IF YOU BELIEVE IN GUNS, YOU ARE LIKELY A RACIST. IT'S JUST THE FACTS AND SCIENCE BABY!

IF YOU BELIEVE IN GUNS, YOU ARE LIKELY A RACIST. IT'S JUST THE FACTS AND SCIENCE BABY!

Here, more programming for you! An article by 'Scientific American' suggests that "if you believe in guns it's likely due to some form of racism and insecurity you have within you". (Link at the bottom)

See I've actually created a name for this some years back and refer to it as 'False Association Perception', and it's a very clever tactic I've been watching the media (as well as college indoctrinators) use on their targeted audiences for some time now!

Basically the process goes something like this: "We need to help shape people's minds by conditioning them to associate 'guns' (and those who advocate them) with 'racism', so that more people will be glad to relinquish their right and ability to defend themselves from the political decisions we want to make for them and assert over their lives. (ie: "We want more power")

Therefore if we can create a mentality of people who perceive that any right and need of guns are only entertained by 'racists', they'll gladly let go of them while continuing to vote for policies that give us permission to take them".

To do this they first find some obscure media clip (or stage it themselves) of people supposedly harboring 'heavy racist sentiment' while clutching and clinging to their guns.

By having them also talk about things like 'Freedom', 'Liberty' or 'the Constitution' as well as their guns while tacitly stressing this connection and playing these types of clips over and over upon their targeted audience's minds, whenever someone who's mind has been unknowingly influenced through this process encounters another advocating these things, any ability to think rationally about what this concerned person might be saying is turned off and shut down from hearing them, as they have already been trained to associate and assume any pro-gun and pro-Liberty person must also harbor sentiments of supposed 'racism' etc. "All I see are guys with guns who sound racist, so this guy telling me why guns are important to his Freedom must be that same kind of radical racist. No! We don't need guns! Only racists have guns!"

Boom! Voila! False Association Perception upon unsuspecting minds achieved, and any 'thinking' has already been provided for them by another who has an agenda! (In this case an agenda to disarm otherwise Free People) And yes this is precisely what I believe has been happening and have been observing on the political left over the years. And it is what has this movement actually excited to lay down their weapons to the one of the greatest threats to humanity; the thing that destroys everything it means to be Free! The political state—what most simply refer to as 'government'—I mean.

But here it is in more pseudo-science posing as 'facts'. Yes, it's now 'proven' (according to this article) that only 'insecure white men' who are sure to also harbor 'racist', 'sexist' sentiments and tendencies have need of clinging to their guns! Isn't that funny though!

It's funny because when the state believes in its own inherent need and right to protect those things it deems important and worthy of defending, there's of course nothing at all wrong with that. It's perfectly natural. Hey, the government must have weapons so it can protect itself and all our lives too since it's our ever-faithful servant of course. But when 'white males' believe in both the right as well as need to protect and defend their own lives, families, homes etc, surely it's indicative of some kind of psychological defect and emotional deficit in their lives. And indeed we should watch out for that because they're likely insecure, harboring some form of racism within their being. Perhaps they are even a potential threat and danger to the normal in society? Hey, we have the studies that prove it so just trust us!'

There are no words to describe the absolute nonsensical biased pseudo-science trash I hear coming out of this foul piece touting itself around to be some kind of 'proven science'. But if this is 'science', then by these same standards can we not just as easily posit it's been 'proven' that those who are not for guns are weak submissive cowardly little pussies who've been trained to lick the hands (or even asses) of those that provide their securities for them? I'd say based upon those I've interacted with it's an absolute fact! But see I don't have that incredibly cheap and convenient ability to say "it's science, maan". Actually thought, I wouldn't employ such cheap tactics if I could as my messages often resonate with many by the inherent truths they espouse without relying on such weak and desperate measures to get people to blindly agree with me! "It's science".

Here's the problem with this entirely absurd article though, for like so many other things we see deriving from the statists, (usually 'proven' by those 'pussified cowards from the left' but also on the right according to whatever agenda is being pushed at that particular time) things like 'having an ego', 'being hateful', or 'having insecurities' etc, are not some actual 'thing' by which we can offer measurements and therefore any subsequent data to the table for testing and scientific validity!

How do you know if I'm 'racist', 'insecure', or 'have an ego?' Did you know just about everybody has times of insecurity, racial pride, as well as egos? I believe those cackling clowns on shows like 'the View' are nothing but walking talking overfed, overly primmed 'egos' divulging the rest of society with their pompous opinions about how 'egotistical' another politician they don't like is! I believe their ideas are dangerous, and indeed I argue with many people falsely referring to themselves as 'liberal' all the time, providing my reasons for believing such things.

So then what is the true test and universal standard of measurement here? If I believe in things like Freedom, Liberty, guns, etc, is it now considered to be some kind of 'proven fact' that I'm likely a 'racist' and 'insecure' and that these concerns derive from some aberrant nature within me? Yeah, those who favor guns in the hands of the government only all agree, "It's science baby!" How convenient! (Somebody get me a meme of Nacho Libre's sidekick, "I don't know how come you're always judging me, because I only believe in SCIENCE")

Anybody can assert that the perceptions they adhere to are 'proven science' though. But other than few things such as numbers, chemistry, physics etc (things we can actually test and observe) most of the time when people throw out that all-too-cheap claim that "hey man it's been shown that science agrees with me", it must be understood that the conclusions arrived at by that human are still ultimately subjective to their already existing position and opinion.

For instance, we can look at things like DNA or the micro-biologies of the cell structure etc. And indeed these things are 'science' when we observe what these things are made of such as the elements, molecules, amino acids, enzymes, and proteins that comprise them, as well as how they function, interact, and behave in their natural environments. But we cannot claim with some absolute certainty that 'science is on our side' when we infer these things provide some kind of evidence for either Intelligent Design or the theory that we ultimately evolved from chemicals! We can only look at what's happening with these things, and then say "I believe this is indicative of Intelligent Design" or "I believe it shows how we have evolved".

But if we can't use real scientific observation and data to determine the question of our origins, how much more weak and fleeting can it be to take the position that 'science agrees with us' when attempting to annex it to things as vast, capricious, ever-changing, and untestable as the human psyche?

And furthermore, by what standard of measurement can we say conclusively that someone is 'racist', and even worse, 'insecure'? Insecure! Really? That's an actual measurable 'thing' we test and observe with some universal standard now too? By what then? The accusations of another? By the opinions of some kind of social 'doctors' who have agreed with themselves and one another, and whose positions and groups might retain some kind of conflict of interest that provide other reasons to find it beneficial to agree with themselves? Surely there's no inherent fallacy in that!

When in our perfectly just world of benevolent politicians would a wicked king desperate to retain the power he perceives himself as having not dare to deem another as 'mentally unstable' for disagreeing with his policies that are beneficial to him while being despotic and tyrannical to the rest if it meant having the naturally preferable options of being able to silence his political opposition? We can be certain history has proven that no human in power would ever do that! And the same it is for any state which believes we shouldn't have guns! Surely it would only benefit us all if only they had the ability to wield political force and power through the means of a gun! I can see how only 'racist' and 'insecure' people think otherwise!

And who hasn't had times of feeling 'insecure', (which according to this article is simply annexed to a moment of merely 'worrying') From what I've read 'worrying' has often been attributed to common and inherent traits of intelligent people. So does me 'worrying' about the Freedom of my fellow man (regardless of his or her race or color) mean something is inherently wrong with me? Oh how the statists love to 'prime' people's hoping so desperately that their followers will just blindly go along with nonsense like this! "Our science has now discovered..."

We see that same 'catch twenty-two' of logic we've been watching and so commonly used by the political left and their thought-camps where "you're a racist because we say you're a racist. And if you deny this fact that you're a racist, it's only more proof of the fact that you are in fact a racist". (That's like, circular reasoning and 'begging the question' to the max, bro!)

In the same way here we see it being treated with the issue of guns, which if we keep in mind my theory about 'False Association Perception' cannot be by any accident, for I remain quite convinced that any 'powers that be' would love to have only the 'perfectly sane', 'balanced', and 'normal masses' (you know, those who've never had any insecurities nor any human faults and weakness such as moments or even seasons of worrying, and who've proven it by blindly agreeing with them) believing that only 'racist insecure people have need to believe in and cling to their guns'. Of course, the 'elites' never worry about things like the economy nor their deeds, and it's why they're always so open and honest about all the things they do and are involved in.

Now one point I'd like to add to this entire refutation is that yes, I do believe there is an attack on 'the white male' in this nation. (I separated 'nation' from the federal government which must be my 'racism' talking if you read the article. Again they are 'priming' people's minds with False Association Perceptions) But is this because I'm all about some philosophy of 'White Power' and believe that only 'the white man' should be able to prosper in his or her life? Truly that's not it nor what is in my heart! It's because logistically white males make up a strong majority in this nation while understanding their heritage and that it came from a fight against their own government for their own freedom. And I'm convinced that those who want to impose their forms of political control over all others need this convenient message for their 'divide and conquer' tactics. "It's not our fault that you are poor", says the all-loving government. "It's those awful 'white males' and their 'evil White Supremacy that is everywhere and going to get us all if you don't give us the power to stop it! Crisis! Crisis!"

You see without this message they wouldn't have such a cheap and easy weapon of propaganda at their fingertips that they can unleash upon the unthinking masses in order to divide us by enticing the credulous and naive with this emotionally seducing message that distracts their eyes away from discovering who their real enemy is! (The state who continues evermore making us poor)

They know that things like 'racism' is a hot-button issue that easily preys upon their intellects by triggering one's emotional forms of thinking, which sends any logic they might have had out the window the windows of thought. And hence the reason that state-loving 'liberalism' harangues desperately upon the issue! "The white man, the white man, your everyday neighbor! He's your oppressor, give us more control and we'll make sure everything is 'equal and fair' for you. We just need more political power that's all! Do not listen to those racists who talk about Freedom and guns, after all they hate you!"

This is pretty much the entire movement falsely calling itself 'liberal' surmised because they don't want Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, etc, all armed and coming together with a mutual understanding of what Freedom means, and what it is that destroys it, the political state! And so they try and keep us divided by merely pretending they are addressing this false and 'phantom issue' through the tenants of 'liberalism' that harangue upon supposed 'racism' and 'white supremacy'. But they are actually always spreading more racism, distraction, and division. "Psst, hey Black person, hey Hispanic person, see all those White People over there? Yeah those guys? Guess what, they hate you! They don't want you to have what we can give you! You should vote for us because we're obviously on your side or we wouldn't have brought that up! Give us more power and we'll end all this male white supremacy and racism". And all of a sudden words like 'intolerance' carry some kind of political weight and meaning.

The other point that needs to be addressed within this rebuttal is that contrary to the theme underlying this article which implies that if I worry (about ANYTHING?) including our human Freedom, something is wrong with me is. But no, sorry, I wasn't born being required by some universal law that requires me to 'love the state' and praise it as a good thing. In fact it is my human right to not do so! And if I perceive these entities as the greatest threat and killer of humanity's Freedom; being the very thing that makes us poor while engaging us into so many endless wars as well as the thing that enslaves us, it's my absolute right to think such things and I'm not guilty of some kind of 'thought-crimes!' There was never a sign that came down out of heaven declaring that, "Every human must love and blindly submit to governments and whatever those entities suggest is best for them". I have a right to perceive these things as not only a plague but cancer upon humanity, and indeed I do!

And so I ask, where is this 'science' that says that if I perceive these entities as evermore encroaching upon our lives and Liberties that something is inherently wrong with me? I guess it was insecurity and racism that caused the colonies to rebel against that oh so righteous king who never taxed and abused the life out of them huh? Those evil white supremacists and their hateful rebellion!

Still though, I don't understand how 'insecurity' is measured and by what standard. Nor how 'having an ego' (perhaps not mentioned in this article I'm addressing now but often used as that same kind of 'social sin meter', again often by the 'political left' and often treated in the same way) nor how someone can know whether or not I'm actually 'racist', especially since merely disagreeing with a 'liberal' and perceiving more government intervention in the economy as well as our lives as the thing that's been destroying us also makes me a 'racist' to so many who've become indoctrinated by the state's gospel of goodwill to all mankind today! Yet this is indeed what their thought-camps continue to teach to their indoctrinated foot-soldiers peddling the gospels of statism when one speaks against these things by talking about Freedom, Liberty, guns, etc: he is likely a 'racist white supremacist male with underlying insecurities'. Do not listen to his hate-speech! And these are thrown together because why? FALSE ASSOCIATION PERCEPTION! They need to prime people's minds and pre-shape the way society thinks and perceives things or they cannot manipulate, steer, and control us so easily!

But if we do not have something by which we can measure such things as 'insecurities' (which I can say all of us have and can still feel from time to time, yes, both sexes and every race) how can we introduce these things as 'data' to be put onto the tables of 'proven science'?

You can 'sense' that another person is 'egotistical', or 'full of themselves', or 'prideful' or perhaps a bit 'narcissistic' etc. I'm sure I've had those things said about me! But could that have been when I was destroying some silly indoctrinated 'social justice warrior' too? That or I was in some talkative mood at the bar and the girl I actually worked up the courage to talk to had her friends commenting on how 'egotistical' I was as I walked away! I don't know! Did her friends 'sense' that of me? If so it is 'proven science'?

What if in talking to a girl I thought was cute she wasn't interested in me, hurt my pride, and left me walking away saying to myself, "that stupid stuck-up bitch, who does she think she is". Is that all of a sudden a 'thing' now? Did she just actually become a 'stupid stuck-up bitch?'. Or are there other perimeters involved here such as my pride and ego feeling insulted? Does the universe place a glowing neon sign over her head that reads "Stupid Stuck-up Bitch"? Can this person not be loved and appreciated by her husband to be?

But I've seen this 'tactic' used many times by the left. "He disagrees with us! He's an egotistical maniac who hates women and other races!" As if these things are not the desperate ad hominems they are but some kind of actual 'things' to which we should then immediately shun these people who might otherwise have had something to say that challenges the silly notions so often entertained by this current social justice warrior generation! And this is why the political left are so easy to knock down in their arguments. Because they enter into their arguments like little children, "Nuht uh, you're a stupid doo-dee head".

You might 'sense' that someone is a bit 'insecure'. At my job, I'm a bit quieter because I'm really not interested in the often 'simple-minded' conversations most of my coworkers seem to want to entertain. (See even my use of 'simple-minded is subjective to my opinions and something I have right to say and something another can relate to, but nothing I can claim as any 'proven science' because how people perceive me changes from one person to the next)

But due to my quieter nature on the job I suspect some of the guys I work with think I'm 'intimidated' and therefore 'insecure'. Does another human claiming this make it true though? Where is the science? Maybe I just don't care for conversations that don't really pertain to the issues of the world I'm trying to address! Again there are other factors involved here so again I ask, where's the actual 'science' when it comes to other people's perceptions of me and that likely change from one person to the next? Where are the standards to gauge with absolute certainty my 'insecurties?' As we can see these things are all subjective!

And if being labeled as 'having an ego', or 'being a narcissist' or 'having insecurities' is nothing more than the subjective opinion deriving from another human at any given time and for any infinite number of reasons, WHILE THOSE HUMANS THROWING OUT THESE AD HOMINEMS ALSO HAVE THEIR OWN BIASES OR ULTERIOR MOTIVES, how in the world can we then suddenly call these things some kind of 'proven data' with which we can measure and draw absolute scientific conclusions?

I mentioned it before but has an all-knowing Creator placed some kind of illuminated meter above our heads that follow us around wherever we go, having different colors representing with clear and absolute certainty just how 'insecure' or 'racist' we might be and according to some perfectly set and calibrated, definitive universal standard? So how do we know and measure such things? Again we're in the lost realms of circular reasoning and 'begging the question'. "Oh well, see our article (and 'proven science') shows a direct correlation between those that worry and have need of guns. Again we get into an endless mess here because first of all, are you telling me that humans do not 'worry?' And secondly is 'worrying' about something such as our economic plights automatically a bad thing?

Worrying! Again like 'insecurity', this is unbelievable! Worrying is now some kind of 'thought-crime' too! But who gets to decide? Can't worrying sometimes provide healthy and beneficial forces within our lives too? Doesn't 'worrying' about our current economic plight sometimes prompt and motivate us to better our situations? So then by which 'standard' do we attempt to introduce and apply times of worry as 'evidence' of some kind of inner weakness that automatically must lead to something dangerous and destructive thing for the rest of humanity? Now I know the article didn't come out and say it like this but I see it flirting with these slippery slopes of thinking, and even implying them in a very cunning way using pseudo-sciences passed as tested fact to promote statist agendas that are dangerous to humanity!

But doesn't this mean that the 'liberals' (who are definitely very worried and have proven it in their copious marches in the streets) should also not have any right to inject their opinions into society? Aren't ideas just as dangerous as guns? (The state would have you to think that because only their ideas have been so wonderful, and have worked many healthy miracles for our lives and societies) Or is it only those ideas that pertain to strong convictions about things like our Human Freedom and Liberties that the pseudo-liberals (false liberals believing in the state) disagree with? Hey wait a minute, those ideas so many of us maintain concerning our ability to not be controlled by others also challenge those in power! Connection here? Hmm, nah, we'll go ahead and just chalk their subjective opinions about us up to 'proven sciences' also!

But doesn't the government 'worry' too? In fact, doesn't it even have plans in place because of those things it 'worries' about? By this logic isn't this automatic proof that the state is inherently 'insecure' and 'racist?' Don't these things imply something is wrong with the state? OH MY GOD!

Observe and you'll notice an all-too-common trait when it comes to the 'politics' entertained by the political left, and it is this, THEY NEVER HAVE NEED OF QUALIFYING THEIR STATEMENTS AND WHAT IS THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT! If they say something is wrong with you such as, "You're racist", or 'sexist', or 'hateful' or "espousing hate-speech", or a 'Nazi' or a 'fascist', and now with this newest pseudo-science, "proven' to be insecure because you worry", etc, and on and on with their completely baseless claims and unsubstantiated accusations about anyone who disagrees with them, THEY NEVER HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHAT THOSE TERMS MEAN AND WHEN THEY APPLY. They simply throw them out there and oh how they're so incredibly true because they said it! Oh and when you disagree with all these things you've said you are, you're clearly in denial which is all the proof they need to further establish their 'sciences'. Again it's a very sad 'catch-twenty-two' of logic these morons seem to be forever engaged in!

But I must have lost track! Forgive me though, for who am I to use this thing I have called a brain? Who am I to use that muscle of the mind that allows me to think objectively to these ludicrous notions posing themselves as 'authorities' while applying things like reason and logic to them? Indeed we should throw out any critical thinking we might have otherwise maintained because you can rest assured it's been proven because "Liberals agree with themselves! Therefore it's science baby!" And if you believe in things like guns, the possible need for them in order to defend your life from any potential enemy (especially the always power-hungry within the state) the right to have them, the right to defend that right, you can rest assured something is inherently wrong with you! And since it's now been conclusively shown and established that 'there's a direct link and correlation between racism, insecurity, and guns', well I certainly don't want to be the one advocating such things now do I?

People who use this approach are doing nothing but attempting (quite desperately if you ask me) to 'corner the argument' and 'stack' (these pseudo-science 'facts') in their favor, hoping the 'sheep-like mentality' of the naive and credulous masses will blindly go along with them. "Oh well, you see we've already established that only those who are racist and insecure worry about their guns. So yeah, if you're promoting things like Freedom and Liberty through guns kept within the hands of the Free; if you're at all concerned or 'worried' about these things it means any argument deriving from you is already automatically null and void of containing any inherent truths! And therefore nobody should listen to you. In fact, let's go ahead and remove him from society for this racist is a threat to our prosperity". That's quite Orwellian!

Without meaning to I recently stumbled across another brilliant phrase for these types of loaded statements and positions and discovered that they are referred to as "thought-terminating-cliches". Now this is another article I'm sure I'll be writing about soon as I found this to be a perfect way to help expose how the phrase 'conspiracy theory' is treated and used incessantly as another 'thought-terminating cliche' within our society. But here it applies so perfectly as well in this 'priming' being commenced upon the unsuspecting minds of society, "Oh don't think about such things, you worry too much! Just shut off any objective thinking by your mind and allow us to think for you. You don't want to show the rest of the world around you how weird and worried and insecure and racist you do you? You know studies have shown that only people who worry like you are worrying now have problems right? Leave the critical thinking to us!"

The entire premise of this article seems to be attempting to set up another 'thought-terminating cliche' within our society. "Only people who have something inherently wrong with them worry about their guns and Freedom, etc!" But how can you really tell someone they have no right to worry? People usually worry when they sense that something is not right or some impending threat and danger. So can any human really dictate that worrying about something is automatically bad?

Let's change up the scenarios to get everybody thinking here, could you imagine a king wanting to take the property of a black man and then declaring that, "If any of these subjects appears to be worried about our taking it's because they are insecure thus proving we are automatically justified in our decisions to take from them". The implications of a society conditioned to assume that "We have right to take from you (in rights or property) and if you show worry by objecting to such things it further validates our motions to see that you are deprived of these things" are so incredibly frightening and Orwellian. But guess what, the indoctrinated foot-soldiers of the state are being trained to think like this, and they're promoting these ideas now through garbage like this!

See I believe in things like 'Freedom', 'Liberty' and guns because the latter in the hands of the Free help protect and preserve these things for them. But I guess offering any argument as to why I believe and remain convicted that placing so much unlimited power into the hands of the state; having not only the ability to decide when I've had too much success and need to 'share' these things with others is actually a dangerous thing. I guess when I use the endless examples history has provided us with to show how it is that time and time again that whenever such vast amounts of power, both to write laws and enforce them with a gun (which is all that government by men is) almost always end up in disasters for masses, I must surely be speaking from the endless depths of all my 'insecurities' and 'racism' going on inside of me! Yeah, that's it! I must again apologize for my sinful thinking! Forgive me!

And to think I almost let all that 'racism' and those definitive and measurable human sins of 'insecurity' trick me into believing in things like the right to govern our own lives and not have them dictated to us by those who have so many times proven themselves to default into the kind of corruption that has lead the lives of those who trusted them into despotism. Oh 'worry', get out of my head, silly you! We all know that everything is fine when it comes to the state! Only people with the ability to wield political power have any justified reason for believing in that need and ability to defend the things they deem important. For the rest of you who believe in the right to defend your lives and preserve the Liberties that the State of Nature has endowed you with, what are you insecure and racist or something? It's been proven you know!

Wait a minute? I just realized something! Dear God! My very reason for writing this article is because I'm concerned and 'worry' about the future of humanity's Freedom! Fuck I'm so insecure and messed up! It's already been established as fact that I'm a 'racist' for doing these things, and of course, we know that anyone deemed a 'racist' is bad to the future prosperity of humanity! I recant! This whole article is nothing but the mindless ramblings of a highly insecure and racist white man who must surely have something inherently wrong with him, like those times I was worried about the economy and having a job! And you guys wrote an article so the 'science' is there to prove it. Surely my ability to think and reason should be silenced and suppressed! Won't happen again I promise you!

Whenever the state-worshipping political left try and argue while employing all their many pseudosciences that we're supposed to accept as true according to their say-so, you end up in complete insanity! This is why they only have emotional arguments to entice and trigger their followers.

~Shane 'Liberty' Braden

I'm trying to severely limit my use of Facebook but you can find and add me at 'MeWe(dot)com'

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-are-white-men-stockpiling-guns/