An interesting article from the Associated Press indicates what was going on in the VT killer’s mind.
It was hatred, pure hatred.
AP reports:
He delivered a snarling, profanity-laced tirade about rich ”brats” and their ”hedonistic needs.” . . .
‘Your Mercedes wasn’t enough, you brats,” says Cho, a South Korean immigrant whose parents work at a dry cleaners in suburban Washington. ”Your golden necklaces weren’t enough, you snobs. Your trust funds wasn’t enough. Your vodka and cognac wasn’t enough. All your debaucheries weren’t enough. Those weren’t enough to fulfill your hedonistic needs. You had everything.” . . .
Cho repeatedly suggests he was picked on or otherwise hurt.
”You have vandalized my heart, raped my soul and torched my conscience,” he says, apparently reading from his manifesto. ”You thought it was one pathetic boy’s life you were extinguishing. Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people.”
As I noted in my earlier item on this situation, this is pure egomania. Comparing himself to Christ!
The AP story and other sources make it clear that numerous people observed that this man was dangerously disturbed—what any sensible person would call evil—and urged him to "get help."
That was an entirely ill-conceived reaction.
A person consumed with hatred does not believe that he needs help. He believes that others need to change. When they do not, he reacts with violence. He believes his reaction to be entirely justified.
This is precisely what the VT killer expressed in the videotapes made between his two bouts of murders. In addition, it is precisely what he expressed in the months beforehand.
The suggestion that he needed "help" is something to which such a person would never voluntarily submit. It is a delusion of our theraputic culture, the notion that people do what they do entirely because of a string of causal events and experiences, and that finding the key will reverse the conditions that led to the "pathology."
But hatred is real. We late moderns seem to believe that there is no such thing. But there is. People who have been brought up in "bad" environments know this all too well, and the fact that our media increasingly consist of individuals who have come from relatively privileged backgrounds and not risen from the streets and farms (as was common in the first half of the last century) means that the reality of hatred is entirely beyond their understanding.
They are under the Rousseauian delusion that everybody is good at heart and corrupted only by the rules of society. In fact, as we Christians know, the very opposite is true.
Hatred is real. It is not a generalized feeling toward some abstract "class," as political correctness codes and the delusional claims of media "experts" and social activists suggest. It is a powerful, personal antipathy toward others that seems to the individual to require corrective action. When society does not take action, the individual does.
The VT killer saw his prosperous, happy neighbors as enemies who deserved punishment and whom society was unjustly allowing to go about unscathed and in fact rewarding for their iniquity. This, in his mind, had to be rectified.
Hatred is a choice, not an unfortunate illness. No pill will cure it, and no amount of talk will send it away. People filled with hatred mean it, and they mean to do something about it.
We must understand that and be prepared to respond wisely and judiciously when it manifests itself—before it results in horrors such as the VT murders.
Thanks for posting this, Mike, and thanks for the Brimelow piece. I agree with you and Peter on the need for real immigration controls. In my view, it has to do with two things. One, allowing illegal immigration undermines the rule of law, which we should never do. And two, If we’re going to have a policy on immigration, it should be voted on fairly and openly, instead of just being established de facto by government neglect. That is truly disgraceful.
Dear Mr. Karnick:
A response to akarnick’s response: I appreciate your satirical comments and for the most part agree with them.
However, in the bit about “Mexicans and people of various other nationalities,” you have conflated LEGAL immigration with ILLEGAL immigration: They are two entirely different categories with terminological similarities. The VT shooter apparently was here legally, so that this tragedy might still have occurred even if we had decided “to build a wall around all of our borders”–something that will never happen, by the way, because there are too many powerful interest groups controlling our government nowadays, and because it’s just plain silly–a “strawman argument”, really. And as for deporting “all immigrants immediately”–fat chance for the same reasons just given. (Does “all immigrants” include the LEGAL ones or just the ILLEGAL ones? Never has the English language been so abused as it has been since this “immigration debate” cropped up: Qualifying terms like “legal” and “illegal” are often dropped in the hopes that nobody will notice their absence.)
It was probably Milton Friedman, if memory serves, who warned that open borders coupled with a generous welfare/nanny state was a recipe for disaster; but that is just the confection that’s being cooked up right now by special interest groups with deep pockets and no ethics to speak of–people whose primary concerns lie anywhere but in love of country: in short, to use a very un-PC term, they are traitors.
