On Friday, security guard Alexander Kozak was reportedly fired from his job at the Coral Ridge Mall in Iowa. According to news accounts, Kozak, a self-identified “born free, gun toting, Constitution loving American,” returned home, retrieved a handgun, then returned to the mall, where he shot and killed a young woman named Andrea Farrington, with whom he was reportedly obsessed.
A local radio station reported that Kozak was fired
due to complaints of sexual harassment of store employees. It’s believed he targeted the woman, who reportedly worked at the Iowa Children’s Museum, because her complaint was the last in a series and led to his firing.
Over on the Roosh V forum, an online hangout for “Red Pillers” and fans of the repugnant pickup artist and rape legalization proponent, some of the regulars are “finding it hard to blame” Kozak for the murder.
Despite knowing even less about the case than what I’ve posted above, one commenter, going by the name Ziltoid, concluded that Kozak had probably been guilty of nothing more serious than offending the victim’s delicate sensitivities.
Like rape, does the term sexual harassment prettymuch no longer have any real meaning?
IE it’s safe to assume there’s no chance this guy actually touched her or said anything overtly lewd?
As somebody who’s been job hunting for some time now picturing being fired, in this job market, over some twit finding you “creepy”… Sad to say I’m finding it hard to blame him.
While a number of commenters found Ziltoid’s justification of outright murder a bit creepy in themselves — one urged him to “[p]lease don’t ever leave your house” — others agreed that Kozak was guilty of nothing more than being unattractive to women.
Given the lack of details regarding the allegations, it is safe to assume he did not touch or proposition these women. Simply put, he was guilty of having no game and/or being creepy. …
As far as I’m concerned, his being guilty of not giving these bitches the tingles is what caused him to get fired, and in turn, murder this chick.
Samseau, one of the more active commenters on Roosh’s site, concocted an elaborate hypothetical scenario in which “Alex [Kozak]’s only crime was being average.” As Samseau sees it, Kozak was probably fired for something as trivial as telling a mall customer she looked “beautiful.”
He bases this on a news report saying that Kozak, who took his wife’s last name when he married last fall, was raised by a single mother.
[A]fter examining the above facts here is the most likely conclusion:
He wasn’t being rude to anyone on his job. He wasn’t trying to be a pick-up artist on the job and shitting where he eats. His ‘prior-complaints leading up to his firing’ are almost certainly trumped-up charges. His crime? Being a beta male raised without a father and a domineering mother.
After he was fired for no good reason, as Samseau imagines it,
this poor man, who receives such injustice is immediately filled with burning rage; all of the issues of his childhood neglect well-up inside of him, and he stops thinking rationally.
“What the fuck is this. How am I supposed to keep my wife now? How can we have children if I have no income? What am I supposed to do now? I DID NOTHING WRONG!! THAT FUCKING BITCH! THAT STUPID WHORE! I KNOW WHO DID THIS. SHE THINKS I’M A SEXUAL HARASSER?”
Alex believes his life is over. He knows he won’t find another job; it took him nearly a year to find this one. He won’t find another girl; he’s already balding and his current wife is so beautiful to him it is impossible to imagine life without her. He already knows he’ll never find a girl as good as her to be his wife; he’ll never get to be the father he never had.
He goes home, crying. He finds his gun and loads it. And he rushes back to the mall with blood in his eyes.
Samseau admitted that, aside from the bit about Kozak’s father being absent in his life, he made all this up.
I cannot prove if the above is true, but based on my understanding of beta-male psychology raised by single-mothers, and feminist psychology, the above is probably very accurate.
He added, a little surprisingly, that
I do not think this man was justified to murder. He must be imprisoned.
After this moment of lucidity, Samseau went on to add a “but” that rendered it moot.
But the amount of self-control it would have taken him not to snap was more than an average man could handle; indeed it would have required a Saint-like amount of virtue to not blow up after having his life completely destroyed.
Paraphrasing a line from a creepy short story by Roosh in which a young female journalist is stalked and killed by a man she “got fired,” Samseau declares that “Alex’s only crime was being average.”
Who knew that “being average” involved committing premeditated murder?
So far, it’s looking like Samseau’s imagined scenario doesn’t bear much resemblance to what actually happened. A cousin of Farrington told a reporter that the murdered woman had confided in her about Kozek’s alleged stalkerish behavior,
saying several times that he had engaged in disturbing behavior toward her for at least the past six weeks. …
Kozak would stare at her while she was working, leave notes on her car and “just be scary and weird.”
“She was scared that he knew so much about her,” Dayton said.
While no one else on the Roosh V forum comes quite as close to outright endorsing the murder as Ziltoid and Samseau, others make the familiar argument — which I discussed in more detail in my post yesterday about would-be cop killer James Boulware –that outbursts of this sort of male rage are a sign, not of the often toxic versions of masculinity that our society still promotes, but of too much feminism.
Red_Pillage returned with this, er, analysis:
Society is churning out weak men with no masculine guidance by the truckload. Add to that the social ramifications of unrestrained and optimized hypergamy, what you get is men with nowhere to turn. That masculine energy will express itself in destructive ways if it is not channeled properly.
There’s gonna be a lot more Elliot Rodger’s coming down the pike. Now in this case the guy apparently wasn’t an incel, but I would be willing to bet that his murderous rage came from (at least in part) sexual frustration coupled with losing his job.
In Rooshland, of course, sexual frustration is ultimately the fault of women for not giving men the sex they “need.”
Suits, meanwhile, wondered
how often are we going [to] be seeing this happen in a society that criminalizes normal male behaviour?
I suppose it’s not surprising that fans of Roosh — who seriously argued several months ago that legalizing rape (on private property) would end rape — would think that the only way to protect women from creepy harassers would be to stop enforcing the rules, and the laws, against harassment, so as not to piss the harassers off.
That’s a bit like arguing we should abolish laws against murders because murderers sometimes threaten or kill witnesses to their crimes.
Sexual harassment may be disturbingly common, and once upon a time it was indeed considered more or less “normal male behavior.” (Look at any old magazine from the 1950s or 1960s to see endless variations on the comedic trope of the middle-aged businessman chasing his buxom young secretary around his desk.) But that doesn’t make it right.
The fact that laws against harassment make some men very, very angry isn’t proof that these laws are bad. It’s proof that some men still think they have a right to use predatory strategies in their pursuit of “bangs.” And that’s why we have these laws to begin with.