Please take your time with this one.  It’s important.

I am going to ask the reader to work with me on this one, please.  This is because the subject is very important, and we all need to understand it, but I do not not how to set up the discussion.  We all know what I am going to try to explain because we have all heard someone try to shut down an opponents by accusing them of using a stereotype, or labeling or profiling.  The implied message is that these things are all ‘bad,’ therefore, anyone using them is bad or wrong.  The problem is that stereotyping, and profiling are not necessarily ‘bad.’  There is a reason that stereotypes and profiles are created: because there is often a great deal of useful truth in them.  Their value — whether they are ‘good’ or ‘bad’ —  lies in how they are used.  I want to talk about when they are ‘good.’

As usual, let’s start by making sure we are all on the same page here:

stereotype

noun

Definition of stereotype (Entry 2 of 2)

1 : a plate cast from a printing surface

2 : something conforming to a fixed or general pattern especially : a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment

profiling

noun

Definition of profiling

1 : the act or process of extrapolating information about a person based on known traits or tendencies consumer profiling specifically

2 : the act of suspecting or targeting a person on the basis of observed characteristics or behavior racial profiling

OK, before we go any farther, let me acknowledge that there can be a danger of prejudice or bias being attached to the notion of ‘stereotyping,’ but this is not necessarily the case.  In other words, stereotyping can be unjust, but they do not have to be; prejudice and/or bias are not ‘necessary‘ to the definition.  Please, do not go any farther in this post until you are reasonably sure you understand this point.  Once you understand that it is possible for a stereotype to be true, we can proceed — but not before.

Here is why I stressed the need to understand that a stereotype can be true: it is because ‘profiling’ is a specialized form of stereotyping.  If you will look at the bold parts of the definitions above, you will notice that a ‘stereotype’ is based on a general pattern.  Profiling is based on known behavior patterns.  They can be the same thing.  It is not necessary that a stereotype is equal to a profile, but it is possible.  This means the rational person will not dismiss something labeled as a ‘stereotype out of hand.  They will examine it to see if the stereotype is actually based in truth.

This leads us to another problem.  It has become common in our society to associate ‘profiling’ with ‘stereotyping.’  By this, I mean that we tend to think they are equivalent (i.e. the same things), and that both are ‘bad.’  This is not true!  ‘Profiling’ is part of behavioral science.  Yes, there is a science, or known, established method behind ‘profiling.’  That means, to dismiss profiling is to dismiss science; and to dismiss science is to dismiss a large part of everything upon which the Western world (and likely your own, personal worldview) is based.  This means that a rational person will accept a profile, then examine it to determine whether or not it is a profile and not a stereotype.  If it is found to be a profile, then the rational person will hold to it as useful because it is based in factual truth.

h

OK, now, let’s put some practical application to this discussion.  If I tell you:

All fish live in water.

All fish are wet.

All fish swim.

All fish have gills.

That creature has gills, lives in water, is wet and swims.

Well, whether or not you realize it or not, that is a stereotype and a profile.  Now, be honest with yourself: is that a biased or prejudiced stereotype/profile?  Or is it just general facts about fish?  Well, if we do not quibble with each other, the honest person is going to say this is an honest stereotype/profile of fish.

Now, let us use this stereotype to understand ‘necessary.’

In the above stereotype about fish, it is possible that the creature in question is a fish, but it is not necessary that the creature is a fish.  Why?  Well, an octopus has gills, lives in water, is wet and swims, so the creature could be an octopus.  This means it is not necessary that the creature is a fish.

Here’s what I hope you will take away from this post:

Do not allow yourself to be ‘trained’ to dismiss someone because they are accused of using a stereotype or of profiling.  Instead, look at what they are saying.  Is there truth in it, or is it really a biased, prejudiced and unjust accusation?  In other words, don’t let people ‘train’ you to respond like Pavlov’s dog.  Think!  Think for yourself!  Prove to yourself whether or not something is true before you accept it as true.

I have been trained in the formal use of logic.  Consequently, I have a tendency to use certain terms in the same way they are used in formal logic.  This post covers one of these terms that is important enough and which will occur often enough to warrant a specific post explaining how I am using a given term.

If and when you find one of my posts where I stress the term, ‘necessary,‘ I am using it in the strict logical sense.  In formal logic, ‘necessary‘ means:

Something is said to be necessary when a specific condition or conclusion must be present or follow.  Put another way, if someone says a condition or a conclusion is necessary, that means the condition must be present and/or the conclusion must be true.

For example:

If it is true that all males have XY chromosomes (which is true — by definition),

And Bill is a male,

It is ‘necessary‘ that Bill has XY chromosomes.

In this case, it is ‘necessary‘ for Bill to have XY chromosomes because having XY chromosomes is part of the definition of being ‘male.’

The take-away from this post is this: if I ever stress the necessity of something, I am saying it is absolutely necessary; that it must be true; there is no way around it; no exceptions — period!

Folks, I can explain how this process works in great detail.  I can name names and show you where the people who developed this process specifically, clearly and publically explained how it works.  I can show you where it has worked, and how it is working now.  But that would require a book.  All I can do — for now — is show you how propaganda is used to convince you to believe a lie.  Here is just one of the many lies we are being fed today:

The Recent Rise Of Mass-Shooters Are All Connected To The Right-Wing!

LIE!

Here is what you really need to know:

First, the whole notion that White Supremecy is a creature of the Right is a lie.  It started with and has always been a creature of the Left.  None other than the Atlantic has admitted this as factual:

A History of Liberal White Racism

This lie about the connection between the American Right and White Supremecy is connected to another lie: that the Republicans and Democrats ‘switched sides’ in the 1960’s:

All of this disinformation was conducted by Left-Wing operatives within our schools, media, entertainment industry and Democrat Party/Deep State.  The PargerU video does an excellent job of proving this (which is why the Left tries so hard to silence them).  So, let us understand that, in America, a sympathy for White Supremacy is not a Right-Wing trait, but a clear indication of Left-Wing thinking. Now, let’s move to what is happening today.

If you conduct a search, you are going to find pages of links insisting that there is a spike in ‘Right-Wing Violence,’ and that all the recent mass-shooters are ‘Right-Wing’ extremists and/or White Supremacists.  But these stories are all lies — propaganda!  First, none of these stories are based on sound, Sociological process:

There Is No ‘Surge’ in Right-Wing Violence

Second — and this depends on whether or not you are old enough to remember and were paying attention at the time — the majority of the mass-shooters over the past decade and a half have had Leftist ideologies or sympathies.  In each case, this was revealed in the news coverage at the time, but it is being ignored or erased today.  Do you remember the shooting in California where they tried to get Apple to help unlock the I phone?  Leftist shooters.  Do you remember the shooting at the theater where the media immediately said it was a right-wing attack only to find out the guy was a Left-Wing Democrat?  How about this latest pair?  The Dayton shooter is self-proclaimed Left-Wing, and the only reason they are saying the El Paso shooter is Right-Wing is because of his racism.  ell, as we have seen, racism is most often connected to the American Left, but the El Paso shooter was also an environmentalist with a ‘reduce the global population agenda.  This is most decidedly a Left-Wing policy!

Anyway, the point here is this: if you lived through all these recent mass shootings, and you paid attention to the news, then you know the vast majority of the shooters were discovered to have Left-Wing political sympathies.  So, how does the media arrive at the conclusion that the Right-Wing is the problem?  Simple: it is the narrative they seek to create, so they lie!  And they know you will believe them because the people who first put all this into practice demonstrated how well it works.  It started with Woodrow Wilson, went to NAZI Germany, and it is back here — again!

Now, you are free to ignore me.  Dismiss me as a ‘Right-Wing’ cook.  You can even attack me.  Have at it.  I do not mind or care — because I absolutely know I am correct!  I know it because — unlike most — I took the time to do the research, and I found the formula and read the people who developed it.  I know I know because I can explain it all — in great detail, too.  But I also know because they told me so:

“The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies, but would be ashamed to tell big lies.“

–Adolf Hitler, Left-Wing SOCIALIST!

Why did Hitler think you’d believe the State’s lies?  Easy:

“What luck for the rulers that men do not think.“

“The propagandist’s purpose is to make one set of people forget that certain other sets of people are human.”

— Aldrus Huxley, former Fabian Socialist and honest watchman of things to come.  BTW: does this sound familiar?  Which side of things is insisting that the other is vile, evil and inhuman?

“Self-sacrifice enables us to sacrifice other people without blushing. “

–George Bernard Shaw, Fabian Socialist, hero of the American Left.  This tells us why they have no hesitation to destroy people.

“The ordinary man is passive. Within a narrow circle, home life, and perhaps the trade unions or local politics, he feels himself master of his fate. But otherwise he simply lies down and lets things happen to him.”

— See, you’re stupid.  You’ll just sit there and let them do whatever they want.  How do they do it?  Simple:

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

— They control the media and schools, so they control the present, which is allowing them to re-write the past — exactly like I said they are doing.  Here, see if this does not sound like our PC world today:

“At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is “not done”… Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.“

— George Orwell, Fabian Socialist.  All of the last three quotes were by Orwell, and all of them perfectly describe what they are doing, how and why.

“Success is the important thing. Propaganda is not a matter for average minds, but rather a matter for practitioners. It is not supposed to be lovely or theoretically correct. I do not care if I give wonderful, aesthetically elegant speeches, or speak so that women cry. The point of a political speech is to persuade people of what we think right. I speak differently in the provinces than I do in Berlin, and when I speak in Bayreuth, I say different things than I say in the Pharus Hall. That is a matter of practice, not of theory. We do not want to be a movement of a few straw brains, but rather a movement that can conquer the broad masses. Propaganda should be popular, not intellectually pleasing. It is not the task of propaganda to discover intellectual truths.” 

— This explains why Hillary speaks like she is black in one place, like a hick in another and like some pointy-head in still another.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

— This is why the Left and Deep State fight so hard to shut down their opponenets: their survival depends upon it.

BTW: both of these last two quotes were from Josef Goebbels.

“The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses.”

“A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”

— Both by Vladimir Lenin

“The public must be put in its place, so that it may exercise its own powers, but no less and perhaps even more, so that each of us may live free of the trampling and the roar of a bewildered herd.”

— Walter Lippmann, hero of American journalism

I can continue, mostly because I haven’t ‘cherry-picked’ anything here.  I just grabbed a few of the many such lines that apply to this thread.  Once again, I could write books about this because the people who are doing it have written books about it.  In fact, Obama had a guy in his administration who explained the whole process.  Cass Sunstein wrote ‘Nudge,’ and it is all about the process I am trying to reveal and explain.

In the end, I suppose there will only be a few people who will take me seriously.  So, to you few, you precious few, know this: once you learn what you are looking for, you will start to see the signs of this manipulation in everything — and I mean everything!  However, this is a good thing because, once you can see it, it no longer works.

ADDENDUM:

More indications that this pattern is real and being actively, intentionally employed to sell us a lie that will then be used to confiscate our weapons:

There is a principle in the laws of logic that one cannot argue against something that is true by definition.  We can argue whether or not a definition applies, or it has been applied correctly, but we cannot argue with a conclusion based on definition.  This is because anything based on definition is true by its very nature. For example: by definition, something either exists or it does not exist.  It is impossible for something to exist and not exist at the same exact time and point in space.  This is because of the definition of exist.  Therefore, anyone who argues against the fact that  thing cannot exist and not exist at the same time is being irrational.  Or, put another way, they are ‘not all there.’  Now, let’s take this and apply it to a commonly occurring theme in our modern political arena: the claim that we cannot apply ‘labels’ to other people based on what they say and do.

Now, let me start by saying that I agree with the idea that we should not use ‘labels’ as ad hominem attacks.  In other words, we should not call people names or try to slap a name on them so as to shame them or otherwise influence the exercise of their free will for fear of the repercussions generated by that label: no name calling, if you will.  However, at the same time, I reject the tendency to equivocate: the practice of redefining the proper and appropriate application of a definition by calling it ‘labeling,’ then proceeding to act as though the definition and the label are factually the same.  Let me provide a real-world example:

I frequently encounter people on line who, after a short conversation, invariably fall in to a predictable pattern of thinking.  They will claim they are seeking a reasoned discussion, but they soon steer the discussion into an ‘Either/Or’ situation: either you agree with them and their position, or…. (fill in whatever they call you, it doesn’t matter — they will throw a label on you).  When I encounter one of these folks, I will usually tell them they are ‘Liberal/Progressive’ in their thinking and, almost all the time, they will reject this and attack me for ‘labeling’ them.  This is equivocation, and it is almost useless to try and discuss anything with such a person.  Once you get to this point, you can be all but certain that you are dealing with a person who has renounced the use of reason in favor of their own reality.  But why is this equivocation and not ad hominem?

The answer is simple, and it is found in the definition of ‘Liberal/Progressive.’

In this case, when I use the term, ‘Liberal/Progressive,’ I am using a lose definition.  Essentially, it is a person who thinks in terms of the collective, ‘my-way-or-the-highaway,’ do not apply my words against me, etc..  They are also blind to their own guilt.  They will say you are labeling them when you call them a Liberal/Progressive, then accuse you of being whatever they decide is the best derogatory comment at the moment.  In other words, they label you, whereas, you actually applied a definition to them.  They are the ones committing a fallacy.  They are the ones who are labeling.  They are actually doing what they accuse you of doing, and they absolutely cannot see their own guilt — ever!

So, here is the deal.  If the definition fits, then the definition fits — wear it!  This applies to all of us, no matter what our political persuasion.  Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with the proper and accurate application of a definition.  So long as the definition is properly and accurately applied, it does not matter how bad it makes someone feel, it is still true — by definition!

Therefore, the next time you properly and accurately apply a definition to someone based on what they say and do, stand your ground.  No matter how much they complain, or how loudly, or how viciously they attack you, do not budge.  Just tell them that, if it bothers them sooo much, then, maybe — just maybe — they should re-evaluate what they believe.  Because, if the definition fits, that is what they are!

I frequently draw the motivation for my posts from encounters I have had with other people.  This is one such post.  In this case, I had a series of discussions with an individual who eventually told me — with certainty — that I am part of our social problem because I am rigid in my thinking.  This person told me that I am stuck in the thinking that people either had to agree with me or they were wrong — period.  Strangely enough, reality was the other way around: it was this person who held that form of thinking.  But the truly sad part — at least to me — was that they do not see it.

I think a little back ground is in order here.  This person reached out to me.  They started our correspondence.  From the very start, and in every conversation we had, this person worded things in a way that made it clear that they would only consider what I had to say if I agreed with them.  For example: this person told me they needed to know my answer to a certain question before they could take me seriously.  When I answered their question, they said they agreed with me, so they could now take me seriously.  This was the way things went between us — until the first time I disagreed with them!  The moment I disagreed with this person, they start telling me that I was stuck in the way I think.  That I was close-minded and only saw the world in terms of black and white.  They said they were trying to have an ‘honest’ discussion with me, but that they couldn’t because of my rigid and wrong thinking.  Then they told me there is something wrong with me (implying a mental disorder or instability of some type).  So, needless to say, we are no longer having any form of discussion.

Now, here’s the thing between this person and myself.  First, I had qualified everything I said to them.  I specifically told them that I was speaking in terms of ‘Left and Right,’ ‘Democrat and Republican’ for the sake of common convention.  I also told them that I no longer think in such terms.  I explained that I see the divide as Lawful vs Lawless, Tyranny vs Liberty, God vs Rebellion.  I also repeatedly told this person they were free to reject anything I said.  I made it very clear that I was not demanding they accept my arguments.  But none of that seems to have registered.  In fact, it was as if this person never heard any of my words.  They just told me that I was thinking wrong by trying to force my views on them and by trying to put them in an ‘Either/Or’ box and then they broke off our chats.

So, what are we to make of such people?  Especially when, if we are honest and take an objective look at things, we tend to see such people are the ones with a rigid, ‘Either/Or’ pattern of thinking?  And worse yet, these are the same people who seem to feel they are entitled to force others to agree with them.  They will either shout you down, insult you or seek to use the force of government to impose their will on you.  Yet, for some reason, they also believe they hold the moral high ground.  In their minds, anyone who disagrees is ‘The Problem,’ and their moral superiority justifies them in trying to ‘Solve the Problem.  This is the thinking of tyrants, but they cannot see that.  They are impervious to reason — even to the plain meaning of a simple definition.  So, again, what do we do with such people?  How do we treat them?  Or do we respond to them?

Well, this page is devoted to Natural Law, so I will turn to Natural Law for my solution.  Unfortunately, the only solution seems to be to leave them alone in their delusion — until such time as they become a threat to my Rights or the Rights of others.  At that point — under Natural Law — they must be restrained.  You see, they are free to think and believe however they wish.  But, at the moment they seek to use force against the will of another person, they enter in to a state of war with that person.

Natural Law dictates that we defend ourselves from attacks by external forces that seek to control our will or harm our body and property.  But we live under a Social Contract (i.e. rule of law) that has been put in place to help us defend ourselves.  We restrict some of our Natural Rights with the understanding that the Law will execute them for us.  So, in the case where a person or group of people seek to force their will on others, the Law has a duty to stop them. At the very least, this is how our system of government is supposed to work.  However, we have allowed too many of these delusional people to seize control of our system.  They have turned it into a weapon that they are now using to further their will; to force their will on all those who resist them.

My dear reader, this is the very definition of tyranny!

Now, when we reach the point where these tyrants have seized so much of the law that the law can and will no longer protect us, then the government ceases to be legitimate and we are all thrown back into a state of war with everyone else in society — as well as with the government.  Therefore, the question before us today is this:

Where is that point?