Crisis actors. It’s not a phrase I’d heard prior to this week, but after the school shooting in Parkland, FL it’s become a part of the conversation. Some people say that these tragedies are “false flags”, bolstered by a passage in a rather infamous conspiracy-nut buff book in which the author details methods by which the government encourages school shooters. Others are troubled by the idea of an FBI agent’s son giving talking points to victims as he supposedly interviews them right in the middle of the shooting. There’s also something just a bit squicky about the rapidity with which the media rolls out coordinated talking points on gun control even as people are still dying in their classrooms — to say nothing about the insanity of CNN promoting voting rights for 16-year-olds.
(The conspiracy theorist in me says that this “16-year-olds should vote” crap is part of a general campaign to normalize pedophilia, but that’s a discussion for another time.)
For the moment, however, let’s use Occam’s Razor and let the simplest explanation suffice: these school shootings are real, they are not the product of hypnotism or even violence-inducing anti-depressants, and they are happening in more or less the reported fashion — in other words, there are no mystery shooters or deep-state agents getting involved. The question any sane person would ask is simple: why are they happening?
As it turns out, there are some simple statistical correlations that lead to some extremely unpleasant conclusions.
Let’s start with an often-overlooked fact: school shootings are not necessarily a recent phenomenon. Ninety years ago, a member of a small town school board used explosives to kill forty-four people at the town school. There have been school shootings virtually since the founding of this country, with forty of them during the nineteenth century. I’ve read claims that the ratio of school shootings to population in this country has remained more or less constant; I don’t know if that’s true.
It wasn’t until the advent of the twenty-four-hour news media that we made school shooters into household names: most people can still easily identify “Klebold and Harris” as the Columbine killers. So it’s perhaps a bit too facile if we point the finger of blame at CNN and the rest of the media oligarchy. Still, I can’t help but notice the undeniable fact that if you’re a kid who wants to get his manifesto out there or enjoy the white-hot spotlight of national fame, even if it’s posthumously, a school shooting is definitely the way to go at the moment. (The distant second-place strategy: bringing a hoax bomb to school.) The Parkland shooting has gotten more media coverage than every Olympic gold medal put together. Statistically speaking, you’re better off loading up an AR-15 than you would be attending gymnastics or skating school for ten miserable years.
Not that most school shootings occur with an AR-15. The infamous American “assault weapon” is actually under-represented in pretty much all the crime statistics. HuffPo says they’re about two percent of “gun violence” in America. Not to worry. In the future, most school shootings will feature an AR-15. Two reasons: the media keeps telling the kids how effective it is, and sales of AR-pattern rifles have soared through the roof since Mr. Obama was elected. It is now the most popular rifle in America, largely because everybody thinks it will be the first one to be banned. They reason, and correctly so, that it will take the gun-grabbers a couple of decades to get around to bolt-action hunting rifles.
Don’t worry, they will get around to it. The United Kingdom is about to ban lever-action rifles like the Winchester 94, so named because it debuted in… 1894. But the semi-autos will be first so that’s what people are buying. And since kids don’t buy guns anywhere but inside the hothouse environments of Baltimore and Chicago, it seems safe to guess that tomorrow’s school shooters will increasingly have access to an AR-15 or, as they say in the rental business, similar.
Yet the gun does not create the deed, no matter what the media would have you believe. Civilian sales of AR variants have been going along at a steady clip for 35 years now. We haven’t even discussed the fact that the United States Government distributed hundreds of thousands of M1 Garand rifles to citizens through surplus sales and the Civilian Marksmanship Program. Trust me, the M1 Garand is a deadlier weapon than the AR-15, and at a considerably greater distance. There’s also the little-noticed fact that gun ownership rates in America have dropped precipitously. In 1978, more than half of American households had a gun. Today, just over a third of households have a gun. There has also been a remarkable increase in the percentage of gun owners who use safes and other secure methods to hold their weapons. Statistically speaking, it’s tougher than ever for kids to get the weapons they use for school shootings.
So. Let’s recap. School shootings are up, despite the fact that gun ownership is down. Could there be another factor? There could be, and there is: The vast majority of school shooters have little to no contact with their biological father. It’s a phenomenon that is more widespread than school shootings. Fatherless boys commit more violent acts and have worse outcomes than boys who live with, or have regular contact with, their fathers.
Robert Bly warned us about this more than thirty years ago. He discussed the “shortage of father” in American homes. He predicted that there would be a terrible price to pay. And we are paying it now: in Chicago, in Baltimore, in Parkland.
The scientific evidence linking fatherlessness to violence and criminality is far more “settled” than climate change, gender equality, or any other of the progressive left’s cherished ideals. So why do we continue to pretend that this is a “gun problem” instead of a “father problem”? My most cynical answer is this: because everything is working exactly according to plan. Ninety-two years ago, the Marxists told us in their own words that the State would replace the family as the defining unit of humanity. That the State would raise children, that the State would destroy the ties of marriage and family. The father shortage in America is by design. It is in perfect accordance with Marxist precepts which, like it or not, continue to underpin much of American political thought.
The fact that we have 300 million guns in this country, however, is most emphatically not in accordance with Marxist philosophy, which teaches that only the State has the right to wield deadly force or physical power. So the guns have to go. It doesn’t matter if it happens all at once or in dribs and drabs. The devotees of the State are patient people and they know that their “advances” are rarely reversed. In fact, the State doesn’t even need to outlaw all the guns. It just needs to marginalize gun ownership to the point where the next generation looks at it the way my generation looked at littering or the generation after mine looked at Coca-Cola. Once that happens, the generations that follow will just drop their guns off at the approved recycling center.
But let’s dream for a moment that we could accomplish complete European-style gun control tomorrow, in which ownership of firearms was restricted to the police, career criminals, and members of the Islamic terror community. Would that reduce school shootings? Absolutely. It worked in Australia, although in fairness it should be noted that Australians, as a whole, are not terribly violent. Even before their gun ban, Australia as a whole country rarely matched any of the major American cities for homicides. Still, it is an undeniable fact that you could reduce school shootings by confiscating every privately-owned gun in the country. I don’t even think you would get a civil war if you did it, honestly. Wars tend to be fought over economics, not ideals. If we have two more decades of soaring income inequality and rural unemployment, then we will get a civil war. We won’t get one over the Second Amendment or the First Amendment or any of the Amendments.
If you take every gun out of every American home, however, you will still have fatherless young men who would like to perpetrate some violence. They can do it with homemade explosives. They can do it by driving a car into a crowd. They can do it by stabbing people. And the day is coming when they’ll be able to do it using their university CRISPR machines to biohack as they see fit. Wiping an amped-up variant of influenza or hepatitis on every doorhandle in your school? You could fire an AR-15 into a crowd for ten uninterrupted minutes and not do that kind of damage. Or maybe you think that people like Klebold and Harris wouldn’t be able to figure out a CRISPR process?
What we need is a return of fatherhood. A return of fathers, too. Real, true, biological dads. Loving their sons, disciplining them, educating them, reprimanding them, inspiring them. But we aren’t going to get it. Seventy-seven percent of African-American children are born out of wedlock; nearly half of the children born to Hispanic immigrants are born out of wedlock. That statistic should frighten you. It is an accurate predictor of the future for these kids. They will be fatherless. If the dad doesn’t care enough to marry the mom, he doesn’t care enough to parent the kid. I know, I know — you have friends who are engaged in a non-traditional, patriarchy-destroying unmarried long-term partnership somewhere in Brooklyn. Those people are the exception, not the rule.
And what about the married couples? More than half of them will divorce. Whose idea will that divorce be? Well, when I was a kid I always thought that divorces happened because your dad wanted to kick it with younger broads at the tennis club — but it turns out that somewhere between seventy and eighty percent of divorces are initiated by women. The ever-reliable HuffPo provides six reasons why, and let me spare you the read: four of the six “reasons” are thinly-veiled exhibitions of narcissism, and the fifth is that they aren’t getting fucked enough.
Blame society, I guess. But that’s vague. Let’s put the blame on a modern media culture that tells women they are entitled to “have it all”. It’s no surprise that women are dissatisfied with their marriages; the media tells them that they can Eat/Pray/Love their way through a series of endlessly interesting romantic relationships with exotic, fascinating men.
I’ll give you an example. Fifteen years ago, I ran into a high school classmate. She was working for a customer of mine. This woman had a great figure and her face was holding up. Her life seemed perfect to me: two decent sons, a $750,000 house, a new Lexus every two years. There was just one problem: the husband was a bit of an alcoholic. But wait! Around her 38th birthday, he got sober. And stayed sober. And earned even more money.
Over a long dinner, my old classmate complained to me that her hubby wouldn’t go out to drink with her because of “his stupid 12 steps”. Before I knew it, she’d gotten divorced. So she could have the “excitement” that she “deserved”. I think I was the first person she slept with after her marriage ended. The dude after me was 50 years old. The one after him was 55. She turned forty herself and the middle-aged spread hit. Now, from what I can tell, she spends her evenings drinking at a pathetic strip-mall bar hoping someone will take her home. The alcoholic husband? He waited for her. More than five years. Now he’s got a 30-something girlfriend.
I’ve heard a lot of stories like that. One guy’s wife kicked him out for being boring. Then she moved a tatted-up drug addict into her house to live with her daughters. Well, that’s exciting.
The vast majority of these women would be better off working things out with their husbands. But our media lies to them and tells them that they can have it all. So they give it a shot. And in doing so, they drive off the fathers of their (often teenaged) sons. Or they obtain child-support judgments that the father can’t possibly pay. So he loses his sons that way.
The photograph at the beginning of this story was taken at an activist church in Australia. It sounds simple, doesn’t it? Why don’t we love our children more than we love our guns? But it’s not guns that are destroying the majority of our sons’ lives. It’s the lack of a father. And we aren’t letting our children die because we are obsessed with guns. We are letting them fail in tragic fashion because we love Tinder and OKCupid more we love our children. We love the pursuit of one-night stands more than we love our children. We love the morning-after pill more than we love our children. We love fucking, and being fucked, more than we love our children.
In other words, we love ourselves more than we love our children.
The alert reader may point out that I am, myself, the divorced father of a son. He might point out that I engaged in years of absolutely repugnant behavior with any number of women, sometimes in combinations. He might even remember that I’m not allowed to review Toyotas any more because of that. He would be right. But it is no sin to admit that I am wiser today than I was five years ago. It is no sin to admit that I’ve changed my own priorities and that I am better off for having done so. Like the song says, I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now, only for the word “clouds” feel free to substitute “binge drinking with promiscuous women whose last name escapes me.”
We can stop school shootings. We can stop school bombings. We can stop all that stuff. We can stop it by being involved with our sons and by supporting the rights and abilities of other fathers to become involved with their sons. There is a growing movement for fathers’ rights both in the USA and around the world. It’s worth supporting that movement. This is more than a problem. It’s a crisis, and it demands action.