It's not the Guns It's the Movies.

 I think everyone misses the point where they speak about gun control. As if fewer guns less violence when we know that is just not the case.  Our problem is not guns, but what people do with them.
I think it would be more useful to look at two other items that are causing the motivation  One' is mental problems that are increasing with the everyday pressures of modern life, the disintegration of the family and the increased use of drugs with mental illness.
 Two is the media, movies television and violent video games. The glorification of weapons and guns comes from the film and television. In ordinary life, the motivation to use guns is about domestic uses hunting and sports.
 We know that the media has tremendous power to motivate people's actions. Hundreds of thousands of companies spend billions of dollars every year influencing people's behavior with the media. To deny that is ludacris.
 So with the thousands hour of the glorification of gory murder and Mayhem is it any wonder that some unbalanced Minds go over the edge.
 This young man dressed in black military/police gear, carrying a black plastic AR15.
 What was the motivation for him to wear that getup To dress end all black battle gear and scream "Die M........er F...........kers."
 Seems to me to be a very similar line in many movies:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b15qxrLJ7aM
Every time we are approached about reducing guns lets talk about a PG-18 on all gun violence movies. Let's see what Hollywood will say when they have some skin in the game.

Angry White Frail

Comment Magazine Christine Rosen

After Stephen Paddock killed 58 people and wounded more than 500 in Las Vegas in October, many of the headlines made note of his race. “White American men are a bigger domestic terrorism threat than Muslim foreigners,” one Vox headline read. “America has silently accepted the rage of white men,” CNN posted. “Stephen Paddock was an angry white man with a gun,”

magazine noted, denouncing “toxic white male violence.” The Intercept’s headline described “The White Privilege of the ‘Lone Wolf’ Shooter,” and the progressive website Think Progress featured a story with the headline “When we talk about mass shootings, we are talking about white men.” Salon promised to tackle “America’s White Man Problem.”

Even actress and perennial attention-seeker Lena Dunham inserted herself into the news cycle, posting a link to a

article, “White Men Have Committed More Mass Shootings than Any Other Group,” and tweeting: “No way not to politicize this tragedy. It’s about gender & race as well as access to guns. Considering it random is comforting & dangerous.”

This is in stark contrast to the headlines that appeared after the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando last year, when American-born Muslim and ISIS sympathizer, Omar Mateen, killed 49 people. “Don’t throw the blame on Muslims for the Pulse Shooting in Orlando,” one HuffPost headline read. “Orlando Gunman Attacks Gay Nightclub,” the

reported, making no mention of the fact that the gunman was Muslim. Even one year later, long after Mateen’s radical Islamic views were common knowledge, the

recalled the attacks in Orlando as an incident of “gun violence.”

It’s not a surprise that the culture pivots quickly to embrace murderous depictions of white men. For years, the Angry White Male has been the left’s favorite culture-war villain. He’s expected to perform a particular role, prompted to denounce his white privilege and “toxic masculinity” early and often, and treated punitively if he dares go off-script. (Remember footage of the crowd of angry students in 2016 who surrounded Yale University professor Nicholas Christakis and screamed expletives at him when he tried to engage them in a conversation about race?)

Male students on college campuses are frequently denounced as potential rapists and told to “check their privilege”; “white supremacist” is now the epithet of choice, deployed by members of the progressive left to manufacture outrage about policies such as Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos’s support of charter schools (even while real and reprehensible acts of white supremacy, such as the white-nationalist march on Charlottesville, Virginia, occur). Today, the unfair dominance of the white male is used to justify everything from toppling statues to replacing the literary canon with “herstory.”

And yet, for such a monolithic and terrifying oppressor, the white male looks surprisingly weak. In many arenas—educational, economic, emotional—he is flailing. For example, women now outnumber men on most college campuses, which, as economist Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute has noted, has been true for some time: “The huge gender inequity in higher education for the Class of 2017 is nothing new,” Perry wrote. “Women have earned a majority of U.S. college degrees in every year since 1982 and since then have earned an increasingly larger share of college degrees compared to men in almost every year, so that men have now become the ‘second sex’ in higher education.” Mortality rates for whites—and especially for white males—are rising sharply. A 2015 study by Princeton economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton outlined how “diseases of despair” such as drinking, suicide, and drug addiction have led to a dramatic increase in mortality rates for middle-aged, white Americans. Writing in the

about the study, Alana Semuels noted that by 2015, non-college-educated white people ages 50 to 54 had a mortality rate “30 percent higher than that of all blacks in that age group.”

As for Angry White Males as perpetrators of violence, even here the facts belie the popular narrative. Although men, on average, are far more violent than women, Daniel Engber at Slate

recently pointed out that “Asians and black Americans are overrepresented among mass shooters by about the same proportion (a bit more than one-fourth) that whites are underrepresented.” Another inconvenient fact often left out of the hot takes about “angry white men” and violence after a mass shooting: the stark reality of race and murder rates. As Engber notes, “Overall murder rates among black Americans are 6.3 times higher than they are for whites, according to a report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.…In other words, white Americans may be somewhat underrepresented among mass shooters, but they’re even more underrepresented among all killers.”

The notion of the Angry White Male conveniently overlooks some inconvenient facts about hate crimes as well. The overwhelming victims of race-based hate crimes aren’t black people: They’re Jews. In fact, hate crimes against black people have been declining for the past decade. According to economist Robert Cherry of Brooklyn College, FBI statistics reveal a 60 percent decrease in hate crimes against black people in the past 10 years. (And it is worth asking: If the Las Vegas shooter was motivated by white-male rage, why did he attack a concert featuring country music, a genre heavily favored by white people, during a performance by a white male country singer?)

If our narratives about white men don’t work anymore, why do they persist?

Identity politics must have its villains, which is likely why we have we seen an escalation of the demonization of whiteness just as white men’s power has started to wane. Among the leaders of this race-mongering is James Baldwin wannabe Ta-Nehisi Coates, whose essays and books argue that white racism is an inescapable and pernicious force in American culture. As Thomas Chatterton Williams recently argued in the

, Coates’s efforts have mainstreamed a dangerous notion: “No matter what we might hope, that original sin—white supremacy—explains everything, an all-American

.” The result? “Whiteness and wrongness have become interchangeable—the high ground is now accessible only by way of ‘allyship,’ which is to say silence and total repentance.”

This is why someone like Coates can describe neighborhood gentrification in cities such as New York and Washington, D.C., as “a more pleasing name for white supremacy,” liken it to Jim Crow, and accuse gentrifiers of “exulting in a crime” and yet receive nothing but praise from the white liberal elites who live in those very same gentrified neighborhoods.

The Angry White Male narrative is attractive to the left because it fits a worldview that sees vague “structural forces” and “inequalities” as the source of all of the world’s ills. As Engber argued, after an otherwise thoughtful assessment of violence and race statistics, “structural inequalities related to education, employment, housing, and healthcare, along with de facto segregation and a history of discrimination and bias, create conditions under which black Americans, in particular, are more likely to be both the perpetrators and the victims of this violence…white privilege kills, at least in part, through the reciprocal cost it imposes on to other groups.”

White privilege doesn’t kill. People do. Reducing people to categories (white, male) to explain their actions might be intellectually convenient, but it rarely increases understanding. Demanding that people atone for a “privilege” they might not have experienced—while telling them that they will always bear the taint of a racism they neither feel nor practice—isn’t a path toward reconciliation or racial harmony. And the glorification of black racial identity favored by Coates and his ilk brings us no closer to what multiracial America should be. Both traffic in essentialist notions of identity-based on race.

It is here where a conservative sensibility offers a better approach, one that recognizes the realities of human nature. Such a worldview recognizes the existence of evil, of bad intentions and of bad behavior at the individual level as well as the ways in which bad intentions can multiply via bad choices, bad policies, and bad governments. It argues that acts of violence, such as what occurred in Las Vegas (or Charlottesville, or in other cities throughout our nation’s history) cannot be explained away merely by pointing to vague structural forces or to the color of a person’s skin. That is too convenient. These crimes must be confronted and punished each time as evil acts of individual human beings—people should never be used as pawns in a larger race or gender war. If you want to be “woke,” then wake up to the fact that the Angry White Male is more fiction than reality.

Scientists Look For A Cure For Politically Undesirable Behavior

by Tyler Durden

Nov 3, 2017 8:40 PM

5

SHARES

TwitterFacebookReddit

Via GEFIRA,

The ‘Free World’ has taken on where the Soviet scientists and psychiatrists left off.

German and American scientists of renowned Universities in Bonn and Lübeck do research on treatment for politically undesirable behaviour like their Soviet colleagues from the infamous Serbsky Central Research Institute in Moscow. In the Soviet Union people who protested the system had to undergo psychiatric treatment.

Vladimir Bukovsky, a world-known dissident survived one and described it. The same will be the fate of the so called Free World’s citizens if they fail to conform to the idea of a multi-cultural society. The powers that be have given a signal, and obliging, complaisant scientists are already busy working on bettering our collective and individual psyche. Apart from homophobia and Islamophobia, xenophobia is another psychiatric condition that needs to undergo therapy...hormonal therapy.

Throughout history, the world has been torn by two opposing factors that face each other with daggers drawn. These are natural biological, and unnatural forces, or reality and dystopia. It is natural for a human being to want to possess things and work as little as possible; to counter it, dystopian socialists, communists or Christian heretics came up with an idea of a society governed by the principle: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

It was supposed to work. And it failed miserably everywhere it was installed and implemented, from Cuba to East Germany, to the Soviet Union, to North Korea. 

