The Only Living Weakling

Not long ago finished The Only Living Witness, the so-called definitive book on infamous serial sex killer Ted Bundy by Stephen G. Michaud and Hugh Aynesworth

Upon reflection it seems to me that Bundy ranks with Saddam and Hitler. They were three terrible men. All were mass murderers. All raped or facilitated rape, all were extremely cruel, all had a callous disregard for any type of life, particularly of the human variety. Bundy is especially interesting because compared to the others, he was a small man, a nothing man, without vision or a plan for world dominance or his version of mass murder. He was only in it for the sex.

Michaud and Aynesworth attribute the following statement to Bundy: "For some reason it was a necessary way of looking at things. I mean, there are so many people. It shouldn't be a problem. What's one less person on the face of the earth, anyway?"

He was reputed to have repeatedly performed sexual intercourse upon the remains of women that he had killed, and to have in some cases hacked off their heads, carrying them home with him to decorate and to dwell upon, leaving the rest of his victim's remains to be ravaged by animals of all types which were "doing his job" for him.

Good old Ted, the Republican fundraiser, the psych student, the well-mannered charmer. But Bundy was in reality a selfish imitation of a man who cared for nobody but himself. The social science analysts can formulate many terms: psychopath, sociopath, on the wrong path, to fit the man. They can think up all kinds of excuses for why he was the way he was.: it was the way he was treated by his mother, they speculate, and by his father, and all the things that happened to him. Those things and events made him what he was. 

I say that is rubbish. Many men have risen out of the most appalling circumstances without becoming a shallow man who had it easy compared to say, Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln had it a lot harder. Charles Dickens had it harder too, and  many whose names now escape me and yet  others who came long before and after him. No. "I am not buying it", as the journalists say.

I believe that there is a potential Bundy in all men. We all at some time in our lives have base thoughts about how we would like to behave and act out. Men recognize their potential to be savages, to gratify themselves in a manner which satisfies the crudest desires which arise in their minds and to use their physical superiority to subdue women to their will. 

Should all men behave in this manner then undoubtedly  our society would quickly revert to a much more primitive age, into chaos even. 

Quality men deny the savage side and become breadwinners, husbands, fathers, musicians and writers, engineers and businessmen, farmers and fishermen and many other occupations that contribute to a perceived better society.

Bundy had too much time on his hands and nothing to do with it and he chose to indulge a savage obsession. He was weak and useless. That's all there is to it.

Men of Bundy's ilk exist and they live among us in disguise, not so much in T&T (yet, at least) as in the wider world.

So beware of monsters masquerading as men walking among us.