Eric: "Only four or five people here didn't rip on me"

I can't believe I've never seen this article before! It's by a Rocky Mountain News columnist who watched the basement tapes when Jeffco screened them for reporters in mid-December 1999.

...

Here's the most interesting part:

They recall how it's always been: the geeks who always got picked on. You name the grade. How girls would never call them back. Even as a senior, a punk freshman "ripped," or picked on him, Dylan Klebold recalled. The freshman didn't get in trouble; he did. It would never stop. Unless he made it stop.

"Only four or five people here didn't rip on me - four or five out of the whole state of Colorado!'' Eric Harris moaned to his pal. If he were just able to get in small fistfights, like he used to, Harris says. Now, he'd get suspended, his parents sued. Now, he says, pointing his shotgun "Arlene" at the screen, he has no choice.

...

I say again:

"Only four or five people here didn't rip on me - four or five out of the whole state of Colorado!'' Eric Harris moaned to his pal.

Does that not sound like Eric saying that he was bullied, or "picked on," or whatever you want to call it?

...


Here's the whole thing:

Rocky Mountain News - December 14, 1999

KILLERS' TAPES HORRIFIC, YET HEARTBREAKING TO WATCH

By Bill Johnson

I am, like so many people, sick of this story. I hate the death, the pain and sorrow that has devastated so many lives. I want all reminders of it to vanish, for all of us to heal.

Still, I am glad I saw the videos. I think you should, too. They should gift wrap them, stick them in with the diapers and the formula whenever a parent goes home with a new child.

Those two boys could have - yes, they could have - been yours. Or mine. The mere thought makes me tremble.

They sit for hours, Wayne's World-style, in overstuffed chairs, telling of how they hate everyone. Everyone. Eric Harris does so while cradling - no, caressing - the shotgun he will use to kill some of those 13 people.

It is the most remarkable three hours of video I think I have ever seen. And, please, someone tell me how those two 17-year-old boys got that way.

And they are babies. Little punk kids. It's what I kept thinking as I watched. Near the end, as they do their dress rehearsal - struggling to don the weapons, knives, pipe bombs and ammunition they would carry into the school, I laughed. Goofy little boys playing soldier. But then, I remembered how it all ended.

They are so calm about it all. It's just matter-of-fact: ``You guys all will die, and it will be soon,'' Eric Harris says, no emotion in his voice. Yet their pain drips from them.

They recall how it's always been: the geeks who always got picked on. You name the grade. How girls would never call them back. Even as a senior, a punk freshman ``ripped,'' or picked on him, Dylan Klebold recalled. The freshman didn't get in trouble; he did. It would never stop. Unless he made it stop.

``Only four or five people here didn't rip on me - four or five out of the whole state of Colorado!'' Eric Harris moaned to his pal. If he were just able to get in small fistfights, like he used to, Harris says. Now, he'd get suspended, his parents sued. Now, he says, pointing his shotgun ``Arlene'' at the screen, he has no choice.

He appears much more introspective, Harris does, and clearly the smarter of the two. He quotes Socrates, explains the Marianas Trench in the Pacific Ocean to Klebold as they discuss the afterlife.

``I hope it's not boring,'' they say. They are at once cool and excited when talking of killing and dying. It reminded me of the way we'd talk as kids about baseball and becoming, maybe, a Yankee.

You see by watching how these two got together. They found each other to share their pain, to lash back at the rejection. Only when they speak of their mothers do they grow somber. They twiddle their fingers in front of their faces. They do not once look at the camera.

Their talk moves easily from GI Joes (Harris: ``I wish I had more so I could play with them'') to pipe bombs and TEC-9s. (Klebold: ``A tray of bullets. How cute!'')

It is odd how you hope, sitting there watching these boys boast about and display the arsenal they have collected, they were only kidding around. But then, there is the last tape, made the morning of April 20. It is short, emotionless.

``Sorry, goodbye,'' the both say.

You remember the dozens of bullets and boxes of shotgun shells you've seen repeatedly over the past three hours. Which one of those killed whom?

I am going to tell my son I love him every chance I get. I'm going to hug him whenever he is around, and ask him constantly about his life. I pretty much do that now, but . . .

I'm sorry. But when I walked out of that room and into the sunshine, it was a vow I made. To love my son better and harder. I see those boys' faces and can think of nothing else right now.

Who knows? First of all its very generalized anger (whole colorado, come on!).

Second, the term "rip on somebody" afaik refers to criticizing or making nagative comments about someoe, specifically behind one's back. It refers to being talked about, not physically attacked.

So I think it might refer to people insulting Eric, but does not refer to the sort of bullying reported at columbine (physical attacks, ppushing, throwing stuff at people).

I think it is probably again a narcissistic reaction from Eric aimed at kids at school who think they are better than him. Corresponds with his journal entry:

Eric Harris wrote:

same thing with all those rich snotty toadies at my school. fuckers think they are higher than me and everyone else with all their $ just because they were born into it? Ich denk NEIN.

Sabratha wrote:

Who knows? First of all its very generalized anger (whole colorado, come on!).

Second, the term "rip on somebody" afaik refers to criticizing or making nagative comments about someoe, specifically behind one's back. It refers to being talked about, not physically attacked.

So I think it might refer to people insulting Eric, but does not refer to the sort of bullying reported at columbine (physical attacks, ppushing, throwing stuff at people).

I think it is probably again a narcissistic reaction from Eric aimed at kids at school who think they are better than him. Corresponds with his journal entry:

Eric Harris wrote:

same thing with all those rich snotty toadies at my school. fuckers think they are higher than me and everyone else with all their $ just because they were born into it? Ich denk NEIN.

Nowadays, talking shit about people behind their backs is considered bullying. Whether it should be is another matter altogether.

Boy bullies shove other boys into lockers; girl bullies destroy other girls' reputations. Is what boys do worse than what girls do? I don't think so.

Some people define any kind of criticism, justifiable or not, as bullying. I wouldn't go that far, but I do think that when people talk shit about you behind your back, and then go out of their way to make you look bad in front of others, they're being bullies.

Your point that we don't know what Eric is talking about is taken. Let's look at it like this:

Dave Cullen has called me a bully.

How am I a bully? I've never even met the guy. I've never shoved him into a locker, or thrown ketchup at him, or poured baby oil on the floor and used him as a bowling ball.

But I do say things about him that he doesn't like. And apparently some of the things I've said over the years have deeply hurt and offended him.

Not long after I began bashing him, I facetiously suggested that he had a hard-on for the Columbine jocks. In an article, he described an athlete at the school as "a strapping 6'2" rugby player."

I wrote a post riffing on his supposed perving - "Oh, God, look at all those strapping rugby players! I wish they'd shove me into a locker - I love S&M!"

Someone who corresponded with him told me that he was very unhappy about that comment. He and I ended up discussing it by e-mail. He told me that the main reason he was upset was that gay men are often accused of being pedophiles. He also admitted that, yes, he is attracted to strapping 6'2" jocks, as long as they're over 18.

But the thing that stuck was me was his comment that "you need to understand that you people" - the board members? his critics? the outside world? - "can reach in here and *hurt* me."

He's deeply hurt when people say things about him that he doesn't like. So are lots of folks.

But does my saying those things make me a homophobic bully? Or is he merely oversensitive? (Or are both true - I'm a homophobic bully, but he's oversensitive and needs to get over it?)

Now, granted, I do tend to be unnecessarily nasty toward him. Earlier I created a thread called "Eat this, Dave Cullen." I considered calling it "Eat this, Dave Cullen, you smarmy little prick," but I decided that would be taking it too far. (I'm sure I've called him a "smarmy little prick" somewhere down the line.)

See, I'm an asshole with a thick skin, so I don't give a shit if other people like me or respect me or what. If you like me, that's great; if you don't, that's your problem, not mine.

I know a guy who routinely says things to me that many would consider insulting - he "rips" on me about my clothes, my hair, my shoes, my weight, my hobbies, my manner of speaking, and lots of other things about me. He told me that "people wonder what's wrong with you." Of course, he always says that he's trying to "help" me. But what's it to him? He has his life and I have mine. I neither need nor want his help, and I don't care for his endless comments. But he's someone who I can't avoid dealing with, so I put up with it. (Sometimes I make nasty comments back to him.)

And there's another guy who always insists on bringing up the fact that I've never had a girlfriend. Every time I see him, he says, "So how's the girlfriend search coming? I have a girlfriend; why don't you? When are you going to get a car?" Again, he's "helping" me by pointing out my supposed flaws.

Are those people bullies? Not to my way of thinking. But if I wanted to justify being angry, I could easily label them as such.

LPorter101 wrote:

Nowadays, talking shit about people behind their backs is considered bullying. Whether it should be is another matter altogether.

Boy bullies shove other boys into lockers; girl bullies destroy other girls' reputations. Is what boys do worse than what girls do? I don't think so.

Some people define any kind of criticism, justifiable or not, as bullying. I wouldn't go that far, but I do think that when people talk shit about you behind your back, and then go out of their way to make you look bad in front of others, they're being bullies.

I entirely, wholeheartedly agree.

And I can tell you from personal experience that if boys (and even some "men") want to destroy a female's reputation and talk endless smack about her, they will. Relentlessly. They'll also do it to other males.

Girls can get physical with other girls when bullying them. They usually need a good 3+ other girls with them to do it, of course, but that's to be expected from cowards. And cowards are precisely what bullies are.

LPorter101 wrote:

Nowadays, talking shit about people behind their backs is considered bullying.

I strongly doubt Eric would use these terms this way. In general Eric doesn't seem to direct said rants at jocks who abuse or presecute him, rather at "friends" or "friends of friends". I'm sure he means people who criticize him and overall don't show him the respect he thinks he deserves. Eric was very conscious of the sort of image people have of him, certainly had some narcissistic part in all of this.

Seems to be really "Eric's staple angry talk". Plus its from the basement tapes that we do not have access to and don't know the context. Until we get taht, I think our best bet is just to seek out corresponding passages in his journal and websites and try to link these. Here it seems we have our work cut out for us, as the similarities are clear. It corresponds with his journal entries, IIRC he also had an entry there or on his websites that he would like to "destroy the wold save maybe 5 people" or something along these lines.


I think the main concluson as far as columbine goes is that Eric is proud, narcissistic to some point, takes offence, holds grudges, and rants about this. Gee no wonder he didn't get along with Brooks ;)

LPorter101 wrote:

Some people define any kind of criticism, justifiable or not, as bullying. I wouldn't go that far, but I do think that when people talk shit about you behind your back, and then go out of their way to make you look bad in front of others, they're being bullies.

Good point. If this is the case with Eric(I'm not convinced but its possible), then it would mean we were looking for bullies in the wrong places. Its not the jocks. Its Eric's buddies and associates (TCM, Brooks Brown and whatnot).

Sabratha wrote:

LPorter101 wrote:

Nowadays, talking shit about people behind their backs is considered bullying.

I strongly doubt Eric would use these terms this way. In general Eric doesn't seem to direct said rants at jocks who abuse or presecute him, rather at "friends" or "friends of friends". I'm sure he means people who criticize him and overall don't show him the respect he thinks he deserves. Eric was very conscious of the sort of image people have of him, certainly had some narcissistic part in all of this.

Seems to be really "Eric's staple angry talk". Plus its from the basement tapes that we do not have access to and don't know the context. Until we get taht, I think our best bet is just to seek out corresponding passages in his journal and websites and try to link these. Here it seems we have our work cut out for us, as the similarities are clear. It corresponds with his journal entries, IIRC he also had an entry there or on his websites that he would like to "destroy the wold save maybe 5 people" or something along these lines.

Let's set aside "jocks" - I never mentioned jocks - and the word "bullying" itself, and broaden our focus a bit.

Not having seen the basement tapes hasn't stopped Dave Cullen from spewing all sorts of bullshit about Eric - Cullen goes on and on and on about his confidence, his pussy-pounding prowess with the ladies, his cool James Dean image.

Sabratha, do you think that Eric felt confident? Do you think that he felt that the ladies loved him and admired him? Do you think that he felt that other kids at the school thought he was this cool dude?

Eric did not feel confident. He did not feel that the ladies would even give him the time or day. He did not feel that other kids felt he was a cool dude.

Look, I'm not trying to say that Eric was a totally-normal dude who would have been hunky-dory if he'd got inside some hot girl's pants. (I do believe that having a girlfriend would have helped him feel a lot better about himself.) Kid had issues. But, at the same time, to say that he was a nutso who totally misinterpreted other people's actions is unfair and inaccurate. (I'm not saying that you're calling him a nutso.)

He felt that the other kids at the school looked down at him. He felt that the girls insulted him at worst, ignored him at best. And I think that, for the most part, they did.

He felt rejected. I think that, for the most part, he was.

I have never said that bullying was anything other than a secondary cause. I don't see Columbine as a case of "humiliation and revenge," to quote the famous Rolling Stone article.

I do agree that this was about respect. Whether or not Eric was a full-fledged narcissist, he felt disrespected. He wanted other kids to like him and respect him and "treat him more senior," and he could not deal with the fact that they did not.

