The ultimate outcome of all leftist initiatives and endeavors, whether deliberately or obliviously, is the redistribution of power from the people to the state (under the pretext of serving the latter). The anti-gun movement is no different. The goal of the anti-gun agenda is to remove the peoples' power to defend themselves, making them completely dependent upon the state for their defense, thereby giving the state profound leverage over them. When the state provides a service or benefit on which it has a monopoly, it may naturally impose provisos upon receiving the services or benefits it provides, knowing full well the people have no choice but to accept the loss of liberty along with the service or do without (and that most will choose the former rather than suffer the latter). As I've said for many years. There's a reason it's called the "Declaration of Independence," and not the Declaration of Partial Dependence. Dependence comes at the cost of freedom, and freedom comes at the cost of dependence. In order to be free of King George and Britain, the Founders had to separate themselves from all the benefits thereof, in addition to the burdens. They could not serve half a king. You either take the bad with the good or nothing at all. And this is a concept lost on modern America and essentially all of occidental society. Only in the benighted mind of Socialist morons is such coercion by the state "freedom." But that's the trade many Americans, as a result of decades of brainwashing, are now willing to make, indeed demand we all make, and ever more vociferously at that. They want to trade power and freedom for the illusion of "safety," something that does not, never has, and never will truly exist in the real world. They trade the power and freedom of self-defense, for the promise of safety from a state whose average response time is 10 minutes. The shootings at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School prove what every other "mass shooting" has before it. Those who consign responsibility for their safety into the hands of others do so at their own peril; no one will ever care about your safety as much as you. 17 people who relied upon the govenrment to save them are now acquainted with that fact; i.e., dead. The police (government) saved no one. (And it's now come out even stood by and did nothing.) The shooter, who could have killed many more if he wished, left the scene and went to both Subway and McDonald's before being apprehended. This is the circumstance leftists want to impose upon us all; one in which we're all equally helpless and in which the primary role of police is to secure and identify our bodies. I could not care less about the good intentions of leftists or high school students. History is replete with examples of genocide perpetrated, or at the very least directly facilitated, by a highly vocal and stupid contingent of people with the best of intentions. High School students know nothing about anything and their opinions are worthless. They're children, typically not even old enough to vote, and have no business making assertions upon the validity of my rights. I don't give a damn how often they're paraded on the TV, or how many of them congregate to lie on the ground like retards in front of the White House. Tyranny out of ignorance is tyranny none the less, and should be resisted in identical fashion. Some people may think me being hyperbolic above, when I said "the ultimate outcome of all leftist initiatives and endeavors, is the redistribution of power from the people to the state." But anyone can merely look to countries like Britain, in which civilian gun ownership has been banned, to see me vindicated.
Yes, that's a real image, taken from the NPCC's (National Police Chiefs' Council) website folks. I don't make these things up. So in Europe you have 3 options when faced with an imminent life threat. Run (and hope your attacker leads an even more sedentary life than you). Hide, which, if your attacker is after you specifically, would almost certainly never work. Pull out your phone and call someone so they can hear your final, frantic screams as your attacker takes your life, and someone knows to come identify and collect your body.
So, in case you haven't figured it out yet, "Run/Hide/Tell" = "Flee/Cower/Die." And one can't help but notice the inherently condescending nature of the image; i.e., this is what you would instruct a group of kindergartners to do in an emergency situation. It's quite revealing, in that it conveys the matriarchal disposition of the state (and the leftists that run it) toward its people, and the parental (authoritarian) posture it assumes if allowed. You don't need a gun in Europe, because Europe's anti-gun laws and the state, will keep you safe. Except when they don't. As seen in France which, despite having strict gun laws that require permitting and impose ammo caps, still has gun violence.
American leftists want us to adopt laws like those of Europe which still resulted in 60 people murdered in France. So let it simply be asked, if mass shootings and acts of violence that kill more people than the incident in Las Vegas still occur despite stricter gun laws, then what purpose do such laws serve save to diminish the freedom of law abiding citizens? What other purpose could they serve when, as the image openly concedes, firearm attacks are "rare?" Leftists upon reading/hearing that will naturally employ the sophistry that gun violence is "rare" in Europe because of strict gun laws that reduce wide scale access to firearms. But this is utterly refuted by real world evidence, e.g., that gun violence is far greater in countries in which gun ownership/accessibility is far less prevalent.
The graphic above illustrates the argument that greater abundance, and/or access to guns, induces gun violence utterly fallacious. The standard leftist response to this will be to argue that's only true in non-developed (i.e., "shithole") countries. In developed (i.e., non-"shithole") countries, like Britain, France, et al. (basically anywhere pretentious Europeans convoke), lower instances of gun crime are a direct result of strict gun laws. And now I'm going to tell you why that's abject malarkey. The lower rates of gun violence in "developed" (i.e., non-"shithole") countries is not a product of their strict gun laws, but rather a pervasive culture of deference induced by Europe's emasculating matriarchal Socialist states. In other words it's a product of a culture in which the citizenry, as a result of decades of guns being anathematized in conjunction with assiduous inculcation that "violence never solves anything," is largely if not wholly unwilling to pick up arms in self-defense and looks entirely to the state for such. And that disposition has been proven one the biggest contributing factors to mass murder, much of which has been perpetrated with guns, in human history. A people terrified of guns who believe violence never solves anything, and are consequently unwilling to pick up arms in self-defense, is a totalitarian state's wet dream. The most egregious instances of mass murder in human history were perpetrated at the hands of armed governments. Not armed civilians. As I've said forever, even could you achieve a complete ban of firearms (you can't), all that would do is result in a drastic rise in the number of knife murders, or something else as murderers simply found some alternative means to go about killing others. Like running them over in automobiles for example.
There were no interviews with the doleful relatives of Sayfullo Saypov's victims to my recollection. We weren't deluged with pictures of the dead by a media engaging in disingenuous memorials. There were no "lie ins" at the white house. No one blamed the truck, and demanded that "assault vehicles" be banned, because a society without automobiles is worth it if is "saves just one life." No, when you shoot someone the gun is to blame. But conversely, if you drive over them in a truck, the operator of the truck is inexplicably to blame. Why? Because, as I've long said, no one ever deposed a tyrannical state with a pickup truck. So, let's hope you can outrun an automobile, folks. Because that's one of the 3 equally dismal options that will be available to you if the Communists of the left have their way. You don't "need" a gun. You should cower in fear waiting to die, looking only to the state for your protection, like a good slave.
I'm always thrilled when people recognize that the left is evil. But the insistence upon refusing to acknowledge what "liberals" really are remains a constant source of annoyance for me. "Feminist" is a euphemism, as with all other leftist derived labels, meant to conceal what the person using that label is and what they really believe and want. The correct definition of "feminist" is "a female Socialist." And that much should be obvious from their modus operandi even did they not openly proclaim it.
"Women workers play a key role in assuring an alliance of the women’s movement with the working class, while nationally oppressed women play such a role in the alliance with the nationally oppressed. There are long-standing and growing relationships and coalition partnering between the main women’s organizations, the labor movement, and other major progressive organizations." - Communist Party USA, The Road to Socialism USA, unity for peace, democracy, jobs and equality.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you accept the deceptive nomenclature, you accept the premise, and if you accept the premise you've already conceded the point and therefore lost the debate. You cannot win an argument by affirming and acknowledging your opponent to be the good guy (obliviously or otherwise). Because if Socialists are "liberals," and you concede that point by accepting the label, then what does that necessarily make you? This is why one will find I essentially never refer to Socialists as "liberals," "progressives," etc. The only time I use these words is in quotations, because that's what other people call them, and often purely to illustrate why they shouldn't be called such. There is nothing "liberal" about the people who call themselves such. So why do people, allegedly on the right, continue calling them by that name? The first thing leftists do when seeking to advance any portion of their agenda is change the label. There's a reason they refer to illegal immigrants as "undocumented workers." To use the former term would be to concede its criminality, and that they're supporting a criminal enterprise. This perception is effectively neutralized in a large portion of the populace by simply substituting a euphemism in its place. There's a reason the bill referred to as "Obamacare" was called the "Affordable Care Act" and not the "Socialist Restructuring of American Health Care Act." The latter would be far harder to market and support in a society that still largely views the term "Socialism," much like "illegal," with negative connotations. And thus it's labeled euphemistically, i.e., deceptively, as something with a positive connotation for the purposes of moral inversion. The "Socialist Restructuring of Health Care" would have elicited significant backlash; even many of the most uninformed Americans will be reluctant to support something with that label attached. But who's against "affordable health care?" Such misappellation is part of a deliberate, multi-pronged strategy. If you oppose the bill, it allows its proponents to vilify you as an opponent of "affordable health care" (the rhetorical purpose), as opposed to being an opponent of Socialist medicine (it's tactile purpose). As in the past I'll illustrate it analogously thus. Misappellation is to the body politic what an immunosuppressant is to the human body. The body's (society's) immune system (defenders) can't fight off an invasive pathogen (subversive element) it doesn't recognize as an invasive entity. And Socialists refer to themselves as "liberals," for example, precisely for this purpose. Socialists are trying to supplant our Constitutional Republican with a Democratic, or even totalitarian, state. That's treason. "Liberals" however, as moron John McCain so often opined during his presidential bid, are just Americans with a differing opinion on matters of polity. The latter will never induce the sort of austere counter-revolutionary sentiment requisite to impede or reverse subversion. That's the point; that's why they do it. "Liberals" will never be viewed, as they should be, like the perfidious Rosenbergs.
It must be understood, that euphemism is ultimately a form of lying, that being deliberately prevaricative it's inherently evil, that it's employed to introduce harmful elements to the body politic, and that when you adopt such terminology and use it yourself you become complicit and guilty of facilitating that agenda. If the people who claim to be on the political right can't understand that, then they're doomed to perpetual and consummate failure. Period. It's a common thing in "modern" America to see "feminists" urging women to adopt mens' interests, conduct, and vocations; to compete with men in those spheres traditionally or more commonly pervaded by men. The inherent presumption in this disposition being there's no difference between the genders, physiologically or otherwise (indeed gender doesn't exist at all), and that women therefore should want and do the same things as men, and that they, being "equal," will do them equally well. It also inherently diminishes those behaviors and activities deemed traditionally feminine. So in the deluded mind of a Socialist, a movement that establishes men as the standard for women's conduct, is somehow a pro-woman movement. Making a living baking pastries, or child rearing, is frowned upon. A woman should want a career in an office cubicle or roasting in the summer heat as a roofer; because that's what men do. No regard is given to whether or not mention actually like or want to do such things, or merely do them out of obligation, or accounting for the evidence that such presumptions are having a deleterious affect on women.
Turns out a great many women are apparently unhappy trying to be like men, and that the perhaps most significant contribution of "feminism" to women, is redistributing the discontentment of men trapped in dreary and monotonous perfunctory labor for life to women (along with their vices). The problem with the notion that women should compete with men is that they can't, or refuse to, often because they simply have differing interests and wants in life than men (god forbid). So "feminists" seek to restrain the latter, often through government regulation, to the benefit of the former in typical Socialist fashion. You see, a woman even on her best day can only ever hope to be an inferior man (and vice versa), and therefore "feminists" (Socialists) seek to elevate the former and diminish the latter through the state. Which, to any thinking person, is an inadvertent admission of inferiority. If you need "assistance" to be competitive with men you are necessarily "unequal" to them.
As I've observed for many years, and posted on my social media even recently.
"I love how leftists accuse Conservatives of looking down on women and ethnic minorities, when virtually all leftists overtly believe that being female or black is a type of disability." - Me, October 18, 2017.
And wouldn't you know it, not long after posting this, I was once again vindicated.
That, right there, is the fruit of modern "feminism." Women, like black Americans, being imbrued with an intransigent inferiority complex. But what should be more concerning to us all is to whom they look to mitigate and abolish this perceived inequity.
The (often oblivious) empowerment of the state as a means of empowering themselves is one of the most conspicuous signs of a Socialist endeavor. As is the focus on group rights over individual rights, and the argument "inequality" persists perennially as a result of "institutional" prejudice. I've said for years that the parallels between "feminism," the modern day black, and "homosexual" rights movements plainly illustrate the Socialist origin and/or nature of each. They all organize, galvanize, and subsume the individual into a hyper political group or party in which individualism is profoundly diminished (if not effaced). There is no individual "woman" any longer, entitled to individual rights, upon acceding to the "feminist" ethos. There is only the Socialist collective of "women." And if you deviate from the ideological homogeneity of said collective you're womanhood itself is questioned, and even your humanity, as grounds for treating you as though you have no rights. You will either adhere to the Socialist women's platform, and adhere to its codes of acceptable conduct and speech, or you will be excommunicated, denied the privileges of membership, and subjected to the full brunt of its ire. Period. You see the same thing happening to black Americans who deviate from the Socialist platform on "race;" they're shunned and ruthlessly harassed and attacked as not "really black."
My allusions to religion above are not unintentional. Any thinking person would see the abject similarity between these so called "modern," and "secular" movements ostensibly fighting the antiquated bigotry and intolerance of Judeo-Christian gender roles, and be nauseated by the irony.
All leftists are the epitome of that which they purport to oppose, and as we see here, "feminists" are no different. They're opposed to "misogynistic" theism, at least when they're not supporting it. Women now have all the rights enjoyed by men, as do black Americans have all the rights of white Americans. So why then do these movements still exist? Simply, to empower government; perhaps the most flagrant evidence of its Socialist origin and nature. Everywhere you see "equality" movements, whether it be for blacks, women, or sexual deviants, the primary means by which they seek and impose their notion of equality is through (typically unconstitutional) legislative or judicial action. Far from these movements dissipating, and eventually expiring after achieving their ostensible goals, they simply began finding more, new, and ever more frivolous things as "proof" of inequity and justification to continue their crusade for "equality" ("equality," as seen above, being an inherently Marxist concept.); e.g., the illusory gender "pay gap."
As long stated, by me, no two men queried on the street would have the same pay. There's no such thing as parity in pay even among men. The notion that entire groups of people would have economic parity is farcical, Marxist drivel, explicitly proclaimed by the Communist party's own website.
"The Communist Party has made key contributions to the working class struggle of the United States, building industrial unions, organizing for rights on the job and for a social safety net, opposing racism and bigotry and pointing the way toward full political, social andeconomic equality, upholding democratic rights against the threat of fascism and the far right-wing, and supporting international working class solidarity against imperialist globalization and for peace." - Communist Party USA, The Road to Socialism USA, unity for peace, democracy, jobs and equality.
Read that again, and pay particular attention to the fourth line which I've highlighted for you, in which the Communist party states it seeks "political, social and economic equality." And then let's look at the definition of "feminism."
Hmmm. Notice anything? So, basically, "feminism" is Marxism. Now listen to imbecile Katie Couric on "feminism."
One can only marvel at the irony of a woman worth 55 million dollars, more than 99% of humanity, speaking about "economic equality." But such is the abject stupidity endemic to "feminism" and all subsets of the Socialist agenda. Katie Couric, just like Colin Kaepernik, actually thinks she's oppressed. I would like for Katie and the morons like her, to explain to me why she is worth twice as much as Colin, in a society in which women are not paid as much as men. They would no doubt respond with intimations of racial disparity, ignoring the fact Katie makes more than most of the white men on the planet also. This is now a common thing in America. Most American women have been intellectually subverted, and it's repugnantly common to hear American women puking the Communist platform, and referring to it as "feminism." For a woman to say "I am a feminist," is tantamount to saying "I am a Socialist." And rather than being confronted and corrected, it's simply tolerated by emasculated or profligate men, in the hope that coddling this insidious stupidity and perfidy will be rewarded with a relationship or sex. The argument from female Socialists they want equal pay for the same work is fallacious tripe. Federal law already generally proscribes "discrimination" based upon sex (which precludes disparate pay rates based upon such), and these lot invariably fail to account for the disparity in hours worked by men and women or the discretion employers have in raising pay. It's well known that women on average work less hours than men and as such make less money overall. It's natural to assume as such that men, typically putting in more hours, will on average more often receive raises and bonuses in addition to greater base pay. In a free society what an employee is paid would be strictly between himself and his employer, predicated upon a slew of factors such as education, experience, ability, etc. But for "feminists" there's only one factor for determining pay; gender. And to whom are "feminists" looking for a solution to the imaginary "pay gap?" The state. Neither employers are employees are empowered. Rather, government is empowered under the pretext of mitigating or abolishing illusory inequities, in perfect conformity with the Marxist paradigm illustrated above. The gender "pay gap" is proof that if no legitimate example of inequity exists Socialists will simply will fabricate one. (Just as groups like BLM fabricate false examples of "racism" to the same end.) Because the true goal was always empowering government. That's why these movements persist based upon progressively more tenuous, if not farcical pretexts, long after their nascent rhetorical goals were met, and will continue to persist, forever, so long as they're tolerated. The people in them are merely pawns, sold the lie of "equality" by Socialist subversives, whose agenda is directly facilitated by the myopic pursuit of privileges exclusive to their own group. Each group looks to the state, and the Socialist bureaucrats who pander to them as the means to reify their psychotic world view, and interminably confer to it and them ever more power to that end. And none of these groups care about the liberty of the others, and least of all, the individual.
Daisy Cousens gives a superb account of the intellectual dishonesty and abject hypocrisy inherent to the "feminist" (Socialist) movement. Daisy's crime is being an individual, i.e., nonconformity with the Socialist platform, and choosing her worldview and affiliations based upon existential, objective, and physiological truths, as opposed to rhetorical, subjective, and quixotic ideals that benefit a group and the state. Daisy may not judge, or shame women in the "feminist" movement, because these are rights Socialists/feminists reserve for themselves exclusively. If Daisy does these things she's a terrible human being, but when a "feminist" (Socialist) does it - and often do they do it - they're by contrast freedom fighters; so it's okay. It's abhorrent for someone to "body shame" or "slut shame" others. But the same people who construe such as a form of social atrocity have no qualms whatsoever about judging and shaming those in disparity with their own ethos, socio-political, and physical standards for what's acceptable. So again, in closing, I ask. Being that "feminists" are not "pro-femininity" in any way, but rather aggressively promote androgyny (the assumption of masculine attributes by women), and even regularly exhibit an almost palpable loathing of femininity. Why are they incessantly called "feminists" by the those who claim to be on the right? What good does it do us, or anyone, to euphemize Communism and do the Communist party's propagandizing for them?