Respectfully,
Mike (not Linda)
P.S.: And since I’m being un-PC here, I may as well go all the way with this very un-PC post by the very un-PC Peter Brimelow:
April 18, 2007
Virginia Tech Massacre: Gun Control—Or Immigration Control?
By Peter Brimelow
There is one indisputable fact about Monday’s shootings at Virginia Tech: if Seung-Hui Cho had not been allowed to immigrate to the U.S. in 1992, he would not have been able to murder 33 innocent people here in 2007.
There are, of course, plenty of native-born American criminals. But, unnoticed by the Mainstream Media, mass murders by immigrants have quietly but unmistakably become a real Trend. (For example, see here and here). Maybe it’s because some of these immigrant killers come from chronically violent parts of the Third World. Maybe, as our Brenda Walker has suggested, it’s because of the very real but rarely-discussed psychological stress of transcultural migration. We don’t know. And nobody in the American elite is asking.
Indeed, to a remarkable extent, the MSM has succeeded in evading completely any connection between the Virginia Tech massacre the inflammatory word “immigrant”. Hours after the killings, a Google search on Korean AND gunman AND immigrant revealed no mentions at all. As of Wednesday afternoon, there were just 214—as opposed to 1,460 for Korean AND gunman. And many of the top stories that did mention the I-word were really the formulaic hand-wringing about alleged immigrant fears of a non-existent “backlash” that is now mandatory after every new immigrant atrocity.
Instead, not for the first time, this mass murder by an immigrant has been spun into an attack on gun ownership by Americans. On Wednesday afternoon, a Google search on “Virginia Tech” and “gun control” revealed an incredible 45,000 stories. In contrast, “virginia tech” + “immigration control” revealed just 230 stories, most of them random word junk from the bottom of the Google barrel, not one of them a serious MSM discussion of the topic.
The details of Virginia’s gun-purchase laws are now debated across the world. But there is no debate on how and why the Cho family got into the U.S.—or even on such piquant details as what national purpose was served by acquiring yet another English major, as Cho was. (Apart, of course. from providing fodder for Virginia Tech bureaucrats’ self-congratulatory “diversity” boondoggles—for which their charges have now paid a terrible price.)
America’s gun owners are well-organized (they have to be). They can defend themselves. But it is worth noting that every Swiss male is required by law to keep an automatic weapon in his home, yet gun crime is so low that the government does not even keep statistics. This, of course, is because Switzerland is full of Swiss. Similarly, Finland’s welfare state works because Finland is full of Finns. The immigration moral: maybe the U.S. should be importing (if anybody) Swiss, Finns and other people who would assimilate more easily—and not just in the superficial sense of displacing native-born American students from leading American colleges.
How easily are Koreans assimilating? They invariably feature in the Mainstream Media as a “model minority”—valedictorians and musical prodigies. [VDARE.COM note: Asian-American gunman Wayne Lo, (see Today’s Letter was a violinist.] It’s our job at VDARE.COM to ask questions about this sort of happy talk.
There were virtually no Koreans in the U.S. until the legal immigration floodgate was opened by the Great Society immigration reform of 1965. Today, there are some 864,000 Korean immigrants here. They have approximately 200,000 American-born children. Altogether, Koreans now make up some 0.4% of the U.S. population. (Asian Americans in total now account for 4.2 percent of the U.S. population, again entirely as a result of the 1965 Act).
Because of the nepotistic nature of current U.S. immigration law, with its notoriously broad interpretation of “family reunification”, a continuing inflow of Koreans is guaranteed. Thus there were 24,386 Korean immigrants in 2006 —up from 14,116 in 1997. In 2006, South Korea was the 11th immigrant source country for the U.S.
Needless to say, turnabout (or “reciprocity” as it is known to trade economists) is not fair play. When, in researching Alien Nation, I asked the South Korean Embassy whether it was possible for an American citizen to immigrate to Korea, I was told flatly: “Korea does not accept immigrants”.
So are Koreans a model minority? It’s a hard claim to assess in full. Reason: the federal government’s continuing and culpable failure to collect good data on the results of the massive social engineering experiment it is inflicting on America through its immigration policy.
However, as often happens with immigration myths, some of the facts that are available are about Koreans suggest that the truth is more complex.
Example: economic success. The poverty rate for Korean immigrants (13.2% in 2005), while below the immigrant average (17.1%), was nearly 50% above that of non-Hispanic native-born American whites (8.6%). Koreans are also more dependent on federal government financial support. Nearly 14% of Korean households receive Medicaid benefits compared to 10.4% of non-Hispanic American whites. Supplemental Security Income—a cash benefit primarily targeted toward the elderly poor—goes to 4.3% of Korean households versus 1.9% of non-Hispanic white households. [Census figures for Korean-Americans can be found here.]
