I am a combat vet, and I have no wish to see civil war on U.S. soil. So you can know that I am being deadly serious when I write this post.
Folks, you should reject ‘Red Flag’ laws. If necessary, this is an issue over which we should take up arms. If they get these laws in place, it will be the end of the U.S. and the end of liberty anywhere in this world save for Israel! For some of you, that should bring a whole story-line to mind — and that story does not end well for the majority of this world.
I am not going to spend a lot of time on this post. I don’t have to do so to make my point. All I have to do is explain what is going to happen. Those with eyes to see and ears to hear will understand:
They will pass these ‘Red Flag’ laws.
At first, most Americans will accept the definition of ‘un-stable.’
But, once the laws are in place, they will change that definition to apply to anyone who does not agree with the State.
They will then use those laws as an excuse to ‘deal with’ these ‘unstable’ people.
And you will live in a totalitarian State — a State that the Bible describes as, ‘The Beast!’
ALL of this is a total rejection of Natural Law and the founding principles and ideals of this nation. It is a rejection and destruction of liberty. It is tyranny — plain, pure and simple, and totally naked in its exposure to those who have eyes to see it. But mind you, I say you will live in this State of tyranny because I won’t be here with you. I will be dead. Not gone, dead. They will kill me — and they will kill me in your name!
*****
To those who do not believe that this is coming:
They have been saying that this is what they are going to do for over one hundred years! They just count on the fact that you will reject the truth when you hear it.
*****
If me saying you will be part of this bothers you, then all I can say to you is:
“Come out of her, My People.”
BTW: For those who weren’t paying attention, Trump also called for laws to restrict free speech — even on social media and in the news media — as well as another look at ‘mental health.’ Now, before anyone goes and decides any of these things are good ideas, ask yourself: would I support any of this if Trump/Obama got to define what constitutes ‘unstable’ or ‘dangerous?’ Because this is exactly what these laws will do: they will allow the Part in power to define ‘unstable’ and ‘dangerous’ however they wish. And, given the current trends, this means the Democrat Party will have this power forever and ever, because, now that they have seen they can get away with conducting an open coup, there will be nothing and no one to stop them from seizing total control of this nation…
Over the coarse of my life, I have engaged a great many people in political discussions. In the process of having these discussions, I have found that there is a pattern to the way a certain group of people think. In most cases, when I encounter a person from this group, I can actually predict what they will think about a given subject, or how they will respond to a given question. I can also predict that their reasoning process will exhibit certain traits. In today’s environment, this is called ‘profiling,’ and it is often dismissed as being no better than stereotyping or labeling. In fact, this is one of the traits common to the thinking of the people in the group I have in mind: they will almost always object to or reject anything they think of or consider to be stereotyping, labeling or profiling. They will not examine it, they will just dismiss it out of hand. The problem these people have is, if I can actually use this profile to predict their thinking/reactions with a high degree of accuracy, then it has value — because it is based in truth!
If we are honest with ourselves, and we actually take the time to look at the way we deal with a whole host of things, we will discover that we all use stereotypes/profiles to navigate our daily lives. Each and every one of us do this. There are no exceptions! We just don’t realize that this is what we are doing. Therefore, it would behoove us to spend a little time thinking about the stereotypes/profiles we use to help us judge others. If they are highly predictive, then hold on to them. However, if they often lead us into error, we should modify or discard them and replace them with more accurate stereotypes/profiles.
So, let’s have a discussion about this group of people I mentioned. Typically:
They tend to avoid or reject personal responsibility.
They tend to have a powerful sense of self, and of entitlement.
They tend to believe their opinion is the most obvious and the majority opinion in society.
They tend to believe their ideas are morally superior to others, and that this gives them a duty to ‘save’ people who do not understand the ‘truth’ of their beliefs.
They seldom have any reservations about the use of force against others — especially the use of force to ‘protect’ humanity from those who disagree with them.
They tend to see society in terms of groups, not individuals.
