Why did the 'gook' kill(at Virginia Tech)?

[Fasci-Nation]

throughout this piece, the killer at virginia tech is referred to as
'the gook'. while this may be insulting, it may be appropriate. while
most korean-americans may be good people, this particular guy was
truly monstrous. after pearl harbor, it was justified to call
japanese 'japs'. during WWII, it was fitting to call germans
'krauts'. so, this insane guy can well be called 'the gook'.


why did the gook go on a rampage at virginia tech? here are several
speculations, especially in relation to others of its kind.

1. economic reason. the gook left messages to the effect that he
hated all these 'rich kids'. he suggested that these rich kids were
'charlatans' and phony and bogus. it's as if you're poorer or not as
privileged, you may feel purer, better, and have a right to cleanse
the world of phony folks.
in most massacres of this kind, the killers involved tend to be lower
middle class or working class. rich people usually don't go on
rampages. and really poor people, while more violent overall than
lower middle class or working class, do most of their killings for
criminal reasons, not 'ideological' reasons. it's working class-to-
lower-middle-class folks who usually go on rampages to make a
statement. when rich people do become violent, it's by going to elite
universities and earning degrees and writing about how violence is
necessary to bring about social change. they themselves rarely do the
killing. think of karl marx. he never killed anyone with his own hands
but directed others to do so.

consider the movie 'assassination of richard nixon'. the character
isn't exactly poor; he's lower middle class. . he aspires to be rich
and wealthy. but, wealth and success are beyond his grasp and/or he
finds it all too compromising(because it's out of his grasp). he
strikes out. he's supposedly purer because he's poorer--even if not
really poor--and associates himself with the 'poor man''s cause.

consider the great film 'taxi driver' which was inspired loosely by
actual events. we have a working class character who sees rich people
as phony. he sees social power as held by privileged louts,
charlatans, phonies. he sees them as pimps.

this was also the case with david chapman who killed john lennon.
chapman had admired lennon as an egalitarian but when he heard about
lennon's megamillions, mansions, and lavish lifestyle, he figured he
had to kill lennon. lennon was a phony, a hypocrite. chapman was like
the kid in 'catcher in the rye' with a gun. remember the kid in that
novel flunks out of school but blames mostly adults for the world's
phoniess. he also hates or dislikes most other students on campus.
now, the kid in catcher in the rye wasn't poor but he didn't identify
with those around him--upper middle class.

timothy mcveigh too was a working class type. his violence was
'ideological' in the sense that he wanted to make a grand statement.

the washington DC assassins who randomly shot people were also working
class types. the main killer in those murders was a veteran of the
iraq war. he too wasn't just killing to kill. he wanted attention, he
wanted to make some kind of twisted statement.

as for osama bin laden, the man was very rich. but, the many people
who were attracted to him were lower middle class or middle class who
felt cheated by life. one's economic status is largely a state of
mind. one can be well-off but still feel poor, oppressed,
marginalized. and those who carried out 9/11 felt they were all
hardworking stiffs who had been oppressed by international jewry and
american capitalism.

the gook in the virginia tech massacre may not have been poor. but,
he may have felt poor and marginalized. he may have felt others have
more. now, most of us figure that's the fact of life. but, some
folks feel great jealousy. economic envy is a big thing in all
societies. mix economic envy and guns, and you can have some major
violence.
take alot of punk songs which rail against the rich and wicked. thank
god UK didn't allow most folks to own guns.

the columbine case may be somewhat different. these were solid middle
class kids. but, again, economic status is a state of mind. they may
have felt slighted by more privileged kids. also, in highschool,
wealth is also measured in terms of student 'popularity'. so, a
popular kid is 'rich' in the context of highschool whereas an
unpopular kid is 'poor' in terms of highschool social economics.

now, all these cases were mentally unstable. if they had been super
rich, they would have found means to have fun going to casinos and
traveling around or being like harold in 'harold and maude'. had they
been really poor, they would have flunked out of school long ago, or
would be involved in crime and a kind of 'survivalist' violence. rich
people have enough money to help them put all their worries off their
minds. poor people are too busy trying to scrape by to think of
making grand statements. if there's violence among the poor, it's
tribalistic or criminal, like among street gangs or robbers.
working class and middle class people, on the other hand, don't have
enough to escape from everyday drudgery. they cannot fly off to some
casino or drive around in a fancy car. but, they are not so desperate
that they have to think about daily survival either economically or
socially. if you're poor, even if you have a full stomach and roof
over your head, the only way to socially survive may be to join a
street gang or keep quiet.
but, if you're working class and middle class, you find yourself
rubbing shoulders with those who are much better off than you. if you
go to highschool or college accomodating a student body that ranges
from working class to rich kids, you may feel both very poor and very
privileged. you may feel more poor because you're surrounded by those
richer than you. yet, you may feel more privileged because you get to
dilly dally with the rich kids. this creates inner tension.
indeed, take taxi driver. what really set off travis bickle was not
the misery and seediness of NY. he hated it but he saw it as social
reality. it's when he got involved with that blonde woman who
represented the privileged class. by taking her out, he felt
privileged. but, when she rejected him, he felt all the more poorer
than he really was.
and something similar might have happened with the gook on the
virginia tech mass murder.

the killer gook railed against 'rich kids'. now, this may seem strange
since his family is middle class. his sister is a graduate of
princeton. his parents owned a business. and, he could afford to go to
college. so, what's this 'rich kids' stuff? indeed, alot of kids at
V Tech were prolly from families making less money.
problem is 'richness' is a matter of perception. in 'high and low' by
akira kurosawa, a medical student feels very very poor despite his
promising future. and he makes the 'rich man' into a villain of his
imagination. the rich man--played by mifune--is actually a good man,
but the 'poor' medical student decides that he must be evil because
he's rich.

also, there may be an immigrant aspect of this. immigrants come to
the US and many work long long hours and save and scrape everything to
eke into middle class status and to send their kids to good schools.
you hear of mexicans who work several jobs, muslims who drive taxis
for 12 hrs everyday, asian storeowners who work 7 days a week, hindus
who operate gas stations from night to morning, etc. many such people
make it to middle class, but it was a very hard and difficult climb.
they often worked at dangerous jobs--especially taxi drivers. they
often had to deal with violence. many such folks worked so that their
kids could go to good schools and do what 'rich white people'--wasps
and jews--do, which is to make a lot of money without danger, with
benefits, with vacation time, with privilege, with full access to
society.
now, MOST kids of immigrant families are grateful to their parents and
to US--despite the hardships their families went thru to climb the
social ladder--and wanna fit in. but gook killer used his immigrant
family hardship as an excuse to justify his own crazy rage. it's as
though he's saying that people like him(or his family) had to really
struggle and scrape by to move up in the world while all those 'rich
kids'(and their parents and parents' parents) were all born to
privilege and goodies.
because 'rich kids'--meaning middle class americans--take everything
for granted, they don't understand the true value of money, freedom,
work, and such. maybe, gook boy saw himself as reminding the people of
the value of life by killing life. kooky and nuts, but this could be
how psychos think. remember maude--played by ruth gordon--in 'harold
and maude'? when harold asks maude why she steals cars, she says
she's only reminding people of the value of property by making them
miss it. you don't know the value of something unless you lose it.
this is essentially true but of course, no one has the right to take
away stuff--life or property--just to teach us some moral lesson. that
would be like kidnapping a child to remind the family of what the
child's value. of course, 99% of people already know the full value
of their loved ones, so we don't know what gook boy was really getting
at. maybe, he was actually projecting the lack of love in his family
onto other families. maybe, his parents spent alot of time working
and working and there was little time for family time or affection.
maybe he spent a lot of lonely time alone at home. maybe, the lack of
family time plus the hard 'sacrifice' of the parents led the kid to
feel both guilty for his parents' hardships and neglected/cheated by
his family.

gook boy said in his video manifesto 'it wasn't enough.. that you rich
kids had your vodkas, fancy cars, trust funds, etc'. many of us
thought this was just alot of delusional nonsense which made no sense
to anyone but to the killer, but we must understand that there is no
such thing as 'objective logic or rationality' when humans are
concerned. people are too complex. of course, most of us can agree
upon certain objective truths or truisms. but, even most normal
people have a hard time understanding one another. a successful
upper middle class black guy who says he's full of rage against white
america may seem loony or delusional to a white guy. here's a black
guy who's in the top 10% of the income bracket and he's bitching like
he's oppressed. or, when so many jews who make great money and have
much power still go on and on like they are living in ghettos and
surrounded by nazis, they sound both paranoid and morally self-
aggrandizing. most israelis and palestinian are NOT clinically
crazy, but they look upon the other side as though it is crazy. a jew
just can't understand a palestinian and vice versa. there is no
objective truth they can agree on. this is why there is so much
violence.
now, most people in the US can agree on certain objective truths or
truisms. and even if we don't--as between christian fundies and
radical secularists--, most of have a live-and-let-live attitutude.
hardline secularists may see fundies as nuts and vice versa, but most
people of both persuasion tolerate the other and believe the other
side should have the freedom to live under their mad delusions or
satanic inclinations. most fundies don't wanna burn secularists at
the stake. and most secularists don't wanna burn down churches and
shoot fundies in the backs of their heads.
now, there are some people who are mentally so unstable that there is
a far greater discrepancy or distance between generally shared reality
(or perception of reality) and their own personal sense of reality(or
perception of themselves). the movie that was brilliant on this
subject was 'mulholland dr' by david lynch. the first 2/3 of the movie
is about some talented blonde actress in a kind of surreal alice-in-
wonderland-ish world. in some ways this world is discernible, but in
other ways it's absurd and illogical. in the last 1/3 of the movie,
we learn that the first 2/3 of the movie is the meta-reality fantasy
of an untalented actress named diane selwyn. suddenly, everything in
the first 2/3 start falling into place. every character, every event,
every conflict starts making sense--in relation to the sordid reality
of diane selwyn(dreams and fairytales have an allegorical relationship
to 'objective' reality). selwyn is just a hollywood failure with no
future. her friend--formerly her lesbian lover--has a future in
hollywood and will mingle with the glorious hollywood elite.... yet
selwyn is zero, a nothing. so, in her dream or fantasy world, she
creates an alternative reality where she's the talented one, where she
has control over her friend, and there are vast forces at work to keep
her down. it's a romantic paranoid fantasy. when we connect the
dots from the reality of diane selwyn to the surreality of her
fantasies, even her fantasy starts making sense. it has its own logic,
its own rationality. indeed, complexes are not complex but merely
frustrated complications of simple urges or hopes. a guy may simply
want poon; unable to get it, he may hallucinate about god and devil.
complexes can arise from ideology--which fills us with guilt about our
natural desires--or from nature(someone who's naturally ugly will not
get any poon even in a world without sexual repressions. he's simply
'oppressed' by his very natural ugliness).

in 'taxi driver', we are very close to the psycho and are with him at
almost every moment. in 'mulholland dr'. we are really INSIDE the
psycho woman's mind.
if we venture inside gook boy's mind, his insanity starts making
sense; it starts to have a logic and rationality of its own.
gook boy said, 'it's not enough that you had fancy cars, vodka, trust
funds, etc' and blah blah. this sounds like incoherent nonsense, but
we must see things from the perspective of the psycho. and the best
introduction to his lunacy is the second episode in 'three extremes'(a
trilogy of asian horror films). the second film is by park chan wook--
also famous for "old boy". in that movie--a kind of MTV meets david
lynch--, an handsome wealthy famous filmmaker comes home and is
confronted by a poor, ugly, angry psycho. the ugly poor psycho says
almost exactly what gook boy said on the tape. gook boy said, 'it's
not enough that.. blah blah blah'. in the movie, the psycho says the
same thing, and what did he mean? he meant that the rich successful
guy isn't only wealthy, well-off, famous, etc, etc but also pretending
to be enlightened, decent, compassionate, and such. it's one thing
for the rich and handsome to be crassly rich and narcissistic. but, in
our modern culture, people who are MOST successful aren't simply
content with all the goodies they got. they also gotta pose as
moralists and humanitarians. as if all the goodies they got aint
enough, they also gotta monopolize or hog morality. we see this among
guys like bill gates and warren buffett. it's not enough that they
ruthlessly beat competitors left and right and made billions. they
also must have all of us see them as mr. wonderfuls, as billionaire
saints. or, think of all those kids who go to harvard and princeton
and so on. all these ivy leaguers want to be among the best among the
best. they look down on public universities and would feel insulted
if they went to the kinds of schools most of us go to. they wanna
belong to the super elite, mingle with only the best(smartest or most
promising), and make more money or wield more influence than we do.
yet, they are always saying they are rising to the very top for OUR
benefit. it's like we are all sappy poor sheep who need to be
condescended to by the super rich and successful. it's like they are
driving to succeed and reach the very top not out of egotism or greed
but out of compassion; to take care of us all. this is evident in
people in hillary clinton who tells us that she wants to be most
powerful person in the world... for the benefit of us saps and losers.
she wants to be supermother or supernanny to all of us. we see self-
centeredness mixed with selflessness.
this is why for many americans, donald trump is far less offensive to
their sensibilty than someone like larry brin of google, oprah, or
madonna. trump is an out-and-out capitalist pig, and he makes no bones
about it. you can hate him or love him, and that's that.
but, billionaires like brin of google or steven skol formerly of ebay
have made billions as greedy 'capitalist pigs' but they wanna buy
recognition as modern day saints. yes, billionaire saints, kinda like
secular rev. mhoon. how phony.
this kind of moralistic vanity has become disseminated to the culture
at large, largely thru hollywood. we have angelina jolie, brad pitt,
madonna, and many others--all greedy, egotistical, vain, bratty,
spoiled, piggish celebrities--going to africa, making speeches,
adopting babies, hogging international spotlight on themselves, etc in
the name of 'caring' and 'social consciousness'. we have bruce
springsteen signing a 500 million dollar contract and still carrying
on the scthick as a card carrying blue collar union member. and this
mindset has seeped down to the rest of us thru stuff like LIVE AID
where millions of kids around the world party to rock music, dance,
get down, have drug orgies, and such in the name of fighting poverty
and caring about poor folks in africa. i mean gimme a break. our
social morality is a sick blend of crass marketing, hedonistic orgy
making, and pompous holier-than-thou-isms. notice that alot of
people who show up at such events are rich millionaires or kids of
rich folks. yet, they seem to think they are so noble, conscientious,
or innocent because they either (1) have a readymade enemy in multi-
national corporations or (2) criticize themselves in token fashion and
assuage their fashionable guilt by purchasing some environmentally
friendly 'green' appliances.
so, you will have rich liberal guys who indulge in air travel, much
electricity usuage, and etc, but feel ever so superior to conservative
guys because they, as liberals, at least express fashionable guilt
about it, make angry noises about the oil companies, vote democratic,
and/or buy some high priced gadget like an energy saving coffee
machine.
now, most of us can either be annoyed by this or laugh at it. but, a
mental case like gook boy took it personally. he was so outside the
orbit of social reality and norms that he felt a kind of purist
radical anger at all the failings and compromises and hypocrisies of
society. he was like the kid in 'catcher in the rye'. i wonder if it's
a good thing to teach that book in school. life is about complexity,
about compromises, etc. but that novel makes kids--at a very
impressionable age--sympathize most with some nutkid who's angry at
the world. granted, the kid wasn't murderous but he was suicidal.
gook boy was like him except he was not only suicidal but also
homicidal.
it's possible that gook boy felt especially angry at the world and
with himself because his sister was a graduate of princeton. maybe
having come from an asian background, the family praised his sister
because of her academic successes. the family might have made him
feel like his sister's smart and successful, whereas he's stupid and
only made it to V Tech. now, V Tech may be a good school but,
princeton belongs to the elite among the elite. his sister also took
some job working for Iraq aid, and perhaps his anger was also directed
at his sister also. again, we have someone--his sister--who went to
the top of the top--best school, success, etc--and then found a job
helping the 'poor'. poor people without pride don't mind rich and
successful people helping them out. but to poor people with pride,
it's an insult. now, gook boy was not a poor kid. but, he may have
felt poor and loser-ish because he failed to meet the high
expectations of asian family life. some cultures expect more from
kids. this is why some kids from certain backgrounds freak out if they
get an A- instead of an A+ on every test paper. they might be
getting all A's and then one B and they suddenly think they are sooooo
stupid and worthless. so, gook boy may have felt loserish and 'poor'
for many different personal reasons. his rantings may seem delusional
from a overall general social perspective, but from his own
perspective it makes sense.

also, asian males, being the geeks that many of them are, have a very
narrow definition of success in the US. whites, white hispanics, and
even negroes may see success in many ways: economic, athletic, sexual,
social, etc. the image of the white guy or white hispanic can be
lover boy, smart guy, leader, studly guy, rock n roller, rich guy,
etc. the image of the negro can be athlete, stud, noble voiced negro
(like martin king), badass mofo, and even rich person(like oprah).
now, asian women may have multi-faceted successful roles in the US,
from exotic sex kitten, smart person, and so on. but, the ONLY
successful model for asian males in the popular image is the smart
dorkass geek. if an asian male isn't smart, then he's nothing. if he
can't be a whiz with computers, what's he good for? he's too short and
gimpy to be athletic. he's too withdrawn, shy, and small peckered to
be a loverboy. he's too nasally and whiny voiced to be a singer or
noble sounding leader with a commanding voice. he's too rigid and lame
to be like a rock star. of course, there are asian males of all
stripes, but we are talking of public or popular perception. american
social image of the asian male is that of gimpass geek dork, and so
the ONLY way to success is to be a computer geek. as asian males are
perceived to be lacking in social skills, asian smartness is usually
defined as following others, not leading them. anyway, if gook boy
had been really really smart, he might have succeeded as an asian geek
male. but, he wasn't that smart though smart enough to go to V tech.
it may be enough to be reasonably smart for a white, white hispanic,
or negro male. they have other assets such as looks, height, manly
voice, etc. but, the ONLY asset asian males may have is smarts to do
computer and geeky stuff. gook boy either had no such smarts or had
no interest in following the model of asian geek male success. he
wanted to be an asian terminator badass mofo.



2. sexual reason. sexual reasons account for many many murders, but
most of this kind tend to be limited to those personally involved. a
man may blow his top when he finds out his wife cheated on him. so he
kills his wife and the man who done bang her(like cody's father in
'country boys', the superb documentary by david sutherland). he
usually doesn't go around shooting up the whole neighbborhood.
still, as freud said, sexuality is at the root of much of our
consciousness and emotions. was there a sexual component to the
gook's rampage thru the campus? was it simply his personal problem or
did it exemplify the frustrations of asian males in general? and why
did he kill so many?
let us suppose the gook's mental state was representative of that of
asian males in general. if we speculate thus, what is the reason for
the frustration? is it because of the popular image of asian male as
geeky, gawky, timid, small dicked, whiny voiced, and dorkass? do
asian males feel threatened sexually and socially excluded? they may
feel that while white/black/hispanic males are taking asian females,
asian males can't get the same access to white/hispanic/black
females.
asian males may feel that while asian females are given glamorous or
sexy roles as news hosts and hollywood stars, most asian male
stereotypes are that of geeks, nerds, and gimps. and sports, which is
what americans are most passionate about, is mostly for blacks and
some whites and almost no gooks, chinks, or japs. this being the
case, the gook kid at virginia tech may have felt sexually belittled,
threatened, and excluded. he may not have been insulted personally by
the kids on the campus. in fact, most kids prolly treated him in a
nice manner. but, he may have reacted to the culture-at-large which he
found belittling of asian maledom.
in 'taxi driver', upon being rejected by cybill shepard travis bickle
blames the woman as a whore. because she rejected him, the problem
must be with her, not with him. she's a whore and the candidate she's
working for is a pimp. and so bickle must cleanse the world of such
scum.
it's possible that the gook kid on virginia tech felt the same. maybe
he understood that he had no access to non-asian pussy because non-
asian women don't see asian males as being masculine and sexually
desirable. so, his hope was with asian chick. but, suppose some asian
chick he was madly cuckoo about went off with a whitey, blacky, or
hispanicky. or a jewey. the gook kid might have blown his top.
maybe he felt like, 'i'm not after white, black, or hispanic pussy,
only for asian pussy. but even asian pussy--the cute ones anyway--are
going to the whiteys, blackies, hispanickies, and jeweys'.
in this regard, it makes sense why he murdered so many. notice that
one of his first victims was a black male. and then he went to
engineering department and shot a lot of whites, men and women. he
might have shot the men as robbers of asian pussy. and he might have
shot white females as being out-of-reach of his weeny wiener.

indeed, there have been many mass killings where sexuality played a
significant role. sometimes, the killing itself is sexually charged.
in other cases, the killer has serious sexual problems, even if not
related specifically to his violence.
david chapman wasn't sexually interested in lennon or yoko, but he had
many sexual failures in his life. john hinckley was a stalker who was
nuts over jodie foster and had this crazy notion that the only way he
could declare his love for her was to shoot ronald reagan. both were
trying to make 'ideological' statements. it was ideological in the
sense that the personal became political. they felt themselves to be
losers, nobodies, ordinary, dull, unknown, etc. they couldn't gain
the attention of the world thru genuine greatness--making alot of
money, being a glamorous movie star, coming up with a cure for cancer,
building new machines, etc--, so there was only the shortcut which was
to commit some horrendous act of murder which, of course, gets the
media spotlight; it was the adult equivalent of some unpopular boy
getting attention by dangling a frog in front of girls he likes--he
can't win their affection so just wants their attention(even if
negative). as much as we denounced these killers, they ALWAYS get
what they want. they are not looking for love but attention, even
respect. even as we hate and loathe them, they feel a certain respect
because with fear and loathing comes a degree of awe and even
respect. indeed, we feel this way about the gods. gods may send
floods and kill millions. we worship them, we respect them. if there
is a hell, that gook kid is prolly there enjoying the fact that people
now know his name. he's become an infamous figure. he wanted this.
in this regard, one could argue that timothy mcveigh doesn't really
figure into this picture because he really wanted to make an escape.
yes, he wanted to make a statement but his act was more strictly
political and ideological than personal-into-political. personal-into-
political may be called I-deological. it's really about the "I".
it's about "I" am so miserable, lonely, frustrated, rejected, and
unknown to others; so the whole rotten world has to know about me, or
"I". some losers may not really care if nobody cares; they just wanna
be left alone. but, some people may be born with contradictory
personalities. one side may be shy, quiet, loner-ish, timid. but,
another side may be megalomanical, egocentric, powerlusting, etc.
in a way, nietszche was like this. he was really a sickly quiet
individual with all sorts of phobias and he was unsuccessful with
women, mostly. but, he raged on and on thru his philosophy about the
will to power and such and such. thank god he didn't own guns.
the case of kim jong il may be looney because he's exactly like the
gook kid who shot up the campus. kim is both insanely megalomaniacal
and very hermetic. he's like a turtle that seeks to hide in his shell
but be admired like a roaring lion. this is why we gotta watch his
nuclear program carefully. he's mad enough to do something totally
nuts because he's more I-deological than ideological. it's all about
HIM.

