The US government....

[questionnaire]

Cultural malaise - a culture which in reality is becoming slightly unhealthy, which jars with the ideal that is has of itself and causes unease amongst the more perceptive members of its population.



Crime, violence, corruption, economic problems, artistic exhaustion, boredom, dissastisfaction, identity crisis and hostility from external cultures are classic indicators of malaise. The usual response is a sort of fundamentalism, the urge to rediscover its 'true self' and purge itself of any dysfunctional elements, internal or external, that can be said to be causing the malaise. The real causes of the malaise are usually 'system-immanent' and the result of long historical processes, but the ruling groups, if they are benefitting from the system as it stands, tend to do their best to hide the real systemic causes and place the blame elsewhere.

[memphis mike]

But, do the ruling groups have any idea as to the what the actual systemic causes are?

[questionnaire]

Quite often they have a vague idea, but they usually think the condition is temporary and can be overcome by pressing on and applying the fundamental principles of their culture with more rigour. A sort of 'back to basics' approach, which in America's case entails individual freedom, personal responsibility, competitive markets, low taxes, minimal government, material prosperity etc. etc. Thatcher and Reagan started the ball rolling with the enforced return to these classical liberal principles wrapped up in conservative culture to try to create a bit of stability on a ride they knew would be rocky.



It didn't quite work, mainly because the operation of these principles in the context of a global market has created an unprecedented and unpredictable scenario in which the old guidelines are becoming obsolete. As each culture runs into trouble, they resort to fundamentals, reaching deep into their pasts for familiar solutions. Thus inter-cultural hostility becomes more pronounced and potentially explosive.



The pioneering global business elite knows that the future is in world markets, and effectively separates itself from its old national/ethnic populations to take opportunities to form new dynasties, whilst at the same time retaining some ties with them via puppet politicians to exploit their remaining useful functions - mainly as consumers and military personel.

[Galmin]

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once wrote:

Quote:

---

"Le mauvais goût mène au crime"

---

Bad taste leads to crime

[questionnaire]

Galmin, 150 years before that another English novelist, Henry Fielding, told us that the main cause of crime was the fixation that the vulgar have for luxury, which is a similar sentiment. I'm sure that's part of what drives Bush and and his band of petit-bourgeois crooks. It's amazing how many American big-business dynasties were founded by petty crooks and swindlers. William Rockefeller, for instance, made the family's first fortune by selling fake medicines to simple country folk. the amazing thing is that they kept buying new versions from him (same stuff, different label) although the old ones never worked. A harsh judgement would be that the stupid get what they deserve - now they've got Bush.

[Rev9Volts]

yes let all have guns at will even though it does not matter probably as if the govt. sent in troops to my neighborhood not much sense in fighting.





one of first things hitler did was disarm the populace.

[questionnaire]

Hitler disarmed the population? This is an indication of how much you actually know about history. The populations of what is now Germany were amongst the last to be disarmed in Europe because, like Italy, they were late national unifiers. But it was Bismarck who set the process of civil disarmament in motion in the 1880s. Very quickly, the German murder rate became one of the lowest in Europe. Read E.A. Johnson's work on the emergence of German civic culture. If you compare the murder rates across Europe, you'll find that the areas where the state's disarmament policies did not penetrate fully have the highest - such as Sicily, for instance. Writers such as Cornelius Castoriadis were correct 30 years ago: when it comes down to it, Western nations have two choices only; social democracy or barbarism.

[Galmin]

Maybe Rev9Volts mean the weaponlaw of 1938 RWaffG ( Reichswaffengesetz; 18.03.1938 ) that has been suggested by members of the NRA to be:

1, the law Hitler used to disarm a nation previously armed to the teeth.

2, the blueprint for the Gun Control Act of 1968 [US]



......................................................................



The weaponslaw of 1938 changed the first part of chapter one in the law of 1931 (Hindenburg) ; Vierte Verordnung des Reichspräsidenten zur Sicherung von Wirtschaft und Finanzen und zum Schutze des inneren Friedens

4th law for industry, finance and homeland security



Read 'em and weep

Edited by: Galmin  at: 8/4/03 7:33 pm

[questionnaire]

.... but it was a long process started by Bismarck. Germans did use guns, but mainly for sporting purposes. Even during the worst days of the Weimar collapse, use of handguns and other firarms by criminals, and the murder rate, was not as high as it has been in the USA since the 1980s. I've got the figures somewhere, I'll dig them out. The NRA seek to give disarmament a bad name by associating it with Hitler and the totalitarian state. It's a painfully obvious ideological tactic. What the right really don't want are collective responsibility and taxation.



Steve H

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

I've got the figures somewhere, I'll dig them out. The NRA seek to give disarmament a bad name by associating it with Hitler and the totalitarian state

---

Of course, even the weaponlaw from 1931 were cutting mild changes from previous laws and the RWaffG of 1938 didn't change much either.



Let me apologize for not letting the irony shine through in my previous post.



You know an awful lot in this area, Steve.

Do you speak German? The link I provided was in fact text originating from the Weimarer Republik (obviously) and the law there suggests the reality you just described.

[Rev9Volts]

thanks, yes it was in the late 1930s...

[DreamTone7]

Nah. I think you boys are forgetting the impact of TV in the US. Glorification of violence (including, in most cases, the use of guns) is by far (IMHO) the largest factor when it comes to hand-gun violence. Check out "Pulp Fiction" for a taste of what I mean. Kids love that kind of thing.....to the detriment of us all. Culture is the reason....and it doesn't help that a lot of our gun manufacturers get away with selling unmarked (with serial number) guns out the back door.



Go ahead, make a gun law. The guns will still be out there, and there will be less fear in those that have them when it comes to using them on the rest of us law-abiding citizens. Change the culture, and you will have solved the problem.

[questionnaire]

DT, there are two perspectives in media studies regarding TV/cinematic violence. One, which you are invoking, is the 'effects' or 'hypodermic' model, which claims that individuals' behaviour is determined by watching violent images. The other, the 'uses and gratifications' or 'reflectonist' model, argues that the propensity for violence is forged in real life, and the media, which responds to demand in the marketplace, provides the images that are demanded, and therefore reflects reality.



My preference is for the latter. American life has been violent for 350 years. The most violent period was the 19th century, after the independence movement had thrown out the British and French states. After a few decades of euphoria life became so anarchic, barbaric and violent that law-abiding settlers formed the 'Statehood Movement', demanding more federal Marshalls to reduce intolerable levels of violence, perpetrated mainly by handgun users. There was no TV or cinema around then, so the 'hypodermic' model is very weak. The powerful Christian culture that prevailed at the time was useless in the face of this wave of barbarism, mainly because Christianity can be used to justify violence in a number of situations. The excellent American TV series 'Once Upon A Time In The West' portrayed this period rather well, as did the Clint Eastwood film 'the Unforgiven'. The legendary 'gunfight at the OK corral' became the emblem of the state's re-assertion of legal authority.



American violence has deep historical roots, and it is reproduced not only in its culture but also in its brutally competitive, dog-eat-dog economic and social relations. It is a society in crisis, as Michael Moore portrays in 'Bowling for Columbine', a society terrified of its own violence. Basically, it shuns social responsibility and democratic state authority in favour of a highly competitive and hostile form of individual freedom, and it is reaping what it has sown. One of the manifestations of this 'freedom' is the right to bear arms. If this cultural and socio-economic model is allowed to infiltrate, Europe will become more and more like it.



Galmin, yes I know quite a lot about this subject because I teach and research criminology at the University of Northumbria in England, and I specialize in the relationships between violent crime, socio-economic change and cultural values.



Steve H

[RonOnGuitar]

Quote:

---

American life has been violent for 350 years.

---

Giggle & guffaw



Yup, and thanks to "American violence" Britian is free today, not cowering under nightly bombing blitzes or needing rafts and pleasure craft to rescue their "armed forces". Most folks in the UK have since learned to leave the heavy lifting to those capable of doing it. But sadly, such utter dependency naturally results in jealousy and rage at their historical helplessness, even though they're used to it: Orwell's "1984" being derived from this UK cultural phenom, afterall. Although not quite totally comprised of nancyboys, Churchill hasn't been around for a very long time.



It is a hard lesson to learn, this finding out that life is not fair, but that's the reality. I believe you also will find that raging in anger at Americans from an endless pit of envy does not help the sad situation of what have become - quite frankly - assorted irrelevant and unimportant countries, fiefdoms, kingdoms, etc. The best course would be try to attempt to improve your lot instead. And, of course, America has always helped out when it can. That, of course, is the whole gist of the culture difference; Americans are not content with being helpless and leading non-descript politically-correct lives predetermined by "Big Brother". Totally normal for the UK, Europe and other like dependency-driven areas. However they need to understand that is precisely why they're followers, not world leaders.

[debbie mannas]

thanks everyone for your contributions. Steve, yours especially.



cheers

d