So this article is the dumbest shit I’ve read this week.
The author argues that culture is to blame for the rise in mass shootings. Specifically, a culture tarnished by anti-war radicals, civil-rights activists and feminism. Basically, the dumb ass blames black people, women and left for mass shootings.
The author makes this argument by obfuscating historical fact, attacking specters and cherry picking statistics.
Let’s start with his notion of the anti-war movement.
Author: Radical liberals succeeded in stopping the Vietnam war through violence.
"Radical liberals rioted against the Vietnam War, calling police “Pigs,”..."
First of all, as is classic of the ignorant right, they use the phrase “radical liberal”. This is a misnomer. Anything left of center, to them, is a “radical liberal”. It’s a dumb phrase that doesn’t exist in reality.
The anti-war movement of the 60s and 70s in the US was multi-faceted, and included everything from neo-maoists to quaker-pacifsts to the Socialist Workers Party to the SDS.
The anti-police component (use of the phrase ‘PIG) was a gesture of solidarity towards black people, who were and still are heavily repressed by the police. The goal of the word PIG? Dehumanize police officers for their brutality against black people. Compare them to the soldiers fighting an imperialist war abroad. The ultimate goal here is to END violence, both at home and abroad.
Note that this author doesn't include the long list of crimes by police forces as part of 'mass killings', despite 454 people being killed by police shootings in 2018 alone.
"...causing bloodshed on college campuses, and their violence was rewarded; the Vietnam War ended and the voluntary draft began. When you reward violence, you perpetuate violence."
This just isn't real.
What bloodshed on campuses? What great act of violence did the anti-war movement commit on campuses? I can think of two traumatizing events in the 60s/70s on campuses.
Kent State? That was the National Guard murdering students.
Jackson state? That was police firing on students. What bloodshed on campuses are we talking about here?
Maybe even more absurd, the author is arguing that this supposed 'bloodshed' on college campuses (which didn't exist) is somehow IN THE WRONG for.....wait for it....ending the Vietnam War!
What possible violence could students commit compared to the 'violence' of imperialist war in Vietnam, which included everything from mass rape to melting human beings with napalm? I mean, let's at least be consistent with the scale of things, here.
2 million Vietnamese people died during this conflict. It contributed to the horrors of Pol Pot. 300,000 Cambodians and 62,000 Laotians died. Almost 60,000 US soldiers died for no reason and another 300,000 were wounded. Countless soldiers returned home with PTSD, cut off from any help from the state they murdered for.
So…what exactly could be more to blame for today’s mass shootings? An anti-war movement or a country dependent on imperialist war? Since Vietnam, the United States has been involved in conflict with the following: Thailand; Domincan Republic; Boliva; Combodia; Zaire; Iran; Libya; Lebanon; Grenada; Panama; Iraq; Somalia; Bosnia; Haiti; Kosovo; Sudan; Afghanistan; Pakistan and Yemen.
What has more of a contribution towards mass killings? The anti-war movement, or a culture of constant warfare and dehumanization towards the rest of the fucking world?
The Civil Rights Movement
"Martin Luther King advocated nonviolent protests, but his successors in the 1960s included people like Louis Farrakhan,"
Actually, MLK relied on armed self-defense units like Deacons for defense. Point being, self-defense against apartheid existed long before MLK came along. The black liberation struggle was and is diverse in its strategies and political factions. As usual, a white guy tries to claim MLK as favorable because of his own white-washed version of him.
Comparing MLK to Louis Farrakhan is absurd. Farrakhan is from an entirely different tradition. The Nation of Islam has a completely different, arguably backward, ideology than MLK or the rest of the black liberation movement. Even Malcolm X broke from them at the end of his life, before moving to a more explicit anti-imperialist/afro-socialism. Moreover, Farrakhan's role in the civil rights movement seems limited to his activity in the NOI, which, I would argue, had become reactionary since Malcolm X's departure.
Regardless, the author attacks civil rights proponents as an attributing cause (!?) of today's mass shootings.
The author of this article doesn't understand history.
"Violent rhetoric by Civil Rights proponents was rewarded, and this resulted in new anti-discrimination law"
Again, what violence did the "Civil Rights" proponents advocate? None, because the author is too ignorant to differentiate between Farrakhan, MLK, the Black Panthers or Malcolm X.
But for the sake of argument, let's assume "Civil Rights proponents" did.
This was a time of apartheid in America, the last days of Jim Crow. The people behind public lynching of black people were STILL ALIVE.
What is 'violent rhetoric' to the violence of an entire system against black people? Apparently the author is scared of black people who decide to defend themselves. Apparently, the author think black people could have received equal rights under law by being kind to white people. I'm just they never tried that under 300+ years of slavery.
Politics works by demanding the furthest, most radical thing possible, in order to move just an inch forward. That said, that vast majority of black people did not promote violent rhetoric.
The Black Panthers were the primary force behind 'violent rhetoric' in that they were explicitly revolutionary. Their rhetoric mirrored their politics, a fusion of national liberation ideology with communist theory and street talk.
It represented far more than 'off the pigs'. Their ideology promoted strengthening black people instead of victimizing them. It was about standing up to an oppressor, overthrowing chains of enslavement, revolutionary enthusiasm, the construction of a positive political movement. They took the model of national liberation struggles at the time and applied it in a creative and revolutionary way to the conditions of black people encircled in an occupied United States.
Schoenewolf is too blinded by his own white fear of black people to see his faulty, weak logic. Instead of understanding complexity, he offers simple, banal answers. It's the kind of shit you get from a drunk uncle at a thanksgiving dinner. Soundbites, by a paid schill on Fox or CNN.
"From being a civil country in the 1950s in which people generally treated one another with respect, the quality of life for most was good, and mass killings were the exception...."
The 1950s was a period of Jim Crow. What respect did black people get? None. The author calls it a 'civil' time precisely because they're blinded by their own white ideology.
Sure, culture is to blame. But this author is blaming anti-war advocates and civil rights activists for the gun violence of america now. Like, how backwards can logic get?
Feminism
Schoenewolf has shat on the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement. Now he aims for women. For a psychotherapist, one's left wondering to what degree this schmuck has bothered to self-analyze...
Feminists of the Second Wave were led by people like Linda Miller, who said in her book, The Future, If There Is One, Is Female, “The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” The more militant feminism became and the more it attacked men and the family, the more it was rewarded with new laws defining rape and harassment. At the same time the more militant women became, the less they were interested in raising children, or in listening to experts about how to raise children. Today’s militant feminists no longer talk of equality, but of empowerment and bombing the White House.
Actually, Linda Miller didn't say that. The quote is attributed to Sally Miller Gearhart and seems to be held dear by Men's Rights Advocates as the prime evidence of a conspiracy by women to cull men. I've never studied Gearhart, and can't defend her theories. I will say that it sounds like other radical women's lib theories at the time. More importantly is Schoenewolf's position on the term. He is using Gearhart as a representative of ALL feminism, which he argues no longer wants equality but is now instead focused on terrorism.
Apparently he's also against feminists for changing rape laws, as if that was a bad thing...
In Schoenewolf's world, women want to blow up the white house and not raise children. I mean, I can't make this dumb shit up if I tried. What is he even talking about?
The White House comment is about Madonna joking about blowing up the white house. Apparently one pop star's comments define the entire behavior of feminists in 2018, indicative of a trend towards terrorism and away from what Schoenewolf believes women should all do: raise families.
I can't deal with how dumb this article is. Schoenewolf claims to practice psychoanalysis. He needs someone to breakdown his own hatred of women and fear of black people and the 'radical liberals' (lol).
Politics aside, let's look at the mass shootings and see if feminism, civil rights or 'radical liberals' are to blame.
- Las Vegas Shooting- shooter killed people because of ????. nobody knows yet.
- Orlando Nightclub Shooting - shooter was either ISIS or hated himself cause he was gay. He "had a lot of hatred for people. Black people, women, he did not like Jews, he did not like Hispanics, nor did he like gay or lesbian people. So basically his politics were FAR RIGHT
- Virginia Tech - shooter was a resentful autistic individual who thought he was Jesus Christ and hated everyone.
- Sandy Hook - shooter was a resentful autistic individual.
- Sutherland Springs - shooter was a wife-beating loser.
Is there a correlation of the perpetrators to a cultural degradation by feminism/civil rights/anti-war "radical liberals"?
No. Fuck off, Schoenewolf
/rant