Last words on Sodini

Here are some other takes on George Sodini that you may have missed.

First up, the Elusive Wapiti, who stated on yesterday’s post that explaining the reasons behind Sodini’s actions is not the same as condoning them:

Very very few of us are glad that whats-his-face shot up a roomful of aerobicizing women.

Yet I think there is a great many folks who have a perspective wider than the feed bag placed in front of their mouths that a world which, by design, creates hordes of uninvested men, is just asking for trouble like this. It’s more “I tole you so”, rather than “yay!”.

The fembot solution is to eliminate all the men or suppress them to the point that they can’t act out in this way. I wouldn’t put the former past them if it were technologically possible, and the governments are increasingly unable to do the latter in the new age of networked societies (as opposed to vertical institutions or market-based societies) and global communication.

Well played, sir.

Next, a comment from Whiskey on the original Roissy thread, whose writings on this subject have influenced my own:

I find it amusing that women who believe that genetic diversity is good for plants and animals (by having more genes available to respond to environmental factors) enthusiastically support a massive genetic bottleneck by having only a few men reproduce. Which tends to produce massive genetic flaws due to that bottleneck: inherited diseases, deformities, and the like. Not to mention fragile resistance to disease, environmental factors and the like.

The problem is not, I think, with the random Chos or this guy (who I don’t know much about other than what people have posted here). It’s the withdrawal to indifference that men unconnected to women produce. Single mothers of course imply lots of single guys, who don’t give a damn about women and kids one way or another. Why is Cleveland such a dump? Because for fifty years, men didn’t care enough to fight for the city. Because they had no investment in it.

The danger is probably gradual thuggery, as men respond to women’s incentives by a ’short cut’ to Game, and massive DA-style withdrawals from society with men not caring. Ala the Cho incident or the Montreal Massacre, where men did nothing to stop the slaughter of their female classmates. In contrast with the Titanic, where women and children went first into the Lifeboats.

The guy was clearly mentally ill (and knew it), had drinking problems, did manage to father a kid, and did have at one point some sort of relationship with a woman. Enforced celibacy will of course kick a number of these guys into Cho/Klebold/Harris like killing sprees. This will only re-inforce women’s desire for A-Lister Alphas or thugs, more “icky nice guy” stuff from women (totally predictable) and as a result, more guys figuring being a thug (this won’t be a lightswitch, a gradual process) is the easy path to women. The other thing is of course, men not caring.

Far more dangerous than lone nuts is most men just not giving a damn about women.

Variations on a theme – here’s another Roissy in DC comment, this time from Ryder:

Whiskey nails it, as usual. The real issue is not the lone nut or the sensational made-for-TV slaughterfest, but rather the less exciting reality that more and more men are no longer invested in the stability and well being of the broader society. They aren’t stakeholders anymore, and many have no real prospect of ever becoming a stakeholder. This isn’t nearly as sexy or exciting as lone-nut-goes-wild, but it has enormous implications. Most people don’t understand just how serious these implications are going to be.

We still get, even on this blog, the boneheaded “You’re just a bunch of whiners! No wonder you don’t get laid!” type of post. This type is completely ignorant of the broader societal trends – political correctness, globalization, immigration, anti-white propaganda, feminism, demographic transformation, media control (just to name a few) – that are leading a higher and higher percentage of men to become angry and alienated with little left to lose.

Just a few short decades ago, the typical guy could reasonably expect to have a stable career, a faithful wife and kids, his own house, and so forth. He could reasonably expect to become a trusted and respected member of the society, and was therefore invested in that society doing well.

My, how things change! Most guys are just not going to get all of those things anymore. They might get one component, but fewer and fewer will get the whole package. We’ve gone from a society where almost anyone who behaved responsibly could become a stakeholder and hold his head high, into one where huge numbers of men are marginalized sexually, romantically, socially, economically, and so forth. Like Rodney Dangerfield, they get no respect.

I should also note that the lone nut in this particular case was in decent financial shape, yet was utterly alienated from the society around him. As the religious types might say, man does not live by bread alone. This is true for normal men as well, not just mentally ill wack jobs.

A man needs more. In our current society, that “more” is sorely lacking. Fat, drunk, stupid and being a politically correct, deracinated consumer is no way to go through life, son. And it’s not very satisfying to a man worthy of the name.

Point is, the deeper and more intimate connections that give life context and meaning are fraying, or are already just plain gone. So sure, expect some more lone nuts. But what matters far more is what those millions of alienated, pissed off and just plain miserable guys will do as society continues to deteriorate around them.

Hint to the boneheaded: they aren’t going to form the “Beta Party” and carry banners demanding access to vaginas. So what will they do? Answer: On the micro level they will increasingly make life difficult or unstable for the people immediately around them, one way or another.

On the macro level they will be much more likely to support a movement that promises to upset the status quo in some fundamental way. The same status quo that has set most of them up for failure. A system that hates them, or at best despises them. Peaceful change? Maybe. Violent change? Maybe. Should be interesting, however it plays out. Stay tuned!

Mark Ames, who has written extensively on rage killings, opines on Sodini:

That’s it, that’s all the reason you need. Because in this Calvinist country, if you can’t get laid for 20 years, you’re a monumental loser and it’s all your fault. Every Hollywood movie ever made, every gushing Tom Hanks blockbuster nightmare, tells us that shy nerds inevitably get discovered by beautiful sweet wife-types. Just be patient and nice, you’ll get your reward. It’s the mean bully assholes who get punished, right? Wrong. That brutal discovery is what destroyed Sodini…

DGL compares Sodini to abortion clinic killers here:

Of course, abortions are still performed every day, women still reject weirdos every day, and bullies still pick on little guys, nerds, and freaks… Nothing’s changed, except that these men are dead, and they’ve taken down others through their fantasy.

Life carries on, until it doesn’t. I’m not going to say if these men had learned something different, this wouldn’t have occurred. I would then sound no different than any other liberal. Men slip through the cracks. Only so much intervention is necessary or effective. The information to save them was out there, and the social knowledge to get a better grip on why their malefactors did what did was available as well. Others have gone through more pain and torture. So why did they “snap”?

It’s like asking why some eggs fall to the ground and never become birds.

Finally, slumlord, whose dissent on my original post spurred me to amend my writings, has offered his own take on the affair:

In Christian theology, the worst terror of Hell is not the “fire and brimstone” but the sense that we are permanently separated from God and the associated happiness that that would bring. People who have not thought about the matter deeply imagine this loss as a loss God’s company, sort of not getting to hang around God, but they are wrong. The best way of imagining this pain of loss is by looking at it’s opposite, the beatific vision. Acceptance by God, is like being accepted and loved by your sweetheart. It’s not just the local effect of possessing your beloved, but the “spillover” effects are as important as well. When you’re in love, life is sweeter, injuries are born easier, life is beautiful, there is a sense of goodwill to all; we want others to share our happiness. The beatific vision is not “just” the possession of God’s favour, but the state of being in God’s favour. It is this state of existence is what we mean by being in heaven.

Being rejected by the thing we love or desire creates the opposite effect. Nothing gives us joy, everything is bleak, and if we know we will never have the thing we want, despair or resignation sets in. However, more often than not ,we come to hate the thing the we love. The boy who was spurned by his high school sweetheart,is still is still bitter toward her years later and wants to get back at her. The girlfriend who is dumped by her partner sets out to destroy his life. Hatred and despair are the companions of those who suffer poena damni. They hate that which they want to love, but which does not love them back.

George Sodini’s actions, seen in this light, are perfectly understandable. The women that he so desperately wanted rejected him, engendering in him a sense of poena damni which reached it’s cumulation in the shooting of the innocent women at the gym. Now while Sodini’s actions are understandable, they are in no way justifiable. The women who were killed or injured in no way had personally injured Sodini, their capital offence was that they were women. He stands condemned.

This is my last post on this topic. Next week will bring more upbeat writings from your humble blogger.