May 29, 2014 08:40
When someone like Elliot Rodger commits an atrocity by killing people out of spite, a great deal of hand-wringing occurs with the words "mental illness" thrown in. Rodger' atrocity was socially unacceptable, so his actions are seen as symptomatic of "illness." When the federal government commits similar atrocities, they are considered socially acceptable and do not fall under the "illness" rubric. Opposing such socially acceptable atrocities might warrant such a label.
In his pre-atrocity video Rodger demonstrated what could be considered to be ordered thinking. Women and men who enjoyed sex while he was involuntarily celibate were considered to be responsible for his suffering. They deserved punisment. He failed to see his own errors and how those errors prevented him from either having a satisfying sex life or enjoying life without sexual experiences. This kind of self-ignorance cannot be considered a disease just as ignorance of a mole on one's backside is not considered a disease.
Knowledge and ignorance are social institutions. Rodger is not the only individual who suffers from ignorance of his own condition. When President Obama slaughters a group of people overseas because he believes that he is fighting terrorism, he suffers from a similar blind spot. He believes that being judge, jury, and executioner all rolled into one is a positive role to play. He believes that raining terror down on foreigners will somehow deter terror. His lack of self-knowledge is just as pronounced and deadly as that of Rodger, yet he is not seen as mentally "ill."
Rodger was not an "alpha" male, yet he wanted to be one. President Obama is not the leader of a free people, yet he wants to be one. Rodger was not a gentleman, yet thought of himself as such. President Obama does not act in the interest of America, yet he thinks of himself as such. The fact that millions of people support Obama and only a few troglodytes support Rodger makes Obama's self-delusions socially acceptable and therefore "healthy."