Skip to main content

Isn't Elliot Roger the 'classic' profile of the explosively murderous/superegoic sociopath, here a juvenile manifestation of a cross between Travis Bickle in Scorsese's Taxi Driver and the killer in Michael Mann's Manhunter, while further actively 'nurtured' on a myopically cyberspacial diet of manically misogynistic and racist ravings from assorted unhinged "man" forums and websites. His ravings are much like those of numerous of these infantilist internet posters with a pathologized paranoiac-persecutory fantasy formation.

The kid who was never properly socialized into young female company, but who instead spend his time daydreaming about the 'perfect' relationship with a (white) girl, the kid who was always told by idiot adult others how "special" he was, how 'superior' he was to everyone else (especially those of other minority groups), the kid whose whole self-image (Ideal Ego), of how he demands others to see him - his infantile narcissism, his little lost boy self-pity and sulking - depends on the fantasy of the female other as redeemer who will make him feel 'whole' again. But when this doesn't happen, as it never can, being impossible, being a daydream, being his fundamental fantasy, he explodes in aggressive-violent rage. Attempting to push women off dangerous ledges at a party (as though such sociopathic violence is normal, he thinks), and, when restrained from doing so by others, retreating into the corner to sulk, to cry, such sentimentalism addressed precisely at the imagined Other who will 'make him feel whole again', so that he can resume his violence again, is the means by which it is enabled.

It was the grotesque disparity between his daydreaming about his ideal relationship (just as with Travis Bickle and the killer in Manhunter and countless other examples) and the actual reality, his chronic resulting inability to socialize (the daydreaming - the fantasmatic-real - was what prevented this, setting up a permanent resistance to doing it, fearing it), to form relationships, that provokes the raging psychopathic response; it was his attempt to actualize in social-symbolic reality itself his pathetic, Mills and Boon, wishy washy fundamental narcissistic fantasy of the perfect relation with some image - a desire directly manufactured by the culture itself, by the dominant ideology - of the passified, mortified, subservient Barbie Doll other (see below at 1.), the obscene, nightmarish disparity between the two, that then found expression by displacing his paranoia onto the demonization of imagined evil others who are plotting against him and stealing all his posited enjoyment (Chinese, blacks, women, the very people he targeted).

1. Killer Elliot Roger wrote in his demented 'manifesto' of when, as an awkward 14-year-old school-kid, he was obsessively fantasizing about a 13-year-old blonde girl, but who he later compulsively and pathologically demonized : “The funny part of this is that I had a secret crush on her. She was the first girl I ever had a crush on. To be teased by the girl I had a crush on wounded me deeply.” But later: “I hated her so much, and I will never forget her. I started to hate all girls because of this. I saw them as mean, cruel, and heartless creatures ... The way I was treated by girls at this time, especially by that evil bítch, sparked an intense fear of girls.” Until finally his sclerotic resolve: “Women’s rejection of me is a declaration of war. If it is war they want, then war they shall have. It will result in their annihilation.”

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  No offense... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    churchylafemme, Lujane

    ...but I'm sick of hearing this guy's name. I'm sure your diary is sincere: We all try to make sense of senseless tragedies.
    But don't give this guy any "recognition." Refer to him as a cipher; a hypothetical...

    Anything but a human being.

    He deserves no kind of recognition. He lost his right to be remembered in ANY way. No infamy. No name. No history. A speck of dust. To do so shadows the memories of the people killed.

    He belongs in hell. Too bad it doesn't exist.

    "Wealthy the Spirit which knows its own flight. Stealthy the Hunter who slays his own fright. Blessed is the Traveler who journeys the length of the Light."

    by CanisMaximus on Mon May 26, 2014 at 11:04:36 PM PDT

    •  Huh? How does infamy, or lack of it, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AnnieR, Neuroptimalian, amyzex

      have any impact on a dead body? I doubt the name Rodgers will live on like the name Hitler or Oswald or McVeigh, but I don't think that any of these individuals benefitted from their post-death infamy. In North Korea, when "enemies of the state" are executed, their existence is erased from the public record, and it is a capital crime to utter their names. I don't think we should be following North Korea's lead.

    •  The guy, demented as he was, was a human (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      being. Recall that his killing spree was possible because he didn't think of others as people like himself.
         But there have been at least two shootings since this guy went off the rails.
         Plenty more things to be outraged about.

