I seldom revisit these types of posts, but I felt that in Elliot Rodger’s case, a second outing was justified. Elliot Rodger, despite his obvious ‘Americanisation’, was in fact born a ‘Londoner’ in the UK. He was born in Lambeth (famous for many things, including Waterloo Station), probably in St Thomas Hospital. If this is correct, then he was born within the comforting embrace of the British NHS – and not ‘privately’ delivered as would have been expected due to the wealth of his father – film director Peter Rodger. Elliot Rodger was brought into the world through a ‘Socialist’ medical system (copied from the Soviet Union by the British Labour Party in 1948). This may have been the only time he experienced Socialism in operation, as his family moved to the USA when he was around 5 years old. From that moment onwards, he was exposed to the forces and contradictions of predatory capitalism and routine gun ownership. In the UK, British people do not own guns within civil society, but when called upon to defend their island – they fight lions regardless of the odds stacked against them. Between 1939 – 1941, Great Britain stood alone against the might of Nazi Germany, when politicians in the US were voting not to come to the UK’s aid and assistance, and to make a ‘separate’ peace with Adolf Hitler’s despicable regime. British people do not need to carry guns to be effective fighters, and if Elliot Rodger had remained in the UK – and had been brought-up as ‘British’ rather than transplanted to a foreign land, his 6 murder victims would still be alive, he would still be alive, and 15 others would not be injured. In all probability, his Asperger Syndrome would have been correctly diagnosed and treated within the British NHS, and his state of mind quelled as a consequence. I have posted elsewhere (See: Elliot Rodger: Bourgeois Excess) that Elliot Rodger was probably ‘gay’ in sexual orientation. I say this because his entire persona (or at least that which he chooses to show the world in his numerous videos) appears highly effeminate. As I progressively support LGBTQ (and non-binary) rights (and have attended London’s Gay Pride March), I felt Elliot Rodger was ‘gay’ but for reasons of non-support in his life, was acting-out a fantasy of being attracted to females (that did not return the ‘attraction’). Although sexual politics is a mine-field, generally speaking, ‘straight’ women (the target of Elliot Rodger’s fantasising) would not be amorously attracted to gay men – other than perhaps for platonic friendship. I believe this is the basis of his hatred toward women. He hated his own ‘gayness’, and manifested this as ‘misogyny’. His ‘inner’ self-hate was ‘objectified’ as a hatred of women, where he imagined that they (womanhood) rejected his male perfection. In reality, it was Elliot Rodger that was ‘rejecting’ his own effeminate persona, and every woman that reminded him of it. He was ‘jealous’ of heterosexual couples, because such couples represented a ‘male’ rejecting Elliot Rodger for the female being courted. This diverting men ‘away’ from Elliot Rodger, was blamed in his fantasy world as being caused by women deliberately conspiring to ‘attract’ men away from him. Why did he not simply embrace his gayness? He did not embrace his gayness because his middle class upbringing taught him to despise homosexuality in general. When I review the following interview with Peter Rodger, I see a an eerily ‘detached’ privileged White man playing to the cameras and simply defending his own reputation through spin and sound-bites – after-all – he is a film director.