Elliot Rodger

A loser in our post-civilized, Darwinian sexual marketplace has lashed out and committed murder. There's much to say about this, especially how it is the foreseeable result of removing all restraints against the animal id. You cannot let this genie only halfway out of the bottle.  A "society" with unrestrained animal sex will also have unrestrained animal violence, and we are reaping the whirlwind we have sown. This is NOT a justification for a despicable crime, merely an observation of its predictability.

As I plod through Elliot's manifesto, what leaps off every page is narcissism. Not in the commonplace usage of self-love, but rather the psychological usage of massive insecurity that craves the approval of others. This is THE defining trait of modern American life: if you're not in the public eye or perceived as famous or cool, you're nobody and might as well not exist. As always, this evokes themes of the Christian versus the (neo-)pagan senses of life. The Christian is special because he has a soul and is loved by Jesus, no matter what the world might think. The pagan is special only if the world loves him, since the physical world of the senses is the only one the animalistic and soulless pagan knows.

UPDATE

The blame game is already beginning, by which I mean the standard attempt to blame someone other than the murderer. A victim's father blames the NRA. Others blame "men's rights activists." Just stop it. It would be just as easy to blame women by arguing that they gravitate toward violent men and thereby reward and encourage such behavior. This was Rodger's own lament, which gained traction when he suddenly won a large number of female admirers after unleashing his inner killer and becoming the primitive (i.e., "alpha") male they crave. If you don't like this conclusion, then stop pointing fingers anywhere other than where you should, which is at Elliot Rodger alone.

UPDATE 2

Another line of analysis that's emerging of late is a stern reminder that men are not entitled to demand whatever they might want from women, such as the article I stumbled on here that argues that men's entitlement mentality is rampant; that men and women are equals; and that "enough is enough." Too true. In the spirit of equality that the author appears to embrace, let us also scorn the female entitlement mentality and the demands that women so often place on men. For starters, it's not my duty to pay for your food, your daycare expenses, your medications, your contraceptives, or your abortions. Practice what you preach, and stop placing demands on me. Enough is enough.

If there is a major distinction to be found in how men and women make unjustifiable demands on each other, it is this: the demands of women have the systematic force of government violence to back them up.

Clearest Distinction Between Left And Right

Another pithy observation for today. The defining trait of a leftist is scorn for civil society and the urge to hijack government violence to re-make society rather than merely defend it. The defining trait of a conservative is personal freedom nourished by personal responsibility, asking only that government protect us rather than improve us (an end not justified by government's brutish means, and which always fails when tried anyway).

It's safe to say that all "mainstream" political discourse today is leftist, no less among Republicans than among Democrats. Both sides take it as a given that "to govern" means to manipulate society, whether here or abroad, in the pursuit of an idealistic vision. Neither side sees government as a neutral referee whose goal is simply to apply the rules equally to everyone regardless of differing skills, fortunes, or outcomes. Their debate with each other is a sham, a sideshow to capture the hearts, minds, and energies of the vast majority of people and make them believe they are making a difference. They're not. All they're doing is feeding a parasitic monster while living out a fantasy, much like the Matrix.

Judgmentalism

Apologies to my tiny cohort of readers, but real life has drawn my attention away from blogging matters of late. For now I'd like to share a brief observation on one of the newest and gravest "sins" in today's fevered thinking, namely judgmentalism. It is now supposedly wrong to judge anyone or anything, especially in moral terms. Sometimes the ostensible Christians pick up this rhetoric and proclaim that only God may judge. But here's the thing: such statements are themselves moral judgments. If you state that it is wrong for me to judge, you have defeated your own argument in a blinding display of paradox. Clearly we agree that judging is called for on some occasions; the difference is that I'm admitting what I'm doing, while you are ridiculously denying it. As for the Christian set, only God may judge your soul and condemn it to Hell or allow it into Heaven, yet I can surely judge your character and shun you from my life or allow you into it.

So all you anti-judgmental people, get over yourselves. You must have a moral philosophy if you assert that I'm doing something wrong, but you simultaneously reject the existence of any morals that bind us or that I may use to judge you. Pick one option and stick with it. If the former, explain what your moral philosophy is and where it comes from. If the latter, you can no longer criticize me or anyone else.