I agree with everything you said in your analysis -- except what I am saying is not guff. Nor does it contradict what I am suspecting. 

Yes, it is quite true, Rodgers could have gone off the deep end, gotten really angry, and decided to "get revenge" and so on and so forth. It strikes me, it's more likely he would have not done a huge big "production" like that on his own but done something much more personal, which would not have been a high profile show but something that looked like an attempt to get revenge on just one or two individuals he felt REALLY upset over. What he did -- even if he knew what he was doing and intended to -- is something I find unlikely for him or someone else to have done without the encouragement or collusion of others. 

However, back to your points about "game." Yeah I know all about what they do. Feminists vilify game -- even while they learn it better than anyone else, and they themselves associate, as equals, only with men who have good "game," and they will only relate to someone socially ignorant if it is to use them, abuse them, or manipulate them. 

And, lack of game with Elliot Rodgers is exactly the same as what Tocqueville described regarding how Americans would keep black slaves ignorant and not wise to the ways of the world, socially, all so as to ensure they could be easily manipulated, used, abused, taken advantage of, etc. This phenomenon is what Tocqueville referred to when he said, absolutely for sure, even when slavery is formally ended and blacks made officially equal in the eye of the law, they will continue to horribly mistreat and horribly oppress blacks, often in very invisible ways. This issue we are talking about pertains to the workings of not official government but shadow government. The way it works, if you can figure out how to ensure a huge sub population is made to be ignorant and not taught the ways of the world, yeah you can abuse them and manipulate them and make it look like it is their fault.

However, everything you say about Elliot Rodgers would have made him far more susceptible to being set up and framed in the manner in which I suggest could have happened. He is not taught "game" -- he is not taught the social tools he needs to get people to treat him like a social equal, to give him the time of day, etc., and so forth. He is kept ignorant. 

I am reminded of this video I saw on avfm a long time ago that talked about how, when they enslaved whole families, the way they would get them to cooperate with the enslavement is they would work with the women, get the women to do all of the controlling. And the way they would subdue a woman and bend her to their will would be to kill one of her loved ones, one of her children, in front of her, so that she would know they were serious -- and then they could trust her afterwards to raise the children in such ways so they would be ignorant and easily manipulated, easily abused, etc. Tocqueville was very clear -- blacks slaves were to be kept ignorant. 

I also think, to be honest, such strategies were used not only on black slaves, but other immigrants as well. The AVFM video I remember listening to say, the fact that these were the tactics used are often not talked about and these tactics hail from Ancient Rome. 

But, anyway, back to Elliot Rodgers. He knows no game, people do not treat him normally, he is shunned. This makes him easy pickings for anyone who might want to set him up. All they'd have to do is, remember everyone is shunning him -- a few people can go say they are head honchos in Hollywood, with connections, influence, they want to make him a star (whatever promises they tell, they can have a story) and they are suddenly unusually nice to him, treat him nicely in a way he is not used to, and he is putty in their hands and will be willing to do whatever they want him to do, not suspecting. 

Well, yeah it's true most people would be a bit suspicious if asked to do videos like that -- except, notice his last video. he is obviously reading from a teleprompter, looking to the side every few seconds. Who is feeding him his lines? The speech was long enough so it couldn't all have been written down on one page. He would have had to have cue cards -- and then put one down and picked another one up. Or a several page statement written in large letters, but you'd see him do more than just looking to the side, you'd have to have heard him rustling pages. There were no page turns -- which there should have been, unless it was a teleprompter, but if there was a teleprompter, doesn't someone have to pace things so the lines get fed to him at the right speed? Or did he do it himself? Why did the New York Times not report "it appears he was reading from a prepared statement in that video" and then inquire as to whether cops FOUND the written statement, or found a teleprompter, assuming that was what he used? THAT'S FISHY. 

Still, bottom line is, the way it works, lack of "game" could both mean he might have snapped and done something -- except wouldn't he have done something more on the spur of the moment? More impulsive? Out of anger? But it also could have made him be simply way too easily manipulated by others. 

So, what I'm saying isn't guff. But everything else you say, I totally agree with.