I think there should be no argument against the fact that he himself was the chief cause of terrorizing California and the murder of those 9 innocent people. I'm positive that there are people who will attempt and argue otherwise, at least partially. They will tell you of the corruption of the multitude, the flawed and morally depraved social values and the injustice or tyranny that were practiced to some extent on this man. But the truth of the matter is, this has always been the status quo throughout history and for the great majority of societies and civilizations. It appears to me that when an individual comes into being in any society or historical epoch, there are three possible modes of existence that are available to him. First neutrality in which he wouldn't possess enough individuality and sovereignty to choose a social class to side with. He goes through his life in the shadows unable of taking a substantial stance on any matter of any sort. Such an individual lives a reasonably peaceful life; he lives and dies in obscurity. Second there is the majority individual. He lives and dies by the values and convictions of the multitude, having saved himself the trouble of trial and error and of uncertainty. His morale and virtue are not his own. His actions and stances are carefully calculated in fear of deviating from the majority. And because the majority itself is volatile, capricious and impulsive, professing to something and to its complete opposite at the same time, the majority man is equally volatile and mutable. Such a man lives a moderately satisfying life. He gets his share of a fruitful social life and receives enough of the honors available for the average man. He lives and dies avoiding social antagonism at all cost. He changes like the wind without ever allowing his own individuality to ossify and take a solid form; all under the illusion of having a saying in all of that. Then there is the minority individual. His spirited individuality stands in the way of melting into the multitude. Such an individual is capable of coming up with his own convictions on morality and social values. But he would soon find himself a stranger in a strange land and antagonism emerge. He will grow disdainful of the majority and their ways either for the right reasons or the wrong ones. In case of the former, social reformers, philosophers, moralists and the likes come into being and in the case of the later, sociopaths, criminals and the likes are born. The problem with such a man is the fact that he could go through all of this without being aware of any of it thus interpreting social antagonism erroneously. He runs the risk of having his mind infected and intoxicated with all sorts of delusions of persecution, of injustice and of entitlement. He craves what he can't have owing to the fact that he's not even compatible with it in the first place so its only natural that he wouldn't be able to come into possession of it no matter what he does. If the minority man doesn't come into self-consciousness, he condemns himself to self-abolition and in extreme cases to being the garbage of society.
This is a rough summary of the social conditions of the individual. Its just how things are and have always been. It does not give anyone the right to go insane and start shooting random people in the streets. If anything, it proves that such an individual is a failure of a human being, a broken one that was incapable of seeing his struggle through all the way to its end and of being able to deal properly with his perceived antagonism.
Log in to comment