Once we’ve gotten that pesky self-preservation instinct under control, getting everyone to head toward utopia will be as easy as loading a cattle car.
mikee
August 22, 2013
Comment to Evil
[This is in regard to the CSGV making it explicitly as well as implicitly clear they are philosophically opposed to self-defense. It shouldn’t come as that big of a surprise to anyone. As irrational as they (or anyone) are within some restrained context their world view will make sense. I’ve seen this sort of thing in many individuals.
I’m reminded of a joke my psychology professor in college told:
Some guy is in the cafeteria holding an empty water glass to each ear. Another guy comes up to him and the conversation goes like this:
Guy2: Why are you holding the water glasses to your ears?
Guy1: It keeps the wild elephants away.
Guy2: But there aren’t any wild elephants in North America.
Guy 1: See! It works!
It is going to be very difficult to convince, in the abstract, the guy with the water glasses that he is wrong about their effects. Within his set of constraints his world view is entirely consistent. Rock solid logic.
The anti-gun person is going to be drawn to the same sort of constrained world view where their logic works. It might go something like this:
Guns are bad.
Guns are used for self-defense.
Self-defense involving lethal force must therefore be bad.
The lethal force qualifier may or may not be required.
It turns out that the concept of using lethal force for self defense is not a universally believed to be moral. I’ve talked to people that strongly believed in “proportional response” even when the aggressor was using lethal force such as a club or a knife. A gun would not be “proportional”. Somehow they believe, and sometimes explicitly state (as my cousin, who has been raped three times that I know of, once told me), that it would be worse to be killed with a gun than clubbed or stabbed to death. In their world view if there were no guns in the hands of private citizens then even the weak/disabled/elderly would not need guns because they would (almost) never have to confront someone with a gun. Hence victims would (almost) never be justified in using a firearm for self defense because proportional force would (almost) always be something less than a gun.
But, you might claim, eliminating self-defense is a long way from loading up the cattle cars. There isn’t anyone that wants to do that these days.
I would like to remind you of Barack Obama’s “neighbor and family friend” Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground who told FBI informant Larry Grathwohl:
I asked, “Well what is going to happen to those people we can’t reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?” And the reply was that they’d have to be eliminated.
And when I pursued this further, they estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers.
And when I say “eliminate,” I mean “kill.”
Twenty-five million people.
I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees, from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people and they were dead serious.
You could now claim that that was a FBI informant that can’t be trusted.
Perhaps. But it is consistent with what happened in the USSR. They sent 10’s of millions to reeducation camps. And they sent millions to their graves in their pursuit of utopia.
How could they rationalize that? How could they believe that was a path to utopia?
Easy. My communist brother-in-law, a business professor in Chicago, indirectly explained it to me:
The good of the majority always outweighs the good of the individual.
My protestation about individual rights being violated were dismissed without concern:
You have to look at the big picture. The good of the majority is more important that the individual.
He views me as narrow minded. He claims that I “can’t see the big picture”. My examples of tens of millions of innocent people murdered by their own governments in the last century were dismissed with:
We just need to have the right people in charge.
It’s all so simple, logical, and blindingly obvious to these people. This is why they think there is something wrong with us. This is why they want “reeducation camps”. They really believe that despite the grinding poverty and mass graves of all the communist utopia that it is always the fault of a few greedy/selfish/ignorant/stupid individuals that their utopia fails to materialize. Reeducate those that are willing and elimination of the rest and then mankind will finally achieve equality, peace, and social justice. How can it be a high price to pay to dismiss the so called rights of an individual when the achievement of a peaceful forever is so close? What about the rights of the billions of others and the billions more to be born in the future? Don’t they have a right to live in utopia?
The cattle cars will be filling up soon. It’s for the greater good.
My belief is that the greater good will be achieved by small pieces of precisely placed rifling engraved copper jacketed lead in the heads of the so called leaders and intellectuals who give the orders to load the buses and trains*. They think I’m just a narrow minded bigot who can’t see the big picture. But they mistake the narrow focus for narrow mindedness and underestimate the clarity of the picture at a distance with my Leupold scope.—Joe]
* One could make the case there is a compelling reason why liberals are so opposed to individual transportation.
“We just need to have the right people in charge.”