The human being, an evolutionary extension of the animal world, is endowed with certain indelible features at the genetic level. Group loyalty and fear of aliens are among them. Man cannot survive alone. Mankind is not a biologically monolithic, homogeneous family. Rather, it is made up of human groups (clans, tribes, nations, races) that as a result of their long development are moving apart from each other. Biology is the basis on which human communities create culture and ultimately civilization, not the other way round.

Trending Articles

All Of Iraq About To Be Liberated As ISIS Enters The…

Iraqi forces continue to advance on , the last "Islamic State" (ISIS) stronghold in Iraq, which will put the last…

Powered B 

y

Human groups, which have come into being as a result of living separately from each other for ages and so have developed incompatible cultures and religions, compete for resources i.e. for survival. Since man cannot make it through life on his own, he is a part of a group (clan, tribe, nation). In order for the group to function well and safeguard its (and simultaneously its members’ survival success), each group member is equipped with two psychological mechanisms (i) in-group loyalty and (ii) out-group enmity.

Group members collaborate, and support each other even to the point of sacrificing themselves for the whole. That’s the origin of altruism. Defection to another group means weakening one’s own group and strengthening the alien group, which has always been regarded as the gravest mortal sin: treason. (Dante’s hell has Judas Iscariot in its center, which is the severest punishment for it). Altruism towards members of the out-group is something between in-group loyalty and defection. Its exuberant instances are technically referred to as pathological altruism.

The phenomenon can be compared to the rivalry among soccer teams. The team’s (survival) objective is to win the cup. The prize will be shared by all team members. In order to achieve it, each one of them has to cooperate with the others: no cooperation with members of any other, opposing, team is thinkable. A team’s player may want to sacrifice his personal career for another player from the same team by helping him to score as many goals as possible and thus becoming the team’s star, or by fouling the opposite team’s player and thus risk being sent out of the playground (death), thus enhancing the chances of his team’s win, but the same will not make things easier on the playground for any member of the opposing team. Helping members of the other team means lessening the chances for winning the cup (survival) of one’s own team and, ultimately one’s own chances.

If my well-being and survival depend on that of the group that I am a member of, and, conversely, if my group’s survival is contingent on the cooperation, altruism, and self-sacrifice of its members, including me, then in-group loyalty is in high demand whereas out-group (pathological) altruism is detrimental. That’s evolutionary mechanism. That’s game theory. That’s common sense. Everybody knows it. So do social engineers.

Since social engineers have come up with the idea of building new, multi-racial, multi-national, multi-religious, multi-cultural societies, they have encountered the natural barrier: xenophobia, which is another name for in-group loyalty and out-group avoidance. Xenophobia is a biological mechanism imprinted at the genetic level that carries a survival advantage. It tells an individual to create bonds with members of the same group and be on his guard against aliens. To put it in plain language: xenophobia is practised at the very basic personal level each time parents warn their offspring to be wary of strangers: not to open the door to them, not to trust them. So modern social engineers have a problem. They need to overcome this deeply rooted biological barrier.

A sign has been given, most probably followed by substantial grants and other financial incentives, and so scientists got down to work to find a cure for xenophobia. One of the research teams included psychologists and psychiatrists from Bonn, Tulsa, and Lübeck scientific institutions. Urged by the increasing globalization and the mass migration of peoples, as they say, the mentioned scientists, who otherwise dutifully recognize the evolutionary advantage of the in-group loyalty/out-group exclusion, nevertheless set themselves a task of demonstrating whether oxytocin can enforce the acceptance of aliens and reduce xenophobic out-group rejection. To this end they devised experiments in which subjects were asked to donate a certain amount of money to people in need, either compatriots or refugees. Before the experiment the subjects were screened for the level of xenophobia. During the experiment the subjects were either allowed to act on their own, or were exposed to peer pressure or were administered oxytocin intranasally. It turned out that (i) refugee-directed donation among the subjects scoring low on xenophobia were significantly increased by oxytocin, whereas (ii) oxytocin alone was not enough in the case of the subjects scoring high on xenophobia: their out-group avoidance (or parochial, as it is patronizingly named, altruism) could only be overcome by the orchestrated operation of oxytocin and peer pressure.

The conclusions are obvious.

Citizens of host countries must be forced to accept the influx of aliens whether they like it or not. If they do not comply then, in the name of high-flown ideals of universal brotherhood of men, they will be forced either by peer pressure or by oxytocin or by both.

Oxytocin suits this purpose very well as this hormone raises the emotional well-being, it so to say oh-so humane. Like Aldous Huxley’s soma in his book Brave New World. The human being with his biologically-driven likes and dislikes is not to be tolerated, he must be changed. By ideological interaction or by chemistry. He must not be left alone. He must accept what he does not like not merely passively. He must be made to like what he previously disliked.

There was systematic political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union, based on the interpretation of political opposition or dissent as a psychiatric problem. The ‘Free World’ has taken on where the Soviet ‘scientists’ left off.