web analytics

This Illustrates What I’ve Been Warning About

[This article is 3,500 words long.  If you want to live, you’ll read it to the end.]

Not too long ago, I updated my disclaimer to the right with the note:

Because I believe that people are being manipulated into regularly scheduled outrages, … I will generally abstain from opining on ‘national conversations’ until I am good and ready to do so.  Obviously, I reserve the right comment immediately as I see fit.  …

By this standard, followers of my blog will recognize that the gun debate is one of those places where I exercised my right to comment immediately.  The fallout from the Parkland shooting, like the Sandy Hook shooting, had all the earmarks of the “rule by mob” mentality I’ve been warning about.  I understood how it all works: the goal was to parlay the noise in favor of gun control into action, the relative silence from the other side would be perceived as consent by politicians, etc.  So, I knew that in this case, I had to break my own ‘rule.’

Read on to understand this process and the reasoning behind it.

Now, most of my readers don’t need me to spell out for them how manipulative the whole thing was.  Obvious  to almost all adults, David Hogg and his ilk are tools of the highest caliber.   We know that the Parkland students did not organize the “March for Our Lives.”  We know that tons of third party money and expertise flooded in, and used the Parkland students as their human shields.

We saw how effective those shields were with what happened to Laura Ingraham.  Thanks to the hard work of our self-appointed social engineers, you are not allowed to criticize victims, and certainly not the victim du jour.   You don’t think this is just an accident, do you?  Now that you’ve seen all you’ve seen?  Really now.  It’s right there in Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals“:

The thirteenth rule:  Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

What you need to understand is that it doesn’t matter that the people who lashed out at Ingraham have probably not even heard of Alinsky, and are not thinking they are acting according to a playbook.  In fact, its the fact that they are acting on Alinsky’s methods and don’t know it that make them so dangerous.  This is how they’ve been trained to do ‘democracy.’

Listen to me.  They think “This is what democracy looks like.”

They really do.

They really think that marches, riots, ‘days of rage’, assaulting dissenters, etc, is democracy in action.

That whole thing where you elect people who represent your values, and the very fact that you elected them serves as a mandate for them to advocate for your values–that is not democracy to them.  (Unless its their people, then of course “elections have consequences.”  See how it works?)  No, to them, democracy amounts to whoever shouts the loudest–simply a manifestation of the ‘might makes right’ ideology that is their ultimate position.

For the social engineers of this persuasion, it’s all about the mob, and ‘democracy’ means directing the mob in a manner that the Managers perceive is ‘best for society.’

This is not conjecture or smearing on my part.  People of this persuasion will actually admit it, nay, advocate for these methods, when they are speaking privately or don’t think they will be overheard.  I mentioned the Alinksy book.  This won’t stop them from denouncing me, of course–see rule 13, above.  And remember, they don’t actually have to know Alinsky and his rule 13 to employ it.  Even the Managers have been conditioned without knowing they were conditioned.  (Think: C.S. Lewis and The Abolition of Man.)

Or, perhaps we should call them ‘technocrats.’  Here is how Jacques Ellul put it in his book, “Propaganda“, where the managers are given that term [all emphasis mine]:

In our society, man is being pushed more and more into passivity. He is thrust into vast organizations which function collectively and in which each man has his own small part to play. But he cannot act on his own; he can act only as the result of somebody else’s decision. Man is more and more trained to participate in group movements and to act only on signal and in the way he has been taught. […] The individual becomes less and less capable of acting by himself; he needs the collective signals which integrate his actions into the complete mechanism. Modern life induces us to wait until we are told to act. Here again propaganda comes to the rescue. To the extent that government can no longer function without the mass (as we have demonstrated above), propaganda is the signal to act, the bridge from the individual’s interest in politics to his political action. It serves to overcome collective passivity. It enters into the general current of society, which develops multiple conditioned reflexes, which in turn become signals for man to pay his part in the group.

Then, later in the same:

…propaganda offers release on a grand scale. For example, propaganda will permit what so far was prohibited, such as hatred, which is a dangerous and destructive feeling and fought by society. But man always has a certain need to hate, just as he hides in heart the urge to kill. Propaganda offers him an object of hatred, for all propaganda is aimed at an enemy.[2] And the hatred it offers him is not shameful, evil hatred that he must hide, but a legitimate hatred, which he can justly feel. Moreover, propaganda points out enemies that must be slain, transforming crime into a praise-worthy act. Almost every man feels a desire to kill his neighbor, but this is forbidden, and in most cases the individual will refrain from it for fear of the consequences. But propaganda opens the door and allows him to kill the Jews, the bourgeois, the Communists, and so on, and such murder even becomes an achievement.

Tell me, on your first encounter with David Hogg, are you not left with the impression that if they don’t get their way, you can easily see how they could be the next Weather Underground?  The Revolutionaries always forget that a Counter-Revolution soon follows.  The hippies of the 70s ran aground on the harsh counter-revolution of ‘becoming adults.’  At some point, Ayers realized that to continue his revolution, bombs weren’t going to help; what does it tell you that he decided his best strategy was to become an educator?  But he is not opposed to bombs if it would get the job done.  What will Hogg and his sort turn to if they are thwarted?  Mild-mannered professor?

In another work which encapsulates the methodology of the Democrat party (and almost every liberal progressive, and certainly a fair number of ‘moderate’ Republicans):

This phrase [The engineering of consent] quite simply means the use of an engineering approach—that is, action based only on thorough knowledge of the situation and on the application of scientific principles and tried practices to the task of getting people to support ideas and programs. […] The engineering of consent is the very essence of the democratic process, the freedom to persuade and suggest.

This would be Edward Bernays, writing in the 1950s.  Bold text added.  I’d highly recommend picking up this work by Bernays (The Engineering of Consent) to gain important insight into the mindset, which persists.

Delving into this would require another post (or book!) but since I know many readers will look at that phrase and wonder what the problem is, let me point out the latent assumption Bernays is working off of.  Bernays, and the people who think like him, believe that the government ought to proactively be enacting policies, which they, in their great wisdom, guided by an army of experts, believe should be enacted, despite the fact that there is not otherwise any public clamor for it.

The alternate view–that the best government is the one that governs less–and only intervenes when absolutely necessary to facilitate the movement of citizens within society, is nowhere in view.  Bernays just assumes, like most progressives, that the government should be constantly tinkering with the machine in a never ending quest to make it ‘perfect.’  And since the rubes might misunderstand the efforts, and might rise up and slit the throats of the Managers for their (always!) benevolent actions, the idea is to engineer the viewpoints of the rubes themselves so that they will support the efforts of the Engineers.

One straight forward way this works out in real life is precisely what we saw with the March for Our Lives, and we’re still in the thick of it.  Essentially it is like this:  a number of politicians and vested interests have wanted gun control all along, but lacking political cover, have not been able to act.

Now, the people with the vested interests are easy enough to understand, but the politicians have their own reasons, which require a moment to reflect on.

It goes without saying that the Democrat party is chafing at the bit to repeal the second Amendment and looks longingly towards the day when the United States is like Australia and England, and the government can do to its people whatever the hell it wants without fear of serious consequence (granted, in those countries, a great number of the citizens WANT the government to tend to their every need, so…)  However, there are quite a few Republicans who want gun control, too.

Why?  Quite simply, because they want the issue off the table.   These sort are basically career politicians who love the perks who want nothing more than to ‘govern.’  Controversial issues are like landmines, where stating a position and acting on it is sure to annoy at least one large chunk of the electorate.  (They could also just be cowards, or liars.)  So, if you can summarily dispatch such an issue, that’s to be welcomed.  Below I’ll talk about a great example of this.

But how to arrange for the necessary political cover?  An Orgy of Outrage, of course!  And how to measure?  Opinion polls, that’s how!

Indeed, for the Democrat party, it is practically standard operating procedure to justify their actions based on polling.  Think about all the articles highlighting the apparent surge in support for gun control in the polls.  To your average liberal, they’re like, “WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED?”

Take a look at this screen grab, and scan the descriptions of the articles.  (Click on it for a larger view.)

“Someone please show Marco Rubio this Fox News Poll” … oh, right, because all Rubio needs to know is found in a poll!


This WAPO post article is an excellent example of the whole thing.   Here is the quote you want:

Those numbers are surprising, given that virtually no political leaders in the country are publicly advocating for a repeal or modification of the Second Amendment.

You see, to a liberal, a simple 51% majority on an opinion poll is sufficient justification for enacting public policy, and if politicians aren’t pressing forward on issues in line with (supposed) public sentiment, they are mystified.  “WHAT ELSE DO YOU NEED?”

With this attitude, you can see just how valuable events like “March for our Lives” are for pushing their agenda.  The simple majority in an opinion poll may be sufficient basis for implementing a policy, but that’s often not enough to push you over the finish line.  What really helps is anger.  Riots are even better, if you can get them.  Set a city block on fire, and you can really get things moving.  But anger alone will do in a pinch.

And, as Ellul, observed (in the quote above), people want to be angry.   So, its a win-win as far as those engineering orgies of outrage and those who are participating in them are concerned.  THAT’S WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE.

None of this is put forward as exaggeration or hyperbole.  As soon as you are alert to it, you will see it everywhere, and you will understand that I’m merely reporting to you the way things really are.  The reason you may not have recognized it before is because you innocently believe that there couldn’t possibly be anyone as Machiavellian as all this, so even when you see it, you assume the best.  I am here to tell you this assumption is dangerous, and will be used against you!

A good example of how this plays out occurred recently in California.  You may recall a couple of years ago, there was an outbreak of the measles in California.  Spurred on by this, California removed the personal exemption from vaccines.

No one had died from the measles in the outbreak.  Indeed, many of the people who got the measles HAD been vaccinated [click here for corroboration and another illustration of ANGER; actually, 1/4 of those who got it had been vaccinated.].  And none of them died.  In point of fact, very few people have gotten the measles in the United States for decades, let alone died from it–despite all those people who have been claiming the personal exemption all these years!  No way! Yes, WAY.

[If you check out slide #9 in this link, you’ll see there was a huge spike in 2014, but otherwise, the average number of cases per year in the US is around 100.  In 2014, there was a huge jump to almost 700.  You’re not allowed to wonder why that may be.]

Almost over night, the compulsory vaccination law in California was overhauled to deny personal exemptions.  Now, do you really think that the politicians in California were sitting around, minding their own business, and then BLAMO! measles outbreak!  Whatarewetodo?!? Skyisfallingskyisfallingskyisfalling! Quick! We need to do something!  What?  Remove personal exemptions?  Right! The reason all the vaccinated people are getting the measles is because of the unvaccinated, those selfish bastards!  [You’re also not allowed to ponder the logical contradiction intrinsic to that statement.  No critical thinking allowed for YOU.  Just be a tool and get mad and support whatever they do!]

Of course it didn’t happen that way.

No,  there almost certainly was a cadre of public health officials ready to act as soon as the iron was hot, and there were a large number of like minded politicians who were just waiting for the political cover to justify doing what they wanted to do all along.  With a little research, I am certain you could find the actual names of every one of those public health officials.   I gayr-un-tee you that whole process was engineered.

You’re not supposed to ponder what else America’s little cadres in hiding are wanting to do, pending sufficient political cover.

So, this kind of thing happens often, with examples big and small.

The biggest one in recent years is the Obergefell decision.  In this post, I go over the overwhelming national support for ‘traditional’ marriage, documenting in detail how 30 states, including very liberal states like California, engaged in the arduous process of passing actual amendments to their constitutions ensuring that ‘marriage’ would be understood the way it has always been.

I know what you’re thinking.  In nearly all of those cases, the amendments were passed with huge majorities–far more than the 51%!  Doesn’t this disprove your point?

lol come on, son.  Public opinion polls have consistently shown that Americans do not like the idea of abortion on demand, while open to cases of health, rape, and incest, but you have never seen a liberal say, “Ah, well, I suppose our policies should match public opinion.”  We’re not talking about honest people here.  Per Alinsky, their whole tactic is to bend and break the rules as it suits them, while making their foes follow the rules.  It’s all there in Rules for Radicals.  I’m not making it up.  (And again, just because they aren’t cognizant of it, it doesn’t mean they haven’t been conditioned to behave that way.)

But I’m not talking about public opinion polls.  I’m talking about more people than voted for Obama going to the ACTUAL polls and pulling the lever for their proposed amendment.  Remember, THESE polls count for nothing to the Managers.  What counts to them are the public opinion polls.  Why?  Duh.  They are easier to massage, manipulate, shape, and of course you can pick and choose which polls you rely on.

It is true that by the time Obergefell came around, ‘public opinion’ had shifted towards accepting gay ‘marriage.’  This is after a good 15 years of After the Ball style social engineering.   And lets not forget that we were enjoying our regularly scheduled outrages and fits of violence, about that, then, too.   The proper way, if there had been a real change of opinion (eg, not manipulated and manufactured), would have been to unravel those amendments, one by one.   But SCOTUS overruled the votes of tens of millions of people based, not on the law, but on their sense of public opinion.

But that’s not even the real point.  The real point here is how quickly legislators and governors from around the country acquiesced to the ruling.  Even Republican ones.  Even conservative ones.  Why?  Because they too had changed their minds?

No.  Because they were glad the issue was off the table.  That’s why.

So, too, there is a very real risk that supporters of gun rights (supposedly) will suddenly go along with [insert catalyst here] and give in to the ‘common sense gun laws’ movement.  They will be tickled pink just to have the issue off the table so they can go back to ‘governing.’  Read: enjoying the perks of an elected official, without all that unpleasant stuff where people disagree with you.

But there is a lesson to be found in Obergefell.

Obergefell has fully exposed the truth that the rule of law in the United States is a farce, a sham, an illusion.  It only exists insofar as it serves the pleasure of the ‘might makes right’ crowd.  For the little people, the dissenters, the ones eager to self-govern… the rule of law is a set of shackles, that only they have to wear.  Americans noticed, and they didn’t forget.  Nor did they forget Justice Roberts strange contortions to find Obamacare constitutional.

[In that case, again, we find that elections matter less than the Outrage Industry.  Opponents of Obamacare had elected THEIR representatives to majorities in state, local and Federal elections in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016.  Roberts did not think THAT was sufficient political cover.  Sadly, he is probably right:  if Roberts had declared Obamacare unconstitutional, the liberals would have made sure there was blood in the street, and no doubt one or two of them would have been trying to make sure that some of that blood was, literally, Roberts’.]

Not only that, Obergefell did not actually take anything off the table.

All Obergefell did was validate the methodology.  In a classic example of “If you give the mouse a cookie, he’s going to want a glass of milk,” the gay marriage thing has devolved into a veritable sexual anarchy, where small minorities throughout the country agitate for the right to flap their genitalia around however they please with whomever they want, call themselves by whatever gender they want regardless of their actual biology, knowing full well that no one will be able to stop them.  A grown ‘woman’ with a penis could go into a locker room where small humans with vaginas (we used to call them ‘girls’) are stripping, show her full ‘womanhood’ to the other small humans, and you’re just supposed to roll with it.  Don’t JUDGE!  Don’t impose your social construct on that ‘woman’!

Oh sure, you could pass a law if you wanted.  Hell’s bells! you could even pass an amendment to your state’s constitution!

But we see what that’s worth now, don’t we?  Less than the paper its printed on.

These are not the sort of people to ever stop agitating, because agitation is what gives their lives meaning and purpose.

So too, if every proposed gun control measure was enacted, there would still be school shootings, which they’d use to justify the repeal of 2nd amendment.  And they wouldn’t stop there, either.  The goal posts will move AGAIN.   THIS IS HOW THEY OPERATE.

So, here we are.  Day in and day out, watching the social engineers capitalize on this or that event to inspire today’s daily outrage.  And people, daily, are outraged.  This, they call ‘democracy.’

No.  It is the prelude to tyranny, albeit, it may end up like the ‘soft’ tyranny experienced even now in Europe.  But, there is no good reason to think we may end up there, as even in Europe there are signs that their ‘soft’ tyrannies are descending into the real thing.  With their people almost universally disarmed, there is nothing to stop it from happening except the benevolence of their Masters.

And Masters have a historical habit of remaining benevolent, don’t they?



    • End Bringer on April 5, 2018 at 12:29 pm

    Don’t forget the fact supposed Conservative politicians also don’t like going to bat on policies because they will continually be demonized and castigated by the media for going against the policies the mainstream media itself advocates for.

    Which is largely why Trump enjoys such support among conservatives, even with his crass personality and isn’t really an ideologue. Because he actually does fight for the policies he campaigned on. And we see the push back because of it.

    • Anthony on April 7, 2018 at 3:57 pm

    I think you’re right about that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

fifteen + 12 =