Here are some other takes on George Sodini that you may have missed.
First up, 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 soâ€, rather than “yay!â€.
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.
{ 18 comments… read them below or add one }
First, thanks for the link my friend.
Whiskey wrote:
“Why is Cleveland such a dump? Because for fifty years, men didn’t care enough to fight for the city. “
This is a great observation. I’ve been on the road for the last week, which means lots of stays in hotels. Therefore my wife gets to watch lots of HGTV since we don’t have television at home.
HGTV had a program on yesterday morning that profiled a woman with two kids that was divorced from their father for about 12 years or so. Her son was entering college, and her daughter was preparing to graduate. So she was looking to offload the house–which was not well picked up inside–and the show invited a home inspector to find the flaws in the house she purchased 12 years ago for $125,000.
The inspector found $15,000 worth of damage. Leaky roof, leaky pipes in the kitchen that caused water damage. Things that, had their been an adult (male) around to share the burden of maintaining a household, would not likely have happened.
My conclusion? Putting aside the ‘guys not caring’ angle, it’s time-consuming to care for kids. It’s also time consuming to work to put food on your table, especially if a woman isn’t fortunate to have a high earning ex husband from whom to siphon money from. There’s not enough time in the day to earn money, care for the kids, and maintain the home. So something gives, and the home maintenance is what goes. Extrapolating this example to a neighborhood or a crappy town like Cleveland, a dearth of invested men means that the the single moms are too busy just surviving day to day to do much community maintenance, the social knitting that keeps neighborhoods together, and the tax base isn’t wide enough–’cuz men are under- or unemployed or unemployable–for gummint to take up the slack.
As you suggest, simply concentrating on the guys who misfire spectacularly misses the greater point. Uninvested men, by and large, withdraw from society. Their labors are less efficiently harnessed in socially beneficial ways. And faced with a system that denies them–or strips them later–of investment, they adapt by adopting predatory game behavior or avoidance behaviors entirely.
As a side note, I also find it interesting that so many men on a diversity of sites (game blogs, Christian blogs, etc) have come to the same conclusion that underinvested men aren’t a healthy thing for a society. For crying out loud, the social scientists (I use that term loosely) note–and have been warning for years–that the glut of unmarried guys in Asian societies breed discontent, crime, and terrorism. Why would the glut of unmarried guys in the West have any different effect?
Are you at least willing to contemplate the possibility that maybe the real problem here is the feelings of entitlement toward women that proponents of “game” teach? It is an obvious fact that the easiest way to justify murdering someone is to dehumanize them, and phrases like “sexual value market,” the rating system, and the other aspects of Game are nothing if not dehumanizing.
`maybe the real problem here is the feelings of entitlement toward women that proponents of “game†teach? ‘
` the easiest way to justify murdering someone is to dehumanize them’
Maybe the real problem is that society has already been dehumanizing men for decades.
Further the politically correct media has demonized Christianity and traditional white ethnocentrism.
If you’re not loyal to your fellow men, the faith of your fathers, or your race, you are already dehumanized.
Since men are dehumanized, why should they be expected to treat others as humans?
Chris,
How many bales of hay did you use for that strawman?
It looks like you are talking, in particular, about Roissy. I’ve never read anything he is written that said men are entitled to women. On the contrary, he writes plenty about ways men need to improve themselves in order to attract women.
If anything, a cold eyed view of your “sexual market value” would make it less likely that you would feel entitled, not more.
`Very very few of us are glad that whats-his-face shot up a roomful of aerobicizing women.’
Well, happy isn’t quite the correct word. I think I feel vindicated. For years I’ve been going around telling people that the system is doomed and they’ve laughed me off.
Furthermore, there’s a question of natural law.
Humans have the DUTY of self-defense. Sodini should have acted violent against some other target, and sooner. Killing women was a botched strategy from the start. If he had merely broken a bouncer’s nose, women would be all over him. (Sure, he might have a criminal assault record, but that would just attract women.)
When a society’s individuals reclaim their natural right to violence, that society is disregarding the laws of man and looking once again to a Higher Authority. Just as evil can be done by practicing religion, Sodini did evil by seeking for a natural law to follow.
The rebirth of individual violence is the rebirth of individual willpower. It is a chance to correct the old mistakes.
` 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…’
That was just part of it. The other side is that a man should embrace his essential violence while he is young, so that he can build violence into his character and learn to practice it in socially acceptable forms.
If Sodini had (for example) beaten a challenging man down in a bar fight, he would not have needed sexual proof of his self-worth so much.
Sodini waited too long to express his natural violence, and the resulting expression was culturally unacceptable for that reason.
The answer is not just enlightened reason. The answer is more widespread expressions of aggressive individual will. (These need not entail criminal violence. Shouting to disrupt a sermon is enough to disrupt most sermons. Quitting a job without notice is enough to disrupt most workplaces.) This would not result in a “soft landing” but it could produce a less devastating crash.
An America filled with angry, loud men could save itself, restore its Republic. An America filled with silent, indifferent men will fall as Rome fell.
Without widespread, individual aggressiveness, society will not just crash, it will collapse. The fembots will probably push for this. The fembots are too stupid to see the symptoms. They would prefer alienated, silent men to angry, loud men.
White Christian males are still considered the DEFAULT human beings. Everyone else is still considered an offshoot. Less than. To say that white males are the ones being the most dehumanized is simply blindness.
Also, your statement, even if it were true, doesn’t disprove what I said. Dehumanization of men doesn’t make dehumanization of women OK, and it doesn’t make it any less likely to end in murder.
And if men are so much more dehumanized than women, why aren’t women going into gyms and shooting random guys?
Again, because women are not taught by society that they are entitled to other people’s bodies, and that if they don’t get it, they are entitled to resort to violence.
Maybe Roissy has never said men are entitled to women, but many, many, many of his commenters have.
“White Christian males are still considered the DEFAULT human beings. Everyone else is still considered an offshoot. Less than. To say that white males are the ones being the most dehumanized is simply blindness.”
This is only because, for the leftist lobbying groups, White males remain the bete noire of radicalism. White male privilege is the cudgel used to castigate those who oppose their agenda. The prominence of this concept–and the repeated insistence of its reality–in democratic discourse does not owe itself to it being veracious but because it being reiterated is necessary for the left. Keeping the lineaments on this specter and ensuring its corporeality is their lasting task. Without doubt it is a deceptive mantra, for whites are widely considered as vile, virulent beings whilst all of their ‘victims’ (who of course never victimized anyone else themselves throughout all of history) are of unimpeachable character. The default setting has been reset.
`White Christian males are still considered the DEFAULT human beings. Everyone else is still considered an offshoot. Less than. ‘
No, the Talmud says that JEWS are the real human beings, and every other race is inferior.
See how confused you get when you try to use the passive voice?
`because women are not taught by society that they are entitled to other people’s bodies, and that if they don’t get it, they are entitled to resort to violence.’
Hogwash. Women treat their children as chattels. They kill their children and get a slap on the wrist. They seduce their students and get probation instead of felony charges. (Check Elusive Wapiti’s website for the “female sentencing discount.”)
Women just let cops and courts do their violence for them because they have more legal rights than men.
“Are you at least willing to contemplate the possibility that maybe the real problem here is the feelings of entitlement toward women that proponents of “game†teach?”
Game is not about entitlement. Being a nice guy, sitting on your ass expecting for a woman to fall in your lap – that’s entitlement. Game is about molding yourself into the kind of man that women want. If you don’t cut the mustard, you have to change – get a haircut, whiten your teeth, go to the gym, and learn how to give women what they want.
“It is an obvious fact that the easiest way to justify murdering someone is to dehumanize them, and phrases like “sexual value market,†the rating system, and the other aspects of Game are nothing if not dehumanizing.”
Your definition of “dehumanize” is contingent upon the belief that human beings are inherently noble creatures. For people who believe that humanity is intrinsically loathsome, “dehumanization” is unnecessary. My view of humanity is more ambivalent – we’re not inherently noble or evil, we’re just animals like the rest of the creatures on this planet, and we’re still largely bound to the rules of the animal kingdom.
And how is grouping people into various categories dehumanizing? People do it all the time. The government does it (see the Census Bureau). Rating women and men by their sexual market value is a precise way of discerning their probable level of success with the opposite sex. As for the “sexual marketplace” – ever hear the phrase “meat market?” Go to a bar or a club and tell me what you see. Men and women sizing each other up like slabs of meat in a butcher shop, looking for the best quality at the best price is what you’ll see. The sexual marketplace is ever present in human society, and we all compete every day in hopes of coming out on top. Its laws are as immutable as the laws of physics.
“No, the Talmud says that JEWS are the real human beings, and every other race is inferior.”
You really think most people in our society base their ethics on the Talmud?
But it is a fact of life that these men will not “just accept it.” Misogyny has nothing to do with it. Is a slave wrong for hating his master, a man who makes him spend his life working under the Southern sun in a cotton field?
I will not get into if men deserve to get laid or not, but I will touch a tangent of that problem:
These men need not “just accept it”.
Society has been telling these men to work hard, be a productive member, obey the laws, obey the social norms, so that they can be accepted as part of a society.
Society benefits from this as the accumulated production and law abidance of the majority of its male members makes the society possible.
So, it is very normal, and expected from these men to want some recognition in return.
No recognition is in the horizon.
Society owes these men recognition and fruits of their lawfulness and productivity. I saw “owes” because if men do not behave according to the society’s wishes, which is a conscious decision to some extent, the society having those requirements from men ceases to exist.
Now, women owe these men recognition, as they are the majority benefitters of a society like ours.
These men created this society, and women reap the benefits.
So, even if men do not deserve sex for being men, women owe men, and men have every right to get pissed if their labour and behavior is indeed punished.
Took my reply to another blog and pasted it.
What I see is that women feel entitled to only the best men, ignoring the men who are at their level, and even the ones who are few levels above them. (at least in their best years)
So blaming the invisible men for having entitlement is like blaming a slave for wanting freedom.
Yes, some men feel they should be getting sex, yea.. So? Almost all women feel they should be getting whatever it is they want.
And if society is standing on the shoulders of this majority of men, who are being productive instead of stealing, killing, raping, pillaging, then society does owe these men something.
As the main benefactor of a society, women do owe these men something.
These men, even if not entitled to sex, are owed by society and women.
That is my stand.
Men need to improve themselves not because women deserve the improved male, but because it will put these men into the visors of these women.
“What I see is that women feel entitled to only the best men, ignoring the men who are at their level, and even the ones who are few levels above them. (at least in their best years)”
……………………………………………………….
Z.G., apply this same paragraph to Sodini. If you read his diary and watch his video, he was desiring women MUCH YOUNGER than himself and of a certain type of look, rather than women “at his own level”. Perhaps there would have been some women in their 40s (his age group) or even late 30s who would’ve dated him if he would have asked them out. But appearantly he did not. He was holding out for the 20-something hotties. His loss.
………………………………………………………….
“As the main benefactor of a society, women do owe these men something.
These men, even if not entitled to sex, are owed by society and women.”
…………………………………………………………..
Again, WHICH particular woman owed Sodini sex? Can you name any names?
Nobody is owed anything by society or the opposite sex just for doing what humans do – working and creating a home for themselves.
This idea of being “owed” by society is very ghetto and very welfare.
BMM,
Sodini seems to have a too high standard set for himself, true, I have no quarrel on that.
What I was mentioning with the entitlement of women is that, there are thousands, if not tens of thousands of men, who are invisible of women of their own caliber.
These men have to settle for women way lower than their own level, and that, again, when the women’s eyes start looking at something other than the top.
I said:
“As the main benefactor of a society, women do owe these men something.
These men, even if not entitled to sex, are owed by society and women.â€
And you replied:
Again, WHICH particular woman owed Sodini sex? Can you name any names?
I am not talking about Sodini, I said, “men”. We have thousands of men working for the society, (they work to get paid, but the society benefits more than the 50.000 a year earning individual) and thousands of women benefitting from these men, while society has told these men, be a good man, be productive and you will have the privilege of raising a family of your own.
This promise is what has made civilization possible, and this promise has been what has made men die to protect their country. Country = women and children.
Now you have not only Sodini, but men with lesser standards wondering where they got first screwed.
The most passive action these men will take is to retreat from society.
Enough men retreating means loss of energy, food, power, security…
Everything these women who are enjoying civilization are taking for granted.
Devlin said it right, for women 95% of men are non-existent. this holds true even if this 95% of men make the lives of women a possibility.
In individual cases, it is true, no man deserves sex from a particular woman (except if marriage is signed), but in a collective case, things change.
Nobody is owed anything by society or the opposite sex just for doing what humans do – working and creating a home for themselves.
humans do not just do what humans do. they have a prupose, a goal, a dream.
When you promise someone a dream, and then turn and fart on his face, expect a backlash.
We see what happens when men are not promised a legacy. See matriarchal africa. See thugitized britain, US blacks.
It is said men need to work only 10% of what they work at now, if they were only to support themselves and basic needs.
The way to make a man produce the extra 90% which directly/indirectly goes to the society is to promise him his own kids.
And even if you claim nobody owes nothing to anybody,
We clearly have history to prove that once you take away the fatherhood from a man, that civilization collapses.
And before you start going on “nobody is owed by society or the opposite sex”, please also tackle the issue of female entitlement and society’s endorsement of this entitlement.
If society owes men nothing, then there is nothing stopping from men turning violent selfish self serving creatures, except an ingrained sense of justice, or risk aversion.
Seen in history, seen in britain, seen in the immigrant populations in europe, and seen in the thug culture around the world.
This idea of being “owed†by society is very ghetto and very welfare.
And female.
but I am not talking about females, ghetto dwellers, welfare queens, and kings.
I am basically talking about the part of society that makes it possible for these groups to continue their life, while that productive society is not give a fraction of the recognition that the ghetto crowd, the welfare crowd or the unproductive female is getting.
They are creating the possibility of these mentalities to strive and shin, while getting crapped in their faces.
society does not owe these men a favor.
society does owe these men its existence.
Yes, Sodini was mentally ill, but most people seem to assume he must always have been so.
I doubt it. The man got a degree in a STEM discipline, was a stable taxpayer for decades working in his field. Besides some typical STEM social awkwardness, I have difficulty imagining there was anything truly egregiously wrong with this guy. He just wasn’t an effective competitor.
My interpretation: over decades of being marginalized despite being a productive member of society and doing all that was ever asked or expected of him, he was slowly driven insane.
And sadly, it is for this descent into insanity for which the man will be remembered.
Though his final acts were horrific, though he certainly could have done much more to help himself. Though he was mentally ill and deranged by the end…
We forget that he sunk to this level only after decades of unquestioning faithful service that his society not only failed to value but actively debased and derided.
Let us consider: Men watch the world around them and they see who is rewarded and who is punished by society.
Men like Sodini who tried to cooperate with the system even as their mind was gnawed to pieces endured a life of neglect and deprivation.
Men like Van Der Sloot who looted and plundered the offerings of society from their teen years became rockstars living a life of international fame, gambling, and womanizing that would make James Bond envious.
The concept of people ‘deserving’ things is irrelevant in a mass society.
Indeed, most social problems exist because our emotional reactions were sculpted in small tribal groups, not vast cities.
Whether it is ‘fair’ or whether men ‘deserve’ women is an irrelevant concern. What we should be asking: Is it in these men’s interest to cooperate with the present system?
{ 2 trackbacks }