The killer killed because he was evil

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.

Various poems

I haven’t felt much like writing lately, and just haven’t been in a state to write interesting clear prose about my girl theories, etc. I did however write these three poems over the course of the last month or so. I don’t think they are my best, but I suppose they are post worthy. Lately I have been thinking much about the foundations of mathematics, and in particular trying to write up carefully my ideas about the subject, and in particular my ideas about incorporating a third truth value of “silly”, which I think allows mathematical discourse to be a little simpler. If mathematicians allow themselves to assert silly things, it reduces pedantry, and it’s no big deal because I make things so it’s always pretty obvious whether something is silly or no. Anyway, perhaps this employment of trying to make math less pedantic without being sloppy will be seen as a legitimate excuse for my not having posted much of late. Part of it is just that I am so isolated there isn’t much of anything (or anyone) to inspire me :( .

Girls

Sometimes
girls are prettier
than what one
would expect
So soft
And fluffy
I remember
Long time ago
I thought
it was something
Else.

Tra la
Sacredness
Demands
Patient Indifference
Patience
Patients.

Well,
I remember
Something else,
too.
How an equation
So apt
And seemly
Can be a
More profitable
Consideration
For my thoughts
Than mere
Strangeness.

Yes,
She wrote that letter,
the one she never
mailed
Because if she didn’t,
Well, that would be
even stranger
To me anyway.
Perhaps I’m not sane to say so
but I say so
as I so believe,
knowing no better way.

Times were
goblins ran amuck
In the very streets
of very city they
ran foully did the
goblins as they ran
they did the blad.
Bad goblins they.
Try not
To associate with
them
do—do not—
try not to not
associate them
with.
Brrrrr! Taoism of Yoda.
Blub blurb.—

I love silly
Want to take
A girl
by the arms
“Let’s be silly.”
We jump up and down.
Saying whatever
“Whatever”.
If it makes any sense,
Wherever our fancy
Strikes.
“Shhh!”
there it is—
The gloomy one—
We all fall down.
The gloomy one has it way
Before
And after too,
Sometimes
After three.
Silly, silly
I will gain respect
In the community
metamathematical
By introducing silliness
there.
No really.
A gobblobkin
crosses our path
we look at one another astounded
In the front seat
And wipe our brows
with our handkerchiefs
A sigh from each of us relief
Rises
Sexual desires too.
I don’t want to be silly with
Every girl I meet
I want you silly
Like I want another girl totally
else
And a good many in between.
Preferably all at once.

[Comment: The girl I want totally else is a French girl I saw on a train once. She was arguably the most beautiful girl I have ever seen. Hard to say whether I love her best, though, because (a) she made it seem impossible, like I shouldn’t care, or like destiny was against it (in a very clean sense, though, of course) and (b) it’s like comparing apples and oranges. I really got the impression she liked me; my guess is just that she really wants to live in France (e.g., near her family), and she is not inclined to think I would fit in very well in France.]



Love

Love is warm
And pretty
Soft
And Fluffy.
I remember
I spoke
What grace
Was
But haven’t
Actually
Gotten ‘round
to it.

Grace,
the ability
to be pure
in thought
beyond.
Sacredness,
the ability,
the property,
of not invoking
anti-addiction
mechanisms
for no reason
or an addictive one.
Obsession,
to the wise one,
it flies away
like a bird to
its nest
after necessity
demanded fright.
And impatience,
it has no place
in a sacred life
safe from depravity.

I can be relaxed,
cool,
and so too will she,
it is reason sufficient to
sacred be.
Sacredness is largely
taking care
about what one eats.
Gobble, gobble, stuff,
stuff,
the sort of thing
evil intestinal bacteria
might just encourage
by making us eat
with less grace,
by way
of making us eat
less refinéd food
in less refinéd amount.
An atheist
should say grace
even if there’s a god.

I remember now
How it was
How with young girls especially,
And girls temperate and prayerful
even more,
One doesn’t reaaaly want
to possess them too much
At the start.
No.
there must not be the least opportunity
of doubt
That there could be any deception going on
inside me,
A doubt
That could give reason for her to pause
And later not to be so self-assured
In her affection of me.
Therefore, I am
Dazed
Stricken Weak
And Collapsed
In Reverent Sleepy Gaze
The lighter the heavier
her gaze upon my chest
It bend me back
Upon the upper cushion
I take her in
visually,
blank.
Whatever will be
Will be
And whatever
Won’t,
won’t.
No matter.
All is up to her
Now.
I feel oppressed
to be honest
I have decided
Something so pleasant
I shouldn’t risk,
making a girl,
in her power
feel like she
Can make me do whatever she
Wants
Because I let her
Because later,
It makes sense,
I’ll make her obey.
Me.
But only after I obey
her.
Anyway, I find her oppressive, I figure, because finding her so
and not hiding it
makes me honest
About what I’d prefer,
and what I later
will expect
of her
instead of what she will expect of me.

