So, in the aftermath of the Georgia shooting, we find that the shooter:

Was 14 (so having a gun was already a problem)
Stopped shooting when he was engaged by a resource officer

The unknown is doing a lot of heavy lifting for the gun control argument in this matter. It is not known how the kid got the weapon, but the logical assumption is that he stole it from his parents. This has not been confirmed. What -has- been confirmed however is that he stopped after he was shot at, that other forms of “physical security” like locks and cameras do not actually deal with the threat and “run, hide, fight” doesn’t do so either.

But of course, those of us who don’t need a gun ban to appear to be a panacea know how this works.

Point ¼: How has the idea of a benevolent government survived the lockdown era? If we’re being charitable, one might ask if these people did not mind or, worse yet, enjoyed being talked to like children. If we’re not being charitable, and you can probably tell we’re not, something was intoxicating about being unilaterally correct. Everyone who disagreed with you was cruel and selfish, as determined by “The Science” ® and “The Experts” ™. You were on “the Right Side of History”.

Until it was apparent, even to you, that you really, really weren’t and “I told you so” didn’t had stopped being sufficent about six months prior to this revelation.

Point ½: How does the idea that people are inherently good survive even essential examination? If this were true, children would behave well by default. “Inherent good” does not manifest at a certain age, depending on the culture. It is “inherent”; it is -always- there. If it’s a matter of teaching what that good is, then it is by definition not inherent; it is taught.

Point 3/4: To say that people are -not- inherently good is not to say they are entirely irredeemable, just that their minds and hearts are generally slanted towards themselves and what is best for their comfort and advancement.

All of this points to the idea that progress is unidirectional and unstoppable, especially now that religion has lost its political and cultural sway. Mankind is unfettered in its journey toward utopia.

So where is it?

—“Work on yourself, King”. The only thing worse than “Christian self-help” is secular self-help. The so-called “manosphere” and the alpha-dog talk tells you to make yourself better, because in that improvement you will find meaning. Experience reveals this to be false. Even now, as you write, and you read, you cannot explain where the joy comes from, if it comes at all. To what end, or for who, are you making yourself better? For people? Why? Does anyone notice? Or care? If so, that is not why you’re doing anything. If not, what’s it matters??^[1][2]

Then who are you improving yourself for? For Christ? He is making you better.

Perhaps it is best to take a passive view of “improvement”. You have found a circle that is trying to guide you, assuming you let them in, and follow a God whose primary objective is to make you more like Christ. You are your own worst enemy when you are the only one in your head.

The conversation around the Iowa shooter has become “well, he was bullied and that’s why he snapped.”

I studied this kind of stuff (incidents, the vulnerability of certain spaces, the fact that violence is merely physics, etc) for about 13 years before getting bored with the broader discussion, the similarity of the incidents and politics generally as it all started to make me rather cold. That said, looking at this and the Covenant shooter, I don’t recall seeing this kind of relative sympathy for mass killers. I get the sense, however that it’s because the shooters aren’t plausibly Republican anymore. Not like they all were OR that it plays a role into most of them. They’re almost to a man, and it is almost always men, bullied, lonely, fatherless, on boatloads of antidepressants and/or narcissistic.

It’s really a fascinating thing to watch the broader conversation in the media and on the socials shift drastically and still, one assumes deliberately, miss the point. As if there’s a mutual agreement to not contend with the problem.

— The first, and most important point to note in any political discussion is that opinions are not people, nor should they define the person. If you are the kind of person to call someone who disagrees with your position racist or transphobic or whatever pejorative fits the occasion, two of three things are true. The first, is that you’ve never been challenged on your beliefs and/or your favorite pejorative. The second is that if you have been challenged on it, then the accusation was enough to either get your opponent to shut up, or realize you were beyond reason. The third is that you have nothing substantial undergirding your position, so a rather effective personal attack is the only bullet in your arsenal, so it had better work, or you will be reduced to flailing and all kinds of cruelty.

—When you contemplate death and suicide, remember what you’ve said to a beloved family: “No time soon”. This. Is. A. Promise.

—That you can contemplate suicide simply as a concept is a good sign that you are not suicidal. (this is more for the reader that isn’t me. I am fine. A lot has changed for the better and I am not afraid of telling people when something is wrong)

All of this is written in the third person. I am talking to myself. I take this style from Aurelius’ “Meditations” for three reasons (very Presbyterian of me to keep it to three main points). One because that was the inspiration, two because I put this in practice as a thought exercise before putting it to paper and three, because the endless use of “I” started to feel self-centered and it is more important that the ideas be the focus of this project.

I hate the expression “deep down”. Generally speaking, it sounds like the place where some asshat can project what they want for your life onto your subconscious. It’s acceptable if they’re well-meaning, but it feels like something that will stop a conversation dead, whether its political in nature, or if a friend is trying to tell you to do something that “you know deep down” is the right decision. 

But, as I am learning, there is a defense mechanism there, in that some behaviors are so irrational, that you must wonder if they know it to be such when they’re not behaving this way. My best example for this is usually the terminally online (or perpetually marching, when it’s warm out) political activist. Their language never changes; if it doesn’t fit in a tweet (or on a sign, when it’s warm out), they don’t say it. it’s where we get the NPC meme from. Further, they begin from a position of fiery, self-righteous anger and only seem capable of getting angrier, but incapable of thinking with depth and complexity. A writer for Vox managed to distill this kind of activist in a long screed against how online discourse has become extremely tiresome, with emotion that stands vastly out of proportion with its actual impact on the world. And so, after 2 election cycles that were vitriolic, divisive, full of sound and fury and changed nothing, one has to wonder if the activist is getting tired and simply doesn’t know how to stop, or if they’re having fun being horrible as the Lockdown Cult did in 2020 and most of 2021?

In other words, can they be made to stop being cruel, or is that just who they are now?

The political lessons of 2021 are a series of warnings that stem from the problems of 2020. This is entirely due to the ideology of Team Lockdown dominating the zeitgeist. Because that ideology can be seen, and I don’t mean this lightly, by every decent person as fundamentally evil, the lessons from life in its grasp are as follows

Continue reading Political Reflections: Lessons of Team Lockdown →