My thoughts on the VPI killer:
He was a bad selfish man who was stupid enough to think he had something to gain by being evil. To be unselfish for the greater good is the most rewarding thing to be unselfish for; this is why most people have evolved to have good tendencies. Similarly, to be unselfish for the bad is the least rewarding thing to be unselfish for. The killer has hurt himself, his family, his ethnicity and his species. He has gained nothing.
Badness is merely selfishness, but sometimes badness goes beyond that into evil. The reason is that bad, selfish people surround themselves with lies to the effect that being selfish is more rewarding and powerful than it really is, and sometimes they believe these lies. If a bad male is going to do bad things to others by way of controlling them, naturally he gains by trying to be especially scary and by trying to suggest his badness has a gloriousness that will occasion admiration. To be especially scary, often he will tend to pretend that his desire to control goes beyond itself into a natural desire to kill and maim those that don’t serve his selfishness. He’s wrong; a dead servant is an unrewarding servant.
Anyway, what happens is that guys like this killer naturally like movies, games, music, etc., suggestive to others that they are into death and murder. Doing so increases the fear that others will have for them, which can on occasion serve a bad selfish purpose for them. What not infrequently happens, however, is that they end up believing themselves that they are into death and murder. People aren’t born with innate moral propositions. On the one hand, they can understand themselves (and gain these propositions) by abstracting their understandings from their innate tendencies. On the other hand, they can simply accept whichever of the standard understandings of identity most suits them. Most people are a combination, to a certain extent how they understand themselves will be based on reflection from innate tendencies, and to a certain extent they will understand themselves by copying a group’s ostensible understanding of human nature generally or of the human nature of the individuals in the group.
What Mr. Cho was by nature, I figure, was a violent nasty forcible-sodomizing terrorizing rapist. These sorts of people do kill to terrorize fairly often, because like him they tend to be stupid enough not to see their own self-interest. But they don’t much thus kill if they possess even a little understanding. (If there were some gene that projected a natural tendency to kill the disobedient, yes, that would tend to make abuse from an individual with such a gene more terrifying, but then it would also tend to make people so strongly hate and harm the individual with such a gene that it is not reasonable to suppose such a gene exists).
What differentiates Mr. Cho from most forcible-sodomizing terrorizing rapist killers is that for some reason he was too stupid to see that his desire to kill is related to a desire to control. Typically, your forcible-sodomizing terrorizing rapist killer will kill when the victim which through nastiness he is trying to control resists, killing either stupidly, on account of his believing the hype of his threats, or selfishly on account of his not wanting her to get him in trouble. Mr. Cho on the other hand seems to have interpreted his desires pretty much as just a desire to kill. What is different about him that makes him even more evil than standard evil?
The main difference is like I have said that he for whatever reason was more stupid about himself than typical, believing that the hype from people like the Columbine killers represented a faithful understanding of his natural tendencies. This stupidity in all likelihood resulted from a combination of natural stupidity and a bad abusive environment encouraging of error.
Contrary to media hype and unlike many natural forcible-sodomizing rapist types, he was not particularly weird (that is, weird for naturally forcible-sodomizing rapist types). Most child molester types probably usually use sodomy to get their victims to unnaturally lust for them. Since (this is one of my theories) people tend to think for themselves to the extent they have had lustful and more particularly lustful young female ancestors, as offspring of child molesters you tend to get, for example, bizarre totally weird stupid people, the sort who probably form a significant subpopulation of internet newsgroup posters (basically those cranks who are not insane), believing all kinds of very strange ideas about science, etc., notwithstanding they not only don’t know what they are talking about, they don’t even have enough intelligence to write coherently. These non-insane cranks, the weirdest bad people I have encountered, though they may well often be (forcible) child molesters, they don’t tend to be the senseless murderers, probably. At least cranks think for themselves. The people who believe it pays to be unselfish for the bad pretty much have to be more-or-less completely indifferent to human nature; they could not believe in evil for evil’s sake unless they mindlessly believe the lies and misunderstanding of others, something truly weird bad people are not at all likely to do, believing instead their own mostly mindless understandings.
It is interesting to note that the child molester types who use debauchery to force their victims into feeling lust would tend to be stupider about things in general than sodomizer molester types whose debauchery works merely by forcing terror, but that when it comes to understanding one’s own molester tendencies the lust-inducing sodomizers would tend to be more cunning, because being true to oneself in one’s molester tendencies, as lust-inducing molesters would tend to be (if my theory about lust and epigenetics is correct), would cause these molester tendencies to evolve well compared with one’s other tendencies. This would explain why Cho seemed to not be a complete idiot when it comes to things in general (he was after all a student at a fairly acclaimed college, impressive notwithstanding the publicly available dramas he wrote are poorly written), while he nevertheless was a complete and total idiot in understanding his own tendencies and more particularly his violent tendencies. His natural sodomizer and molester tendencies were much more about forcing terror than about forcing lust, which probably is typical of people like him who are so very stupid about understanding them.
Another difference between Cho and a more typical evil violent person is that Cho didn’t much tend to make himself look angry. A common misconception is that what goes by anger in abusive people has much if anything to do with anger in normal people. Naive individuals, mostly afraid to consider the truly obnoxious, are inclined to excessively induct from their own observations of family and friends, etc., that anger is what causes people to be mean. But it is a mistake to think that people like Cho are much like normal people. Anger is an anti-sodomy defense and more particularly an anti-forcible-sodomy defense, something to keep one fighting against abuse after the effects of sodomy make one want to stop fighting. And strong anti-sodomy defenses are not what sodomizer types tend to possess, because if they did, you’d expect them at least partially to have inherited the defenses from their female ancestors, who, however, would not be expected to have much in the way of anti-sodomy defenses or else the male ancestors with their likely sodomizing tendencies would not have been able to succeed in reproducing with them. The truly vile have little if any tendency toward anger or the other anti-sodomy emotions. This explains what has been widely reported about Cho, namely his tendency to be emotionless. Most bad violent people try to fake anger and the other emotions that make them look human. Faked anger as well as anger can make unjust behavior more forgivable to others. What sets Cho apart is that until his propaganda at the very end, he wasn’t one much to fake anger. Unlike, say, Hitler, who had studied how to appear emotional, he apparently didn’t spend time practicing how to appear angry. The reason for this I think is simple. Cho never really cared about trying to make his evils appear justifiable because probably his plan for a long time had been not to control or deceive, but to kill--to kill more or less as he did.
So why did he wait so long? My guess is that a large part of his fantasy was not just killing lots of people, but also killing a particular type of girl. Remember, deep down his behavior is caused by natural forcible-sodomizing rape emotions. In his early morning prowlings, something about the girl he was to kill first probably made him want to be violent. Maybe somehow her boyfriend dropping her off early in the morning gave him an excuse to argue she was trying to be provocative. Or maybe she had something innocent about her that made him think she’d be an easily controlled victim. Whatever, he doubtless wanted to find a girl he thought a suitable object of his disgusting violent tendencies. Probably he had planned things in advance; if the first girl hadn’t been available to choose, it would have been some other carefully chosen girl that was his first victim, but it wouldn’t have just been some random girl, since that was probably a significant part of his fantasy. And it had to be the right situation—e.g., a somewhat predictable one—so he could later do the mass killing he also thought he wanted, which he wouldn’t be able to do if he got caught at the first. And he probably felt he had to act soon before he graduated and had less easy access to the young people sodomizers tend to prefer to do hateful things towards.
If it weren’t what I expected, I’d be distraught that people are trying to make Cho seem insane. Insanity is an antisodomy defense not commonly found in the disgusting. Looking at Cho’s tapes of himself--the one’s he sent NBC--it is very hard not to notice how staged and fake they seem. An emotionless man faking emotion, and not doing a very good job of it since apparently he wasn’t much practiced in it. One can’t have insane emotions when one doesn’t have emotions. The backlash against the mentally ill and the eccentric will perhaps be the worst effects of this whole fiasco. People tend to be too unwilling to admit that real evil exists. The killing occurred because Cho was evil. It’s kind of like 9-11; many refuse to believe that it occurred because bin Laden and his henchmen are evil, they are forever trying to blame it on something else like the U.S.
Many say it is best not to think much about the murders; for instance, that thinking about them is what Cho would want one to do. But on the one hand, people will think about them, and it is important that if they do think of them that they think about them the right way. And on the other, people like Cho are a real danger it behooves people to understand. Intuitively, it seems to me that if the world ever gets destroyed in a hail of violence (a real possibility) people like him might be largely responsible.
I tried to write a poem about the tragedy, and it started out well when I was talking about the students, but then when I started talking about the gunman, the poetry died. Hard to be poetical when considering someone evil like that. Maybe some day I will feel like finishing it. Probably, or that's the way it feels now anyway, I have spent too much time thinking about the killer; but still, having thought about him and written this post, I might as well post it, yeah.