The spirits of the ages they nod their heads,
they do agree
that’s what will be,
and so I daresay eventually it will behoove me to try.

But only after I obey her.
Grace then, in her,
And sacredness
in me
Are more than
just emotions girls
like a fair amount.
Sacredness will
keep me from
being too obsessed,
and impatient
at the first,
and later too,
(Though later it doesn’t matter as much.)

There is
Something else
And not just how sacredness
Makes me sanctify myself
In the now dim pleasures
Of the distant past generations
And the benevolent best wishes
Of quiet ghosts.
Telling me
An emotion of steely-eyes with
To have a greater concern
For the distant future
Would be
In their eyes
Appropriate.
Yes.
No.
There is something else.
Something more...
down-to-earth
I could pray on
And please
By being true
To a character
Girls want to be fucked by
Give them more
truer pleasure.
For what I will seem?
For what I will be.
More sacred
Will please
Just because
It will make
My semen better. Hmm.

A simple explanation. Presumably, it’s mostly always
The more girls I shall have fucked
The more relaxed and composed I will be
fucking new ones
So if a guy is calm when he fucks
his behavior more resembleth those of his most successful male ancestors,
which maketh intraejaculate sperm selection
select for better sperm
more pleasant to the female.

Well, after writing the above, I couldn’t really be sure if I believed the last stanza (the idea of which occurred to me right as I was writing it—funny how sometimes the very act of writing a poem can lead to a new idea). It probably is right, but only so far as it goes. In other words, it is not really obvious why good males would tend to be more sacred or at least as sacred as bad males. Quite generally, nervous impatient people tend to be more anti-sodomy than other people, it seems to me. At least as far as males are concerned, I have always mostly rather admired sacred, patient, cool characters, etc.; however, I will admit that there are not a few very obnoxious laid back people. Things that encourage good males to be sacred and not enthusiastic:

1. A guy wanting sex immediately and for sure can be manipulative, perhaps exaggerating the extent to which he and his girlfriend need to have sex right away, ere they get screwed by vicious types or the purveyors of the conformist orthodoxies pushed by the self-serving majority. Make it seem like love never runs smooth, that Romeo and Juliet, Bride of Lammermoor or Westside Story situations are the norm, and that therefore enthusiasm is our friend, allowing consummation before evil corrupts it. Well, girls do sometimes get screwed to keep them away from true love, but on the whole guys wanting sex right away probably selfishly overestimate the dangers of it happening.

2. Coolness is smart even if it perhaps isn’t associated with moral goodness. So perhaps if males are good enough, a girl will get more pleasure out of selecting for smartness than for anti-sodomy characteristics, since mostly he is totally anti-sodomy anyway.

3. Patience is more of a marriagey thing than a fuck thing, and quite good males tend to be more concerned with marriage than fucking. This historically has been the reason (since college days at least) why I have seen patience and sacredness as something indicative of male virtue.

None of these explanations really satisfied me particularly (probably 1 is the most satisfying), so I decided to write another poem, which doesn’t really at all explain what I was getting at, but which talks about something rather different, as is appropriate and indicative of purposiveless action, a good thing except when depravity be involved, which it isn’t:

Sacred Girl

Sacred girl
throws herself
Upon the pile of
his recollections.

She never lets an
enthusiasm
lead her a place
she wouldn’t go else.
And impatience is not
what she is about.
She’d rather go nowhere
than somewhere
impatiently.

She looks at me
like she is saying
she respects my
sacredness;
empathizes
with my coolness
almost as to say
she wouldn’t find me attractive
else.
Wants me to imagine it
Our Common Bond
like as to make it
a tacit understanding
we’re cool
and that’s why we like each other,
just because we respect that,
everyone true knows sacredness what respect’s all about, yeah,
that’s it.
She is frightened I don’t believe it,
sacredness no holy grail to me,
and I don’t know,
somehow figures if she just behaves as if we do believe it,
I will.

Can pleasure lie
in place so bare?
Can people grow up
koalas?
She’d yawn
before having sex with me
just to make sure
I wouldn’t get
too excited.
Always close to her spiritual self
she does things
as her spirit wills.
Peace of mind
Lack of drama
necessities
to those who would deign
to be honest
to their own essential selves
or perhaps,
God,
the holy spirit,
and whatever else
that’s good
which leads us on our way
when we’re still enough
to hear.