That’s the problem in a nutshell. Further, even if you could find “the right people” once, how would you ensure that you could do it twice?
Love the article, concise and to the point
There is no so-called “greater good.” A greater good always — ALWAYS — comprises a greater evil. By definition the needs of the whole cannot outweigh the rights of a single individual. Don’t talk to me about your needs, talk to me about your deserts. WHAT HAVE YOU EARNED?
M
Funny. There’s an even MORE Extremist View out there. The Psycho who is running the Sea Shepard Anti-Whaling Pirate Ship has been quoted in the past that to “Save the Planet,” the Human Race needs to be REDUCED to approximately 250,000 people, who would act as “Stewards” for the Planet.
HE, of course, would be in Charge of setting the Standards and Running Things.
Get Armed, Stay Armed.
Hey, if it was the “right” quarter million, and the “right” people get put in charge, that’d be a pretty cool gig to be at the top of. But I wonder if they have thought though all those little details like the required number of people to achieve economies of scale the support all the various cool things we have these days, like cell phones, GPS, jets, oil and gas production, birth control pills (because I’m assuming he wants a “favorable” male-female ratio, IYKWIM) etc., etc., etc.? All the “different parts” of Eden are in somewhat different parts of the world, too, so…?
Guys like that are just plain egomaniacs; nuts as a squirrel picnic.
Excellent insight into the mind of some of these people. Note that there are two types of people we fight against- the diehards and the low informationals. You’ve pointed out the mindset of the die hards. We’ll never convince them. But they often hide their true purpose and end goal because the low informationals will be turned off if they really knew. That’s why they couch their words in pleasing phrases like “gun safety” and “gun violence”.
Our job is to reach the low informationals and bring out into the open the end goal of the diehards. The low informationals just want to be safe and secure. They read what the media presents, often with the diehards input. That’s what we need to counter. We need to show them our side is the only safe and secure side. It doesn’t require they own a gun, only merely that they let us do that.
We have facts, truth, justice, and liberty on our side. The other side has to lie and mislead. Pointing out those things is necessary for victory. If we can reach the low informationals, we will win. That’s the key in this whole debate. Remember that.
You forgot dick jokes. They have a ton of dick jokes. 😀
It is the conflict of the two world views:
1) Judeo-Christian – Man is fallen, broken, sinful, unable to be perfected, and prone to evil.
Evidence: Turkey and the Armenians, WWII, holocaust, 9/11, and so on coupled with all of the individual crimes that we see all the time on the personal level (see most politicians).
Result – limited government with individual freedoms and no genocides.
2) Humanist/Communist/Socialist/Progressives/Liberals – Man can be enlightened and live in a utopia if we just get rid of a few bad apples, but man is basically good. Man can be his own god and those who think they are basically gods (the elites) should rule over the others.
Evidence – None. Human nature is unchanged and the disproof is Auschwitz.
Result – Totalitarian regimes with the supposed smart people in charge which has never worked out. The poor stay poor, the rich are made poor, except for the hyper rich who run the show and the camps are filled to capacity with the undesirables.
originally posted over at Weerd’s —
The reason they want the State to have an absolute legal monopoly on force (both initiating and reacting), is because they plan on having absolute control of the State.
When your plan is, “L’état, c’est moi!”, of course you want a lock on force.
The are narcissists. Evil, dangerous, sociopathic narcissists. Who have made it quite clear, time and time again, through their OWN words, that they want me and (more importantly, to me) mine dead. . . liquidated. . . exterminated. . . pick your favorite phrase.
Hare’s a DHS employee’s view of social justice.
Excerpt;
“Warfare is eminent, and in order for Black people to survive the 21st century, we are going to have to kill a lot of whites – more than our christian hearts can possibly count.”
They’ve known about this guy and his web site since June at least, and he’s still on the payroll.
While I am honored to be once again quoted here on my favored version of The View, in my defense I must protest that my quote was taken out of context – I was describing the thought process of the progressives, not my own beliefs.
I have been a strong supporter of protective violence used against violent attackers since my older brother taught me the utility of a pre-emptive nutshot as a child, and I remain a strong supporter of protective violence today.
Mikee, I took the quoted remark as being typed, not as in support, but in snarky illustration of the other side.
I doubt anyone read it as meaning you support the Cattle Car & Camps Proposal for Progressive Improvement