  •  Sorry, but this is gibberish. If you have an (7+ / 0-)

    opinion, try a simple statement. The presence of polysyllabic words obfuscates the lack of content.

    At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

    by serendipityisabitch on Mon May 26, 2014 at 11:41:47 PM PDT

  •  over at FB it appears that apologist sites (11+ / 0-)

    are already springing up.

    In the meantime, it is noted the amount of time he spent on PUA sites:

    The interesting thing here at Kos is I have seen a running argument as to if this guy were really an MRA or a PUA.  I note that the MRA apologists tend to argue that he was a PUA and that the PUAs are a distinct separate group and that this guy was more than likely a PUA but certainly was not a PUA.

    The PUA apologists point out that Rodger did not openly admit in his video or his manifesto that he was a PUA though he posted extensively on a PUA site and used the rhetoric and language of both the PUA and MRA movements ( IMHO, the PUA is a subset of MRA).  I would venture to say, purely as my own opinion, that had racial apologists shown up here, they would have quickly have been shown the door while misogyny apologists seem to reside among us, if not full time, at least part time

    •  reading what he wrote--and knowing a fair bit (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      about this, he's wasn't either to be honest.  I don't exactly know what he was--and he seems to have combed several outlets trying to find people as angry as he was--and, possibly at the same time, people who might be able to get him out of it.

      that 'PUA-hate' thing stands on its own--it's a bunch of bitter losers who hate women.

      •  He used their vocabulary; he embraced their (4+ / 0-)

        worldview and he expressed many of their ideas.  You may argue that he represents an extreme viewpoint of those folks but I don't think you can argue that he was neither, if you apply the "duck test".

        After all, consider the current rift in the Open Carry camp, where TX Open Carry has asked its members to not carry weapons openly into businesses while its Tarrant County branch refuses to comply.  Does this mean TX Open Carry is not responsible for its Tarrant County branch?

        Also, it appears the PUA community not only embraced him but continues to embrace him:

        After all, some people here act as if the PUA/MRA hands out membership cards, keeps regular membership rolls and has regular monthly meetings with attendance recorded.  Exactly how would a person be considered a member of the MRA/PUA community?

        The nuances and parsing of the niceties of what constitutes "membership" of a group reminds me of how anti-abortion extremists and anti-gay advocates scrambled to disavow  Eric Rudolf

        •  'PUA' is a distributed group of guys looking for (0+ / 0-)

          and trading dating advice, often through meetups. They're very mechanical about it because the guys involved are often not aware of 'how it works' (i.e. normal adolescent development)  That's really about it.  As you can imagine, guys who aren't dating as much as they would like will run the gamut might be expected to have some social/developmental problems.  A lot are normal.  A lot are really weird.  Some are downright scary.  It's kind of a cross section of the type of people you might expect to find in a group therapy session.

          It gets a bad rep because there are legitimately some creeps involved.  And also because their terminology really IS objectifying--although a large number of them reject that.

          It's not THAT different than the myriad of thousands of sites offering love/dating/sex advice for women.  ALthough think more 'The Rules' (which guys HATED, as you may recall) then 'Go out and have a nice time!'

          •  You could say the same thing about any group (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CenPhx, hadrons, serendipityisabitch

            Pick anti-abortion or pro NRA.  I will go with the pro NRA as an example since that is the one I find myself embroiled in.  Since I am a gun owner, it means I have to admit that there are knuckle draggers and even that the knuckle draggers are in charge in many cases.  That means I have to advocate even harder for responsible gun laws and regulations than I would if I were not a gun owner.  I find common ground with many people on the other side of the equation.

            In short, if you are a member of a class of people, it is important that you clean up your own back yard, such as educating people about the radical takeover of the NRA in the 70s and also calling out the fringe people in your own group.  You don't disavow the person, as you see with RW militias when one of their own goes rogue nor do you mindlessly defend the person, as you see with some Second Amendment advocates. You also don't praise the idiots at Bundyville as true patriots.  Instead, you admit there is a problem and search for a solution and try to find some way to marginalize and deal with the fringe element that is present in every group.