They tend to think of justice in terms of societal or group justice, not individual justice.
They tend to have no sense of fixed laws. They will change the meaning of words and laws to fit whatever their agenda is at the moment.
They usually favor government control of their daily needs and lives.
They tend to reason by feelings rather than logic and right reasoning.
They tend to think that they are reasonable and very logical.
They often claim to be supported by or believe in ‘science.’
They may claim to believe in God, but, when questioned, they tend to exhibit no allegiance to whatever god in which they claim to believe. Instead, they tend to exhibit characteristics of thinking they are their own gods.
They seldom recognize objective reality.
They tend to ignore or reject or even to re-write the historical record.
They tend to accept the face value of things. They seldom bother to dig deeper than the surface. They accept what they consider to be ‘obvious.’
They tend to lean heavily on the authority of their teachers, political leaders, media personalities and even entertainment heroes. They seldom look for or accept original source material.
They tend to ignore or not allow the beliefs of others. This often goes so far that they will tell people what they actually mean instead of letting others speak for themselves. They put words in the mouths of others.
They tend to reject anything that doesn’t agree with them or contradicts their beliefs.
They tend to get stuck in feed-back loops, where they just keep saying the same things over and over again — believing that this will somehow make that thing true.
They tend to try to control any discussion they enter. They will ask, but seldom answer questions. they will answer questions that were not asked. They will claim that others said things they did not say. In general, they will try to manipulate others to say what they think and believe, then claim that this proves they are correct.
They tend to think in individual examples. They do not have set principles or ideals to guide them. They take things case by case, which often leads them into contradictions in their thinking/beliefs.
They tend to think they can ‘speak it into existence.’ In other words, they tend to think they can change reality by believing their ideas are true.
They tend to be blind to their own contradictions. They do not engage in honest introspection.
They tend to accuse others of the things of which they are guilty.
They tend to reject any attempt to point out any of these things — often times, they will react violently.
They will almost always resort to ad hominem (name calling) attacks when they are pushed to defend their positions.
This is just a partial list of the characteristic traits I have found in this group of people. This list is just a list of those traits most often encountered. Still, these traits are almost always found in these people. By that, I do not mean this group will exhibit a few of these traits; I mean they will exhibit all but a few. Often, they will exhibit every one of them. Furthermore, once you know these traits, it becomes easy to ascertain whether or not you are dealing with one of these folks. You just ask a few pre-determined questions and watch how they respond. After a while, you will find there is a predictable pattern to them. This means my ‘profile’ is highly predictive, which means it is based in truth and, therefore, useful. I can use it to identify and help me deal with people of this particular mindset.
BTW: there are several ‘labels’ that have been assigned to the people in this group. Some of them they have even assigned to themselves. I am not going to tell you what any of these labels are. I’ll let you figure it out for yourselves. But note: if you figure it out, it is probably because you already held a similar ‘profile.’ What’s more, it is likely that a great many of the people in this group will not only recognize themselves, they will unjustly and inaccurately assign all of these things to other people — which is one of the traits I have listed 😉
AS AN ASIDE:
One of the themes that comes up almost every time I try to have a discussion with someone from the group I mentioned above is a violent reaction to being placed in this group. Even though they exhibit nearly or even all of the traits I listed, they seldom identify as being part of the group, and they never accept anyone trying to tell them they are in this group. This is very telling. It means that — on some level — they know they are part of the group and they do not like it. Which also tells us something about them. Why don’t they want to be in this group? And, if they know they are in it and do not like it, why don’t they change so they can get out of it? Why do they insist on denying the truth instead? These are honest questions, and the answers will lead you right back to the list above — like a feed-back loop 😉
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:
2: something conforming to a fixed or general patternespecially: 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
1 : the act or process of extrapolating information about a person based on known traits or tendencies consumer profilingspecifically
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:
How bigotry enabled progressive domestic policies of the early 20th century
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:
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: