Thursday, November 16, 2017

The Right to Life and the Second Amendment

The left is circling the wagons again on gun control. It is only a matter of time before they have the support needed to ram through their agenda, which would only leave good people defenseless against those with no inclination to follow the law. This has been a slow, incremental process aimed at changing the culture and psyche of the American population. Fear, propaganda and lies have been shoved down our throats along with an educational agenda designed to change the way the younger generations view their nation. Consider this for a moment, seventy seven percent of Democrats with a higher education degree believe that gender is not determined at birth. This was accomplished through constant indoctrination into leftist ideology in our taxpayer funded institutions. If we as a nation fail to realize they are working incessantly to influence people's opinions on the second amendment, we will eventually lose it.

For years the public education system, through common core,  has been re-writing the text of the second amendment to give students the impression that government should decide who is or isn't able to own firearms. Furthermore, the re-written text falsely claims that firearms are to be registered with the government. The actual text of the second amendment is very clear, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This warped view of the second amendment is being pushed while at the same time, very little is being taught about the Constitution and the principles of liberty; other than the lie that it was written to protect the interests of rich, racist white men.

The public school system has been instrumental in developing a fear of firearms through intruder on campus or active shooter drills while at the same time suspending anyone from school for simply playing with anything that resembles a gun. 

It will not be long before the constant pressure brought upon pro-gun legislators will take it's toll. Senator Chris Murphy has indicated that many republicans are ready to cave on gun legislation. Unlike the left, the pro-gun right lacks the ability to bring about this kind of pressure with the right kind of arguments that would sway anyone's opinions. While there are nearly one hundred million gun owners, if not more; the fact is that not all of these people share the same ideals and understanding of what the second amendment is all about. To many, it is simply about hunting, not protecting life and liberty. They have fallen for the lie that the military and police are responsible for that.

In America, the right to life and liberty is a principle enshrined in our founding documents. Unfortunately, the right to life has been wickedly undermined as killing unborn children has been propelled to the status of a fundamental human right. If the left will argue for the right to murder innocent life, they certainly do not care about your ability to defend your own. If living the life you were given by your creator is not fundamentally protected, then defending it with a semi-automatic weapon certainly will not be.

We are in a battle of worldviews, unfortunately there are too many people on the right that do not understand the worldview of the left, let alone the principles of liberty and individualism they claim to espouse. The left believes in social science and the study of human behavior. To them, the individual is devoid of a freewill and is driven instead, by animalistic instincts. Looking at things from this point of view means that any individual with a firearm can be "triggered" into committing mass murder. This explains why after every mass shooting we are inundated with stories of the good neighbor whom nobody suspected was capable of hurting a fly suddenly snapped. They want you to see human behavior from the Darwinist/Marxist point of view. Consider the following explanation from B.F. Skinner's Beyond Freedom and Dignity.

In what we may call the pre-scientific view (and the word is not necessarily pejorative) a person's behavior is at least to some extent his own achievement. He is free to deliberate, decide, and act, possibly in original ways, and he is to be given credit for his successes and blamed for his failures. In the scientific view (and the word is not necessarily honorific) a person’s behavior is determined by a genetic endowment traceable to the evolutionary history of the species and by the environmental circumstances to which as an individual he has been exposed. Neither view can be proved, but it is in the nature of scientific inquiry that the evidence should shift in favor of the second. As we learn more about the effects of the environment, we have less reason to attribute any part of human behavior to an autonomous controlling agent. And the second view shows a marked advantage when we begin to do something about behavior. Autonomous man is not easily changed: in fact, to the extent that he is autonomous, he is by definition not changeable at all. But the environment can be changed, and we are learning how to change it. The measures we use are those of physical and biological technology, but we use them in special ways to affect behavior. 

