Eric the cowering shrimp

Gustopoet2 wrote:

LPorter -- it's not about what materialism can do -- it's about what it can't do. It's also about what is sacrificed in order to perpetuate a materialistic society that tramples over the so-called "weak" and uses violence and murder to create a global caste system based on racism, fear, and so-called "natural selection."

There are no circumstances under which it is justifiable to exploit others for material gain. Race and some form of Social Darwinism are typically invoked to justify class "bullying" and the mass-exploitation of labor and the stealing of natural resources as well as the perpetuation of war and pollution. Patriotism is the next canard trotted out on these grounds. "We" are luckier, better, smarter, more highly evolved than "them." But every country says that to its population --even Senegal. The global oligarchy needs us to be in the same hierarchy as was present in CHS on a global scale or we might stop sending our kids to die in their wars and ruining our bodies minds and souls working to increase their economic and military domination which they are currently vacuuming away all of our savings in order to spread their Imperialism and weapons into space -- and beyond.

Some people are not interested in gauging everything on a material basis. That is why I have consistently said in my post that the conflict beneath Columbine is a conflict between a crass, materialistic oligarchy that is perpetuated through social conditioning, fear, violence, and racism -- and the higher aspirations of the human soul.

Well, yeah.

But, like they say, a slave dreams not of freedom, but of switching lives with his master.

There will always be a hierarchy. Hell, look at this board - replace "Top Contributors" with "preps and jocks" and you'll see what I mean. Some people are naturally more aggressive, more confident, and more able and willing to dominate their competition than others. I may or may not be totally full of shit, but I have faith in the idea that my shit is worth spreading.

Undoubtedly there are smart folks lurking around here who would be wonderful contributors but who, for whatever reason, don't feel confident enough to speak up. And there are cool people walking around high schools who have lots of interesting things to say, but who can't play the social game well enough or who feel browbeaten by the more-aggressive kids.

Now, the people at the top in some hierarchies are a lot nicer than those at the top in others. I don't go around shoving other posters into lockers. (Well, I do steal lasttrain's lunch money every now and then. )

Eric and Dylan bought into the idea of a social hierarchy of worth - bought into it body and soul. Indeed, they bought into it far more than anyone else at that school did - they were willing to die to reach the top of it. They wanted to force the kids who had consigned them to the social basement to adulate their prowess. They wanted to say, "*We* are the ones you should be afraid of, not those dumb jocks and shallow preps. *We* deserve to be at the top, not them."

Now, you can argue that their perspectives were warped by their exposure to the ultra-competitive culture. Maybe that is your overriding argument. But I don't think you can say that Eric and Dylan were *morally* superior to, or even all that different from, guys like Rocky. They wanted to use guns and bombs to dominate others in the way that Rocky did with his fists and mouth.

I have to agree with you Lporter. They weren't all that different from the jocks. If they had been born with athletic ability and physical attractive than they would have happily been the bullies. They would have loved to have been on the top, but since they couldn't be, they do what we all do they complained the snooty rich people, jocks and bitches. He put on the pretense of not wanting these things to everyone but especially to himself.

LPorter101 wrote:

Well, yeah.

But, like they say, a slave dreams not of freedom, but of switching lives with his master.

Who says this LPorter? That is like a lot of middle-class whites I've known who assume black people wish they were white. Funny when I look around I see more whites who try to be black.  I do not believe your statement to be true. I think most people only want to be loved. I think cruel people who want to dominate, also wish they were loved. I think some people are psychopaths as well and feel no empathy toward others. I think this is a very small percentage of the global population but a decisively significant proportion of the global elite.

LPorter101 wrote:

There will always be a hierarchy. Hell, look at this board - replace "Top Contributors" with "preps and jocks" and you'll see what I mean.

Yes and piss the wrong person off on any discussion forum and you will be banned.  That doesn't mean there is not something more important going on. Most people here are finding out about themselves, having an encounter with the "stirring of the soul" that is taking them by fractions of degrees or maybe even by leaps and bounds -- out of their cultural complacency. Were that not true there would be no contention or debate here at all. We'd all say "We are happy Americans (or envious of the Americans), praise the lord, pas the ammunition."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

LPorter101 wrote:

Some people are naturally more aggressive, more confident, and more able and willing to dominate their competition than others. I may or may not be totally full of shit, but I have faith in the idea that my shit is worth spreading.

Undoubtedly there are smart folks lurking around here who would be wonderful contributors but who, for whatever reason, don't feel confident enough to speak up. And there are cool people walking around high schools who have lots of interesting things to say, but who can't play the social game well enough or who feel browbeaten by the more-aggressive kids.

Everyone is a "cool" person. Aggression does not equal "right" or "good" or "strong" or even "confident." Plenty of violent people have really low self-esteem. That is the mistake that Eric and Dylan made right there. Wonder how they came to hold this idea?

LPorter101 wrote:

Eric and Dylan bought into the idea of a social hierarchy of worth - bought into it body and soul. Indeed, they bought into far more than anyone else at that school did - they were willing to die to reach the top of it. They wanted to force the kids who had consigned them to the social basement to adulate their prowess. They wanted to say, "*We* are the ones you should be afraid of, not those dumb jocks and shallow preps. *We* deserve to be at the top, not them."

Sorta kinda. That is not exactly what they were saying but I don't doubt they felt it sometimes. who doesn't? That doesn't mean that you've bought into anything "body mind and soul" it just means it is possible to interfere with the individuation process if you institutionalize Project Monarch/ MKultra type brainwashing into an entire culture.

LPorter101 wrote:

Now, you can argue that their perspectives were warped by their exposure to the ultra-competitive culture. Maybe that is your overriding argument. But I don't think you can say that Eric and Dylan were *morally* superior to, or even all that different from, guys like Rocky. They wanted to use guns and bombs to dominate others in the way that Rocky did with his fists and mouth.

I don't see it as "ultra competitive" I see it as blind, shallow, self-interested, militaristic, violent, and soulless. "Competitive" implies that the hurt is reserved for those who sign up for the game (s) -- our culture is far more Skinnerian (and Orwellian) than that.

aubre wrote:

I have to agree with you Lporter. They weren't all that different from the jocks. If they had been born with athletic ability and physical attractive than they would have happily been the bullies. They would have loved to have been on the top, but since they couldn't be, they do what we all do they complained  the snooty rich people, jocks and bitches. He put on the pretense of not wanting these things to everyone but especially to himself.

Yes, I think you might be right.

I think that Gustopoet2 is driving at the idea that our society is sick and tramples our souls - instead of making us want to live together in peace and harmony, it makes us want to dominate others and grab as much as we can for ourselves.

Eric and Dylan were part of the same society as Rocky - society gave all three boys the same yearnings, but they had differing levels of success in being able to reach the top of the social hierarchy.

Rocky was "blessed" with physical strength and aggressiveness. No doubt he was "blessed" with a father who pushed him to become a top jock.

Eric and Dylan were not.

But I do believe that some people are born with more innate aggressiveness - some guys have more testosterone than others. Some guys have "it" more than others - "it" being that factor that drives a 5'4" guy to become a wrestler, while a 6'3" guy becomes a Star Wars geek.

LPorter101 wrote:

aubre wrote:

I have to agree with you Lporter. They weren't all that different from the jocks. If they had been born with athletic ability and physical attractive than they would have happily been the bullies. They would have loved to have been on the top, but since they couldn't be, they do what we all do they complained  the snooty rich people, jocks and bitches. He put on the pretense of not wanting these things to everyone but especially to himself.

Yes, I think you might be right.

I think that Gustopoet2 is driving at the idea that our society is sick and tramples our souls - instead of making us want to live together in peace and harmony, it makes us want to dominate others and grab as much as we can for ourselves.

Eric and Dylan were part of the same society as Rocky - society gave all three boys the same yearnings, but they had differing levels of success in being able to reach the top of the social hierarchy.

Rocky was "blessed" with physical strength and aggressiveness. No doubt he was "blessed" with a father who pushed him to become a top jock.

Eric and Dylan were not.

But I do believe that some people are born with more innate aggressiveness - some guys have more testosterone than others. Some guys have "it" more than others - "it" being that factor that drives a 5'4" guy to become a wrestler, while a 6'3" guy becomes a Star Wars geek.

No, I am saying that all of us long for something higher than the meat-grinder you are so eloquently describing.Even the people at the so-called top. The longing is misunderstood as an impulse to acquire more and dominate more. The true longing is for love and individuation. In other words being accepted for who you really are. I am a spiritual person, so I would add this is part of the Divine will. If we all were able to pursue our gifts and abilities without the prohibitive soul-crushing machine of this materialistic fascist culture, we would be able to accomplish a lot more and we'd actually be harvesting the "riches" that are beyond the ephemeral and empty treasures of vanity, gold, and physical cruelty to others.

LPorter you are a Social Darwinist to the core. I wonder if you had to admit at some point that material things are meaningless and so are looks (both fade like rotting fish) -- what would your hierarchy be built on then?

Quote :

Who says this LPorter? That is like a lot of middle-class whites I've known who assume black people wish they were white. Funny when I look around I see more whites who try to be black.

It's an old quote. I forget where I first read it.

I wasn't even talking about race ... slavery has been around for as long as agriculture.

Quote :

I do not believe your statement to be true. I think most people only want to be loved. I think cruel people who want to dominate, also wish they were loved. I think some people are psychopaths as well and feel no empathy toward others. I think this is a very small percentage of the global population but a decisively significant proportion of the global elite.

Everyone wants to be loved, yes, but the top dog gets a lot more lovin' than the bottom dog.

In his journal, Dylan fretted about the girls who went for dominant guys who treated them like shit ... he could see that being sweet and sensitive wasn't the best route to getting female attention.

(Yes, there are some women who dig sweet and sensitive guys ... maybe being sweet and sensitive wasn't Dylan's problem. Maybe the girls around him were too sensitive to the non-sweet way that he smelled.)

Quote :

Yes and piss the wrong person off on any discussion forum and you will be banned.  That doesn't mean there is not something more important going on. Most people here are finding out about themselves, having an encounter with the "stirring of the soul" that is taking them by fractions of degrees or maybe even by leaps and bounds -- out of their cultural complacency. Were that not true there would be no contention or debate here at all. We'd all say "We are happy Americans (or envious of the Americans), praise the lord, pas the ammunition."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Yes.

But why do I post so much, and others so relatively little? Why do you post so much? Is it because you and I are more interesting, more intelligent, and/or more informed? Or is it because we're more aggressive, more confident, and less worried about what others think?

There are lots of people who hate Cullen's book ... but a lot of the people who hate it keep their mouths shut. I do not.

(Maybe I'm insecure - maybe I need the validation that comes with being heard. You tell me.)

Quote :

Everyone is a "cool" person. Aggression does not equal "right" or "good" or "strong" or even "confident." Plenty of violent people have really low self-esteem. That is the mistake that Eric and Dylan made right there. Wonder how they came to hold this idea?

Yes, that is the point I am making.

Being cool is not enough - you have to show others that you are cool.

There are people who have great poems inside of them, but who will never write them because they're not confident enough in their own abilities. There are people who potentially could have lots of friends, but who writhe in loneliness because they're too shy to talk to strangers.

Quote :

Sorta kinda. That is not exactly what they were saying but I don't doubt they felt it sometimes. who doesn't? That doesn't mean that you've bought into anything "body mind and soul" it just means it is possible to interfere with the individuation process if you institutionalize Project Monarch type brainwashing into an entire culture.

Do you believe that Americans are alone in wanting to be at the top?

Do you think that people in Sweden wake up and say, "Today, I am going to languish at the bottom of the social ladder ... and I am going to love it!"

They do not.

In Sweden, the values are conformity and consensus. No one is allowed to be better than anyone else - everyone has to be at the same level. Showing off is frowned upon, to the extent that Swedes actually *show off* their unshowoffiness. The king of Sweden sends his kids to public school so he can say, "Look at me! I'm so much not better than the rest of you that I'm sending my kids to public school! Look at how humble I am!"

Maybe the Swedes are happier than we are ... but they are no less interested in showing off than we are. Trust me. They do it in a different way.

Quote :

I don't see it as "ultra competitive" I see it as blind, shallow, self-interested, militaristic, violent, and soulless. "Competitive" implies that the hurt is reserved for those who sign up for the game (s) -- our culture is far more Skinnerian (and Orwellian) than that.

Oh, I agree - you're stuck in the shithouse no matter what you do.

Gustopoet2 wrote:

LPorter101 wrote:

aubre wrote:

I have to agree with you Lporter. They weren't all that different from the jocks. If they had been born with athletic ability and physical attractive than they would have happily been the bullies. They would have loved to have been on the top, but since they couldn't be, they do what we all do they complained  the snooty rich people, jocks and bitches. He put on the pretense of not wanting these things to everyone but especially to himself.

Yes, I think you might be right.

I think that Gustopoet2 is driving at the idea that our society is sick and tramples our souls - instead of making us want to live together in peace and harmony, it makes us want to dominate others and grab as much as we can for ourselves.

Eric and Dylan were part of the same society as Rocky - society gave all three boys the same yearnings, but they had differing levels of success in being able to reach the top of the social hierarchy.

Rocky was "blessed" with physical strength and aggressiveness. No doubt he was "blessed" with a father who pushed him to become a top jock.

Eric and Dylan were not.

But I do believe that some people are born with more innate aggressiveness - some guys have more testosterone than others. Some guys have "it" more than others - "it" being that factor that drives a 5'4" guy to become a wrestler, while a 6'3" guy becomes a Star Wars geek.

No, I am saying that all of us long for something higher than the meat-grinder you are so eloquently describing.Even the people at the so-called top. The longing is misunderstood as an impulse to acquire more and dominate more. The true longing is for love and individuation. In other words being accepted for who you really are. I am a spiritual person, so I would add this is part of the Divine will. If we all were able to pursue our gifts and abilities without the prohibitive soul-crushing machine of this materialistic fascist culture, we would be able to accomplish a lot more and we'd actually be harvesting the "riches" that are beyond the ephemeral and empty treasures of vanity, gold, and physical cruelty to others.

LPorter you are a Social Darwinist to the core. I wonder if you had to admit at some point that material things are meaningless and so are looks (both fade like rotting fish) -- what would your hierarchy be built on then?  

The ability to win arguments on Internet discussion forums.

LPorter101 wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Okay, I just read the first paragraph... Isn't it, like, ENTIRELY wrong?

lio45 wrote:

LPorter101 wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Okay, I just read the first paragraph... Isn't it, like, ENTIRELY wrong?

Yeah ... this was two days after the massacre. Everyone was wrong in those days.

Cullen always says, "Oh, my God, everyone got everything so wrong wrong wrong right after it happened!" ... but lots of other folks got lots of stuff right over the next few months. And even the "wrong" reports contained interesting nuggets of truth.

And what is "wrong," anyway? There will never be a definitive "right" or "wrong" answer to the question "Why did they do it?" In fact, Cullen is more in the wrong for assuming that there is a single definitive answer that can be summed up in a sentence, or even a paragraph, than for arrogantly asserting that he alone knows what that answer is.

It is more accurate to say that, in the days after the massacre, many of the top media outlets reported things that were not factually correct. But the record was corrected, slowly, over the next few weeks, months, and years.

"Oh, I agree - you're stuck in the shithouse no matter what you do."

***

Well, my friend, I thank you for your thoughts. As you know we have a lot of disagreement on these particular issues. Let's see...

***
" Being cool is not enough - you have to [b]show others that you are cool"

***

To do what, exactly?

***
"There are people who have great poems inside of them, but who will never write them because they're not confident enough in their own abilities."

***

Well it's the poem "inside them" I am talking about here. That is what is at stake and that is more important than your banks and flags and jocks and cheerleaders. Those people are fine, too, we just want to leave room for everyone, don't you know.

Writing a poem in our culture is almost always expected to be an act of vanity or careerism. When it's not so, then it is generally raw self-expression and that is just great!  In fact, LPorter, poetry used to be a rarefied privilege of the elites and it is now a widespread hobby activity that anyone from housewives to prepubescent kids can do -- and does.   Used to be poets only wrote about Kings and important people; now everyone is navel gazing and searching their own souls. Whitman (and the Romantics) liberated poetry from the elites, for Westerners anyway -- and Plath and the other Confessionalists made it OK to talk about your own feelings or even neurosis.

So the evolution of literature in Western society from the Victorian era to Modernism  (as with the evolution of the Greek free-standing nude male sculpture) actually is a paradigm for exactly what I am saying here. There is cultural revolution that is born out of the longing to express the soul. Pollock would have been burned at the stake if he painted in 1500. Plath would have been burned as a witch in Salem.

Do you see? There is providence behind the drift of human culture but the timespan makes is really hard to see. Events like NBK I view as an influence of "punctuated equilibrium" for this process.

***

Why do you post so much?

***

Because I am a writer trying to refine my arguments while writing a book on Columbine. If I were a painter, I'd probably draw or paint my ideas and post them at deviant art.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

LPorter101 wrote:

The ability to win arguments on Internet discussion forums.

Well you know more about that than I do --

Gustopoet2 wrote:

Well, my friend, I thank you for your thoughts. As you know we have a lot of disagreement on these particular issues. Let's see...

I find folks with whom I disagree more interesting than those with whom I agree...

Quote :

To do what, exactly?

There will never be any social situation where everyone is equally valued. You have to sell yourself. If you can't or won't, then you'll have to be content with not being highly valued by others.

Frankly, I've always said, "Fuck 'em - who gives a shit that they think about me?"

Quote :

Well it's the poem "inside them" I am talking about here. That is what is at stake and that is more important than your banks and flags and jocks and cheerleaders. Those people are fine, too, we just want to leave room for everyone, don't you know.

Of course it is.

Hey, the banks and the flags and jocks and cheerleaders can all fuck off. I don't give a shit about them. But that doesn't mean that I want to live my life as a sexless, penniless nerd.

There is a middle ground between saying "Capitalism is pure evil!" and "I love money more than anything and everything!" We don't have to choose between Karl Marx and Ayn Rand.

Quote :

Writing a poem in our culture is almost always expected to be an act of vanity or careerism. When it's not so, then it is generally raw self-expression and that is just great!  In fact, LPorter, poetry used to be a rarefied privilege of the elites and it is now a widespread hobby activity that anyone from housewives to prepubescent kids can do -- and does.   Used to be poets only wrote about Kings and important people; now everyone is navel gazing and searching their own souls. Whitman (and the Romantics) liberated poetry from the elites, for Westerners anyway -- and Plath and the other Confessionalists made it OK to talk about your own feelings or even neurosis.

That's great ... I would never argue that honest self-expression is a bad thing.

Quote :

So the evolution of literature in Western society from the Victorian era to Modernism  (as with the evolution of the Greek free-standing nude male sculpture) actually is a paradigm for exactly what I am saying here. There is cultural revolution that is born out of the longing to express the soul. Pollock would have been burned at the stake if he painted in 1500. Plath would have been burned as a witch in Salem.

Instead, she gassed herself in London.

Quote :

Do you see? There is providence behind the drift of human culture but the timespan makes is really hard to see. Events like NBK I view as an influence of "punctuated equilibrium" for this process.

Yeah, I don't think things happen randomly.

There were a lot of weird pop-culture coincidences about Columbine ... something was in the air, and it seemed that a lot of people could almost feel it coming. The black-comedy film Heathers was first released on DVD only weeks before the massacre. A horror movie called The Rage: Carrie 2, focusing on the revenge of a bullied girl against asshole jocks, hit theaters around the same time. A TV movie called Our Guys: Outrage in Glen Ridge, focusing on the rape of a retarded girl by asshole jocks, aired on ABC shortly after the massacre - it had been scheduled long in advance. And the CBS drama Promised Land was set to run an episode about a school shooting that same week.

Quote :

Because I am a writer trying to refine my arguments while writing a book on Columbine. if I was a painter, I'd probably draw or paint my ideas and post them at deviant art.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Yeah ... but what makes you think your writing is worth reading?

You believe in your own self-worth. You are confident enough in your abilities to expose your writing to public view.

There are would-be great writers who a) doubt that anyone would ever want to read their work and b) worry that they'll be ripped apart by critics if they expose their writings to public view.

Hey, the banks and the flags and jocks and cheerleaders can all fuck off. I don't give a shit about them. But that doesn't mean that I want to live my life as a sexless, penniless nerd.

There is a middle ground between saying "Capitalism is pure evil!" and "I love money more than anything and everything!" We don't have to choose between Karl Marx and Ayn Rand.

***

Touche, my friend. Very well said.

***

Instead, she gassed herself in London.

***

Yes. But she did hear the stirrings of her soul and she struck an important blow against psychiatric tyranny and chauvinism.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Yeah ... but what makes you think your writing is worth reading?

You believe in your own self-worth. You are confident enough in your abilities to expose your writing to public view.

***

Not so much. "I don't believe in myself but I believe in what I'm doing." I don't think one can write anything meaningful until they get themselves out of the way. Plus to be honest I am not all that confident!

Gustopoet2 wrote:

Yeah ... but what makes you think your writing is worth reading?

You believe in your own self-worth. You are confident enough in your abilities to expose your writing to public view.

***

Not so much. "I don't believe in myself but I believe in what I'm doing." I don't think one can write anything meaningful until they get themselves out of the way. Plus to be honest I am not all that confident!

Yeah, but you're putting yourself out there all the same.

Hell, if I were willing to do the things that Cullen's had to do in order to get published, I'd be a best-selling author, too.

(I'll leave it up to you to wonder what those things might be. )

LPorter101 wrote:

Gustopoet2 wrote:

Yeah ... but what makes you think your writing is worth reading?

You believe in your own self-worth. You are confident enough in your abilities to expose your writing to public view.

***

Not so much. "I don't believe in myself but I believe in what I'm doing." I don't think one can write anything meaningful until they get themselves out of the way. Plus to be honest I am not all that confident!

Yeah, but you're putting yourself out there all the same.

Hell, if I were willing to do the things that Cullen's had to do in order to get published, I'd be a best-selling author, too.

(I'll leave it up to you to wonder what those things might be. )

I'm well aware, very well aware... "In this town poetry's a bedroom occupation."

Haven't put myself out there just yet... But I have openly declared my intentions to do so...

... so unless I want to be a true "beta-male" I'd better get clackin'.

Violenta wrote:

constantly parroting Cullen or Fuselier that I can't understand.

Yeah the two of them are kind of like a tag-team, lol.

@ gustopoet2

(for bein' a jockey with no socks and no greaser with lose loser like a cherry from Dresen (, Germany): kirsch (say it like kirsche or kiersche and you'll gonna get the picture - for the worse - for better would be: shakin' like a leave wise spread his wings) (...)

all my life i always wanted to fly. i always wanted to live like a hawk. i no yer not supposed 2 b jealous, but - to take flight - so soar above anyone and anything - now: that's (a) livin' - yeah.
Odin is a hawk. He soars above us - he can fly.
An' one of these dayz - anyone's gonna pay attention to me be'cos I'm gonna fly (,too).

hell - regard othello starring Josh Hartnett, Julia Stiles as well as Mekhi Phifer just as kinda "modern" intended Shakespeare adaption and you're gonna watch one of my favorite movies - almost as good as (cynically, but g.o.a.t.) Chatroom (2010) - yo.
O is from before 2005 - haha.

Just kiddin' Americans - you know - iLOVE ya.

Do you know "LOVE OBJECT" 4 tha win - uh - for the win?

greetz
NightshiftSTALKER

Gustopoet2 wrote:

Violenta wrote:

constantly parroting Cullen or Fuselier that I can't understand.

Yeah the two of them are kind of like a tag-team, lol.

Too bad we can't send them both to a deserted island, with a constant infusion of truth serum, all the videos they recorded, journals etc. Then hook them up to a live feed on a lie detector on camera...
It's extremely irritating listening to people with no mind of their own, who take Cullen's and Fuselier's opinions as fact, literally correcting you in any Columbine discussion.