How convenient for our political overseers: there has been another mass-shooting – this time at a Connecticut grade-school – in which many adults and young children were murdered. Members of the mainstream media, politicians, and other government officials are being turned loose to share their lack of critical thinking with a public conditioned to await their direction.
With the kind of frenzy exhibited by a monkey that has been bitten by a scorpion, establishment sock-puppets quickly respond with proposals to further enhance state power while, at the same time, shrinking individual liberty. Taking the advice of the neo-Machiavellian Rahm Emanuel – that “a crisis is a terrible thing to waste” – the victims in Connecticut will join those in the Oregon shopping mall, Columbine and Aurora, Colorado, and elsewhere, to be exploited on behalf of disarming Americans.
The news coverage of this latest atrocity follows a predictable pattern: police officers, armed soldiers, and federal FBI and ATF functionaries, are on the scene as a reminder of the top-down system of order that the shootings have just refuted. The mayor, state governor, and president each holds a press conference to assure their respective herds that all is under control, their control. In a world in which vertically-structured institutions are collapsing into horizontal networks, the established order is desperate to reinforce its authority to control what it is clearly unable to do. The mantra “we will find out what went wrong and fix it so that it doesn’t happen again” becomes less and less persuasive to those who understand that “insanity” is exhibited by those who keep repeating the same actions, expecting different results.
President Obama shed his crocodile tears for the latest group of victims. As he began to speak, and before the president pretended to wipe tears from his eyes, CNN informed us that “Obama Weeps Over School Massacre”: sure, just as he continues to weep over the tens of thousands of children and other innocent victims of his wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and any other places he might arbitrarily choose to attack. He then spoke of the need to take “meaningful action” to prevent such murderous acts in the future. Gosh, I wonder what such “actions” might entail? Were he sincere in his professed concern for the killing of children, he might choose to reward – rather than attempt to destroy – Julian Assange who used his WikiLeaks site to show videos of American soldiers, in helicopters, machine-gunning journalists, innocent children, and other civilians in Iraq!
Seeking to limit the private ownership of guns is about as irrational a response to violence as would be a proposal to eliminate the private ownership of cars in order to prevent the deaths of tens of thousands of people who are killed annually in auto accidents. The LA Times informs us that, on the same day as the Connecticut shootings, a man in China attacked twenty-two schoolchildren and an adult with a knife, an occurrence that “was reminiscent of a spate of knife attacks on schoolchildren that took place across China in 2010.” The same news story informs us that a young man had been arrested following the box-cutter slashing of a number of young women on a subway. The report ends with a reference to China’s stringent gun-control laws.
Should these events engender restrictions on knife-ownership? And what about those who might resort to golf clubs, baseball bats, or pipe-wrenches to carry out their murderous intentions? Of course, it is a public armed with more powerful weapons – ones that would allow people to defend themselves against state weaponry – that troubles the statists. Dead children are but convenient victims to be exploited by the shedders of faux tears in an effort to further weaken the defenses of ordinary people.
I could offer my own “solution” to the mass killings with which the media entertains us: these shootings tend to take place within the confines of institutions and other large organizations. Government schools and universities, corporate businesses, churches, shopping malls, among other systems reflect what Leopold Kohr called the “size theory of social misery.” Perhaps, drawing upon work done in the study of “chaos,” it could be said that large organizations are “attractors” for violent activity; that we ought to be focusing our attentions on reducing the size of our social systems.
While I agree with such a systemic analysis of events in our world, it does not go deeply enough to explain the source of our difficulties. Like so much of our confusion, we focus attention on the consequences of our behavior, rather than upon such causal factors as the thinking that produces dysfunctional results. To continue going deeper for explanations for our troublesome conduct leads us, eventually, into the depths of our own understanding; into how…………..