So what happened to the Urmia, Iranian immigrant Nasim Najafi Aghdam to cause her to shoot up the YouTube headquarters just south of San Francisco—at the northern tip of Silicone Valley? In a bizarre attack on the Google led company she shot four innocent people before apparently killing herself thus ending a bizarre life of liberal crusades practicing veganism and the religious practices of Baha’I, for which her family reportedly fled Iran to practice spending roughly a year in Turkey two decades prior. She legally bought the gun she used, her family warned police who had spoken to her just 11 hours prior to the shooting and nothing set police off to look into Aghadam’s actions any further. Aghdam also didn’t know any of the YouTube employees—she just randomly selected them, so what gun law, or law of any kind could have helped the situation? What might we say was the cause and corrective action of this particular shooting?
The first thing I’d say about Nasim Najafi Aghdam is that she was obviously suffering from mental health issues, the way a lot of liberals currently are. The reason is that their view of the world is not conducive to what is actually happening. As a PETA activist Nghdam was crusading against the nature of life itself, where those at the top of the food chain eat those under them. To any rational person such an arrangement is insane and if the question of why god would ever design such an existence is legitimately asked, only insanity can begin to provide an answer. Most of us just accept that we are the superior life form and that if we want to eat another animal, then we do so. But to ask the question as to why, or to go so far to believe that one must be a crusader against the very nature of life to the extent that Aghdam was, then mental instability is the path such people usually find themselves on.
To satisfy the illusion of working against such a system of living, where people eat those cute little animals that were seen in Aghdam’s YouTube videos, the young liberal activist had to convince herself that the work she was doing through her art had merit. So using the First Amendment Aghdam made a series of bizarre videos dedicated to her 10,000 YouTube subscribers which paid her a little money and gave her a taste of American life. But the moment that was disrupted with a policy change her natural liberal tendencies formed in her home country of Iran clashed with the merits of American capitalism where everywhere she looked she could only see a slow killing evil—which is common to liberal people who hate capitalism—she felt her only option was to attack the company that brought her so much grief, which so happened to be the company that provided her with the vehicle of expression to begin with.
Of course, once the media learned that Nasim Najafi Aghdam was one of their target demographic groups—she was a foreigner from the enemy country of Iran, she was a young female, and she was a PETA activist, the story of her attempted murders jumped right off the front page within 24 hours. YouTube as a company touches most people in the world these days, so the public interest in the story was very great, but the story was pulled anyway because the gun control debate couldn’t be advanced otherwise. People like Aghdam face an American culture with only the objective of changing it and once they realize that they can’t they get frustrated and sometimes become very violent. The media on their part do not understand why it isn’t white NRA members who are attacking these places and shooting people up—because they don’t understand the essential meaning behind the NRA and the people who make up their membership. Yet it is the typical American heritage to use the gun to hunt for one’s own sustenance who fled European oppression, much the way Aghdam did in Iran. Only one side was in harmony with existence and the other was against it—trying to change that reality with activism.
The average PETA activist who takes off their cloths and puts themselves in cages in public are not that far away from the kind of murderous activity that Aghdam indulged in. Once they put animals at the same level of human beings and protest that all life is equal they are going against the laws of the entire universe and that can be very frustrating for them. The essential pitfalls of the typical liberal is that they fight for equality by trying to repress development, intellectual and scientific. That is the core argument behind all climate science and even religions that hope to deny science to support their ancient texts. Both approaches are seeking to bend reality to the desires of their observations and when those don’t align, mental instability is often the result. Not being in accord with life is to stand against the trajectory of its experience, and liberals are often guilty of that generality. Not all of them go so far as Aghdam did, but in her case she had not been in America long enough to understand how the country works at the epistemological level. She was using the concept of American capitalism provided by YouTube to communicate her radical ideas but the moment she lost that device, she couldn’t see any other way out but to commit murder.
Imagine Aghdam going to the target range learning to use her Smith & Wesson 9 mm knowing that she intended to use it to kill employees at YouTube, and speaking calmly to the police when they found her asleep in her car on her way to commit the murders—knowing that once she went that far that she would never have a normal life again, that she’d either be killed or put in jail for the rest of her life—yet her activism drove her on toward a level of radicalism that clearly crossed the line. Her desire to change the world superseded her desire to live within the context of existence.
Most conservatives that I know, particularly those who are in the NRA would never take such a radical step because they like life too much. They enjoy hunting, watching football games on Saturdays and Sundays while grilling out in the backyard. They by the nature of their values are aligned with existence, that we have to eat to live and that something has to die so we can continue on, and they find ways to deal with that universal conundrum—what makes us so special to be at the top of the food chain and thus able to decide what lives and dies? Such discussions are at the heart of the American experience and lots of people come to the United States so they can participate in that relationship. But for those like the liberal Aghdam, they don’t accept the basic concept of American life, so how can they assimilate to it? It is quite clear that a certain percentage of liberals are just crazy by the nature of their opposition to universal law. Not all of them kill people to bend those laws toward an equality that they dream might exist if only this happened or that happened. But I would say that all liberals who are activists against basic realities are prone to such meltdowns and should be considered dangerous. Any of them could be one disappointing event away from mass murder just because they don’t have any other way of interacting with the world except in protests and threats—and when those things don’t work, they have only murder to fall back on.
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.