We can quibble about the semantics of "ripped" - whether it means bullying, or whether it means talking shit, or whether talking shit is bullying, or whether Eric meant something else altogether.

But let's not lose sight of the fact that the evidence does suggest, convincingly, that Eric did not feel valued. He did not feel that he was held in high esteem.

Maybe lots of kids said bad things about him, or Eric thought that they did and they didn't, or someone said something and he blew it way out of proportion. We don't know and we can't know. But the bottom line is that Eric did not believe that whatever reputation he had at that school was a good one. He could not get laid on command; indeed, he could not get laid at all. He was low on the social totem pole.

And he resented that state of affairs. He resented his his lack of status - deeply.

LPorter101 wrote:

Your point that we don't know what Eric is talking about is taken. Let's look at it like this:

Dave Cullen has called me a bully.

How am I a bully? I've never even met the guy. I've never shoved him into a locker, or thrown ketchup at him, or poured baby oil on the floor and used him as a bowling ball.

But I do say things about him that he doesn't like. And apparently some of the things I've said over the years have deeply hurt and offended him.

Not long after I began bashing him, I facetiously suggested that he had a hard-on for the Columbine jocks. In an article, he described an athlete at the school as "a strapping 6'2" rugby player."

I wrote a post riffing on his supposed perving - "Oh, God, look at all those strapping rugby players! I wish they'd shove me into a locker - I love S&M!"

Someone who corresponded with him told me that he was very unhappy about that comment. He and I ended up discussing it by e-mail. He told me that the main reason he was upset was that gay men are often accused of being pedophiles. He also admitted that, yes, he is attracted to strapping 6'2" jocks, as long as they're over 18.

But the thing that stuck was me was his comment that "you need to understand that you people" - the board members? his critics? the outside world? - "can reach in here and *hurt* me."

He's deeply hurt when people say things about him that he doesn't like. So are lots of folks.

But does my saying those things make me a homophobic bully? Or is he merely oversensitive? (Or are both true - I'm a homophobic bully, but he's oversensitive and needs to get over it?)

Now, granted, I do tend to be unnecessarily nasty toward him. Earlier I created a thread called "Eat this, Dave Cullen." I considered calling it "Eat this, Dave Cullen, you smarmy little prick," but I decided that would be taking it too far. (I'm sure I've called him a "smarmy little prick" somewhere down the line.)

See, I'm an asshole with a thick skin, so I don't give a shit if other people like me or respect me or what. If you like me, that's great; if you don't, that's your problem, not mine.

I know a guy who routinely says things to me that many would consider insulting - he "rips" on me about my clothes, my hair, my shoes, my weight, my hobbies, my manner of speaking, and lots of other things about me. He told me that "people wonder what's wrong with you." Of course, he always says that he's trying to "help" me. But what's it to him? He has his life and I have mine. I neither need nor want his help, and I don't care for his endless comments. But he's someone who I can't avoid dealing with, so I put up with it. (Sometimes I make nasty comments back to him.)

And there's another guy who always insists on bringing up the fact that I've never had a girlfriend. Every time I see him, he says, "So how's the girlfriend search coming? I have a girlfriend; why don't you? When are you going to get a car?" Again, he's "helping" me by pointing out my supposed flaws.

Are those people bullies? Not to my way of thinking. But if I wanted to justify being angry, I could easily label them as such.

I read this entire post thinking Sabratha wrote it. Then I got to the part that said 'a guy was telling me how I've never had a girlfriend and he has' and I was thinking, wtf? Isn't Sabratha a girl?

Jenn wrote:

LPorter101 wrote:

Your point that we don't know what Eric is talking about is taken. Let's look at it like this:

Dave Cullen has called me a bully.

How am I a bully? I've never even met the guy. I've never shoved him into a locker, or thrown ketchup at him, or poured baby oil on the floor and used him as a bowling ball.

But I do say things about him that he doesn't like. And apparently some of the things I've said over the years have deeply hurt and offended him.

Not long after I began bashing him, I facetiously suggested that he had a hard-on for the Columbine jocks. In an article, he described an athlete at the school as "a strapping 6'2" rugby player."

I wrote a post riffing on his supposed perving - "Oh, God, look at all those strapping rugby players! I wish they'd shove me into a locker - I love S&M!"

Someone who corresponded with him told me that he was very unhappy about that comment. He and I ended up discussing it by e-mail. He told me that the main reason he was upset was that gay men are often accused of being pedophiles. He also admitted that, yes, he is attracted to strapping 6'2" jocks, as long as they're over 18.

But the thing that stuck was me was his comment that "you need to understand that you people" - the board members? his critics? the outside world? - "can reach in here and *hurt* me."

He's deeply hurt when people say things about him that he doesn't like. So are lots of folks.

But does my saying those things make me a homophobic bully? Or is he merely oversensitive? (Or are both true - I'm a homophobic bully, but he's oversensitive and needs to get over it?)

Now, granted, I do tend to be unnecessarily nasty toward him. Earlier I created a thread called "Eat this, Dave Cullen." I considered calling it "Eat this, Dave Cullen, you smarmy little prick," but I decided that would be taking it too far. (I'm sure I've called him a "smarmy little prick" somewhere down the line.)

See, I'm an asshole with a thick skin, so I don't give a shit if other people like me or respect me or what. If you like me, that's great; if you don't, that's your problem, not mine.

I know a guy who routinely says things to me that many would consider insulting - he "rips" on me about my clothes, my hair, my shoes, my weight, my hobbies, my manner of speaking, and lots of other things about me. He told me that "people wonder what's wrong with you." Of course, he always says that he's trying to "help" me. But what's it to him? He has his life and I have mine. I neither need nor want his help, and I don't care for his endless comments. But he's someone who I can't avoid dealing with, so I put up with it. (Sometimes I make nasty comments back to him.)

And there's another guy who always insists on bringing up the fact that I've never had a girlfriend. Every time I see him, he says, "So how's the girlfriend search coming? I have a girlfriend; why don't you? When are you going to get a car?" Again, he's "helping" me by pointing out my supposed flaws.

Are those people bullies? Not to my way of thinking. But if I wanted to justify being angry, I could easily label them as such.

I read this entire post thinking Sabratha wrote it. Then I got to the part that said 'a guy was telling me how I've never had a girlfriend and he has' and I was thinking, wtf? Isn't Sabratha a girl?

I'm glad you like it.

LPorter101 wrote:

Sabratha, do you think that Eric felt confident? Do you think that he felt that the ladies loved him and admired him? Do you think that he felt that other kids at the school thought he was this cool dude?

Depends with what. I'm certain Eric felt confident that he's better - smarter, intellectually superior, more "self-aware" than people around him. Some say that Eric stresses it so much because he is trying to convince himself. I don't buy into that. Eric is just being narcissistic and grandiose, this is him at his most psyhopathic. In this specific issue, he's certainly the real deal.

Eric also knew that kids don't find him cool and that girls aren't atracted to him. These were facts he couldn't just wave away. I think this clashed with his self-image and taht's why he's so angry at these facts, that's why he devotes so much writing space to it, that's why he rants about it. This was an important part of who Eric was and certainly contributed to Columbine.

But was Eric's self-image the reason he went on the rapage? I doubt it.

In my opinion its his low opinion of society and his unwillingness to participate in it and not wanting to go "down the stream of life with other robots" that is the cornerstone of Eric's NBK.

Back on 4/20 "Eric the anti-society shooter" certainly speaks much more loudly than "Eric the injured narcissist".

In my own opinion that's because Eric was not a narcissist in the strict term of the word. He did not have Narcissistic PD. He was a psychopath and narcissistic-like traits are just one facet of psychopathy.

Sabratha wrote:

Back on 4/20 "Eric the anti-society shooter" certainly speaks much more loudly than "Eric the injured narcissist".

I don't know about that.

I like what Alan Prendergast said:

"I hate you people for leaving me out of so many fun things. And no, don't fucking say, 'Well, that's your fault' because it isn't, you people had my phone #, and I asked and all, but no no no no no don't let the weird looking Eric kid come along, oooh fucking nooo."

That is how the journal ends -- not with the howl of the wolf-god, but the whine of the pathetic geek who can't land a prom date.

And decides everybody deserves to die.

...

Sabratha, don't take this the wrong way ... but do you ever wonder whether you, as a European woman, can fully understand what it's like to be an American teenage boy? Yes, girls have their own shit to deal with - I'm not denying that. But do you feel totally confident that you know how it feels to be someone like Eric? (Even if you do feel totally confident, that doesn't mean that you do know how it feels.)

You might say, "Well, Cullen is a man, so he must know what it's like, and he agrees with Sabratha." But he's a gay man. Gay teenage boys don't deal with the same issues as straight ones. Most of them go through a stage where they have to justify their own feelings to themselves - they know that they're not normal, and they spend a good deal of time reconciling themselves to that fact.

Straight boys have it "easier," in that no one questions their desire for the opposite sex. But sometimes things that are accepted are harder to deal with than those are questioned. It is only natural that a boy should feel attracted to girls, and should pursue relationships with girls, but when a boy keeps going after girls and they keep telling him to get lost, what does that say about him?

Women often lament their ability to attract a "good" man. Many if not most women are obsessed about increasing and/or maintaining their status in the social hierarchy. The type of man with whom a woman ends up is an indication of her own social worth.

The same is true for men, but in the opposite way - for men, status is a means to an end, in that being a high-status man makes it easier to attract beautiful women. That's not to say that the top dog doesn't get a kick out of being on top, but the whole point of being a top dog is to get the things that you want - pussy, yes, but also fast cars, fine wine, and other assorted perks. For women, status is the end in and of itself - being beautiful makes it easier to attract a high-status man. (This is a generalization, but it does apply to a lot of people.)

A woman is insulted when a man she finds undesirable asks her out - it is an implicit insult. But she is in control. She can say "Sorry, but my legs are locked at the knee," and unless the man can change her mind, or is prepared to overpower her and rape her, he's never going to get inside her pants.

(Now, an older woman, with her looks fading and her eggs dying, might lower her standards and "settle" for a guy she would have rejected on sight ten years earlier. But an attractive 18-year-old girl, in the prime of her beauty and fertility, has about as much veto power as anyone.)

Straight men have to work a lot harder than straight women and gay men. They get rejected a lot more, so they have to build up their confidence as much as they can. Most straight men know what it's like to be insulted and degraded at every turn. They accept it because that's the way it is. Eventually, most guys do end up finding someone.

When Eric writes things like, "I'm better than all of you," he is trying to boost himself up. When he writes about how badass he is, he is trying to convince himself that he is not the short little runt that everyone (including himself) thinks he is. Lots of weak guys do this. The smallest talk the biggest game.

Where is the narcissistic psychopathy in the following excerpt? I don't see it. All I see is a self-loathing punk who lets his true feelings about himself seep through.

Fuck you Brady! all I want is a couple of guns, and thanks to your fucking bill I will probably not get any! come on, I'll have a clean record and I only want for personal protection. Its not like I'm some person who would go on a shooting spree.... fuckers. Ill probably end up nuking everything and fucking robbing some gun collectors house. Fuck, thatll be be hard. oh well, just as long as I kill a lot of fucking people. Everyone is always making fun of me because of how I look, how fucking weak I am and shit, well I will get you all back: ultimate fucking revenge here. you people could have shown more respect, treated me better, asked for my knowledge or guidence more, treated me more like senior, and maybe I wouldn't have been as ready to tear your fucking heads off. then again, I have always hated how I looked, I make fun of people who look like me, sometimes without even thinking sometimes just because I want to rip on myself. Thats where a lot of my hate grows from, the fact that I have practically no selfesteem, especially concerning girls and looks and such. therefore people make fun of me... constantly... therefore I get no respect and therefore I get fucking PISSED. as of this date I have enough explosives to kill about 100 people, and then if I get a couple bayonetts, swords, axes, whatever I'll be able to kill at least 10 more. and that just isnt enough! GUNS! I need guns! Give me some fucking firearms! - 11/12/98

You might say, "Well, there are lots of entries in that journal, but there only a few where he says things like that."

Eric was at an especially low point when he wrote that entry - he was dealing with the gnarly bureaucratic procedures mandated by the Brady Bill, and he was doubting that he would ever get the guns that he wanted so badly. When a man is feeling low, and/or that his goals are unattainable, he will let down his guard and admit things that he ordinarily would never say out loud, even to himself.

My educated opinion, based on years of research, is that Eric felt that he could never measure up as a man. His father, the stern, demanding military officer, was a man; his brother, the confident jock, was a man; he was a little boy. When a girl rejected him, she was saying, "Sorry, little boy, but I only date men." He felt that society demanded that he live up to an ideal of masculinity that he could never attain. I think that he saw NBK not so much as revenge but as redemption - it was his way to show the world, once and for all, that Eric David Harris deserved respect.

One need not be a psychopath in order to crave respect, or even to place the attainment of respect above all other goals in life. To many if not most men, respect is everything. There are lots of guys who will hurt you or even kill you in a heartbeat if you do or say something - anything - that they think "disses" them. On the streets of America, men get shot dead on sidewalks because they happen to "diss" someone passing by. The dumbest men don't even think about it - they can't control that sudden burst of anger, and so out comes the gun, out pops the bullet, and down goes the other guy. It happens every day.

Eric had more self-control than that. Whenever he felt slighted, he didn't let his anger out then and there - he added it to his reservoir of resentment. Eventually that reservoir turned into a potent fuel source for his deep-seated homicidal (and suicidal) rage.

Again, I'm not saying that Eric's genuine feelings of inadequacy explain why he wanted to kill hundreds of his classmates. But I do think they contributed to his state of mind, and his state of mind is what we're talking about here.

When Eric and Dylan had to change class - when they had to swim against the tide of teenagers flowing through the hallways, trying to beat the clock - how do you think they felt, being jostled by so many of the "zombies" and "inferiors" that they despised?

Both E&D felt that "the world" was against them. They did name some names, but the main gist of their rants was that they weren't being kept down by anyone or anything in particular. "The world" was a shithole and "society" sucked, and so everyone had to die.

I like what someone wrote in a comment on one of the Adam Lanza blogs:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Lalala wrote:

Mass murderers of this nature feel wronged by society, or even outside of society, for reasons specific to them.... After seeing themselves outside of society for so long, it’s not a far leap from this point to seeing society as something sick, something flawed that needs to be entirely scrapped altogether, if it’s that capable of alienating people, of ruining them and turning them into something unrecognizable as human.... It’s a pretty apolitical belief for these sort of people, they differ greatly from radical revolutionary leftists or the far-right, since they don’t want to replace the old way with something new. No, they want everything burned to the ground, which is ultimately why they end up snapping and killing many, I think.

Eric and Dylan literally tried to burn their high school to the ground.

To them, the school *was* society - it was the arena in which everyone played a game that they could not win. They said, "Fuck this game - it's rigged," and tried to tip over the board.

That is why I think that bullying is secondary - the primary issue is alienation. Maybe Eric was "ripped" by other kids or maybe he wasn't, but no one can deny that, when he looked at the other kids, he felt as if he was staring at them from across a great chasm.

I do believe that he yearned to cross that chasm - he wanted to bask in the glow of admiration. He wanted someone to validate his self-worth. He couldn't make himself believe that he was worth anything - he had to prove it somehow. He couldn't make others love him, but he could make them cower in fear of his firepower.

Eric and Dylan had nothing that they truly believed in wholeheartedly, that they truly embraced, except death. They were Rebels without a cause.

I wonder how the fundamentalist religiosity of the area affected them. They saw that other kids were content to accept as incontrovertible truth the gospels that they were taught to revere. But they themselves were atheists - they couldn't and wouldn't accept beliefs that they saw as fairy tales. Did they ever wish that they could "dumb themselves down," so to speak, and adopt the simple-minded faith of the zombies?

Life is easier when you don't think about things. It's awful when you notice things that you're not supposed to notice, or want to talk about things that you're not supposed to talk about.

LPorter101 wrote:

But sometimes things that are accepted are harder to deal with than those are questioned. It is only natural that a boy should feel attracted to girls, and should pursue relationships with girls, but when a boy keeps going after girls and they keep telling him to get lost, what does that say about him?

Same thing that is says about a girl who goes after boys and they keep telling her to get lost. That means that he/she is not attractive or intersting enough, or on the other hand that she/he was goign for those who are not the right people for him/her. No big mystery here.

Nobody lies to be turned down, but people who have narcissistic tendencies can take this to a whole new level. Eric being case in point if you ask me.

I can remotely understand me being Europen causing me to misinterpret some things about these two US shooters. Culture, cultural references and all, taht's possible.

My sex on the other hand has very little to do with it. There are males who know about Columbine, look at Eric's writings and come to the very same conclusions as me. I can even name a male psychology student from the SILKRAT group who does (albeit also a European naturally).

LPorter101 wrote:

The same is true for men, but in the opposite way - for men, status is a means to an end, in that being a high-status man makes it easier to attract beautiful women.

Trust me, status is for many women a tool to attract beautiful men (or beautiful women if she's lesbian). I've seen high status women in a college career do it and a relative working in local showbiz seen "high satus" actresses do it all the time in theathe academy etc.

LPorter101 wrote:

(Now, an older woman, with her looks fading and her eggs dying, might lower her standards and "settle" for a guy she would have rejected on sight ten years earlier. But an attractive 18-year-old girl, in the prime of her beauty and fertility, has about as much veto power as anyone.)

Works both ways really. A sufficiently atractive and popular man in his early 20s has the same veto power. Moreover he is facing less conflict, he can just ignore the advances of women he doesn't like, while women usually have to actively shoot down men who they don't like.

LPorter101 wrote:

He felt that society demanded that he live up to an ideal of masculinity that he could never attain. I think that he saw NBK not so much as revenge but as redemption - it was his way to show the world, once and for all, that Eric David Harris deserved respect.

Interesting. To re-frame it in psychology terms your theory would be to say that Eric was in fact not psychopathic, but a "pure narcissist" (aka somepne with NPD).

There's really a lot of sense in such a theory, particularly because Eric really was grandiose, attention-seeking, power-hungry and demanded special treatement for himself.

However, psychopathy and narcissism actually have a large common component, whcih is grandisose sense of selfworth and lack of empathy for others. Soem in fact say taht Psychopathy contains within itself narcissism, taht psychopathy is narcissism expanded by several other facets.

The big question really is: Which theory explains more of Eric's lifestyle and behavior? "Pure narcissism" or Psychopathy? This probably deserves a thread of its own.

LPorter101 wrote:

I wonder how the fundamentalist religiosity of the area affected them. They saw that other kids were content to accept as incontrovertible truth the gospels that they were taught to revere. But they themselves were atheists - they couldn't and wouldn't accept beliefs that they saw as fairy tales. Did they ever wish that they could "dumb themselves down," so to speak, and adopt the simple-minded faith of the zombies?

Dylan certainly did many times. He even wrote a passage in his journal to that extent. But remember taht Dylan wasn't entirely an atheist, he built some sort of rump-spiritual set of personal beliefs.

Eric? Eric afaik never adopted any spiritual beliefat all. Unlike Dylan, he also never considered if it was better if he was different. Eric was an extravert through-and-through, he wasn't interested in changing himself. He was interested in making the world around him change. Perhaps that's why he's dead and similar minded introverts are still alive.

LPorter101 wrote:

Eric was at an especially low point when he wrote that entry - he was dealing with the gnarly bureaucratic procedures mandated by the Brady Bill, and he was doubting that he would ever get the guns that he wanted so badly

I think he was at a much lower point at the start of his journal. The arresta nd him having to do community service, anger management and reporting to the likes of Officer Walsh must have been far more damaging for him.


all in all, I think you are drawing far too many gender issues into this in comparison to what imho mattered to Eric and Dylan. Not getting laid was a bummer for them, but it was not some freudian "all-defining" issue.

LPorter101 wrote:

One need not be a psychopath in order to crave respect, or even to place the attainment of respect above all other goals in life. To many if not most men, respect is everything. There are lots of guys who will hurt you or even kill you in a heartbeat if you do or say something - anything - that they think "disses" them. On the streets of America, men get shot dead on sidewalks because they happen to "diss" someone passing by. The dumbest men don't even think about it - they can't control that sudden burst of anger, and so out comes the gun, out pops the bullet, and down goes the other guy. It happens every day.

YES. that's all I know to say to this. I know one guy in particular that would easily kill to defend his honor. Its completely fucking insane, but honestly American is full of completely fucking bonkers people (not all of course, but if you doubt me, I invite you to come stay at my parents for a weekend )

Eric may have been confident on the outside, but he had very little self worth inside him. His "holier than thou" rants are nothing but a defense mechanism to protect his already broken self-esteem. Sabratha is right that Eric was a narcissist. In my opinion though his narcissism wasnt a natural mental illness, it was created by the atmosphere at Columbine.

When someone with a healthy self-esteem is bullied and put down enough their ego can inflate. They know nothing is really wrong with themselves but the lack of positive acknowledgement from peers still hurts. The ego overcompensates and kind of "rebuilds" itself in a way. Eric was picked on for being tiny and weak. When he put on the trench coat he became the badass he always wanted to be.

We know from interviews with his friends that he had a different attitude before moving to Littleton. He lived there all through his teenage years. Those are years when a person really starts defining themselves. Littleton was a very conservative and religious town. Anyone whos grown up in that type of environment while being considered different is tough. The more your neighbors and peers push you away, the more you accept and embrace it. At the same time you hate it and yourself for not fitting in. You see just how dumb materialism and the day to day grind is. Then you start to think you're better and smarter than everyone for not seeing the world like you do. This helps the self esteem issues which allows you to lie to yourself even more:

"I'm better looking than them and they're just too stupid to see it. In fact I'm too good looking for any of these girls."
"I'm stronger than them but they're not worth fighting."
"I'm worth more than them. I'm a god and they're stupid zombies."

For Eric that of course turned into:

"I'm gonna leave a lasting impression on the world. They're deaths are a means to my end and no one can stop me."

Eric just doesn't come across as someone truly in love with themselves. Its like he's trying his hardest to be tough and macho, but grows angrier as his peers continually fail to see him as such. He loves the concept of self awareness and natural selection yet he doesn't fully grasp either one. Eric was an intelligent guy but he wanted so hard to come across as smarter than he really was. I do believe NBK was a way for Eric to show himself love, but not in a narcissistic way. He wanted to do something that would give him self worth. You cant love nobody. Leaving his mark would raise him above a nobody. Only then would he feel like the badass he wanted to be. He could die whole.

Nirvana92 wrote:

Eric may have been confident on the outside, but he had very little self worth inside him. His "holier than thou" rants are nothing but a defense mechanism to protect his already broken self-esteem. Sabratha is right that Eric was a narcissist. In my opinion though his narcissism wasnt a natural mental illness, it was created by the atmosphere at Columbine.

When someone with a healthy self-esteem is bullied and put down enough their ego can inflate. They know nothing is really wrong with themselves but the lack of positive acknowledgement from peers still hurts. The ego overcompensates and kind of "rebuilds" itself in a way. Eric was picked on for being tiny and weak. When he put on the trench coat he became the badass he always wanted to be.

We know from interviews with his friends that he had a different attitude before moving to Littleton. He lived there all through his teenage years. Those are years when a person really starts defining themselves. Littleton was a very conservative and religious town. Anyone whos grown up in that type of environment while being considered different is tough. The more your neighbors and peers push you away, the more you accept and embrace it. At the same time you hate it and yourself for not fitting in. You see just how dumb materialism and the day to day grind is. Then you start to think you're better and smarter than everyone for not seeing the world like you do. This helps the self esteem issues which allows you to lie to yourself even more:

"I'm better looking than them and they're just too stupid to see it. In fact I'm too good looking for any of these girls."
"I'm stronger than them but they're not worth fighting."
"I'm worth more than them. I'm a god and they're stupid zombies."

For Eric that of course turned into:

"I'm gonna leave a lasting impression on the world. They're deaths are a means to my end and no one can stop me."

Eric just doesn't come across as someone truly in love with themselves. Its like he's trying his hardest to be tough and macho, but grows angrier as his peers continually fail to see him as such. He loves the concept of self awareness and natural selection yet he doesn't fully grasp either one. Eric was an intelligent guy but he wanted so hard to come across as smarter than he really was. I do believe NBK was a way for Eric to show himself love, but not in a narcissistic way. He wanted to do something that would give him self worth. You cant love nobody. Leaving his mark would raise him above a nobody. Only then would he feel like the badass he wanted to be. He could die whole.

Yes, I think you're right. He genuinely loathed himself. He honestly believed that he was worth less than a speck of dog shit stuck on the bottom of someone's shoe. He looked out at the world and he saw nothing but rejection and humiliation.

In his own mind, he truly believed that nearly everyone despised him and held him in contempt. "Only four or five people in the state of Colorado don't hate me" was not an idle comment - he felt totally unloved, unwanted, and unworthy, and he desperately needed to prove not only to the world but to himself that he was worthy of respect, at least.

"I can't make you love me, but I can make you *fear* me. And I can't make my life worth living, but I can take a lot of you fuckers with me when I go."

Now, granted, lots of kids feel that they're unloved and unwanted, and very few end up murdering other people. So there is something more to it than Eric's disliking himself. But I'm still not ready to say that it was either narcissism or psychopathy.

Again, I don't know how many people can truly relate to someone who exhibits an extreme degree of self-loathing. It's one of those things that you have to go through to understand.

I've gone through it. At various times in my life, I have been so consumed with self-hatred that I have literally shouted out loud - out of the clear blue sky - "I'm a piece of shit! I wish I were dead!" There were moments where I would be sitting somewhere, and a painful memory of some awful humiliation or failure would float into my head, and I would feel so angry that I would punch whatever hard surface was nearest to my fist - an uncontrollable impulse. There were days when I wanted to rip myself in two and let my flesh fall to the floor in bloody shreds, or flush myself down the nearest toilet. It was not fun.

