case of gook boy becomes far clearer with the help of his
'manifesto'. prior to its appearance, most of us saw him as just some
lonely kid who lost it and coldly killed alot of people. we saw him as
like a robot that malfunctioned. the images that first appeared of
gook boy were emotion-less. we prolly thought he was a cold killing
machine, a sociopathic mini-terminator. he killed cuz he had to. no
reason, no rhyme. to be sure, there were earlier reports of 'rich
kids' and angry plays he'd written, but by all accounts, he was
silent, quiet, lonely, and shy. he seemed essentially a person
lacking in emotion.
everyone has a double identity: how he appears to others and how he
appears to himself. initially, we only got to know gook boy as he
appeard to others. there were interviews with teachers, some students
who knew him, his roommates, etc. and the highschool and college
photo were expressionless. gook boy seemed like some quiet asian kid
who just lost it for some zany reason.
but, then we saw the other identity: as he saw himself or as he wished
to be seen by others. and he was no cold killing machine. this
identity was a raging, raving, angry sumfabitch mofo.
just like the first 2/3 of mulholland dr makes sense thru the last 1/3
of the movie, the two parts of gook boy make sense in relation to one
another. indeed, as different as they are, one is impossible without
the other.
now, this alone doesn't account for his killing spree. there are many,
many, many people who have similar double identities. yet, they don't
go around killing folks. so, the Primary reason for his violence was
he was mentally unstable. BUT, the conflict between identities
certainly did aggravate his mental problems.
he was aware that in objective or social reality, he was seen as
nothing more than a quiet, geeky, cowardly, dorkass, mumbling loser-
boy. he was seen as nothing more than an '***' or 'gook' gimpass
loser dork. he was looked down upon by other kids and never noticed
by girls. even other asians looked down on him. it's possible that
asian kids saw gook boy as exhibiting all the negative stereotypes of
geeky '***'-dom. so, he could have been dissed, ignored, harassed,
laughed at, etc, by everyone, including by asian kids.
now, some kids are naturally gimpy and geeky on the inside as well as
on the outside and don't mind much if others look down on them. they
just wanna be left alone.
but, gook boy wasn't geeky or gimpy inside, or at least he didn't
think so. he was frustrated by his gimpy exterior and he wanted
others to see him as he really really wanted to be.
michael jackson really wanted to see himself and wanted others to see
him as peter pan.
gook boy wanted others to see him as chow yun fat in a john woo
movie. remember that gook boy often wore shades, which is what chow
yun fat did in 'better tomorrow' and 'the killer'.
in college, he wore shades and tried to be cool, but no one took
notice. as far as most people were concerned, he was just a gimpass
asian geek or nerd. the ONLY way he could win their attention was to
shoot everything up. and in his manifesto, he had to show the world
that he's Mr. Gunfire and Rage.
if he had enough artistic or musical talent, he could turned his rage
and anger into 'art' and made a career out of it and win accolades--
like so many insane artists out there peddling their ugliness,
putridity, and moronosity.
if he had enough intellect or academic diligence, he could have gone
into political science, anthropology, cultural identity studies, or
some such and could have shrouded his hatred and rage into fashionable
radical politics and found some position in the academic hierarchy--
like ward churchill, leonard jeffries, noam chomsky, bruce cumings,
michael eric dyson, etc.
but, he was too much of a loner to work with anyone or compromise
anything. and he had no special talent. mindless violence is the last
refuge of a scoundrel. even so, one could say gook boy was more
honest in his murderousness than most raging artists or radical
academics. raging artists call for the murder of policemen or call
for violent anti-americanism. and radical academics make excusese
for terrorists, murderous guerilla armies, bomb makers, etc.
but, most of these people don't have the guts to go all the way and
commit any act of violence themselves. they want to maintain their
privilege positions, wanna make more money, and wanna win accolades as
the 'conscience of the world' and goad OTHER people toward committing
all the acts of violence. edward said never killed anyone. he just
made excuses for palestinian terrorists killing israelis and even
encouraged such.
if gook boy had been smarter or more devious, he could have shaped all
his insane hatred and turned it into some kind of fashionable radical
or 'revolutionary' ideology. he could have become cho guevara. it's
possible that alot of fashionable radicals would even have admired him
and supported his ideas--as they admired all sorts of murderous
lunatics in the 60s.
but, gook boy was too mentally unstable, too impatient, too kooky.
so, his ideas remained half-formulated, and half-understood by his
stupidassed self.
in a way, this is tragic but in a way, it's fortunate. it's tragic
cuz he went on a killing spree where 32 people were killed. but,
murderous folks who radicalize their hatreds into some kind of
ideology turn out to be be far more dangerous in the long run. in the
long run, who is more dangerous? gook boy or edward said? gook boy
or noam chomsky(or william kunstler)? gook boy or mao zedong(or ho
chi minh or pol pot)?

the case of the gook boy should alert us to the hidden realities of a
lot of people. indeed, i think alot of people were shocked and puzzled
when the initial news reports came out. they just saw the face of
some asian guy. they couldn't really put together the mass murder
with that face. how could such a guy be so angry, enraged, and
murderous? isn't he supposed to be a timid geek? aren't geeks suppose
to be in their rooms, toying with the computer or whanking off to
internet porn? indeed, such is the familiar image of the asian geek.
take spielberg's 'AI' and 'minority report'. in the former movie, an
asian scientist's role is to make sex machines and try them out. in
minority report, there is a virtual reality porn house and there's
some asian geek getting off thru virtual reality sex. so, these asian
gimps are supposed to know their status in society. they are supposed
to be second rate dorkboy males who willingly and obediently step
aside for white, black, and hispanic guys. asian male dorks are
supposed to be like the 'chinaman' in sixteen candles or harold(and
kumar). asian male dorks are not only gimpass but such gimpy
weaklings that they eagerly and submissively accept their
gimpassedness.
yet, this gook boy killer was obviously not eager to accept his asian
gimpass maleness. that's what many people might have expected of him.
yet, he obviously saw himself as some bruce lee/chow yun fat
motherfuc*er. he didn't wanna be no harold(and kumar), the nerd jap
in 'revenge of the nerds', some geek stereotype as you see in movies
or tv, or some such. indeed, he didn't even wanna be jackie chan. chan
may be badass kung-fu-wise but his main image in america is as a
clown--a kind of hyper geek who can do fancy martial arts stuff,
someone you can't take Seriously.

some say the video, photo, and booklet manifestos have no value. but,
i disagree. it's only when i saw and heard that stuff that the whole
event began to mulhollandize before my eyes. prior to that stuff, we
had been seeing him as we or how society sees him; just some nerd geek
who went strangely batty. it's thru that stuff that we began to see
him as he saw himself. we began to see how this guy was, to an
extent, rebelling and striking out against the image of the asian geek
male that society has put forth.
in a way, america is a society that loudly proclaims its equality and
fairness. WE ARE ALL EQUAL. we are told this from early childhood.
but, different groups are likely to feel betrayed by this notion.
and so many come to blame society for their problems. for example, the
reason why alot of blacks fail is actually to do their generally lower
intelligence and more aggressive/uninhibited temprament. meanwhile,
one of the main reasons why jews are so successful is because they are
smarter--generally. but, as 'racism' is taboo in our culture and as
we've all been told over and over that we are all equal, it's
frustrating when you or the group you belong to underperform in
certain key areas or are perceived to be failures or second-raters.
as racial factors cannot be discussed, blacks think all their problems
are with society, and not with the fact that (1) blacks are generally
less intelligent (2) more aggressive and undisciplined (3) physically
stronger, thereby driving away all the races who fear to integrate
with blacks out of racial fears.
similarly, alot of goyim are frustrated with jews because jews are so
much more successful in a lot of areas than the goyim are. if we are
all equal, how comes jews are so successful?
and alot of women feel the same way. because we are supposed to
believe that there are NO sexual differences between man and woman,
women wonder why women still make less money than men. could it be
because women have babies and take time off from work? this is NOT
acceptable as it involves biology.
and same kind of rage might have worked up gook boy. we are all
supposed to be the same but asian males are seen as the weakest,
wimpiest, dorkiest, and least desirable among all the men in america.
where is the badass asian male in sports, popular culture, etc? there
is an odd case here and there like yao ming and some japanese baseball
players, but the overwhelming image of the asian male is as the minor
nerd character in some hollywood movie or tv show.
now, asian males may complain that this isn't fair. isn't america
supposed to be about equality and fairness? but again, biology
explains this social representation and perception. in general, asian
males are indeed smaller, shorter, more wimpier voiced, more likely to
be inhibited and shy, and more followerish than leaderish--more likely
to be sheep than wolf.
now, what about mongol barbarians and japanese samurai? yes, they
were badass but if you look at their societies closely, you have a
small number of leadership folks and great many who grovel before
their masters and do as ordered like robots. so, biology here accounts
for the asian male geek representation and social perception in our
culture.

the problem with gook boy was he was lamb on the outside but a wolf on
the inside. when he shot all them kids, he was very likely striking
out against the social representation and perception of the asian geek
male. though it was bleeped out, my guess is that gook boy said he
was doing it for his 'chink' brothers. maybe he thought 'chinks' were
one group who could still be pushed around and made fun of. don imus
got fired for 'nappy headed ho' but most people laughed along with
sarah silverman and rosie o'donnell's '***' and 'ching chong'
remark.
now, the social perception is that making fun of asians isn't as
offensive as making fun of blacks.
why? when black people show displeasure, they get all riled up, shout
alot, shake their fists, and go arrgggh. also, whites have been told
over and over that blacks suffered so much and so nobly, especially
under the white man. so, there is an element of fear, guilt, and awe
at black eloquence. when blacks throw a fit, white folks pay
attention.
but when asians complain, it tends to be restrained, polite, and
such(and even when asians get angry, they come across as nasal, whiny,
shrill, and ridiculous. an angry negro sounds like roaring lion or
howling gorilla. an angry chinaman sounds like a squeaking mouse or
chirping chipmunk. racial charisma is a factor in how we see
people). how can such dorky people truly be offended in a noble
manner? also, many of us are ignorant of asian or asian-american
history and don't see asians as victims--especially as asians don't
make too much of it to begin with. also, as asians seem to be
successful in america, the idea is that asians melt into society and
are all well adjusted and content. but, this is social perception, and
such may be very different from how asians might see themselves. in
fact, this very broad social perception may insult asians. remember
when affirmative action was repealed in california, some asian leaders
complained about the news coverage. the media said that minority
enrollment dropped precipitiously due to the end of affirmative
action. but, the media was talking of blacks and hispanics. in
fact, as asian leaders pointed out, minority enrollment had gone up.
more asians were admitted than before. yet, the media reported the
news as though asians don't count or don't matter in the equation.
now, one may ask why didn't asians make a bigger fuss over this? why
not more anger at being treated as an invisible population? my guess
is they were afraid to make too much of a fuss cuz they feared being
seen as the 'oppressive' minority. in the american paradigm, being
white and part of the majority means you're privileged and even
oppressive. in contrast, being part of the minority means being
oppressed and 'disenfranchised'. this is why jews are ever so smart
about being successful and rich yet putting forth the image of the jew
as the 90%-democratic-voting victims of the holocaust still living in
shtetls of warsaw.
asians never put forth an image of themselves in quite the same way
though nancy chang tried with the 'rape of nanking'--which wasn't all
too successful because the perpetrators were asians(japanese).
according to the liberal dominated american paradigm, it really only
matters if you've been horribly mistreated by whites in the past.
anyway, jews and asians share a similar kind of problem. both groups
are increasingly seen as successful--"oppressive"--groups, yet they
are wary of this perception. they may be successful but they are
still a minority. also, with the demographic shift toward blacks and
hispanics, being identified with 'white' success is not best for the
future dominated by more and more blacks and hispanics.
but, asians may have an additional problem in the US. americans fear
the rise of asia. in the 80s, americans were shi**ing over them nasty
japs. but, there were only 100 million japs. now, US is shitting over
1.3 billion chinese. and as far as most americans can tell, 'all
chinks look alike, whether he be chink, gook, or jap'. the rise of
asia is all the more threatening because asia is big and had a
superduper population. also, asians seem to be slavish and obedient
and united in building their economies(and militaries).
worse, in the US alot of americans identify asians mainly with
southern chinese kind. really short, talking a funny sing-song
language, ugly, geeky and gimpass looking, and nibelungenish.
it's one thing for whites to accept blacks as the new symbol of
american power. blacks are taller, stronger, badasser, thicker voiced,
etc than the white boy. white folks see negroes as the natural leaders
and masters of humanity. indeed, this is why black slavery seems worse
than slavery of indigenous indians in south america. black slavery
meant enslaving the natural master race--the negroes. enslaving south
american indians meant enslaving a short, timid, mousy people with
slavish personalties to begin with. it seems more wrong to cage a lion
than to cage a rabbit.

just look at them asians. a bunch of short, small peckered, sing song
fing fong dorkboy dickweeds. imagine more and more money, power, and
influence going to asians.
while more than 70% of americans polled said they would be willing to
elect a black man for president, only 5% said they were ready for an
asian person. the asian is seen as not leadership-ish enough. and as
asian males comes across as more reticent and inhibited, they cannot
be trusted. they are inscrutable, they are fu manchu, they are ming
the merciless. they are the damn japs in 'rising sun'. they are a
bunch of scrawny, small peckered, whiny voiced niebelungen whose real
ambition is to own all the wealth and bang every blonde chick. yes,
the anti-semitic fantasies have, in some ways, morphed into anti-
asianite fantasies.
BUT, there could be a kernal of truth in these fears. all people are
motivated by powerlust, sexual lust, and such. since asian males
cannot win sex and power in the masterful way, they must do it in the
gimpy geekass way. as the future is more and more about technology,
brainpower, and organization, truly masterful individualists like
whites and negroes might lose out to be asians who are so much into
organization, obedience, cooperation, geekiness, and such.


---------------------------------------


most of the commentary on this massacre has been idiotic and self-
serving and such. every political group--left and right--has tried to
turn this issue into a simple gun control or pro-gun argument. but,
the truth is far more complex.

some say that because gook boy showed signs of mental illness, he
should have been forcibly detained in a nuthouse. with the benefit of
hindsight, i woud agree. but, the fact is most people who exhibit such
symptoms are not dangerous. indeed, most schizos are not violent or
harmful to others. indeed, many borderline schizos lead productive and
peaceful lives.
also, it was not like gook boy was SO TOTALLY crazy that he couldn't
manipulate others. had he been detained, he could have faked normalcy
enough to be released. indeed, while one doctor thought him nuts, he
fooled another doctor into thinking he's okay and no threat to himself
or to others. if gook boy was screaming for bloody murder 24/7, he
would have been easy to spot and thrown into a nuthouse. but, like the
washington sniper, he showed signs of mental illness followed by
normal behavior. he was sane enough to fool us. he was not completely
delusional but partially delusional. and he could hide his delusions
if he so wished.
also, most delusional people are not dangerous to other people.
michael jackson is clearly delusional. the guy's approaching 50 yet
still thinks of himself a child. when jackson said he didn't molest
those kids, he was being totally sincere. as far as jackson's
concerned, he himself is like a little boy--like peter pan that never
grows up. so, when he slept next to other boys, he didn't see it as an
adult molesting children. he saw it as a child playing with children.
delusional, yes. should jackson have been locked up?
woody allen too is delusional--and dishonest. the overwhelming fact
of his unhappiness has been that's a short ugly jew. but, could he
honestly face up to it? no, so he put on airs of philosophical
confusion, spiritual soul searching, and intellectual blah blah. not
that he wasn't interested in those matters but the true reason for his
unhappiness was that he was an ugly mofo. and allen has never faced
the music in regard to his whacky relationship with his defacto
stepdaughter soon-yi previn. yes, allen's delusional but should he be
locked up?
granted, jackson and allen have not expressed violence and hatred, but
there are many such. should they all be locked up?
how many kids in highschool put up satanic websites, gangsta websites,
play ultra violent games, collect sickening horror movies, read
stephen king and wanna write such stuff, indulge in neo-paganism and
witchcraft and black magic, and etc? most of these kids will not
kill anyone. but, since they show signs of evil, hatred, rage, etc,
should they all be locked up?
if so, great many black highschool students in the inner city should
all be locked up. they not only listen to ultra violent rap lyrics but
compose them themselves. they come up with lyrics about killing or
messing up 'that ***', beating up some 'ho', wasting some cop or
pig, and much worse. should they all be locked up?
pink floyd's The Wall is very dark and disturbing--compliments in the
popular youth culture--, so should roger waters have been committed to
an insane asylum when the album was released? and should the album
have been banned cuz it might spread lunacy among impressionable
youths?

some ask, why didn't the university expel gook boy? didn't he cause
problems on campus before? but, this is retarded. even if gook boy
had been expelled, he could have done the same thing. anyone in the
US can walk upon any campus or into just about any campus building and
shoot a whole bunch of people if they wanted. if campuses are
accessible ONLY to its students and faculty, then expelling gook boy
would have saved all those lives. but, that's not the case. gook boy
could have been expelled and then returned just to kill those people.
end result would have been the same.

regarding gun laws, both sides are plenty stupid.
pro-gun people say it would have been better if guns were allowed on
campus. if someone had been armed, he could have stopped gook boy
before he did so much damage. but, the problem with allowing people to
carry guns is obvious. the fact is massacres such as the one at V
Tech are very rare. if alot of people carried guns or had guns
available everywhere they went, far more people would cumulatively die
from accidents or crimes of passion. suppose some guys with concealed
guns go to a pub and there is too much drinking. suddenly, an
argument or fight breaks out over someone's girlfriend and then bang
bang!! not because anyone involved is insane or psycho but simply
because people can act crazy when emotions flare up.
but, pro-gun people do have a point. anti-gun folks have said a campus
shouldn't be like the wild west with EVERYONE carrying guns. true,
but the fact is not everyone has to carry guns. i don't know how many
people were in the Norris building. let's say there were 300-400. if
even only 2-3 out of that number had guns, they could have stopped
gook boy before he killed so many. not everyone has to carry guns.
if only a few law abiding people carry guns, they could act as a
deterrent to a mass killer. after all, take airplane security. MOST
passengers carry no guns. all you need is one or two air wardens
carrying concealed weapons. so, suppose V tech allowed kids to carry
guns. suppose only 1% or even less of the student body did so. the
fact is even if only one person in norris hall had carried a gun, he
could have saved all the others who had no guns. you only need one
israeli air warden with a gun to save all the passengers--100, 200, or
300--from a potential psycho or terrorist.



----------------------

some say this killing shows america in a bad light to the rest of the
world. america's gun culture and craziness have been exposed as
utterly insane and crazy. this is partly true. but, this is the
flipside of what makes the US so great. the V Tech massacre is the
flipside of the coin that produced bill gates, warren buffet, bob
dylan, steven spielberg, etc. americans win big and lose big. there
is a kind of going-all-out mentality in the american or americanized
character.
a successful european guy may be ambitious but not as ambitious and
even reckless as some american capitalists. and some troubled european
guy may be sick but not as aggressively violent as the american--even
if he did have access to guns. america is a society not only of free
laws but free souls. so, americans tend to be excessive in all
areas--in success and in failures. this 'immaturity' makes americans
adventurous, pioneering, and enterprising. an immigrant nation, US is
about creating yourself, making your own rules, etc. yet, this
mindset can also make americans shallow, amnesiac, irreverent,
childish, and totally insane.
a european psycho may have read jean-paul satre and watched some
bresson movies. he might become a killer but not a mass killer. he
may be too busy philosophizing to kill alot of people at once. he
might kill one here and think much about it, and then kill another
there and then think hard about it. think of movies like "L'argent" by
robert bresson or "Le Humanite" by bruno dumont. in contrast,
american psychos don't feed on intellectual ideas but off videogames
and hollywood movies. american craziness tend to be more rock n roll.
it's also true in music. think of jazz, think of rock n roll. if the
music from an electric guitar were a deadly weapon, it would kill alot
more people than music from a classical cello.
so, it's the price we pay for our brand of freedom, our brand of
national character. we have more loonies like gook boy and columbine
killers, but we also have more bill gateses, sam waltons, larry
ellisons, oprahs, limbaughs, spielbergs, and presleys.

.

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: why did the gook kill at V tech? pt 2
    • From: NY.Transport.News

• Prev by Date: US to Review Relocation Program Unless South Korea Pays More
• Next by Date: Re: Such short memories
• Previous by thread: US to Review Relocation Program Unless South Korea Pays More
• Next by thread: Re: why did the gook kill at V tech? pt 2
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

• Security
• UNIX
• Linux
• Coding
• Usenet

• Archive
• About
• Privacy
• Search
• Imprint

newsgroups.derkeiler.com  > Archive  > Soc  > soc.culture.korean  > 2007-04