It’s possible that this is deceptive. Possibly Korean immigrants have simply figured out scams like how to import their elderly parents and dump them on the American taxpayer. This is notoriously one reason for the high welfare participation rates of Chinese immigrants. But if so, it doesn’t bode well for their civic morality.
Everybody thinks that Koreans are law-abiding. This is probably because they are not associated with the flagrant street crime that Americans have come to dread.
But we don’t really know for sure how law-abiding the Koreans are. Data on criminality by race and national origin is notoriously tricky and difficult to obtain. Neither the FBI nor the Department of Justice breaks out Koreans separately.
One hint: According to the New Century Foundation’s 1999 study, The Color of Crime,
“Blacks commit violent crimes at four to eight times the white rate. Hispanics commit violent crimes at approximately three times the white rate, and Asians at one half to three quarters the white rate.”[PDF]
But “Asians” to the Census Bureau means anyone from the Mediterranean to the Pacific. And the overall “Asian” average could conceal specialized, sophisticated crimes.
To match anecdotes with anecdotes: A quick trip to the FBI website shows Koreans implicated in a major prostitution ring, home invasion, and gang warfare. (Ominously, the two latter criminals, David Nam and Daniel Min Suh, are both U.S.-born but apparently have links to Korean organized crime).
Obviously, there are immigrant groups that have more glaring flaws than the Koreans. But the bottom line is that we may not know as much about the Koreans as we think. Even our Steve Sailer, who (unusually for him) takes at face value the notion that Koreans are law-abiding, is dismayed by the violence of South Korean films and of their formidable riots.
Seung-Hui Cho may be an aberration. But, as always with America’s post-1965 immigration disaster, we come back to the question: why take the risk?
Aleks, you have certainly captured the inanity of the typical response among right-thinking (meaning left-thinking) people today. As I’ve expressed in my writings on this matter, there is no direct solution to this problem. Only a thorough reclamation of the culture can have any chance of doing much good. And the likelihood of such a reclamation happening in our lifetimes?….
I’ve been following the coverage of this tragedy on FoxNews and CNN lately and I thought I would share this with you. I first posted this last night on “Facebook” and it got a fairly reasonable response, so I thought this would be another appropriate place for it. I hope you enjoy.
I’ve been doing a lot of thinking and soul-searching lately, and I think I have finally abandoned my classical liberal/libertarian ways. I was thinking about the tragedy that ocurred at Virginia Tech, and how it so easily could have and should have been avoided. It is quite clear that we need to take a stand against these kinds of behaviors and eradicate them once and for all from society.
I think the first step we need to take to make sure this never happens again is make sure that the wrong people can’t get guns. While people propose many solutions such as comprehensive background checks for people to get guns, it is quite clear that these solutions won’t work. Guns will still be able to get in the wrong hands. What we need to do is ban gun ownership entirely. Society would improve exponentially as a result of this ban and we would live in a wonderful world where people could only do their killing with blunt or bladed instruments or using their bare hands.
However, we can’t just stop there. We need to make sure that situations like this can never occur again. As the killer at Virginia Tech was a foreigner, it is obvious that part of the solution is stopping immigration. We need to make sure that the massive influx of Mexicans and people of various other nationalities cannot enter. The best way to do this is to build a wall around all of our borders. We should also deport all immigrants immediately, to make sure that they don’t cause any more violence.
There are other social issues at stake here as well. It has been conclusively shown that violent videogames produce violence in society, so it would be a good first step to stop the production of such filth. Videogames aren’t the only media that cause violence, however, violent action films, music, and books can do the exact same thing. The answer is right in front of us. We need to establish a commission run by the federal government to ensure that only safe media reaches the general population.
Also, we should remember that this killing took place at a college and is indicative of a direct correlation between violence and education. Therefore, we should make sure that the only education available to the public is carefully screened by the federal government and only safe information is available to people.
This still may not be enough. We should also use genetic screening to watch out for people that may have violent tendancies and remove them from the general population, or better yet, we could use our ability for genetic engineering to remove these and any other undesirable traits from the population. This clearly needs to be run by the federal government, and should be applied equally to all people. This way the federal government can truly protect us from any danger.
There are steps we can take to make sure the Virginia Tech tragedy never happen again. We may never live in a completely perfect society, but we can at least live in a state-run safe one.