            So far, I am seeing people either disavow Rodger, embrace Rodger and defend him.  I am not seeing members of the community where he found himself much at home saying there must be a problem if we attract fringe elements such as this.  Whenever they do this, perhaps they will find that their critics will not have so much ammunition  

            •  it's not a membership thing. It's just a cross (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Jon Says

              section of people.  There's no hierarchy.  There are thousdans of sites that ahve nothing to do with each other.   There are a lot of people in there who do try to clean up.  There are a lot who don't.  What you get from it depends almost entirely on the kind of person you are.

              My problem with your comment is this, though.  This was NOT a community wehre he found himself at home.  This ws the opposite.  The group might have been able to help him--but I think it was far too late.  The group he was involved in--this PUAHate thing--hated these kinds of people--because they were the ones dating.

              •  fair enough, but in these days, define what (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                CenPhx, amyzex

                constitutes a community so we are comparing apples with apples.  From what I have seen, it appears that he did find himself at home.  For an example, about a year or so ago, a guy showed up on the IP threads and posting diaries which were clearly and blatantly anti-Semitic.   He was called out by Kossacks on both sides of the IP issue and was ultimately banned from Kos.  Therefore, I would argue that generally anti-Semitism is not tolerated here though there are still charges of anti-Semitism from time to time against various diarists.

                Now if you could show me posts from a PUA site where Rodger posted and was corrected by other participants or where he was actually banned from the site for his screeds, then you may have a point.  So far, all the examples I see are either supporting him, defending him or trying to distance themselves from him.  I have yet to see a single PUA site come out and say his view of women is completely wack-a-doodle.

                Just to be sure we are on the same page, you do agree that Rodger's view of women is completely unfounded in reality and is abhorrent to any thinking person, right?  

                •  Rodger wanted women dead. He viewed them as (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  a2nite, Jon Says

                  a monolithic evil.  I think you would probably find quite a few people on the 'PUA-Hate' site who would agree--they are exceedingly angry people--which is why he seems to have either posted there or at least referenced it several times in his 'manifesto'.  On a site like that it is quite likely that he would have said something 'like 'All women hate me--they suck they should all go to hell' and would probably find a lot of responses like 'yeah...women DO suck!  I hate them!'

                  That site is a different animal.  I'm not aware of any other site that he posted on--if you have links I'll check them out.

            •  In other words, whatever you prefer, try to be a (0+ / 0-)

              whole human being in the process. Not a simple nor an easy thing, and I salute you for the thought you're putting into it.

              At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

              by serendipityisabitch on Tue May 27, 2014 at 11:48:41 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  I'm lost -- please explain (0+ / 0-)

      What are PUA and MRA?  This is not my area of expertise.

      The Stars and Bars and the red swastika banner are both offerings to the same barbaric god.

      by amyzex on Tue May 27, 2014 at 08:15:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm not sure culture can 'directly manufacture' (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ExpatGirl, a2nite


    Advertising can exploit it.  

    Regarding Red Riding Hood.  It would have helped if 1) she weren't wearing bright red and 2) if her mother had a brain in the first place.

    Even so, we root for her safety over the wolf's appetite.

    "How can we know the dancer from the dance?" (Yeats)

    by Remediator on Tue May 27, 2014 at 04:26:46 AM PDT

  •  Lost Me at "Juvenile Manifestation." (8+ / 0-)

    The kid was medically diagnosed with a condition known to impair social capabilities.

    That's not to say the same condition usually causes violent behavior, but does mean we have to avoid drawing conclusions from him to apply to many or most other people and to the rest of society.

    I'm not going anywhere with descriptions of this kid's motives or personality with anyone that's not working from technical expertise on his condition.

    We all know society has umpteen problems with gender relations, we have plenty to work on in those areas and this case doesn't change that one way or the other.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue May 27, 2014 at 05:37:33 AM PDT

  •  Wow (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    That was...unenlightening.

  •  Both the misogyny angle and the gun control angle (0+ / 0-)

    of this story deserve more attention.

    The Stars and Bars and the red swastika banner are both offerings to the same barbaric god.

    by amyzex on Tue May 27, 2014 at 08:13:19 AM PDT

    •  the misogyny angle, the psych/mental health angle (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      and the gun control angle all merit equal attention.  A lot of people seem to be struggling to address all three--or seem to think that adderessing one means that others are being deliberately ignored.

      They all need spotlights--because it's clear from the discourse that none of us really understand much of anything.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site