AGENDAS: The Primary Factor Needed to Establishing Tyranny

I had to step out of a ‘debate’ over gun control today.  I have gotten better at doing this.  I still cannot handle irrational and intellectually dishonest people, but at least I have learned to step away from them.  However, I learned something very important thanks to this ‘debate.’  Maybe ‘learned’ is not the best word, as I have known about and its connection to helping tyrants rise to power for a while.  What made this discussion different is how clearly I saw the problem, and how well I understood how and why it works.  This time, I came face-to-face with the primary factor needed to establish tyranny.

I was ‘debating’ gun control with several people, at least two of whom live in England.  The first thing that struck me is that the two Englishmen were not only the stronger advocates for gun control, but had no qualms at all in assuming a position of superiority in preaching to the Americans in the discussion.  But then I realized that very few people learn from history, and that it is their heritage to think they understand individual rights and liberty better than Americans.  But their ignorance of history didn’t stop here.

When I tried to show them what has happened in English and European history because the people surrendered their arms, they acted as though I had no right to remind them of any of that.  One guy even told me he was offended at the mention of the NAZI’s.  They then launched into a rant about how the statistics show America has out o control gun violence, and that the numbers showing England has far more violent crime in general were faked.  I tried to explain they were wrong by showing them the FBI and CDC numbers on gun control and gun violence, and how they have been used to deceive people.  Then I found an “apples-to-apples” story that explained that England does — in fact — have at least triple the violent crime rate of America.  The response was typical: they rejected the official U.S> government numbers — except where they have been used to ‘prove’ higher gun violence in America — and then rejected the apples-to-apples data showing England is more violent on the whole.  In short, they were irrational and intellectually dishonest.

At this point, i tried another approach.  I asked them — if gun control works — why are gun deaths so high in Chicago, and why did violent crime go up in Australia?  The answer was predictable.  In Chicago, they claimed gun deaths came down because of gun control (the statistics prove the exact opposite, but they rejected that).  But the response to Australia is when the fog cleared for me.  One of the gun control advocates conceded that all violent crime went up in Australia, as it does in most places where guns are banned, but then asked if I would agree that this is better because gun crime goes down?  It was at this point I realized they were afraid of guns — inanimate objects.

So I started asking them why they were afraid of a thing.  It took time, but they eventually revealed it was not just the gun they feared, but anyone with a gun — unless they were connected to the government.  Again, this is totally irrational.  In fact, the entire gun control side of this discussion — as it usually seems to be — was filled with fallacious reasoning.  That was what I saw so clearly for the first time.  Blind fear removes a person’s ability to reason.  So, if you can create that blind fear in them, then it is a small thing to push them over the edge into panic.  At that point, normally reasonable people will run to anyone they think will offer safety, and all would-be and want-to-be tyrants know this.

Obama and the American Progressives know this, too.  They have been trying to create the necessary blind fear in Americans for decades.  Whether it is over civil rights, racism and fear of the police, or mass shootings, patriots and gun control, it doesn’t matter.  All that matters is they create blind, irrational fear in enough people that they can then cease on or even create a crisis which will then allow them to convince people to surrender that which they couldn’t have otherwise taken by force — their individual rights and liberty.  And that reminded me of a quote that now rings in my mind with more power than it has ever had before:

”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”

–Benjamin Franklin

[NOTE: one of the few — if not only things that separates man from the animals is the ability to make moral determinations between given actions.  If we allow fear or other emotions cloud our judgment, we move closer to being animals.  At the point where we lose all ability to apply our reason over our basic instincts, then we have returned to being animals.  It is at this point where anyone who still retains the ability to reason can and will seize control over you.  If an entire nation devolves to such a point, then the entire nation will fall into slavery.  It has happened throughout history.  It may take different forms, but the principles, the fundamentals of how it happens are the same — every time.  The only defense against it is to cling to reason and to use it to guide our choices.  The right thing is not always what is best for us as individuals, yet it is still the right thing.  It is when men cease to be able to chose the right thing over themselves that man returns to being an animal — at which point, society fails and the only law that matters is the law of ‘might makes right…“]


9 thoughts on “AGENDAS: The Primary Factor Needed to Establishing Tyranny

  1. Here is a classic example of why the gun control side of this debate is irrational. Th is is from that same thread I was part of:

    “You can make guns and murder both ‘illegal’ The difference is you can make guns unavailable to all, both ‘good guys’ and criminals. Very simply if there are no guns, there are no guns for bad guys to obtain illegally or legally. To argue ‘only bad guys will have guns if possession is illegal’ implies guns will still be available. Murder in itself is not an object, it is an action, and can’t be controlled in the same way.”

    This person honestly believes they can rid the entire world of guns. They also believe that a gun is a thing, and that they can totally control things. It never once enters into this person’s mind that, if he is going to admit that he cannot control the action of murder, then he cannot control the action of gun production. Even if he makes all guns illegal — world wide — people will still make them. The only solution he has is to kill anyone he thinks has, is or will ever make a gun. And that, my friends, is how tyranny comes to power, and why tyranny usually leads to mass murder.

  2. Here is another comment from the same thread:

    “I love how Joe says ALL the people on this thread that disagree with him and Lela are irrational, which means he must also think that makes EVERY country but America irrational too if they don’t believe in American gun laws. The majority on this thread are against, and the majority of countries in the world are against, but we are all the irrational ones by Joe’s thinking Interesting conversation, but one that has made me determined never to go to America. I’d be scared s******* and I’ve never been made to feel that way anywhere else in the world.”

    First, I never said what she claims, hence she demonstrates her intellectual dishonesty. I said those who think they can accept false data because it supports their position but reject official government data that contradicts them and can ignore real-world examples that demonstrate they are wrong the while acting as though they are the reasonable people in the discussion are irrational. They are irrational because that behavior is demonstrable proof they have lost touch with objective reality. So she has proven my point by making this comment.

    Next, this woman lives in England, where their own government has admitted violent Islam has gotten out of control and they do not know what to do about it or how to stop it, yet she would be afraid of America than anywhere else on earth. Maybe she should visit Tehran and tell them what she thinks about their gun laws.

    Finally, notice how she seems to think the majority opinion implies the correct opinion. Once again, she forgets her history. When they came to power, the majority of the world thought Mussolini and Hitler were the way of the future. The truth is, when it comes to matters of right and wrong, the majority is usually wrong! She is illustrating that point with this comment.

  3. Very Clear explanation of the process of fear over reason that permeates the populace.

    Another piece of this process is the overwhelming desire of fearful people to “belong” to popular movements and positions. Thus the Press and Schools present the Anti-gun position, and the fearful ape it dutifully.

    A third aspect is the desire for Fearful people to attack, thus they join the media crowd in ridiculing and, as Jesus said, ‘throwing stones’.

    Which leads to the unfortunate Fact that the Fearful throng are at heart violent. And when mixed with organized intention ( think Socialists) this leads to historical dislocations in Civil Societies of Massive proportions.

    1. DonAmeche,

      All true. Violence is a natural response to fear, but — as you pointed out — it tends to wait until those who cannot face their fears on their own have congregated into a group. Once tribalism sets in, then the fearful become aggressive, but that is also when the tyrant step up to focus their rage on the people the tyrant needs to eliminate (or whatever scape goat he has chosen).

      The other tool of the tyrant we have not mentioned is envy and greed. When you can convince people they are being cheated, or they ‘deserve’ something that belongs to another, then you can elicit the same aggressive tendencies, but again, only after you have organized the individual into a group.

      Like K said in Men in Black;

      The PERSON is smart, but PEOPLE are stupid.

      Just read that as an individual is difficult to control, but a group or mob is much easier to direct once incited.

  4. Colleges are literally pumping out revisionist. I don’t know if they’ve just been bred to not know they’re being dishonest or what, but I’ve been getting some blank to angry stares when I question their lessons. I’m going back to school right now to get my degree in history, while I’m working an internship with a preservation society, and I’m required to take this class that the text book literally says, “Rationalism is implausible, so historians must strive to be conceptual historians.” I had another professor mock the concept of Natural Law openly…

    1. Phadde2,

      You have just run head-long into deconstructionism: the notion that history must be viewed in terms of opposing views. The problem with this is it is an artificial construction with no basis in reality. What one makes of an event may be open to debate, but the facts of the event are not. That makes your professor an idiot, and I’d be happy to tell him so to his face.

      Case in point. How does one “conceptualize” the fact that, on 7 December 1942, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor? Why it happened may be open to debate, but the fact that it happened is not. This brings us to your professors other point: Natural law does exist.

      One aspect of Natural Law is physics. Most of our “geniuses” who think they can deny Natural Law seem to miss this, but it is inherent in the term “Natural.” A principle aspect of Natural Law — both physics and otherwise — is that something either is or it is not. We do not get to ‘conceptualize’ whether or not it is, it either is or it isn’t. Pearl Harbor is, thus, Natural law says it is a real event that actually happened in our past. So, again, your professor is an idiot.

      As for the rest of Natural Law, I would just chuckle and smile at him while thinking to yourself: “You idiot!” If you want to make sure the look on your face is correct, think of Hue Laurey as House saying “You idiot! From the French word, Idiought 🙂

    2. Phadde,

      I was thinking more about your text book. do you think the fool (and yes, I mean fool) who wrote it realizes that you cannot “conceptualize” anything without rationalizing it? And if you can rationalize to conceptualize, then you have negated the claim that rationalism is implausible? These are self-contradicting positions. In short, do you think the fool understands that he is declaring himself a fool to any and all who can actually think? 🙂

  5. Reblogged this on EbolaInfo2014 and commented:
    Blind fear removes a person’s ability to reason. So, if you can create that blind fear in them, then it is a small thing to push them over the edge into panic. At that point, normally reasonable people will run to anyone they think will offer safety, and all would-be and want-to-be tyrants know this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s