But the spotlight is on the US. Or perhaps it just seems that way living next to it in Canada.
I don’t like it anyone more than you do. Perhaps even less… But the reality is that everyone kind of looks to the United States because they have made a lot of noise. And as I alluded to with the constitution, a lot of that noise has blossomed from the type of intellectual spirit that is shared by Britain, but as someone who lives in a British colony myself, I would say more unchained. Maybe you don’t agree with that, but I just think it is. Or at least has been more so in the past 200 years where such a thing could even be possible.
If that country can somehow… as I said, not fist us the world, then it’s a story that the world can jump on board with. They can’t advance the plan without that arm of theirs. And in the hands of the people, it’s game over. It’s the easiest place for the tipping point to occur. It’s the top of the iceberg. I truly think it matters if the US gives their guns in.
So in that way arguments like Dan’s are somewhat valid. This site is think tank, is it not? It is more kind of a transparent (hopefully fun) steering the masses where we try to provide a clear and concrete solution. When people ask me about these shootings I say: “Don’t give in guns.” I think our work is basically coming up with a coherent answer and saying, 'Here you go." to anyone who wants to read. History has shown it’s something like 6-9% of society is what is needed to basically turn public opinion and change everything entirely.
Addressing Your Response to the OP
Quote:
As I said on ILP at great length, I think the US fascination with guns is driven by pop culture and that the constitution is meaningless.
Sure, but you don’t live there, and the people that are going to supposedly bomb everyone in your scenario are people who do, and who believe in those things so… well let’s move on.
Quote:
I think the idea of resisting government tyranny through owning guns is ludicrous, both in principle and in practice
Sure, but everything in society is ludicrous. Every war call, at first glance, is logically absurd. It’s about the social reaction. Us talking about this is kind of weirdly both very dumbed down and simplified, but also very complex.
Quote:
and that this myth about ‘every despot disarms the population’ is the sort of lie you could only get away with spreading in a country like the US where 99% of people are completely idiotic.
If I was a dictator I would do this. The basic logic behind it makes sense, even if ‘every one’ didn’t do it.
Quote:
Furthermore, I think the US government wants the population to own guns rather than the opposite. After all, they do sod all to enforce gun laws and massively subsidise the companies that make the guns, no to mention overtly encourage black markets like drugs which provide a means, motive and opportunity for a huge black market in guns.
This is a fair point. But in the wake of Sandy Hook, if you say to someone 'Yea man, Let’s hand in our guns and watch some SNL," then, really nothing is accomplished other than in one more instance someone learns to just acquiesce to the government’s demands. Once again, this is about digging our heals in. Finding key instances to do that.
Quote:
I think your claim of ‘every example’ is disingenuous because look at the US compared to the UK - far more guns in the US, far more deaths, far less guns in the UK, no greater government tyranny.
This is kind of another discussion. We can talk about if you want. I’m getting tired of typing and I feel like this will be long.
Quote:
In short, I think the kneejerk conspiracy theorist attitude of some on the ‘Right’ towards mass shootings is just as exploitative and just as moronic and just as massively untrue as the kneejerk ‘ban the guns’ attitude of some on the ‘Left’. I think it’s an utterly stupid discussion in its present format that has nothing to do with facts, nothing to do with reality, and everything to do with encouraging Americans to ultimately destroy themselves and each other.
It’s all kneejerk. We’re down to the final chess moves here. People always say that people who always say the world is going to end are just some part of society that is always there – and maybe so – but we’re approaching the point where revolt will be impossible for a long time, until some like… Harry Potter or something is born 1000 years from now and upsets the system.
What would you say, ultimately, in the face of all this to the public?
“Meh… this discussion is pointless.”
All right I’ll turn my guns in then. Thanks tinfoil.
or
“Well, you shouldn’t but more to the point, you should look at gun ownership and gun violence in this way…”
Oh, interesting… maybe I’ll check out that article you mentioned.
We need to get over seeing the public discussion as intellectually insulting or whatever. You gotta get up in that shit and just roll with it. Have a couple drinks. Get a buzz on and just grin and bear it. We need the public. We also need you.
“I said I was going to get to your calls but…look.”
RE: More Guns Equals Less Deaths.
The plot seems to be going like this:
Take the guns - I don’t think we can disagree they want to do this. They keep throwing shooting after shooting at us. They really want it.
So why? - I think it’s so skyrocket the crime rate with riots and Battlefield Los Angeles type stuff so they can bring in Martial Law.
“I said I was going to get to your calls but…look.”
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-02-2013, 12:12 AM Post: #22
BigTom Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: More Guns Equals Less Deaths.
(12-30-2012 11:05 PM)Gobbo Wrote:
I’m going to try and explain this fully, and give it the attention it deserves.
Quote:
I’m kind of with you, I just have utter contempt for mainstream US political discussion, and see no reason to revise that regarding the gun debate.
We’re not asking you to revise your position. We’re asking you to phrase this in the context of the World Stage. You’re right (and I didn’t mean to sound insulting) I’m sure people could revolt in Britain, but in the sense of the World Stage that would be kind of coming from left field. By all means, do that. I hope that happens.
But the spotlight is on the US. Or perhaps it just seems that way living next to it in Canada.
Of course, a shooting or a presidential election or a new gun law in the US gets reported the world over.
Quote:
I don’t like it anyone more than you do. Perhaps even less… But the reality is that everyone kind of looks to the United States because they have made a lot of noise. And as I alluded to with the constitution, a lot of that noise has blossomed from the type of intellectual spirit that is shared by Britain, but as someone who lives in a British colony myself, I would say more unchained. Maybe you don’t agree with that, but I just think it is. Or at least has been more so in the past 200 years where such a thing could even be possible.
If that country can somehow… as I said, not fist us the world, then it’s a story that the world can jump on board with. They can’t advance the plan without that arm of theirs. And in the hands of the people, it’s game over. It’s the easiest place for the tipping point to occur. It’s the top of the iceberg. I truly think it matters if the US gives their guns in.
I’m not denying it matters, but I don’t see the US as being the place where a tipping point can be encouraged or created. The people are just too stupid and too vain. Look at how the American truth movement has responded to the economic crisis - it just blames ‘the government’ or ‘the elite’ or thinks that sitting in a park or voting for Ron Paul is somehow going to solve things. The simple fact of Americans consuming far more than they produce is never discussed. The simple fact of there being physical limitations on growth and consumption is never discussed. Far easier to just blame ‘the government’ and pretend that if they weren’t keeping us down we’d all be millionaires because we’re Americans and we’re just that damn good.
Quote:
So in that way arguments like Dan’s are somewhat valid. This site is think tank, is it not? It is more kind of a transparent (hopefully fun) steering the masses where we try to provide a clear and concrete solution. When people ask me about these shootings I say: “Don’t give in guns.” I think our work is basically coming up with a coherent answer and saying, 'Here you go." to anyone who wants to read. History has shown it’s something like 6-9% of society is what is needed to basically turn public opinion and change everything entirely.
I’m not disagreeing with any of that except for that arguments like ‘Dan’s’ (by which you mean the same tired old gun-fetishists who say the same thing no matter what happens and which Dan lazily and crudely and uncritically repeated for no apparent reason) are even remotely valid. They may be useful in persuading stupid people of true conclusions because they sound like they are valid and encourage an emotive, tabloid response. Rhetorically, they have force. Logically, they are bullshit.
Call me idealistic if you must, but I think we can find ways to be both logical and rhetorically forceful at the same time.
Quote:
Addressing Your Response to the OP
Quote:
As I said on ILP at great length, I think the US fascination with guns is driven by pop culture and that the constitution is meaningless.
Sure, but you don’t live there, and the people that are going to supposedly bomb everyone in your scenario are people who do, and who believe in those things so… well let’s move on.
Quote:
I think the idea of resisting government tyranny through owning guns is ludicrous, both in principle and in practice
Sure, but everything in society is ludicrous. Every war call, at first glance, is logically absurd. It’s about the social reaction. Us talking about this is kind of weirdly both very dumbed down and simplified, but also very complex.
The social reaction has been ‘they wanna tek ma gurns’, from what I can see. Pretty dim, and not something I feel I can work with.
Quote:
Quote:
and that this myth about ‘every despot disarms the population’ is the sort of lie you could only get away with spreading in a country like the US where 99% of people are completely idiotic.
If I was a dictator I would do this. The basic logic behind it makes sense, even if ‘every one’ didn’t do it.
Whether the logic behind it makes sense or not is irrelevant, only whether dictators actually do this. Look at Saudi Arabia - clearly a dictatorship, yet they have pretty lax gun laws that aren’t really enforced and lots of private gun ownership. That’s the opposite to Britain, an elective democracy. In Russia there’s more private gun ownership than in Britain, but in North Korea there’s far, far less private gun ownership, indeed it is among the lowest in the world.
There’s no simple correlation between dictatorship and banning gun ownership. There just isn’t. Rather than making a judgment on the basis of something sounding right, I actually bothered to look:
gunpolicy.org/
All kinds of information from all over the world on, for example, private gun ownership vs. government gun ownership. There is no simple pattern that would sustain even your moderated position, let alone the ‘every dictatorship in history…’ crap that I objected to.
Quote:
Quote:
Furthermore, I think the US government wants the population to own guns rather than the opposite. After all, they do sod all to enforce gun laws and massively subsidise the companies that make the guns, no to mention overtly encourage black markets like drugs which provide a means, motive and opportunity for a huge black market in guns.
This is a fair point. But in the wake of Sandy Hook, if you say to someone 'Yea man, Let’s hand in our guns and watch some SNL," then, really nothing is accomplished other than in one more instance someone learns to just acquiesce to the government’s demands. Once again, this is about digging our heals in. Finding key instances to do that.
Your argument makes no sense. If the government isn’t trying to disarm people then giving up your guns is not acquiescing to their demands.
Quote:
Quote:
I think your claim of ‘every example’ is disingenuous because look at the US compared to the UK - far more guns in the US, far more deaths, far less guns in the UK, no greater government tyranny.
This is kind of another discussion. We can talk about if you want. I’m getting tired of typing and I feel like this will be long.
I’m not particularly interested in that conversation, save to say the real world does not conform to the fantasies of American conspiracy theorist gun-fetishists. It’s only because they are really fucking stupid and have no history that they believe it. What’s your excuse?
Quote:
Quote:
In short, I think the kneejerk conspiracy theorist attitude of some on the ‘Right’ towards mass shootings is just as exploitative and just as moronic and just as massively untrue as the kneejerk ‘ban the guns’ attitude of some on the ‘Left’. I think it’s an utterly stupid discussion in its present format that has nothing to do with facts, nothing to do with reality, and everything to do with encouraging Americans to ultimately destroy themselves and each other.
It’s all kneejerk. We’re down to the final chess moves here. People always say that people who always say the world is going to end are just some part of society that is always there – and maybe so – but we’re approaching the point where revolt will be impossible for a long time, until some like… Harry Potter or something is born 1000 years from now and upsets the system.
I don’t accept this.
Quote:
What would you say, ultimately, in the face of all this to the public?
“Meh… this discussion is pointless.”
All right I’ll turn my guns in then. Thanks tinfoil.
or
“Well, you shouldn’t but more to the point, you should look at gun ownership and gun violence in this way…”
Oh, interesting… maybe I’ll check out that article you mentioned.
I’d tell them what I’ve told people here - that the mainstream arguments around gun ownership are bullshit and a waste of everyone’s time, but that I’m not in favour of banning guns because of other reasons (some articulated by yourself and others on this thread). Simple enough, and doesn’t involve lying, making up stuff, glorifying guesswork about history and the present day, or acquiescing to stupidity in the name of reaching out to people.
Quote:
We need to get over seeing the public discussion as intellectually insulting or whatever. You gotta get up in that shit and just roll with it. Have a couple drinks. Get a buzz on and just grin and bear it. We need the public. We also need you.
I’m not interested in dumbing down what I have to say in order to reach more people. If you make that compromise then you just end up using the same means as the people you’re fighting against when they have much more money and infrastructure and are much more practiced and established. I’m happy to have a discussion about gun ownership and why it is important and what Americans should do, but I’m not willing to put up with arguments that I know to be untrue just because I agree with their conclusions.
Otherwise, what’s the point of even talking about it?
(12-31-2012 01:42 PM)Gobbo Wrote:
The plot seems to be going like this:
Take the guns - I don’t think we can disagree they want to do this. They keep throwing shooting after shooting at us. They really want it.
So why? - I think it’s so skyrocket the crime rate with riots and Battlefield Los Angeles type stuff so they can bring in Martial Law.
I disagree that they want to do this, for the reasons I have outlined in detail that no one has countered. Perhaps you should watch less movies and read more factual information.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-02-2013, 05:05 PM (This post was last modified: 01-02-2013 05:08 PM by Gobbo.) Post: #23
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: More Guns Equals Less Deaths.
Quote:
The social reaction has been ‘they wanna tek ma gurns’, from what I can see. Pretty dim, and not something I feel I can work with.
I think we have to try, though. That is to say: it is the reaction. And they do want to take the guns. I’ll come back to this when I address where or not America is being beyond saving.
Quote:
Whether the logic behind it makes sense or not is irrelevant,
Is it? Why? Because factually not every dictator has banned guns? I don’t really care about that. As long as some dictators have, then the story works. Now that I know the truth I’m obviously not going to lie on purpose but… I guess my point is this:
Do we need to be 100% factual about everything we say to a populace that clearly doesn’t give a fuck about facts? I’m comfortable with the high 90’s.
Quote:
I’m not disagreeing with any of that except for that arguments like ‘Dan’s’ (by which you mean the same tired old gun-fetishists who say the same thing no matter what happens and which Dan lazily and crudely and uncritically repeated for no apparent reason) are even remotely valid.
Those types of arguments needs to be injected into this discussions for the public to hear. Again. And Again. That is to say, the whole gun law issue is fucking absurd in the first place and it can be reduced to that one argument.
Quote:
Rhetorically, they have force. Logically, they are bullshit.
Quote:
Call me idealistic if you must, but I think we can find ways to be both logical and rhetorically forceful at the same time.
This will be the main issue with forming our identity here. Probably the smartest thing XZC ever said to me before he became boring was that I/we need to make all of this entertaining because no one will care otherwise. Alex Jones uses fear and craziness to be successful, we need to find our niche. I don’t claim to know what it is. I would like logic to be heavily involved. When I wrote my article I thought it was fairly indicative of what we were trying to achieve. Kind a creative refusal to dumb ourselves down.
Quote:
All kinds of information from all over the world on, for example, private gun ownership vs. government gun ownership. There is no simple pattern that would sustain even your moderated position, let alone the ‘every dictatorship in history…’ crap that I objected to.
What I’m striving for is to be strategic. It’s not persuasive saying to people in a rhetorical war ‘Well, um, technically there is no pattern…’ If I’m basically trying to mess with their plans, I’m trying to educate people - yes - but with facts that will bring them to my side of the debate.
Quote:
If the government isn’t trying to disarm people then giving up your guns is not acquiescing to their demands.
The government is trying to disarm people. I know you think they can just nuke everyone and like I said, that is certainly true…but they want all the guns. The society they want will have no private gun ownership. I’ll explain this more in a second.
Quote:
I’m not particularly interested in that conversation, save to say the real world does not conform to the fantasies of American conspiracy theorist gun-fetishists.
I feel like you think it’s these hicks who can’t use Google. I’ve seen the stats to back all these arguments. Well it’s basically the same stat anyway: the UK has more violent crime than any other nation except Australia. Also, the UK has more cameras pointed at people than (I think) any other nation on earth. And a culture that revolves around subservience to a family.
Quote:
It’s only because they are really fucking stupid and have no history that they believe it. What’s your excuse?
Like I said… the UK is a fountain of violence. I don’t know what you want me to say, every example I looked at reflected what I wrote. Everything I’ve seen about the UK is ‘worst in Europe’ ‘top 5 most violent nations in the world’ etc. I am wrong here, or… is it the case that there are no guns in the UK, and it’s also really violent?
Quote:
I don’t accept this.
Well, it might not be 1000. And I’m thinking more of an Aeon Flux type thing now.
Quote:
I’m not interested in dumbing down what I have to say in order to reach more people.
There is a difference between dumbing a statement down, and making it universally palpable. Actually… I don’t know if there is.
Quote:
I disagree that they want to do this, for the reasons I have outlined in detail that no one has countered. Perhaps you should watch less movies and read more factual information.
This is maybe something for a new thread, but the gun represents the phallus, and the NWO is all about emasculating males. It’s not something they want anyone to have in the new world. What I’m referring to is a form of power beyond the level of a war playing out, and the logistics of how you could drop a nuke on the public. I’ve said that several times now. This is about the symbolism behind owning a gun, and that is especially true in the US, where it’s even more a part of the culture. That culture has to be destroyed.
You disagree because you cited a few historic examples where dictators haven’t taken guns? Please keep going… I require more. Before we continue you should explain, in full detail, why you believe that this envisioned society they have will be one where people are cruising around with conceal and carry.
I’m actually quite surprised you think this.
Quote:
I think this is extremely one-sided and simplistic. There’s no such thing as ‘the American psyche’. Almost all of the Americans I’ve met have been weak-minded, lazy, nasty idiots. That’s nothing to be proud of or for the rest of the world to emulate.
And your reaction here makes me think you’re going about this the wrong way. There is America, the literal place, where you go there and it’s dirty. But then there is the idea of America. Just here in this couple sentences you’re conflating the idea of the society found in the constitution with what has transpired after 100 years (exactly this 2013) of Britain taking over the fed and co-opting the society into a shitty one.
Logistically, America is already dead, and yes, they could just nuke everyone. Taking over the world is more than that. In a way, the people have to accept it, and be somewhat aware that they are themselves fucking themselves over. It cannot be some military takeover. It has to be through crushing the USA into the physical and social chaos that will give rise to the New World.
“I said I was going to get to your calls but…look.”
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-07-2013, 01:43 AM Post: #24
BigTom Offline
Anarcho-beardist
Posts: 251
Joined: Dec 2012
RE: More Guns Equals Less Deaths.
(01-02-2013 05:05 PM)Gobbo Wrote:
Quote:
Whether the logic behind it makes sense or not is irrelevant,
Is it? Why? Because factually not every dictator has banned guns? I don’t really care about that. As long as some dictators have, then the story works. Now that I know the truth I’m obviously not going to lie on purpose but… I guess my point is this:
Do we need to be 100% factual about everything we say to a populace that clearly doesn’t give a fuck about facts? I’m comfortable with the high 90’s.
Sadly, you don’t have facts in the high 90s. Students in the US are taught in civics class that Hitler banned guns. He actually liberalised the existing laws, with the notable exception of gun ownership for Jews (who most of these same gun-loving, civics-class-quoting Americans think were secretly running Nazi Germany).
While we may not need to be 100% factual, repeating inaccurate bullshit will make us look very, very, very stupid. By all means make the argument that in the US, here and now, the effort to reduce or eliminate private gun ownership is a move towards dictatorship, but don’t extrapolate backwards from that and re-invent history.
Quote:
Quote:
I’m not disagreeing with any of that except for that arguments like ‘Dan’s’ (by which you mean the same tired old gun-fetishists who say the same thing no matter what happens and which Dan lazily and crudely and uncritically repeated for no apparent reason) are even remotely valid.
Those types of arguments needs to be injected into this discussions for the public to hear. Again. And Again. That is to say, the whole gun law issue is fucking absurd in the first place and it can be reduced to that one argument.
This trivialises what you are claiming is an issue of fundamental, if symbolic, importance.
Quote:
Quote:
Call me idealistic if you must, but I think we can find ways to be both logical and rhetorically forceful at the same time.
This will be the main issue with forming our identity here. Probably the smartest thing XZC ever said to me before he became boring was that I/we need to make all of this entertaining because no one will care otherwise. Alex Jones uses fear and craziness to be successful, we need to find our niche. I don’t claim to know what it is. I would like logic to be heavily involved. When I wrote my article I thought it was fairly indicative of what we were trying to achieve. Kind a creative refusal to dumb ourselves down.
And it is a strong article. I am coming round to the feeling that drama, the narrative form, is the best way for me. I am good at coming up with stories and writing them. I do keep coming back to the fact that, despite the modest success of my films, I could do so much more with the material at my disposal. What these disagreements do help with is us coming to terms with that particular problem and try to figure out how to solve it.
Quote:
Quote:
All kinds of information from all over the world on, for example, private gun ownership vs. government gun ownership. There is no simple pattern that would sustain even your moderated position, let alone the ‘every dictatorship in history…’ crap that I objected to.
What I’m striving for is to be strategic. It’s not persuasive saying to people in a rhetorical war ‘Well, um, technically there is no pattern…’ If I’m basically trying to mess with their plans, I’m trying to educate people - yes - but with facts that will bring them to my side of the debate.
And I think that if you’re intentionally going to deploy facts that you know do not tell the whole story that you have to be very careful in what you logically deduce from those facts, lest you accidentally contribute to achieving the opposite to your desired effect.
Quote:
Quote:
If the government isn’t trying to disarm people then giving up your guns is not acquiescing to their demands.
The government is trying to disarm people. I know you think they can just nuke everyone and like I said, that is certainly true…but they want all the guns. The society they want will have no private gun ownership. I’ll explain this more in a second.
I’m not really disputing that their ideal society would be one where the state enjoys a total monopoly over the just use of violence. But I’m also aware that if they do want to destroy the US as a superpower, to sacrifice it as a means of bringing out an even more international framework of government than exists already, then letting the people have their guns and shoot each other en masse with them is a very convenient way of doing it. Reminiscent of the French Revolution, in fact.
Quote:
Quote:
I’m not particularly interested in that conversation, save to say the real world does not conform to the fantasies of American conspiracy theorist gun-fetishists.
I feel like you think it’s these hicks who can’t use Google. I’ve seen the stats to back all these arguments. Well it’s basically the same stat anyway: the UK has more violent crime than any other nation except Australia. Also, the UK has more cameras pointed at people than (I think) any other nation on earth. And a culture that revolves around subservience to a family.
It depends on what you mean by violent crime, and how you interpret the statistics. Curiously, when I looked up that thing about being second only to Australia what first came up was a Daily Mail article. The Daily Mail is basically written to agitate people in useful directions. Their fundamental story is ‘it’s all going to hell in a hand basket’, both in the specific article and in general across their coverage of everything. That is the position they occupy with regards to everything.
The Daily Mail is also the chief newspaper devoted to flattering coverage of the Royal Family. Now, why do you think those two things - massive obsession with portraying Britain as falling apart and relentless promotion of the Royals - would go together? I’m sure you already know without me having to articulate it.
Now, the statistics are a decade out of date but the article says:
Quote:
According to the figures released yesterday, 3.6 per cent of the population of England and Wales were victims of violent crime in 1999 - second only to Australia, where the figure was 4.1 per cent.
Scotland had a slightly lower rate of violence, at 3.4 per cent.
In the U.S., only 2 per cent of the population suffered an assault or robbery.
There is no nuance in these stats, it’s simply a percentage of the population who suffered from a specific group of crimes. If, for example, the assaults in Scotland were more savage than those in England then these stats wouldn’t reflect that. Nor would your repeating of them.
Now, there is a problem in this country with young people getting very drunk and getting into fights. It happens in every reasonable sized town and city on every weekend. There are many shows devoted to glamourising this, and in particular glamourising the police response to this whereby the offending parties are treated with total contempt. Obviously they pick the dumbest, drunkest, most noisy examples to put in the broadcast shows. Basically the same thing as the Daily Mail coverage.
As to the CCTV - the study that gets most widely quoted in the sources of news that I know you read is immensely flawed. It took a sample from a busy street in London (where there is fuckloads of CCTV) and assumed the rest of the country was the same, when it really isn’t. My normal day does not include being captured by CCTV, with the possible exception of the privately-owned CCTV in certain shops which I don’t find at all unreasonable. It’s their shop, their stock, if they want to point a camera at it then they can, just as if I want to wear a hat and deliberately take a route through the shop that means I won’t be recognisable then I can.
Quote:
Quote:
It’s only because they are really fucking stupid and have no history that they believe it. What’s your excuse?
Like I said… the UK is a fountain of violence. I don’t know what you want me to say, every example I looked at reflected what I wrote. Everything I’ve seen about the UK is ‘worst in Europe’ ‘top 5 most violent nations in the world’ etc. I am wrong here, or… is it the case that there are no guns in the UK, and it’s also really violent?
It isn’t really violent. Seriously violent crimes are relatively uncommon, though the Daily Mail makes sure to report on as many as possible in as lurid detail as possible. There is a lot of petty drunken fighting. It has nothing to do with banning guns. This is what I mean about having to be careful about what you deduce from partial readings of statistics.
Quote:
Quote:
I disagree that they want to do this, for the reasons I have outlined in detail that no one has countered. Perhaps you should watch less movies and read more factual information.
This is maybe something for a new thread, but the gun represents the phallus, and the NWO is all about emasculating males. It’s not something they want anyone to have in the new world. What I’m referring to is a form of power beyond the level of a war playing out, and the logistics of how you could drop a nuke on the public. I’ve said that several times now. This is about the symbolism behind owning a gun, and that is especially true in the US, where it’s even more a part of the culture. That culture has to be destroyed.
You disagree because you cited a few historic examples where dictators haven’t taken guns? Please keep going… I require more. Before we continue you should explain, in full detail, why you believe that this envisioned society they have will be one where people are cruising around with conceal and carry.
Look at the European monarchies. Every one a dictatorship in the modern sense of the word, and hardly any of them banned guns. It may be a big symbolic issue in the here and now in the US, but that doesn’t mean it was always the same everywhere else, or even most of the time in most other places. I’ve given you examples. Now you give me some examples of how governments have banned gun ownership as a means of promoting, establishing or enhancing dictatorship.
There’s a big distinction to make between their ideal society and their method for getting there. In looking at what they are trying to do in the here and now I look at their actual behaviour, and that tells me they want US citizens to have guns. My guess is that their aim is to induce some kind of violent anarchy that will reduce the population, and thus excuse a massive rearrangement of America’s place in the order of things.
Quote:
Quote:
I think this is extremely one-sided and simplistic. There’s no such thing as ‘the American psyche’. Almost all of the Americans I’ve met have been weak-minded, lazy, nasty idiots. That’s nothing to be proud of or for the rest of the world to emulate.
And your reaction here makes me think you’re going about this the wrong way. There is America, the literal place, where you go there and it’s dirty. But then there is the idea of America. Just here in this couple sentences you’re conflating the idea of the society found in the constitution with what has transpired after 100 years (exactly this 2013) of Britain taking over the fed and co-opting the society into a shitty one.
Britain didn’t take over the Fed. That’s just another simplified myth of the lazy ‘alternative media’.
Quote:
Logistically, America is already dead, and yes, they could just nuke everyone. Taking over the world is more than that. In a way, the people have to accept it, and be somewhat aware that they are themselves fucking themselves over. It cannot be some military takeover. It has to be through crushing the USA into the physical and social chaos that will give rise to the New World.
And people owning guns is a vital part of that chaos. If they didn’t, then how do you get the blood in front of the cameras that shocks people in accepting a more formal dictatorship? What better excuse to ban guns in one fell swoop than widespread shootings? That’s the revolutionary method. The incremental method would be loads of small shootings and steady passing of legislation to limit gun ownership. Indeed, Bush II passed legislation making it easier to get guns, but increasing the profiling of those who were buying them. That could be used as part of either the incremental or the revolutionary strategy.
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-13-2013, 07:30 AM Post: #25
Gobbo Offline
.:
Posts: 406
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 6
RE: More Guns Equals Less Deaths.
Quote:
This trivialities what you are claiming is an issue of fundamental, if symbolic, importance.
Yes. Fair enough. I agree that for our purposes we should be as intellectually rigorous as possible, but I’m saying part of our purpose is dissecting what needs to be said to the general population of our friends, and family, etc. I don’t come at them with the complex stuff. Sometimes in simplification obviously there is some minor distortion that occurs.
Quote:
The Daily Mail
Cameras
Look I get your point about sourcing, most of the info I’m basing my opinions on come from the Harvard article I cited in the article. We don’t need to focus on the UK specifically.
Quote:
Now you give me some examples of how governments have banned gun ownership as a means of promoting, establishing or enhancing dictatorship.
That isn’t my point though. My point is that they are clearly trying to do that now. If you do not see that trend in the media then I find that kind of crazy.
Either that, or something else is going on. I think I’m going to start a new thread.