What this refers to is a method of changing human behavior. Two worldviews concerning how humans behave are laid out. One, referred to as the pre-scientific, explains man as a being able to freely choose his path and control his behavior. The other, known as post-scientific, describes man as an animal whose behavior is traced back to our evolutionary roots and environmental circumstances, which we have no control over. For scientific purposes, writes Skinner, it is best that man is viewed from the post-scientific mind set because it provides the best advantage to do something about behavior through environmental manipulation. In other words, the media and our education system are working hand in hand to keep people living in fear in order to change people's perceptions about guns and the necessity of the second amendment. While many people understand this, the technique is based the science of human behavior. Mans actions can be changed through the manipulation of the environment in which they live.

The Marxist mindset is devoid of spirituality and individualism. To them, there is no God; therefore, we are not special in any sense. It doesn't matter if we as individuals exist or not. All that matters to the Marxist is the collective, colonized mind. There is no universal truth. They teach a doctrine of moral relativism, meaning that all things are the same and there is no superior morality.

A nation cannot exist in a state of liberty without truth, without a universal morality.  Living in freedom in fact, means living in and understanding that there is universal truth. The universal, self evident truths our nation is based on is that we all, no matter if we are on the left or right, are endowed by our creator with natural, inalienable rights. Each individual human being, being guaranteed the right to life has dignity and a will of their own that no other has a right to take from them. To argue in favor of the second amendment is to argue in favor of the dignity and sanctity of the individual human being. Their life is worth defending against those who place no value in any life except their own. To pass laws which disarm the law-abiding gun owner is to say that the individual who lives a decent life and contributes to society has no value compared to those whom law makers know, will break the law and murder with impunity, whether it be with a gun, a knife or a hammer. Life means nothing to these people and they don't care what laws are passed. Politicians pushing for gun control are telling the American people that our lives matter little and that we must wait for other people with a gun to show up and save our lives if we are in danger. All to often, when police arrive all they can do is draw a chalk outline.

Having the right to life inherently means having the responsibility to protect it. If that responsibility lies with the government then we do dot have the right to life at all. The government then becomes the decider of our fate, the choosers of whether we live or die. Unfortunately, the soul of America has been corrupted and too many people have no idea what personal responsibility is. So many young people view this nation as being flawed and are ready to accept communism as an alternative governing system, even though they would be intellectually incapable of explaining what it really is.

It is up to us America to turn this around. We have to stop sitting in silence while the left mobilizes. We have to speak up when the education system teaches our children lies. We have to live up to the values we claim to espouse to and most of all, we have to articulate our beliefs in an effort to change opinions. How can we expect change if we don't change the way we approach this? The left has demonstrated over and over that they are willing to commit acts of mob violence to destroy a country they hate. What can we do to save a country we love?

Thursday, November 9, 2017



It appears I have been wrong about President Trump. If this is what he really believes then I will support him in 2020.

Friday, October 27, 2017

White Privilege, An Enormously Successful Communist Agenda


The white privilege narrative continues to advance in America. Increasingly, the idea that white people are responsible for the ills of minorities is being pushed in our society to the point that an all-out, genuine hatred for white people is taking hold. Students in our universities are being taught that America, and her system of government, was designed explicitly for white men and that it enables them to exploit minorities for their own benefit. White people, according to the radical left, are recipients of unearned privileges and enjoy the protections of institutions that were designed exclusively for their economic system of capitalism. Furthermore, students are taught that minorities cannot discriminate against white men because they have no institutional power. In other words, because of white privilege it is morally acceptable to discriminate against white men based purely on their race because they are privileged. The goal of the white privilege lie is to create the illusion that minorities are living in a system of oppression, held down by a nation rooted in white supremacy. Unfortunately, this may be true.

The latest example of this white privilege mania comes from a professor of math education at the University of Illinois, Rochelle Gutierrez. She claims that the teaching of algebra and geometry perpetuate white privilege. Her arguments posit the notion that white men are often credited with success in mathematics and demonstrate a greater capability in math than minorities. Furthermore, she claims that this advances racism in society, particularly if minority students are performing worse than whites. She is arguing that mathematics should now be taught from a political angle which would help make students aware of white privilege.

Wouldn’t the idea that mathematics pushes white privilege and racism stem form a supremacist attitude in the first place? Wouldn’t an individual that believes black people for example, are not as capable as members of another race of doing algebra really be saying they believe that race is superior to blacks? What happens in instances where a black student is performing better than a white student? Does that student now have privilege or are they still a victim of white supremacy?

The truth of white privilege is that it is a useful tool used to create hate and discontent in our society, and that blacks really may be victims of white supremacist agenda.  Just not from the United States.

The idea of using race as a weapon has its origins in the Communist Revolution in the early twentieth century. Leon Trotsky, leader of the revolutionary army, allegedly coined the term racism to discredit the eastern Europeans who stood in the way of communist objectives. In modern America the term white privilege is being used as a weapon to silence pro-American opinions which might threaten the left-wing agenda of wealth re-distribution. Creating the illusion that a certain segment of our society is the recipient of unearned privileges based purely on skin color is sure to cause the necessary angst needed to cause the cultural revolution the left has been desiring for years.

Furthermore, the race based agenda can be traced back further to Italian communist, Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci, author of the Prison Notebooks, which outlined a detailed plan which entailed a march through the institutions to bring about social change, understood that the traditional Marxist idea of dividing society into an oppressed and oppressor class had not worked. Therefore, he turned his gaze upon cultural norms and further divided society into numerous oppressed groups. The word “hegemony”  is used to describe the influence the dominant culture has over the rest of society. Gramsci coined the term “counter-hegemony” in order to destroy the influence of a dominant culture by turning every social group into an oppressed victim of that culture. White privilege, or white supremacy, is being used to define a dominant, oppressive culture in the United States in this manner. Every other social group whether they be blacks, Latinos, gays, transgenders, feminists and now even people who may not be good at math are victims of white privilege and white supremacy.

“It becomes clear that one cannot understand either the meteoric rise or apparent immunity of political correctness to attack without understanding Gramsci. Rarely would I recommend studying a Marxist social philosopher, but this guy merits our attention. Gramsci (1891-1937) agreed with Karl Marx that every society could be divided into "oppressor" and "oppressed" classes (e.g., Marx’s own "bourgeois" and "proletariat"), but for the first time, expanded the latter into an ensemble of subordinate, marginalized groups instead of a single, homogeneous group. Whereas Marx had spoken only of the proletariat, Gramsci spoke not just of property less workers but also of "woman, racial minorities and many ‘criminals.’" Fonte documents how Gramsci distinguished two ways the dominant group exercises control, whereas Marx had only written of one. First, there is direct domination through coercion or force – political might in service of the economic interests of the bourgeoisie. Second, there is what Gramsci calls hegemony, which means the pervasive and mostly tacit use of a system of values that supports and reinforces the interests of the dominant groups. The repressed groups may not even know they are repressed, in Gramsci’s view, because they have internalized the system of values that justifies their repression. They have internalized a "false consciousness" and become unwitting participants in their own domination.”

If that isn’t enough former Communist Party member Manning Johnson wrote a book in 1958 detailing his experience in the Communist Party USA, called Color, Communism and Common Sense. In this book he details his experience as a black man with the Communist Party and a plot to use black Americans to bring about communism in America. The communists exploited and created grievances which put the black man at odds with the American capitalist system.



Manning states that he was in a position of power within the ranks of the Communist Party and while in this position he began to see just how the American black man was being used to push a policy of division. He claims that white communists lorded over blacks within the party, and their activities were directed by those working at the Kremlin under the guise of white and black men uniting to bring capitalism to its knees. The communists claimed to be the champion of the black man and all his struggles despite the fact they never benefitted from the millions raised by communist front groups posing as civil rights organizations. Today, the Democrat party claims to be the leader in defending civil rights of the American oppressed and down trodden even though they govern over the clear majority of inner city ghettos. Black Americans have been voting Democrat for decades and have not benefitted from the millions of dollars raised by corrupt politicians to win elections. Through the white privilege narrative Democrats have convinced black Americans that they have a reason to be bitter towards whites. They have been taught they are oppressed victims unable to rise out of poverty because of white privilege.

In chapter 7 of Color, Communism, and Common Sense, Manning points to the specific plan to blame the white man for all the black man’s problems. This is essentially what the white privilege philosophy has done. The white privilege lie has destroyed the ability of many black men to take responsibility for themselves as they are now trapped in a generational welfare mentality, which is an essential ingredient to bringing about communism. According to Manning, the objectives of the communists were to make the black man feel sorry for himself, blame whites for their failures, ignore opportunities around him, make him jealous of the success of other races in America, and condition him to look for quick easy solutions as substitutes to honest effort in a competitive market. The expected results were to be a population of underclass citizens who blamed the white man’s system of government as being everything that is wrong in their lives. Isn’t that what we are seeing today? An effort to indoctrinate black people into the idea that the society they live in is designed for privileged whites who exploit minorities? The entire agenda revolves around the idea of creating a communist revolutionary army by teaching the minorities they are victims of white supremacy. At the time being it seems to have been enormously successful as nearly every facet of our society from football to algebra now has the white privilege stigma attached to it.

Freedom relies upon a population exercising good judgment and personal responsibility. If a populations ability to take responsibility for their own actions is compromised, then freedom has little chance. If you can’t take responsibility for yourself, someone will have to take responsibility of you. This is something that the communists understood very well, and they have systematically destroyed America’s sense of personal responsibility by not only creating an atmosphere of mistrust and jealously among minority cultures but by demoralizing and demonizing the majority. Many people in America are now afraid to speak for their values because they are likely to be labeled racist for doing so. The true white supremacists are those seeking to use race as a means of obtaining power. Most Americans believe that people achieve things based on merit and the effort they put into something. White privilege posits the idea that blacks and other minorities suffer because they are not capable, and they need the iron fist of government leveling the playing field to make things fair. This simply is not true. People of all nationalities come to this great country and make something of themselves, they may not be millionaires, but they don’t have to be. They achieved more than they would have in their home country. Black people in America continue to be taught the politics of resentment, making them prime recruits for the cultural revolution desired by the left. If the Democrats and the communists really cared about the black man, they would look at the predicament they are in and start teaching them that they have opportunity in America. After all, the left believes that whatever you are taught in your formative years tends to develop into unshakable convictions.

"Education should aim at destroying free will so that after pupils are thus schooled they will be incapable throughout the rest of their lives of thinking or acting otherwise than as their school masters would have wished ... The social psychologist of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at: first, that influences of the home are 'obstructive' and verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective ... It is for the future scientist to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for more than one generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen."
Bertrand Russell quoting Johann Gottlieb Fichte, the head of philosophy & psychology who influenced Hegel and others – Prussian University in Berlin, 1810

If they really cared, wouldn’t they teach them they are just as capable as anyone else instead of setting in stone the convictions of envy?

              














Friday, October 13, 2017

Clarifying the Objectives of Gun Grabbers

Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
For years the idea of an Article V convention of the states has been pushed by many conservatives as a way to reign in federal spending and an out of control federal government. An Article V convention is a way to propose new amendments to the constitution, a provision added by our founders as a way to ensure the people have the ability to take control of their governing process. Any new amendments, once proposed, must then be ratified by three fourths of the states legislatures in order to become the law of the land. Conservatives argue, that because Republicans control the majority of the state legislatures, precious liberties protected by the constitution, such as the right to keep and bear arms, would be in no danger. This has proven to be false as The New American Magazine is reporting that a "clarification" of the Second Amendments meaning is on the agenda should an Article V convention take place.

What does it mean to clarify the Second Amendments meaning? Well, many gun control proponents point out, as The New American highlights, that the Second Amendment was written at a time when only muskets and other arms of less lethal ability existed. Their arguments would of course suggest that the founders had no idea what direction technology would go and what type of arms would then be available to the public. On the other hand, if a pro-Second Amendment majority is present at the convention, clarifying the right to keep and bear arms could in deed do just that. They could re-affirm that an armed public is the best way to ensure the security of a free state. This however, in our politically charged climate of fear and hysteria against guns, is not likely.

Setting these idle arguments aside there are more serious threats that an Article V convention poses to the Second Amendment. One of these threats is the fact that gun control, and the disarming of America has been written into public law since 1961. Signed by President Kennedy, PL87-297 Arms Control and Disarmament Act sets in motion the process in which America's military will be systematically reduced, disarmed and subverted to the authority of a world army headed by The United Nations. According to Bernadine Smith of libertygunrights.com, the final stages of this plan would be the elimination of national control of our armed services, which in turn would subvert our national sovereignty, and the total and complete disarming of the American people.

The American public seems blissfully unaware that the past several decades have brought us a massive, systematic reduction in the size of our military and the closure of many bases nationwide.

Also, the process for turning over command of the U.S. military to the United Nations started nearly two decades before with the passing of the United Nations Participation Act. This act put the power of committing U.S. forces to conflicts overseas in the hands of the U.N. Security Council as opposed to the U.S. congress, who incidentally constitutionally speaking, has the sole authority to declare war. Since the Korean war, all conflicts involving U.S. forces have been directed by the United Nations Security Council.

State Department Publication 7277  states as one of it's goals the total and complete disarmament of military forces except for that which is necessary to maintain internal order and for contributions to a United Nations peace keeping force. This essentially means that only a small body of armed forces operating under the jurisdiction of the United Nations would exist for the purpose of enforcing principles set forth by a world governing body.

DISARMAMENT GOAL AND OBJECTIVES







What agreements are this publication referencing and what disarmament obligations is the United States expected to be held to? The United Nations Program of Action on Small Arms is one such agreement. Many may argue that as of now this agreement has no bearing on U.S. law. Considering the harsh political climate and the constant efforts to pass gun control laws it is important that the American public at least understand what this agreement entails. For example, section II explicitly states that where they do not yet exist, laws should be passed criminalizing the illicit manufacture, transfer and possession of small arms. What does illicit mean? Does that mean the three pound drop  trigger in your semi-automatic rifle? It can mean anything that gives them the necessary wording to criminalize gun ownership in America.

II.  Preventing, combating and eradicating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects



(Take note that the current gun control bill proposed by Republican Carlos Curbelo is so vaguely worded it could outlaw the manufacture of almost anything that enhances a semi-auto's performance.)

Another agreement is the U.N Arms Trade Treaty, which was signed illegally by Former Secretary of State John Kerry. While this treaty has not been ratified it is hard to argue that our government is not working to accomplish the objectives set forth within its text.

One particular aspect of this treaty that readers should take note of is Article 16 titled simply, International Assistance. To put it bluntly, this section establishes a trust fund of sorts, and other means of assistance, which can be used to assist nations that have signed into forcing others into compliance. While this treaty begins with words that suggest the U.N. will respect the sovereignty of nation states, other material provided in this article shows that the ultimate objective is in fact completes disarmament of the public. Proof of this being the final objective is demonstrated every time the push for gun control returns in response to a national tragedy. 

Bernadine Smith, at sweetliberty.org, claims that the government will use the Article V Convention process to introduce a new constitution which will be communistic in structure and more in line with the principles of the U.N. Charter than the U.S. Constitution. This constitution exists and it explicitly denies the right of individuals to keep and bear arms of any type except for those serving in the capacity of a U.N. peacekeeping force Clarifying the used for keeping internal order. This constitution can be read here

With all of this being said it is imperative, should an Article V convention take place, that the people, along with pro-Second Amendment advocates pay close attention to its proceedings. There is a reason that America is constantly being discredited and referred to as a racist, oppressive nation. They want the general public confused and spiritually defeated to the point they will accept this new socialist constitution as an alternative to a system of governance they have been taught has failed. Be weary America. Allow me to leave with one more quote.


Wednesday, October 4, 2017

Democrats Have No Moral Base to Push Gun Control

So the Democrats are pushing gun control, again. The latest word is that Republicans may be willing to accept a ban on bump fire stocks and other after market accessories. Why does the minority party get to dictate this while the majority begs and pleads to be accepted into their elitist club? Personally, I think the Republicans should find the intestinal fortitude to tell Democrats to shove it up their proverbial donkeys. After all, the Democrat party has proven over the past few years, that they have absolutely no credibility or integrity and that they are driven purely by their hatred for this country. In other words, they have no right whatsoever to push for gun control when they lack the righteousness and ethical back ground to do so.

First of all, the Democrats acted with complete disbelief that Donald Trump won the election when in all reality it should have come to no surprise. The average person, when faced with such an obvious rejection, actually does some soul searching and self reflecting in an effort to change. Not the Democrats. In response to the loss of a legitimate election they immediately go on a wild goose chase in an attempt to convince the nation that Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the election from Hillary. Ten months into Trumps presidency and they are still searching for some way to make this connection despite the lack of evidence proving any conspiracy.

Of course, before the election even happened the Democrats got caught red handed fixing their own primary election in favor of Hillary Clinton. Clearly, if they had not done so Bernie Sanders would have been the chosen nominee. What was the reaction to this? Nothing, it was covered up. In fact, in a law suit filed against the DNC by Democrat voters a court actually ruled the DNC had the right to rig the election in any way they see fit. How is this not considered corruption of the highest order?

Over the past few years we have been witness to Operation Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the Iran Deal and numerous other scandals.

We witnessed several mass shootings perpetrated by Islamic terrorists. In response to these attacks the Democrats blamed America's inherent racism insisting that Muslims are the new oppressed group.

The Democrats encouraged a literal war on police by allowing a destructive narrative based on a lie to develop and take hold, "Hands up don't shoot." Many police officers have been murdered in cold blood by people supporting the cause of groups like Black Lives Matter, yet the Democrats are completely indifferent to this claiming that blacks are oppressed victims of White Privilege. To this day many blacks still believe police are systematically hunting them down and shooting them just because they are black.

Cities have been burned to the ground by organized groups of professional leftists being paid by George Soros to riot and disrupt the lives of everyday Americans. These riots destroyed businesses and homes and the left puts these people on a pedestal as though they are some kind of cultural hero's.

Hillary Clinton has been implicated in numerous scandals including the Email issue, where no real investigation took place, along with her real collusion with Russia to sell our uranium. She has also been caught using her State Department position to elicit huge donations to her Clinton Foundation in an elaborate pay to play scheme. What was done about any of this? Absolutely nothing. Let's not forget the numerous investigators that continually pop up dead while investigating Clinton corruption.

The Democrat party is the first party to actually remove God from their political platform. They sit in their positions of wealth and power and lecture us about greed. Democrat politicians make up some of the richest in the country. For instance, Senator Diane Feinstein has a total net worth of 80 million dollars, yet she advocates for policies which restrict an individuals ability to be able to pursue that kind of wealth themselves. If she could she would enact a Marxist dictatorship demanding everyone give up what they have so everything is fair. The truth is that she advocates against capitalism to hide the fact that her husband is a finance capitalist. She is a person of very low integrity who has no ethical standing to be pushing gun control. By the way, she has a concealed carry permit in California.

Democrats have done nothing but use fear, lies and smear campaigns in an effort to get what they want. They have used words like racist, homophobia, Islamophobia, uncompassionate and extremist to describe anyone who stands in the way of their agenda. They accuse Republicans of wanting people to die when in fact they hide the brutal truth about Obamacare and what socialized medicine would do to America. They lie about gun statistics in order to push a disarmament agenda, demonstrating a willingness to leave good people helpless when they know full well gun control will not stop violent crime. Again, they are willing to leave you helpless against people who will not follow their laws. How is that moral or fair?

Democrats have no moral standing whatsoever to be pushing an agenda of any kind. Not only are they the minority party they are liars, cheaters and have demonstrated they do not deserve the trust of the American people. They have no moral base to be legislating people's rights, yet here we are on the edge of our seats watching to see what happens. Get off you asses America.


Tuesday, October 3, 2017

The Psychopolitics of the Lone Wolf Scare


The left is so predictable. In response to the worst mass shooting in our country's history they frantically start their push for gun control. In an effort to whip up an emotional fervor, they are attempting to convince us we need to restrict the second amendment by passing more laws like the ones that did absolutely nothing to stop this guy from effortlessly murdering so many people.

Think about it a moment, they are constantly exposing us to the shocking brutality of gun violence, innocent people frantically running for their lives, then demanding we give up our rights to be able to defend ourselves from  madmen who obviously don't follow laws.  Unbelievable, really.

We are about to witness a massive push to eliminate the second amendment in much the same way we saw the left move against the confederate statues. They will attempt to label anyone who doesn't see the so called reasonableness of gun control as insane, uncompassionate and un-American.

The populace must be brought into the belief that every individual within it who rebels in any way, shape or form against efforts or activities to enslave the whole must be considered to be a deranged person whose eccentricities are neurotic or insane and must have at once the treatment of a psychopolitician (psychiatrist.)

Generally speaking, the real agenda behind these events can be discovered by carefully listening to the language that is being used by the left. For instance, there is a lot of talk about the lack of anti-terror laws for so called "homegrown" American terrorists. For years now the left has been attempting to use a terrorist watch list to prevent Americans from legally purchasing firearms.

To be more specific, people on the no fly list could find themselves being denied next time they undergo the required background check to legally buy a gun.

This of course, does absolutely nothing to stop someone like Steven Paddock from illegally acquiring weapons. Something would at least be done though, right? If you happen to think this is a good idea consider the fact that if you by chance have expressed any right wing beliefs , or aligned yourself with any right leaning ideology, you may be a good candidate for such a list.

Another term loosely being thrown around is "Lone Wolf Shooter." What is being implied by this term? The term Lone Wolf is intended to strike fear into the hearts and minds of all of us by suggesting that no one can be trusted with guns because at any moment, for some deep, dark psychological reason we are all capable of going insane and committing mass murder. Consider for a moment the fact that after every shooting, we are inundated with non-sense about how no one knew the shooter was capable of such a thing. The shooter knew nothing about guns, the shooter was compassionate and he loved to jump through daisies and dance with butterflies while rubbing a puppies belly.  In other words, the shooter is every man's neighbor. This reinforces irrational fear in the hopes that when you see your neighbor loading up his rifle for a day of great second amendment activities, you become frightful and concerned.

In order to induce this kind of fear in the public the psyche of the nation must be attacked in a manner which brings to question the sanity of all men. Man himself must be broke down and his spiritual will to resist crushed.

The first thing to be degraded in any nation is the state of man himself. Nations which have high ethical tone are difficult to conquer. Their loyalties are hard to shake, their allegiance to their leaders is fanatical, and what they usually call their spiritual integrity cannot be violated by duress. It is not efficient to attack a nation in such a frame of mind. It is the basic purpose of Psychopolitics to reduce that state of mind to a point where it can be ordered and enslaved. Thus, the first target is Man, himself. He must be degraded from a spiritual being to an animalistic reaction pattern. He must think of himself as an animal, capable only of animalistic reactions. He must no longer think of himself, or of his fellows, as capable of "spiritual endurance," or "nobility."

By labeling mass shooters as "Lone Wolf Terrorist" the unity of the nation is disrupted by creating a fear and mistrust. By moving immediately to take advantage of over boiling emotions, the left is keeping the population in a reactionary pattern, unwittingly following the lead of their controllers without the ability to reasonably question their own actions. Slowly, because all men are suddenly capable of committing these horrific murders, the population begins to question their own nature as human beings. Are we truly spiritual beings, or animals that need to be controlled and trained how to behave? Are we capable of being free, or do we need an over bearing government?

The left needs the populace to be untrusting of one another. We are supposed to be suspicious of anyone who is a supporter of gun rights and at this point, the constitution itself. Through the coming months we will see increased pressure for stricter gun restrictions along with the efforts to completely dehumanize gun right supporters. The second amendment will likely become the next General Lee statue to the point where the left may start attacking people for having pro gun stickers on their car or for even carrying legally. Now's the time to start articulating what you believe in and making your voice heard. Look, the left has demonstrated a willingness to destroy this country through their social movements and protests. They are driven purely by hatred of a country that they have been lied to about their whole lives. What kind of power could we have if we could come together and take a stand in the name of a country we love and want to endure for the sake of future generations?

Saturday, September 30, 2017

The Anthem Protests-Playing by the Radicals' Rules

I have always believed that the NFL has been a deliberate distraction to keep Americans fat, happy and distracted from what their government is doing. Let's face it, the vast majority of us, on any given day, couldn't identify three major issues in the news and how it affects them, but those football scores are always on the top of their mind. It must also be noted however, that the overwhelming majority of football fans are people who love their country and work hard for a living. Since it's inception how ever many decades ago, football has been associated with patriotism. The NFL therefore, is the perfect organization for the left to hijack and use an organization for social change.

It has long been known that the left hates professional football and everything it stands for, including patriotism. This has been the topic all week long on talk radio. The left views the sport as patriarchic, too masculine, too violent and would love to see it's demise. The theory that the left has deliberately set the stage for these anti-American protests in order to drive a wedge between the fans and the sport has began to take shape. This is certainly a possibility, in fact a probability, but there is so much more to than that. This a multifaceted psychopolitical assault on the heart of America and the organization that has defined Americanism for decades. It is an assault designed to get us to change the way we think and manipulate us into begging for an end to our own rights. The only way you can win this is by doing nothing.

American's may think they are winning by boycotting the NFL but what you are really saying is that you don't support everyone's right to free speech. Commentators are addressing this issue by saying the first amendment has no bearing because the players are employees working for someone who owns the team. Yes, this is true; however, there are still first amendment implications and the left has you demanding someone take action to limit speech you don't like. They are creating the problem in order to get you to demand the solution. Let's face it America, if you demand that the government, or the NFL take action to silence speech you don't like you are saying that it's alright for the same to happen to you. Let's take this a step deeper. Once again I am going to use the following quote from Alinky's Rules for Radicals to stress my point.

Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian Church can live up to Christianity.

Their intent is to make hypocrites out of the right. The snowflakes on the left have for years, been waging a war on free speech on the basis that they find many of our beliefs to be offensive. On the other hand, we have been arguing that offensive speech is what was meant to be protected by the first amendment in the first place. Well America, I'm sorry but the left has outdone you again by proving that you don't really believe that. The more you argue for a boycott against the NFL the more you are proving the left right, that some speech is offensive and that it should be banned in public. In other words, like gullible automatons you played right into their little psychosocial experiment. Again, many will argue that the first amendment has no bearing here because we are technically talking about employment on a professional team. This is true from a certain stand point; however, it is a small technicality that has no bearing when it comes to the tide of social and cultural movements. Besides, when has something so trivial stopped the left?

Furthermore, the left has hijacked the NFL and has attempted to use it as a vehicle of social change. They are using the fake issue of racial injustice in an attempt to change the hearts and minds of football viewers. Obviously this has backfired in a big way. Or has it? American's are indeed tired of the fake social issues and the constant race baiting. Shutting off football had to be an expected reaction from the social planners who orchestrated this whole thing. Remember America, the left wing media, along with our education system, are firmly in control of the main stream narrative. That narrative describes a racist, selfish American population who cares nothing for the plight of minorities. By boycotting the NFL over a couple of idiots taking a knee you are only reinforcing that narrative, whether you realize it or not.

In the left we are dealing with an enemy that has no rules. Operating off the ends justify the means philosophy there is nothing they won't do to gain a stronger foothold over the culture wars. Their aim is to humiliate and destroy conservatism and they will do whatever it takes. The anthem protests were almost certainly designed to separate the audience from the sport; however, in reacting to it the way we have we are only empowering the left and playing catch up in a game many of us don't understand yet. A game of social change.