The act of publicly bemoaning a lack of “effective” gun control laws upon hearing news of yet another mass shooting is one of the most popular LIEbral ritual in USA. For reasons that I will get into a bit later in this post, most LIEbrals believe (or at least want to believe) that severe restrictions or outright bans on private ownership of guns will somehow magically translate into an almost total elimination of mass shootings and other incidents of firearm related “violence”. They will also tell you that the much lower rates of suicide (or homicide) by firearms in other developed countries with draconian regulation of private gun ownership support their beliefs. But is that really so?
Well.. the short answer is “no”. But the longer answer is far more interesting and provides some intriguing insight into their mindset and worldview.
FYI, this is not my first blog post expressing strong skepticism about the effectiveness of passing more gun control laws in the USA. I have previously pointed out that most mass or spree shootings in the USA are the end result of somewhat unique and systemic social problems. Also, people who commit such acts frequently have no suspicion-invoking history of violent behavior. Furthermore, trying to suppress one manifestation of a much deeper set of problems almost guarantees that they will manifest themselves in another, and even more problematic, manner. It is also no secret that those clamoring the loudest for more gun control are doing so to maintain their power and social status.
There is however something else that I have alluded to, but not discussed at length, in my previous posts on this topic. I am now going to talk about one of the core issues that underlies discussion on gun control laws but is seldom mentioned- especially in public forums.
Some of my previous posts on other topics talk about factors that influence (positively or negatively) the perceived legitimacy of any given system of government. Now, many of you might think that opinions of citizens about the degree of legitimacy of the government system they live under are largely a non-issue in “developed” countries with democratically elected governments. As I will show you in the next paragraph- perceptions and opinions about the legitimacy of government systems are far more important for policies on gun control than most LIEbrals want to believe. It really comes down to two inter-linked issues..
Firstly- even a brief reading of the previous 150 years of global history show a rather disconcerting, yet seldom talked about, pattern for violent deaths. Governments of countries (as opposed to individuals) have been responsible for the vast majority of violent deaths in populations governed by them. If you don’t believe me just add the body count of all major inter- and intra-state wars, genocides and consequences of war (such as the influenza pandemic of 1918) which have occurred in the last century and half. My point is that the vast majority (way over 99%) of violent deaths (around 150-200 million) in that time span were state sanctioned and therefore technically “legal”. Furthermore, the number of violent deaths caused by recent or ongoing conflicts such as those caused by american meddling in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan within the last decade are still many tens of times higher than a sum of the body count caused by individual mass or spree shooters in the same time span. Even the police in USA kill many times more unarmed people than mass shooters in the same calendar year. To put it another way, governments of nation states (and their subsidiaries) are by far the biggest cause of violent deaths- including those by guns. I fail to see how passing more gun control laws would have change that fact.
And this brings us to the second issue- namely, that a significant minority of people do not perceive the current government system as being legitimate. But why does that matter? Don’t people in other developed countries have similar views about their governments? Well.. it does matter, because people in other developed countries do perceive their governments to be significantly more legitimate than people in the USA see their own. But why? What makes people in Japan, Germany or even the U.K feel that their government is legitimate? The simple answer is that the perceived legitimacy of a government is directly proportional to the consistency and effectiveness of its efforts to maintain the quality of life for the median citizen.
It is therefore no surprise that gun control measures seem to work in countries where the government directly or indirectly intervenes in favor of the median citizen. I should also point out countries with such government systems always had very low rates of deaths by individual acts of violence- especially in the post-WW2 era. In contrast to that, countries in which governments routinely and overtly abuse the majority to benefit the rich minority always had rather high rates of non-state sanctioned homicides. That is why certain countries such as Mexico, Brazil and South Africa have rather high rates of non-state sanctioned homicides despite highly restrictive gun ownership laws. My point is that the USA has always been more like Mexico, Brazil and South Africa than Japan, Germany or the U.K.
LIEbrals push for more gun control laws because they do not want to acknowledge that the USA has always been an affluent third-world country and that they have tremendously benefited from this apparent contradiction.
What do you think? Comments?
I found this particular clip sometime ago when I was browsing YouTube for 2014 gameplay compilations. As you can see, the remastered version of “The Last of Us” looks pretty good and the game is reasonably interesting as well as gory.
What do you think? Comments?
Many of you might have heard about all the drama and bullshit going on at reddit.com. Well.. it was all very predictable, as this 3-year old clip will explain you.
Also, substituting the word “Chinese Government” with “Multinational Corporation”, “USA”, “NSA”, “FBI” or “GCHQ” improves the accuracy of this satire.
What do you think? Comments?
Yesterday the Greek PM (Alexis Tsipras) agreed to a tentative deal with other EU leaders that would provide a “bailout” of 86 billion Euro to Greece in exchange for levels of austerity and privatization far surpassing those reject in a referendum about a week ago. Leaving aside all the speculation surrounding the circumstances of this deal, there are two broader questions about this situation that have not been answered properly (i.e without speculation, self-serving lies and bullshit).
Question 1: Why do such a large percentage (over 65%) of Greeks want to remain in the Eurozone?
One of the central electoral promises of Syriza was that it would stop further EU-imposed financial austerity and still keep Greece in the Eurozone. But even more curiously, various polls showed that 2/3 rds of Greeks wanted to stay in the Eurozone. While those percentages might have gone down in the last few weeks, I still have a hard time understanding why Greeks would want to be on a team where most other members hated and abused them. I mean, it is possible to remain in the EU even after exiting the Eurozone.
While average incomes in Greece (as measured in Euros) did rise after joining the Eurozone, it is hard to make the case that it has made their lives any better. The sad reality is that they could have gotten most of the benefits of joining the Eurozone by joining the EU but maintaining their own currency. While I can understand why the Greek 1% ers (or 10% ers) wanted to join the Eurozone, the extensive popular support for retaining the Euro as the default currency in Greece does not make much sense. It is ego? Is it false consciousness? Is it the desire to be seen as European rather than Mediterranean?
Question 2: Do Germans (both its leaders and average citizens) think that making Greece sign an economic version of the Versailles treaty in 2015 will somehow stabilize a fundamentally defective currency?
Let us for a moment assume that Tsipras can get this deal through the Greek parliament and make sure that it is implemented in full. Let us also assume that his government, or any other replacing it, can keep it going for a couple of years. Then what? Does it improve the economic situation of the average person in Greece over the next two years.. five years.. ten years.. twenty years? My point is that pretty much any plan based in the neoliberal scams of austerity and privatization will almost inevitably cause more open-ended financial deprivation for the average Greek person. To put it another way, there is no light at the end of this tunnel.
Even if we ignore the very real possibility that such policies would almost inevitably lead to the the rise of right-wing nationalist parties in Greece, we are still left with an even bigger problem- namely, that other countries in the Eurozone might decide, or end up, sabotaging the Euro. It is no secret that significant minorities of the population in France, Italy and Spain have always been hostile to the idea of a common European currency. It is also well known that two out those three countries are not in the best of financial circumstances- at least as seen through the lens of neoliberal capitalistic dogma. However unlike Greece, they are large and have economies diverse enough to go willingly exit the Eurozone- if it comes to that.
Now consider the terms imposed by Germany on Greece and its likely effects on the later. Do you think people in those three large Eurozone countries will ignore what they are now seeing (economic colonialism) and will almost certainly see (more economic deprivation) in the future. Do you think they would still want to retain a common currency with Germany, if the later can do to them what it is doing to Greece? Why would you retain a common currency with a dominant country in a group if you have no political representation in the decision making process of that country? Let us not forget that the US Dollar works because all states in the USA send elected representatives to Washington DC. If they did not, states not benefiting from the common currency would start dissociating themselves from those that did so at the cost of the former.
What do you think? Comments?
The issue of “white privilege” has become an increasingly frequent, though still minor, topic of discussions in both mainstream and alternative media. Hardly a week goes without a few new articles on how widespread the problem is or ideas about remedying it. These run the whole gamut from the hilariously self important, hilariously paternalistic, jumping on the bandwagon types to ones that are reasonable and nuanced.
But very few articles on this topic try to answer a simple question- Why has writing and talking about “white privilege” in the media exploded within the previous 4-5 years? I mean.. why did we not hear much, if anything, about this issue in the previous decades? Was this issue not existent or relevant then? If it was, why did people not talk about it then but are almost too willing to do so now?
The two most common ‘explanations’ for the explosion of media interest in this topic are as follows:
Most CONservative morons believe that the guilt and naivety of “bleeding-heart white liberals” is behind much (if not all) such articles and discussions about ‘white privilege’. Some CONservative morons see it an attempt to force the belief system of “feminists”, “left-wing liberals” and other assorted socialist types on to others.
LIEbrals, on the other hand, largely see this as an issue of publicly acknowledging something that is morally wrong. Of course, it is no surprise that a few self-identifying LIEbrals have made their careers (and money) through writing and talking about it.
While both the CONservative and LIEbral narratives on why everybody and their dog is now expressing their opinions about “white privilege” seem logical at first glance, neither holds up to careful scrutiny. Firstly, the whole idea that white LIEbrals are significantly more compassionate that white CONservatives is simply not true. The behavior and actions of White LIEbrals who express progressive beliefs is not that different from their stupider CONservative counterparts. In other words, the mindset of White LIEbrals (as implied by their behavior) is just as racist and exploitative as the CONservative morons they seek to differentiate themselves from.
So what is going on.. Why are white LIEbrals falling over each other to condemn their own supposed privilege.
The less cynical among you might see white LIEbrals decrying “white privilege” as a way to raise their perceived social status- and there is some truth to that. But I am far more cynical than that and see something which most others cannot see, let alone acknowledge.
It all comes down to extrapolation of an aspect of human behavior I had discussed in a previous post- Why Societies Fool Themselves about their True Selves. In that post, I said that societies usually lacks whatever quality, resource or attribute they claim to have in abundance. If we extrapolate that idea a little further, we can convert it into a more generalized statement.
Humans lacks whatever quality, resource or attribute they repeatedly claim to have in abundance.
White, both CONservatives and LIEbrals, almost never talked about “white privilege” in previous decades because they believed that it was safe. They had actually convinced themselves that they would always have higher living standards and be more technologically advanced than the rest of the world- because they were actually superior to all those other people. Sure.. there were outliers like Japan, but generally whites felt their relative position was unassailable.
Then the last three decades happened..
The last thirty years have been marked by two trends. On one hand, real technological innovation has basically disappeared in the white west. It has been replaced by a simulacra consisting of colorful presentations and papers written in language approved by both advertising and legal agencies. On the other hand, living conditions in the rest of the non-white world have improved by leaps and bounds- often at rates incomprehensible to the white mind (if there is such a thing). Then there is the issue of demographic changes, both in the general population of the west as well as in technology intensive occupations.
Many of the less retarded whites (predominantly LIEbrals) have realized, if still largely at a subconscious level, that the era where being white meant having real privileges is rapidly and irreversibly slipping away. CONservatives are too stupid to have read the writing on the wall and believe that they are world is still stuck somewhere in the 1950s-1980s.
The acknowledgement of “white privilege” by white LIEbrals allows them to enjoy whatever real white privilege is still left while still appearing to be morally superior to white CONservatives. They know, if only in the back of their minds, that the little white privilege they enjoy will soon be history- regardless of their actions in support or opposition of it. It is just that decrying it will make them look morally superior and prescient in the future when even the most retarded white CONservative rube has to face reality.
Therefore, all those articles about “white privilege” by LIEbrals are about positioning themselves for the inevitable future rather than any innate sense of justness or fairness.
What do you think? Comments?