Subversion - how to defeat Liberals, Leftists, Socialists and Communists
Now Playing: subversion - taught at a college or university near YOU
Topic: General politics
For the purposes of this entry, let's lump all the titled groups/individuals into one category - Subversives. Several people lately have told me that they are "liberal," one of them is more like a political conservative. "Liberal" hereafter is used in the context of those attempting to subvert our Nation and its Constitutionally established Government of, by and for the People, by slowly and deliberately introducing Socialism. I am liberal, I believe in "liberal construction," for example:
" Liberal Construction
A form of construction which allows a judge to consider other factors when deciding the meaning of a phrase or document. A form of construction which allows a judge to consider other factors when deciding the meaning of a phrase or document. For example, faced with an ambiguous article in a statute, a liberal construction would allow a judge to consider the purpose and object of a statute before deciding what the article actually means. "
http://duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/L/Liberalconstruction.aspx
I believe in being liberal with charity.
And I believe in this kind of "liberal:"
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under
the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist
program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without
knowing how it happened."
Quote by: | Norman Thomas
(1884-1968) six-time U.S. Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America |
Source: | 1948 - from an interview during the presidential campaign,
[Ed. note: Norman Thomas and Gus Hall, the U.S. Communist Party Candidate, both quit American politics, agreeing that the Republican and Democratic parties had adopted every plank on the Communist/Socialist and they no longer had an alternate party platform on which to run.] |
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/norman_thomas_quote_ffb1
Yes, I believe in Liberalism of this sort, I believe it is EVIL.
Thomas and S.O.Bama are cut from the same Communist cloth.
I have been told that Socialism is Communism without overt force. In any event, neither is tolerable in this Nation.
Along with/aside from the discussion of the political systems themselves, this thread specifically discusses the tactics that adherents to, mainly, Liberalism use. Liberals are often heard decrying firearms as dangerous and disparaging those who possess them.
Liberals and Socialists are cut from similar cloth, they rely on another evil called Democracy (it doesn't necessarily start in an evil state, but eventually goes there) to cause/allow a small group of people to control a large group. This is discussed in part in a paper by Jay Shapiro (I assume he wrote it as he gave me permission to post it here) as part of what is fundamentally wrong with the State of Israel today.
Our Nation is NOT a democracy, it is a Republic. You can read about the differences elsewhere, and I'll touch on it in another thread.
Our Nation is not Socialist or Communist (yet?) but in the 1950s, a famous man named McCarthy exposed the inroads of Communism in its attempt to take over our Government. It did not succeed, and the 'should be sainted' Joe McCarthy has been attacked for his efforts.
" These developments, he continued, “include, first of all, the penetration of our leadership circles by a softening up and creating a defeatist state of mind. This includes penetration of our educational circles by a similar state of mind, in addition to one other thing—the long-range perspective of the professor who is above anything that is happening here and now, and considers himself as an objective spectator in a long, long vista of history. "
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/globalism/Congress.htm
READ THIS ENTIRE DOCUMENT CAREFULLY.
It's no secret that our U.S. colleges and universities are havens for Socialists, Marxists and Communists - their philosophies and teachings are not the object here. What is are observations on how to easily defeat them.
These people with their traitorous mindset seem often to have indefatigueable arguments. Ever tried to argue logic with a Liberal and always seem to fail? There's a reason, and a method for circumventing it.
Notice something odd about their arguments - that their arguments are often like catching a greased pig (I've tried that one, its darn near impossible)? Slippery, evasive? Yes, and they use some simple tactics which are easy to defeat once you know their tricks.
Let's take gun control for an example since it is a critical topic discussed on this blog.
The key to defeating them comes from Public Speaking, a class in College that I thought would bear no fruit. That course along with Psychology, were the most valuable I've ever taken.
First, read Dr. Thompsons piece on Raging Against Self Defense:
http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm
This paper is extraordinary to describe the psychological maladies that plague some anti-gunners, but does not address the subversive.
Many anti-gunners have psychological problems as she succintly puts it. Subversives take this position deliberately to undermine our Right to Bear Arms.
There is no arguing against:
a .) the Right to Bear Arms
b.) guns save lives
c.) gun ownership greatly reduces crime
The statistics PROVE these statements beyond a doubt.
So what does the Leftist- Liberal -Socialist Subversive do in absence of FACT? They resort to emotion and fabrication/manipulation of language.
"Manufactured rage/fear" is a good way to put it. The manufactured part is evident when someone is virulently anti-gun and have never experienced gun violence.
But, its is not useful for the average 2A advocate to know these things, because the anti crowd is either too stupid, deluded or deranged to understand or accept their diagnosis.
Subversives love to talk, and manipulate speech. The manufacture rage as a basis for their actions, and twist words to suit their agendas. Read Jay Shapiro's piece on semantic infiltration.
Have you noticed that anti gunners, along with other leftist nut jobs, have arguments that make no sense? How do they "win" arguments when their positions are not based in fact?
Here's a list of their tricks, then how to defeat them:
1 .) red herring, - an off- topic tactic:
You: "guns can be used for self defense."
Subversive: "but guns are used for murder."
The topic is "self defense." It is a RIGHT, along with the Right to Bear Arms.
The Subversive cannot argue this and has no option but to change the subject - red herring - to use distraction. You might be discussing self-defense, but they seize on the word "gun" with all their manufactured rage associated with it by Liberals, and attempt to change the subject to "murder" which has nothing but a negative connotation.
The trick here is to get you off balance and off- topic into the Subversives court where they can, without facts or figures, employ emotion to attempt to defeat your argument. You can make no argument that murder with a gun is logical, legal or advisable, and those who are not adept in detecting their tricks is left with the impression that you have come to agreement with them that guns are inherently bad.
Red-herring is similar to a basketball fundamental, get the ball, plant a foot and pivot off to another direction. Don't play ball with them.
What's so effective, and difficult to catch, is that they go off-topic by ignoring the verb and its modifiers (used, for self defense, both are activities) and going after the object (guns). Who can argue against self-defense?
2.) ad-hominem - attacking the man instead of his argument.
Subversive LOVE to attack others, even resorting to slander and libel. They rarely have anything else to go on. Example:
You: "guns can be used for self defense."
Subversive: "have you ever killed someone?"
The response is a combination of red-herring and ad-hominem, since the topic is self defense and the Liberal attempts to subvert the issue to "murder" along with attempting to slander and catch you off-guard with an insult, which often ends up with you getting angry at which point they've won. The ad-hominem is attacking you by insinuating that all people who use guns are murderers.
2a.) slander and libel - statements about another likely to cause damage to his reputation - both are illegal
Let's look at an expert at slander- Barack Hussein Obama.
S.O.Bama, the god of the Liberal, ran a campaign of nothing substantive but SLANDER against George Bush as evidenced by his 2008 Democrat National Convention speech. He had little to campaign on except personal attacks against Bush mainly centered on the Leftist Lie that 'the war in Iraq was founded on lies.' Hypocrite S.O.Bama is now waging war in Afghanistan and killing Americans after running on a platform that 'war is bad.' Have you heard him make the FIRST statement that we should get out of Iraq OR Afghanistan?" NO.
3.) Over-generalization - 'if its true in one case, then it is in all cases.'
The over-generalization here is that guns are used for nothing else but murder, and what other conclusion would they, and much of the Public, come to except that, when the Subversive Media report on nothing else but the negatives? If over-generalization is used, then statistics are not needed, which plays into their hand of not knowing any FACTS on the matter.
4.) ingroup - outgroup - 'we are the favored group and you are either in, or out, of that group' depending on whether you resist their arguments, or fall for them.
You: "guns can be used for self defense."
Subversive: "Mothers know that guns are bad."
This tactic is a combination of red-herring, over-generalization AND out-grouping. It is irrelavent what "mothers know," mothers are not the topic, self defense is. Do mothers disavow self-defense?
What proves that "all mothers" believe ANYTHING? Has the Subversive talked with all mothers and can she prove that all mothers, everywhere, dislike guns? By this you know she is LYING.
Outgrouping is an attempt to psychologically put you on the defense and invoke negative emotions and insecurity, by alleging that since you don't buy their lies, that you are not "part of the in-crowd."
Heres an example of ingrouping:
...mayby a little harlotry too? Sex sells. My first and last encounters with these scam - artists was to witness one of their salesWomen telling me, falsely, that Phoenix had engineering math. They didn't.
Ingroup - "we phoneix' are part of a superior group, and you are not. But you can be if you pay up." These so-called "schools" are the educational equivalent of the bottom feeders in the financial system- payday loan stores. They are peddling cheap and fast degrees to the huddled masses pretending that they will get jobs. Never mind the jobs are GONE.
The phoenix be disappointed to find that employers might see their status as an out-group, that you're not fit to hire with a mass-marketed education.
The phoenix is a mystical bird that ultimately makes a nest, sets it on fire jumps in and burns to death. Is that a good model for an educational institution? Do they mean to get your money then send the business down in flames?
5.) Permissive, demanding and arrogant attitude and speech. The Subversivel, in defense of being challenged, exclaims " well you can belive whatever you want, but...."
This statement demonstrates arrogance and a controlling attitude with language that implies the Liberal can give you 'permission to believe what you want.' Since they know they cannot change your mind, they must attempt to verbally put you under their control. Women are particularly bad for this in attempts to command other what to do using language and phrases often used to speak to children. This is evident in the mis-use of the personal pronouns such as "you:"
Example: You: "What is the recipe to make a cake?"
Subversive control freak: "You take your bowl and get your ingredients. Then with your spatula and your measuring cups, you measure your ingredients and put them in your bowl."
The personal prououn you, or a variant, is used NINE TIMES in a sentence of 26 words, almost ONE OUT OF THREE words is "you." This 'personal pronoun abuse,' as I call it, is NOT proper English.
The proper response, in English, is:
" Obtain the ingredients in the recipe, and a bowl in which to mix them. Using measuring cups to measure out the indicated quantites of the various ingredients and pour them in the bowl, mixing them with a spatula. "
THAT is proper English.
The Subversive Journalism School graduate cannot speak or write a sentence in the English language without the personal pronoun "you" becoming every third or fourth word in the sentence. Subtly, this response becomes a mix of ingroup-outgroup and a permissive commanding and controlling attitude. If I'm making the cake, isn't it obvious that I would do all those things? Why repeat the word "you" eight useless times?
The arrogant attitude starts when discussing the temperature at which to bake the cake:
" Then you will put your cake in the oven and turn your oven on to 350 degrees and you will bake it for 35 minutes."
I WILL? I have your permission to do that? You are going to command me to do that? This is the mode of speaking that women use with children, and I have observed it is a plague with young Yuppie women. It evidences someone who is not in control of themselves or their children, and they need to project this attitude onto others to get them to jump through hoops. Young children might benefit with a lesson of "me and you" at a Sesame Street level, but beware of someone using this with adults.
6.) "I think" This is the main tool of the Subversive Leftist. When they use the phrase "I think," then you can be sure their argument is mostly/entirely fabricated.
Ex: I think that global warming is a threat to the Earth.
"I think, therefore I am" is the basis. I counter that with "what man by thinking can add one cubit to his stature?" This phrase evidences Greek thought, that they can stand around like Socrates and the universe becomes whatever they dream it up to be. it's about all they have to go on since they rarely have facts or figures to base a position on, especially when their thoughts are based on abstract thought and idealogy.
The nice thing about "I think" is that it allows the uneducated to feel important and relevant by participating (or barging in on) discussions on which they have no meaningful input.
"I think guns are bad"
"Ever used one?"
"No"
"Ever been shot by one?"
"No"
Whats it matter what they think? "Think" is opinion not based on hard fact, and the mind can dream up anything. 'Global warming' is junk science based on nothing but "I think." The Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy) says the globe is going to heat, it has nothing to do with CO_2.
---------
A couple of extremely subtile mind manipulating tactics the Media are using.
Besides generally being shills for a Subversive Government, the broadcast Media have taken several extremely subtile tricks to psychologically manipulate you. I probably would not notice except that Ive spent many years working on radios and TV's and am trained to notice the slightest detail in audio and images on the TV screen.
1.) "three." Watch TV and notice how subtly and Subversively the concept of "three" is presented. Once you learn the trick, it'll become evident how often it's used. The question is "why?"
Watch TV, if you can stand the trash thereon. Notice that, especially when reporting on some political idea the Subversive Media agree with, that "three" is subtly put in the background of the image on the screen. Often it is only three stars in the Flag. Several images of the Leftist shill called "Chuck Todd" when reporting on Obama, contained three carefully placed columns of a building over the speakers right shoulder. The Ellen Degeneres show recently had an image in the lower left of the screen with three snowflakes in a triangular pattern.
Heres a bad example:
http://www.kndu.com/Global/story.asp?S=11426783&nav=menu484_2_11
Look at the photo of the Three gods, Obama, Biden and Pelosi. See the deliberate placement of the groups of three stars around Obama and Bidens head? Three stripes behind Pelosi? Just a coincidence? Did the stars just happen to be exactly symmetrically arranged around Bidens head, or did he accidentally stand in the exact position to make it appear that way?
When watching TV, don't look at the speaker, but look at the areas in the TV screen usually to the upper left of the screen for groups of three images, usually in a triangular pattern, especially when the speaker or other object in the view is deliberately placed off-center to accomodate the 'three.' Three stars, window panes, a clock at three o'clock, three letters of a word showing while the speakers head blocks the view of the rest of the word.
Part of the reason this ploy is so successful is in how the human eye works. The center of vision is color sensitive. The peripheral portions are extremely black and white sensitive and motion sensitive also. Example - look straight on at a very dim light at night, then shift your gaze slightly to the side. The intensity increases. This ploy is all about expoiting vision to get a message inside the brain, which works because we are normally trained and experienced to notice whats being viewed straight ahead. Youre looking straight onto the computer screen right now to read these words- do you also see whats beside the computer sreen? Yes, but most of the time you don't realize it.
The ploy here is to sneak this concept of 'three' and 'triangle' into your subconscious while you are concentrating on the speaker. This reminds me of one of the 'magician' shows recently where the trick to the magician guessing a number that the audience member is 'thinking of.' It was no 'magic,' except that the number was planted in the mark's subconscious mind by a third individual walking behind the 'magician,' in the distance. with the 'guessed number' visibly written on a sign. The mark, while paying attention to the 'magician,' saw the 'suggested number' in his peripheral vision, and automatically remembered it.
Although this might seem petty, it is very dangerous manipulation, because most people are not aware they are being manipulated. It is almost unavoidable to not be influenced by the 'suggestion.'
I would suggest two concept that 'three' teaches; I have only seen one TV commentator who has noticed:
a .) a religious concept - the Trinity.
b.) triangle - pyramid. This is also a religious symbol with New Agers, and the Media is polluted with this radical thinking.
If you can get video from the time just before the Kenyan in Chief usurped the WhiteHouse, with the phonied- up "office of the president elect" sign (there is no such office, that was a bald-faced lie), notice that some inspired cameraman panned the cam up so all that showed of the sign was the phrase "the office" which refers to a TV program. This was a deliberate slam on Obama and really funny if you've ever watched The Office.
Also, watch for deliberate placement of the halo around S.O.Bamas head to look like the halo around Jesus' head. Subtile, deceptive, but a large number of voters in the US are Catholics, and they are trained to respect that imagery as an object of worship. It gets inside their heads unchallenged.
1a. Example of a deceptive image on the Internet. This image is on Yahoos front page today with a story of someone fired for playing fantasy football at work. Firstly, THIS IS NOT NEWS, but typical for the garbage that Yahoo dredges up. Secondly, the image is subversive because it is Feminist, and it is obvious from the images and what they pretend to be news reporting, that Yahoos page is feminist. Look it over a few days and youll see the trend. This image is in keeping with Yahoos feminist bent because its a female hand handing what appears to be a 'pink slip' to a male hand. What it implies is a female having authority over a male. This instance would not mean much except that Yahoos front page, and much of their content (excluding what they import from other sites, and they would have little or nothing without it) is feminist.
A college textbook that I returned to the bookstore in 2004 (I refused to read it) was loaded with subversive images. All the images were stereotypical as they either showed females in superior positions, or, when they did depict a male, showed only males in positions of power, like CONgress. The implication there is exactly what all radical movements want - they want a superior position by manupulating Government. I thought the 'radical movements' were about equality?
2.) the 'snake people.' This began on TV around 2000-2001. From expert knowledge of electronic engineering and radio, I can testify that it is deliberate and un-natural.
Do you recall, years ago, listening to AM radio on a radio with a tuning dial, and what happened to the sound when the dial was set a bit off-frequency from a station? The audio was overlaid with a hissing sound ocurring during various parts of speech, especially the letter 's.' It was very annoying to most people.
About 2000 this sound began showing up in TV broadcasts, usually when women speak - the trailing 's' in a word being deliberately drawn out.
Question: "Do you like this and such?"
Woman responding: "Yessssssss"
Real example. I witnessed this in a grocery store. A young woman was trailing a little boy through the store, and he was bent on getting cookies. He was visibly unhappy that his Mother was not caving in to his request. After she refused him several times, he began asking for "cookiesssssss' and this immedately became very annoying to his Mother. I don't know if he ever got the cookies, but the effect of his manipulation was immediate, it forced her to break off her conversation with another woman and pay attention to his demand.
Recently there was a piece of pre-recorded audio that was played back during a Tri Cities TV news broadcast. The audio was 'bandwidth' limited, which means that the high and low frequencies of speech are cut out, partly because they add to the bandwidth of the recording (especially important when manipulating and storing audio files on computers, high bandwidth/high frequency/ high resolution recordings take up large amounts of disk space), and partly because the mid-frequencies of the voice are easiest to hear by a human. Its speech, not hi-fi music. Someone, later, had manipulated the audio to add a drawn out 'hissing sound' after words ending in the 's' sound.
Why? Why do it subversively? Such a pronunciation contradicts rules for English pronunciation, why do it? Why is it exclusively used to accentuate speech of females, but not males?
There are two reasons:
b1.) If you recall years ago, this manner of speaking was prevalent in the homosexual community- it was a 'calling card' of sorts for homosexuals to identify themselves to others. Familiarity breeds acceptance. There had a pair of he-shes working in a fast food restaurnt in Columbus, Ohio in the early 1980s, they practiced this kind of speech as part of their flaming routine.
b2.) This manner of speaking, besides being an attempt to draw attention to one self, is a very subtile type of threat. Such hissing is not a function of the English language. If a word ends in one 's,' then it is pronounced with the same duration as other letters - why draw it out?
This is rooted in the animal world - animals that want to threaten and intimidate others show their teeth and hiss. Snakes hiss to threaten other creatures. Doing so in speech is actually a veiled threat to the listener - 'you will believe what I tell you, or I'll hissssss at you (show my teeth and threaten you)...' The deliberate drawing out of words/sounds is also a speech tactic to prevent others from speaking- when words are drawn out artificially, no one else can get the proverbial 'word in edgewise.'
3.) Hypnotic movement. A televangelist was on camera pacing back and forth as they do. It's boring to watch a speaker who doesn't move. Problem was the camera operator was playing a dirty trick, trying to hypnotize the viewer. The trick was that instead of panning (turning the camera on its mount) the camera across the stage to follow the televangelist, the camera was panned and moved (camera and mount were moved), causing the vertical features on the wall in the background to move across the screen faster than the speaker was moving. Both the speaker and background moved. Extremely subtile, I was caught up in it for a moment until I realized what they were up to. It's not about the movement, it's about the movement distracting the viewer so the ideas can enter the mind unchallenged.
Recall these tactics the next time you are watching TV, again, if you can keep your lunch down while watching it. These have nothing directly to do with Second Amendment rights, but are psychological tactics nonetheless.
These tactics are related to NLP, a mind bending trick that Preachers have taken to using. Dangerous. Heres a portion of a description on Wiki which the above tricks are based on:
Interventions and specific techniques
Fourth, assisting the client achieve the desired outcomes by using certain tools and techniques to change internal representations and responses to stimuli the world. For example, the swish pattern involves visualizing the trigger or 'cue image' that triggered an unwanted pattern of behavior, such as a hand with a cigarette moving towards the mouth. The client is guided such that the cue image instead triggers a resource self-image where smoking is no longer an issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming
DANGER. People are trained, through English spelling, grammar and speaking classes to understand the meaning of language, but never trained to defeat such subtile attacks, because the attacks are not exactly communication, at least not with language. These attacks have a direct route into the subconscious.
--------------------
These noticings might seem innocent, but the American Public is being manipulated, and with dangerous effect. Here is a true story, I witnessed it.
My Psychology teacher launched a fiction about a woman who was having an affair in another City. She went to some trouble to travel some distance and cross a bridge (Im not sure why thats relevant) to get to her lovers location. One day while returing from her tryst, she was attacked and murdered. The question was "who was at fault for the murder?"
The teacher almost lost her cool when all the class but ME answered:
"SHE WAS."
As if that wasn't bad enough, much of the class was FEMALE, and I'd assume they would take the Feminist line to exonerate her just because of gender. Hell no, they were going to send her to PRISON for being a victim!
And you don't think subversive psychology is dangerous?
Jury of your PEERS?
================
An exercise. Here is a link to the Seattle PI article on Bob Warden sticking it to the Communists in Seattle Government. Read the article comments and apply the above principles to the comments. See that the anti crowd has nothing to go on but Libel, red herring and ad-hominem. No facts are cited.
The under-current in the comments is that Bob Warden is a Federal Attorney, who is about to stick his foot about a yard up their a**. I hope its boots with metal cleats. The comments have changed radically from the first two PI articles, defeat is apparent in the comments and they have nothing to go on now but LIBEL.
----------------------
How to defeat subversive tactics in speech.
Now that youre up on their tricks, heres how to pour cold water down their pants. Youll enjoy setting them off in an insane rage. It's REALLY funny.
These people are plagued with insecurity. To attempt to get security, they rely on the glom - group mentality (group think). You can defeat them especially when presenting a calm, cool collected 'I dont need you or your whacko group psychology' attitude. They manufacture security in an attitude of being 'right' in their unconstitutional and illegal viewpoints. You have real security in being on the correct side of the issue. They are just dying inside to have that kind of security. They will never have it, but you can use that desire to your advantage by presenting yourself as having what they want, on an INDIVIDUAL BASIS. This causes a severe internal conflict that they can't deal with. It totally throws them off guard. Rage results.
Real example. I was fortunate, recently, to 'get inside the head of' a radical gay rights activist. Thats not a place I recommend, its a sick, twisted world. She thought she was going to convert ME.
I was laying a trap for her. She fell right into it.
This Subversive was a nice enough individual to be around, heck, I enjoyed her company. She was well educated, witty, talented, and a carpet muncher. Well, 3 out of 4 ain't bad.
It didn't take an advanced Psych degree to figure out that what drove her to Lesbianism was not a sexual urge, it was child/marital abuse and alcohol, she more or less said so. A hard life of being 'outgrouped' drove her to want to join any group that promised to make her feel wanted. An extremely sad state of affairs at least.
Alcoholism had been a big problem, but the remaining dependence on AA was worse. I told her that AA was the problem, not she, and that they were manipulating her. This caught her totally off guard and made her uncomfortable and angry. Once they are angry and out of their comfort zone, theres a window of opportunity to at least try to help. The grip of whatever holds them is broken for a time.
I related the following story to her. Once when I was in high school, a group of people came to meet with us, three at a time- in small groups. Sound familiar? We were excited, of course, to get out of class for a while. These strangers had a message about smoking cigarettes, that it was bad. It didnt take bribery to convince us of what we already knew, but that was not their goal. Their goal was to plant a LIE in our minds and it was not successful.
