<Music plays, curtain opens, host walks out, audience shrieks and applauds>
"Hey guys, welcome to the meeting!"
(uses palms down to quiet loud audience)
"Recently women's rights pioneer Betty Friedan died of breast cancer."
(Some clapping and whistles of approval)
"I guess I am going to have to reevaluate my previously low opinion of breast cancer. She was 85, and her family said they wished it could have been longer, but at least she lived long enough to see Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill films".
(Loud applause and audience laughter)
"Condolences poured in from the usual subhuman groups of Jew lovers and whores. Mourners are being asked by reasonable and progressive people to kill themselves before their weak kneed and pathetic attitudes and XXX chromosomes destroy the human race."
(Loud applause and audience laughter; host waves for quieting)
"The witch had the audacity to ask from her death bed that her savings be used to help children of poor Jewish women... Can you believe it? I guess Jewish boys don't count, but I suppose there were some things we can agree on."
(Laughter and jeering)
"Now I know these seem like harsh words and harsh jokes"
(host pauses to wait for audience to calm down)
"and I'm sure I will be condemned for them by opponents of our cause.
They will say this traitor to mankind was a kind and forward thinking lady, when in fact the bitch has done more to undermine our civilization than the Black Plague. She has stirred the turd of women's liberation, so "Fuck her" and I am glad she is dead!"
(Audience bursts into wild cheering)
"The world is a better place without these gender terrorists that deny science and promote religious superstitions!"
(Speaking loudly over loud audience applause)
"OK? What a great meeting tonight!"
Have investigators looked into the daily activities of these rogue gunman that ruthlessly shoot innocent people and then commit suicide? We always hear about their manifestos on how the world is against them and they cannot control their rage. Politicians then postulate that if we confiscated more guns this wouldn't happen.
There may be a bunch of ways we could assure ourselves that this could never happen again: we could imprison all young white men. We could have armed guards at every public business, sports event, or school. We could have everyone's arms amputated.
There is a common thread, we just haven't discovered it yet. Guns are a problem, but they are also a necessary part of our freedom. But guns have been around much longer than this relatively recent tsunami of carnage. During the Old West and the Roaring Twenties guns were used in local land and gang turf wars. But no one shot up groups of innocent women and children just to watch them die. And after gun battles, the winners didn't commit mass suicide. Besides, many countries, states and cities have stringent gun control laws, and the evidence contradicts their effectiveness. Mexico has a strong federal no-gun policy yet the state of Sinaloa is one of the most gun violent places on Earth.
The question has to be asked, what has happened in the past twenty five years that has caused such an enormous upsurge in single shooter events? What is driving these individuals to viciously murder dozens of innocent people and then end their own lives? Why do they always act alone? Without warning? Why do they want this to be their legacy?
I don't have the answers, but I do have some observations: society still thinks video games are not dangerous. We think it is OK for young men to spend hours watching simulated war games featuring video shooting galleries with other humans as targets, or watching women being tortured and raped, or street crimes like car theft, hijacking, burglary, bank robbery or drug dealing, and to do this day after day, hour after hour, and think it has no psychological impact? Just last year a 24 year old male shot two other gamers to death at a high stakes video game tournament.
Here's your sign….
Stop Teaching Our Kids To Kill by Dave Grossman, a well researched and notated book about this subject, originally published in 1999, tells an ominous story about video brainwashing. Grossman and his co-author Gloria Degaetano (CEO/Parent Coaching Institute) spell out the original purpose of video gaming technology and how it was designed to desensitize users for future warfare effectiveness. The military inventors of the video technology wanted to use it to create killing machines.
Now our leaders dismiss this phenomenon as irrelevant to our mass murder culture. They can't both be right. As a multi-billion dollar business, the widespread distribution of these super violent 'Video Games' has reached every corner of our culture. Within that group of millions and millions of young men, there are bound to be some really vulnerable sickos.
If and when authorities do their due-diligence and look at the daily activities of mass murderers like Stephen Paddock at the Mandalay Bay Hotel, or Patrick Krusias at the El Paso Walmart, or just today, Conner Betts in Ohio, they may well find out what they all had in common.
Instead of confiscating guns or amputating everyone's arms, maybe we should think about controlling the psychological brainwashing young people undergo disguised as innocent gaming.
George Will is a well respected, long time political thinker who has been strongly anti-Trump since well before the 2016 election. He has at times been recognized as an expert on conservatism. He has also accused Trump of faking his conservatism, trashing the honor and respect of the office of the Presidency, and of stirring up anger, xenophobia and anti-intellectualism. He makes no bones about it, he dislikes the leader of the free world.
In a recent interview with Peter Wehner, a contributing editor at The Atlantic magazine, Will said:
“The principle of representative government, which is at the heart of conservatism, is that the people do not decide; the people choose who will decide. And that’s why populism inevitably becomes anti-intellectual...Political leaders today seem to feel that their vocation is to arouse passions, not to temper and deflect and moderate them.”
Will is equating populism with mob rule. He is suggesting it is the job of leaders to deflect the effects of mob rule, then make decisions based on their superior intellect. That sounds a lot like Progressive theory to me.
He also implies that Trump, specifically, aroused voter passions. Like a mirror, Trump has been a master at reflecting heated passions that had been brewing for a long time. That can start a fire, but the light source didn't come from Trump, it came from a political environment of ineffective leadership, misplaced values and the deteriorating sovereignty of the American voter.
He suggests that leaders chosen based on their popularity as opposed to their policy, are anti-intellectual, and dangerous. But that is an oversimplification of what actually happened during Trump's 18 month-long Presidential campaign.
Follow me on this: Trump played by the rules, went around the country and spoke to the electorate where he spelled out the issues and solutions to what he felt the electorate was worried about How does that make him anti-intellectual? Will would prefer the candidate meet with party leaders, formulate a platform, and then use the party structure to acquire the necessary number of electoral votes as determined by insider horse trading, and then govern by intellectualism...
Hasn't that been the policy and procedure of the Republican Party for the past 24 years? Isn't that what lead to the enormous national debt, the instability of our inner cities and the clash of race relations, the mishandling of every war since WWII, and the complete lack of investment in restoring our American infrastructure. Let's not forget the decline in 2-parent families, an epidemic of drug addiction and homelessness, the absolute abdication of healthcare for our veterans, the growing rejection of American exceptionalism and world leadership in the pursuit of human freedom, and the unsupportable onslaught of illegal immigrants swarming and overwhelming our communities across the country.
Hello? These were, and are, the real world issues that face Americans, and precisely what Trump publicly addressed prior to the 2016 election. Does that make him a hate monger? An anti-intellectual? A threat to our system? Come on George, wake up and smell the coffee.
Honestly, Will sounds silly and out of touch with reality. He cavalierly dismisses the enormous sea change in governing that Trump has accomplished despite the disgusting, unAmerican, and possibly criminal opposition by the Deep State Media cabal.
President Trump decided early on, and I think his decision has been vindicated, that it is useless to try to work rationally with opponents who display nothing but hatred, overt aggression and misinformation in the marketplace of ideas. So he has employed a policy of mutually assured destruction: When Progressives throw nuclear media weapons at him, he is going to hit back with an overwhelming social media counter attack. At first it appears reckless and unproductive, but in a very short time, he ends up refocusing the public on the issues and exposing the media's duplicity.
Trump is a builder. Unlike Reagan, who used his acting and speaking skills to move the electorate, Trump just keeps adding one cinder block at a time. We are still a long way from a remodeled masterpiece, but the foundation and the first few floors are done and the crews are working around the clock. We are watching Trump rebuild Americanism, and the specifications don't align with Mr. Will's 90's era neo-conservatism, but when the finish trades move into the White House January 2021, George will be at the Grand Re-Opening.