Two kinds of contempt

1)

I want to add to the cluster of thoughts of strangeness as stated in my blog entry on “tschunggoys”:

US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once said (in this talk) that he held “an old-fashioned belief” that “familiarity breeds contempt.”

2)

Based on Scalias mystical hypothesis of familiarity: some thought about mass killer Elliot Rodger:
How come he does in all these hours supposedly spent reading and developing a theory never name titles of books he read, or authors, or arguments?

He is not wanting to hide influences or something. He just spent these hours daydreaming and picturing himself a big new NOMAAM-thinker. His contempt comes from unfamiliarity, unfamiliarity with books, women, his stepmother, the world at large.

He was merely a blind, self-pitying, self-rightous, ridiculously materialistic simpleton, which by the way many Americans (and many Chinese) (and many Europeans) (and many others) among us people of the world are.

But I admire his beautifully formated and almost immaculately spelled text (there are only some occasional plural-’s-blunders), its form. I like its preciseness. A good mass murderer’s leaflet. I should check the Norvegian mass murderer Breivik’s manifesto. There might be a pattern: writing/typing correctly is not perceived as necessary these days: and so these killers mistake it for their society’s decline! And in order to save society, their heroic performance is the typing of pretty prose! Their killings: an advertisement. The continuation of the Nietzschean hammer with other means: Kevin Spacey in the thriller Se7en explains it nicely.

Otherwise, these mass murderers and their phantom pain of intellectualism are a supremely laughable, Marxian “history returns as farce”-kind of guys of obviously very poor philosophical talent.
They are forced to use another hammer because they have no hammer similar to the hammer Nietzsche wielded in his writings: a combination of philosophical learnedness and poetic genius.

So the problem at hand is that in 21st century rich societies, somewhat gifted thinkers and writers are too degenerated or too lazy to make themselves real high-grade psychos like Otto Weininger. They do not even have to, as the media are a great apparatus to complete their argument.

So unlike Weininger, who did possess learnedness and genius, they are philosophical fakes.
Unlike Weininger, they are unable to commit good old self-sufficient suicide. They need the public.
They need murders to bestow drastic force upon their arguments. They need Psychiatrists and other experts on TV to follow up on the points alluded to in the original manifesto. They need Twitter, “where the world's conversation takes place”, as their “scientific community.”
They lack Weininger’s really gentlemanly humbleness that resulted in the loss of only one life, the psycho’s.
Or was Weininger given a fancy horse cart (or one of the new 1903 automobiles, for that matter) by his parents?
Weininger couldn’t care less about the publicity and reprints of his book that followed his death.