Multiculturalism and America’s Broken Body

By the time it reached St. Paul, the metaphor of a body and its members had become a well-worn proverb. From its Aesopian origins to its later use by Menenius Agrippa, the essential theme had always been the same and still remains clear enough today: “a house divided . . .” to invoke the words of Jesus. And how could it be otherwise? It’s hard to believe that anyone could seriously question the theoretical basis of this statement, and yet the mass of multicultural fanatics seems bent on ignoring such a fundamental tenet of political theory. For sure, the old fable assumes a measure of diversity in its use of various limbs and organs, though never so much as to undermine the ultimate unity coming about through this diversity. E pluribus unum. Now, however, we have imbecilic leftists touting the virtues of their steroidal pluralism, striving not only to further the coexistence of various cultures and belief systems (an ideal as American as apple pie), but to convince the general populace that all of these cultures and belief systems are equally valid and true. Is it any wonder that Donald Trump has secured the Republican constituency?

Not a day goes by in which some version of this rancid filth doesn’t permeate the news outlets, usually with regard to gender identity or sexual orientation in some manner, though very often in relation to heritage and nationality: quite possibly the more dangerous of the two. Far from it being acceptable any longer simply to live and let these individuals exist in peace, standing equally before the law as they should, we’re progressively being forced into embracing their proclivities and worldviews as virtually no different from the more traditional values and frameworks which have so far defined this country. Leaving us with a mongrel bastard of their own peculiar ideology mixed with civil rights legislation, the philosophically-minded activists who ended up raping our college humanities departments have turned the political left away from all semblance of reason and have constructed a reality in which an infinite number of realities exists. Thus, it is not any more simply a matter of treating the human and his religion or ancestral customs with the dignity and impartiality they deserve in a free land, but a matter of coercing universal assent to those religions and customs with a stern caution that to do otherwise is “hateful.”

The problem with this radicalized relativism is that in the absence of a dominant culture society becomes little more than a weak confederation of only semi-unified groups that neither trust nor support each other, which isn’t far off from the well-publicized observations of Robert Putnam. But more to the point, when assimilation is discouraged, the people suffer and a country disintegrates. Shouldn’t this be obvious? Yet evidently it is too difficult for a large segment of our population to grasp, despite the tragic drama playing out before their own eyes. What’s worse is that they continue to spew forth their horrific nonsense by proposing more diversity training and more legal action in a misguided attempt at fostering unity when they are, in fact, doing nothing more than dislodging the very rational and Enlightened foundations on which the United States stands. Some have suggested that the collapse of America’s so-called “first city,” Cahokia came, not from environmental assaults or shortages of food, but from the internal strife which was a product of mass immigration and presumably a failure of these immigrants to acculturate themselves with Mississippian society. If such was our beginning, just imagine the end.

The Futility of Gun Control: Sometimes “Common Sense” Doesn’t Make Much Sense

When 28-year-old Martin Bryant walked into the Broad Arrow Cafe on one early afternoon during the Australian autumn of 1996, few people undoubtedly had any idea that they would find themselves staring down the barrel of an L1A1, semi-automatic battle rifle wielded by a blonde-haired Tasmanian devil who would then go on to slaughter 35 innocent people in cold-blood, and injure 24 others in what would come to be known as the Port Arthur massacre. As protocol dictates when such tragedies occur, widespread debate on the merits of gun ownership could be found on the lips of politicians, quickly prompting the Howard administration to implement some of the strictest gun control measures not only within the Commonwealth but within the entire world, outlawing such weapons as semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns, all the while keeping a strong grip and a close eye on those who wished to buy other, less dangerous firearms.

There is something admirable in a leader’s wish to protect his citizenry from the destructive effects of gun-based violence, and one would be hard-pressed to prove that any such motives were, in fact, prompted by a conspiratorial program meant to disarm the general populace for nefarious political ends. Keeping mentally ill and criminally-inclined hands off certain forms of weaponry seems reasonable enough. And, as expected, firearm-based massacres declined in the years following Australia’s legal reforms. Howard’s gun control was a success — if by success we mean only three fewer mass killing fatalities in the 18 years following its institution as compared with the 18 years preceding it. True, this includes the Snowtown murders, which were drawn out over a period of seven years, starting in 1992 and ending in 1999, which make this incident of a somewhat different sort. But even excluding these particular statistics, we’re left with 71 massacre fatalities before and 62 after — a difference of only nine. And this difference, while no doubt significant in its own right, can easily be attributed to the declining homicide rate, which, I might add, had already been declining in the years prior to 1996 as demonstrated by the Australian Institute of Criminology’s own data. What’s more, firearm homicides began their downward trend all the way back in 1969 and continued despite the proliferation of military-grade rifles throughout some regions of the continent. In short: nothing changed since the adoption of the National Firearms Agreement, and more violent-minded individuals have since turned to burning retirement homes and stabbing children to satisfy their macabre desire to inflict harm.

