Posted: 9/7/2002 9:26:48 PM EDT
|
Advance apologies for the verbosity of this. So many thoughts are running through my mind right now, but I still can't get over the extreme feeling of disgust I felt a few years ago when several people told me they would rather live in a totalitarian dictatorship, if it meant they could feel safe from guns. The fact these people don't know what totalitarianism is, is grievously wrong, in my opinion. In our advanced society, we should not have people so ignorant as to be not even question anything, and desiring only safety. It is disgusting that those people call themselves Americans. I have expressed cynicism regarding this, but I still would like to see if there is a way to change this. I see a high profile, education/propaganda campaign. It won't be one to necessarily try to sell the idea of guns to people, but more sell the wisdom of individual rights/smaller government. What the NRA and the Libertarian Party does not do, I want to try. Both of those organizations are mighty fine in their own right, but both of them have become marginalized by an enemy who out-propagandized them, and because the the LP came up with some whacked out ideas that would never be sustainable in their application. Neither of them reaches the average person. I still see the Politics of Victimship alive and well in America, fed by the likes of VPC, Brady Bunch, etc. IMO, One of the worst things Bush did last year as a leader in a new war, was to tell people to just go about their business normally. He should have called for every American to focus on preparation and gaining skills needed to survive a sustained period in the absence of an infrastructure. Certain things people will do on their own, but Bush set the tone of the war as "We will protect you!" instead of getting of getting everybody involved in a whole-country effort of building and preparing, and calling on the best and strongest in everybody. Still, the majority of people don't understand what we the people can do, because nobody in goverment is giving any decent explanations. So, it is up to us to educate people. I can write articles for publication in newspapers that are targeted to convincing conservatives, and hacking away at liberal's mistaken ideas. What I do not have is very much money to do this (pay for space in a paper) more than once or twice. Is this a viable idea, and if so, does anybody care to try this? |
|
I had more in mind buying advertising space for a structured, organized campaign of education and information. They would have a harder time trying to justify not printing something if we are paying them. I have been thinking about how to target people's minds. Most people are collectivists, to some degree, whether they admit it or not. They have a kinder eye for such concepts as "diversity" and "tolerance", while disagreeing with patriotism, individual rights, etc, because they are programmed to focus on society. Liberals are programmed to always look for a cause that needs to be taken up and championed. This is why they will never stop: because they are never satisfied. There needs to be a way in which to communicate our profreedom ideas, without presenting images that automatically turn off most liberals. Guns are bad imagery to liberals. Capitalism is bad imagery to liberals. I have managed to do it before on a couple of occasions, such as when I equated gun ownership to abortion rights. Lest we tread a dangerous line too closely, I ask for ideas on how to present our viewpoint, in liberal terms. Cognitive Disssonance, in their terms. They will accept their terms, where they won't accept ours. Liberal terms: What is good for an oppressed minority What is good for society Certain individual rights Diversity and Tolerance Multiculturalism Any other liberal buzzwords? |
|
The best thing to do right now in the name of Homeland Security is to outlaw all political 3rd parties or non-approved lobbying organizations and arrest their members. All libertarians should be considered and treated as threats to national security due to their constant disruption of the election process in this democracy. |
|
I agree that we need to take to the offensive, to engage and steer public awareness back to the ideas that our nation was founded on. But I hesistate to use the language of liberals against them because they are already hypocrites in their words. You'll be adopting a language of lies. "Diversity" doesn't mean "diversity of thought" it means "diversity of skin tone and genitalia". It would have to be done carefully. Self-determination. Great buzzword for people wanting out of public housing. Ordinary Americans yearn for self-determination. Dependancy. We strive to break the chains of dependancy that are shackling the poor. Individual worth. "He who saves a single life, saves the world entire". Such is the value of the individual. |
|