Does that make me a narcissist or a psychopath?

Nirvana92 wrote:

Eric just doesn't come across as someone truly in love with themselves. Its like he's trying his hardest to be tough and macho, but grows angrier as his peers continually fail to see him as such. He loves the concept of self awareness and natural selection yet he doesn't fully grasp either one. Eric was an intelligent guy but he wanted so hard to come across as smarter than he really was. I do believe NBK was a way for Eric to show himself love, but not in a narcissistic way. He wanted to do something that would give him self worth. You cant love nobody. Leaving his mark would raise him above a nobody. Only then would he feel like the badass he wanted to be. He could die whole.

I agree with you.

And Eric not being "truly in love with himself"? Is any spree suicide killer in love with himself entirely (in teh sense that he's comfortable and accepting of everything)?

No.

A spree killer either has deep issues with himself (Cho for example) or has very deep issues with society and teh world around him (Eric, Jeff Weise). Now if you have just issues with the world around you, you can try to change that world through your actions. If you decide to make a spree-suicide, that means you have just stated taht the world is beyond redemtion through your actions. That you are in essence too weak to change the whole system, the way of life in western culture.

True, this may be just admitting the obvious - one man can't change all of this, its just too much. As one native american song goes: "One woman can't make the work of ten, much less the work of ten thousand".

But even if its just a realistic assessment of one's capacity, it is still admitting being too weak to do what you want to be done. You want to be strong, capable to do the "work of ten thousand". But you are not, that's the bottom line.

That I think is when people like Eric make the jump from "I hate the daily grind and routine shit" to "Routine shit has to go and all the robots that do it need to go too. If it takes my death to get this message across, then fine."

Sabratha wrote:

Nirvana92 wrote:

Eric just doesn't come across as someone truly in love with themselves. Its like he's trying his hardest to be tough and macho, but grows angrier as his peers continually fail to see him as such. He loves the concept of self awareness and natural selection yet he doesn't fully grasp either one. Eric was an intelligent guy but he wanted so hard to come across as smarter than he really was. I do believe NBK was a way for Eric to show himself love, but not in a narcissistic way. He wanted to do something that would give him self worth. You cant love nobody. Leaving his mark would raise him above a nobody. Only then would he feel like the badass he wanted to be. He could die whole.

I agree with you.

And Eric not being "truly in love with himself"? Is any spree suicide killer in love with himself entirely (in teh sense that he's comfortable and accepting of everything)?

No.

A spree killer either has deep issues with himself (Cho for example) or has very deep issues with society and teh world around him (Eric, Jeff Weise). Now if you have just issues with the world around you, you can try to change that world through your actions. If you decide to make a spree-suicide, that means you have just stated taht the world is beyond redemtion through your actions. That you are in essence too weak to change the whole system, the way of life in western culture.

True, this may be just admitting the obvious - one man can't change all of this, its just too much. As one native american song goes: "One woman can't make the work of ten, much less the work of ten thousand".

But even if its just a realistic assessment of one's capacity, it is still admitting being too weak to do what you want to be done. You want to be strong, capable to do the "work of ten thousand". But you are not, that's the bottom line.

That I think is when people like Eric make the jump from "I hate the daily grind and routine shit" to "Routine shit has to go and all the robots that do it need to go too. If it takes my death to get this message across, then fine."

To me that's where Eric does show true narcissism. He actually believed he could put a stop to modern society and kick start a revolution. That's the thing that confuses me most about the kid. He had seen the OKC bombing and its after effects. Nothing changed afterward and Tim Mcveigh wasnt seen as a hero. He had to have known NBK wouldn't change the world, and yet he comes across so sure of himself and his plans.

Here's a question: Do you think Eric's narcissistic behavior was an act he put on for himself? He clearly states in his journal that he wishes he was a sociopath. The thing about sociopaths is they know they are one. Eric clearly wasn't and states as much. If I remember correctly there was a quote on one of his AOL profiles that said something like "being schizophrenic is fun!". Its like he WANTED to have issues. I grew up in a school where having anxiety and depression was the "cool" thing. Kids made mental illness out to be something that makes you different from everyone else. Was Erics narcissism a defense mechanism brought on by years of self-hate (as I stated in my last post), or do you think he ACTED narcissistic as a way to force love on himself? Could he have acted that way just so he'd be different from everyone else?

I'm not saying Eric didn't have real issues. He most certainly did. There are times though where he comes across as trying too hard to make his mind and thoughts as "weird" as possible. Maybe I'm the only one who gets that vibe from him though.

I get that vibe from eric too. He definitely wanted to be "special" and stand out from the crowd in any way he could. Why else would he and dylan be the only kids at columbine to continue wearing a trench coat after the tcm broke up? And another thing, I remember him saying self awareness was something ONLY he and "v" had ( v being dylan obviously), like he was trying to create a legitimate reason (at least to himself) why he was different from everyone else and therefore special. He was an extreme self loather in denial, that's What I think of when I see Eric's journal pages. His anger is so strong because he doesn't want to accept that he hates himself more than anything. So he puts everything else down to make himself feel better, which probably made him hate himself even more. But that's just my opinion on eric.

Nirvana92 wrote:

To me that's where Eric does show true narcissism. He actually believed he could put a stop to modern society and kick start a revolution.

I wonder if he really believed it, wanted to believed it, hoped it would be true or just hoped other people will do the same thing.

If he hoped for the last, well he was right. I am sure he was not aware taht he's hardly the first person to take this course of action as a result of such beliefs. There were people like that before him.

Nirvana92 wrote:

Here's a question: Do you think Eric's narcissistic behavior was an act he put on for himself?

Another good question. NPD narcissists are in fact just that - people who put a show for themselves, a direction, screenplay writer and main actor all in one great movie they are making called "My life"

Psychopaths, while sharing a narcissistic outlook on life and grandiose self-worth, are how should I put this? Less image-oriented. They believe they are better than others, but its not their main and only focus. Its a small part of who theya re. For NPD narcisists this is their whole life.

Nirvana92 wrote:

He clearly states in his journal that he wishes he was a sociopath. The thing about sociopaths is they know they are one.

Not true. This foremost depends if said person has a deep-enough understanding of psychology and its clinical terms. Moreover there are whole schools of psychology (both modern and past) that even deny the very existence of sociopathy and/or psychopathy. You can be a well-educated psychopathic psychiatrist and don't consider yourself a pscyhopath simply because your scientific paradigm denies the existence of psychopaths.

Nirvana92 wrote:

Eric clearly wasn't and states as much. If I remember correctly there was a quote on one of his AOL profiles that said something like "being schizophrenic is fun!". Its like he WANTED to have issues.

Hard to say, as this first and foremost reminds me of stape TCM slogans like "being crazy is healthy" etc. I can't be sure but that sounds like he's just copying TCM talk, or at leats taking inspiration from it.

Nirvana92 wrote:

Was Erics narcissism a defense mechanism brought on by years of self-hate (as I stated in my last post), or do you think he ACTED narcissistic as a way to force love on himself? Could he have acted that way just so he'd be different from everyone else?

Neither. Eric's grandiosity and narcissistic tendencies were just a part of a larger picture. These should not be seen in isolation from Eric's impulsive and agressive behavior, his pyromania, his disdain for law, lack of remore etc.
I'm sure his narcissistic behavior was geniuine and par of who he was.

That's not to say some of his writing, especially those in other peopel's journals etc, was not for show. It was certainly for show, but the subject matter itself reflects Erics beliefs.

I don;'t think Eric is trying to be weird. He most certainly is weird for a "normal", average person. That's not an act.

My general opinion is: people too often try to read too much into Eric or say that when he's writing about A, while he doesn't really mean "A" taht he is really tying to say "B". Or that Eric is saying "A" just to cover "C", with the not expressed "C" is his real belief.


My point: Read Eric's stuff literally, take what he says at face value. Perhaps he is exaggerating some things for dramatic effect. But he's exaggerating existign stuff, he doesn't pretend and he doesn't try to obfuscae or express any "hidden emotions" in a confused manner. His journal is the real deal.

I bump, therefore I am.

I don't believe Eric's statement, because in the 11k a ton of people are identified as his friends. Dozens actually.

I think he wanted to kill people and he was just trying to come up with some justification for it.

lasttrain wrote:

I don't believe Eric's statement, because in the 11k a ton of people are identified as his friends.  Dozens actually.

I think he wanted to kill people and he was just trying to come up with some justification for it.

Just because he had friends, doesn't mean that they didn't "rip" on him.
If you watch the "Eric in Columbine" video you can clearly hear Mike
ragging on Eric about some girl dissing him and Eric looks pissed

I think Eric is including his "friends" in this statement.

browneyes11 wrote:

lasttrain wrote:

I don't believe Eric's statement, because in the 11k a ton of people are identified as his friends.  Dozens actually.

I think he wanted to kill people and he was just trying to come up with some justification for it.

Just because he had friends, doesn't mean that they didn't "rip" on him.
If you watch the "Eric in Columbine" video you can clearly hear Mike
ragging on Eric about some girl dissing him and Eric looks pissed

I think Eric is including his "friends" in this statement.

So what? That's not a reason to kill 500 people.

lasttrain wrote:

browneyes11 wrote:

lasttrain wrote:

I don't believe Eric's statement, because in the 11k a ton of people are identified as his friends.  Dozens actually.

I think he wanted to kill people and he was just trying to come up with some justification for it.

Just because he had friends, doesn't mean that they didn't "rip" on him.
If you watch the "Eric in Columbine" video you can clearly hear Mike
ragging on Eric about some girl dissing him and Eric looks pissed

I think Eric is including his "friends" in this statement.

So what?  That's not a reason to kill 500 people.

Obviously browneyes is only saying that his friends ripped on him, not that it was the sole reason for Columbine. The two points are separate, people can say things about E&D and not automaticaly mean that it was the reason for Columbine. THERE IS NO ONE REASON FOR COLUMBINE. Yes it pissed Eric off that everybody ripped on him, and it made him angry, but that was not the one reason why he went on a murder spree. So yes, that's not a reason to kill 500 people, we know.

lasttrain wrote:

So what?  That's not a reason to kill 500 people.

Lasttrain, you keep repeating this over and over and over. It's getting repetitive and annoying
In your opinion what would be a justifiable reason to kill 500 people?


.....I'll give you a hint.....

There isn't any...

browneyes11 wrote:

lasttrain wrote:

So what?  That's not a reason to kill 500 people.

Lasttrain, you keep repeating this over and over and over. It's getting repetitive and annoying
In your opinion what would be a justifiable reason to kill 500 people?


.....I'll give you a hint.....

There isn't any...

I think lasttrain needs to understand that there is no one reason for Columbine. It is irrelevant whether you think something is a reason to kill lasttrain, because you didn't go on the shooting spree.

LPorter101 wrote:

When Eric and Dylan had to change class - when they had to swim against the tide of teenagers flowing through the hallways, trying to beat the clock - how do you think they felt, being jostled by so many of the "zombies" and "inferiors" that they despised?

Both E&D felt that "the world" was against them. They did name some names, but the main gist of their rants was that they weren't being kept down by anyone or anything in particular. "The world" was a shithole and "society" sucked, and so everyone had to die.

I like what someone wrote in a comment on one of the Adam Lanza blogs:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Lalala wrote:

Mass murderers of this nature feel wronged by society, or even outside of society, for reasons specific to them.... After seeing themselves outside of society for so long, it’s not a far leap from this point to seeing society as something sick, something flawed that needs to be entirely scrapped altogether, if it’s that capable of alienating people, of ruining them and turning them into something unrecognizable as human.... It’s a pretty apolitical belief for these sort of people, they differ greatly from radical revolutionary leftists or the far-right, since they don’t want to replace the old way with something new. No, they want everything burned to the ground, which is ultimately why they end up snapping and killing many, I think.

Eric and Dylan literally tried to burn their high school to the ground.

To them, the school *was* society - it was the arena in which everyone played a game that they could not win. They said, "Fuck this game - it's rigged," and tried to tip over the board.

Hit the nail on the head. This is what I think most people who ask the question "why no just target jocks" keep missing, and frankly I don't think it's something most people can really grasp or come to terms with. Hence people either portray them as tragic and tortured, irredeemable monsters, completely insane, or reduce it down to whatever they can find flipping through the DSM V. You don't have to agree with the mindset, but if you want to come to terms with rampage killings as anything except the result of mental illness, trauma, or evil, one must first try to understand the mindset laid out here.

LPorter101 wrote:

I wonder how the fundamentalist religiosity of the area affected them. They saw that other kids were content to accept as incontrovertible truth the gospels that they were taught to revere. But they themselves were atheists - they couldn't and wouldn't accept beliefs that they saw as fairy tales. Did they ever wish that they could "dumb themselves down," so to speak, and adopt the simple-minded faith of the zombies?

It was already pointed out but yes Dylan wrote in his journal that he tried to live life as a "zombie" and decided he hated it and would rather suffer as some sort of persecuted ubermench.

I tend to think their atheism was both for shock value and a way to distinguish themselves from many of their more Evangelical peers.