Their subversive goal was to plant this thought in our minds:
" Once you smoke, you are always a smoker."
We knew that was false, once one did not do something, they didn't do it. What made even less sense is that most of us had never smoked, and they seemed to be talking to us as if we had. Irrefutable logic. The goal was not to teach about smoking, it was to subversively plant a false notion in our minds to make us (presuming we smoked) dependent on something else besides ourselves. A goal of Communism and Socialism is to break down the self-reliant mindset and subvert it to 'group think.' The goal was to set the smoker up with a mindset of failure, after which, they were forever dependent on a counsellor, shrink or stop-smoking plan - in short - people who MAKE MONEY on addictions of others.
The activist caught the meaning right away, but faltered on my comment that "AA is the problem, not you. You've stopped drinking and that's that. They are not about helping you stop drinking, because you have done that on your own. They are out to keep you dependent on them. They're making money on you, aren't they?"
That thought took root for a while, then fear and denial took over. Being alone is a frightening thing, especially when education and media have programmed people to believe "self" and "alone" are bad. Being broken out of that comfort zone of being trapped in ones own problems is even more frightening. She denied the "they're making money on you" part because she wasn't paying them any money- then the reality hit her, she's not stupid - they are making money from SOMEONE or they wouldn't be doing what they are doing! Now it's TWO GROUPS manipulating her, not one.
That, in specific, is how the offense against subversive thought works, unfortunately, most of it's victims are too far gone to reason with. Once they are deceived into their mindset being critical for survival, thats it, because there is no stronger urge than survival, and the only way to break the cycle is to face a real survival situation. I once had a date with a woman with suicidal thoughts, and she tried to manipulate me into playing along with them. I did, but it wasn't what she expected; fortunately another friend warned me ahead of time that she had a screw coming loose. We drove to a restaurant after a movie to meet some of my friends for coffee. Shes suddenly in the out-group and to combat this, she stated that if I went in the restaurant, shed kill herself. I immediately responded "OK, go ahead, Im going inside." End of subject. She came in also, still alive.
Here are examples of how to at least try to deal with subversives and their language tricks. Realize that some of these people may actually be mentally imbalanced, some might even be in foriegn countries trying to stir up dissention, especially since these posts do not require authentication of the user as a human being, or identifying oneself.
1 .) red herring, - an off- topic tactic:
You: "guns can be used for self defense."
Subversive: "but guns are used for murder."
You: " the topic is self defense, why are you trying to change it? Are you saying you want to murder someone with a gun?"
or
You: "Gun ownership has all but eliminated crime in Kennesaw GA."
Now the fickled finger of fate is pointed right back at them, and they have no other argument except personal attacks. They have tried to trick you into going into the 'guns are only used by criminal to commit crime' argument which is absolutely false. Notice the comment under the Kennesaw story, how its red-herring- they are SLICK at it and YOU have to be on guard to catch it:
" To: Islander7
What does comparison to another City have to do with the topic? Absolutely NOTHING. The TOPIC was a comparison between/amont Kennesaws OWN crime rates. Notice that the poster is at least pretending to be a Conservative. Is this a poser, or has the poster fallen into the red-herring trap?
2.) ad-hominem response:
You: "guns can be used for self defense."
Subversive: "but guns are used for murder."
You: "Sorry, but I won't allow you to personally attack me, thats childish"
This response throws them off guard, pointing the finger back at them. Stop the conversation at this point, that forces them to deal with the question instead of slithering around it. Of course, they cannot deal with it.
2a.) slander and libel - statements about another likely to cause damage to his reputation - both are illegal
This is the one they play when they know their arguments have failed. It is the last resort, and its unlawful. Here's an example from the Seattle PI story on Bob Warden:
---------
"Until then we get to deal with puritanical protests like the impending one from Gun-nut esq., and self-interested hobbyists who place their self-righteousness above the safety and well-being of the communities that they live in."
The poster is personally attacking Warden by claiming that he (Warden) is a "gun nut" which alleges that Warden is insane.
------------
a fitting response to libel:
" Posted by 5thcolumncure at 11/13/09 10:24 a.m.
Ah, yes. Witness the tolerant liberals calling names and wishing physical harm ... all the while picking and choosing which portions of the Constitution they want upheld.
Fools. If not for the Second Amendment, you wouldn't have your precious First. "
And while were on the Warden topic, heres an example of what Dr. Thompson refers to as projection - someone advocating the MURDER of Bob Warden for exercising his Right to Bear Arms:
"
Posted by SeattleJohnM at 11/13/09 11:47 a.m.
They should shoot this effer as soon as he enters Seattle with a gun (how poetic would that be)... stay in Kent. "
Yes, Virginia, some of these people are actually dangerous. This individual is projecting his wish to kill bob Warden onto the Police. THESE are the people who are actually dangerous, like the ultra radicals at ELF who burned the car dealership, and done hypocritically by anti pollution activisits!
And lest you dont believe the point about the subversives being ignorant rabble, read this one:
"
Posted by Jerrbear at 11/14/09 9:22 a.m.
He who carries a weapon (gun's are for fun, an found in your pants)is afraid.Bring your weapon to my rec center an I won't need one, cause I will take your, cause I fear nothing, except your ignorance.
Any police that believe we need more weapons on the streets is a lyar an as we all know, Officers having weapons doesn't stop someone from killing them in an instant.Yea I am all for arming bears learned the value on a mountain top called firebase Ripcord, an you don't want to go there, cowards"
Huh? Is he trying to buy a vowel? Apparently he hasn't bought too many English lessons. From reading the documentary at ScreamingEagle.org, my guess is that since the Posters comments are both off-topic of the newspaper story, and not supporting/supported by the events at Ripcord, that this poster might actually have a screw loose.
There arent too many (or any) examples of Libel here, apparently the PI has cleaned the comments up.
Since they're talking from a position of sheer ignorance, I couldnt resist this golden opportunity to slam-dunk one of the anti gunners - it's too easy:
" Posted by doubting thomas at 12/14/09 2:37 p.m.
This jewel needs commented on:
"Posted by unregistered user at 11/27/09 3:22 p.m.
the ***constitution DOESN'T permit/guarantee this joker to carry a gun into a public place***. I hope the city wins thoer lawsuit and this guy ends up paying legal fees for both parties..."
EXACTLY CORRECT, A++, the Constiution DOES NOT "ALLOW" CITIZENS TO HAVE GUNS.
The Constitutions (US and WA) ****FORBID GOVERNMENT FROM INFRINGING ON THAT RIGHT.****
The C.s do not grant Rights to People, they FORBID Government from taking those rights away.
Amazing how easy it is to use these Liberals twisted idealogy against them!! "
-------------
Enough fun at the Subversives expense. Onto the topic.
3.) Over-generalization - 'if its true in one case, then it is in all cases.'
Response: "All gun owners are crazy? How do you know this, have you met them all? Where are your statistics?"
4.) ingroup-outgroup. About the only response here, besides not falling for the error, is to point out the error. Success depends on whether the subversive actually has the honesty and mental capacity to understand the correction. I've found it more effective here to stop the conversation and leaving them to wonder what it was that they said that lost my interest. Remember that they are driven by insecurity, and losing your support will not help their sense of self.
5.) Permissive, demanding and arrogant attitude and speech.
Ditto, have nothing to do with them, at least they wont suck you in. Call them on it.
As far as the Medias dirty tricks, letters of complaint to their Management along wiht negative comments to the FCC during the stations license renewal period and letters to their Advertisers are the way to go. Under Federal Law, broadcast stations must serve the public interest, and deliberate mis-reporting and other such games don't make a positive case with the FCC. Advertisers DONT want to hear that you've turned the Tee Vee off and are now not seeing their advertising, which they spent a fortune for.
Posted by Dave
at 9:35 PM PST
Updated: Thursday, 24 December 2009 11:16 AM PST
a-ok
down