in 'the assassination of richard nixon', we also see a character who's
sexually frustrated. he is separated from his wife and he wants to
get her back. but, she seems to be slipping out of his grasp. so what
does he do? he channels his frustration more and more to political
hatred and violence.
in the columbine case, it was suggested that the two killers were
homosexual lovers. it could have been that they were bullied for
being gay or faggoty. or, maybe what set them off on the rampage was
a tension between their gayness and their gungho-ness. if they had
simply been faggoty, they might have handled their sexual problems
better. or, had they simply been gungho-ish and straight, they might
have adjusted better. but, they were maybe both. how do you juggle or
balance gayness with gunghoness? those kids were really into gun
culture, violent videogames, macho stuff, badass stuff. yet, they
were also maybe gay and oh-so-sensitive. this may have caused some
tremendous inner tension. it could have led to much self-loathing and
anger. think of yukio mishima who was both gay AND gungho. and
there's been some indication that hitler was both gay and macho.
now, there's no indication that the gook kid was gay, but he too
suffered under some great contradiction in character and psychology.
he wasn't just a loner; he also wanted to be a BIG MAN. some loners
are happy to be loners, nobodies.
and some people are happy to be outgoing and social and so on. but,
what if someone has a loner personality but actually wants to be
known, respected, and admired? that may create some big tensions.

sexual tensions and problems exist in all peoples and communities and
take on different complexes depending on the social/historical
situation.
consider some of the following.
there has been the slavic sexual obsession with mongol threat. for
300 yrs, mongols rampaged thru russia and raped countless women. to
this day, there is much white russian fear of those slanty eyed mongol
asiatic savages.
there has been the 'aryan' sexual obsession of the jews, especially by
hitler and nazis. this view saw aryan as noble, beautiful, and tall
while it saw the jew as ugly, hideous, hairy, and digusting. it saw
race mixing as the defilement of a beautiful flower by an ugly weed.
there has also been the jewish sexual obsession with the goyim
shikse. this is most tellingly told in 'portnoy's complaint' and
norman mailer's book on 'marilyn monroe'. in both books, there are
long harangues about sexual confusion and self-loathing, about the
throbbing jewish pud lusting after blonde shikse. it was especially
hilarious when mailer described his fantasy of having sex with marilyn
monroe as shooting six million of his jewish semen up into her blonde
aryan poon. the jewish obsession with the shikse is, in some ways,
built on the self-image of the 'ugly jew' lusting after the gorgeous
shikse. in other words, the jew find some kind of sick pleasure in
defiling the altar of blonde poon with his wily 'hook nosed' jism.
mailer was always good for laughs.
there has been the white sexual obsession--especially in the south--
with the negro. in many ways, it still exists. this is largely
predicated on the white male fear of black male domination. white
males--especially southern ones--have long feared losing white male
pride when confronted with the tougher, studlier, and meaner maleness
of the negro.
and the black negro sexual obsession can be found in 'soul on ice'
where elridge cleaver goes on and on about how he lusted after white
women and etc. the white woman is the forbidden fruit. also,
getting the white woman is to establish dominance over white men. it's
a way to get back for all the white male suppression of black manhood
and 'raping black women'.
of course, this led to much black female sexual obsession where many
black women murderously hate white women for 'stealing' black males.
this was one of the reason why so many black women were not
sympathetic to nicole simpson during the OJ murder trial. many
couldn't have cared less if OJ was really the murderer. the black
women were glad that the white bitch--one who stole OJ--was dead.
when black women see black men with white women, they get fuming mad.
among asians, women are seen as exotic and appealing by many males of
all races. but, asian males are seen by culture-at-large as geeks,
gimps, dorks, nerds, etc. some asian males adapt to this image by
accepting their dorkiness. but, some asian guys get pissed. and even
though the gook killer didn't say so, it's very possible that his main
frustration was sexual, as with travis bickle(and ethan character in
'the searchers' in relation to the indians). we talk of racial
equality and diversity and such and such, but in fact, nature is
racist in the sense that it didn't create races equally. we can't
just fool ourselves with politically correct lies. we can't say that
all these sexual obsessions are 'irrational' or 'unfounded' in reality
or purely delusional or fantastical. some of these obsessions can get
out of hand and lead to mayhem such as what happened at V tech, but
there is alot of such feelings all around. and it's not just a matter
of cultural stereotypes. stereotypes are unfair and simplifying BUT
they arise from certain general truths. given the racial differences
among the races, you can expect certain races to be more sexually
frustrated.
among black men, you see alot of frustration because success in modern
america largely depends on brain power, patience, and diligence. these
qualities are often missing among black males so alot of black men
fail in life. they cannot win the best 'hos'. so, they grow angry
and sip songs about all them rotten ho's.
the fact is most people think white women are prettier than black
women. this could be cultural or it could be biological. we don't
know for sure. but the fact is alot of black women are frustrated
because of the shortage of good black men to marry. and the ones with
qualifications often go with the prettier white women.
and there are gonna be asian guys who are relatively short, scrawny,
and shy(negative in american society) due to lower hormonal levels,
and therefore feel excluded from the sexual marketplace.
this is all the more frustrating because our schools and media teach
us from cradle that we are all equal and we live in a colorblind
society where the ONLY difference among peoples is skin color.
there is such divergence between rhetoric and reality that there is
already much defacto segregation, ethnocentricism, and such operating
in our society.
now, matters such as this are too hot and 'dangerous' to be touched by
mainstream news which dismisses all such truths as 'delusional' or
'irrational'. but unless we look into such matters, we will never
truly understand the layers of anger, rage, frustration, and such in
american society. this doesn't mean gook boy was rational or that his
actiosn were in any way justifiable. indeed, he himself repressed
what might may have been truly driving him crazy. what steve dahl(of
chicago radio) said could have been true. gook boy's problem was 'he
didn't get laid'. dahl said that was also the problem with muslim
terrorists. of course, gook boy and muslims will NEVER admit such
was the reason for their lunacy. it's too embarassing to admit. so,
they dress up their frustration as some great holy crusade against
evil and wickedness.

now, i'm not totally sure the primary reason for gook boy's rampage
was sexual. after all, most frustrated asian males don't go killing.
they either watch a lot of porn on the net and whank off OR find
brides in asia and bring them to america. muslims are also known to do
this quite often.
indeed, the MAIN reason for the mayhem was that the gook boy was
Crazy. but, all craziness feeds on certain obsessions, real life
frustrations. gook boy went crazy in the USA, so we must look at his
nuttiness in the context of asian male in american society. in korea
or elsewhere, his lunacy may have surfaced differently. if he had
lived in UK or france,, he prolly wouldn't have had acess to guns.
but, his sickness would have been just the same. he wouldn't have
killed alot of people, but the soul that wished to kill alot of people
would have been there. the soul was prolly born sick. but, what
made it sick in a certain way? that has to be seen in terms of social
reality.

some people have said what gook boy really need was sex. after all,
freud wasn't far wrong i saying sexuality is at the core of what makes
us tick. but as true as this might have been with gook boy, it's
easier said than done. after all, what girl would have given herself
to gook boy? the fact is it was almost impossible for gook boy to get
pussy. he was ugly, and so no girl would have gone for his ass. he
was also shy so he was socially too inept to attempt to get pussy. a
few times he tried, he was charged with stalking. if a handsome cool
guy goes after a girl, she calls it courtship. if some ugly gimpass
kids goes after her, she calls it stalking. and gook boy was an ugly
motherfuc*er. on top of that, it didn't help matters that he's asian,
which means that in the context of american cultural stereotypes, he
belongs to a race of short, gimpy, nerdy voiced, four-eyed, small
peckered dorkboys. he may have been seen this way by most girls, and
he may have considered himself as such, which fed his self-loathing
which then fed his need for self-boosting and hatred at all those who
would dare look down on his dorkboy ass.

with losers, their problems are always easier said than done. after
all, suppose some guy is really depressed due to academic reasons. we
can glibly say all he really needed was to have gotten admitted to
some ivy league school; this could indeed be correct. but, what if the
kid is too dumb have gotten a good SAT score? too dumb to have gotten
good grades?
so it goes with gook boy. he might have been much happier if he had
pussy, but how could he get any? i suppose he could have gotten ugly
pussy but suppose he had high standards for himself. he wanted good
pussy, but good pussy--white, asian, etc--was out of his reach. so,
his jism just piled up inside his balls and went to his brain and
drove him nuts.

of course, by the time he went nuts, no amount of pussy could have
stopped him. everyone reaches a point of no return. think of the
buddhist acolyte in yukio mishima's 'temple of the golden
pavillion'. the stuttering fool finally has sex with some whore, but
by that point his mind was already made up to destroy the golden
pavillion. so, even if gook boy could have had an orgy the night
before his massacre, he would carried out the massacre. once hatred
takes over a person and becomes a personal ideology, nothing can stop
him. this is why farrakhan will always be an anti-semite. in his
youth, he felt such growing animosity toward jews who ripped off
blacks in the musical industry that even if jews today were to give
him all the money and such, he would interpret such in terms of evil-
jewish-plan. he would think jews are simply trying to buy him off, to
buy his favors.
this is why hitler couldn't be assuaged or reasoned with. by the time
he took power, his ideology was set so deeply in the stone of his
heart that nothing could have deterred him from his ultimate goal.
same with gook boy. suppose he could have an massive orgy on the
night before the massacre. he still would have gone on with the
massacre. indeed, he would have interpreted the orgy as a vindication
of his life. he would have thought, 'yes, i really am a badass and
that's why all these girls are kneeling before me because they are
awed by my rage and arrrgghhhh-ish aura'.
when chamberlain tried to deal with hitler, hitler didn't see a
gentleman who wanted to make deals. he saw a faggoty-ass bourgeois
turd shaking with fear. chamberlain wanted to send a message of
peace but only sent a message of capitulation and weakness.
this is why it's so foolish trying to make deals with guys like al
sharpton and farrakhan. their ideologies are set in their stony
hearts. as they are also naturally self-centered and egotistical
individuals, they cannot budge an inch. they may sometimes pretend to
be conciliatory but it's never sincere but purely tactical. this is
why liberals are so stupid in dealing with monsters.



3. spiritual reason. now, spiritual reason may be linked with
economic and sexual reasons. it could be that those more elemental
problems became repressed and rationalized into spiritual reasons.
indeed, alot of spiritual fanatics and purists are actually sexually
repressed lunatics or rabble rousers posturing as noble saints. many
muslim fanatics are sexually screwy and repressed. and someone like al
sharpton and louis farrakhan use spirituality to gain power in the
material world.
but, spiritual reasons do take on a life of their own. thus far, there
is no indication that this gook kid was spiritual in the religious
sense. but, his statements on 'rich kids' and 'charlatans' suggest
that he was not just angry that others had more than he BUT that
having more or being rich is itself sinful or wicked. it could be that
he repressed his material envy into spiritual superiority. indeed,
alot of muslims in poor nations do this too. initially, they gawk at
western riches and want them. but, they see that such riches are out
of their reach, and figure all that stuff is sinful and wicked. it
makes them feel better. a lot of communists were purist in this sense
too. communists may have been envious of capitalist riches but never
could admit such. so, they turned communist poverty into some kind of
spiritual grace and purity. it was as though, 'we commies are poor
but because we are noble and don't exploit other people'. think of
the cultural revolution in china which targeted 'capitalist roaders'.
that was kinda like this virginia rampage multiplied by a million
times.

to an extent, college campuses are a hotbed for spiritual cleansing.
it's not just college campuses in the US but in madrasas in the middle
east. we often hear professors like ward churchill talking of the
evil of american capitalism, piggish americans, 1000 little eichmanns,
and such and such. rich whites are evil, we are told over and over.
americans are rich, fat, hedonistic, parasitic, imperialistic, etc,
etc. most radical professors don't literally tell their students to
go out and kill rich imperialistic white folks(that would be like
telling white kids to kill their own parents), BUT there is a sense
that white people have committed most of the evil around the world and
are rich only by robbing everyone else. the logic of this is white
people's wealth, privilege, freedoms, and even goodness are all built
on the bones, blood, sweat, and suffering of non-white folks.
most kids who are swayed by this kind of teaching do not become
killers. most of them do not want to go to jail for revolutionary
violence. they want a good life. so, many of them take this rage and
hatred and use them for their doctoral thesis and get a Ph.D and
poison the minds of another generation of kids.
popular culture glorifies bands like the Clash and Rage against the
Machine which explicitly calls for ultra violence against the sick
evil capitalist order. the album 'give em enough rope' by the Clash
has an image of a dead cowboy below mao zedong atop a horse.
and hollywood gave us V for Vendetta which says christian
conservatives are rich evil sick fuc*s who must be stopped with super
violence. and steven soderbergh is giving us 'Passion of Che
Guevara', glorifying an anti-american psycho who hated khrushchev for
suing for peace during the cuban missile crisis and thereby robbing
cubans to shoot off nukes at US in a glorious suicidal war in the name
of world socialism. che was also the guy who said every latin american
must be turned into a 'cold killing machine' invested with absolute
HATRED for the enemy. his ultimate vision was latin america united by
communism and then spreading its revolution to north america and
bringing down yankee anglo power by killing bushels of fat ugly
capitalist white americans. today, we have tremendous illegal
immigration to the US from latin american nations, and soderbergh is
targeting the minds of those kids by making che guevara movie. as far
as soderbergh is concerned, young hispanic kids in the US should look
up to che rather than to the founding fathers. che the latin macho
stud, che the radical anti-american revolutionary. we are in
trouble.
and, then there's rap music which has filled so many kids--mostly
black but alot of white and hispanic as well--from cradle with ugly,
hatefilled, murderous rage.
and Ms. magazine once ran a cover that blared, "Rage + Women =
Power". rage is all the rage, especially among rappers and radicals.

now, this isn't to say that the gook kid was a leftist. he probably
wasn't. stricly in a political sense, he was prolly just kooky,
neither right nor left but simply I-deological. his personal problems
and anguish were his real politics. but, it's true that our culture
is very violent not just in terms of gun violence but in terms of
ideology and politics. and much of this hatred and violence is
directed at ourselves. we often hear that america is to blame,
america is the main force of evil in the world. indeed, US exports
much anti-americanism because american universities are hotbeds of
radical professors--many of them leftwing jewish--who write many books
which get translated and read all over the world. the gook kid was
from south korea, a nation which has been greatly impacted by the
ideas of noam chomsky, bruce cumings, and such academics who tell
people around the world that US sucks. when hugo chavez gave a speech
at the UN, whose book was he holding up? chomsky.
the idea that US government and businesses are responsible for
international oppression, imperialism, aggression, exploitation, etc,
necessarily leads to the conclusion that all americans are to blame
for those things. so, osama bin laden went from hating the US
government to the american people. he believed that all americans
were happy to consume like pigs, have wicked sinful fun, and spread
their filth around the world thru jewish dominated hollywood or ugly
american travelers. and palestinian terrorists target israeli
civilians because they figure that israeli civilians support the
israeli government. NO ONE is innocent once we start thinking
politically.
we say all germans are to blame for nazism. we say all japanese are
to blame for japanese imperialism. we say all whites are to blame for
slavery and 'racism'.
so, who is 'innocent'? a palestinian figures an israeli baby will
grow up to serve in the israeli army and oppress pallies in the west
bank. the taliban and alqaeda figures all americans, as voters who
elected their leaders and as piggish consumers who gluttonishly eat up
all the world's raw materials and supplies, are no less responsible
than the US leaders.
to an extent, we all feel this way. this is why we didn't care too
much about bombing dresden or hiroshima. no german nor japper was
really innocent in a total sense. some were more innocent than others
but all played some part in working for the axis war machine.

but that was WWII. what happend to this gook kid to make him feel
that he was so wronged, oppressed, marginalized, etc? we must see
his problem as 99% personal and psychological. but, precisely because
sick minds cannot see reality as reality, they fail to see their own
problem as their own problem. it's like travis bickle failed to see
his problem as his own problem.
to an extent, no one's problem is entirely his own problem. we are
all social creatures, and as such we all respond to what's happening
around us.
but, when something like columbine, amish school killings, laurie dann
killings, or virginia tech killings happens, we know these individuals
have really lost all sense of reality. and they are all ultra selfish
because they fail to understand that OTHER people have their own
realities, problems, and issues to deal with.

anyway, we shouldn't be too surprised by the level of hatred among so
many. much of this could be a reaction to social reality, but it
could also be a matter of what we are being taught thru movies, books,
music, schools, etc. we teach alot of violence. among the right
tards, there is much emphasis on how it's cool to have guns and shoot
up stuff. among the left tards, the hatred is more intellectualized.
it's targeted mainly at 'privileged white males' who supposedly run
all the corporations, exploit the world, and do alot of bad shi*.
though leftist professors don't tell students to go out and kill, the
logic of their teachings would indicate that the noblest thing to do
in life is to emulate che guevara who decided to arm himself with guns
and wage revolutionary war against capitalism and the US. indeed, 60s
was a time when armed negro students and leftists took over campuses
and forced administrators to agree to their demands at gunpoint. it
worked and left a terrible precedent, as allan bloom once wrote in his
book. it's funny that the left NEVER condemns the use of guns or gun
violence in the 'revolutionary' context.

another reason for the spiritual malaise could be multiculturalism and
the sheer size of the USA. most advanced nations tend to be more
homogenous and small geographically. there is a more tightknit sense
of national family, identity, and such and such. the swiss are armed
to the teeth but they don't go around killing one another. israel is
also heavily armed but is not a nutcase society like the US. most
advanced european nations and japan are small nations with limited
population within a tight geographical border. you always who you
are, where you are, and what you are.
in the US, it's great to be a free individual in vast spaces. but,
this can also have an alienating effect. it's like the blimp is big
and expansive but hollow inside. alot of americans feel this way. this
is more so with the rise of multiculturalism which has robbed
americans of a sense of americanness. there used to be a time when
americans were italian-AMERICANS, asian-AMERICANS, hispanic-AMERICANS,
black-AMERICANS, irish-AMERICANS. today, we are ITALIAN-americans,
ASIAN-amerians, HISPANIC-americans, etc. there is much less sense of
americanness, one and whole. this may be most acute among asians
because they are smallest in number among the populace. whites have
many others whites, hispanics have many other hispanics, and blacks
have many other blacks. asians, as a small minority, don't feel
confident by simply being asian in america; to be 'asian' in american
means belonging to a small fragmented minority(all the more so cuz
chinese, koreans, japanese, indians, philippinos, indonesians,
pakistanis, malayans, vietnamese, etc have little linguistic or
cultural commonality). but, as the idea of 'americanness' has been
weakened, asians don't know what kind of culture to conform to. it's
not advantageous to call attention to one's asianess cuz all it means
is one belongs to a very small minority. but, what do you conform to
when we are living in an increasingly 'multicultural society' with an
ever weakening idea of common american identity?

still, this sense of asian-alienation doesn't seem to the case with
the gook kid unless virginia tech was atypical in having only a
handful of asian students. we know that good many campuses have large
asian student bodies so most asians on campuses could prolly find
their cultural niche. this gook kid seems to have been a loner even
among asians.
it's possible that if he had access to guns in korea(suppose he
bypassed korea's strict gun laws) and attended a korean university, he
might have done the same thing... or maybe not. maybe there was
something to the sense of racial or cultural alienation that set him
off, or maybe not. he was most certainly a nutkid and would have been
abnormal in any place. BUT, it takes certain combination or
intersections of forces to set off or trigger the latent insanity in a
troubled person.
in the columbine case, we know it wasn't just one thing or another.
after all, if homosexuality was the reason, how come most homos dont'
go around killing? if bullying was the reason, how come most bullied
kids don't go killing? if violent music and videogames were the
reason, how come most kids into that stuff don't go killing? if bad
parenting was the reason, how come most kids of bad parents don't go
killing? it was prolly a combination of all these elements PLUS the
fact of their unique personalties and their weird friendship. it's
possible that if those two kids had gone to different schools, the
whole thing might not have happened. it's like if john lennon and
mccartney had never met, there never would have been the special
chemistry that made the beatles possible.

when something like this happens, we look for ONE reason, a SINGLE
explanation. we take a physical approach when a chemical approach
would bring us closer to the truth. it was a combination of force,
elements, and factors working in tandem, mixing in such a way in the
mind of the killer which led to this massacre. every factor should be
addressed but is inadequate in and of itself.

4. asian cultural/biological reason.

much of what i know of asian culture comes from bbc news, movies, and
articles by ian buruma and the like. from this, what can we learn
about the impact of asian culture and thinking on what happened in
virginia tech? now, this isn't to say that being asian makes one go
on a shooting rampage. there have been shooting rampagers of all races
in all places--colleges, highschools, workplaces, post offices, etc.
but, the character and the WHY of this particular rampage may have
been affected by the racial and the cultural background of the
nuthead. surely, a black guy has a different view of reality than a
white guy than an asian guy than an arab guy. all rampagers may be
nuts, but they are nuts in their own special way. so, all these
rampages have something in common but are also unique. it's like US
reason for war and aggression is likely to be different german reason
or japanese reason or russian reason. they are all about violence and
killing, but the perception and reasons are different.
also, we shouldn't say because a nuthead happens to be asian, white,
or black, all asians, whites, and blacks are gonna go killing. it
simply means that the particular rampage in consideration has a
certain cultural coloring or shading.
what were the cultural/biological factors in the case of the killer
gook? just think back to all those BBC accounts of asian culture,
specifically that of korea. and what strikes us most? there is an
element of bitterness in the korean mentality. a sense of bottled up/
victimized rage. unlike china and japan, korea was never a major
power which ruled over other folks. they were usually victims of other
folks. if japanese had to face up to their history of aggression and
face up the sickness in the japanese soul--as did the germans--after
WWII, koreans never felt this need. as far as they were concerned,
they were always wronged by bigger powers. ian buruma writes in
"god's dust" that koreans complain and complain about the Big Powers
but try so hard to be just like them. koreans bitch about japan and
the US, but wanna be like japan and the US. but, korea has never come
close. it's still way behind. because koreans see themselves mainly
as victims, they never took a hard look at their own culture of
violence.

this is a nation known for violence against women. a nation that
kills 2 million dogs in the cruelest fashion just because men believe
eating the meat of tortured dogs increases sexual libido. this is a
nation that flipped out at the seoul olympics. remember how the korean
security lept into the ring and beat up the australian referee for
making a penalty call against a korean boxer? it's a nation of
barbarians and bullies and savages, but all of whom bitch and whine as
victims of the world. in a way, korean are like the blacks of asia.
blacks in the US, because of their story of slavery, can ONLY see
themselves as victims and can never see the ugliness, hatred, and
violence in black culture and politics itself. to an extent, this is
also troubling among jews. jews, because of the holocaust, only see
themselves as victims. never mind that 100 million people died in the
20th century because of the ideological poison spread by leftwing
jewish intellectuals.
now, i don't mean to defame the entire korean nation. okay, they
suffered a great deal and we can sympathize with them as with anyone
else. but, there are no permanent victims and no permanent victors.
but, there is a self-righteous and bitter sense of victimhood in the
korean soul. politicians in korea try to milk japanese guilt for WWII
forever. i saw this japanese guy on Fareed Zarkawi's "foreign
exchange", and it was instructive as to how koreans just won't let the
past go.
korean lunacy was evident in the apollo ohno incident(2002 winter
olympics) where the korean speed skater was disqualified for entirely
justifiable reasons. the guy violated the rules and blocked ohno. ohno
was given the gold medal and that should have been it. but, the
korean idiot started kicking out all the pins on the ice track. and
then alot of koreans went totally insane and began to send a million
viruses to american computers. and they sent countless letters and
emails saying they wanted to kill apollo anton ohno. all this over
some stupid skating match. when ohno went to korea to compete a few
yrs later, there was a great show of hatred, murderousness, and sheer
madness. in the 1988 olympics, koreans went apeshit over some boxing
referee and attacked him. with ohno, koreans went insane and turned
ohno-hatred into a nazi rally. so, this is the korean mentality. a
sense of victimhood, bitterness, rage, and hatred for all the
perceived oppressors of koreans. of course, koreans don't complain
about how the fight with roy jones was fixed and jones was robbed of
the medal. that didn't seem to bother most koreans. so, we are
dealing with a very tightknit clannish and ultra nationalist culture.
south korea may be 1000x more cosmopolitan than north korea, but there
remains a culture of insularity and suspicion of outsiders. and this
has never been truly addressed as among germans, japanese, UK, and
americans who had been victors one time and had to admit their wrongs.
koreans had only been political victims on the world stage, so koreans
never really looked into the rottenness in their own heart.

the problem with the gook kid in virginia tech was he was an insular
clannish kid as an outsider. korea is overwhelmingly and homogenously
korean. if you're a bitter and angry korean in korea, at least you
have 40 million other gooks to share your sense of national bitterness
and self-righteous contempt of outsider oppressors--a kind of national
sport in korea. just look at BBC news reports of korean student
protest against US invasion of iraq. these gooks are living in a
democracy and have a prosperous economy thanks to the US, but they
show such hatred. when a US tank ran over some korean girl some yrs
ago, koreans clearly overreacted and turned it into another case of
apollo-ohno-ism. it was poor noble koreans being oppressed and
trampled by big bad outside power. anti-americanism is rife in
korea. there are many reasons for this. familiarity breeds contempt.
korea has been closely tied to the US that there has been alot of
tension arising from an inferiority complex. also, younger generation
of koreans are rebelling against what they regard as the slavish
admiration of the US by the older folks. also, as more and more
koreans get higher education, they come under the influence of leftist
korean university professors who got their learning in US colleges
taught by the likes of chomsky, edward said, and other leftist anti-
american loons. much of intellectual culture and ideas are dominated
by the left. indeed, the main cultural export of the US is rap music
and hollywood among the lower classes and 'intellectual' anti-
americanism among the educated classes. a whole generation of koreans
have grown up reading bruce cumings and noam chomsky. what we see is
a strange combo of ultra-nationalism and ultra-leftism. still, if you
live in korea, you may feel a part of the likeminded anti-american
crowd. but, what if you are loner gook in a US campus? you are not in
a nation of one race of people who agree on a lot of issues. in the
US, you find yourself an outsider, a nobody, and all your feelings
have no meaning in the american context. you go from a nut to a super-
nut.


now, we already mentioned the economic factor, but this may take on a
bigger significance in the asian context. we have rich and poor in
the US, but class consciousness is not a big thing in the US. this is
not so true in asia. class consciousness may matter somewhat less in
china because it went thru 25 yrs of hardline communism where being
rich was seen as evil. since then, we've seen great rise of rich
chinee but officially china is an egalitarian state.
japan, like china and korea, also had a strict class hierarchy, but
being a member of the merchant class was not seen as evil in japan.
japan traditionally respected success in fields such as artisanship,
business, etc, etc. this was because japan was ruled by the military
samurai than by the preeningly moralistic confucian bureaucracy.
but, korea was traditionally a nation where ONLY one position in life
was regarded with any real respect. it was to be confucian scholar or
bureaucrat. in a way, this was also the case in china, but mao's
revolution changed chinese society in a drastic way.
such violent political revolution never took place in SOUTH korea.
korea didn't break with the past but the rather the past morphed into
the present.
anyway, the problem with korean confucianism is that it was both anti-
materialistic and materialistic. an ideal confusian bureaucrat and
scholar was above wealth, privilege, and such. he was for culture,
truth, refinement. BUT, the only way to become a scholar or bureaucrat
was if your family had money earned thru taxing the land or merchant-
ism. and, once you gained power as a scholar and bureaucrat, you
often couldn't resist the temptatons of privilege and power--same
happened with the communists in USSR and elsewhere(committed to
egalitarian ideals but seeking office to gain favors and privilege).
korea has changed much since the old days, but some of the old class
bitterness, hatred, and rage lingers. what operates in the korean
class hierarchy is similar to what operates in korean relationship to
the rest of the world. korea feels itself the victim nation among
big oppressive nations, but much of this bitterness is about korea
wanting to be just as powerful, rich, and masterful as the big
nations. it's an envying kind of victimhood.

the same mentality exists among the korean classes. many koreans are
underclass, working class, or even middle class but they feel
oppressed, wronged, slighted, and such by those richer than they are.
it's a combination of intense envy and highfalutin moral self-
righteousness.
and, it's certainly not helped by the fact that alot of rich koreans--
who had been poor or not so rich--, upon gaining their privilege and
wealth put on airs and totally turn their back on the less
privileged. you can see this in mooies like 'bad guy', a truly nasty
korean movie where some loner outsider gook eyes a privileged girl,
stalks her, and tortures her. and then consider the hideously brutal
movies of park chan wook. many critics in the west admire park as
some kind of great auteur, as someone who intelligently explores the
sickness of the korean soul. but, i would argue that he merely wallows
in them. his segment in 'three extremes' is about class envy, sexual
complexes, bitterness, etc, etc. it was ugly. in 'sight and sound'
magazine, it's been noted that korean cinema traditionally have been
among the most sadistic, brutal, and hideous in the world. what does
this say about the korean soul? when i've seen a few at the art film
festival circuit, i must say most of them are indeed cruel and
digusting. there is kind of ugly combo of puritanism and
pornographism. the strong confucian(and recently christian
evangelical)element has created a sensibility that disdains impurity,
yet in denouncing this impurity, korean cinema goes to hideous
lengths. an average korean movie will have some guy tormenting a
woman because she's whore. or, it will torment a good woman to expose
that underneath her facade, she's really a whore. then upon exposing
this, the guy will feel ashamed for being so fascinated with her
whoriness. so, he will start beating on himself for his own impure
thoughts. and so on and on. it's like koreans cannot simply accept
that men and women like eachother and that's that. woman gotta be some
pure creature. she's so pure that it's impure to even think about
banging her. and if she bangs someone, she's whore, bitch, skank, and
must be tormented to expose her true nature. now, this kind of sexual
neurosis or psychosis exists in all culture. it's clearly there in
islamic culture. even in christian culture. even in secular culture--
just look at travis bickle in 'taxi driver'. there was some of this
even in germanic nazi culture. but, with the case of southern whites,
nazi germans, and such folks, the violence was essentially directed
outwards. it was a matter of keeping negroes, injuns, and jews away
from our 'white women'. otherwise, whites were happy to screw their
own women and that was that. this apparently isn't enough for koreans.
even when korean women are available ONLY to korean men, korean men
gotta act crazy.
also, koreans can't simply settle for a puritanical culture--like the
muslims--or for a pornographic culture--like americans--or for a live-
and-let-live discreet sexual culture--like europeans. koreans have
adopted two extremes--puritianism AND pornographism side by side.
there is hot and cold but no warm in korean culture. it's like
someone in a bathtub who turns on hot water, feels pain, turns on
cold, feels pain, turns on hot, feels pain, and so on and on. now, V
Tech gook boy grew up in the US since he was 8 yrs old and so we might
think he's more the product of american society than korean society.
but his family life and his community life may have been very korean
as some korean-americans tend to be insular. and as he was shy and
withdrawn, he prolly didn't absorb american social norms as most other
asian kids who freely mingled with american kids. it's possible that
the early formative yrs of gook boy--those first 8 yrs in korea--were
the most important in forging his character. as he didn't have a
social life in america, he never truly became american.

another problem for koreans is that korea, unlike samurai japan,
historically didn't have a functional male culture. one can be badass
male thru the japanese archetype of the sumo wrestler or samurai
warrior. such archetypes do exist in japan. in korea, being a male
meant either being some faggoty ass confucian scholar or some uncouth
peasant. there was no genuine male culture where the average guy
could feel like john wayne or toshiro mifune. he was always a kind of
dog, servile to some superior. the only way he could feel like a man
was by beating up his wife and kicking and eating his dog.
now, this psychological problem exists among chinese and jappers too,
as their societies are also hierarchical. but, it's worse among
koreans. just look at their movies. gangster movie 'friend' is a good
place to start.

anyway, maybe this gook kid thought he was being different than other
koreans whose idea of malehood was beating up women and eating dogs.
he would take on the big enemy, the USA, all those 'rich kids'.
maybe, he felt like the terrorist pilot of 9/11; he was taking on the
US which belittled his sense of self. all those rich white and even
black and sell-out asian kids were little eichmanns.
he would be like chow yun fat in a john woo movie to set things
straight. he would be like bruce lee kicking the 'no dogs and gooks
allowed' sign.
but, the strange thing is he was allowed and accepted in the US. he
was allowed into the US. he was allowed to live and study in the US.
he was most certainly treated nicely by most college students. he was
left alone. but, THAT could have been it. he was left alone. to a
nutty mind, being left alone could mean 'ignored', 'neglected',
'marginalized', 'discriminated against'. it could be he was used to a
society that recruited kids into a community and assigned roles for
them.
in the US, where you're supposed to find your own niche with your own
initiative, he might have felt out-of-it. now, why didn't the crazy
bugger just go back to korea? i guess same reason travis bickle just
couldn't leave NY. as much as he was appalled by america, he was also
attracted. america or NY meant the big time, the dream come true, the
place where everything happens. yet, nothing was happening to bickle
or gook boy. when they finally took the initiative to join the
community, they could only think in terms of baptism thru blood.
similarly, the terrorists on 9/11 reached the pinnacle of american
wealth and power by smashing into it with a plane.

some will say it's loose guns laws that led to this killing. but, we
might as well blame freedom itself. US is a nation where a bunch of
guys with box cutters had enough freedom to hijack an airplane and fly
it into a skyscraper. we should have stricter gun control. i always
say, no gun banning but more gun control. background checks, waiting
period, etc, the whole works. but, even with such controls, we'll
still have killings like this if a nutjob is determined enough.
and, let's remember that cornel university kow-towed to the demands of
black students at gun point. what kind of precedent did that
establish?

now, what about the biological aspect of the killer's asian-ness? was
there something asian in his cold blooded methodicalness? was this
somewhat different than the killings of jewish athletes in munich by
arabs? evil is not limited to one race but different races tend to
exhibit it differently. himmler was very germanic and methodical in
his mass murder. hutus in rwanda danced and sang while they killed.
was there something uniquely asian about this massacre? and was there
a uniquely asian racial aspect to this sickness?
this isn't to say that asians are not hotheaded. indeed, we see alot
of hotheaded lunacy on BBC news of asia. but, it looks asian hotheaded
tends to be more collective than individualistic. asians only act up
and get brash when they feel safe in numbers. on an individual basis,
they tend to be inhibited, reserved, withdrawn. is this why the gook
kid's sickness was harder to identify in the earlier stages. he kept
it largely to himself?
a case of asian communal activism and rage was evident when a bunch of
koreans abducted a US soldier from a subway and forced him to
apologize to the korean people for the victims who got trampled under
a US tank. the incident happened when a bunch of anti-american korean
activists were passing out flyers to subway riders. the american
soldier declined to take one. argument erupted which led to physical
violence upon which the gang of koreans abducted the US soldier. now,
it's unlikely that a single korean would have picked an argument or
fight with the american, but in a group setting they all acted as one,
like crazy robots.
the chilling thing about the gook kid on virginia tech is he acted
alone. but, then he may have felt he was being propelled by bigger
ideas and bigger forces, that he was serving a larger cause.

if the danger of negroness is the overt uninhibited savagery that we
see among so many urban thugs, the danger of asianness is the ultra
inhibited, inscrutable, withdrawn, and slavish personality. in a
slavish asian setting, such people may feel more at home. but, in the
open culture of the US where people define themselves thru individual
expression and openness, such asian types may feel really lost and
alienated. such asian types prefer a strict hierarchy which defines
roles for the people, but in the US you must define and find your own
status and niche. such was obviously very difficult for the gook
killer. he was torn between a slavish desire to be assigned a role in
life and the american ideal of defining one's own identity.


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

many folks will seek answers to this but the answer will always be
elusive. the only way to come close to any answer is to do something
very tricky and even dangerous. we must empathize with the killer. we
must imagine what he may have felt.
this is why works of art will bring us closer to this kind of
nuttiness than news reports. dostoyevsky understood the power of I-
deology in Crime and Punishment. he understood the sickness of human
soul and its mad lust for power in The Devils. in Crime and
Punishment, the main character is a nobody but identifies with
napoleon. in rare cases, nuts like these can take over the nation
under extraordinarly chaotic circumstances. think of hitler, stalin,
mao, pol pot, idi amin, che guevara, osama bin laden, etc. they can
even set down a religion for billions to follow: muhammad. louis
farrakhan and al sharpton, if they gained totalist powers, would
surely murder millions. under normal circumstances, I-deological
loons remain nobodies or marginal political or cultural characters.
only in times of social crisis and extreme duress do people like
hitler, himmler, pol pot, and beria have a chance of gaining super
power. of course, such people may gain power thru a democracy as
well, but thru checks and balances they can't do much damage. to be
sure, there was rosenberg who gave stalin the bomb. most sick
leftwingers have been smart and clever enough to spread their
sickness, hatred, vileness, and evil thru intellectualism and theory,
fooling alot of people into thinking that there is more to radical
leftism than irrational hatred, powerlust, self-righteous
murderouness, and insanity. indeed, if that gook kid had been
smarter, he could have decided to put away his guns and dress up his
anti-american, anti-rich hateds as a kind of highfalutin intellectual
screed. he might have gotten a Ph.D and gone back to teach in a
university and spread more fashionable anti-americanism to new batch
of kids who come with a head full of mush. karl marx did such and in
the long run, he did far more damage. suppose marx didn't write the
communist manifesto and instead got some guns and shot a whole bunch
of bourgeoisie. he would have been called a madman and forgotten.
but, he wrote a book, and his ideas came to poison millions of minds.
now, this gook kid's mind was prolly poisoned by many ideas. by
korean ideas, by leftist ideas, by puritanical ideas of christianity,
and mostly by his fuc*ed up biochemistry which toxified his brains.
the most you can say about this kid is he had the balls to act out his
hatred than just seeking a privileged armchair revolutionary position
in a university and spouting stuff about 'little eichmanns', 'evil
imperialist corporations', 'noble che guevara', 'why americans
deserved to be hated and reviled', and 'why white males are the scum
of the earth'.
still, his actions cannot be understood thru his ideas alone. i
believe there was something sick in the biochemistry of hitler and
lenin from the very start. and i believe chapman and hinckley were
fuc*ed up on some emotional level. they were born with hideously dark
personalities. we can see this in cats and dogs. some cats and dogs,
no matter how well treated, are troubled, disturbed, nasty, vile, and
weird. some people are born this way. of course, environment
determines whether this latent sickness will be triggered and go
totally kablooey.

anyway, art is where we should look for some answers if not THE
answer. there is and cannot be THE answer. we are still trying to
figure out ivan the terrible, lenin, stalin, hitler. we never will
totally. of course, art can be totally misguided, misleading,
misconceived, etc. but, the special thing about the human mind is
that we can not only sympathize but empathize. even if we disagree
with someone, we can understand why he thinks and feels the way he
does. great artists have this power more than most of us. they have
an uncanny ability to look thru different eyes, hear thru different
ears, speak thru different minds. right or wrong, they show how
there's more than one reality. even if 'libra' by don delillo is
wrong about lee harvey oswald, there is a sense of oswald's sickness
and insanity that becomes clarified and, in a strange way, even
logical.
of course, most 'works of art' on such matters tend to be lame tv docu-
dramas which give us only comforting cliches.
but, consider the great or at least provocative works of art like
'taxi driver', 'elephant', 'assassination of richard nixon', 'crime
and punishment', 'libra', 'max'(about hitler). what these works tell
us is that the real difference between these monsters and us is not so
dramatic or obvious but subtle and elusive. just as even the
slightest change in dna can lead to profound differences, the
slightest differences in human personality or biochemisty or
perception can lead to profoundly different outcomes. ultimately, the
answer is psychological. this doesn't discount the physical. given
the nature of so many potential lunatics in the US, we should try to
do everything possible to separate their sick psyche from firearm
availability.

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


as important as art is as a portal to understanding the human soul, we
cannot rely on art to save us. indeed, how ironic that the gook was a
major in english who studied poetry and playwrighting(and how ironic
that nikki giovanni, the so-called poet laureate on the campus, has
written a lot of self-aggrandizing and politically dubious poetry
herself).
art can be used to explore and understand, but it can also be used to
express one's psychosis, sickness, dementia, etc. sometimes, it's
hard to tell one from the other. the screenplay of 'taxi driver' was
written by paul schrader who had serious emotional and psychological
problems at the time. in a way, he was exploring the sick soul of a
killer. but he was also trying to exorcise his own sick soul. the
screenplay was both an examination and a confession.
same could be said of the disturbing art of yukio mishima and pasolini
(especially his demented film 'salo'). a lot of painters of the 20th
century indulged in pathologically demented imagery. but, clean art is
no answer to sickness of the soul either. hitler and the nazis
rejected much of modern art as degenerate, sick, pathological, and
insane. nazis upheld the neo-classical artistic tradition of clean
lines, geometry, symmetry, beauty, etc. yet, they were crazy in their
own way.
it's interesting that hitler considered himself an artist.

the only thing to distinguish good art from bad art is talent. an
demented or evil person can be a great artist; think of bertolt
brecht and jean-paul sartre. a good person can be a sucky artist. i
doubt if mother teresa could have written a great play, great novel,
or made a great movies. talent is not distributed fairly according to
moral character. wagner was an asshole but a superduper great artist.
beethoven was a prick but a superduper great artist. ringo starr was
a nice guy but no artist.

anyway, while art can make us understand people better and even make
emotionally disturbed people come to terms with their sickness and
explore their demons, art can also make things worse. let's say
writing 'taxi driver' had a purgative effect on paul schrader who had
been suffering from suicidal fantasies. but, what if some untalented
looney goes into art and inflates or aggrandizes his tawdry idiocy or
dementia into something of 'artistic significance'--at least in his
own mind. this gook kid is kinda like kim jong il, another reclusive
nutjob who fancies himself an artist. kim wants both utmost secrecy
and utmost attention. so did the gook killer. both wanna convince
the world that they are more than what they seem. kim wants us to
believe that he's more than some short ugly pig. he wants us to see
him as a world figure, a giant. and the gook killer--ugly and short--
wanted the world to see him as a kind of playwright/actor who wrote in
bullets and blood. both kim and the gook killer indulge in the
pageantry of violence. kim shoots off missiles and detonates a nuke.
gook killer shoots a whole bunch of kids. between the two, kim may be
a little more sober if only because he has a lavish lifestyle to
protect whereas the gook killer really had nothing. kim knows if he
pushes things too far, he will lose his mansions, women, and fine
food. the gook killer had nothing to lose. indeed, if kim and the
gook killer had changed places, kim might have shot the kids while the
gook killer would be playing nuclear brinksmanship as the 'dear
leader' of north korea.

anyway, our academic culture has long celebrated art. in the modern
setting, daring, risque, cutting edge, and disturbing art has been
favored over the moralistic, didactic, inspiring, instructive, etc.
of course, as political correctness is in order, it's usually okay to
offend the right, capitalists, americans, christians, and
conservatives while not okay to offend jews, blacks, muslims, gays,
etc. so, tony kushner can write a play trashing roy cohn and the
american right, but if some playwright exposed the hollywood ten as a
bunch of commie lowlifes, the cultural authorities writing for
intellectual journals would trash him totally. if you paint a hateful
painting of the pope or ronald reagan, an art gallery will hang it.
but, if you defame the image of martin luther king or muhammad, no art
gallery will run it as it would be 'racist'.
still, the art community likes to think of itself as cutting edge,
uncompromised, and daring. so, most schools in arts and humanities
encourage students to look into the dark, demonic, and disturbing side
of their soul or of social reality--as long as it's not too
politically incorrect.
recently, the nobel prize for literature went to some austrian woman
whose novel 'piano teacher' was made into a very very disturbing movie
(starring isabelle huppert). it was a story about sexual repression,
sado-masochism, pornography, murder, etc. yet, it was deemed
artistically significant in exploring and exposing the patriarchal
sickness and ugliness of western culture and its facade of civility.
pier paolo pasolini is still deeply admired by leftist artistic
community but i dare anyone to see 'salo' without puking out.
also, movies like 'henry the portrait of a serial killer' and 'man
bites dog' have been hailed by many critics as artistically and even
morally significant(and responsible).
and of course, some people defend certain horror movies filled with
gore and mayhem as works of art. as far as i can tell, only a handful
of horror films--psycho, among them--have any artistic value or
justification. we are still not sure what to think about 'a clockwork
orange', a brilliant movie by the great stanley kubrick, a film which--
however intellectually fascinating--overly stylizes violence and
psychosis as some kind of awesome rockshow.

anyway, critics oftentimes praise an artist for being a maverick, a
rebel, even a nut. many critics love peckinpah's certifiably insane,
paranoid, and murderous 'bring me the head of alfredo garcia'. for
the psycho gook killer, art was probably detrimental to his soul.
now, even had his major been something else, he might may gone batty
and killed people. but, the fact that he chose literature as a major
shows that he was trying to say something, express something. he saw
art as an outlet and pathway to rest of society... just like paul
schrader, martin scorsese, and many others.
but, to be a real artist, one mustn't just express one's emotions but
learn to listen to, understand, and consider other people and other
views. many artists--especially great ones--are terribly egotistical
and even megalomaniacal. even so, the best of them have this uncanny
ability to understand and empathize with other people and ideas.
the gook killer obviously didn't. as with kim jong il, HIS reality
was the ONLY reality. so, for him art was a mission, a crusade. a
testament.

some commentators on tv asf why wasn't anyone alerted about the gook
killer earlier? hadn't he written disturbing plays and poetry? true,
but how is that shocking or extraordinary in our culture. one english
teacher at V Tech said she reported the gook to the authorities but
the latter did nothing. she thinks something should have been done.
but, let's get serious. suppose you're a movie producer and someone
hands in a script called 'pulp fiction'. it has people getting shot
at point blank range for laughs. it has a black guy raped by two
hillbillies. then the black guy takes a shotgun and blows off the
testicles of one of the hillbillies. later, some black guy gets his
head blown off in a car and this is turned into a long joke about a
'nigger's brains splattered all over my car'. should this script
writer be reported to the authorities? anyway, the script was
turned into a movie, and tarantino was hailed as a great auteur and
made millions.
remember when norman mailer wrote 'the white negro' in the 50s? that
essay called for a glorious murder of a storeowner in the name of
liberation, empowerment, and freedom. i mean is that sick or what?
should mailer have been alerted to the authorities? apparently, alot
of kids who read the essay got enough inspiration in the 60s to go on
a rampage in the streets and throw rocks and molotov cocktails at cops
and stores. mailer the advocate of senseless violence has been hailed
by the literati of this country.
or, take the lyrics and rage of rap music. if record producers see the
lyrics about 'motherfuc*ers, niggers, hos, bitches, etc' and murder
and mayhem, should they report the rappers to the authorities?
instead, the rappers are signed onto million dollar contracts.
eminem has been embraced by the musical industry though he even sang a
song about raping his own mother and killing homos. i guess if you
trash george w. bush, you earn political credits among liberals who
dominate our popular culture(it's like buying carbon credits).
then think of the people who made hideously ugly videogames where the
objective is to hack people with an axe and see their blood spurt out,
or run over innocent people with a car, or shoot 100s of people in
blood soaked violence. should people who make such videogames be
reported to authorities? or, consider satanist rock music and such.
or consider howard stern who glibly made fun of using ukrainian
children born deformed in the wake of chernobyl disaster; stern
wondered how they might be used as sex toys.
now, all of this stuff is garbage, but it's part of our culture.
this is why it's disingenuous to say the gook's plays were
particularly sick or demented. how were his plays different from your
average southpark, simpsons, or family guy episode?
what is sick and what is satire anymore?

given this reality, it's rather bogus to say the tell tale signs of
the gook were ignored(or that it was sooooo shocking when don imus
said 'nappy headed hos'). i mean it looks like we've been ignoring
the tell tale signs of our cultural demise and putrefication for a
long long time. this doesn't mean that all disgusting entertainers and
artists are gonna kill people or make us kill people. but, we have
accepted ugly stupid culture.
people keep saying 'we shouldn't show that kind of stuff' and so on,
but the reason why that stuff is so widely available is because too
many people want it.
people on oprah say alot of pompous things about why we need a better
culture, but when they go home, are they gonna read jane austen or
tolstoy or listen to beethoven or brahms.... OR watch sex and the
city, desperate housewives, sopranos and listen to booty call hip hop
music or some loud idiot heavy rock band? our culture treats morons
like kurt cobain, tupac shakur, and biggie small as heroes, as icons,
as poets, even as saints and martyrs.
i'm not saying such stuff made the gook boy go and kill people. but,
we all seem rather hypocritical when we act like such innocent lamb
and just don't understand this massacre. the problem is too many of
us are living thru fantasy what the gook boy did in reality. thru
video games, we want the thrill of shooting 100s of people. thru
horror movies, we love the excitement of people getting sawed, hacked,
shot, stabbed, or worse. thru rap, we feel like badass 'niggers' who
can fuc* up everybody. now, living this out in fantasy is ALOT better
than living it out in reality BUT many of our souls are not much
cleaner than gook boy's.

the problem is WE want this stuff. and why? we want to feel
empowered and what gives us the most instant sense of empowerment? rap
or rock music. the music instantly fills us with aggressive energy. we
feel like we are badass dudes. on wildlife shows on tv, kids
naturally prefer to watch lions kill a prey than watch a sheep graze
on the grass.
other than powerlust, there is sex-lust, and what supplies that most
instantly? again, rap or rock music which reduces women to hot babes
or ho's. much of our tv and movies are about immediate empowerment
or immediate sex. it's either sopranos or desperate housewives.
we also wanna laugh and be rich. so much of our pop culture is also
geared to easy tardish laughter and celebrity narcissism. even on
shows about lawyers, the main attraction is that characters look so
good, glamours, and handsome. thru culture, we wanna look good, be
badass, and feel oh so sexy.
was the gook boy a part of this culture? or, was he rebelling against
this culture. if he was rebelling against this culture, it must have
been because he was, on some level, attracted to this culture. he was
attracted to success, riches, and power, but being a loner he
couldn't be a part of the cool world. in this sense, he was like
travis bickle of 'taxi driver' who was rebelling against NY social rot
yet also a part of that rot. on some level, he found NY's sinfulness
appealing as appalling. in fact, the two may have been intertwined.
an element of taboo always makes something more appealing than
otherwise. in this sense, there may indeed have been a racial factor
to the killing. he may have seen himself as an undesirable asian male
(according to american culture which defines manhood thru black
athletes or white movie stars while relegating asian males to geek
stereotypes) lusting after attractive girls. this may have made him
self-loathing for two reasons. self-loathing because of this secret
lust and self-loathing because he was a nothing as an asian male on
campus. yet, he shot some asian males too so maybe he felt doubly
frustrated cuz other asians were socializing just fine and getting
along with other races. so, he felt rejected by whites and betrayed
by uncle tom asians.
of course, these are speculations. the only thing that's certain is
that one april 16, he felt powerful and masterful. he got to shoot
alot of males of all races and finally penetrate the bodies of females
with bullet as sperm. on that one day and in that one sick moment, he
felt like the terminator saying 'i'll be back' and going thru an
entire police station shooting up everyone. just as the terminator
was seeking a woman, sperminator gook boy may have been looking for
some girl too.

now, let's suppose the extreme nature of this violence was tied to
suicidal tendencies. why didn't he just kill himself and leave others
alone? again, we can learn much from art.
take the great iranian movie 'taste of cherry'. in that movie, some
professional middle class guy wants to kill himself. BUT, he wants to
pick up someone to stand over him as he dies. he wants to be
recognized, he wants someone to acknowledge that he had once lived,
that he died. people are naturally social creatures. we wanna live
with others but also wanna die with others(looking over us). old
folks wanna die surrounded by loved ones, not die alone. when we put
animals to sleep, we stand over them also. it's part of showing
respect, love, and affection.

so, it's understandable why gook boy couldn't just killl himself. he
had no one to acknowlege his existence. suppose he had just killed
himself. his body would have been found, there would some little
mention in a corner of a newspaper, and that would have been that.
his whole life would have passed away without anyone knowing or
caring. considering that the gook boy was delusional and whacky, he
might have even thought that if he killed himself, other kids might
have cracked jokes about him, ridicule his death, and sneer at his
worthless life and death. remember the movie 'carrie'? when the pig
blood spills on her, she imagines everyone laughing at her. some were
laughing but most were not. but, she was a mentally funny kid and in
her paranoid state, she thinks EVERYONE is laughing at her and
ridiculing her. so, she uses her psychic power to kill ALL the kids.
she doesn't distinguish between the bitches who tormented her and the
nice kids. she sees ALL of them as her enemy. she even kills the
teacher who'd been so nice to her.
it's possible that the gook boy reached such state of mind. in his
delusional state, he felt paranoid. he felt everyone was looking down
at him, mocking him. and if he killed himself, everyone would either
not care or know OR, worse, make fun of how a stupid gook boy offed
himself. given this mentality, the gook boy prolly felt that if he
was gonna make a grand exit, he had to take all those kids with him.
he would teach them a lesson. if he killed a whole bunch of kids and
then killed himself, no one would be laughing. they would hate him
but that's better than either being a nobody or a loser mocked by
others. indeed, a lot of people would rather be hated/feared than
looked upon a weak/pathetic. most kids would rather be thought of as
tupac shakur than as kermit the frog.

it's not just gook boy. think of how other dementos wanted to take the
whole world with them when their time was up. think of adolt hitler.
it wasn't enough that the war was lost and he would have to kill
himself. he ordered albert speer to raze germany to the ground. all of
germany had to die with him. or, consider jim jones in guyana. it
wasn't enough for him to kill himself. all his people had to die with
him. if dementos want their own people to die with them, how much
would they value the life of outsiders?
it's not just hitler and jim jones. kim will certainly try to kill
as many koreans as possible if his regime must fall.
and che guevara wanted to sacrifice all of cuba in a nuclear holocaust
during the cuban missile crisis. he called it 'revolutionary suicide'
in the name of international communist brotherhood. when khrushchev
pulled out the missiles and told che it's better to live, che felt
cheated out of a glorious grand finale. he finally found glorious
'revolutionary suicide' in bolivia. what a nut.
and heaven knows some fanatical japanese militarists wanted to take
all of japan with them as the war was being lost. even after
hiroshima and nagasaki, these fanatics wanted all japanese to make one
suicidal charge against americans and all die together with the
emperor.
gook boy may have seen himself as a kind of kamikaze pilot taking not
only his life but everyone on the ship of the campus.

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

there is a serious problem with the coverage of tragedies such as
this. it only adds fuel to future whackos out there. there will
always be whackos but our news coverage seems to encourage more and
more copy cat lunacies. why is this?
while whackos all act alone and tend to be loners, there is a kind of
psychic connection among all of them. no, i'm not talking of ESP or
the occult. i mean whackos watch the news and pick up signals. they
understand one another almost subliminally thru the news. when the
columbine massacre happened, i'll bet gook boy felt not an iota of
sympathy for the dead and wounded. when stuff like this happens, most
of us sympathize with the victims. but, whackos identify, if not
sympathize(such feelings may not be possible), with the killer. they
see the killer as having been a situation similar to their own. they
are misunderstood loner-losers of life.

when whackos watch all those weeping faces, all those sappy and gushy
words spoken by normal ordinary people, they feel a certain pleasure,
a certain glee and vindication. the media may call the killer a
madman and an evil lunatic, but the killer comes across as the badass
predator--the terminator--while the victims all look like helpless
sheep, chickenshitters, sapheaders, gushy wushers, etc. of course,
victims and their friends are only being decent and humane, but the
whacko doesn't see it that way. he sees them as weak. and he takes
pleasure that 'normal' people who had marginalized him finally got
what had been coming to them.
when we watch a nature documentary where a lion jumps into a herd of
wildebeest, we root for the lion, not for the dumb wildebeest. in
all these killings, the killer--no matter how evil or insane--comes
across as the actor, the master of fate. the victims seem helpless.
you see them squealing like pigs being slaughtered, begging for their
lives, writhing in pain, weeping, breaking down. whackos and
sociopaths don't react to such images with sympathy but with
derision.
the whacko also takes pleasure because he feels that all these decent
normal people are all hypocrites. when osama and his goons were
watching images on 9/11, they weren't weeping tears when they saw
NYers run left and right, scream for help. they prolly laughed. and
they prolly saw these NYers as all louts who deserved what they got.
as ward churchill said, they were 'little eichmanns'. whackos also
believe in the concept of banality of evil. as far as they are
concerned, all these good decent looking americans are actually all
supporters of the evil american imperialistic order. it's good to see
them suffer. they are all little eichmanns making the american
imperialist infidel machinery work.
when most of us saw images of 9/11, we felt a profound sense of grief.
but not osama and his goons. and apparently not some whackos in this
country who made phony bomb threat phone calls across the nation as
jokes. they thought it was funny.
now, following 9/11, did the US media ONLY show images of americans as
helpless, desperate victims? did it beg for mercy and sympathy from
people all over the world? no. US media soon got its footing and
said we will fight back and we will stand up. we are not afraid.
george bush and many others said we're gonna bring them suckers to
justice. we sent a clear and strong message that we are not just a
bunch of gushy wushy teary eyed sapheads. we are strong and we are
angry.
yet, this is not the message we send whenever a massacre like the one
at V tech happened. it's all 'hold hands, weep, hug, hold candle
lights, etc, etc'. whackos are laughing at this.
now, one may argue that in the wake of 9/11, we had an enemy to go
after. after this massacre at V tech, the killer died in the
incident. it's all over, so we can only grieve. Wrong! there are many
other whackos out there just itching to do the same. when columbine,
washington sniper case, and amish school shooting happened, do you
think gook boy was crying with the rest of us? do you think he felt
any symapathy? no, he felt satisfaction that some fellow whacko had
stood up in the world and taught the bullshitting, hypocritical,
normal world a lesson. and he felt emboldened because the media
coverage was so sappy, huggy tuggy, gushy wushy, and boo hoo hoo. he
laughed at mainstream society as wimpy, gay, blubbery, and pathetic.
he also felt this show of decency was all bogus. he saw news
journalists as selfserving and self-promoting and morally narcissitic
and manipulative, which is not entirely wrong. it really is
disgusting when a tv journalist asks some banal question to a victim's
family member in a very solemn way and then when the person is
answering the question brimming with emotions, the camera cuts back to
the jouranlist and we see how touched and moved he is. this is
journalistic celebrity self-promotion. the thing about whackos is
that they think they are Authentic while most people are Phony(like
the kid in 'catcher in the rye'). so, when they see such displays of
moral narcissism, pious sanctimony, and such and such which
ridiculously try to make every victim into some perfect angel, hero,
saint, etc, etc, the whacko laughs in derision. and he feels
empowered because in contrast to the sappiness of all the coverage,
the killer comes across as so determined, masterful, badass, and
fearsome.

i'm not saying a different kind of coverage would prevent further
massacres by whackos but let's NOT give whackos this kind of
satisfaction. let's not come across a sappy bunch of helpless lambs
for hannibal lecters of the world.
we should cover the emotional side of the story but in a more
straightforward BBC kind of approach. cut out all the goo and
sanctimony which makes good people come across as pious hypocrites.
those victims and their families need our sympathy but they were NOT
saints, angels, and such. they were mostly good people. and, even as
we show the emotional side of this, let's keep much of that away from
the camera. such kind of grief is a private affair; tv news often
turns it into soap opera. and no more acts of moral narcissism and
tear jerking by celebrity journalists. it's okay for journalists to
be emotional and even break down but so much of that today seems
calculated and self-serving. the main emphasis becomes more 'diane
sawyer or terry moran is soooo sad over the event THAN diane sawyer or
terry moran is covering a sad news'.
it's funny how in our popular culture we slop up all the foul nasty
trash, and then when something like this happens we all expect the
media to mommy us and breastfeed us. when whackos see this, they feel
vindicated in their hatred for us. they see that we are not only
weak, helpless, and blubbering like babies but we are total hypocrites
because most of the time, we are either nasty 'rich kids' or 'little
eichmanns' indulging in crass ugliness and mindless narcissistic
consumerism. .
in the movie 'the terminator' the cyborg is the bad guy, but people
love watching him mow down all those helpless cops in the police
station. we all remember arnold from the movie. no one remembers any
dead cop from that movie. similarly, when whackos watch the news
coverage, they see the determined psycho--the determinator--who wiped
the floor with sappy weak chickenshit normal people. we must not act
so sappy in front of the camera.
we must realize that other whackos are watching and taking pleasure at
this. and we know that by such coverage, the psycho gook got EXACTLY
what he wanted. and by our blubbering sappiness thru the media, the
future whacko killers are taking real pleasure.
so, we should be more dignified, hard, restrained, and righteously
angry in the coverage of such events. we must send a message to all
whackos that we are not just weeping and blubbering. we are angry as
hell. and we must say that we know you whackos are out there. and we
will be watching for you nuts and we won't be afraid. those
passengers on United 93 died but they stood up to the terrorists.
i think one great message we can send out to all the good people is
the 'united 93 pledge'.
it's a pledge that in future events such as the massacre at V tech, we
will all fight. if some gunman starts shooting, we will all rush him
and beat the living the shit of him on the spot. indeed, suppose that
had been done in this case. suppose the students had acted like the
passengers on united 93. suppose all the students--some expecting to
be killed-- rushed toward the gook and then beat him to a pulp. would
any whacko watching the tv take any pleasure in this? instead of
seeing scared people running helplessly and 'pathetically'--from the
perception of whackos--from the badass killer, whackos will see how
good hardassed people worked up the courage to die for goodness and
decency. of course, everyone who ran on the campus had every right to
do so. most people understandably can't be recklessly courageous
enough to rush at a crazy killer. but, we should all spread the idea
of the pledge. i'm not talking of some hostage situation where
there's greater chance of survival if you do as told. and i'm not
talking of a case where it's hopeless. if a gunman has two victims in
front of him, there is nothing the two can do. but, in a situation
where the whacko is clearly out to kill and there are many many
people, it's better to rush at the killer altogether and swamp him and
kick his ass and whup him. then whackos watching the tv will really
think twice about doing something crazy. they will understand that
people are not mere sheep begging for mercy but angry mofos ready for
fight for what's right. if the concept of the united 93 pledge had
existed among all the people at v tech university, fewer people might
have gotten killed. and a strong message would have been sent to
whackos all over america.
we must understand that there is a undercurrent of camaraderie among
psychos out there, and they are linked mostly by the media. whenever
the media covers a story like this and turns some loser into a
fearsome badass while showing victims as helpless sheep, it sends
signals to all the other whackos out there. these whackos don't know
eachother, don't care to know eachother, and wouldn't even like one
another. they are all loners, but there is a sense of 'we, the
outcasts of society, striking back at society that belittles, ignores,
or mocks us'.
of course, most whackos are not like hannibal lecter. lecter's problem
was that he was so smart that he really really thought he was superior
to us--and intellectually he was. most whackos feel a deep sense of
inferiority and they try to overcome such thru a forced situation
where they suddenly have total superiority over us.

remember 'dirty harry'? the news media is like the liberal mayor.
compassionate, understanding, but sappy. the media makes good people,
the law, and everything all seem so weak, helpless, pussy, sappy.
scorpio the killer laughed at this. but, scorpio always thought
twice when faced with harry callahan.
now, the reality in many cases may not be so simple as good people vs
whackos. it's possible that whackos are not totally crazy and
something bad happened in their lives to make them so crazy. and maybe
some 'good people' did bully them or taunt them. so, we should also
send a big message to everyone to leave kids alone. if someone's
kinda funny, leave him be. don't push him to do crazy stuff. but,
most whackos were ticking time bombs from the time they were born.
it's like some dogs are raised with all the love and care but still
turn out with emotional and behavioral problems. they were born that
way. same with people.

i just hope no one romanticizes this lunacy into some form of
entertainment. the problem with our culture is we like to redeem the
bad guys. it's the godzilla syndrome. remember that in the first
films, godzilla was the villain. but, he became an icon and he was
soon the good monster fighting bad monsters. in 'scarface', tony
montana starts out as a sick gangster thug killer. but later, he's
redeemed as an honest gangster fighting truly evil gangsters.
in terminator, the cyborg was evil. but in part 2, he was a good
killing machine.
in 'silence of the lambs', hannibal lecter was a killer. in part 2, he
was a hero.
in godfather I and II, michael corleone kills a whole bunch of people,
even an innocent prostitute to blackmail a US senator. in godfather
III, he's a good guy.
in the Wild Bunch, the killer thugs are all redeemed by killing evil
mexicans.

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

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 nigger'. they
were badass 'field nigger' 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 'faggot' 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 shit. it was full of shit 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 pussy 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 'chink 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 pussy 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 butt 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 pussy'. he would then be angry with the law. he
might think that once the law is removed, he can get pussy. but,
suppose there is no such law. he's free to get pussy 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 'chink' 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 'chink'-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 'chink' 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 nigger', 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.

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

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 of minding too much. 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. 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. good many do become a bit
disturbed and gravitate toward alternative or underground cultures.
they come to disdain all idea of mainstream and normal society.
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 or to themselves often emerge
out of such intense feelings 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 for the
troubled person to talk to someone, express his angers, and such and
such can defuse what could had 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 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 and multi-cultural multi-killing.

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. in college, 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 party atmosphere, he could look down on it 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. 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 oppressed 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 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 a
great deal. 'progressive' college professors and lennon were 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, and upper middle class security.
in some ways, 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 a popular kid. 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 niches in
highschool but most are visible to others. in college, among 1000s
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 one-way bullying. he didn't enjoy
the bullying but the bullying may have made him feel connected to
others. 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 life 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 when they had the chance
of escape because being persecuted--and resisting it--gave them a
sense of purpose.
indeed, a democracy and freedom can be the most alienating thing for
alot of people. you are free, but if you're 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 degree 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 determined largely in highschool, he
may have seen this 'niceness' 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 let loose
in an environment where's left alone, he may become truly troubled.
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 far away from other
students and 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.
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 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 'chink 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 for the good as for the bad. in a way, gook boy
was an extreme anti-bully bully.
but, even when goodness is heartfelt and genuine, it can be
humiliating for someone who has to depend on it. suppose a kid is
being bullied in school. suppose that among the onlookers is a girl
he likes and cool 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 pussy that he had to saved by a nice teacher. 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 goil of his dreams
was in the presence, he may feel truly truly humiliated. he may come
to hate goodness too. goodness saved it but it humiliated him from
others. 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 he doesn't want from other
what he himself 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 sick by an ideology of hatred and
murderousness. now, it's possible that 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 in
most cases, it's normal people being driven mad by an insane ideology.
such can happen. consider north korea. consider nazi germany. most
germans were NOT 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 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 or badass than being normal or 'square'. just go to
myspace.com and there are plenty of people who wanna come across as
edgy, weird, 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. 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 who seem to 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 in 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 like the patron-saint
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 like 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.
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 some 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 the truth
of this problem. 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 so many people who really just want power and wealth fool us(and
themselves)into thinking they are oh-so-saintly.
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 butt 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 what especially disgusted gook boy was
that in our culture, so much moralism is mixed with so much
materialism. indeed, it's getting to the point where one must have
alot of money to be extra-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 rightwing power. 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 in anyway endangered their privelege.
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 wanna hate the rich cuz the rich are supposedly greedy and vile.
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 them but that they 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 in the
outlying areas 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 of UK would be that whites are
still favored by most whites. or, even if there is no discrimination,
muslims would realize that even under a inclusive and fair law, 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 new 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 fixated 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. american 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 pussy'. he would then be angry with the law and
not with reality. he might think that once the law is removed, he can
get pussy. but, suppose there is no law. he's free to get pussy 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 to both was 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 committed
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 gook boy but for millions of
americans. hollywood is the ultimate expression of mythic america. it
is also an expression of the mythic nature 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 in real life so she finds it thru hollywood
movies. now, there are two kinds of mythicisms. there is pure
fantasy of the longing sort. 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 mythmaking 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 mostly 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 kind 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 to 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 creation would lead to its
demise. not so. marxism has been spiritualized, and we can see it in
'pan's labyrinthe', 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. some go for old fashioned
christianity, but many associate that 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.
there is the person as he seems to us 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 come across as just any other kids 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, most people would likely see them as normal folks. but,
in their delusional mind, 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. 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 so 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 much shocked.
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 see himself. 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. had
he been involved in some kind of mentally disturbed crime, we would
have wondered why he would have done such a thing. 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. 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 do that 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, i think most of us saw him as just
some lonely kid who lost it and killed alot of people coldly. 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 had 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. he was a
raging, raving, angry sumfabitch badass.
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, the other 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 'chink' 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 'chink'-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 inside as well as 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 and
that face. how could such a guy be so angry, enraged, and
murderous? isn't he supposed to be geek? aren't geeks suppose to be
in their room, 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 accept their gimpassedness.
yet, this gook boy killer was obviously not eager to accept his asian
gimpass maleness. that's how everyone saw him. that's what everyone
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 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. all
they to is turn the whole affair into a multi-cultural, multi-media
massacre. 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. 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 created and
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 the problem is
with society, and not with the fact that (1) blacks are generally less
intelligent (2) more aggressive and undisciplined (3) physically
stronger, thereby driving out all the races who fear to integrate with
blacks cuz they are afraid of all the 'radio raheems'(see 'do the
right thing' by spike lee).
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 discusses 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-quality 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 'chink' 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. how can such dorky people truly be offended? also, white folks
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
part of the 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 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 in the future.
but, asians may have an additional problem in the US. americans fear
the rise of asia. in the 80s, they 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 to build their economies(and militaries) in the future.
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 see blacks as the new symbol of american
power. blacks are taller, stronger, badasser, thicker voiced, etc than
the white boy. but, just look at them asians. a bunch of short, small
peckered, sing song fing fong talking 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 leadershipish enough. and as
asian males comes across as more reticent and uninhibited, 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 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, and such.





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


most of the commentary on this massacre have been idiotic and self-
serving and such. every political group--left and right--have 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, even 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.
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 nigger', 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 roger waters have been committed to an
insane asylum when it 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 and walk 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 carrying guns
go to a pub and there is too much drinking. suddenly, an argument or
fight breaks out over someone's girlfriend and 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, those few people 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
other side 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 off 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.