Criminal identification?

Post Reply New Topic

Even before I knew his name, I knew he was special.


He was a counter-military, counter-culture sort of person. I heard he was dressed all in black and had piercings. And he was older. He wasn't a kid who was picked on. He was someone with a social conscience who was standing up for others.


And so I read his diary, and I was seduced by his social conscience, and infatuated with his intellectual honesty, and enthralled by the fact that he was a spoiled brat like me,. but still had reason to do it.


I wasn't alone.


I could have been Kimveer Gill, and I also could have loved him.


He and I had so many similarities. The intense love for people and then the intense hatred for people. How could they do this to them?


I wish I had met him. Maybe he wouldn't have done it if he knew there was even one other person like him. On the other hand, maybe I would have been his partner in crime, though I wasn't so depressed that I would have killed myself, and maybe that was not such a good thing.


When I was alone and lonely and depressed sometimes, I thought about him and the one person he was able to kill, Anastasia DeSousa. I thought of him and cried. I thought of her and cried.


I never met either of them, but I could have been Kimveer if I had been just a little more depressed, and I could have been Anastasia if I had been just a little happier than I was.


Polar opposites. But so similar in some ways. I think they would have got along-- or rather, respected each other--, although I was bashed on the DeSousa memorial site for saying so. Both were passionate about what they did, and they loved people, and they had extreme emotions.


And then, after I was done blubbering, I got off on him. I mean, I GOT OFF on him.


Before I got truly dead-depressed, I was seeing a shrink, and taking anti-d's, I felt oppressed and depressed like Kimveer Gill. We were so depressed we were almost psychotic. we were paranoid. He thought the CIA might ruin his life. I thought I would get shot from a window by a sniper. He put "dead" as his mood in his journal the day he did it. And when I feel dead, I'll do anything to save my soul. Not my life. My soul. There's a difference. He didn't feel angry that day. Just dead. He was happy and smiling when he did it. Nobody said it was in a maniacal way. He just smiled because he knew he was saving his soul. Not his life, but his soul.


Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris stood alone together. Kip Kinkel and his shrink who told him to get a gun stood alone together. Kimveer Gill stood alone alone.


I can't hate him. I can't even dislike him.


I can't.


Do I have the best of both worlds? The worst of both worlds? What?


Have you ever been so mad at this society for failing you, or given up on it to the point where you don't care what you do to it... you'll just use it to your own ends?

Wait you lost me, is this a fictional story?

"12. Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect" terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle- to upper-middle-class families. "

15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They say they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he grudgingly admits that they exist; whereas he enthusiastically points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist's real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.

20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they prefer masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait.

21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists' hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.

- " On the Industrial Society and its Future"


The last two sounds just like you and your plans for a collective, Ana.
If you want to do stuff to change the world, don't go around to clinics and barge in there. You'll just get beat up, or thrown out by security guards.
Pen is mightier than the sword.

What crotchety, ignorant old fart wrote that crap?

Eyes to see, ears to hear. (If you don't know where thats from, ugh...)
Basically, attack the message not the author.

It seems to apply very much here. What problem do you have with the message?

I much rather he used the phrase leftist radicals.

I guess you can call him ignorant. He graduated from Harvard (which he got into at 16) with a degree in advanced mathematics, he was a professor at both the University of Michigan and Berkeley. He held a National Science Foundation fellowship.

He solved a math problem in a year that Piranian could not solve in his entire life.

So yes, I think he has the credentials to back up his "non ignorance".

Last edited by Kalister1 on 16 Oct 2007, 2:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The problem with it is that its a steaming load of propaganda bull crap.

Okay, enough arguing with you.

You just seem to want to attack without giving any reason to. Give a reason.

He is actually left wing, so I don't understand the propaganda part...

Last edited by Kalister1 on 16 Oct 2007, 2:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Propaganda tends to negatively stereotyping a whole group of people, while glorifying another.

He doesn't glorify anyone. Its a critique of society, if you've ever read the thing.
Read it before attacking it .
He is actually almost insulting himself, since he is an anarchist (though thats debatable)

It doesn't glorify anyone at all.
The whole point is a critique of society.

You just managed to completely miss that though, and home in on "OH ITS BULLCRAP BLAH BLAH. IT DOESN'T AGREE WITH ME! "

I found great wisdom in the Unabomber manifesto you quoted, I read it when it was published.

Sounds overly positive to me, for something that seems to attack a group with conflicting ideals.

Yeah, there is a lot of good points about society, but it just seems to give the problem then give an inadequate solution.

Though, a lot of his "points" about society have already been made before by other authors. He just summed them up in a nice little package.

Last edited by Kalister1 on 16 Oct 2007, 2:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Sounds what? What do you disagree with? Or are you just spouting nonsense again? You mean overly specific?

Ever been to a college? Its well known that Californian colleges are INCREDIBLY left wing. He is commenting on the left wing professors that seem to shove their views down your throat. Its funny when they cry about the plight of the blacks, then pull away in a brand new BMW.

I did, and thats why I said it. To me, the whole thing comes of as extremely negative against a group of people, how is that justified?

Justify? He is writing what he sees in society, and that is extremely troubling to him. Don't worry, he attacks everyone it seems; we all have a hand in the Industrial society

He even attacks a group I identify with (he dedicates a whole portion to it!):

"91. Also, science and technology constitute a mass power movement, and many scientists gratify their need for power through identification with this mass movement (see paragraph 83)."

- On the Industrial society and Its future
He attacks everyone..

Last edited by Kalister1 on 16 Oct 2007, 2:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

How is this guy any better? Hes stereotyping people with different views than him and telling you about how they are all terrible and bitter people.