The United Kingdom has fared similarly. With strict gun legislation already on the books, the Prime Minister decided to ban nearly all personal handguns at the prompting of Lord Cullen and due to the tragic shooting of 16 Dunblane school children in the spring of 1996. We’re now told jubilantly by some that the control measures must have worked since the British lasted 14 years before another firearm-based massacre took place, as if this means anything at all. Within the 14 years prior to Dunblane there had only been one firearm-based massacre and apparently none in the 14 years prior to that. Guns were rarely a problem in the Isles and one may, of course, argue that this dearth of gun violence is a product of the draconian regulations that had been implemented, beginning in the 1920s and strengthened in 1937 and 1968. This is fair. Be that as it may, however, such regulations can hardly be considered satisfactorily successful when the homicide rate has virtually been increasing ever since and, after a sharp rise in the early 2000s, has finally evened out to a level not showing any drastic improvement over those seen prior to 1997. Whereas for Australia we could say that nothing changed, for the Kingdom, if it hasn’t gotten worse, it hasn’t gotten much better either. And the British disgruntled sure seem to have a peculiar affinity for explosive devices.

In 2003, a CDC task force reviewed the scholarly literature on gun control in an attempt to ascertain the efficacy of such legislation and was ultimately forced to conclude that there existed no actual evidence that any of the policies theretofore instituted worked. One year later, the National Academy of the Sciences essentially agreed after reviewing hundreds of documents, writing, “despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, and there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have any effect on children’s behavior, knowledge, attitudes, or beliefs about firearms.” Both publications rightly urge caution, noting the lack of research on a number of questions that would be relevant to the topic. But I still find myself asking, “if, after all of this, the effectiveness of such policies is so hard to discern, how effective can they be?”

The greatest difficulty one encounters in combing through the research is the persistent emphasis on gun availability and gun-based violence, which, to my mind, means very little. Most people, after all, don’t care all too much if they die in a shooting, bombing, burning, or stabbing since they die anyway (although, for my money, a bullet through the spinal cord would probably be best). To whatever extent authors have focused on firearm legislation and overall homicide rates as opposed to just one particular form of homicide, the conclusions seem to be virtually unanimous: little to no impact exists at all. Which just goes to demonstrate that all this talk about gun control as if it can adequately make a substantial difference in curbing American violence is just empty conversation with no basis in reality. Banning assault rifles and mandating restrictive licensing requirements might appear to make a good bit of sense, but at the end of the day, it really doesn’t, since too many other factors drive people to kill and since the deranged have proven themselves quite capable of causing widespread devastation using just about any method.

The Rank Stupidity of Third-Wave Feminism

NOTE: This entry should not be taken as a diatribe against women’s rights and their freedom to choose their own destiny. It is, however, a diatribe against certain strains of feminism that twist the data and use it for certain socio-political ends.

The basic ignorance of female sexuality among modern-day feminists is borderline appalling — not the kind that simply want legal equality, mind you, which is nothing more than good and consistent classical liberalism, but the kind that are somehow under the mistaken impression that males and females are virtually identical, gender roles being little more than an artificial construct imposed by the (evil) patriarchy. More than once have I heard it asked why a woman’s breast should be considered erotic when, in fact, the answer should be immediately obvious to anyone with even a modicum of scientific reproductive knowledge, or at least it should be so after it’s pointed out. Breastfeeding, anyone? There you go. To make matters worse, it usually turns out to be members of the academic elite who are propagating this nonsense, thereby giving it an air of authenticity, as if voices from sociology and gender studies departments are really worth hearing — the two fields that have most thoroughly rejected the best findings in contemporary behavioral ecology and evolutionary psychology.

Years ago, when he was still alive, the late Christopher Hitchens wrote an article entitled “Why Women Aren’t Funny,” in which he pointed out, not that no women are funny of course, but only the well-known fact that, on average, females just simply aren’t as humorous as men. For this he was dubbed a “sexist,” a label he also received for benignly suggesting that women shouldn’t be forced to work if they don’t want to, as if that’s really such a ghastly idea. At any rate, similar disparities to that in the humor department exist in a variety of areas, and, for most of them, highly plausible evolutionary reasons can be posited as explanations, thereby negating the hypothesis that some socially-constructed sexism is to blame — this being part of the left’s own war on science.

No doubt in the coming months we’ll start hearing more about the overblown wage gap, primarily from Democrats who completely ignore the research which suggests that the classic 78% number can be reduced to something along the lines of, say, 5-8% by taking into account the choices women make with regards to family, education, and the like. Yes, it could be that the remaining percentage is due to some form of discrimination, but in reality this has yet to be confirmed, so anyone arguing that it is has the same burden of proof as those arguing otherwise. Up until now I’ve not seen it addressed, but given that the stupidly named “heightism” sees even shorter males earning less than their taller counterparts, I have to wonder if a part of this left-over mystery gap can’t be explained by the obvious fact that women are also, on average, shorter than men, in which case gender has little, if anything, to do with it at all.

As long as the writers at Jezebel and The Huffington Post still think that “slut shaming” is some patriarchal double-standard, though, then it probably doesn’t matter a whole lot what anyone says about the wage gap, because it’s quite obvious that many of these inane ramblers are operating within a nonsensical framework that violates the very nature of most human beings. Imagine, if you can, the psychological harm that could potentially befall those who are forced into the Procrustean bed of gender feminism, which really is far more than a hideous annoyance. It is, in fact, a sinister threat that should have no place among a population that claims enlightenment and scientific literacy.