The problem with this article is that it fails to identify the cause of the problem. This is ultimately why society just packs up and moves on....because it has no answer. It instead finds problems it can solve. This is ultimately why society is repressed and distracted by materialism. Both 'solutions' are intended to distract you from the real problems besetting society. In part 1 of this post I raised the spectre of a society which is inclined to dwell on problems, then move on like they never occurred. So let's get to the real problem - the journalists response:
For the sake of this discussion, let’s stipulate that Loughner was a “lone nutjob” who had never listened to Glenn Beck or been a card-carrying member of either the Tea or Communist parties. Let’s also face another tragedy: The only two civic reforms that might have actually stopped him — tighter gun control and an effective mental health safety net — won’t materialize even now".
He erects straw men, and then he asserts his own solution. This is another form of 'materialism'; the idea that the cause of the murder was always a very practical and concrete solution. i.e. If people would only be more careful. If only there were fewer guns. If only someone had seen his deteriorating psychological state of mind. The problem is more fundamental and systematic. Nothing other than a change in the nature of governance will overt more problems of this nature.
This will not stop journalists and bystanders clutching 'concrete' straw answers to problems.
Why was Loughner a 'nut job'? What is a nut-job anyway? Certainly not a psychological concept....but then it was always a throw-away assertion anyway. There is a great deal of interest in his reading list. Are we surprised that Americans actually read books? Are we going to regulate content now? We already do unsuccessfully. i.e. No porn.
So we have journalists rendering psychological diagnosis based on no knowledge whatsoever. His first 'reaction' is renouncement, just like Hitler. Let's renounce rights. The individual is a danger to himself. For the collective good, we need to regulate people. No doubt this journalist has a long-bend frustration with gun shootings. Why do we need guns anyway? Well, none if government was not the greatest threat posed to mankind. Government destroys many lives in one foul swoop, and that includes 'kind governments' as well.
But the author does compel us to not be petty hypocrites. He offers a litany of examples like the following:
On “Meet the Press” last Sunday [Representative Trent Franks, Republican of Arizona] implored us to “treat each other as fellow children of God” without acknowledging (or being questioned about) his 2009 diatribe branding Obama as “an enemy of humanity.”
That ship has of course sailed, but the issue is why? Why are we searching for such concrete solutions to problems. The answer is that it was never a mental process that stretched beyond the concrete. The reason there is no abstract solutions; the reason we are concrete bound; is because our system of government does not allow us to be anything but because if you think, you are condemning yourself to a life of impracticality. You don't convince people that you are right by giving them abstract answers; you convince them you are right by flaunting your money in front of them, or by giving some of it to them. The other way of course is to simply coerce them; but first you need to do the former in order to get elected. That is the paradigm that needs to be challenged. The way we think is a product of the way we are governed. When thinking becomes practical, you will be surprised just how minds can shine; and how quickly problems disappear.
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon
