Wright from Washington
December 18, 2012
The Sandy Hook massacre
Guns and the Emperor's bloody tears
By DAVID T. WRIGHT
If you find this article of value, please send a donation of $4 to TLD. More information appears below.
I must admit to feeling a little cynical in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre. Not that the brutal deaths of twenty little children and six adults at the hands of a maniac aren't deeply horrifying. It's the public reaction to the crime that leaves me cold.
If the news media, our informal Ministry of Truth, are to be believed, the entire nation waited breathlessly for Emperor Obama's sermon and benediction after the calamity. And he played the part to perfection, displaying just the right amount of sadness and sympathy mixed with righteous outrage. Minitrue was authorized to report that tears ran down his cheeks. Commentators described him as being "deeply affected" by the tragedy. And so on.
Well, let's hold on a minute. First of all, a politician's tears are always suspect, unless he's just lost an election. And just because a trusted "source" at the Imperial Palace tells us that our overlord or, as one fawning NPR newsreader described him, "our commander in chief" is full of sorrow because of this latest domestic atrocity, it doesn't necessarily follow that it's true.
After all, he hasn't seemed much affected by the deaths of innocent children by illegal drone strikes in Pakistan and places such as Yemen and Libya. A recent study by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that at least 64 children had been killed by such strikes since Obama took office. The study also found that as many as 290 civilians, adults and children, had been killed by the drones. Many died in attacks on funerals, and others in "follow-up" attacks in which the drones circled back to attack people going to the aid of those lying wounded from a previous strike. That tactic, by the way, seems to have been borrowed from our good friends the Israelis, who are famous for blowing up ambulances filled with wounded.
Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, Imperial Stormtroopers are coming up against a problem familiar to their predecessors in Vietnam: the necessity of shooting little kids to protect their own precious carcasses. The trouble, of course, is that they often wind up killing innocents, but what the hell.
Because these people are Muslim and live far away, their death and suffering apparently don't make a difference to our exalted leader. They also don't seem to make a difference to all the left-wing anti-war groups that have mysteriously disappeared since Obama took office.
Twenty kids in Connecticut are a different matter. The anti-gun activists have seen their opportunity, and they are bent on taking it, led by His Imperial Highness himself, who demanded "meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics."
"Meaningful action," of course, means banning guns. Obama has been joined by all the usual suspects, including New York Congresshumanoid Jerrold Nadler, who called on Obama to "exploit" the tragedy to push through anti-firearms legislation. Commentators in mainstream Minitrue organs such as CBS, NBC, and PBS all spoke of the "problems" and "barriers" in the way of doing the right thing: taking everybody's guns away.
What puts the icing on the cake is that the alleged shooter's mother, also killed, was reportedly "fascinated" [*] with guns, as well as interested in survivalism. That is red meat or, rather, its vegetarian equivalent to the bien pensants, who see a golden opportunity to demonize people who like being armed. Maybe the time has finally come for the final push to disarm the citizenry once and for all.
Certainly, the massacre has happened at the ideal time: right after the emperor's election to a second term. With no need to suck up to the riffraff anymore, and two long years until the next congressional elections, the way seems open for a full-court press. And Minitrue has wasted no time.
On Friday one talking head on NPR spoke of people being "fed up" with gun violence. By "people" I gather she meant people like her, which, of course, are the only people who count: people of privilege, who are in power or close to it; people who, like Obama, couldn't give two hoots for the deaths of grade-school-age children in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq, and other places where the Empire benevolently kills people and destroys their homes, property, and livelihoods.
Meanwhile, people like me wonder why, if guns are the problem, haven't such unofficial massacres as the one in Connecticut occurred throughout our history? After all, when I was a kid in Oklahoma, guns were all over the place. Children even brought them to school for show and tell. And yet I don't remember any such rampages happening then. From fifth grade, every boy carried a knife in school; and yet nobody got stabbed.
Could it be that something else is behind the Connecticut horror? Could it be that the relentless push to eliminate Christianity from our society might share some of the blame? Might the nearly total repudiation of traditional morality by our rulers have some negative effect on people's behavior? Might the taking over of the public schools by educationists who regard our children as their property, to be ruthlessly indoctrinated in their radical materialist beliefs and damn what the parents want or believe have fostered a climate of brutality in those schools? Those are people who think nothing of handing out contraceptives and Ritalin to underage children, with or without parental consent, but will expel a child for bringing an aspirin or a butter knife to school, for sharing an asthma inhaler, or most sinister of all for refusing to wear a tracking device. They're people who pepper-spray a second-grade boy for acting up in class.
Has putting such lunatics in charge of children perhaps helped produce a generation of young adults more prone to the Sandy Hook brand of violence not to mention promiscuity, self-centeredness, and the rest of the infantilism and anti-social behavior now so common?
And what about the relentless glorification of military violence that permeates our news and entertainment, and the increasing militarization of the police? Might those phenomena have any influence? After all, in the aftermath of mass shootings, it almost always turns out that the shooter or shooters were wearing military-style fatigues and body armor.
Those are all legitimate questions, and one might think that a number of people in this country are "fed up" with a regime that attacks our cultural heritage and cultivates coarseness and cruelty. But don't look for Minitrue to bring up such questions any time soon. Ω
December 18, 2012
Published in 2012 by WTM Enterprises.
If you found this article to be interesting, please donate at least $4 to our cause. If you'd like to donate electronically, here's some information on how to do that. Otherwise, you should make your check or money order payable in U.S. dollars to WTM Enterprises and send it to:
P.O. Box 224
Roanoke, IN 46783
Thanks for helping to assure a future for TLD!
Notice to visitors who came straight to this document from off site: You are deep in The Last Ditch. Please check out our home page and table of contents.
* Firearms don't really interest me very much, except as tools for protection. I'm a lot more interested in cars and motorcycles. I've got a collection of motorcycles, and I spend a lot of time riding them, working on them, etc. But for some reason, nobody not even my long-suffering wife has ever referred to me as being "fascinated" or "obsessed" with my hobby, as some might if I spent the same amount of time, money, and effort on guns. I wonder why that is.
[Back to the text.]