Quoted: I agree that we need to take to the offensive, to engage and steer public awareness back to the ideas that our nation was founded on. But I hesistate to use the language of liberals against them because they are already hypocrites in their words. You'll be adopting a language of lies. "Diversity" doesn't mean "diversity of thought" it means "diversity of skin tone and genitalia". It would have to be done carefully. Self-determination. Great buzzword for people wanting out of public housing. Ordinary Americans yearn for self-determination. Dependancy. We strive to break the chains of dependancy that are shackling the poor. Individual worth. "He who saves a single life, saves the world entire". Such is the value of the individual. They will see their language along with our ideas, and it will force some critical thinking. Critical thinking works [i]for[/i] our ideas and against theirs. Instead of "adopting" the language of lies, we will merely borrow it. [:D] |
|
Problems - Individual worth - one of the biggest problems with liberals is that the liberal intelligentsia want to protect us from ourselves - because we are not able to do it ourselves, and they know so much better than we do how to do it for us. [soapbox] There are people out there, akin to those who would rather live in the aforementioned totalitarian state, that believe that [b]no individual[/b] has the right to take another's life. While I can respect the "pro-life" attitude in this regard, they wish to impose that restriction on everybody else...like a vegan declaring meat illegal, or a Christian Scientist banning the sale of OTC meds. Some of these anti folks believe that PD's shouldn't used lethal force either, [u]even in defense of themselves[/u]. I used to argue libs in college that my guns were [b]used[/b] for shooting targets, but [b]created[/b] for killing humans. I accepted the first preposition of their "guns are evil" argument and ran with it. Where I stopped them was by quoting the US Supreme Court case out of NY where the woman was murdered by a stalker, and the police were held not liable for her death due to their inaction. I'll skip some details now, but the decision clearly showed that the PD's aren't there to protect us. That the burden of our protection lies with us is a very arguable point that can be made once you remove the belief "the state will protect me" that many anti's hide behind. [peep] I told them that in defense of myself or my family my goal was to cause a criminal to cease and desist from his course of harm with maximum effect, and a minimum amount of potential damage to anybody else. Shot placement (practice), and the choice of an effective caliber were among my tools in this regard.[50] Some segue into the "anti-death" argument at this point. Stop them now. Tell them that the use of lethal force IS a serious issue, and requires contemplation and a serious self-assessment before following any preparation for that course of action. Tell them any judgements, penalities or burdens assigned for killing are between the state, or God (whatever higher power here), and you, and you will be ready to deal with them at the time. If you tell them that you are prepared to use [u]any means necessary[/u] to defend yourself and your family against persons that would do them harm, and you will deal with karma / laws / sins after they (your family) are safe, then the antis lose their "killing is wrong" righteousness. Needless to say, don't wander into "defense of the republic / militia/ anti-NWO/ anti-UN/ tyranny" rhetoric now, no matter how strongly you believe it, because one word of it, and to them you're dancing in Spongebob boxers with a tinfoil hat, and all talk is gibberish from that point forward.[whacko][8] Like the Red Leader said in Star Wars... "STAY ON TARGET" [(:)] Another great arguing tool was the "Armed Citizen" columns from American Riflemans. Once many anti's saw that [u]ordinary[/u] people used firearms to lawfully defend themselves, and didn't sacrifice their families or neighbors in the process, they were at least a little more open to persuasion.[thinking] Agree that training is good. Tell people that like voting, firearms are a right that require a high degree of personal responsibility.[;)] We can't hope for an outright conversion, but if we can at least get some understanding, and stop the reflexive knee-jerk, we're at least slowing their march.[>:/] (As a closing note, when I moved out of the student apartment building after graduation, I got hugs from some of the little hippie-vegetarian-earth-friendly-patchouli-tie-dyed girls, and one of them looked up at me sadly and said "We always knew where to run if something bad happened. Now we don't have anywhere to go". Somebody has to be the guardian. Just make sure the antis see you as one of "the OK gun people" and not one of "those arsenal weirdos".[:E] Tango7 (Edited for icons) |