
On the manifestos killers leave behind - jonathansizz
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n20/andrew-ohagan/whos-the-alpha-male-now-bitches
======
mathgenius
I was picked on in school a fair amount. Some of it quite violent, and
pervasive. At some point I got really fed up with one particular kid, and got
myself a big stick. Luckily for him that stick broke cleanly in two upon first
impact, otherwise i'm not sure what would have happened. After that things
subsided somewhat. That kid threatened me more, but never did come after me
again.

Growing older I realise two things. First, those "jocks" that get all the
girls, have (generalizing here) other very serious problems, are often
emotionally stunted, angry at their dads, or whatever. So we all get weathered
differently by life, and actually it's kind of heartbreaking to see. Second, I
just think too much! It drives people crazy when i do that, and instead of
that, I just need to turn my attention outwards, and feel what is going on
outside of my own head. Then things become relational, and people can also
sense that I am here too.

Wish I could tell all of this to my 14-year-old self.

~~~
Retra
_" First, those "jocks" that get all the girls, have (generalizing here) other
very serious problems, are often emotionally stunted, angry at their dads, or
whatever._"

I highly doubt that this is true.

~~~
theseatoms
Yeah, smells like an adolescent rationalization.

------
tunesmith
I think this is a good read when combined with the Gladwell article from the
New Yorker ([http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/thresholds-
of-v...](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/thresholds-of-
violence?currentPage=all)).

I'm not against gun control efforts or better mental health efforts (whatever
that might mean) but I think that both articles suggest that a lot of progress
can be made in figuring out how to arrest this kind of societal disconnect.

In the days after Columbine, there was a huge reaction from people who wanted
to paint with a really broad brush, along the lines of random kids being
potential suspects just because they liked wearing trench coats. John Katz had
a project called "Voices From The Hellmouth" over at Slashdot, that invited
people that had similar difficulties to write in and share their thoughts and
experiences of being bullied or ostracized. I'm convinced that efforts like
that can save lives.

[http://news.slashdot.org/story/99/04/25/1438249/voices-
from-...](http://news.slashdot.org/story/99/04/25/1438249/voices-from-the-
hellmouth)

~~~
arthur_pryor
I haven't thought about "Voices From The Hellmouth" in a really long time. I
remember reading Slashdot a ton in high school and college (maybe 97 or 98
through 02?). Then, not so much. FWIW, HN, esp when I first found it a few
years ago, reminded me a lot of what I loved about the discussion on Slashdot
back in the day.

Anyway, the actual point of this comment: much of what's described in "Voices
From The Hellmouth" would now fit comfortably under the currently fashionable
term "microagression." I'd bet that many posters on HN and elsewhere who think
that microaggressions aren't a thing worth real concern, are also the sorts of
people who were/are picked on in the way that "Hellmouth" catalogs so vividly.

And for the record, I'm not saying that the prevailing view on HN is that
microaggressions aren't real, or that most people who deny them were bullied
geeks. Just that there are probably a lot of bullied or formerly bullied geeks
who deny the significance of such social ostracism, even though they
experienced it themselves.

Ironic, but not unexpected: people without power often end up at odds with one
another when they should be looking for common ground and empathizing with one
another. Still, sad. I always find it really painful to watch minorities be
racist, to watch geeks pick on other geeks for lacking social graces, to watch
women be unfeminist, etc. Well, sometimes it's darkly hilarious. But still
painful.

~~~
dropit_sphere
>Ironic, but not unexpected: people without power often end up at odds with
one another when they should be looking for common ground and empathizing with
one another

From a certain altitude this is true, but what usually happens is the top
plays the bottom off against the middle. From the perspective of the middle,
both are enemies.

------
AndrewKemendo
I am convinced that the people who do these shootings do so because they have
an ego that cannot cope with their societal impotence.

That is, they think they should be more liked, more powerful, be able to get
girls, be in charge of things, free from criticism, unable to be bullied
(which is reasonable) etc... but aren't for any given reason.

So their recourse is to _prove_ to everyone how powerful they are by shooting
them up. The worst part is, it is pretty powerful and it destroys communities,
which is what they want. They want to be able to say they destroyed a
community because that's how they are proving their power.

I don't see any solution to this. Preventing them from getting access to the
tools that could empower that could help but is really hard to do, especially
in the US, because banning guns or whatever likely wouldn't work 100% of the
time. If they are smart and dedicated enough they will find a way to get/make
bombs and guns.

So I see no real solution here.

~~~
rottencupcakes
The falacy here is the classic "perfect is the enemy of good."

Banning assault rifles and handguns could go a long way to reducing
availability. And if that decreases the number of these events by as much as
people think it could, it's probably worthwhile.

Just because somebody who's super dedicated to the cause and works day in and
day out to get the equipment to carry out a shooting could probably make it
happen doesn't mean limiting access won't greatly reduce the number.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
This is a good point, but I think underestimates the pathos around American
gun ownership.

That is to say, I don't think that banning those things would result in a
reduction in availability.

------
cmiles74
This is the first time I've read excerpts from these "manifestos" and it's
hard to know how to react. It all reads like a kind of mental illness and it's
chilling to see the similarities (although this article may only make them
look similar). Intellectually I feel like there should be room for sympathy of
some kind, but to be honest, I feel nothing of the kind; just angry. The
authors strike me as small, pathetic, misguided and (for me, worst of all)
demanding and entitled.

In terms of constructive moves to try and deal with this issue, it's hard to
think of anything substantive. For sure, less guns means these individuals
would have taken fewer lives. Perhaps a better attitude toward mental illness
and easier to access treatment options might help. On the other hand, it
doesn't sound like these people though they were mentally ill. On the
contrary, they felt the opposite.

I found the bits about how special they think they are to be particularly
striking. I certainly feel that my daughter is special, but I understand that
what makes her most special is that she is my daughter. The idea that everyone
should be, in some way, globally special seems somewhat misguided.

~~~
AdeptusAquinas
I think you have hit on the one key similarity, at least in the examples
cited. They all seem to feel they 'deserve' something, that the world owes
them a relationship, sex, power, money etc.

When they don't get it they get frustrated and angry, and eventually violent
because they feel they are being 'cheated', 'oppressed'. I've read that that
Elliot guy also harboured a racist belief that he was better than african-
americans, and thought it a huge injustice that he couldn't get a girlfriend
but saw african-americans who could.

~~~
agarden
Elliot Rodger's manifesto:
[http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/05/25/us/shooting-
do...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/05/25/us/shooting-
document.html)

Rodger thought it was a huge injustice that anyone else could have a
girlfriend -- or anything else -- when he couldn't. Though he never seems to
have actually summoned the courage to ask a girl out.

------
nickysielicki
I link to this far too often, but it's relevant to so many discussions had on
this site.

    
    
        The Great On-Line Equalizer
        Date: 21 Mar 1996
        https://subgenius.com/bigfist/answers/articles2/X0095_The_Great_On-Line_Eq.html
    
        Relevant quote:
        """
        All the people who are invisible in the normal world (the world
        run by the rich and powerful), all those people you can dismiss
        on the street as powerless and harmless -- ALL THOSE PEOPLE are
        now in your face.
      
        You can feel their hot breath on the Internet.
        """
    

It seems the more we become intertwined with the Internet, the more we start
feeling their hot breath in real life. Or at least, the more we notice it.

~~~
0x49
This quote has a lot of truth to it. I think the issue we now face is that it
gives EVERYBODY power. Even people that shouldn't ever have it in the first
place.

Many of these hashtag protests are purely based on emotion and in some
instances, don't even have enough information to make a claim either way (or
are based on rumor/false information). This is why our court systems were
invented in the first place: to prevent mobs of people from attacking innocent
individuals and calling it 'justice'.

------
draw_down
[http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/02/the_rage_of_the_avera...](http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/02/the_rage_of_the_average_joe.html)

------
sparkzilla
I went to school with the author. If you like his writing style, I highly
recommend his (long but fascinating) account of trying to ghost write Julian
Assange's autobiography. [http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n05/andrew-
ohagan/ghosting](http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n05/andrew-ohagan/ghosting)

~~~
everial
Thanks for mentioning - really enjoyed the linked piece (previously on HN at
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9395156](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9395156)
though it didn't generate discussion).

------
pervycreeper
Interesting topic, but the article does nothing more than recycle points taken
from the most quotidian of newspaper editorials.

------
VT_Drew
From your first paragraph:

>‘I have noticed,’ it says, ‘that so many people like him are all alone and
unknown, yet when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they
are. A man who was known by no one is now known by everyone. His face splashed
across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet,
all in the course of one day. Seems the more people you kill, the more you’re
in the limelight.’

So, PLEAE can you stop fucking mentioning these assholes names? For the the
love of God you are perpetuating the problem.

~~~
danielam
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herostratus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herostratus)

~~~
jessaustin
Now _that_ was a law that backfired... 23.5 centuries later, can the average
person think of anyone else who lived in Ephesus back then?

------
comrh
At what point does the constant retread of mass murders' ideals become
fetishization? Does anyone really think we'll prevent more of these attacks by
deep analysis of their writings or are we just obsessed with the possibility
of understanding horrible tragedies?

I'm tired of reading these monsters' names and quotes. They all thought they
were the smartest people on the planet and everyone should read their words.

I'm going to stick with remembering the amazing people taken from us instead.
I think about people like Liviu Librescu and Alex Teves a lot as a reminder of
the requirement for good people to stand up to evil.
[http://nonotoriety.com/](http://nonotoriety.com/)

------
_0ffh
Is pervasive PUA language in articles now so commonplace that nobody even
comments on it?

Is it a thing now to identify people with serious mental health problems with
"betas", as if that was in any way a valid or helpful analysis?

------
venomsnake
There should be a Mad Max reference in the article with Immortal Joe shouting
"mediocre", because even in their blaze of glory moment for these troubled
individuals, there is no glory and barely any blaze. And I think that the
reason they leave this manifestos is because they feel they cannot do anything
right and put it as insurance.

~~~
prawn
"Immortan Joe"

------
justinator
...what about the Unabomber?

~~~
cuberator
He doesnt have much in common with the people mentioned in this article,
except Breivik maybe, though i might be completely wrong since i havent read
up on the Unabomber.

~~~
roflc0ptic
Yeah, as I understand it the Unabomber was politically motivated terrorism. He
also had the distinction of being a pretty smart guy, which is unusual for the
demographic that gets into mass murder.

~~~
justinator
Ted Bundy [0] Andrew Cunanan [1] Jeffrey Dahmer -

I wouldn't say it's "unusual" [2]

[0]
[http://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/Psyc%20405/serial%20killers/B...](http://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/Psyc%20405/serial%20killers/Bundy,%20Ted%20-%202005.pdf)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Cunanan#Early_life](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Cunanan#Early_life)

[2] [http://www.examiner.com/article/22-serial-killers-with-
high-...](http://www.examiner.com/article/22-serial-killers-with-high-iqs)

~~~
andreasvc
You listed two serial killers with a high IQ; however, the merits of IQ can be
debated, but more importantly Kaczynsky stands out because he holds a PhD and
was a Berkeley professor.

------
rrggrr
People alone with their thoughts. Early, frequent and long-term intervention
can ease the suffering of mentally troubled individuals. Instead we build
prisons, invest in security and hire more police.

~~~
aaron-lebo
Are you advocating more spending on mental healthcare and less spending on
prisons? If so I agree, but that isn't explicit in your comment.

These people committing these acts don't usually end up in prison, anyway.

------
necessity
According to this ridiculous article I was "a natural step" from being a
school shooter in my teenager years, and so are million others. The juvenile
grouping of "jocks and nerds" is not enough for the author, who makes no
effort in trying to understand the killera, instead he dwells into
generalizations and sheer prejudice. If the title didn't hint you into what
sort of article it would be.

------
Laaw
I realize this is the actual title of the piece, but it's going to get _much_
fewer views/reads because of it.

For the sake of HN readers, it might be worth editorializing this title to add
some kind of context.

~~~
dang
This is a common misunderstanding, but in fact the HN guidelines ask you _not_
to use the original title when it is linkbait.

We changed the linkbait title to the subtitle. Once you get past that, this is
a substantive piece.

~~~
waterlesscloud
Perhaps adding a note to that effect on the submissions page would help.

------
swagv
It's little more than a rehash of facts with little exploration beyond that. I
expected more from such a read.

------
devindotcom
It's a very strange time, when anyone can reach anyone else (or any knowledge)
instantly, but many use this as an opportunity to isolate themselves even
further. It seems to happen a lot when the exceptionalism common to young
white men runs straight into the reality that they are in fact _un_
exceptional and what power they have is not just unearned but waning. The
cognitive dissonance that results is, as we see over and over, lethal to
themselves and others.

~~~
dropit_sphere
> what power they have is not just unearned but waning

That's the interesting thing, though, isn't it? Leaving aside questions of
"earned," _is_ their power waning? Does it console Veronika Weiss or Katherine
Cooper that we might have a woman as POTUS? I know no one is crusading for it
but I will: when will we see equality in mass shootings? To put it in less
obviously straw-man terms: why should women have to live in fear when men
don't?

My point is: the exceptionalism is apparently justified, because when it
couldn't be, _they went out and justified it._ Got any breathless expose's
about _your_ troubled writings?

~~~
vezzy-fnord
_why should women have to live in fear when men don 't?_

They don't?

~~~
dropit_sphere
It was definitely a straw man. I'm a dude and I don't live in fear of a
shooter, and I don't get the impression many women do either.

My point is: We're quick to claim victory as society grows more tolerant and
race/sex matter less, but I think we claim it too soon. That young white men
feel entitled to shoot people when their lives don't work out (and apparently
others don't) is as real an imbalance as wage gaps, etc.

------
cuberator
Very well written and interesting. While some people put the blame on firearms
(lets not turn this into a debate on gun control) i believe that its the media
attention that is the biggest culprit.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4)

~~~
manachar
"Let's not turn this into a debate on BLANK, instead let's talk about my pet
theory BLANK".

Seems like that's the only constant after any sort of horrific tragedy. It
becomes grist in the mill for people to push their pre-existing agendas.

For some it has been a push for greater gun control. For others it has been a
push for greater funding and understanding of mental health. For others, you
blame media attention.

Personally, I view these events as "side-effects" of our society. And we're
basically loathe to examine it too deeply as it can call into question some
deeply held parts of American culture.

~~~
sliverstorm
"Reduce media attention to criminals" seems like an odd pre-existing personal
agenda. What ulterior motive could that possibly correspond to?

~~~
manachar
Blaming media has gotten increasingly popular for a variety of societal ills.
It's just a favorite boogeyman to go after. Much like people who blame violent
video games or 4chan.

The ulterior motive is to use the situation to disparage something they
already don't like.

~~~
jjoonathan
Yes, I'm sure people blame the media because they perceive it as popular and
not because killers leave manifestos saying they do it because of the
attention it will bring them.

>‘I have noticed,’ it says, ‘that so many people like him are all alone and
unknown, yet when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they
are. A man who was known by no one is now known by everyone. His face splashed
across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet,
all in the course of one day. Seems the more people you kill, the more you’re
in the limelight.’

-TFA

~~~
manachar
It's not the media that causes the individual to crave the media attention or
infamy.

Does our media contribute? Absolutely. But they are the way they are because
of the way we are. Or at least the way the consumers of media are.

------
vorg
> According to the FBI, there have been close to two hundred such incidents in
> the last 15 years, resulting in the murder of 486 people and the wounding of
> 557 as of September last year

According to
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualt...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war)
, in the 8-year Iraq War (2003–2011), there were 3,527 U.S. combat deaths and
32,222 wounded. Could save far more American lives, not to mention others, by
keeping sociopaths out of the Presidency rather than profiling and surveilling
loners.

------
FussyZeus
Who cares honestly? It's the same rehashed garbage. First world problems
galore. Not getting enough sex, not having enough money, not making enough
friends but not being willing to do anything about those things but sit in
their basement of choice and whine.

Clarifying: The first world problem I'm talking about are the things the
shooters cite as reasons for their actions, not the shootings themselves.

