• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Gun control and mentally ill

Rather than arm yourself to over throw a future government, why don't more Americans exercise their right to vote governments that don't require violent revolution?
 
^That'd be nice, but there's usually only red neoliberals or blue neoliberals on offer (pretty much the same as uk, except we've got yellow and now new purple neoliberals too!).

Not to say i think they require violent revolution - if it comes to a fight, they will always win (except the moral victory); and if you win, you've just become the same as them (as Bakunin said 'the means become the end').
 
Last edited:
OTW: The 2 party system makes that absolutely impossible. Enough people will be brainwashed into supporting one of the main parties that there will never be a viable 3rd party that can get enough votes.

V: Cultural Marxism dominates all of Western society so socialism in that sense has already occurred but I get what you mean. You can have a society that is not ruled by corporations without removing any incentive to succeed in life with taxes, welfare etc. The welfare state is the cause of the problem so I do not see how making dependency on the government worse using socialist policies would solve the problem. The push against socialism in a hybrid state like the US is more of a false dichotomy.
 
_DankOpiAmp_ said:
...The welfare state is the cause of the problem so I do not see how making dependency on the government worse using socialist policies would solve the problem. The push against socialism in a hybrid state like the US is more of a false dichotomy.
Click to expand...

I think the idea of 'cultural marxism' dominating anything in western countries is a perfect example of what i was saying about socialism being distorted and denigrated. I think it's ridiculous (no offence :)) - if what you're talking about is stuff like current welfare and 'multiculturalism' policies, that's certainly not marxism or socialism in any sense - at most it's liberalism, and as such, is justified by the bottom line as much (or more) as actually caring (high welfare numbers and immigration's main benefactors are capitalists/oligarchs as the wages go down, not 'socialists')); but anyway it's nearly totally been replaced by neoliberalism now (deregulation, globalisation, privatisation). There's not even a hint of marxism anywhere near it.

People (not saying you) describing obama as a marxist is just laughable really - he couldn't even do a first world free health system, let alone any proper redistribution - i'd recommend reading up on some marxism if you think this.

In FDR JFK or LBJ's time there was arguably some keynesianism and social democracy (as there was everywhere, because it worked), but that's still very much capitalism.

Blaming the problems of the system on the welfare state is a victory of propaganda: the oligarchy have managed to convince people that the problems that are obviously caused by them are our own fault for being lazy, or previous governments fault when they tried to balance some of the unfairness of the system with some welfare (usually under threat of civil disobedience). It seems a bit like turkeys voting for christmas (again not anti-american - we're turkeys over here too).

...

If libertarian ideas had any chance of making things fairer, would so many mega rich oligarchs support them? (koch brothers etc) If it makes things like taxation equal with no redistribution (flat taxes), oligarchs will certainly benefit, but most of us won't. If we get smaller government the way the oligarchs want it, the same (while i'm anarchist, i still support the few hard-won laws/policies when the state does work for us and protects us from capital (eg welfare)).

Since neoliberalism, unemployment has been kept purposely high to 'discipline' the labour market, so if there is a burden from the amount of welfare needed you can only blame neoliberals or capitalists who use it to increase their profits (which will trickle down honest). Welfare cost under keynesian full employment wasn't a problem (and we had the longest period of prosperity/growth ever)
 
Last edited:
You obviously have know idea what cultural Marxism is. It is not a buzz word I made up. There is some crossover with socialism however. I suggest you learn about it or this won't go anywhere.

There is caring about people and there is destroying national identity by breeding 3rd world immigrants with welfare policies to displace the base population while marriage law inequalities de-incentivize middle class reproduction. Do not try to pretend it is a conspiracy when our reproduction rates have tanked in recent decades and we have taken enormous net losses paying immigrants to become established in new countries.

Corporations lobby the government so it serves their interests. You will not be able to steal their money for social programs because you do not have the leverage, especially since jobs in these corporations are so sought after with high unemployment. No communist wet-dream mass labour strike can work when those people are easily replaced and want to keep their jobs anyway.
 
_DankOpiAmp_ said:
You obviously have know idea what cultural Marxism is. It is not a buzz word I made up. There is some crossover with socialism however. I suggest you learn about it or this won't go anywhere.

There is caring about people and there is destroying national identity by breeding 3rd world immigrants with welfare policies to displace the base population while marriage law inequalities de-incentivize middle class reproduction. Do not try to pretend it is a conspiracy when our reproduction rates have tanked in recent decades and we have taken enormous net losses paying immigrants to become established in new countries.

Corporations lobby the government so it serves their interests. You will not be able to steal their money for social programs because you do not have the leverage, especially since jobs in these corporations are so sought after with high unemployment. No communist wet-dream mass labour strike can work when those people are easily replaced and want to keep their jobs anyway.
Click to expand...

I have some idea what cultural marxism is supposed to be, i'm just saying it's difficult to describe western policy as being in any way marxist, cultural or otherwise (who has the power is the key question). The idea that western states are crawling with lefties behind the scenes just isn't true (more's the pity) - it's just a testament of how far the political centre ground has been moved over time by right wing influence that mildly liberal policies can be described as marxist or socialist (while being obviously capitalist) (and parties like democrats and labour can be described as left wing when they're unashamed neoliberals)

I'm with you on being against the power of the corporates, and that they virtually run the government now, but the solution is surely not to give them more freedom under libertarianism (i realise you didn't mention this), or weaken the govenrment so their takeoever is total (if the govenrment works properly, it should stand up for us against the corporates - like either of the roosevelts did).

The solution, as it always was, is socialism - ie the little people running things; or democracy if you like - i think it means the same thing - if we kept our democracies without the plutocratic influence, they would be naturally socialist (ie if the turkeys knew about christmas). I certainly don't mean some centralised state control of people's lives, as that is not socialism in the true sense (as i understand it).

What you seem to be saying about immigration is really about neoliberal policies (definitely capitalism, not socialism), though it's again just about the bottom line and a 'flexible labour market' (and a handy bit of social division chucked in) rather than some eugenic master plan imo
 
Last edited:
The only reason Americans have this sick fantasy that gun ownership being the only way to keep their government in check is because they have never had their country razed to the ground in war. Ask countries like the Balkans or large pockets of Africa how clean and effective revolution is and they will show you such notions in a modern world is foolish. The citizens of Europe watched as their continent was decimated by two world wars so they realise the romantic Hollywood notion of glory in war is no more achievable than intergalactic time travel. You lose century's of art, architecture and culture, not failing to mention inflicting psychological damage to the most weak and vulnerable. The emotional scars of children exposed to the horror of war pass on hatred and fear that even today breed ideologies that infect future generations.

We have moved on in the last 300 years since your founding fathers wrote your constitution. It is too late to control your government even if even woman and man was handed an AK47. You have allowed the largest military ever created to be glorified and given it a budget that makes it impossible to fight with guns and pipe bombs. If it was so easy where were you during the racial or gay civil rights battles?

It is all very noble to think that revolution is simply the people rallying as one to overthrow a tyrannical government swiftly. Reality is your country is divided along so many different religious and ideological lines that all that would occur would be decades of carnage and the collapse of civilised society as you know it. I'd like to think humans have evolved past the view that justice comes from the barrel of the gun. Evil hearts are better healed with love, beauty and knowledge not hollow points.
 
You have no fucking idea what Cultural Marxism is, please watch youtube videos about the Frankfurt school. It dictates virtually all thought in universities in the West. It revolves around destroying any sense of national identity, it is not the same as economic Marxism. The master plan is social decay and a government that does not really represent anyone and that no one trusts, which eventually becomes bankrupt, resulting in a theoretical revolution. It is a very insidious ideology that has grown since the fall of communism.

Regarding the little guy running things: that has never occurred at any point in history. The proletariat is too stupid and inept to do this and humans naturally form a societal hierarchy. We can, however eliminate the plutocracy that exists in most countries, at least in theory. That is truly something we should strive for. The natural order of things is not a powerful government redistributing wealth, that has to be established over time. Also, the government you refer to is a socialist democracy and likely a direct democracy, without corrupted representatives, where everyone votes on everything.

The government thinks corporations are people and money is speech in the US, every party is run by lobbyists and donations from business. Unless wolf-PAC ( see: the young turks) is passed this is impossible. Even then it is still difficult since they can influence things indirectly.
 
Vurtual said:
Testing for mental illness is always going to be difficult, and will shift over time (eg WHO included homosexulaity as a mental illness until the 90s). Would the test include an assessment of whether the fear that lead to the gun purchase had any basis in reality or was just paranoia? If there is a basis in reality for that fear, is the solution to give in to it as a society? If the reason people give for everyone to have guns is that everyone has guns, that's circular logic.
Click to expand...

yeah.

mostly i just don't think people at large, even if undiagnosed with mental illness, can be trusted with guns. their logic is not happening. like...your average group of people. from anywhere in america. i'm unsure if i would trust a handful of people from the general population more than i would a handful from a mental hospital. really unsure on that.
 
_DankOpiAmp_ said:
You have no fucking idea what Cultural Marxism is, please watch youtube videos about the Frankfurt school. It dictates virtually all thought in universities in the West...
Click to expand...

There used to be quite a lot of marxists in universities in the social sciences, but those days are long gone (in oceania at least). If marxist theories have had influence on how university research is done and the influence still remains (which it does to a small extent), that's because the analyses were better and more useful than older methods. eg marxist historians put some other historical methodologies to shame, regardless of subject (eg hobsbawm); it's not surprising that the field of history adapted to this evolution - it doesn't mean the field of history is marxist because it looks into social/economic conditions (in fact the field leans to the right if anything these days).

I reminded myself what cultural marxism is at wikipedia, and i really still can't see what you're saying about it (unless you mean that lonely paragraph at the end) - it all seems pretty innocent to me - i suppose wikipedia is run by the cultural marxists?

Yours sounds like a twisted version of cultural marxism given from an american-capitalist standpoint that doesn't understand the continental tradition of philosophy and politics (most british people are also ignorant of continental philosophy). Maybe you need to look in different sources, or just some different youtube videos.

To show what i mean, here's a radio show about continental vs analytical philosophy (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b016x2jp); tangential to cultural marxism but interesting and relevant background. Could you recommend me a video/book showing what you mean? (i'm always ready to change my mind, or at least check what people are on about).

@OTW - i agree with you about violence, though i would still have to keep the ultimate option of violent resistance as a last resort, if only in self defence/defence of others. A revolution that needs no offensive violence is one that can last.
 
Last edited:
Well i wouldn't do that, but i might see what i could do if the police/army/mob were attacking my march or my community (which wouldn't be much because i don't have a gun, but there's other stuff to do).
 
If less than 50% of the population bothers to vote, that leaves a clear majority who don't that you could rally for any agenda you like. Obama knew this and did it successfully once before.
 
It is a scary notion for most people that believe in the constitution OP. Gun grabbers/ progressives want this for good reasons as well as reasons to further their agenda imo. You better believe I do not want the mentally ill going out and buying a gun and it seems like common sense. BUT think about this transgender-ism is considered a mental illness or what about ADHD, anxiety, autism, etc etc etc. Even if we make the parameters very defined there is still always legal loopholes for the nature of most legalese is ambiguity.
 
One Thousand Words said:
Being a pussy is a mental illness too, which would make it difficult for 80% of all gun owners
Click to expand...

You look at guns in a highly emotionally charged manner. Which leads me to believe you have had little interaction with them other than seeing them in the movies. They are simply tools that can be used as a equalizer in sticky situations. I rarely look at my guns unless I am practicing at the range where I was at this weekend. I had two 60-70 year old women next to me shooting large revolvers. They were good shots considering what they were shooting would you consider these women to be "pussies"?
 
Depends if they are happy to catch a spider with their bare hands or not.

I grew up with guns, I even had a shooting range at my high school. If you want to impress me with your skill use a long bow or sling shot. Glorified Wyatt Earp's thinking that the rest of society needs their help in keeping the peace only escalates meaningless confrontations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top