http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=too+much+logic+for+the+average+person Fri, 24 May 2013 22:46:25 -0400 Liveleak http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/u/u/ll2/logo.gif http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=too+much+logic+for+the+average+person Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:02:16 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=65a_1335379768 Yukon6400 When you cut through all of the propaganda and research the numbers yourself, by any measure - inflation adjusted, real dollars, per capita, percent of GDP, or whatever - the problem is not that a greater percent of the private dollars are not confiscated. The problem is the real growth of government in any department out paces real growth. It is a cancer that doesn't care if it kills the host. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=65a_1335379768 Yukon6400 Does Government Have a Revenue or Spending Problem? government, spending, deficit, debt, common sense, revenue, expenses, smurphs, too much logic for the average person. Tue, 19 Jul 2011 02:24:45 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6af_1311056443 Hitler_Is_Amazing by Gedaliah Braun "I am an American who taught philosophy in several African universities from 1976 to 1988, and have lived since that time in South Africa. When I first came to Africa, I knew virtually nothing about the continent or its people, but I began learning quickly. I noticed, for example, that Africans rarely kept promises and saw no need to apologize when they broke them. It was as if they were unaware they had done anything that called for an apology. It took many years for me to understand why Africans behaved this way but I think I can now explain this and other behavior that characterizes Africa. I believe that morality requires abstract thinking-as does planning for the future-and that a relative deficiency in abstract thinking may explain many things that are typically African. What follow are not scientific findings. There could be alternative explanations for what I have observed, but my conclusions are drawn from more than 30 years of living among Africans. My first inklings about what may be a deficiency in abstract thinking came from what I began to learn about African languages. In a conversation with students in Nigeria I asked how you would say that a coconut is about halfway up the tree in their local language. "You can't say that," they explained. "All you can say is that it is 'up'." "How about right at the top?" "Nope; just 'up'." In other words, there appeared to be no way to express gradations. A few years later, in Nairobi, I learned something else about African languages when two women expressed surprise at my English dictionary. "Isn't English your language?" they asked. "Yes," I said. "It's my only language." "Then why do you need a dictionary?" They were puzzled that I needed a dictionary, and I was puzzled by their puzzlement. I explained that there are times when you hear a word you're not sure about and so you look it up. "But if English is your language," they asked, "how can there be words you don't know?" "What?" I said. "No one knows all the words of his language." I have concluded that a relative deficiency in abstract thinking may explain many things that are typically African. "But we know all the words of Kikuyu; every Kikuyu does," they replied. I was even more surprised, but gradually it dawned on me that since their language is entirely oral, it exists only in the minds of Kikuyu speakers. Since there is a limit to what the human brain can retain, the overall size of the language remains more or less constant. A written language, on the other hand, existing as it does partly in the millions of pages of the written word, grows far beyond the capacity of anyone to know it in its entirety. But if the size of a language is limited, it follows that the number of concepts it contains will also be limited and hence that both language and thinking will be impoverished. African languages were, of necessity, sufficient in their pre-colonial context. They are impoverished only by contrast to Western languages and in an Africa trying to emulate the West. While numerous dictionaries have been compiled between European and African languages, there are few dictionaries within a single African language, precisely because native speakers have no need for them. I did find a Zulu-Zulu dictionary, but it was a small-format paperback of 252 pages. My queries into Zulu began when I rang the African Language Department at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg and spoke to a white guy. Did "precision" exist in the Zulu language prior to European contact? "Oh," he said, "that's a very Eurocentric question!" and simply wouldn't answer. I rang again, spoke to another white guy, and got a virtually identical response. So I called the University of South Africa, a large correspondence university in Pretoria, and spoke to a young black guy. As has so often been my experience in Africa, we hit it off from the start. He understood my interest in Zulu and found my questions of great interest. He explained that the Zulu word for "precision" means "to make like a straight line." Was this part of indigenous Zulu? No; this was added by the compilers of the dictionary. But, he assured me, it was otherwise for "promise." I was skeptical. How about "obligation?" We both had the same dictionary (English-Zulu, Zulu-English Dictionary, published by Witwatersrand University Press in 1958), and looked it up. The Zulu entry means "as if to bind one's feet." He said that was not indigenous but was added by the compilers. But if Zulu didn't have the concept of obligation, how could it have the concept of a promise, since a promise is simply the oral undertaking of an obligation? I was interested in this, I said, because Africans often failed to keep promises and never apologized-as if this didn't warrant an apology. A light bulb seemed to go on in his mind. Yes, he said; in fact, the Zulu word for promise-isithembiso-is not the correct word. When a black person "promises" he means "maybe I will and maybe I won't." But, I said, this makes nonsense of promising, the very purpose of which is to bind one to a course of action. When one is not sure he can do something he may say, "I will try but I can't promise." He said he'd heard whites say that and had never understood it till now. As a young Romanian friend so aptly summed it up, when a black person "promises" he means "I'll try." The failure to keep promises is therefore not a language problem. It is hard to believe that after living with whites for so long they would not learn the correct meaning, and it is too much of a coincidence that the same phenomenon is found in Nigeria, Kenya and Papua New Guinea, where I have also lived. It is much more likely that Africans generally lack the very concept and hence cannot give the word its correct meaning. This would seem to indicate some difference in intellectual capacity. Note the Zulu entry for obligation: "as if to bind one's feet." An obligation binds you, but it does so morally, not physically. It is an abstract concept, which is why there is no word for it in Zulu. So what did the authors of the dictionary do? They took this abstract concept and made it concrete. Feet, rope, and tying are all tangible and observable, and therefore things all blacks will understand, whereas many will not understand what an obligation is. The fact that they had to define it in this way is, by itself, compelling evidence for my conclusion that Zulu thought has few abstract concepts and indirect evidence for the view that Africans may be deficient in abstract thinking. Abstract thinking Abstract entities do not exist in space or time; they are typically intangible and can't be perceived by the senses. They are often things that do not exist. "What would happen if everyone threw rubbish everywhere?" refers to something we hope will not happen, but we can still think about it. Everything we observe with our senses occurs in time and everything we see exists in space; yet we can perceive neither time nor space with our senses, but only with the mind. Precision is also abstract; while we can see and touch things made with precision, precision itself can only be perceived by the mind. How do we acquire abstract concepts? Is it enough to make things with precision in order to have the concept of precision? Africans make excellent carvings, made with precision, so why isn't the concept in their language? To have this concept we must not only do things with precision but must be aware of this phenomenon and then give it a name. How, for example, do we acquire such concepts as belief and doubt? We all have beliefs; even animals do. When a dog wags its tail on hearing his master's footsteps, it believes he is coming. But it has no concept of belief because it has no awareness that it has this belief and so no awareness of belief per se. In short, it has no self-consciousness, and thus is not aware of its own mental states. It has long seemed to me that blacks tend to lack self-awareness. If such awareness is necessary for developing abstract concepts it is not surprising that African languages have so few abstract terms. A lack of self-awareness-or introspection-has advantages. In my experience neurotic behavior, characterized by excessive and unhealthy self-consciousness, is uncommon among blacks. I am also confident that sexual dysfunction, which is characterized by excessive self-consciousness, is less common among blacks than whites. Time is another abstract concept with which Africans seem to have difficulties. I began to wonder about this in 1998. Several Africans drove up in a car and parked right in front of mine, blocking it. "Hey," I said, "you can't park here." "Oh, are you about to leave?" they asked in a perfectly polite and friendly way. "No," I said, "but I might later. Park over there"-and they did. While the possibility that I might want to leave later was obvious to me, their thinking seemed to encompass only the here and now: "If you're leaving right now we understand, but otherwise, what's the problem?" I had other such encounters and the key question always seemed to be, "Are you leaving now?" The future, after all, does not exist. It will exist, but doesn't exist now. People who have difficulty thinking of things that do not exist will ipso facto have difficulty thinking about the future. It appears that the Zulu word for "future"-isikhati-is the same as the word for time, as well as for space. Realistically, this means that these concepts probably do not exist in Zulu thought. It also appears that there is no word for the past-meaning, the time preceding the present. The past did exist, but no longer exists. Hence, people who may have problems thinking of things that do not exist will have trouble thinking of the past as well as the future. This has an obvious bearing on such sentiments as gratitude and loyalty, which I have long noticed are uncommon among Africans. We feel gratitude for things that happened in the past, but for those with little sense of the past such feelings are less likely to arise. Why did it take me more than 20 years to notice all of this? I think it is because our assumptions about time are so deeply rooted that we are not even aware of making them and hence the possibility that others may not share them simply does not occur to us. And so we don't see it, even when the evidence is staring us in the face. Mathematics and maintenance I quote from an article in the South African press about the problems blacks have with mathematics: " is a language where polygon and plane have the same definition ... where concepts like triangle, quadrilateral, pentagon, hexagon are defined by only one word." ("Finding New Languages for Maths and Science," Star , July 24, 2002, p. 8.) More accurately, these concepts simply do not exist in Xhosa, which, along with Zulu, is one of the two most widely spoken languages in South Africa. In America, blacks are said to have a "tendency to approximate space, numbers and time instead of aiming for complete accuracy." (Star, June 8, 1988, p.10.) In other words, they are also poor at math. Notice the identical triumvirate-space, numbers, and time. Is it just a coincidence that these three highly abstract concepts are the ones with which blacks - everywhere - seem to have such difficulties? The entry in the Zulu dictionary for "number," by the way - ningi - means "numerous," which is not at all the same as the concept of number. It is clear, therefore, that there is no concept of number in Zulu. White rule in South Africa ended in 1994. It was about ten years later that power outages began, which eventually reached crisis proportions. The principle reason for this is simply lack of maintenance on the generating equipment. Maintenance is future-oriented, and the Zulu entry in the dictionary for it is ondla, which means: "1. Nourish, rear; bring up; 2. Keep an eye on; watch (your crop)." In short, there is no such thing as maintenance in Zulu thought, and it would be hard to argue that this is wholly unrelated to the fact that when people throughout Africa say "nothing works," it is only an exaggeration. The New York Times reports that New York City is considering a plan (since implemented) aimed at getting blacks to "do well on standardized tests and to show up for class," by paying them to do these things and that could "earn as much as $500 a year." Students would get money for regular school attendance, every book they read, doing well on tests, and sometimes just for taking them. Parents would be paid for "keeping a full-time job ... having health insurance ... and attending parent-teacher conferences." (Jennifer Medina, "Schools Plan to Pay Cash for Marks," New York Times, June 19, 2007.) The clear implication is that blacks are not very motivated. Motivation involves thinking about the future and hence about things that do not exist. Given black deficiencies in this regard, it is not surprising that they would be lacking in motivation, and having to prod them in this way is further evidence for such a deficiency. The Zulu entry for "motivate" is banga, under which we find "1. Make, cause, produce something unpleasant; ... to cause trouble . ... 2. Contend over a claim; ... fight over inheritance; ... 3. Make for, aim at, journey towards ... ." Yet when I ask Africans what banga means, they have no idea. In fact, no Zulu word could refer to motivation for the simple reason that there is no such concept in Zulu; and if there is no such concept there cannot be a word for it. This helps explain the need to pay blacks to behave as if they were motivated. The same New York Times article quotes Darwin Davis of the Urban League as "caution that the ... money being offered was relatively paltry ... and wondering ... how many tests students would need to pass to buy the latest video game." Instead of being shamed by the very need for such a plan, this black activist complains that the payments aren't enough! If he really is unaware how his remarks will strike most readers, he is morally obtuse, but his views may reflect a common understanding among blacks of what morality is: not something internalized but something others enforce from the outside. Hence his complaint that paying children to do things they should be motivated to do on their own is that they are not being paid enough. In this context, I recall some remarkable discoveries by the late American linguist, William Stewart, who spent many years in Senegal studying local languages. Whereas Western cultures internalize norms-"Don't do that!" for a child, eventually becomes "I mustn't do that" for an adult-African cultures do not. They rely entirely on external controls on behavior from tribal elders and other sources of authority. When Africans were detribalized, these external constraints disappeared, and since there never were internal constraints, the results were crime, drugs, promiscuity, etc. Where there have been other forms of control-as in white-ruled South Africa, colonial Africa, or the segregated American South-this behavior was kept within tolerable limits. But when even these controls disappear there is often unbridled violence. Stewart apparently never asked why African cultures did not internalize norms, that is, why they never developed moral consciousness, but it is unlikely that this was just a historical accident. More likely, it was the result of deficiencies in abstract thinking ability. One explanation for this lack of abstract thinking, including the diminished understanding of time, is that Africans evolved in a climate where they could live day to day without having to think ahead. They never developed this ability because they had no need for it. Whites, on the other hand, evolved under circumstances in which they had to consider what would happen if they didn't build stout houses and store enough fuel and food for the winter. For them it was sink or swim. Surprising confirmation of Stewart's ideas can be found in the May/June 2006 issue of the Boston Review, a typically liberal publication. In "Do the Right Thing: Cognitive Science's Search for a Common Morality," Rebecca Saxe distinguishes between "conventional" and "moral" rules. Conventional rules are supported by authorities but can be changed; moral rules, on the other hand, are not based on conventional authority and are not subject to change. "Even three-year-old children ... distinguish between moral and conventional transgressions," she writes. The only exception, according to James Blair of the National Institutes of Health, are psychopaths, who exhibit "persistent aggressive behavior." For them, all rules are based only on external authority, in whose absence "anything is permissible." The conclusion drawn from this is that "healthy individuals in all cultures respect the distinction between conventional ... and moral ." However, in the same article, another anthropologist argues that "the special status of moral rules cannot be part of human nature, but is ... just ... an artifact of Western values." Anita Jacobson-Widding, writing of her experiences among the Manyika of Zimbabwe, says: "I tried to find a word that would correspond to the English concept of 'morality.' I explained what I meant by asking my informants to describe the norms for good behavior toward other people. The answer was unanimous. The word for this was tsika. But when I asked my bilingual informants to translate tsika into English, they said that it was 'good manners' ..." An all-too-common problem. She concluded that because good manners are clearly conventional rather than moral rules, the Manyika simply did not have a concept of morality. But how would one explain this absence? Miss Jacobson-Widding's explanation is the typical nonsense that could come only from a so-called intellectual: "the concept of morality does not exist." The far more likely explanation is that the concept of morality, while otherwise universal, is enfeebled in cultures that have a deficiency in abstract thinking. According to now-discredited folk wisdom, blacks are "children in adult bodies," but there may be some foundation to this view. The average African adult has the raw IQ score of the average 11-year-old white child. This is about the age at which white children begin to internalize morality and no longer need such strong external enforcers. Gruesome cruelty Another aspect of African behavior that liberals do their best to ignore but that nevertheless requires an explanation is gratuitous cruelty. A reviewer of Driving South, a 1993 book by David Robbins, writes: Victim of Rwandan violence. "A Cape social worker sees elements that revel in violence ... It's like a cult which has embraced a lot of people who otherwise appear normal. ... At the slightest provocation their blood-lust is aroused. And then they want to see death, and they jeer and mock at the suffering involved, especially the suffering of a slow and agonizing death." (Citizen , July 12, 1993, p.6.) There is something so unspeakably vile about this, something so beyond depravity, that the human brain recoils. This is not merely the absence of human empathy, but the positive enjoyment of human suffering, all the more so when it is "slow and agonizing." Can you imagine jeering at and mocking someone in such horrible agony? During the apartheid era, black activists used to kill traitors and enemies by "necklacing" them. An old tire was put around the victim's neck, filled with gasoline, and-but it is best to let an eye-witness describe what happened next: "The petrol-filled tyre is jammed on your shoulders and a lighter is placed within reach . ... Your fingers are broken, needles are pushed up your nose and you are tortured until you put the lighter to the petrol yourself." (Citizen; "SA's New Nazis," August 10, 1993, p.18.) The author of an article in the Chicago Tribune, describing the equally gruesome way the Hutu killed Tutsi in the Burundi massacres, marveled at "the ecstasy of killing, the lust for blood; this is the most horrible thought. It's beyond my reach." ("Hutu Killers Danced In Blood Of Victims, Videotapes Show," Chicago Tribune, September 14, 1995, p.8.) The lack of any moral sense is further evidenced by their having videotaped their crimes, "apparently want to record ... for posterity." Unlike Nazi war criminals, who hid their deeds, these people apparently took pride in their work. Where Amy Biehl was killed. In 1993, Amy Biehl, a 26-year-old American on a Fulbright scholarship, was living in South Africa, where she spent most of her time in black townships helping blacks. One day when she was driving three African friends home, young blacks stopped the car, dragged her out, and killed her because she was white. A retired senior South African judge, Rex van Schalkwyk, in his 1998 book One Miracle is Not Enough, quotes from a newspaper report on the trial of her killers: "Supporters of the three men accused of murdering ... burst out laughing in the public gallery of the Supreme Court today when a witness told how the battered woman groaned in pain." This behavior, Van Schalkwyk wrote, "is impossible to explain in terms accessible to rational minds." (pp. 188-89.) These incidents and the responses they evoke-"the human brain recoils," "beyond my reach," "impossible to explain to rational minds" - represent a pattern of behavior and thinking that cannot be wished away, and offer additional support for my claim that Africans are deficient in moral consciousness. I have long suspected that the idea of rape is not the same in Africa as elsewhere, and now I find confirmation of this in Newsweek: "According to a three-year study ... more than half of the young people interviewed - both male and female - believe that forcing sex with someone you know does not constitute sexual violence ... he casual manner in which South African teens discuss coercive relationships and unprotected sex is staggering." (Tom Masland, "Breaking The Silence," Newsweek, July 9, 2000.) Clearly, many blacks do not think rape is anything to be ashamed of. The Newsweek author is puzzled by widespread behavior that is known to lead to AIDS, asking "Why has the safe-sex effort failed so abjectly?" Well, aside from their profoundly different attitudes towards sex and violence and their heightened libido, a major factor could be their diminished concept of time and reduced ability to think ahead. Liberian billboard Nevertheless, I was still surprised by what I found in the Zulu dictionary. The main entry for rape reads: "1. Act hurriedly; ... 2. Be greedy. 3. Rob, plunder, ... take by force." While these entries may be related to our concept of rape, there is one small problem: there is no reference to sexual intercourse! In a male-dominated culture, where saying "no" is often not an option (as confirmed by the study just mentioned), "taking sex by force" is not really part of the African mental calculus. Rape clearly has a moral dimension, but perhaps not to Africans. To the extent they do not consider coerced sex to be wrong, then, by our conception, they cannot consider it rape because rape is wrong. If such behavior isn't wrong it isn't rape. An article about gang rape in the left-wing British paper, the Guardian, confirms this when it quotes a young black woman: "The thing is, they don't see it as rape, as us being forced. They just see it as pleasure for them." (Rose George, "They Don't See it as Rape. They Just See it as Pleasure for Them," June 5, 2004.) A similar attitude seems to be shared among some American blacks who casually refer to gang rape as "running a train." (Nathan McCall, Makes Me Wanna Holler, Vintage Books, 1995.) If the African understanding of rape is far afield, so may be their idea of romance or love. I recently watched a South African television program about having sex for money. Of the several women in the audience who spoke up, not a single one questioned the morality of this behavior. Indeed, one plaintively asked, "Why else would I have sex with a man?" From the casual way in which Africans throw around the word "love," I suspect their understanding of it is, at best, childish. I suspect the notion is alien to Africans, and I would be surprised if things are very different among American blacks. Africans hear whites speak of "love" and try to give it a meaning from within their own conceptual repertoire. The result is a child's conception of this deepest of human emotions, probably similar to their misunderstanding of the nature of a promise. I recently located a document that was dictated to me by a young African woman in June 1993. She called it her "story," and the final paragraph is a poignant illustration of what to Europeans would seem to be a limited understanding of love: "On my way from school, I met a boy. And he proposed me. His name was Mokone. He tell me that he love me. And then I tell him I will give him his answer next week. At night I was crazy about him. I was always thinking about him." Moral blindness Whenever I taught ethics I used the example of Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish officer in the French Army who was convicted of treason in 1894 even though the authorities knew he was innocent. Admitting their mistake, it was said, would have a disastrous effect on military morale and would cause great social unrest. I would in turn argue that certain things are intrinsically wrong and not just because of their consequences. Even if the results of freeing Dreyfus would be much worse than keeping him in prison, he must be freed, because it is unjust to keep an innocent man in prison. To my amazement, an entire class in Kenya said without hesitation that he should not be freed. Call me dense if you want, but it was 20 years before the full significance of this began to dawn on me. Death is certain but accidents are not. Africans, I believe, may generally lack the concepts of subjunctivity and counterfactuality. Subjunctivity is conveyed in such statements as, "What would you have done if I hadn't showed up?" This is contrary to fact because I did show up, and it is now impossible for me not to have shown up. We are asking someone to imagine what he would have done if something that didn't happen (and now couldn't happen) had happened. This requires self-consciousness, and I have already described blacks' possible deficiency in this respect. It is obvious that animals, for example, cannot think counterfactually, because of their complete lack of self-awareness. When someone I know tried to persuade his African workers to contribute to a health insurance policy, they asked "What's it for?" "Well, if you have an accident, it would pay for the hospital." Their response was immediate: "But boss, we didn't have an accident!" "Yes, but what if you did?" Reply? "We didn't have an accident!" End of story. South African AIDS education poster. Interestingly, blacks do plan for funerals, for although an accident is only a risk, death is a certainty. (The Zulu entries for "risk" are "danger" and "a slippery surface.") Given the frequent all-or-nothing nature of black thinking, if it's not certain you will have an accident, then you will not have an accident. Furthermore, death is concrete and observable: We see people grow old and die. Africans tend to be aware of time when it is manifested in the concrete and observable. One of the pivotal ideas underpinning morality is the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. "How would you feel if someone stole everything you owned? Well, that's how he would feel if you robbed him." The subjunctivity here is obvious. But if Africans may generally lack this concept, they will have difficulty in understanding the Golden Rule and, to that extent, in understanding morality. If this is true we might also expect their capacity for human empathy to be diminished, and this is suggested in the examples cited above. After all, how do we empathize? When we hear about things like "necklacing" we instinctively - and unconsciously - think: "How would I feel if I were that person?" Of course I am not and cannot be that person, but to imagine being that person gives us valuable moral "information:" that we wouldn't want this to happen to us and so we shouldn't want it to happen to others. To the extent people are deficient in such abstract thinking, they will be deficient in moral understanding and hence in human empathy-which is what we tend to find in Africans. In his 1990 book Devil's Night, Ze'ev Chafets quotes a black woman speaking about the problems of Detroit: "I know some people won't like this, but whenever you get a whole lot of black people, you're gonna have problems. Blacks are ignorant and rude." (pp. 76-77.) If some Africans cannot clearly imagine what their own rude behavior feels like to others-in other words, if they cannot put themselves in the other person's shoes-they will be incapable of understanding what rudeness is. For them, what we call rude may be normal and therefore, from their perspective, not really rude. Africans may therefore not be offended by behavior we would consider rude - not keeping appointments, for example. One might even conjecture that African cruelty is not the same as white cruelty, since Africans may not be fully aware of the nature of their behavior, whereas such awareness is an essential part of "real" cruelty. I am hardly the only one to notice this obliviousness to others that sometimes characterizes black behavior. Walt Harrington, a white liberal married to a light-skinned black, makes some surprising admissions in his 1994 book, Crossings: A White Man's Journey Into Black America: "I notice a small car ... in the distance. Suddenly ... a bag of garbage flies out its window . ... I think, I'll bet they're blacks. Over the years I've noticed more blacks littering than whites. I hate to admit this because it is a prejudice. But as I pass the car, I see that my reflex was correct- . " into a McDonald's drive-through ... the car in front of me had four black in it. Again ... my mind made its unconscious calculation: We'll be sitting here forever while these people decide what to order. I literally shook my head . ... My God, my kids are half black! But then the kicker: we waited and waited and waited. Each of the four ... leaned out the window and ordered individually. The order was changed several times. We sat and sat, and I again shook my head, this time at the conundrum that is race in America. "I knew that the buried sentiment that had made me predict this disorganization ... was ... racist. ... But my prediction was right." (pp. 234-35.) Africans also tend to litter. To understand this we must ask why whites don't litter, at least not as much. We ask ourselves: "What would happen if everyone threw rubbish everywhere? It would be a mess. So you shouldn't do it!" Blacks' possible deficiency in abstract thinking makes such reasoning more difficult, so any behavior requiring such thinking is less likely to develop in their cultures. Even after living for generations in societies where such thinking is commonplace, many may still fail to absorb it. It should go without saying that my observations about Africans are generalizations. I am not saying that none has the capacity for abstract thought or moral understanding. I am speaking of tendencies and averages, which leave room for many exceptions. To what extent do my observations about Africans apply to American blacks? American blacks have an average IQ of 85, which is a full 15 points higher than the African average of 70. The capacity for abstract thought is unquestionably correlated with intelligence, and so we can expect American blacks generally to exceed Africans in these respects. Still, American blacks show many of the traits so striking among Africans: low mathematical ability, diminished abstract reasoning, high crime rates, a short time-horizon, rudeness, littering, etc. If I had lived only among American blacks and not among Africans, I might never have reached the conclusions I have, but the more extreme behavior among Africans makes it easier to perceive the same tendencies among American blacks." Source http://www.akfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89225 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6af_1311056443 Hitler_Is_Amazing How Africans may differ from Westerners...Fascinating Post on African Thinking and Logic from A white Man's Point of View. Africa, Africans, Logic Thu, 09 Aug 2012 18:31:32 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8d9_1344550525 MajorTom Stumbled on this a few days ago. I think everyone should read it. Long yes, but it helps to understand our fellow humans who have a fear of firearms. Worth reposting for sure! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality By Sarah Thompson, M.D. righter@therighter.com "You don't need to have a gun; the police will protect you." "If people carry guns, there will be murders over parking spaces and neighborhood basketball games." "I'm a pacifist. Enlightened, spiritually aware people shouldn't own guns." "I'd rather be raped than have some redneck militia type try to rescue me." How often have you heard these statements from misguided advocates of victim disarmament, or even woefully uninformed relatives and neighbors? Why do people cling so tightly to these beliefs, in the face of incontrovertible evidence that they are wrong? Why do they get so furiously angry when gun owners point out that their arguments are factually and logically incorrect? How can you communicate with these people who seem to be out of touch with reality and rational thought? One approach to help you deal with anti-gun people is to understand their psychological processes. Once you understand why these people behave so irrationally, you can communicate more effectively with them. Defense Mechanisms Projection About a year ago I received an e-mail from a member of a local Jewish organization. The author, who chose to remain anonymous, insisted that people have no right to carry firearms because he didn't want to be murdered if one of his neighbors had a "bad day". (I don't know that this person is a "he", but I'm assuming so for the sake of simplicity.) I responded by asking him why he thought his neighbors wanted to murder him, and, of course, got no response. The truth is that he's statistically more likely to be murdered by a neighbor who doesn't legally carry a firearm1 and more likely to be shot accidentally by a law enforcement officer.1 How does my correspondent "know" that his neighbors would murder him if they had guns? He doesn't. What he was really saying was that if he had a gun, he might murder his neighbors if he had a bad day, or if they took his parking space, or played their stereos too loud. This is an example of what mental health professionals call projection - unconsciously projecting one's own unacceptable feelings onto other people, so that one doesn't have to own them.3 In some cases, the intolerable feelings are projected not onto a person, but onto an inanimate object, such as a gun,4 so that the projector believes the gun itself will murder him. Projection is a defense mechanism. Defense mechanisms are unconscious psychological mechanisms that protect us from feelings that we cannot consciously accept.5 They operate without our awareness, so that we don't have to deal consciously with "forbidden" feelings and impulses. Thus, if you asked my e-mail correspondent if he really wanted to murder his neighbors, he would vehemently deny it, and insist that other people want to kill him. Projection is a particularly insidious defense mechanism, because it not only prevents a person from dealing with his own feelings, it also creates a world where he perceives everyone else as directing his own hostile feelings back at him.6 All people have violent, and even homicidal, impulses. For example, it's common to hear people say "I'd like to kill my boss", or "If you do that one more time I'm going to kill you." They don't actually mean that they're going to, or even would, kill anyone; they're simply acknowledging anger and frustration. All of us suffer from fear and feelings of helplessness and vulnerability. Most people can acknowledge feelings of rage, fear, frustration, jealousy, etc. without having to act on them in inappropriate and destructive ways. Some people, however, are unable consciously to admit that they have such "unacceptable" emotions. They may have higher than average levels of rage, frustration, or fear. Perhaps they fear that if they acknowledge the hostile feelings, they will lose control and really will hurt someone. They may believe that "good people" never have such feelings, when in fact all people have them. This is especially true now that education "experts" commonly prohibit children from expressing negative emotions or aggression. Instead of learning that such emotions are normal, but that destructive behavior needs to be controlled, children now learn that feelings of anger are evil, dangerous and subject to severe punishment.7To protect themselves from "being bad", they are forced to use defense mechanisms to avoid owning their own normal emotions. Unfortunately, using such defense mechanisms inappropriately can endanger their mental health; children need to learn how to deal appropriately with reality, not how to avoid it.8 (This discussion of psychological mechanisms applies to the average person who is uninformed, or misinformed, about firearms and self-defense. It does not apply to the anti- gun ideologue. Fanatics like Charles Schumer know the facts about firearms, and advocate victim disarmament consciously and willfully in order to gain political power. This psychological analysis does not apply to them.) Denial Another defense mechanism commonly utilized by supporters of gun control is denial. Denial is simply refusing to accept the reality of a given situation.9 For example, consider a woman whose husband starts coming home late, has strange perfume on his clothes, and starts charging flowers and jewelry on his credit card. She may get extremely angry at a well-meaning friend who suggests that her husband is having an affair. The reality is obvious, but the wronged wife is so threatened by her husband's infidelity that she is unable to accept it, and so denies its existence. Anti-gun people do the same thing. It's obvious that we live in a dangerous society, where criminals attack innocent people. Just about everyone has been, or knows someone who has been, victimized. It's equally obvious that law enforcement can't protect everyone everywhere 24 hours a day. Extensive scholarly research demonstrates that the police have no legal duty to protect you10 and that firearm ownership is the most effective way to protect yourself and your family.11 There is irrefutable evidence that victim disarmament nearly always precedes genocide.12 Nonetheless, the anti-gun folks insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that "the police will protect you", "this is a safe neighborhood" and "it can't happen here", where "it" is everything from mugging to mass murder. Anti-gun people who refuse to accept the reality of the proven and very serious dangers of civilian disarmament are using denial to protect themselves from the anxiety of feeling helpless and vulnerable. Likewise, gun owners who insist that "the government will never confiscate my guns" are also using denial to protect themselves from the anxiety of contemplating being forcibly disarmed and rendered helpless and vulnerable. Reaction Formation Reaction formation is yet another defense mechanism common among the anti-gun folks. Reaction formation occurs when a person's mind turns an unacceptable feeling or desire into its complete opposite.13 For example, a child who is jealous of a sibling may exhibit excessive love and devotion for the hated brother or sister. Likewise, a person who harbors murderous rage toward his fellow humans may claim to be a devoted pacifist and refuse to eat meat or even kill a cockroach.14 Often such people take refuge in various spiritual disciplines and believe that they are "superior" to "less civilized" folks who engage in "violent behavior" such as hunting, or even target shooting. They may devote themselves to "animal welfare" organizations that proclaim that the rights of animals take precedence over the rights of people.15 This not only allows the angry person to avoid dealing with his rage, it allows him actually to harm the people he hates without having to know he hates them. This is not meant to disparage the many wonderful people who are pacifists, spiritually inclined, vegetarian, or who support animal welfare. The key issue is not the belief itself, but rather the way in which the person experiences and lives his beliefs. Sincere practitioners seek to improve themselves, or to be helpful in a gentle, respectful fashion. They work to persuade others peacefully by setting an example of what they believe to be correct behavior. Sincere pacifists generally exhibit good will towards others, even towards persons with whom they might disagree on various issues. Contrast the sincere pacifist or animal lover with the strident, angry person who wants to ban meat and who believes murdering hunters is justified in order to "save the animals" - or the person who wants to outlaw self- defense and believes innocent people have the obligation to be raped and murdered for the good of society. For example, noted feminist Betty Friedan said "that lethal violence even in self defense only engenders more violence."16 The truly spiritual, pacifist person refrains from forcing others to do what he believes, and is generally driven by positive emotions, while the angry person finds "socially acceptable" ways to harm, abuse, or even kill, his fellow man. In the case of anti-gun people, reaction formation keeps any knowledge of their hatred for their fellow humans out of consciousness, while allowing them to feel superior to "violent gun owners". At the same time, it also allows them to cause serious harm, and even loss of life, to others by denying them the tools necessary to defend themselves. This makes reaction formation very attractive from a psychological point of view, and therefore very difficult to counteract. Defense Mechanisms Are Not Mental Illnesses Defense mechanisms are normal. All of us use them to some extent, and their use does not imply mental illness. Advocates of victim disarmament may be misguided or uninformed, they may be stupid, or they may be consciously intent on evil, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are "mentally ill". Some defense mechanisms, however, are healthier than others. A safe general rule is that a defense is healthy if it helps you to function better in your personal and professional life, and unhealthy if it interferes with your life, your relationships, or the well-being of others. Young children utilize projection and denial much more commonly than do healthy adults. On the other hand, "if projection is used as a defense mechanism to a very great extent in adult life, the user's perception of external reality will be seriously distorted."17 Defense mechanisms are also frequently combined, so that an anti-gun person may use several defense mechanisms simultaneously. For example, my unfortunate correspondent uses projection to create a world in which all his neighbors want to murder him. As a result, he becomes more angry and fearful, and needs to employ even more defense mechanisms to cope. So he uses projection to attribute his own rage to others, he uses denial that there is any danger to protect himself from a world where he believes he is helpless and everyone wants to murder him, and he uses reaction formation to try to control everyone else's life because his own is so horribly out of control. Also, it's important to remember that not all anti-gun beliefs are the result of defense mechanisms. Some people suffer from gun phobia18, an excessive and completely irrational fear of firearms, usually caused by the anti-gun conditioning they've been subjected to by the media, politicians, so-called "educators," and others. In some cases, gun phobia is caused by an authentic bad experience associated with a firearm. But with all due respect to Col. Jeff Cooper, who coined the term "hoplophobia" to describe anti-gun people, most anti-gun people do not have true phobias. Interestingly, a person with a true phobia of guns realizes his fear is excessive or unreasonable,19 something most anti-gun folks will never admit. Defense mechanisms distort reality Because defense mechanisms distort reality in order to avoid unpleasant emotions, the person who uses them has an impaired ability to recognize and accept reality. This explains why my e-mail correspondent and many other anti-gun people persist in believing that their neighbors and co- workers will become mass murderers if allowed to own firearms. People who legally carry concealed firearms are actually less violent and less prone to criminal activity of all kinds than is the general population.20 A person who has a clean record, has passed an FBI background check, undergone firearms training, and spent several hundred dollars to get a permit and a firearm, is highly unlikely to choose to murder a neighbor. Doing so would result in his facing a police manhunt, a trial, prison, possibly capital punishment, and the destruction of his family, job, and reputation. Obviously it would make no sense for such a person to shoot a neighbor - except in self-defense. Equally obviously, the anti-gun person who believes that malicious shootings by ordinary gun owners are likely to occur is not in touch with reality.21 The Common Thread: Rage In my experience, the common thread in anti-gun people is rage. Either anti-gun people harbor more rage than others, or they're less able to cope with it appropriately. Because they can't handle their own feelings of rage, they are forced to use defense mechanisms in an unhealthy manner. Because they wrongly perceive others as seeking to harm them, they advocate the disarmament of ordinary people who have no desire to harm anyone. So why do anti-gun people have so much rage and why are they unable to deal with it in appropriate ways? Consider for a moment that the largest and most hysterical anti-gun groups include disproportionately large numbers of women, African- Americans and Jews. And virtually all of the organizations that claim to speak for these "oppressed people" are stridently anti-gun. Not coincidentally, among Jews, Blacks and women there are many "professional victims" who have little sense of identity outside of their victimhood. Identity as Victim If I were to summarize this article in three sentences, they would be: (1) People who identify themselves as "victims" harbor excessive amounts of rage at other people, whom they perceive as "not victims." (2) In order psychologically to deal with this rage, these "victims" utilize defense mechanisms that enable them to harm others in socially acceptable ways, without accepting responsibility or suffering guilt, and without having to give up their status as "victims." (3) Gun owners are frequently the targets of professional victims because gun owners are willing and able to prevent their own victimization. Thus the concept of "identity as victim" is essential. How and why do members of some groups choose to identify themselves as victims and teach their children to do the same? While it's true that women, Jews, and African- Americans have historically been victimized, they now participate in American society on an equal basis. And other groups, most notably Asian-Americans, have been equally victimized, and yet have transcended the "eternal victim" mentality. Why, for example, would a 6'10" NBA player who makes $10 million a year see himself as a "victim"? Why would a successful, respected, wealthy, Jewish physician regard himself as a "victim"? Conversely, why might a wheelchair bound woman who lives on government disability NOT regard herself as a victim? I would argue it's because the basketball player and the physician believe that their identities are dependent on being victims - not because they have actually been victimized, but because they're members of groups that claim victim status. Conversely, the disabled woman was probably raised to believe that she is responsible for her own success or failure. In fact, many people who have been victims of actual violent crime, or who have survived war or civil strife, support the right of self-defense. The old saying is often correct: "a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged." Special Treatment and Misleading Leaders Two reasons for these groups to insist on "victim" status seem likely. First, by claiming victim status, members of these groups can demand (and get) special treatment through quotas, affirmative action, reparations, and other preferential treatment programs. Second, these people have been indoctrinated to believe that there is no alternative to remaining a victim forever. Their leaders remind them constantly that they are mistreated in every imaginable way (most of them imaginary!), attribute every one of life's misfortunes to "racism" or "sexism" or "hate crimes", and dream up ever more complex schemes for special treatment and favors.22 These leaders are the ones who preach that the entire Black experience is slavery and racism, or that Jewish history before and after the Holocaust is irrelevant,23 or that happily married women are really victims of sexual slavery.24 Likewise, the NAACP is suing firearms manufacturers to put them out of business,25 and is especially opposed to the inexpensive pistols that enable the poor to defend themselves in gang-ridden inner cities. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) proposed evicting anyone who dares to keep a tool of self-defense in any of its crime-infested housing projects. Jewish leaders, especially those in the politically correct "Reform" branch, preach that gun control is "a solemn religious obligation",26 contrary to the teachings of their sacred scriptures and their own history.27 Law enforcement agencies falsely teach women that they are safest if they don't resist rapists and robbers,28 while women's organizations advocate gun control, thus rendering women and their children defenseless. Victimhood is good business for organizations that foster victim status. As victims, the members depend upon the organization to protect them, and the organization in turn relies on members for funding and political power. In the interest of self-preservation, these organizations work hard at preserving hatred and bigotry and at keeping their members defenseless - and therefore dependent. Anti-gun groups love victims! From my observations, pro-victimhood is a feature of all of the anti-gun special interest groups, not just the ones mentioned here. Every organization that supports gun control apparently wants its members to be helpless, terrified and totally dependent on someone else to control every aspect of their lives. It doesn't matter whether it's a religious, racial, ethnic, political, social, or charitable group. From Handgun Control, Inc. to the Anti- Defamation League to the Million Mom March, they all want you to live in fear. In this scheme, soccer moms are "victims" just as much as are inner-city minorities. If these organizations truly cared about the people for whom they claim to speak, they would encourage safe and responsible firearms ownership. They would help people to learn how to defend themselves and their families so that they wouldn't have to live in fear. They would tell everyone that one of the wonderful things about being an American is that you have the right to keep and bear arms, the right to defend yourself, and how these rights preserve the right to be free. The psychological price of being a victim In our current society, victimhood has many perceived benefits, but there are some serious drawbacks. Victims tend to see the world as a scary and threatening place. They believe that others treat them differently, unfairly, and even maliciously - and that they are helpless to do anything about it. This belief, that they are being mistreated and are helpless to resist, generates tremendous rage, and often, serious depression. But for victims to show rage openly can be dangerous, if not outright suicidal. For example, a battered woman who screams at or hits her attacker may provoke worse beatings or even her own murder. And a person who successfully defends himself loses his status as "victim." For someone whose entire identity is dependent on being a victim, the loss of victim status is just as threatening as loss of life. So, unable psychologically to cope with such rage, people who view themselves as victims: (1) use defense mechanisms to displace it into irrational beliefs about neighbors killing each other, and the infallibility of police protection, and (2) attempt to regain control by controlling gun owners, whom they wrongly perceive as "the enemy". Say NO to being a victim! But no one needs to be a victim! Quite simply, it's not very easy to victimize a person who owns and knows how to use a firearm. If most women owned and carried firearms, rapes and beating would decrease.29 Thugs who target the elderly and disabled would find honest work once they realized they were likely to be looking down the barrel of a pistol or shotgun. It's nearly impossible to enslave, or herd into concentration camps, large numbers of armed people. Communicating with anti-gun people How can you communicate more effectively with an anti-gun person who is using unhealthy defense mechanisms? There are no quick and easy answers. But there are a few things you should keep in mind. Anger and attacks do not work Most gun owners, when confronted by an anti-gun person, become angry and hostile. This is understandable, because gun owners increasingly face ridicule, persecution and discrimination. (If you don't believe this, ask yourself if anyone would seriously introduce legislation to ban African- Americans, women, or Jews from post offices, schools, and churches. Even convicted felons aren't banned from such places - but peaceful armed citizens are!) But an angry response is counterproductive. It's not helpful to attack the person you're trying to persuade. Anything that makes him feel more fearful or angry will only intensify his defenses. Your goal is to help the person feel safe, and then to provide experiences and information that will help him to make informed decisions. Be Gentle You should never try to break down a defense mechanism by force. Remember that defense mechanisms protect people from feelings they cannot handle, and if you take that protection away, you can cause serious psychological harm. And because defense mechanisms operate unconsciously, it won't do any good to show an anti-gun person this article or to point out that he's using defense mechanisms. Your goal is gently and gradually to help the person to have a more realistic and rational view of the world. This cannot be done in one hour or one day. As you reach out to people in this way, you need to deal with both the illogical thought processes involved and the emotional reactions that anti-gun people have to firearms. When dealing with illogical thought processes, you are attempting to use reason and logic to convince the anti-gun person that his perception of other people and his perception of firearms are seriously inaccurate. The goal is to help him to understand that armed citizens and firearms are not threats, and may even save his life. Reversing Irrational thoughts The Mirror Technique One approach that can be helpful is simply to feed back what the anti-gun person is telling you, in a neutral, inquisitive way. So, when replying to my anonymous e-mail correspondent (above), I might respond, "So you fear if your neighbors had guns, they would use them to murder you. What makes you think that?" When you simply repeat what the person has said, and ask questions, you are not directly challenging his defenses. You are holding up a mirror to let him see his own views. If he has very strong defenses, he can continue to insist that his neighbors want to murder him. However, if his defenses are less rigid, he may start to question his position. Another example might be, "Why do you think that your children's schoolteachers would shoot them?" You might follow this up with something like, "Why do you entrust your precious children to someone you believe would murder them?" Again, you are merely asking questions, and not directly attacking the person or his defenses. Of course the anti-gun person might continue to insist that the teachers really would harm children, but prohibiting them from owning guns would prevent it. So you might ask how using a gun to murder innocent children is different from stabbing children with scissors, assaulting them with baseball bats, or poisoning the milk and cookies. It's important to ask "open-ended" questions that require a response other than "yes" or "no". Such questions require the anti-gun person actually to think about what he is saying. This will help him to re-examine his beliefs. It may also encourage him to ask you questions about firearms use and ownership. The "What Would You Do?" Technique Once you have a dialogue going with an anti-gun person, you might want to insert him into a hypothetical scenario, although doing so is a greater threat to his defenses, and is therefore more risky. You might ask how he would deal with a difficult or annoying co-worker. He will likely respond that he would never resort to violence, but "other people" would, especially if they had guns. (Projection again.) You can then ask him who these "other people" are, why they would shoot a co-worker, and what the shooter would gain by doing so. Don't try to "win" the argument. Don't try to embarrass the person you're trying to educate. Remember that no one likes to admit that his deeply held beliefs are wrong. No one likes to hear "I told you so!" Be patient and gentle. If you are arrogant, condescending, hurtful or rude to the anti-gun person, you will only convince him that gun owners are arrogant, hurtful people - who should not be trusted with guns! Defusing Emotional reactions The "You Are There" Technique Rational arguments alone are not likely to be successful, especially since many people "feel" rather than "think". You also need to deal with the emotional responses of the anti-gun person. Remember that most people have been conditioned to associate firearms with dead toddlers. So you need to change the person's emotional responses along with his thoughts. One way to do this is to put the anti-gun person (or his family) at a hypothetical crime scene and ask what he would like to have happen. For example, "Imagine your wife is in the parking lot at the supermarket and two men grab her. One holds a knife to her throat while the other tears her clothes off. If I see this happening and have a gun, what should I do? What would happen next? What if after five minutes, the police still haven't arrived?" Just let him answer the questions and mentally walk through the scenario. Don't argue with his answers. You are planting seeds in his mind than can help change his emotional responses. The Power of Empathy Another emotion-based approach that is often more successful is to respond sympathetically to the plight of the anti-gun person. Imagine for a moment how you would feel if you believed your neighbors and co-workers wanted to kill you and your family, and you could do nothing at all about it except to wait for the inevitable to occur. Not very pleasant, is it? This is the world in which opponents of armed self-defense live. All of us have had times in our lives when we felt "different" and had to contend with hostile schoolmates, co- workers, etc. So we need to invoke our own compassion for these terrified people. Say something like, "It must be awful to live in fear of being assaulted by your own neighbors. I remember what it was like when I was the only (Jew, Mormon, African-American, Republican) in my (class, football team, workplace) - and even then I didn't think anyone was going to kill me." It's essential that you sincerely feel some compassion and empathy; if you're glib or sarcastic, this won't work. Using empathy works in several ways. First, it defuses a potentially hostile interaction. Anti-gun people are used to being attacked, not understood, by advocates of gun rights. Instead of an "evil, gun-toting, extremist", you are now a sympathetic, fellow human being. This may also open the door for a friendly conversation, in which you can each discover that your "opponent" is a person with whom you have some things in common. You may even create an opportunity to dispel some of the misinformation about firearms and self-defense that is so prevalent. This empathy technique is also useful for redirecting, or ending, a heated argument that has become hostile and unproductive. It allows you to escape from the dead end of "guns save lives" vs. "the only reason to have a gun is to murder children." With empathy you can reframe the argument entirely. Instead of arguing about whether more lives are saved or lost as a result of gun ownership, you can comment on how terrifying it must be to live in a country where 80 million people own guns "solely for the purpose of murdering children". You should not expect any of these approaches to work immediately; they won't. With rare exceptions, the anti-gun person is simply not going to "see the light," thank you profusely, and beg you to take him shooting. What you are doing is putting tiny chinks into the armor of the person's defenses, or planting seeds that may someday develop into a more open mind or a more rational analysis. This process can take months or years. But it does work! Corrective Experiences Perhaps the most effective way to dissolve defense mechanisms, however, is by providing corrective experiences30. Corrective experiences are experiences that allow a person to learn that his ideas about gun owners and guns are incorrect in a safe and non-threatening way. To provide a corrective experience, you first allow the person to attempt to project his incorrect ideas onto you. Then, you demonstrate that he is wrong by your behavior, not by arguing. For example, the anti-gun person will unconsciously attempt to provoke you by claiming that gun owners are uneducated "rednecks," or by treating you as if you are an uneducated "redneck." If you get angry and respond by calling him a "stupid, liberal, socialist", you will prove his point. However, if you casually talk about your M.B.A., your trip to the Shakespeare festival, your vegetable garden, or your daughter's ballet recital, you will provide him with the opportunity to correct his misconceptions. If you have used the above techniques, then you have already provided one corrective experience. You have demonstrated to the frightened, anti-gun person that gun owners are not abusive, scary, dangerous and sub-human monsters, but normal, everyday people who care about their families, friends and even strangers. As many gun owners have already discovered, the most important corrective experiences involve actually exposing the fearful person to a firearm. It is almost never advisable to tell someone that you carry a concealed firearm, but there are ways to use your own experience favorably. For example, if you're dealing with an anti-gun person with whom you interact regularly and have a generally good relationship - a coworker, neighbor, church member, etc. - you might indirectly refer to concealed carry. You should never say anything like "I'm carrying a gun right now and you can't even tell," especially because in some states that would be considered illegal, "threatening" behavior. But you might consider saying something like, "I sometimes carry a firearm, and you've never seemed to be uncomfortable around me." Whether to disclose this information is an individual decision, and you should consider carefully other consequences before using this approach. First-hand experience Ultimately, your goal is to take the anti-gun person shooting. Some people will accept an invitation to accompany you to the range, but others are too frightened to do so, and will need some preliminary experience. First, you want to encourage the anti-gun person to have some contact with a firearm in whatever way feels most comfortable to him. Many people seem to believe that firearms have minds of their own and shoot people of their own volition. So you might want to start by inviting him simply to look at and then handle an unloaded firearm. This also provides you the opportunity to show the inexperienced person how to tell whether a firearm is loaded and to teach him the basic rules of firearms safety. Encourage the newcomer to ask questions and remember that your role is to present accurate information in a friendly, responsible and non-threatening way. This is a good time to offer some reading material on the benefits of firearms ownership. But be careful not to provide so much information that it's overwhelming. And remember this is not the time to launch into anti-government rants, the New World Order, conspiracy theories, or any kind of political talk! Next, you can invite your friend to accompany you to the shooting range. (And if you're going to trust each other with loaded guns, you should consider yourselves friends!) Assure him that no one will force him to shoot a gun and he's free just to watch. Let him know in advance what he will experience and what will be expected of him. This includes such things as the need for eye and ear protection, a cap, appropriate clothing, etc. Make sure you have a firearm appropriate for your guest should s/he decide to try shooting. This means a lower caliber firearm that doesn't have too much recoil. If your guest is a woman, make sure the firearm will fit her appropriately. Many rifles have stocks that are too long for small women, and double-stack semi-autos are usually too large for a woman's hand. Remember that just visiting the range can be a corrective experience. Your guest will learn that gun owners are disciplined, responsible, safety-conscious, courteous, considerate, and follow the rules. He will see people of all ages, from children to the elderly, male and female, enjoying an activity together. He will not see a single "beer-swilling redneck" waving a firearm in people's faces. In my experience, most people who visit a range will decide they do want to try shooting. Remember to make sure your guest understands all the safety rules and range rules before allowing him to handle a firearm. If you don't feel competent to teach a newcomer to shoot, ask an instructor or range master to assist. Remember to provide lots of positive feedback and encouragement. If you're lucky, you'll recruit a new firearms enthusiast. But even if your guest decides that shooting is "not for him", he will have learned many valuable lessons. He will know basic rules of firearms safety, and how to clear a firearm should he need to do so. This may well save his life someday. He will know that guns do not fire unless a person pulls the trigger. He will know that gun owners are friendly, responsible people, not very different from him. Even if he chooses not to fire a gun ever again, he will be less likely to fear and persecute gun owners. And who knows - a few months or years later he may decide to become a gun owner. Why these techniques do not always work You should remember that you will not be successful with all anti-gun people. Some people are so terrified and have such strong defenses, that it's not possible for someone without professional training to get through. Some people have their minds made up and refuse to consider opening them. Others may concede that what you say "makes sense," but are unwilling to challenge the forces of political correctness. A few may have had traumatic experiences with firearms from which they have not recovered. You will also not be successful with the anti-gun ideologues, people like Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein. These people have made a conscious choice to oppose firearms ownership and self-defense. They almost always gain power, prestige, and money from their anti-gun politics. They are not interested in the facts or in saving lives. They know the facts and understand the consequences of their actions, and will happily sacrifice innocent people if it furthers their selfish agenda. Do not use these techniques on such people. They only respond to fears of losing the power, prestige and money that they covet.31 Conclusion By better understanding advocates of civilian disarmament, and by learning and practicing some simple techniques to deal with their psychological defenses, you will be much more effective in your efforts to communicate with anti-gun people. This will enable you to be more successful at educating them about the realities of firearms and self- defense, and their importance to our liberty and safety. Educating others about firearms is hard work. It's not glamorous, and it generally needs to be done one person at a time. But it's a very necessary and important task. The average American supports freedom of speech and freedom of religion, whether or not he chooses to exercise them. He supports fair trials, whether or not he's ever been in a courtroom. He likewise needs to understand that self- defense is an essential right, whether or not he chooses to own or carry a gun. (c) 2000, Sarah Thompson. Dr. Thompson is Executive Director of Utah Gun Owners Alliance, http://www.utgoa.org and also writes The Righter, http://www.therighter.com , a monthly column on individual rights. Notes 1 Lott, John R., Jr. 1998. More Guns, Less Crime. University of Chicago Press. Pp. 11-12; Proposition B: More Security Or Greater Danger?, St. Louis Post-Dispatch. March 21, 1999. 2 Lott 1998, Pp. 1-2. 3 Kaplan, Harold M. and Sadock, Benjamin J. 1990. Pocket Handbook of Clinical Psychiatry. Williams & Wilkins. P. 20. 4Brenner, Charles. 1973. An Elementary Textbook of Psychoanalysis (rev. ed.). Anchor Books. Pp. 91-93; Lefton, Lester A. 1994. Psychology (5th edition). Allyn & Bacon. Pp. 432-433. 5 Brenner 1973. P. 91. 6 Kaplan and Sadock 1990, p. 20; Lefton 1994, p. 432. 7 Talbott, John A., Robert E. Hales and Stuart C. Yudofsky, eds. 1988. Textbook of Psychiatry. American Psychiatric Press. P.137. 8 "Kids Suspended for Playground Game." Associated Press. April 6, 2000. 9 Lightfoot, Liz. "Gun Return to the Nursery School Toy Chest." The London Telegraph. May 22, 2000. Kaplan and Sadock 1990, p. 20; Lefton 1994, p. 433. 10 Stevens, Richard W. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Mazel Freedom Press. ; see, e.g., Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982) 11 Kleck, Gary and Gertz, Marc. 1995. Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self- Defense with a Gun. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. Vol. 86 (Fall), pp. 150-187. 12 Simkin, Jay, Zelman, Aaron, and Rice, Alan M. 1994. Lethal Laws. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. 13 Kaplan and Sadock 1990, p. 20; Lefton 1994, p. 433. 14 Brenner 1973, p. 85. 15 Veith, Gene Edward, Jr. 1993. Modern m: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing. Pp. 39-40 . 16 Japenga, A. 1994. Would I Be Safer with a Gun? Health. March/April, p. 54. 17 Brenner 1973, p. 92. 18 Kaplan and Sadock 1990, p. 219. 19 American Psychiatric Association. 1994. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition. P. 410. 20 Lott 1998, pp. 11-12. 21 Most American gun owners are not violent criminals and will not be potential killers. "The vast majority of persons involved in life-threatening violence have a long criminal record and many prior contacts with the justice system." Elliott, Delbert S. 1998. Life Threatening Violence is Primarily a Crime Problem: A Focus on Prevention. University of Colorado Law Review. Vol. 69 (Fall), pp. 1081-1098, at 1093. 22 Sowell, Thomas. 2000. Blacks and bootstraps. Jewish World Review (Aug.14). http://www.jewishworldreview.com 23x Wein, Rabbi Berel. 2000. The return of a Torah scroll and confronting painful memories. Jewish World Review (July 12). 24 Dworkin, Andrea. "Terror, Torture and Resistance". http://www.igc.org/Womensnet/dworkin/TerrorTortureandResistance.html 25 Mfume, Kweisi, speech at the 90th annual NAACP meeting, July 12, 1999. http://www.naacp.org/president/speeches/90th%20Annual%20Meeting.htm 26 Yoffie, Rabbi Eric H. Speech supporting the Million Mom March, May 14, 2000. http://uahc.org/yoffie/mmm.html 27 "If someone comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him." The Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin. 1994. The Schottenstein Edition. New York: Mesorah Publications. Vol. 2, 72a. 28 Rape and Sexual Assault, Dean of Students Office for Women's Resources and Services McKinley Health Education Dept., University Police, University of Illinois; Hazelwood, R. R. & Harpold, J. 1986. Rape: The Dangers of Providing Confrontational Advice, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. Vol. 55, pp. 1-5. 29 Lott 1998, pp. 78, 134-37. 30 Frank, Jerome D. 1961. Persuasion and Healing. The Johns Hopkins Press. Pp. 216-217. 31 Richardson, H. L. 1998. Confrontational Politics. Gun Owners Foundation. 1 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8d9_1344550525 MajorTom On the issue of gun control advocates... Repost from Nov-20-2009 2nd amendment, guns, firearms, rights, freedom Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:16:35 -0500 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4ea_1258769617 HydrogenEconomy Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality By Sarah Thompson, M.D. righter@therighter.com "You don't need to have a gun; the police will protect you." "If people carry guns, there will be murders over parking spaces and neighborhood basketball games." "I'm a pacifist. Enlightened, spiritually aware people shouldn't own guns." "I'd rather be raped than have some redneck militia type try to rescue me." How often have you heard these statements from misguided advocates of victim disarmament, or even woefully uninformed relatives and neighbors? Why do people cling so tightly to these beliefs, in the face of incontrovertible evidence that they are wrong? Why do they get so furiously angry when gun owners point out that their arguments are factually and logically incorrect? How can you communicate with these people who seem to be out of touch with reality and rational thought? One approach to help you deal with anti-gun people is to understand their psychological processes. Once you understand why these people behave so irrationally, you can communicate more effectively with them. Defense Mechanisms Projection About a year ago I received an e-mail from a member of a local Jewish organization. The author, who chose to remain anonymous, insisted that people have no right to carry firearms because he didn't want to be murdered if one of his neighbors had a "bad day". (I don't know that this person is a "he", but I'm assuming so for the sake of simplicity.) I responded by asking him why he thought his neighbors wanted to murder him, and, of course, got no response. The truth is that he's statistically more likely to be murdered by a neighbor who doesn't legally carry a firearm1 and more likely to be shot accidentally by a law enforcement officer.1 How does my correspondent "know" that his neighbors would murder him if they had guns? He doesn't. What he was really saying was that if he had a gun, he might murder his neighbors if he had a bad day, or if they took his parking space, or played their stereos too loud. This is an example of what mental health professionals call projection - unconsciously projecting one's own unacceptable feelings onto other people, so that one doesn't have to own them.3 In some cases, the intolerable feelings are projected not onto a person, but onto an inanimate object, such as a gun,4 so that the projector believes the gun itself will murder him. Projection is a defense mechanism. Defense mechanisms are unconscious psychological mechanisms that protect us from feelings that we cannot consciously accept.5 They operate without our awareness, so that we don't have to deal consciously with "forbidden" feelings and impulses. Thus, if you asked my e-mail correspondent if he really wanted to murder his neighbors, he would vehemently deny it, and insist that other people want to kill him. Projection is a particularly insidious defense mechanism, because it not only prevents a person from dealing with his own feelings, it also creates a world where he perceives everyone else as directing his own hostile feelings back at him.6 All people have violent, and even homicidal, impulses. For example, it's common to hear people say "I'd like to kill my boss", or "If you do that one more time I'm going to kill you." They don't actually mean that they're going to, or even would, kill anyone; they're simply acknowledging anger and frustration. All of us suffer from fear and feelings of helplessness and vulnerability. Most people can acknowledge feelings of rage, fear, frustration, jealousy, etc. without having to act on them in inappropriate and destructive ways. Some people, however, are unable consciously to admit that they have such "unacceptable" emotions. They may have higher than average levels of rage, frustration, or fear. Perhaps they fear that if they acknowledge the hostile feelings, they will lose control and really will hurt someone. They may believe that "good people" never have such feelings, when in fact all people have them. This is especially true now that education "experts" commonly prohibit children from expressing negative emotions or aggression. Instead of learning that such emotions are normal, but that destructive behavior needs to be controlled, children now learn that feelings of anger are evil, dangerous and subject to severe punishment.7To protect themselves from "being bad", they are forced to use defense mechanisms to avoid owning their own normal emotions. Unfortunately, using such defense mechanisms inappropriately can endanger their mental health; children need to learn how to deal appropriately with reality, not how to avoid it.8 (This discussion of psychological mechanisms applies to the average person who is uninformed, or misinformed, about firearms and self-defense. It does not apply to the anti- gun ideologue. Fanatics like Charles Schumer know the facts about firearms, and advocate victim disarmament consciously and willfully in order to gain political power. This psychological analysis does not apply to them.) Denial Another defense mechanism commonly utilized by supporters of gun control is denial. Denial is simply refusing to accept the reality of a given situation.9 For example, consider a woman whose husband starts coming home late, has strange perfume on his clothes, and starts charging flowers and jewelry on his credit card. She may get extremely angry at a well-meaning friend who suggests that her husband is having an affair. The reality is obvious, but the wronged wife is so threatened by her husband's infidelity that she is unable to accept it, and so denies its existence. Anti-gun people do the same thing. It's obvious that we live in a dangerous society, where criminals attack innocent people. Just about everyone has been, or knows someone who has been, victimized. It's equally obvious that law enforcement can't protect everyone everywhere 24 hours a day. Extensive scholarly research demonstrates that the police have no legal duty to protect you10 and that firearm ownership is the most effective way to protect yourself and your family.11 There is irrefutable evidence that victim disarmament nearly always precedes genocide.12 Nonetheless, the anti-gun folks insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that "the police will protect you", "this is a safe neighborhood" and "it can't happen here", where "it" is everything from mugging to mass murder. Anti-gun people who refuse to accept the reality of the proven and very serious dangers of civilian disarmament are using denial to protect themselves from the anxiety of feeling helpless and vulnerable. Likewise, gun owners who insist that "the government will never confiscate my guns" are also using denial to protect themselves from the anxiety of contemplating being forcibly disarmed and rendered helpless and vulnerable. Reaction Formation Reaction formation is yet another defense mechanism common among the anti-gun folks. Reaction formation occurs when a person's mind turns an unacceptable feeling or desire into its complete opposite.13 For example, a child who is jealous of a sibling may exhibit excessive love and devotion for the hated brother or sister. Likewise, a person who harbors murderous rage toward his fellow humans may claim to be a devoted pacifist and refuse to eat meat or even kill a cockroach.14 Often such people take refuge in various spiritual disciplines and believe that they are "superior" to "less civilized" folks who engage in "violent behavior" such as hunting, or even target shooting. They may devote themselves to "animal welfare" organizations that proclaim that the rights of animals take precedence over the rights of people.15 This not only allows the angry person to avoid dealing with his rage, it allows him actually to harm the people he hates without having to know he hates them. This is not meant to disparage the many wonderful people who are pacifists, spiritually inclined, vegetarian, or who support animal welfare. The key issue is not the belief itself, but rather the way in which the person experiences and lives his beliefs. Sincere practitioners seek to improve themselves, or to be helpful in a gentle, respectful fashion. They work to persuade others peacefully by setting an example of what they believe to be correct behavior. Sincere pacifists generally exhibit good will towards others, even towards persons with whom they might disagree on various issues. Contrast the sincere pacifist or animal lover with the strident, angry person who wants to ban meat and who believes murdering hunters is justified in order to "save the animals" - or the person who wants to outlaw self- defense and believes innocent people have the obligation to be raped and murdered for the good of society. For example, noted feminist Betty Friedan said "that lethal violence even in self defense only engenders more violence."16 The truly spiritual, pacifist person refrains from forcing others to do what he believes, and is generally driven by positive emotions, while the angry person finds "socially acceptable" ways to harm, abuse, or even kill, his fellow man. In the case of anti-gun people, reaction formation keeps any knowledge of their hatred for their fellow humans out of consciousness, while allowing them to feel superior to "violent gun owners". At the same time, it also allows them to cause serious harm, and even loss of life, to others by denying them the tools necessary to defend themselves. This makes reaction formation very attractive from a psychological point of view, and therefore very difficult to counteract. Defense Mechanisms Are Not Mental Illnesses Defense mechanisms are normal. All of us use them to some extent, and their use does not imply mental illness. Advocates of victim disarmament may be misguided or uninformed, they may be stupid, or they may be consciously intent on evil, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are "mentally ill". Some defense mechanisms, however, are healthier than others. A safe general rule is that a defense is healthy if it helps you to function better in your personal and professional life, and unhealthy if it interferes with your life, your relationships, or the well-being of others. Young children utilize projection and denial much more commonly than do healthy adults. On the other hand, "if projection is used as a defense mechanism to a very great extent in adult life, the user's perception of external reality will be seriously distorted."17 Defense mechanisms are also frequently combined, so that an anti-gun person may use several defense mechanisms simultaneously. For example, my unfortunate correspondent uses projection to create a world in which all his neighbors want to murder him. As a result, he becomes more angry and fearful, and needs to employ even more defense mechanisms to cope. So he uses projection to attribute his own rage to others, he uses denial that there is any danger to protect himself from a world where he believes he is helpless and everyone wants to murder him, and he uses reaction formation to try to control everyone else's life because his own is so horribly out of control. Also, it's important to remember that not all anti-gun beliefs are the result of defense mechanisms. Some people suffer from gun phobia18, an excessive and completely irrational fear of firearms, usually caused by the anti-gun conditioning they've been subjected to by the media, politicians, so-called "educators," and others. In some cases, gun phobia is caused by an authentic bad experience associated with a firearm. But with all due respect to Col. Jeff Cooper, who coined the term "hoplophobia" to describe anti-gun people, most anti-gun people do not have true phobias. Interestingly, a person with a true phobia of guns realizes his fear is excessive or unreasonable,19 something most anti-gun folks will never admit. Defense mechanisms distort reality Because defense mechanisms distort reality in order to avoid unpleasant emotions, the person who uses them has an impaired ability to recognize and accept reality. This explains why my e-mail correspondent and many other anti-gun people persist in believing that their neighbors and co- workers will become mass murderers if allowed to own firearms. People who legally carry concealed firearms are actually less violent and less prone to criminal activity of all kinds than is the general population.20 A person who has a clean record, has passed an FBI background check, undergone firearms training, and spent several hundred dollars to get a permit and a firearm, is highly unlikely to choose to murder a neighbor. Doing so would result in his facing a police manhunt, a trial, prison, possibly capital punishment, and the destruction of his family, job, and reputation. Obviously it would make no sense for such a person to shoot a neighbor - except in self-defense. Equally obviously, the anti-gun person who believes that malicious shootings by ordinary gun owners are likely to occur is not in touch with reality.21 The Common Thread: Rage In my experience, the common thread in anti-gun people is rage. Either anti-gun people harbor more rage than others, or they're less able to cope with it appropriately. Because they can't handle their own feelings of rage, they are forced to use defense mechanisms in an unhealthy manner. Because they wrongly perceive others as seeking to harm them, they advocate the disarmament of ordinary people who have no desire to harm anyone. So why do anti-gun people have so much rage and why are they unable to deal with it in appropriate ways? Consider for a moment that the largest and most hysterical anti-gun groups include disproportionately large numbers of women, African- Americans and Jews. And virtually all of the organizations that claim to speak for these "oppressed people" are stridently anti-gun. Not coincidentally, among Jews, Blacks and women there are many "professional victims" who have little sense of identity outside of their victimhood. Identity as Victim If I were to summarize this article in three sentences, they would be: (1) People who identify themselves as "victims" harbor excessive amounts of rage at other people, whom they perceive as "not victims." (2) In order psychologically to deal with this rage, these "victims" utilize defense mechanisms that enable them to harm others in socially acceptable ways, without accepting responsibility or suffering guilt, and without having to give up their status as "victims." (3) Gun owners are frequently the targets of professional victims because gun owners are willing and able to prevent their own victimization. Thus the concept of "identity as victim" is essential. How and why do members of some groups choose to identify themselves as victims and teach their children to do the same? While it's true that women, Jews, and African- Americans have historically been victimized, they now participate in American society on an equal basis. And other groups, most notably Asian-Americans, have been equally victimized, and yet have transcended the "eternal victim" mentality. Why, for example, would a 6'10" NBA player who makes $10 million a year see himself as a "victim"? Why would a successful, respected, wealthy, Jewish physician regard himself as a "victim"? Conversely, why might a wheelchair bound woman who lives on government disability NOT regard herself as a victim? I would argue it's because the basketball player and the physician believe that their identities are dependent on being victims - not because they have actually been victimized, but because they're members of groups that claim victim status. Conversely, the disabled woman was probably raised to believe that she is responsible for her own success or failure. In fact, many people who have been victims of actual violent crime, or who have survived war or civil strife, support the right of self-defense. The old saying is often correct: "a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged." Special Treatment and Misleading Leaders Two reasons for these groups to insist on "victim" status seem likely. First, by claiming victim status, members of these groups can demand (and get) special treatment through quotas, affirmative action, reparations, and other preferential treatment programs. Second, these people have been indoctrinated to believe that there is no alternative to remaining a victim forever. Their leaders remind them constantly that they are mistreated in every imaginable way (most of them imaginary!), attribute every one of life's misfortunes to "racism" or "sexism" or "hate crimes", and dream up ever more complex schemes for special treatment and favors.22 These leaders are the ones who preach that the entire Black experience is slavery and racism, or that Jewish history before and after the Holocaust is irrelevant,23 or that happily married women are really victims of sexual slavery.24 Likewise, the NAACP is suing firearms manufacturers to put them out of business,25 and is especially opposed to the inexpensive pistols that enable the poor to defend themselves in gang-ridden inner cities. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) proposed evicting anyone who dares to keep a tool of self-defense in any of its crime-infested housing projects. Jewish leaders, especially those in the politically correct "Reform" branch, preach that gun control is "a solemn religious obligation",26 contrary to the teachings of their sacred scriptures and their own history.27 Law enforcement agencies falsely teach women that they are safest if they don't resist rapists and robbers,28 while women's organizations advocate gun control, thus rendering women and their children defenseless. Victimhood is good business for organizations that foster victim status. As victims, the members depend upon the organization to protect them, and the organization in turn relies on members for funding and political power. In the interest of self-preservation, these organizations work hard at preserving hatred and bigotry and at keeping their members defenseless - and therefore dependent. Anti-gun groups love victims! From my observations, pro-victimhood is a feature of all of the anti-gun special interest groups, not just the ones mentioned here. Every organization that supports gun control apparently wants its members to be helpless, terrified and totally dependent on someone else to control every aspect of their lives. It doesn't matter whether it's a religious, racial, ethnic, political, social, or charitable group. From Handgun Control, Inc. to the Anti- Defamation League to the Million Mom March, they all want you to live in fear. In this scheme, soccer moms are "victims" just as much as are inner-city minorities. If these organizations truly cared about the people for whom they claim to speak, they would encourage safe and responsible firearms ownership. They would help people to learn how to defend themselves and their families so that they wouldn't have to live in fear. They would tell everyone that one of the wonderful things about being an American is that you have the right to keep and bear arms, the right to defend yourself, and how these rights preserve the right to be free. The psychological price of being a victim In our current society, victimhood has many perceived benefits, but there are some serious drawbacks. Victims tend to see the world as a scary and threatening place. They believe that others treat them differently, unfairly, and even maliciously - and that they are helpless to do anything about it. This belief, that they are being mistreated and are helpless to resist, generates tremendous rage, and often, serious depression. But for victims to show rage openly can be dangerous, if not outright suicidal. For example, a battered woman who screams at or hits her attacker may provoke worse beatings or even her own murder. And a person who successfully defends himself loses his status as "victim." For someone whose entire identity is dependent on being a victim, the loss of victim status is just as threatening as loss of life. So, unable psychologically to cope with such rage, people who view themselves as victims: (1) use defense mechanisms to displace it into irrational beliefs about neighbors killing each other, and the infallibility of police protection, and (2) attempt to regain control by controlling gun owners, whom they wrongly perceive as "the enemy". Say NO to being a victim! But no one needs to be a victim! Quite simply, it's not very easy to victimize a person who owns and knows how to use a firearm. If most women owned and carried firearms, rapes and beating would decrease.29 Thugs who target the elderly and disabled would find honest work once they realized they were likely to be looking down the barrel of a pistol or shotgun. It's nearly impossible to enslave, or herd into concentration camps, large numbers of armed people. Communicating with anti-gun people How can you communicate more effectively with an anti-gun person who is using unhealthy defense mechanisms? There are no quick and easy answers. But there are a few things you should keep in mind. Anger and attacks do not work Most gun owners, when confronted by an anti-gun person, become angry and hostile. This is understandable, because gun owners increasingly face ridicule, persecution and discrimination. (If you don't believe this, ask yourself if anyone would seriously introduce legislation to ban African- Americans, women, or Jews from post offices, schools, and churches. Even convicted felons aren't banned from such places - but peaceful armed citizens are!) But an angry response is counterproductive. It's not helpful to attack the person you're trying to persuade. Anything that makes him feel more fearful or angry will only intensify his defenses. Your goal is to help the person feel safe, and then to provide experiences and information that will help him to make informed decisions. Be Gentle You should never try to break down a defense mechanism by force. Remember that defense mechanisms protect people from feelings they cannot handle, and if you take that protection away, you can cause serious psychological harm. And because defense mechanisms operate unconsciously, it won't do any good to show an anti-gun person this article or to point out that he's using defense mechanisms. Your goal is gently and gradually to help the person to have a more realistic and rational view of the world. This cannot be done in one hour or one day. As you reach out to people in this way, you need to deal with both the illogical thought processes involved and the emotional reactions that anti-gun people have to firearms. When dealing with illogical thought processes, you are attempting to use reason and logic to convince the anti-gun person that his perception of other people and his perception of firearms are seriously inaccurate. The goal is to help him to understand that armed citizens and firearms are not threats, and may even save his life. Reversing Irrational thoughts The Mirror Technique One approach that can be helpful is simply to feed back what the anti-gun person is telling you, in a neutral, inquisitive way. So, when replying to my anonymous e-mail correspondent (above), I might respond, "So you fear if your neighbors had guns, they would use them to murder you. What makes you think that?" When you simply repeat what the person has said, and ask questions, you are not directly challenging his defenses. You are holding up a mirror to let him see his own views. If he has very strong defenses, he can continue to insist that his neighbors want to murder him. However, if his defenses are less rigid, he may start to question his position. Another example might be, "Why do you think that your children's schoolteachers would shoot them?" You might follow this up with something like, "Why do you entrust your precious children to someone you believe would murder them?" Again, you are merely asking questions, and not directly attacking the person or his defenses. Of course the anti-gun person might continue to insist that the teachers really would harm children, but prohibiting them from owning guns would prevent it. So you might ask how using a gun to murder innocent children is different from stabbing children with scissors, assaulting them with baseball bats, or poisoning the milk and cookies. It's important to ask "open-ended" questions that require a response other than "yes" or "no". Such questions require the anti-gun person actually to think about what he is saying. This will help him to re-examine his beliefs. It may also encourage him to ask you questions about firearms use and ownership. The "What Would You Do?" Technique Once you have a dialogue going with an anti-gun person, you might want to insert him into a hypothetical scenario, although doing so is a greater threat to his defenses, and is therefore more risky. You might ask how he would deal with a difficult or annoying co-worker. He will likely respond that he would never resort to violence, but "other people" would, especially if they had guns. (Projection again.) You can then ask him who these "other people" are, why they would shoot a co-worker, and what the shooter would gain by doing so. Don't try to "win" the argument. Don't try to embarrass the person you're trying to educate. Remember that no one likes to admit that his deeply held beliefs are wrong. No one likes to hear "I told you so!" Be patient and gentle. If you are arrogant, condescending, hurtful or rude to the anti-gun person, you will only convince him that gun owners are arrogant, hurtful people - who should not be trusted with guns! Defusing Emotional reactions The "You Are There" Technique Rational arguments alone are not likely to be successful, especially since many people "feel" rather than "think". You also need to deal with the emotional responses of the anti-gun person. Remember that most people have been conditioned to associate firearms with dead toddlers. So you need to change the person's emotional responses along with his thoughts. One way to do this is to put the anti-gun person (or his family) at a hypothetical crime scene and ask what he would like to have happen. For example, "Imagine your wife is in the parking lot at the supermarket and two men grab her. One holds a knife to her throat while the other tears her clothes off. If I see this happening and have a gun, what should I do? What would happen next? What if after five minutes, the police still haven't arrived?" Just let him answer the questions and mentally walk through the scenario. Don't argue with his answers. You are planting seeds in his mind than can help change his emotional responses. The Power of Empathy Another emotion-based approach that is often more successful is to respond sympathetically to the plight of the anti-gun person. Imagine for a moment how you would feel if you believed your neighbors and co-workers wanted to kill you and your family, and you could do nothing at all about it except to wait for the inevitable to occur. Not very pleasant, is it? This is the world in which opponents of armed self-defense live. All of us have had times in our lives when we felt "different" and had to contend with hostile schoolmates, co- workers, etc. So we need to invoke our own compassion for these terrified people. Say something like, "It must be awful to live in fear of being assaulted by your own neighbors. I remember what it was like when I was the only (Jew, Mormon, African-American, Republican) in my (class, football team, workplace) - and even then I didn't think anyone was going to kill me." It's essential that you sincerely feel some compassion and empathy; if you're glib or sarcastic, this won't work. Using empathy works in several ways. First, it defuses a potentially hostile interaction. Anti-gun people are used to being attacked, not understood, by advocates of gun rights. Instead of an "evil, gun-toting, extremist", you are now a sympathetic, fellow human being. This may also open the door for a friendly conversation, in which you can each discover that your "opponent" is a person with whom you have some things in common. You may even create an opportunity to dispel some of the misinformation about firearms and self-defense that is so prevalent. This empathy technique is also useful for redirecting, or ending, a heated argument that has become hostile and unproductive. It allows you to escape from the dead end of "guns save lives" vs. "the only reason to have a gun is to murder children." With empathy you can reframe the argument entirely. Instead of arguing about whether more lives are saved or lost as a result of gun ownership, you can comment on how terrifying it must be to live in a country where 80 million people own guns "solely for the purpose of murdering children". You should not expect any of these approaches to work immediately; they won't. With rare exceptions, the anti-gun person is simply not going to "see the light," thank you profusely, and beg you to take him shooting. What you are doing is putting tiny chinks into the armor of the person's defenses, or planting seeds that may someday develop into a more open mind or a more rational analysis. This process can take months or years. But it does work! Corrective Experiences Perhaps the most effective way to dissolve defense mechanisms, however, is by providing corrective experiences30. Corrective experiences are experiences that allow a person to learn that his ideas about gun owners and guns are incorrect in a safe and non-threatening way. To provide a corrective experience, you first allow the person to attempt to project his incorrect ideas onto you. Then, you demonstrate that he is wrong by your behavior, not by arguing. For example, the anti-gun person will unconsciously attempt to provoke you by claiming that gun owners are uneducated "rednecks," or by treating you as if you are an uneducated "redneck." If you get angry and respond by calling him a "stupid, liberal, socialist", you will prove his point. However, if you casually talk about your M.B.A., your trip to the Shakespeare festival, your vegetable garden, or your daughter's ballet recital, you will provide him with the opportunity to correct his misconceptions. If you have used the above techniques, then you have already provided one corrective experience. You have demonstrated to the frightened, anti-gun person that gun owners are not abusive, scary, dangerous and sub-human monsters, but normal, everyday people who care about their families, friends and even strangers. As many gun owners have already discovered, the most important corrective experiences involve actually exposing the fearful person to a firearm. It is almost never advisable to tell someone that you carry a concealed firearm, but there are ways to use your own experience favorably. For example, if you're dealing with an anti-gun person with whom you interact regularly and have a generally good relationship - a coworker, neighbor, church member, etc. - you might indirectly refer to concealed carry. You should never say anything like "I'm carrying a gun right now and you can't even tell," especially because in some states that would be considered illegal, "threatening" behavior. But you might consider saying something like, "I sometimes carry a firearm, and you've never seemed to be uncomfortable around me." Whether to disclose this information is an individual decision, and you should consider carefully other consequences before using this approach. First-hand experience Ultimately, your goal is to take the anti-gun person shooting. Some people will accept an invitation to accompany you to the range, but others are too frightened to do so, and will need some preliminary experience. First, you want to encourage the anti-gun person to have some contact with a firearm in whatever way feels most comfortable to him. Many people seem to believe that firearms have minds of their own and shoot people of their own volition. So you might want to start by inviting him simply to look at and then handle an unloaded firearm. This also provides you the opportunity to show the inexperienced person how to tell whether a firearm is loaded and to teach him the basic rules of firearms safety. Encourage the newcomer to ask questions and remember that your role is to present accurate information in a friendly, responsible and non-threatening way. This is a good time to offer some reading material on the benefits of firearms ownership. But be careful not to provide so much information that it's overwhelming. And remember this is not the time to launch into anti-government rants, the New World Order, conspiracy theories, or any kind of political talk! Next, you can invite your friend to accompany you to the shooting range. (And if you're going to trust each other with loaded guns, you should consider yourselves friends!) Assure him that no one will force him to shoot a gun and he's free just to watch. Let him know in advance what he will experience and what will be expected of him. This includes such things as the need for eye and ear protection, a cap, appropriate clothing, etc. Make sure you have a firearm appropriate for your guest should s/he decide to try shooting. This means a lower caliber firearm that doesn't have too much recoil. If your guest is a woman, make sure the firearm will fit her appropriately. Many rifles have stocks that are too long for small women, and double-stack semi-autos are usually too large for a woman's hand. Remember that just visiting the range can be a corrective experience. Your guest will learn that gun owners are disciplined, responsible, safety-conscious, courteous, considerate, and follow the rules. He will see people of all ages, from children to the elderly, male and female, enjoying an activity together. He will not see a single "beer-swilling redneck" waving a firearm in people's faces. In my experience, most people who visit a range will decide they do want to try shooting. Remember to make sure your guest understands all the safety rules and range rules before allowing him to handle a firearm. If you don't feel competent to teach a newcomer to shoot, ask an instructor or range master to assist. Remember to provide lots of positive feedback and encouragement. If you're lucky, you'll recruit a new firearms enthusiast. But even if your guest decides that shooting is "not for him", he will have learned many valuable lessons. He will know basic rules of firearms safety, and how to clear a firearm should he need to do so. This may well save his life someday. He will know that guns do not fire unless a person pulls the trigger. He will know that gun owners are friendly, responsible people, not very different from him. Even if he chooses not to fire a gun ever again, he will be less likely to fear and persecute gun owners. And who knows - a few months or years later he may decide to become a gun owner. Why these techniques do not always work You should remember that you will not be successful with all anti-gun people. Some people are so terrified and have such strong defenses, that it's not possible for someone without professional training to get through. Some people have their minds made up and refuse to consider opening them. Others may concede that what you say "makes sense," but are unwilling to challenge the forces of political correctness. A few may have had traumatic experiences with firearms from which they have not recovered. You will also not be successful with the anti-gun ideologues, people like Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein. These people have made a conscious choice to oppose firearms ownership and self-defense. They almost always gain power, prestige, and money from their anti-gun politics. They are not interested in the facts or in saving lives. They know the facts and understand the consequences of their actions, and will happily sacrifice innocent people if it furthers their selfish agenda. Do not use these techniques on such people. They only respond to fears of losing the power, prestige and money that they covet.31 Conclusion By better understanding advocates of civilian disarmament, and by learning and practicing some simple techniques to deal with their psychological defenses, you will be much more effective in your efforts to communicate with anti-gun people. This will enable you to be more successful at educating them about the realities of firearms and self- defense, and their importance to our liberty and safety. Educating others about firearms is hard work. It's not glamorous, and it generally needs to be done one person at a time. But it's a very necessary and important task. The average American supports freedom of speech and freedom of religion, whether or not he chooses to exercise them. He supports fair trials, whether or not he's ever been in a courtroom. He likewise needs to understand that self- defense is an essential right, whether or not he chooses to own or carry a gun. (c) 2000, Sarah Thompson. Dr. Thompson is Executive Director of Utah Gun Owners Alliance, http://www.utgoa.org and also writes The Righter, http://www.therighter.com, a monthly column on individual rights. Notes 1 Lott, John R., Jr. 1998. More Guns, Less Crime. University of Chicago Press. Pp. 11-12; Proposition B: More Security Or Greater Danger?, St. Louis Post-Dispatch. March 21, 1999. 2 Lott 1998, Pp. 1-2. 3 Kaplan, Harold M. and Sadock, Benjamin J. 1990. Pocket Handbook of Clinical Psychiatry. Williams & Wilkins. P. 20. 4Brenner, Charles. 1973. An Elementary Textbook of Psychoanalysis (rev. ed.). Anchor Books. Pp. 91-93; Lefton, Lester A. 1994. Psychology (5th edition). Allyn & Bacon. Pp. 432-433. 5 Brenner 1973. P. 91. 6 Kaplan and Sadock 1990, p. 20; Lefton 1994, p. 432. 7 Talbott, John A., Robert E. Hales and Stuart C. Yudofsky, eds. 1988. Textbook of Psychiatry. American Psychiatric Press. P.137. 8 "Kids Suspended for Playground Game." Associated Press. April 6, 2000. 9 Lightfoot, Liz. "Gun Return to the Nursery School Toy Chest." The London Telegraph. May 22, 2000. Kaplan and Sadock 1990, p. 20; Lefton 1994, p. 433. 10 Stevens, Richard W. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Mazel Freedom Press. ; see, e.g., Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982) 11 Kleck, Gary and Gertz, Marc. 1995. Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self- Defense with a Gun. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. Vol. 86 (Fall), pp. 150-187. 12 Simkin, Jay, Zelman, Aaron, and Rice, Alan M. 1994. Lethal Laws. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. 13 Kaplan and Sadock 1990, p. 20; Lefton 1994, p. 433. 14 Brenner 1973, p. 85. 15 Veith, Gene Edward, Jr. 1993. Modern m: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing. Pp. 39-40 . 16 Japenga, A. 1994. Would I Be Safer with a Gun? Health. March/April, p. 54. 17 Brenner 1973, p. 92. 18 Kaplan and Sadock 1990, p. 219. 19 American Psychiatric Association. 1994. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition. P. 410. 20 Lott 1998, pp. 11-12. 21 Most American gun owners are not violent criminals and will not be potential killers. "The vast majority of persons involved in life-threatening violence have a long criminal record and many prior contacts with the justice system." Elliott, Delbert S. 1998. Life Threatening Violence is Primarily a Crime Problem: A Focus on Prevention. University of Colorado Law Review. Vol. 69 (Fall), pp. 1081-1098, at 1093. 22 Sowell, Thomas. 2000. Blacks and bootstraps. Jewish World Review (Aug.14). http://www.jewishworldreview.com 23x Wein, Rabbi Berel. 2000. The return of a Torah scroll and confronting painful memories. Jewish World Review (July 12). 24 Dworkin, Andrea. "Terror, Torture and Resistance". http://www.igc.org/Womensnet/dworkin/TerrorTortureandResistance.html 25 Mfume, Kweisi, speech at the 90th annual NAACP meeting, July 12, 1999. http://www.naacp.org/president/speeches/90th%20Annual%20Meeting.htm 26 Yoffie, Rabbi Eric H. Speech supporting the Million Mom March, May 14, 2000. http://uahc.org/yoffie/mmm.html 27 "If someone comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him." The Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin. 1994. The Schottenstein Edition. New York: Mesorah Publications. Vol. 2, 72a. 28 Rape and Sexual Assault, Dean of Students Office for Women's Resources and Services McKinley Health Education Dept., University Police, University of Illinois; Hazelwood, R. R. & Harpold, J. 1986. Rape: The Dangers of Providing Confrontational Advice, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. Vol. 55, pp. 1-5. 29 Lott 1998, pp. 78, 134-37. 30 Frank, Jerome D. 1961. Persuasion and Healing. The Johns Hopkins Press. Pp. 216-217. 31 Richardson, H. L. 1998. Confrontational Politics. Gun Owners Foundation. 1 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4ea_1258769617 HydrogenEconomy Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality sarah,thompson,md,therighter,psychiatrist,psychologist,anti,gun,mentality Sun, 14 Feb 2010 16:15:26 -0500 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=411_1266181908 redacro In yet another case of willful blindness, our formerly august mainstream media all but ignores Al Gore's global warming millions. Their secular saint, Prophet Al, has become a very rich man off his global warming "science." Yet, whenever he is interviewed by those virtuous paragons among the media elite, you'll hear nary a peep on the fact that Prophet Al stands to become the "World's First Carbon Billionaire," if and when governments - especially ours - enact the cap and trade legislation, of which Mr. Gore is the most vociferous proponent. The lying hypocrisy of it is just too much for an honest person to bear. Mr. Gore has, in effect, declared economic war on the middle-class American family through his global warming faux science. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the cap and trade legislation, which passed the House last year, will cost the average American family $890 per year. But the conservative Heritage Foundation immediately challenged this figure. Using a more inclusive analysis, Heritage raised the estimate to at least $1,870 per year. Heritage also took the trouble - on behalf of American families - to take into account the larger picture, significant details completely ignored in the CBO's accounting: It is also worth noting that, of the 24 years analyzed by The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis (CDA), 2020 had the second lowest GDP loss. Furthermore, the CDA found that for all years the average GDP loss was $393 billion, or over double the 2020 hit. In 2035 (the last year analyzed by Heritage) the inflation adjusted GDP loss works out to $6,790 per family of four-and that is before they pay their $4,600 share of the carbon taxes. The negative economic impacts accumulate, and the national debt is no exception. The increase in family-of-four debt, solely because of Waxman-Markey, hits an astounding $114,915 by 2035. The bottom line here is that Al Gore is nothing higher on the moral scale than a war profiteer or as Investors Business Daily has called him, a "green Ponzi scheme" scammer. When Gore provided his star-witness testimony in the House last year on cap and trade, Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) queried him on the millions he stands to make off the legislation. Gore responded that he was merely "putting my money where my mouth is." To which IBD scornfully added: Perhaps, but at the same time he is advocating policies based on junk science that, while he enriches himself, will devastate the American economy, causing huge losses in jobs, economic growth and GDP. The American consumer and taxpayer are on the wrong end of his green Ponzi scheme. Somewhere, Bernie Madoff is smiling. Just to provide the hopelessly ignorant (or willfully blind) MSM with a bit of recap on Gore's climate war profiteering, it might be useful to remind them of a few easily obtainable facts regarding our former VP, Prophet Al. When Al Gore left the VP office, he reported a net worth somewhere between one and two million dollars. Currently his net worth is estimated in the hundreds of millions. In 2004, Al Gore co-founded with former campaign manager, David Blood (also formerly with Goldman Sachs), an investment fund aimed at profiting from business and government initiatives to stop "global warming." They affectionately call their venture: "Blood and Gore." It's real name is Generation Investment Management (GIM). GIM has its home base in London and lists a host of mega-corporations as investors, among them, Aflac, GE, Staples, SYSCO, UBS, Waters Corp. and Whole Foods. This is not the sort of venture capitalist scheme with which your ordinary American family could become a shareholder. In 2006, Al Gore came out with his Oscar-chosen movie, "An Inconvenient Truth." Due to the movie's consequent hyping by an enthralled media, Mr. Gore's "documentary" has grossed over $24 million in the U.S. and over $49 million worldwide, making it the fifth-highest-grossing documentary in the U.S. to date, (from 1982 to the present). Yet, in 2007, the U.K.'s High Court found that the film was both "biased" and "alarmist" and noted nine specific "scientific" claims, which were at best unfounded and at worst outright lies. To be shown in British schools, the High Court ruled, would require tedious instruction to students on the errors and bias contained in the film. The British ruling was widely ignored by the MSM this side of the big pond, however, and the movie continues to be shown to unsuspecting students in government schools and universities nationwide - with no disclaimers whatsoever. Interestingly, one of the film's claims which was noted as unsubstantiated by Britain's High Court was the recently debunked. Mr. Gore's assertion that the disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in East Africa was expressly attributable to global warming has been found unscientific and based on faulty research. None of Mr. Gore's newly demonstrated scientific errors should really come as any surprise, however (after all, the man flunked out of divinity school). As noted by the Washington Post in this 2000 article on Gore's lackluster college transcripts, the media-heralded scientific genius - Prophet Al - spent his entire tenure at Harvard avoiding all courses in mathematics and logic. The two science courses he had to take, Natural Science in his sophomore and senior years, he managed to receive a D and a C+ respectively. Gore's college science performance was easily predictable, however, as his high school transcripts showed that the only courses in which Mr. Gore scored A's were in art and religious studies. The MSM is so enthralled with Mr. Gore and his single-handed quest to save mankind from itself that they ignore every salient fact regarding not only the scientific sham, but every detail about the man himself, including his anything-but-sterling scientific background. Add to that shameful sycophancy their enabling of the man to bank multi-millions while he scams the public and the MSM becomes no less than an unindicted co-conspirator in Gore's war on Western economies. When Mr. Gore makes wild claims, which are later debunked by truly scientifically minded folks, the MSM is AWOL. When Mr. Gore blithely insisted recently on NBC's Tonight Show that the "interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot ...," neither the host nor the media elite know enough about science to even question his authority. When Mr. Gore belittled critics on the cost to American families of his cap-and-trade Ponzi scheme to ex-cheerleader-turned- anchorwoman, perky Katie Couric, she was so ignorant that she did not even question his recitation of accepted dogma. Poppycock peddlers are found in every generation, but Al Gore's get-rich-off-unsuspecting citizens is definitely a cake-taker in this lot of scoundrels. And for the love of Pete, one would think that any self-respecting journalist would go after him with at least the zeal they show in examining Sarah Palin's hand. Moral compass? The MSM does not seem to own a single working one among their entire lot of overpaid, under-worked scalawags. In allowing Al Gore to continue his green Ponzi scheme unobstructed, they prove they are all birds of a feather and have lost all credibility. http://bigjournalism.com/kashiver/2010/02/14/why-does-the-msm-ignore-al-gores-global-warming-million/ http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=411_1266181908 redacro Gore has, in effect, declared economic war on the middle-class American. Global warming,Gore,Ponzi scheme Fri, 17 Apr 2009 08:50:42 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2f7_1239972508 copperdog2 This essay is in response to the following post from bommer1, originally appearing on the Huffington Post and written by Drew Westen, Emory University: LiveLeak Link: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a31_1239893666&c=1#comments Original Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/the-five-strands-of-conse_b_187675.html The original author's thesis is that the GOP, and by extension conservatism in general, is failing because at its core, conservatism is a balkanized conglomeration of disparate, incompatible parts. I on the other hand, submit that conservatism is the ultimate driving force behind the unparalleled success of America. Rather, it is unchecked liberalism that is destroying America from within. To wit: There is so much wrong with this author's assessment of the GOP and conservatism, that I am having trouble knowing where to begin. Paragraph 1: I wholly disagree with the premise that conservative initiatives for reduced government is at fault for every economic problem experienced since the early twentieth century. One would think that the liberals were just along for the ride and all would have been sweetness and light if they had total control. It is a common debate tactic, state your opponent's position and corner them into trying to prove a negative. Rather than use the author's faulty premise as a starting point, I submit that limited government built this country into the world power it is today and poured the foundation on which our current standard of living is based. It is such a standard of freedom that blogs such as Huffington are able to exist and even thrive among its adherents. In another country very recently, a blogger has been or is facing a sentence of 18 months in jail for the activity in which we are engaging as you read this. Indeed, the development of the manufacturing base, the minimal tax burden and the individual can-do attitude of each and every American fought and won two world wars. Those years and the motivation they provided just might be the most transformative decades in the history of America short of the revolutionary war itself. Liberalism has eroded the sharp edge of individual endeavor and has produced a society that is looking for the government for everything from paying our mortgage to putting gas into our cars. What the hell happened to personal responsibility? I'll tell you what happened, the liberals successfully parlayed the tactics of class warfare and envy into political power. This has produced generations of weak, uneducated masses that run to the government to solve what used to be functions of individual judgement. It is at the core of America's decline. Paragraph 2: Conservatism is not a movement. Conservatism is what founded this country. It has existed from day one. One need not invent strands to define conservatism. Conservatism IS America. Delineating conservative strands is the same divide and conquer strategy liberalism usually employs. As I stated previously, the erosion of individual responsibility has allowed liberals to successfully divide Americans into factions and then to convince them to vote for whatever candidate promises to get them more money, more jobs, more retribution against other evil groups than the other candidate. As has been stated, democracy will end when the people realize that they can vote themselves benefits from the government. The liberal philosophy promotes and demands just such a path. Liberalism is not content to coexist. Liberalism must present evil bad guys and then divide the classes into struggling against one side or the other. Liberals promise to provide the solutions. "If only we can spend enough," "If only we can regulate enough," and "If we can only nationalize this industry or that," are all tenets of the liberal cause. Liberalism has become a cancer to the American dream. Not the other way around. Witness the regions of the country controlled (ruled?) by liberals. New Orleans prior to Jindal, New York, California to name a few. They are all bankrupt. And they have all been governed by liberal policies for years. Their solution is not freeing their populations to invent, dream and endeavor. No, they are taxing the producers even more. Talk about old, failing policies, anyone need not look far to see the damage that liberal social policies have wrought. Now for those strands: ONE: I notice that the author does not dwell on the aspect of libertarian conservatism. To the contrary, the author completely fails to mention that "strand one" pretty much exactly matches the Constitution. How about that? Moving right along: TWO: It is hard to tell exactly what the author is trying to say here with regard to conservatism as a whole. This strand seems to be a diatribe against Christianity and abortion. If this is the limit of the author's view of social conservatism, he or she has revealed much about their motivations in this writing. To be sure, Christianity and abortion are favorite bailiwicks for liberalism. These issues are excellent points of division. One might notice that the author said nothing about freedom of religion. It is inescapable that America is founded on Judeo/Christian beliefs. Defining Christianity (fundamentalist or not) as an intrusive instrument of government is far too simplistic and convenient for stirring up the masses. The author posits that the evil Christians are trying to control government to the oppression of all others. Well, gee, the author would have me support gay marriage using the exact same tactics. What is the difference? The author's liberal bias supports one oppression while condemning the other. At the end of the day, I believe these are state issues and the federal government should mind its own business. The feeble references to loaded rifles, elimination of birth control education, and the ad hominem jab at Palin were vapid and childish. Conservatives believe in individual responsibility. The ultimate time for birth control decisions is before the clothes hit the floor. Not after. I will not suggest that birth control should be hushed up. Rather, the education of sexual relationships is a parental issue and it should happen long before the hormones kick in. That said, teens will do the darndest things. Abortion as birth control outside of any other factors is wrong. The easy access to abortion has degraded the importance of the consequences of casual, extra-marital sex. It has also led to the breakup of nuclear families. Single parent families are lauded in the media and promoted as the progressive way of life. A lifestyle to which everyone should aspire. Children are acquired more as accessories than as gifts of life, responsibility and reward. Anyone seen Madonna lately? Abortion and easy, casual sex has led to the destruction of the American social fabric the point that anything goes. If it feels good, do it. Accompanying this sexual revolution is a further erosion of individual responsibility. You know, wham, bam thank you ma'am. Then just walk away. Someone else will come clean up your mess and it wasn't your fault anyway. You probably had a poor childhood. America and conservatism is based on individuals doing what is morally right. Not blaming everyone else and running to the government for assistance in matters of poor judgement. THREE: Fiscal conservatism calls for the government to stay out of our pockets. The New Deal is a liberal construct. To prove my point, look at social security. It is bankrupt. The money I have contributed to SS will not be there when I want/need it. To say nothing of its investment potential lost over the years. With Presidents from LBJ on down spending far too much, and now Obama really screwing the fiscal pooch, SS is non existent. If the government will simply give me back my contributions and allow me to opt out of SS, I would take that deal in a heartbeat. But no, liberal government insists on subsidizing stupidity. See point number two above. Instead of letting us keep our money and save and invest for ourselves, liberalism says that we must be protected from ourselves. This again erodes the self-initiative to do anything toward our own retirement. If you take away personal initiative and motivation, you create a dependent. This is exactly what liberalism desires. It is the wellspring of liberal power in government. Create as many dependents as possible and you have a perpetual voting block. You also have a country destined to fail. Keep it up and the Chinese children will be reading about the rise and fall of America the same way we read about the fall of the Roman empire. Conservative fiscal philosophy at its most basic core states that individuals are fully capable of making their own spending decisions far better than the government. FOUR: Conservatives are hawkish. You bet. That is what I am trying to establish in this response. Conservatives want individual freedom and initiative to be the overarching philosophy in American government as well as American citizenship. Conservatives are not willing to stand by and watch military forces, overt or covert, manipulate and damage America's interests and those of our allies. America is a force for peace and freedom in the world. Anyone seen the USSR on any maps lately? The author makes an ad hominem attack on conservatives "taking their turn" in the military. Last time I checked, America utilizes an all-volunteer army. If you don't want to serve in the military, don't. When I turned eighteen, I signed my selective service card quite willingly. We do not conscript young men in the middle of the night. In the event of military action being required, conservatives are well-prepared philosophically and mentally to defend our country. The prospect of armed conflict flies in the face of liberalism however because liberalism does not understand moral absolutes. If a bully punches you, the liberal mindset wants to negotiate and try to understand why the bully hates you. It escapes liberalism entirely that the bully might just like punching you. On a broader international scale, some national leaders simply want to see the world burn. Weakness, or the appearance of weakness, is tantamount to an invitation to take advantage of our averted gaze. And there are no shortage of forces in the world willing to take a few shots at America for no more reason than that we exist. FOUR, Continued: OK. So far I can understand the author's position on militarism and conservatism. It is at this point that things get bizarre. He attempts to illustrate a fundamental conflict between Christianity and the use of a military. I have to seriously wonder about how much a liberal understands Jesus but those are just my own feelings showing. Jesus did not preach against any evils of war. He preached extensively against the human and sinful motivations for war. But these are considerations for self-introspection on a personal and a societal scale. We can genuflect all we want but that won't keep the wolves away from the door for very long. For example, we see quite clearly that Jesus understood the business end of a whip when he kicked some righteous asses in the temple. That would be the day Jesus took the money lenders to task for defiling the temple grounds for those of you that slept through Sunday school. So no, there is nothing in Christianity, evangelical, fundamental or otherwise, that suggests military action in the defense of one's self and one's country is not honorable. If Bush led the country into a false war, Bush will eventually answer for those crimes in a way that liberals would cheerfully outlaw. I, for one, do not believe the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are based on lies but that is another debate. FIVE: The author spends a great deal of time and effort at trying to simply say that conservatives are racists. Not only is this the longest paragraph in the essay but it is also the most convoluted. The author posits that at a time when the country is trying to be non-racist, conservatives are moving in the wrong direction by the use of the politics of race. If any political movement would recognize racial politics, it would be liberalism. Once again, we see the liberal approach to dividing the populace along some issue, in this case its race, and then playing one side against the other. The author mentions "welfare queens." I suppose by the use of this term that he is suggesting that conservatives are against the use of welfare. This simply is not true. Conservatives do, however, believe those receiving public support should have to do something to earn the income. After all, everyone else has to get a job to earn a paycheck. Just because someone is in a tough spot does not eliminate their need to get out of bed in the morning and find something productive to do that day. Affirmative action is positively a liberal initiative. Conservatives really don't care about skin color. The question is , can this person do the job better than the other applicants. The advantages of affirmative action to liberals comes, again, in the class warfare arena of garnering the voting block. For so many years, minorities have been told that conservatives are racist and they want to hold down the blacks, hispanics, etc. all because of brown skin. It all fits very nicely into the abdication of personal responsibility. If a minority job applicant did not get the job, it cannot possibly be because someone else was more qualified. No, it must be because the evil corporate structure is against minorities. Enter the liberal government and you have a voter and a dependent for life. If we, as a society want to implement affirmative action quotas, then I say we do it all the way. I wonder what will happen to all the sports teams when we implement such a policy? FIVE, Continued: The author uses the example of Bob Corker, Republican, in a Tennessee Senate race against Harold Ford, Democrat. The author suggests that asking the question "Who is the real Tennessean" is a back door ploy to instill racial overtones into the race. This is utter and complete nonsense. To understand the vacuous and misleading nature of this description of the senate race, you need to understand a bit about Tennessee. Harold Ford is from Memphis in the far western part of the state. Bob Corker is from Knoxville in the eastern part of the state. There is an enormous difference in politics between the western Memphis area and the rest of the state. Harold Ford is wildly liberal. Bob Corker, is usually conservative. Posing the question about the "real Tennessean" was a demonstration of how Harold Ford's politics were greatly at odds with the majority of the rest of the state. So there you go, the race could not possibly have been a rejection of liberalism by what has been a historically conservative state. No, this author rather weakly blames the liberal rejection in this campaign on non-existent racism. It must have been the evil, racist Republicans. Maybe Ford simply lost on ideals and it is as simple as that. That argument does not fit the liberal template though, does it? FIVE Continued Again: The author also tries to supplant the debate of LEGAL immigration with a debate of how racist the conservatives are toward hispanics. Again, this is utterly absurd. I simply cannot understand how so many people actively overlook the ILLEGAL part of runaway immigration. Liberalism is very good at ignoring inconvenient laws when it suits. If liberal government can somehow enact amnesty, then presto, an instant voting block. And how should liberals accomplish this feat? You guessed it. Play the hispanics against the nasty, racist conservatives. Make the argument not about obeying the law. Make it about how hard-hearted the conservatives are and how loving and compassionate the liberals are. Come to us (the liberals) and we will make sure the government takes care of you. Of course it is fair for you to simply cross the border while many law-abiding people try to immigrate the proper way. I might add that Mexico certainly does NOT return the favor. Laws regarding immigrants in Mexico might charitably be described as draconian. And that is putting it mildly compared to the treatment of illegals here in America. The conservative plan for immigration is to do it LEGALLY, and then come to America and take advantage of all the opportunities available for education, self-determination and the pursuit of happiness for all individuals willing to put in the effort and the time. FIVE, Continued Again and Again: The rest of the paragraph is an unfocused and rambling attempt to marginalize the conservative viewpoint as generally racist in its very nature. He uses the example of an all-white Presidential election. He suggests that Obama would have lost such an election and therefore, the white conservatives are racist. This is so far removed from any means of logic as to be juvenile. I might take the same premise and suggest that all the blacks voted for Obama. Who are the racists here? Finally, and I do mean finally, the author states that the demographics are running away from conservatives. The examples of pandering to minorities, amnesty for hispanics, generational mis-education in our schools have, and are, no doubt making it difficult for conservatives to make a case. It is especially difficult in an environment of government largesse and seemingly unending handouts. Therein lies the rub. It cannot continue forever. As Madoff discovered to his ruin, sooner or later the house of cards will come crashing down. Where will America be then? America will be a third-world caliber country that is subservient to whichever country holds the majority of our debt. In the end, the author belittles the ability of conservatives to mount a serious political campaign. He claims that the tea parties were elitist and "gay." Seriously, a liberal used the term gay as a pejorative against the consumption of tea. At moments like these, the liberal mindset cracks just a bit and it becomes easier to see what they are really about. In the end, I have read varying estimates of how many tea parties were held and how many people attended them. In one estimate, approximately 500 tea parties were held with an average attendance of 2,000. The two parties I attended certainly met that attendance standard. The sum total attendance across the country would then be about a million attendees. In the middle of a work day. Now that really is a million-man march. The liberals have something to worry about in 2010. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2f7_1239972508 copperdog2 Response: The Five Strands of Conservatism and Why Liberalism is Destroying America Liberal, liberalism, conservative, conservatism, Obama, Bush, Huffington Mon, 03 Nov 2008 19:02:15 -0500 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d97_1225756935 hobbit-san I recently was challenged by a fellow liveleaker to a debate. I have now been blocked by that user. This is that debate in full. ***** Me: Hello sir, a few days ago you commented on one of my postings and challenged me to come up with a "coherent reply" to it. I believe I have done so. No reply is necessary, but it doesn't compliment you very well t More..o remain silent. Byz:Excuse me Mr. Hobbit-san, Truthfully, I dont even know who you are! What was the issue at hand? Where are my comments, and your replies posted? If it is a matter of insulting my religion and beliefs, there simply is no use to go back and forth- right? I somehow suspect this is the issue? Otherwise, I have a life- I've earned two graduate degrees, on my way to work on my third one and then the Ph.D.- Guide me as to where your "reply" is and if I deem it worthy of responding to it without entering into an eternal cycle of nonsensical argumentations, then I will do so. Till then, Cheerio! Me: The posting/comments at hand are from my posting about how the bible calls for pregnant women to be "ripped open", your comment was "First, it seems that you are not truly interested in entering a "debate" upon the facts, because it is evident that you "think" you know what you are talking about. But truth be said: part of the problem with your "interpretation" is your inability to actually understand what you read. Re-read those infamous passages, and tell me what "will be" means- No place in Scripture ever says that God rejoices in the destruction of people. On the contrary, do yourself a favor and read the book of Jonah so you may clarify your perspective and learn to judge by the TOTALITY of the evidence. Second, anti-Christian materialists (as yourself) cannot even fathom that there are consequences to every action; whether positive or negative. SIN (which you do not believe in) leads to consequences by default, just as RIGHTEOUSNESS leads to positive results by default. Injustice, hunger, disease, wars, murder, rape, incest, homosexuality, drunkenness, and other "justified" materialist practices- ALL have their consequences- not only to the individual- BUT TO THE COMMUNITY. But of course, as a materialist your main concern is YOUR pleasure, regardless of how it affects the community, right? God DOES NOT have to "kill the children" or "ravish our women..." WE AS A NATION already do this through the thousands of abortions that are done every day! Here, we have a country who will punish a rapist with a few years (if any) in jail...but yet vociferously allows the murder of hundreds of little babies in the wombs each day, for a fee. Here we have a government who allows educated mercenaries (abortion doctors) to murder the innocent- and you are complaining about God for allowing the CONSEQUENCES OF SIN to take its route. If anything, I would call that hypocrisy! Unless you stand on a higher moral ground than God by standing against the murders, then your anti-Christian diatribe will resound in deaf ears. Good luck in presenting a logical, coherent counter-proposition to my statements." I understand you probably have a life, however going so far as to call me a materialist and then practically challenging me to a reply and then just forgetting about it is kind of lame. Byz: Ah, I remember. The reason why I did not continue on this conversation was because of your insistence in saying that the Bible "called for" the pregnant women to be "ripped open." Re-read it again friend. I understand that in the fashion of Dawkins and Hitchens, your goal is to try to demonstrate the destructive nature of Christianity, all the while your secular environment hasn't a moral leg to stand on. In any case, if you actually read the passages that you quote, you will see that they are ORACLES- announcing what WILL BE (which you automatically rejected in favor of your interpretation) as a result of Israel's steeping into idolatry. You see, the problem is that you want Scripture to say WHAT YOU WANT, rather than what it says... and in that case, I cannot waste my time. So, there it is. Me: So you're trying to dismiss this by saying that those were said by Oracles referring to what would happen to Israel. I'm sorry, but If I had the name of the book right, those "oracular" statements came from the holy bible. Just because they were "prophesying" doesn't change the fact that they're in there. Are you really trying to say the bible isn't condoning this behavior? I'm pretty sure it didn't say "Don't rip open the pregnant women". I'm not seeing scripture "The way i want to see it" I'm seeing the words that are on the page. You're the one who's seeing it the way you want to by dismissing verses such as the ones I brought to attention as meaning something other than what they say. Besides, it's not like this is the only part of the bible that contradicts itself. Would you like to know where the in bible God allows child molestation to take place? and for the record I'm not secular, I believe very much in God. Byz: Excuse me... But now you're ranting- and THIS is why I'm not interested in what you consider a "coherent reply." If you want to see contradictions in the Bible- well, be my guest. Let me make a few points clear- afterwards you can proceed to believe whatever you want. 1. As I said before- and you totally ignored- there is a consequence to everything- whether good or evil. Even human jurisprudence is evident to this. The penalty of sin- (sin being the desire to satisfy your ego) is death. 2. Israel madE A COVENANT with God in Sinai. They were not OBLIGED to take it- whenever they walked away from the Sinaitic laws in order to follow Idolatry and immorality (as is so prevalent today) the natural consequence of these self-destructive acts were negative. 3. God WILL ALLOW and even SEND the "horsemen" (hunger, pestilence, war, death) as judgment- Just as a judge sends a person to the Electric Chair or the Gallows as a result of his murders- so God judges his people, and rightly so, whether you like it or not. Just as in the case of the earthly judge, the Heavenly One would be "unjust" if he was not to punish sin- whether you like it or not. 4, The matter of the "4 horsemen" does not depend on God's DIRECT sending- but rather- God allowing- just as the earthly judge does not hang the man in the gallows, but rather sends him to it- I guess you wish for God to say: "Oh no...no wars, no pestilence, no hunger..do what you will..PLEASE serve me if you would like, and if you dont I wont hold it against you! This my friend, could not even be applied rationally to the civil world. If such a thing would be so, it would be Anarchy. You say you "believe in God." Obviously, you believe in a god outside of the Christian faith- because no true Christian (sure, call it the Scotsman clause) would believe other than the Scriptures to being of divine origin. Since you do not believe in the monotheistic God, then in my opinion, you believe in no god. Now going back to your so called challenge concerning your discovery of a passage that condones child molestation in the Scriptures- Bring it on pal. I would love to have a good laugh. Well, let me start laughing already... Bha H AHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Me: I'm ranting? Nice try. You're the one who went into far left field going on about the horsemen, did I ever make mention of not believing in consequences?. Also you put words in my mouth, when did I ever say anything along the lines of "Oh no...no wars, no pestilence, no hunger..do what you will..PLEASE serve me if you would like, and if you dont I wont hold it against you!" Once again you are making assumptions based on your own personal prejudices. So since you're content with being ignorant, I'm going to tell you what I believe in so you don't make anymore assumptions. I believe in what those savages call Karma, which spans many lifetimes (And if you don't believe in reincarnation then I guess you can forget about Jesus ever coming back).I think the idea of a God who gives an immortal soul one lifetime to get it right and sentences them to eternal torture just because they didn't call him the right name should classified as a form of psychological warfare. And I believe in one god, it's just that mine is a god of logic and reason not one of submission and wrath and judgment. So there goes your whole "I don't believe in the monotheistic god" argument. Read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah again, first off it was not destroyed just because of buttsex, it was destroyed because the citizens were unable to control their sexuality, as in they were a rape-crazy mob. When god sent the angels and lot took them in, and the mob descended onto his house in effort to get to the angels. Which brings me to my point. Lot offers up virgin children to a mob of sexual lunatics, but is he punished for it? If God isn't punishing someone for something in the bible then he's cool with it, right? or else we wouldn't know everything he does and doesn't want us to do. All of this is off topic, what was said in the scriptures I had quoted were the things that were to be done TO the people FOR breaking their pact with/rejecting god. Therefor god wants us to rip open pregnant women. Well, your god anyway. Byz: My predicament was right...you ARE an idiot. You say that Im prejudiced...and yet you give a totally left field explanation of what we Christians believe? Ridiculous. God "eternally condeming" because he was not "called by the right name." Utterly ridiculous, and OBVIOUSLY uneducated from your part. THIS is the reason WHY I did not want to engage in this stupid argumentation. You are an undeducated peasant. Good luck and good bye. Im done with so much typing. When you "reincarnate" you'll probably come back as chicken shit. Dreamer.... Me: Nice attitude, is that what jesus would have done? So the idea of God eternally condemning someone for not calling him the right name is Ridiculous? What about "The only way to the father is through me" and all that other "believe in me or go to hell" shit? Also you did a great job rebutting my bible/child molestation argument, care to give that one a whack or are you just going to insult me again? Byz: What's happening...all of a sudden you don't have a fiery tongue? C'mon now, give me your hermeneutical process by which you determine that John 14.6 says what you say it says...and how Genesis (according to your interpretation) demonstrates that pedophilia is God's will. You see the difference between Bumper-Sticker beliefs, and ACTUALLY thinking about them, dont ya? By they way, when you try to accuse me of not following "WWJD"- it totally discards true Christianity- a prejudice that expects for Christians to receive abuse, and not retaliate...in other words, masochism. THAT is an interpretation that totally discards the Christ of Matthew 23 and the Christ of Revelation 20-21. We Christians have a right to self-defense- So c'mon, lets see the erudition behind the coward... Me: Patience, little christian soldier, I hadn't replied yet because I've had a hell of a weekend. It's fun to know that you really do give a shit despite your efforts to convince me you don't. I'm gonna try and respond to both this and your prior message in one soooo here we go. In response to your prior message; This is not the way I do not interpret it, this is the way that nearly every christian I have ever spoken with interprets it, so beware before you insult the methodology of that interpretation because you are insulting that of your fellow "believers". The idea of it coming across as being "Believe in me or else" is the inherent concept of hell. When God's alleged poster-child says that he's the only way to get to God, and you then have his "followers" hammering in the concept and idea of hell for a millennium or so, what do you wind up with? Almost a billion fanatical people telling you that you'd better believe what they believe..or else. If you're still don't get my relation of the sodom and gomorrah story as being evidence of biblical allowance of child molestation you need to do nothing more than re-read my previous explanation, but I'll save you some time and give it to you again. When the citizens descended on lot's house in effort to gangbang those angels he offers up his virgin children to a sex-crazed mob and is not punished for it by god. And if you believe the bible is the literal word of god then you have to accept that anything that it doesn't directly punish in that book must be allowed. The reasoning behind THAT is that if the bible is god's literal word he probably didn't forget to leave anything out (unless someone comes along and says it's god's will to add or remove something from the bible). What evidence do I have of christianity being evil? How about it's religious symbol being a device built for torture and death? How about the intentional cover-ups of priests molesting children(I consider all jesus-based religions christianity)? How about the crusades? The believers who think it's okay to tell little kids they'll go to hell for not converting? The word Theocracy? What about an "infallible" book that contradicts itself? Not to mention the horrible things within that book that startled this little quarrel in the first place. Take a good long look at the american government, it's rules are heavily influenced by christian principles, the only holiday to be both religious and federal is a christian one. This is not what you want in a country that was partially founded on freedom of religion. And thanks for trying to insult my philosophy, even though you got it completely wrong. I dunno where hindu-wannabe came from. I already told you I believe in one god *shrugs*. And no I don't believe some river will cleanse you of your karma, only positive actions can do that. You'll probably get aids or an amoeba from that river. Homework is not much of a necessity when basic logic and reason can destroy even the most complex hypocritical religious doctrine. aaaand on to your next message. I really must tell you I let out a sigh on this one, for you seem so eager to defend your faith and yet you clearly do not even know it. Allow me to (once again) quote the bible. Matthew 5:38-41 with special attention to be paid on 39; 38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. It's not MY problem if one part of the bible contradicts another, it's actually kind of my point. Thanks for proving it. So you see, you clearly don't know what you are talking about, kind of sad really :( I eagerly await your reply. Maybe one day you'll stop acting like a child and drop this belief that insult augments argument. P.s. Awww, you called me a coward, I'm touched :) You do see the irony in a sheep calling a wolf a coward, right? Byz: Your ignorance of Scripture and hermeneutics is astounding!!! This is like arguing History with a sex-craving barbarian who only sees ass. There are no contradictions in the Scriptures- the contradictions are in your mind. If you had at least the humility of wanting to learn, rather then regurgitating bumper-sticker slogans you would have my respect. But frankly, you avoided my quetions ENTIRELY- You never even gave me a short hermeneutical explanation as to how you came to your conclusions- which reflect your theological ignorance at best! If you truly want to debate, make a video- send it to me, and I'll respond. Im not interested in reading anymore of your crap. so, good by and good luck. Me: and for the record, I did provide you with a "hermeneutical" explanation to my theories. Maybe if you'd bothered to read my reply before formulating your own you would have realized that. BUT, If you wish to run away from this conflict (i'm not making a video, fuck you) feel free. Hide away in your church and wait to die with the rest of the flock. Byz: fuck you, asshole!!!!! You call that, HERMENEUTICS??? Fuck off! Me: Well, seeing as how that word roughly means "interpretation" yeah I'd call that hermeneutics. I explained to you IN DETAIL in a "hermeneutic" fashion every point that was brought to attention, and what is your befitting-of-two-graduate-degrees response? That I hadn't done the exact thing I had done. Sorry sparky, jedi mind tricks don't work on me. Byz: Look here "Jedi" "Hermeneutics" is NOT the AFTERMATH or your CONCLUSIONS, which can be based on bumper-sticker ideas (like yours) but rather, THE SYSTEMATIC PROCESS on HOW you get to the idea. Let me make this brief, because your pre-conceived notions and bias against Christianity blinds you to any type of rationality. *Truthfully, I Shouldnt even take my time to explain ANYTHING to you because you already have made up your mind, disregarding the evidence. ANY PERSUASION, is good enough to steer you away from accepting Christianity because of your bias- I know this, and YOU know this- so lets stop the games. Also, if you were a person of REASON you would understand that DECONSTRUCTING an argument or a position is rather EASY- all you need is disbelief...On the other hand, to construct an argument (hermeneutics) takes a lot of knowledge and WORK- I am tired of writing to idiots like you- who have no regard for knowledge and reason- who seek only to deconstruct- and have no respect for people of faith- (ie. calling me a fanatic- you fucking asshole. Plenty of people like you with your secular values are destroying this country- but that is another topic you fucking asshole- I wish I knew where you lived so I could kick your fucking anglo-saxon bitch ass). Lets look at the issue of "contradictions." I'll give you an example and I'll leave it at that. You mention the Bible says "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" and then "do not resist an evil person...etc." First of all: All serious students of the Biblical Law (Pentateuch, Torah) understands that the Law is divided into THREE CLASSIFICATIONS- these being: a) Ceremonial b) Moral c) Civic The ceremonial laws=religious ceremonies, sacrifices, etc. The moral- The 10 commandments Civic- the laws of the nation- governance. The MORAL LAW prohibits a person from (for example) KILLING/MURDER. The Law PROHIBITS taking revenge (on a personal level)- as a matter of fact, the Law facilitated several cities so that those who had killed someone by accident can get refuge, until a valid judgement was arranged- where his innocence can be proved. In those cities, persons can be protected from family members who would seek revenge. The Law, NEVER permitted anarchy. The CIVIC LAW- sought to give TRUE JUSTICE, "eye for eye, tooth for tooth..." A great error of the modern man is to look at the ancient societies with disdain as if our societies are "better." This is fallacious- the CIVIC LAW in the Pentateuch is actually an UPGRADE of what was legally expected in that time- THAT is a fact. For example, while other civilizations had NO RIGHTS for women- the Law of Moses introduced the law of inheritance- where women were permitted to inherit land and goods- look it up. In the Sermon of the Mount (which is what you quote)Jesus is teaching the superior PRINCIPLES of the KINGDOM of God (just look at the context in the Gospel and you will see that Jesus' sermons are about the Kingdom of God)in contrast with the RABBINICAL PRINCIPLES. When Jesus says, "you have heard it was said...but I say..." he is actually NOT QUOTING SCRIPTURE but rather the rabbinical teachings/interpretations/translations (sometimes the targums, etc) of the day. The problem with what you were quoting, is that because of your bias and lack of information- you automatically assume that Jesus is contradicting Scripture. Actually, he is NOT- but rather, he is bringing back the principles of the Kingdom of God back to its proper place. Rabbinical tradition and the masses, because of their lack of autonimous government- they had started to interpret the Civic laws and applying them to the Moral code. Yes, a degradation of what was given in the beginning! So, in the matter of "do not resist an evil person" Jesus is teaching the PRINCIPLE of the Kingdom of God which is spiritual and exists INSIDE every believer- this does not mean that a person cannot take LEGAL ACTION against the perpetrator. Jesus is steering his disciples AWAY FROM PERSONAL VENGEANCE leading them to "give to Ceasar what is Ceasars..." in other words, to submit to whatever government and abide by its laws...whether it is a Jewish or Gentile government- whether Davidic or Gentile. You see all I had to write for you? THAT is an example of hermeneutics...no bumper sticker slogans, but rather an informed and systematic explanation. Hobbit- with Sodom and your accusation- I can do the same thing...but somehow I think you are not interested. Most anti-Christian sources in the internet are not interested in TRUTH, but rather they take whatever "bone" they think they have "discovered" and wrecklessly run with it. JUST BECAUSE THE AVERAGE JOE has simple faith and is not a SCHOLAR- it doesnt mean that Christianity is a farce. By throwing biased and ignorant accusations against Christianity, you are just showing yourself to be a simpleton. So, do me a favor, read a book and FUCK OFF! Me: I didn't call myself a jedi, I actually tried to imply some level of intellect on your part, but, once again you made both me sigh and yourself look like a fool. And I gave you systematic reasons as to why I believe what I believe and say what I say. I really don't get how you're not getting that. I would go back and quote myself, but it would appear that while I was on vacation all of my sent messages to you have vanished. And no I did not delete them, I was/am rather proud of them. I realize I can scroll down but to be honest. I don't have to. Are you proud of your responses to me? If you are wouldn't that make you a sinner? Or are there certain levels of lust/wrath/sloth/envy that are acceptable? Anyways, back on topic. I have no preconceived notions about Christianity, everything I say about it comes straight from the man upstairs. Well, according to some people. I really find it comical that you try to label my beliefs as being of the "bumper sticker" variety. Tell me, what do you think the ratio is of christian bumper stickers vs. all other religious or secular ones? Lets not forget those cars with scripture written all over them. It is also comical that you try to tell me how you "shouldn't take the time" to explain your bronze-aged fanatical beliefs to me when you are clearly so invested in this debate you're willing to write me my own personal pamphlet(Though I am not condemning you for that part as I am obviously willing to do the same). Also comical, how you call me an asshole for calling you a fanatic, and say that you wish you knew where I lived so you could kick my ass. Isn't wrath a sin? If you really want to come find me I'll make it easy for you just to watch you go against your own beliefs :) Aren't you threatening me with the same kind of personal vengeance you claim Jesus is telling you not to engage in? Next topic! Deconstructing an argument or position isn't *that* easy, it's just that deconstructing yours is. It's not a matter of belief or disbelief, it's a matter of interpreting the words that are on the pages. I never bring my personal philosophies on god and the like into these debates (Unless it's to keep someone like you from repeating the same assumptions over and over) my sources are the same as yours. It's just that you will never be able to understand that because you suffer the same affliction of which you accuse me. Your preconceived notions and bias prevent you from any sort of rationality. There is no bias of which you speak, I believe in the bible as something able to help people lead good lives(provided they overlook the parts about ripping open pregnant women and such). However when it comes to taking any part of it as being the literal word of God and the history of mankind(the entire history, I understand there are people and locations in the bible that are real. And I do not call that into question), it's not being biased to see how doing so is to drown yourself in a sea of blood and contradictions. Onward! You're almost making this too easy for me, you're trying to argue that there are moral, civic, and ceremonial ways to interpret the bible. While being apparently easy for "All serious students of biblical law" such a statement reveals the utter ridiculousness of your argument. You shouldn't have to be a serious student of biblical law in order to think that the bible isn't telling you to rip open pregnant women and take beatings like a little bitch. Also, of COURSE jesus wasn't quoting scripture, aren't the scriptures the things that jesus had said? If he was quoting the rabbinical teachings of the day, what the fuck did they crucify him for? Claiming he was the son of God? Even that goes to show you the level of reason in the rabbinical laws that you claim he was speaking about. Also you're saying that he was teaching both the rabbinical principles and the contrast of those principles with those of the kingdom of god, which is it? Because it cant be both. Unless you meant that he was teaching the rabbinical principles in order to teach their contrast, in which case my bad. In any religious society the civic and moral laws are almost one and the same. Before you try to argue against that, take a good look at christian influence on american government (a predominantly christian country) and the sharia law societies that think it's okay to cut peoples heads off or throw rocks at them until they die. You basically just condemned all your fellow christians for trying to outlaw gay marriage, and I'm glad I was the one to break it to you. By trying to say that jesus wants you to sue people is just ludicrous. In the SAME PASSAGE where he tells you to take your punches without retaliation, he tells you to do the exact same thing for LEGAL ACTION. If he doesn't want you to resist being sued, how can you come to the conclusion that he wants you to instigate legal action? Does not the same principle of forgiveness/loving your enemy apply in both scenarios? And also, why must these conclusions be reached? Once again, you shouldn't have to be a scholar. Let us again go to the bible, matthew 5:40 and 44; 40 If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you Just because you're in denial about god commanding you to be a pussy doesn't mean the contradictions aren't there. Sorry. Moving on. is that enough "hermeneutics" for you? Who am I kidding? Of course its not. If you've made it this far do me a favor and just highlight each of the previous paragraphs one at a time so I can at least know you were made aware of them on even a subconscious level. Byzantine, If you were able to rebuttal my sodom and gomorrah argument you would have done so already. Frankly I'm surprised you even brought it up for once. Aside from my current book, The Dante Club (a very good one you just might like it), I read a book while in vegas. The bible in my hotel room. Sorry, still not a believer. I'll give you a little credit, this one took longer to reply to than your prior delusions. Byz: You're ridiculous son, and Im done with you.... take care asshole. read a book. *Byzantine at this point blocks me* I've read the terms and conditions and to the best of my understanding posting this debate does not violate them. However if I am wrong just show me the part I missed and I will remove this posting. Comments welcome! I want to see the public response. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d97_1225756935 hobbit-san The Great Debate Bible, Christian, Christianity, Hypocritical, Debate, Jesus, Sun, 12 Oct 2008 18:52:02 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e8b_1223851922 jayboulware Source Confirming your suspicions about Obamanomics. by Matthew Continetti Weekly Standard Hello and welcome to Advanced Obamanomics at WEEKLY STANDARD U. If you are in this class, you have passed Remedial Rubinomics, Identity and Globalization in the Works of Barack Obama, and Introduction to Contemporary Religion with Professor Jeremiah Wright. Also, your check has cleared. Congratulations. As noted in the syllabus, the required reading for today's class includes The Audacity of Hope pp. 220-257; Obama's March 27, 2008, speech in New York City on "Renewing the American Economy"; Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein's Nudge; David Leonhardt's indispensable August 24, 2008, New York Times magazine article "Obamanomics," from which the title of this class is drawn; and Robert Kuttner's Obama's Challenge. Now, most of your classmates probably spent last night experimenting with the booze luge they had constructed out of plywood and a bag of crushed ice. You, however, made it through the required reading without--and this is no small feat--falling asleep. This means that there is a bright future in store for you at either the Bureau of Labor Statistics or the Congressional Budget Office. Good thing you didn't miss this incredible opportunity by going to last night's underwear party, getting wasted, and setting a couch on fire. Since this is a conservative institution with the highest academic standards, each class will begin with a quiz. Who said the following? NUMBER ONE: "I accuse the present administration of being the greatest spending administration in peace times in all our history. . . . I regard reduction in federal spending as one of the most important issues of this campaign." NUMBER TWO: "The market is the best mechanism ever invented for efficiently allocating resources to maximize production. . . . And I also think that there is a connection between the freedom of the marketplace and freedom more generally." Correct! Speaker number one is then-presidential candidate Franklin Delano Roosevelt, campaigning in 1932. And speaker number two is presidential candidate Barack Obama, campaigning in 2008. It's often forgotten, today, how FDR campaigned for the presidency as a budget balancer who was going to rein in federal spending. And while Obama may be a liberal who spent his youth as a leftwinger, he has plenty of nice things to say about the free market. He is not going to collectivize agriculture or nationalize the banks. The Bush administration has already done that anyway. The larger point of this quiz is to illustrate just how unpredictable politics is. As Professor Barnes likes to say, the future is never a straight-line projection of the present. This is true in life, culture, economics, and politics. A corollary is that presidents almost never govern in the manner in which they campaigned. Stuff happens. Woodrow Wilson ran for reelection on a peace platform. FDR ran as a fiscal conservative. George H.W. Bush promised he wouldn't raise taxes. George W. Bush said the United States ought not to "nation build." In each case, events interfered. So, as we examine Obama's economic policy proposals, we ought to look at them with a skeptical eye. Many of the proposals won't become law. Others will be modified beyond recognition. Still others will be cast aside, as unforeseen developments force the rejection of old ideas and the adoption of new ones. The economy could worsen. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could worsen. The United States could become involved in new conflicts in Darfur, Iran, Pakistan, the Korean peninsula, Taiwan, or someplace no one has ever heard of. Al Qaeda could strike again. And don't forget Putin. There are, however, a few basics we can take for granted. If Obama is elected president in a few weeks, not only is enrollment in this class going to spike, but federal taxes, spending, and the deficit--at least in the short term--are all going to rise. As taxes on the rich go up, the income threshold at which one becomes "rich" is likely to go down. Obama wants billions in new spending, and, if the Bush presidency is any indication, he won't stop Democrats in Congress from spending even more. And the new spending, combined with the loss in revenue from an economy in recession, will increase the deficit. The outcome of many policies will be unrelated to their author's purpose. Sometimes those outcomes will be perverse. They'll exacerbate the problem. And the whole darned thing will be extremely difficult to roll back. As a wise man once said, the closest thing to immortality in this life is a government program. It's possible to divide Obama's economic agenda into three parts: the Not-So-Bad, the Bad, and the Really, Really Bad. Let's take a brief look at each. THE NOT-SO-BAD Obama is a cool character. It's rare that you see him ruffled in public. He claims he's a "pragmatist," but he's actually a gradualist. He likes taking things step by step. He doesn't go for one-size-fits-all solutions. He's cautious, calm, and even mellow. This has sometimes been a liability, since his supporters are constantly urging him to ramp up the attacks on Bush and McCain. But other times his steadiness works well. For example, his tempered response to the current economic crisis has been rewarded in recent public opinion polls. If he becomes president, Obama's temperament will be a plus. The markets need to see confidence in the political leadership. They react sourly to brashness and unpredictability. Obama's gradualism, moreover, could serve as a check on a liberal Democratic Congress. His health care plan, for instance, does not contain an individual mandate. His cap-and-trade proposal includes a private auction for carbon permits in order to avoid rent-seeking and corruption. He wants to make 401(k) savings programs mandatory and automatic. He could urge the Democrats who run the legislative branch to pare down their grand designs and outrageous expenditures. He might even veto a spending bill or two, although that's probably asking too much. Obama's economic advisers aren't so bad either. His team might not include any supply-siders, but it does contain, almost exclusively, centrist Democrats who are sympathetic to markets. Obama's chief economic adviser, Jason Furman, is a prot'eg'e of Robert Rubin, who has said, in the past, and this is not a joke, kind things about Wal-Mart. Another adviser, University of Chicago economist Austan Goolsbee, got into some trouble earlier this year when, it was reported, he told a group of Canadians that Obama didn't really mean all the nasty things he was saying about NAFTA. One hopes Goolsbee was right. Other Obama advisers include the aforementioned Rubin; former Fed chairman Paul Volcker, who, alongside Ronald Reagan, helped crush inflation in the early 80s; former Clintonite Laura Tyson; and of course mega-investor Warren Buffett. These are not revolutionaries. They have no history of pushing the envelope. Buffett couldn't be exciting if he tried. They are likely to suggest that Obama adopt, by and large, the economic policies of the Clinton years, with perhaps a little less focus on deficit reduction. And the economy, you may recall, wasn't exactly Clinton's weak spot. The Democratic party's left wing didn't like it when Obama named Furman to his team last June. It thought Furman too centrist. And this is another not-so-bad part of Obama's economic agenda, namely, the left isn't thrilled. There are plenty of economists and journalists who argue Obama isn't left-wing enough. Robert Kuttner worries Obama will turn his back on "transformative" politics in favor of Clinton's balanced-budget economic stewardship. He'd rather have Obama transform America into Denmark. John Cassidy wrote that--and he did not mean this as a compliment--Obama "appears to be unduly influenced by the need to preserve choice." And during the Democratic primaries, Paul Krugman was a fierce critic of Obama's health care plan. As long as parts of the left are angry at Obama, he can't be all that bad. Which brings us to: THE BAD There are all sorts of taxes that can be raised, and a President Obama is going to raise almost all of them. He's going to raise federal income taxes on families making more than $250,000 a year. He's going to raise capital gains and dividend taxes. He's going to raise the corporate and estate taxes. He's proposing a windfall profits tax on oil companies. He'd like to tax "carried interest" as private income. He's suggested lifting the cap on income subject to the payroll tax. Obama says that, under his plan, tax rates on incomes below $250,000 will not change, and that "95 percent" of Americans will actually get an income tax cut. But this is misleading. Plenty of Americans pay very little, or absolutely no, federal income tax. So it's hard to give them a tax "cut." What Obama is actually proposing is a refundable tax credit--it's unclear whether it's a one-shot deal or permanent--of $500 per person. The credit will be, in David Leonhardt's words, "applied toward income taxes based on payroll taxes paid." Meaning that everyone who pays payroll taxes will get $500. If your federal income tax burden is less than $500, you'll get the balance via government check. This is not the only tax credit Obama would make fully refundable. He would apply a similar logic to education, mortgage interest, savings, child care, and hybrid car credits. It's true Obama would eliminate capital gains taxes for "start-ups and small businesses," although he hasn't said how he'll distinguish between actual start-ups, and companies--General Motors, say--that will call themselves start-ups for tax purposes. It's true that, under Obama's plan, seniors who make less than $50,000 a year won't pay any income taxes at all. But it's still not quite accurate to call Obama a tax cutter. Obama is more of a tax carver. He wants to take the federal tax code and carve out all these credits and exemptions so that the overall tax burden becomes slightly more progressive, and more government benefits flow to the middle class and poor. That means an already complicated tax code is about to become even more complicated. And that income tax hikes on the wealthy are going to finance benefits for some people who don't pay any income tax at all. This isn't "cutting" taxes, by which one usually means across-the-board, permanent rate cuts. It's another form of spending. A conservative economist would tell Obama, politely, that effective tax reform is flattening the tax rates while broadening the tax base. And Obama would tell him, politely, to go jump in a lake. THE REALLY, REALLY BAD Still, it's unlikely Obama will raise tax rates to the point where they distort incentives to work, invest, and produce, as they did during the 1930s and the 1970s. It's axiomatic, however, that when you tax something you get less of it; Obama's higher taxes will therefore result in less investment and risktaking on the part of the wealthy, whose capital finances new companies that create jobs. This is the wrong thing to do during a recession, but Obama and the Democrats in Congress will do it anyway, which probably means that the economic downturn will last longer than it ought to. Such is life. It's not the end of the world. But the end of the economic world as we know it--this only a slight exaggeration--is exactly what might happen if Obama follows through on two other aspects of his economic agenda. The first is his opposition to free trade. Obama has opposed every trade deal under consideration since he's been in Congress, which, admittedly, isn't all that long. During the Democratic primaries he called for renegotiating NAFTA. He may praise free trade in interviews with the financial press, but he clams up when faced with a large crowd. And unlike Bill Clinton, Obama has nary a positive word for free trade in general, even though it has produced undeniable benefits for Americans and people worldwide. Obama attacks "companies that ship jobs overseas," but he doesn't have much else to say about the global economy. Democratic economists will tell you Obama knows better and is just saying what's politically expedient. Talk about a profile in courage. The problem is the economists could be wrong--this happens on occasion--and Obama could actually mean what he says. We'd have an anti-free trader in the White House for the first time in decades. And this would be an absolute disaster. The global trading system has already reached an impasse, with rich countries unwilling to end agricultural subsidies and level the playing field for farmers in poor countries. A no-trade Obama presidency could let the system degrade even further. And if he were to implement anti-trade policies--tariffs and other protectionist measures--the result could be a trade war that would raise prices, kill jobs, and increase enmity between nations. For the sake of the U.S. and global economy, Obama can't allow the AFL-CIO and other unions to dictate trade policy. But they just might, because Obama has shown no sign of breaking with the unions on any issue. This is the second-most disturbing aspect of his economic agenda. Obama has said he would sign the so-called "card-check" legislation that Congress will undoubtedly consider, and probably pass, next year. The legislation would eliminate the secret ballot in union elections and allow the bosses to unionize a shop once a certain number of names had been written down on a card. Card-check is an ugly piece of work. One can see how the opportunities for graft, fraud, and intimidation under this sort of scheme would be enormous. And the democratic ideal of the secret ballot would be undermined. Card-check would also lead to a rapid jump in unionization. This is not, despite what your Teamster friends might tell you, a good thing. Union participation in the private sector has been on the decline for decades and, not coincidentally, during this same amount of time, on average, productivity has skyrocketed while unemployment has plummeted. Unions produce frozen labor markets, which increase unemployment and class stratification while lowering productivity and economic growth. And the unions' politically negotiated wage gains also encourage inflation. When did the world understand Ronald Reagan was serious about ending stagflation? When he fired the air traffic controllers and broke their strike. A President Obama could demonstrate similar independence and fortitude by vetoing card-check. But don't bet on it. It's more likely he'll cave, and the economy and labor-force democracy will suffer the consequences. For those of your who arrived late to class--don't think I didn't notice--here's the CliffsNotes version of today's lecture: Obamanomics equals higher taxes, more government spending, a larger deficit, a more complicated tax code, increased regulation, a slowdown in global economic integration, and the resurrection of the labor unions, all brought to you by a cool-headed gradualist with a team of brilliant advisers. Not a pretty picture. But, as the saying goes, conservatives should always prepare for the worst, because they ought to expect nothing less. Class dismissed. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e8b_1223851922 jayboulware Invasion of the Wallet Snatchers Obama,Tax,Obamanomics Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:45:01 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=79d_1209008701 Free-Thinker In previous sections of this book, we have shown how the fossil record invalidates the theory of evolution. In point of fact, there was no need for us to relate any of that, because the theory of evolution collapses long before one gets to any claims about the evidence of fossils. The subject that renders the theory meaningless from the very outset is the question of how life first appeared on earth. When it addresses this question, evolutionary theory claims that life started with a cell that formed by chance. According to this scenario, four billion years ago various chemical compounds underwent a reaction in the primordial atmosphere on the earth in which the effects of thunderbolts and atmospheric pressure led to the formation of the first living cell. The first thing that must be said is that the claim that nonliving materials can come together to form life is an unscientific one that has not been verified by any experiment or observation. Life is only generated from life. Each living cell is formed by the replication of another cell. No one in the world has ever succeeded in forming a living cell by bringing inanimate materials together, not even in the most advanced laboratories. The theory of evolution claims that a living cell-which cannot be produced even when all the power of the human intellect, knowledge and technology are brought to bear-nevertheless managed to form by chance under primordial conditions on the earth. In the following pages, we will examine why this claim is contrary to the most basic principles of science and reason. An Example of the Logic of "Chance" If one believes that a living cell can come into existence by chance, then there is nothing to prevent one from believing a similar story that we will relate below. It is the story of a town. One day, a lump of clay, pressed between the rocks in a barren land, becomes wet after it rains. The wet clay dries and hardens when the sun rises, and takes on a stiff, resistant form. Afterwards, these rocks, which also served as a mould, are somehow smashed into pieces, and then a neat, well shaped, and strong brick appears. This brick waits under the same natural conditions for years for a similar brick to be formed. This goes on until hundreds and thousands of the same bricks have been formed in the same place. However, by chance, none of the bricks that were previously formed are damaged. Although exposed to storms, rain, wind, scorching sun, and freezing cold for thousands of years, the bricks do not crack, break up, or get dragged away, but wait there in the same place with the same determination for other bricks to form. When the number of bricks is adequate, they erect a building by being arranged sideways and on top of each other, having been randomly dragged along by the effects of natural conditions such as winds, storms, or tornadoes. Meanwhile, materials such as cement or soil mixtures form under "natural conditions," with perfect timing, and creep between the bricks to clamp them to each other. While all this is happening, iron ore under the ground is shaped under "natural conditions" and lays the foundations of a building that is to be formed with these bricks. At the end of this process, a complete building rises with all its materials, carpentry, and installations intact. Of course, a building does not only consist of foundations, bricks, and cement. How, then, are the other missing materials to be obtained? The answer is simple: all kinds of materials that are needed for the construction of the building exist in the earth on which it is erected. Silicon for the glass, copper for the electric cables, iron for the columns, beams, water pipes, etc. all exist under the ground in abundant quantities. It takes only the skill of "natural conditions" to shape and place these materials inside the building. All the installations, carpentry, and accessories are placed among the bricks with the help of the blowing wind, rain, and earthquakes. Everything has gone so well that the bricks are arranged so as to leave the necessary window spaces as if they knew that something called glass would be formed later on by natural conditions. Moreover, they have not forgotten to leave some space to allow the installation of water, electricity and heating systems, which are also later to be formed by chance. Everything has gone so well that "coincidences" and "natural conditions" produce a perfect design. If you have managed to sustain your belief in this story so far, then you should have no trouble surmising how the town's other buildings, plants, highways, sidewalks, substructures, communications, and transportation systems came about. If you possess technical knowledge and are fairly conversant with the subject, you can even write an extremely "scientific" book of a few volumes stating your theories about "the evolutionary process of a sewage system and its uniformity with the present structures." You may well be honored with academic awards for your clever studies, and may consider yourself a genius, shedding light on the nature of humanity. The theory of evolution, which claims that life came into existence by chance, is no less absurd than our story, for, with all its operational systems, and systems of communication, transportation and management, a cell is no less complex than a city. In his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, the molecular biologist Michael Denton discusses the complex structure of the cell: To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity... Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which-a functional protein or gene-is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?237 The Complex Structure and Systems in the Cell The complex structure of the living cell was unknown in Darwin's day and at the time, ascribing life to "coincidences and natural conditions" was thought by evolutionists to be convincing enough. Darwin had proposed that the first cell could easily have formed "in some warm little pond."238 One of Darwin's supporters, the German biologist Ernst Haeckel, examined under the microscope a mixture of mud removed from the sea bed by a research ship and claimed that this was a nonliving substance that turned into a living one. This so-called "mud that comes to life," known as Bathybius haeckelii ("Haeckel's mud from the depths"), is an indication of just how simple a thing life was thought to be by the founders of the theory of evolution. The technology of the twentieth century has delved into the tiniest particles of life, and has revealed that the cell is the most complex system mankind has ever confronted. Today we know that the cell contains power stations producing the energy to be used by the cell, factories manufacturing the enzymes and hormones essential for life, a databank where all the necessary information about all products to be produced is recorded, complex transportation systems and pipelines for carrying raw materials and products from one place to another, advanced laboratories and refineries for breaking down external raw materials into their useable parts, and specialized cell membrane proteins to control the incoming and outgoing materials. And these constitute only a small part of this incredibly complex system. W. H. Thorpe, an evolutionist scientist, acknowledges that "The most elementary type of cell constitutes a 'mechanism' unimaginably more complex than any machine yet thought up, let alone constructed, by man."239 A cell is so complex that even the high level of technology attained today cannot produce one. No effort to create an artificial cell has ever met with success. Indeed, all attempts to do so have been abandoned. The theory of evolution claims that this system-which mankind, with all the intelligence, knowledge and technology at its disposal, cannot succeed in reproducing-came into existence "by chance" under the conditions of the primordial earth. Actually, the probability of forming a cell by chance is about the same as that of producing a perfect copy of a book following an explosion in a printing house. The English mathematician and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle made a similar comparison in an interview published in Nature magazine on November 12, 1981. Although an evolutionist himself, Hoyle stated that the chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.240 This means that it is not possible for the cell to have come into being by chance, and therefore it must definitely have been "created." One of the basic reasons why the theory of evolution cannot explain how the cell came into existence is the "irreducible complexity" in it. A living cell maintains itself with the harmonious co-operation of many organelles. If only one of these organelles fails to function, the cell cannot remain alive. The cell does not have the chance to wait for unconscious mechanisms like natural selection or mutation to permit it to develop. Thus, the first cell on earth was necessarily a complete cell possessing all the required organelles and functions, and this definitely means that this cell had to have been created. The Problem of the Origin of Proteins So much for the cell, but evolution fails even to account for the building-blocks of a cell. The formation, under natural conditions, of just one single protein out of the thousands of complex protein molecules making up the cell is impossible. Proteins are giant molecules consisting of smaller units called amino acids that are arranged in a particular sequence in certain quantities and structures. These units constitute the building blocks of a living protein. The simplest protein is composed of 50 amino acids, but there are some that contain thousands. The crucial point is this. The absence, addition, or replacement of a single amino acid in the structure of a protein causes the protein to become a useless molecular heap. Every amino acid has to be in the right place and in the right order. The theory of evolution, which claims that life emerged as a result of chance, is quite helpless in the face of this order, since it is too wondrous to be explained by coincidence. (Furthermore, the theory cannot even substantiate the claim of the accidental formation of amino acids, as will be discussed later.) The fact that it is quite impossible for the functional structure of proteins to come about by chance can easily be observed even by simple probability calculations that anybody can understand. For instance, an average-sized protein molecule composed of 288 amino acids, and contains twelve different types of amino acids can be arranged in 10300 different ways. (This is an astronomically huge number, consisting of 1 followed by 300 zeros.) Of all of these possible sequences, only one forms the desired protein molecule. The rest of them are amino-acid chains that are either totally useless, or else potentially harmful to living things. In other words, the probability of the formation of only one protein molecule is "1 in 10300." The probability of this "1" actually occurring is practically nil. (In practice, probabilities smaller than 1 over 1050 are thought of as "zero probability"). Furthermore, a protein molecule of 288 amino acids is a rather modest one compared with some giant protein molecules consisting of thousands of amino acids. When we apply similar probability calculations to these giant protein molecules, we see that even the word "impossible" is insufficient to describe the true situation. When we proceed one step further in the evolutionary scheme of life, we observe that one single protein means nothing by itself. One of the smallest bacteria ever discovered, Mycoplasma hominis H39, contains 600 types of proteins. In this case, we would have to repeat the probability calculations we have made above for one protein for each of these 600 different types of proteins. The result beggars even the concept of impossibility. Some people reading these lines who have so far accepted the theory of evolution as a scientific explanation may suspect that these numbers are exaggerated and do not reflect the true facts. That is not the case: these are definite and concrete facts. No evolutionist can object to these numbers. This situation is in fact acknowledged by many evolutionists. For example, Harold F. Blum, a prominent evolutionist scientist, states that "The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability."241 Evolutionists claim that molecular evolution took place over a very long period of time and that this made the impossible possible. Nevertheless, no matter how long the given period may be, it is not possible for amino acids to form proteins by chance. William Stokes, an American geologist, admits this fact in his book Essentials of Earth History, writing that the probability is so small "that it would not occur during billions of years on billions of planets, each covered by a blanket of concentrated watery solution of the necessary amino acids."242 So what does all this mean? Perry Reeves, a professor of chemistry, answers the question: When one examines the vast number of possible structures that could result from a simple random combination of amino acids in an evaporating primordial pond, it is mind-boggling to believe that life could have originated in this way. It is more plausible that a Great Builder with a master plan would be required for such a task.243 If the coincidental formation of even one of these proteins is impossible, it is billions of times "more impossible" for some one million of those proteins to come together by chance and make up a complete human cell. What is more, by no means does a cell consist of a mere heap of proteins. In addition to the proteins, a cell also includes nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, vitamins, and many other chemicals such as electrolytes arranged in a specific proportion, equilibrium, and design in terms of both structure and function. Each of these elements functions as a building block or co-molecule in various organelles. Robert Shapiro, a professor of chemistry at New York University and a DNA expert, calculated the probability of the coincidental formation of the 2000 types of proteins found in a single bacterium (There are 200,000 different types of proteins in a human cell.) The number that was found was 1 over 1040000.244 (This is an incredible number obtained by putting 40,000 zeros after the 1) A professor of applied mathematics and astronomy from University College Cardiff, Wales, Chandra Wickramasinghe, comments: The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.245 Sir Fred Hoyle comments on these implausible numbers: Indeed, such a theory (that life was assembled by an intelligence) is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.246 An article published in the January 1999 issue of Science News revealed that no explanation had yet been found for how amino acids could turn into proteins: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=79d_1209008701 Free-Thinker D-R: Molecular Biology and the Origin of Life Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:36:35 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6a7_1209008195 Free-Thinker Darwin put forward his claim that human beings and apes descended from a common ancestor in his book The Descent of Man, published in 1871. From that time until now, the followers of Darwin's path have tried to support this claim. But despite all the research that has been carried out, the claim of "human evolution" has not been backed up by any concrete scientific discovery, particularly in the fossil field. The man in the street is for the most part unaware of this fact, and thinks that the claim of human evolution is supported by a great deal of firm evidence. The reason for this incorrect opinion is that the subject is frequently discussed in the media and presented as a proven fact. But real experts on the subject are aware that there is no scientific foundation for the claim of human evolution. David Pilbeam, a Harvard University paleoanthropologist, says: If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, "forget it; there isn't enough to go on."181 And William Fix, the author of an important book on the subject of paleoanthropology, makes this comment: As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated. If only they had the evidence...182 This claim of evolution, which "lacks any evidence," starts the human family tree with a group of apes that have been claimed to constitute a distinct genus, Australopithecus. According to the claim, Australopithecus gradually began to walk upright, his brain grew, and he passed through a series of stages until he arrived at man's present state (Homo sapiens). But the fossil record does not support this scenario. Despite the claim that all kinds of intermediate forms exist, there is an impassable barrier between the fossil remains of man and those of apes. Furthermore, it has been revealed that the species which are portrayed as each other's ancestors are actually contemporary species that lived in the same period. Ernst Mayr, one of the most important proponents of the theory of evolution in the twentieth century, contends in his book One Long Argument that "particularly historical such as the origin of life or of Homo sapiens, are extremely difficult and may even resist a final, satisfying explanation."183 But what is the basis for the human evolution thesis put forward by evolutionists? It is the existence of plenty of fossils on which evolutionists are able to build imaginary interpretations. Throughout history, more than 6,000 species of ape have lived, and most of them have become extinct. Today, only 120 species live on the earth. These 6,000 or so species of ape, most of which are extinct, constitute a rich resource for the evolutionists. On the other hand, there are considerable differences in the anatomic makeup of the various human races. Furthermore, the differences were even greater between prehistoric races, because as time has passed the human races have to some extent mixed with each other and become assimilated. Despite this, important differences are still seen between different population groups living in the world today, such as, for example, Scandinavians, African pygmies, Inuits, native Australians, and many others. There is no evidence to show that the fossils called hominid by evolutionary paleontologists do not actually belong to different species of ape or to vanished races of humans. To put it another way, no example of a transitional form between mankind and apes has been found. After these general explanations, let us now examine the human evolution hypothesis together. The Imaginary Family Tree of Man The Darwinist claim holds that modern man evolved from some kind of ape-like creature. During this alleged evolutionary process, which is supposed to have started from 5 to 6 million years ago, it is claimed that there existed some transitional forms between modern man and his ancestors. According to this completely imaginary scenario, the following four basic categories are listed: 1. Australophithecines (any of the various forms belonging to the genus Australophithecus) 2. Homo habilis 3. Homo erectus 4. Homo sapiens Evolutionists call the genus to which the alleged ape-like ancestors of man belonged Australopithecus, which means "southern ape." Australopithecus, which is nothing but an old type of ape that has become extinct, is found in various different forms. Some of them are larger and strongly built ("robust"), while others are smaller and delicate ("gracile"). Evolutionists classify the next stage of human evolution as the genus Homo, that is "man." According to the evolutionist claim, the living things in the Homo series are more developed than Australopithecus, and not very different from modern man. The modern man of our day, that is, the species Homo sapiens, is said to have formed at the latest stage of the evolution of this genus Homo. Fossils like "Java man," "Peking man," and "Lucy," which appear in the media from time to time and are to be found in evolutionist publications and textbooks, are included in one of the four groups listed above. Each of these groupings is also assumed to branch into species and sub-species, as the case may be. Some suggested transitional forms of the past, such as Ramapithecus, had to be excluded from the imaginary human family tree after it was realised that they were ordinary apes.184 By outlining the links in the chain as "australopithecines > Homo habilis > Homo erectus > Homo sapiens," the evolutionists imply that each of these types is the ancestor of the next. However, recent findings by paleoanthropologists have revealed that australopithecines, Homo habilis and Homo erectus existed in different parts of the world at the same time. Moreover, some of those humans classified as Homo erectus probably lived up until very modern times. In an article titled "Latest Homo erectus of Java: Potential Contemporaneity with Homo sapiens in Southeast Asia," it was reported in the journal that Homo erectus fossils found in Java had "mean ages of 27 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6a7_1209008195 Free-Thinker D-R: The Origin of Man Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:44:07 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b06_1187304247 Tranejam This article can be found on the web at http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070827/hayes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The NAFTA Superhighway by CHRISTOPHER HAYES When completed, the highway will run from Mexico City to Toronto, slicing through the heartland like a dagger sunk into a heifer at the loins and pulled clean to the throat. It will be four football fields wide, an expansive gully of concrete, noise and exhaust, swelled with cars, trucks, trains and pipelines carrying water, wires and God knows what else. Through towns large and small it will run, plowing under family farms, subdevelopments, acres of wilderness. Equipped with high-tech electronic customs monitors, freight from China, offloaded into nonunionized Mexican ports, will travel north, crossing the border with nary a speed bump, bound for Kansas City, where the cheap goods manufactured in booming Far East factories will embark on the final leg of their journey into the nation's Wal-Marts. And this NAFTA Superhighway, as it is called, is just the beginning, the first stage of a long, silent coup aimed at supplanting the sovereign United States with a multinational North American Union. Even as this plot unfolds in slow motion, the mainstream media are silent; politicians are in denial. Yet word is getting out. Like samizdat, info about the highway has circulated in niche media platforms old and new, on right-wing websites like WorldNetDaily, in the pages of low-circulation magazines like the John Birch Society's The New American and increasingly on the letters to the editor page of local newspapers. "Construction of the NAFTA highway from Laredo, Texas to Canada is now underway," read a letter in the February 13 San Gabriel Valley Tribune. "Spain will own most of the toll roads that connect to the superhighway. Mexico will own and operate the Kansas City Smart Port. And NAFTA tribunal, not the U.S. Supreme Court, will have the final word in trade disputes. Will the last person please take down the flag?" There are many more where that came from. "The superhighway has the potential to cripple the West Coast economy, as well as posing an enormous security breach at our border," read a letter from the January 7 San Francisco Chronicle. "So far, there has been no public participation or debate on this important issue. Public participation and debate must begin now." In some senses it has. Prompted by angry phone calls and e-mail from their constituents, local legislators are beginning to take action. In February the Montana state legislature voted 95 to 5 for a resolution opposing "the North American Free Trade Agreement Superhighway System" as well as "any effort to implement a trinational political, government entity among the United States, Canada, and Mexico." Similar resolutions have been introduced in eighteen other states as well as the House of Representatives, where H. Con Res. 40 has attracted, as of this writing, twenty-seven co-sponsors. Republican presidential candidates in Iowa and New Hampshire now routinely face hostile questions about the highway at candidate forums. Citing a spokesperson for the Romney campaign, the Concord Monitor reports that "the road comes up at town meetings second only to immigration policy." Grassroots movement exposes elite conspiracy and forces politicians to respond: It would be a heartening story but for one small detail. There's no such thing as a proposed NAFTA Superhighway. Though opposition to the nonexistent highway is the cause c http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b06_1187304247 Tranejam The NAFTA Superhighway north,american,union,a,usa,mexico,canada,amero,nafta,loss,of,sovereignty,corruption,globalisation,war,corporatism,world,government,nwo,illuminati Sat, 24 Mar 2012 16:11:02 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=322_1332618973 Singlecoilsnap Didn't think it was serious. This is from their website: ABOUT THE MOVEMENT Q: What is the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement? VHEMT (pronounced vehement) is a movement not an organization. It's a movement advanced by people who care about life on planet Earth. We're not just a bunch of misanthropes and anti-social, Malthusian misfits, taking morbid delight whenever disaster strikes humans. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Voluntary human extinction is the humanitarian alternative to human disasters. We don't carry on about how the human race has shown itself to be a greedy, amoral parasite on the once-healthy face of this planet. That type of negativity offers no solution to the inexorable horrors which human activity is causing. Rather, The Movement presents an encouraging alternative to the callous exploitation and wholesale destruction of Earth's ecology. As VHEMT Volunteers know, the hopeful alternative to the extinction of millions of species of plants and animals is the voluntary extinction of one species: Homo sapiens... us. Each time another one of us decides to not add another one of us to the burgeoning billions already squatting on this ravaged planet, another ray of hope shines through the gloom. When every human chooses to stop breeding, Earth's biosphere will be allowed to return to its former glory, and all remaining creatures will be free to live, die, evolve (if they believe in evolution), and will perhaps pass away, as so many of Nature's "experiments" have done throughout the eons. It's going to take all of us going. Graphic by Nina Paley Colorized by Aaron Hackmann Q: Are you really serious? We're really vehement. Many see humor in The Movement and think we can't be serious about voluntary human extinction, but in spite of the seriousness of both situation and movement, there's room for humor. In fact, without humor, Earth's condition gets unbearably depressing-a little levity eases the gravity. True, wildlife rapidly going extinct and tens of thousands of children dying each day are not laughing matters, but neither laughing nor bemoaning will change what's happening. We may as well have some fun as we work and play toward a better world. Besides, returning Earth to its natural splendor and ending needless suffering of humanity are happy thoughts-no sense moping around in gloom and doom. Q: Do Volunteers expect to be successful? VHEMT Volunteers are realistic. We know we'll never see the day there are no human beings on the planet. Ours is a long-range goal. It has been suggested that there are only two chances of everyone volunteering to stop breeding: slim and none. The odds may be against preserving life on Earth, but the decision to stop reproducing is still the morally correct one. Indeed, the likelihood of our failure to avoid the massive die off which humanity is engineering is a very good reason to not sentence another of us to life. The future isn't what it used to be. Even if our chances of succeeding were only one in a hundred, we would have to try. Giving up and allowing humanity to take its course is unconscionable. There is far too much at stake. The Movement may be considered a success each time one more of us volunteers to breed no more. We are being the change we want to see in the world. Q: Does VHEMT have any enemies? After we've seen a few hundred TV dramas where the good guy kicks the bad guy's butt, it's tempting to look at the real world with this same knee jerk, zero-sum mentality. We might look for an enemy to attack when championing our righteous cause, but in reality our enemy doesn't have a butt to kick. In the end, the real "enemies" are human greed, ignorance, and oppression. We can achieve more by promoting generosity, awareness, and freedom than we can by vainly kicking at a buttless foe. Great progress will be made toward improving the quality of life on Earth by countering greed with responsibility, ignorance with education, and oppression with freedom. Instead of meeting the bad guys in the street at high noon and shooting it out, why not invite them into the saloon to work things out? Examples of unity . Q: What is the official position of VHEMT? Since the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement isn't alive with a brain or a mouth, it can't take positions or have opinions. It can't get into arguments, tell people what to do and think, nor get punched for doing so. Voluntary human extinction is simply a concept to be added to existing belief systems, not a complex code of behavior to live by. No committee of Movement shakers decides what position everyone else should take. Most Volunteers subscribe to the philosophy embodied in the motto " May we live long and die out ", but if someone doesn't want to live long that's their business. Really, the only action required for becoming a VHEMT Volunteer or Supporter is not adding another human being to the population. A couple could conceivably be expecting and decide to become VHEMT. That new human would be the last one they produced. VHEMT Supporters are not necessarily in favor of human extinction, but agree that no more of us should be created at this time. Volunteers are so diverse in religious, political, and philosophical views that it would be divisive to begin formulating official Movement positions. Beware of dogmas. We speak with our own voices. Q: When and how did VHEMT start? Roots of VHEMT run as deep as human history. Potential for a voluntary human extinction movement has been around for as long as humans have. When Ice Age humans hunted animals to extinction, at least one of the sapient neanderthals among them may have reasoned beyond bewilderment. As the Fertile Crescent became a barren desert, and the Cedars of Lebanon were sacrificed for temples, someone must have thought, "this bodes ill." When Romans fueled their empire by extracting resources from near and far, surely someone remarked, "Humanus non gratis," or words to that effect. Someone had to get the idea that the planet would be better off without this busy horde. Someone, that is, besides the middle-eastern god, Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah. Tradition tells how, in prehistoric times, this creator-god realized his mistake in making humans and was going to flush us from the system, but in a weak moment he spared one breeding family. Oops! (Genesis 6: 1-22). The Story of Atrahasis, an earlier Sumerian myth recorded in Babylonian text, tells of multiple gods conspiring to rid Earth of the bothersome creatures they had molded out of clay. One sneaky god warns a human to build a boat before the flood, and the rest is our history. We call The Movement VHEMT, but it's undoubtedly been given other names throughout history. None have been recorded, as far as we know. There must be millions of people around the world who are independently arriving at the same conclusion. A large portion of today's Volunteers were vehement extinctionists before they learned of the title "VHEMT". The true origins of The Movement can be found in the natural abundance of love and logic within each one of us. Our in-born sense of justice guides us to make the responsible choice. Q: Who is the founder? No one person is the founder of VHEMT. Les U. Knight gave the name "Voluntary Human Extinction Movement" to a philosophy or worldview which has existed for as long as humans have been sapient. It's an awareness which has been arrived at independently in many places throughout history, but had become lost amid societies' pronatalism. Like millions of other people, Les followed a simple train of logic, guided by love, and arrived at the conclusion that Gaia would be better off without humans. He could be considered the finder, having identified The Movement by giving it a name, though each of us finds the truth for ourselves. Although Les has become known internationally as a spokesperson for The Movement, no one can speak for all VHEMT Volunteers. There is no official position on issues beyond what is implied in the name of The Movement. Q: We have children. Can we still join? Today's children are tomorrow's destiny. Our children have the potential for achieving the awareness needed to reverse civilization's direction and begin restoring Earth's biosphere. Most could use our help in realizing their full potentials. Naturally you're welcome to join, and you won't be alone. When people gain the VHEMT perspective, they decide to add no more to the existing human family. They don't pressure their children to give them grandchildren and might encourage them to make a responsible choice with their fertility. There is no reason to feel guilty about the past. Guilt doesn't lead to positive solutions. Being VHEMT has little to do with the past. It's the future of life on Earth that Volunteers want to preserve. Q: Are some people opposed to VHEMT? At first glance, some people assume that VHEMT Volunteers and Supporters must hate people and that we want everyone to commit suicide or become victims of mass murder. It's easy to forget that another way to bring about a reduction in our numbers is to simply stop making more of us. Making babies seems to be a blind spot in our outlooks on life. The idea of all of us voluntarily refraining from procreation is often dismissed without much consideration. These examples are considered elsewhere at this site: "People are going to have sex, you can't stop that." "It's a human instinct to breed." "But I just love babies." "Some of us should reproduce because we're better than others." "Humans are a part of Nature." And so on. However, if any of us thinks about the situation long enough, and makes the effort to work through those socially-instilled blocks to clear thinking, we will arrive at virtually the same conclusion: we should voluntarily phase ourselves out for the good of humanity and planet. VHEMT is naturally in opposition to involuntary extinction of any species, as well as any efforts encouraging human extermination. There are presently concerted efforts supporting both of these horrors. For example: Production and use of weapons. Toxin production, such as petrochemical and nuclear. Exploitation of natural and human resources. Promotion of reproductive fascism. And so on. The above could be called the Terrorist Human Extermination Movement (THEM), but that's labeling and encourages a "Them or Us" attitude. VHEMT is opposed to what these people are doing, but it's doubtful any would bother to return the favor. Really, there isn't much point in opposing a voluntary movement which harms none and benefits all. I think voluntary human extinction is misguided or worse. Q: How do I join? Being VHEMT is a state of mind. All you have to do to join is make the choice to refrain from further reproduction. For some, this is an easy decision to make. For others, it's a moot issue. But for many, joining The Movement means making a monumental personal sacrifice. The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is not an organization, so no membership dues go to officials in offices. We are millions of individuals, each doing what we feel is best. Join with other VHEMT Volunteers and Supporters. Latest About The Movement The VHEMT web site has been available to visitors since July 1996. People all over the globe are visiting these pages, with translations in several languages. They say "There's nothing more powerful as an idea whose time has come." The Movement certainly has momentum, if that counts as powerful. More impetus was added to our momentum on September 5, 2009, when the Discovery Channel's Focus Earth included the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement's solution in their episode about over population. Bob Woodruff's interview of Les Knight and Nina Paley may be viewed online: "No More Children." Bob Woodruff discusses human breeding with Les Knight in Portland, Oregon For Earth Day 2009, Laura Ingraham hosted Les on her syndicated radio program in advance of Steven Milloy , author of Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them. No, it's not intended to be a parody. On July 3, 2008 in a half-hour radio broadcast, Stephanie Potter interviewed Les about VHEMT. Archived at: The Recovery Zone. In Time magazine's number one non-fiction book of 2007, The World Without Us , Alan Weisman generously presents the VHEMT perspective . A November 16, 2005 article in SF Gate - the San Francisco Chronicle online - by Gregory Dicum: "GREEN Maybe None: Is having a child-even one-environmentally destructive?" was picked up by UPI, appearing in many newspapers. From there, quite a few radio talk shows invited Les to be interviewed and sometimes take calls from listeners. Les was a guest on "FOX News Live With Alan Colmes " radio show on November 29th, 2005. Alan also hosted Les for two Earth Day shows, April 27, 2004, and April 22, 2005, receiving calls from across North America. Les was on Alan's show again on February 2, 2009. On December 2, 2005, an MSNBC TV program, The Situation with Tucker Carlson, featured Les in a segment entitled, "Taking on the Human Extinction Movement". Although Tucker wasn't fully in agreement with VHEMT, his questions allowed the main points to be shared with the audience. A transcript and video may be seen at their site. Tucker's final comment: "I will say, that is the sickest thing I think I've ever heard, but you are one of the cheeriest guests we've ever had. I don't know how to-how the two fit together, but I appreciate you coming on. Thanks a lot." Selected articles, interviews of Les, mixed reviews, and so on may be seen at: Media Mentions A major goal of our web site is to advance the population-awareness movement, which seems to have become stalled, and may have slipped back to where it was more than 35 years ago. Progressive population awareness groups advocate a one-child average and two maximum, but few, if any, dare to advocate zero procreation. Environmental groups, with the notable exception of The Center for Biological Diversity , avoid the controversial topic, preferring to work on consequences of our excessive breeding. Scientists acknowledge population's effects, but also decline to include it in their suggested solutions. Several online forums for sharing and discussing ideas related to voluntary human extinction are available in English, French, and Spanish. On April 8, 2010, French TV, Global Arte, broadcast a 2:16 minute anti-natalist, pro-planet video which included VHEMT. (in French) "Les anti-natalit'e font leur buzz" Giving a talk, "Thank you for not breeding" , on February 16th, 2010, Les presented the VHEMT concept at Oberlin College and Conservatory, sponsored by Oberlin Animal Rights. Les participated in a panel titled,"Human Population Density: Patriarchy's Influence, Positive Signs, and Reproductive Freedom." at the 26th annual Public Interest Environmental Law Conference in Eugene, Oregon March 9th, 2008. The panel also included Kelpie Wilson , Environmental Editor for TruthOut and author of Primal Tears, and Richard York, Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Oregon and co-editor of the journal Organization and Environment. Q: How do I order bumper stickers (car stickers), buttons (badges), T-shirts, and back issues of These EXIT Times ? These items are readily available by postal mail from These EXIT Times , or online from CafePress. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=322_1332618973 Singlecoilsnap Voluntary Human Extinction Movement - Really? vhemt, kill, all, humans, extinct, voluntary, phase out, why, enviro-whackos, dolphin banging, tree huggers, prius, pussies, sand, in, vagina, technology, bad, death, good,