~~~
DanBC
Mass shootings are overwhelmingly a US problem, not rest of the first world
problem. (There are a few exceptions).

> but not being willing to do anything about those things but sit in their
> basement of choice and whine.

Or go out and kill a bunch of people.

~~~
hga
Not even close; here's an accounting I did covering just Western Europe just
for this century as of a little over 2 years ago:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4970408](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4970408)
and the same with some discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5070201](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5070201)

Add e.g. Canada and "[it's] overwhelmingly a US problem" is even less true.

~~~
DanBC
That's 20, for all of Europe, since 2000.

The US has had over 30 mass killings _this year_. And that's only the events
where four or more people were killed. It doesn't include events like Sept
28th 2015 Miami Florida where 15 people were shot but no-one died.

Sept 28th 2015 Miami Florida - I need to include all that information because
there were also shootings on that day in Indianapolis, IN; Walterboro, SC; and
Philadelphia, PA, and there were shootings (often different events on the same
day) on September 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 11th, 14th, 15th, 18th, 19th 20th,
21st, 29th, and 30th September.

> Not even close

Really?

[http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-leads-world-in-mass-
shooting...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-leads-world-in-mass-
shootings-1443905359)

> The U.S. represents less than 5% of the 7.3 billion global population but
> accounted for 31% of global mass shooters during the period from 1966 to
> 2012, more than any other country, Mr. Lankford said, adding that he defines
> a mass shooter as one who killed at least four victims. The 90 killers who
> carried out mass shootings in the U.S. amounted to five times as many as the
> next highest country, the Philippines, according to his research.

~~~
hga
Those are different classes of "mass killings", Wikipedians aren't going to
collect all the cases of where 4 or more people were killed, and my postings
were not intended to discuss scale, just to refute the lie that this is a
uniquely American phenomenon with 2000-~2012 examples.

Which is not quite what you claimed, you said "overwhelmingly", and that's
sufficiently vague I suspect it's a debatable point. Paywall stops me from the
WSJ article, but I know that people who study this sort of thing that I trust
have said at minimum the FBI's recent study was bunk, and that's enough for me
on this topic.

~~~
DanBC
You tell me what you're counting as a mass killing, and then I can show you
how that event is overwhelmingly something that happens in the US. You've
pointed to less than two events per year for Europe for this century.

How about six people killed? There have been 13 events in the US where six
people were shot and killed since Jan 1 2013.

You're wrong anyway. From your own post:

> De Gelder, Kim, 20, Jan. 16/23,, 2009, Belgium, 4, 12

> Bosse, Bastian, 18, Nov. 20, 2006, Germany, 0, 22

> Radmacher, Sabine, 41, Sep. 19, 2010, Germany, 3, 18 (arson was also used)

> Sacco, Angelo Secondo, 54, June 28, 2005, Italy, 3, 9

Numbers killed: 4, zero, 3, and 3.

Wikipedians are going to list every event that happens in Europe, because
these events are so rare. They are by definition news worthy, which provides a
lot of reliable sources. But US mass shootings are so common that they hardly
make the news.

The fact that you dismiss an event where 15 people were shot but not killed as
not being relevant, or you dismiss events where 4 people or more are killed as
not being mass killings is a sign that this conversation is pointless: you're
blind to the facts.

> this is a uniquely American

I didn't say uniquely, I said overwhelmingly.

It is overwhelmingly a US problem.

[http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-
interactive/2015/oct/0...](http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-
interactive/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-america-gun-violence)

~~~
donw
That article cites 'shootingtracker.com' as a source, which is a known-false
propaganda site, as it includes accidents with airsoft guns in their list of
"mass shootings".

I have been shot by an airsoft gun. It stung a bit.

Since January 1st, 2013, Wikipedia shows six mass killings in the United
States, two in China, and four in continental Europe.

