12-21-2012, 05:58 AM
Facts are almost meaningless in ideological warfare. Only emotion, group-think, intent, relentless execution of your plan, & dedication to your ideals. It's not a rational playing field, as we all recognize, but we have banged our heads against the wall trying to reach out or show people the truth.
As long as we fight this battle on the ideological battlefield with art, music, emotion, and a call to arguments that can't be argued, we win. We already know that mass shootings are so rare, that they are considered statistically insignificant, but the left uses the intensity of the moment logical fallacy to push their agenda, politicizing the grief and mourning of families who have been struck by the acts of evil. If you try to argue against it, you're demonized.
![[Image: 6a00d8341c630a53ef01630347cc66970d-600wi]](http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef01630347cc66970d-600wi)
Every time we try to use facts to back our argument, we're throwing them in the face of someone who is already emotionally-sold to a certain concept. It isn't the guns that hooked them into the liberal template of anti-gun rage, it was the fact that someone had the power to choose when to take life against society's norms. Basically, they hate it when someone violates the Judeo-Christian value of, "Thou shalt not kill."...especially en masse against innocent victims. The anti-gun leftists use that common value, then amplify it by stating that these assault weapons are specifically designed (intent) for mass killings (of innocent people). They then relentlessly repeat the message (dedication), and never quit. The theory in ideological warfare is that if you continue this, you will eventually break your enemy, even if you do it incrementally. 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA, 1986 Hughes Amendment, 1989 CA AWB, 1994 Clinton AWB, etc.
If 10,000 inner-city kids are killed every year, but are doing it to each other with handguns, they are less upset about it. If murderous warlords in Africa decide to launch a genocidal campaign of subhuman butchery against the Hutu's ot Tutsi's, not big deal, as long as our liberal media shelters us from the images and facts. In the Clinton WH, they had a rule in the NSC and foreign relations staff not to use the "G" word, because it would obligate the US to intervene in Rwanda according to our charter with the UN. A single battalion of 82nd could have stopped that whole campaign with a show of force, but Clinton chose to pretend it didn't happen. Why?
Don't click on this link if you don't want to see graphic imagery of what was allowed to happen in Rwanda: http://www.reunionblackfamily.com/rwanda0group0f04.jpg
If their current political messiah decides to send untold numbers of real military weapons to narco-terrorist drug cartels in Mexico, where fear is spread by beheading your victims and their families to show them what will happen if they don't comply, or are just caught at the wrong time on a bus, it's best if they don't hear about that, and their pravda propaganda old media network makes sure they don't have to hear or see anything about it, even when his own ATF senior officials' guns are found at the crime scenes.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57...ime-scene/
I've reduced ultra-liberals to tears in Europe, just explaining what went on in the Clinton Administration from my inner perspective of those insane days of scandal after scandal. They have been told nothing but butterflies and puppy dogs swimming in rainbow juice regarding the Clintons, and when they hear what I experienced and know, they feel that it isn't partisan BS. Truth has a certain ring to it, once you are able to knock the idealist off the BS rainbow using emotion.
Perception:
![[Image: 2581648-658209-2-young-puppy-dogs-discov...terfly.jpg]](http://www.colourbox.com/preview/2581648-658209-2-young-puppy-dogs-discover-a-butterfly.jpg)
Reality:
![[Image: waco-the-rules-of-engagement.jpg]](http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/waco-the-rules-of-engagement.jpg)
![[Image: SMALL_foster_hand.jpg]](http://www.realnews247.com/the_death_of_vincent_foster_files/SMALL_foster_hand.jpg)
As long as we fight this battle on the ideological battlefield with art, music, emotion, and a call to arguments that can't be argued, we win. We already know that mass shootings are so rare, that they are considered statistically insignificant, but the left uses the intensity of the moment logical fallacy to push their agenda, politicizing the grief and mourning of families who have been struck by the acts of evil. If you try to argue against it, you're demonized.
Every time we try to use facts to back our argument, we're throwing them in the face of someone who is already emotionally-sold to a certain concept. It isn't the guns that hooked them into the liberal template of anti-gun rage, it was the fact that someone had the power to choose when to take life against society's norms. Basically, they hate it when someone violates the Judeo-Christian value of, "Thou shalt not kill."...especially en masse against innocent victims. The anti-gun leftists use that common value, then amplify it by stating that these assault weapons are specifically designed (intent) for mass killings (of innocent people). They then relentlessly repeat the message (dedication), and never quit. The theory in ideological warfare is that if you continue this, you will eventually break your enemy, even if you do it incrementally. 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA, 1986 Hughes Amendment, 1989 CA AWB, 1994 Clinton AWB, etc.
If 10,000 inner-city kids are killed every year, but are doing it to each other with handguns, they are less upset about it. If murderous warlords in Africa decide to launch a genocidal campaign of subhuman butchery against the Hutu's ot Tutsi's, not big deal, as long as our liberal media shelters us from the images and facts. In the Clinton WH, they had a rule in the NSC and foreign relations staff not to use the "G" word, because it would obligate the US to intervene in Rwanda according to our charter with the UN. A single battalion of 82nd could have stopped that whole campaign with a show of force, but Clinton chose to pretend it didn't happen. Why?
Don't click on this link if you don't want to see graphic imagery of what was allowed to happen in Rwanda: http://www.reunionblackfamily.com/rwanda0group0f04.jpg
If their current political messiah decides to send untold numbers of real military weapons to narco-terrorist drug cartels in Mexico, where fear is spread by beheading your victims and their families to show them what will happen if they don't comply, or are just caught at the wrong time on a bus, it's best if they don't hear about that, and their pravda propaganda old media network makes sure they don't have to hear or see anything about it, even when his own ATF senior officials' guns are found at the crime scenes.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57...ime-scene/
I've reduced ultra-liberals to tears in Europe, just explaining what went on in the Clinton Administration from my inner perspective of those insane days of scandal after scandal. They have been told nothing but butterflies and puppy dogs swimming in rainbow juice regarding the Clintons, and when they hear what I experienced and know, they feel that it isn't partisan BS. Truth has a certain ring to it, once you are able to knock the idealist off the BS rainbow using emotion.
Perception:
Reality: