[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Lads, I think you have it all wrong. The Muslims are planning on using the West’s greatest weapon against them: DEMOCRACY!
[/quote]
Had similar concerns with communism. The intelligent collectivists understood America would not fall by the blade of the sword, the people are too well armed, even if they bested the military. (Some smart Japanese general made mention of this in some famous quote.) They knew the infiltration would have to come from such things as critical theory and other Frankfurt inventions.
Pretty much, once the last song was played at Woodstock the hippies realized sitting on the lawn, wasted on drugs and having orgies wasn’t going to change the world, they got on board too. [/quote]
Right. But you are missing something. It’s different to try to persuade a group to your ideology through propaganda. You have to have too many moving parts and just the right climate to make it happen (ie the 1960s). It’s s far different matter to import True Believers. These are different. This bunch will breed and raise their future radicals in the multiculturalist state and will not integrate into the larger society. They will be the future “soldiers”. But they will use their vote, not their rusty knife.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
It was Antonio Gramsci who first developed the idea of cultural Marxism. The Soviets used it too - they called it ideological subversion. [/quote]
But wasn’t he hated by Stalin, or am I confusing things?
And the Fascists had him imprisoned as well correct? (I assume because they saw the power in his idea being a threat to themselves as well.)
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Lads, I think you have it all wrong. The Muslims are planning on using the West’s greatest weapon against them: DEMOCRACY!
[/quote]
Had similar concerns with communism. The intelligent collectivists understood America would not fall by the blade of the sword, the people are too well armed, even if they bested the military. (Some smart Japanese general made mention of this in some famous quote.) They knew the infiltration would have to come from such things as critical theory and other Frankfurt inventions.
Pretty much, once the last song was played at Woodstock the hippies realized sitting on the lawn, wasted on drugs and having orgies wasn’t going to change the world, they got on board too. [/quote]
Right. But you are missing something. It’s different to try to persuade a group to your ideology through propaganda. You have to have too many moving parts and just the right climate to make it happen (ie the 1960s). It’s s far different matter to import True Believers. These are different. This bunch will breed and raise their future radicals in the multiculturalist state and will not integrate into the larger society. They will be the future “soldiers”. But they will use their vote, not their rusty knife.
[/quote]
Good point.
This is part of the reason people need to get unbent about South American immigrant influx into our country. Those people are coming here for a better life, and even though they might vote for fucksticks like Bam, they certainly aren’t going to want to see their new home, their refuge, become a shit hole like they just risked their ass to leave.
But wasn’t he hated by Stalin, or am I confusing things?
[/quote]
Gramsci sided with Stalin against Trotsky. Stalin was mentally ill - a psychiatrist diagnosed him as a paranoiac in the early 30’s. Stalin had him assassinated the following day. Stalin went through a period of severe paranoia in the 30’s which led him to wipe out virtually everyone of his comrades who had helped him to come to power. Gramsci was in prison at this time and so was not considered a threat.
[quote]
And the Fascists had him imprisoned as well correct? (I assume because they saw the power in his idea being a threat to themselves as well.)[/quote]
Yes. Communists and fascists were engaged in a civil war in Italy, France and Germany after WWI.
I’d say more that I just don’t trust random people to carry guns in public because I believe that random people tend to have short tempers and be judgmental towards strangers.
[/quote]
Feelings not facts are your only assistance here.
One comes at the expense of freedom, the other is the pure expression of it.
[/quote]
Okay, Push…as I understand more and more people’s passion for the 2nd Amendment…let’s discuss this a little more…
Are you suggesting some “balance” between a heavily and open armed citizenry and the Police…or “either/or”? (As always…a serious question).
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Because science tells us this is the case, along with countless anecdotal evidence, repeated over and over, that the training, every aspect, ends up repeated in a live situation.
I’m not going to type out the plethora of examples here. I don’t have the time to list even a quarter of them in any appreciable detail.[/quote]
While sleeping I’ve come to the conclusion that we’re talking on different levels on this issue.
Let’s just say I agree with you and end it at that.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You’re conflating conditioned response of simple motor skills (reloading a mag, pulling your firearm, firing, etc) with specialized training that allows a combatant to NOT enter into mid brain auto pilot, and maintain composure to execute more fine motor skills, thought processes and complete tasks beyond engrained conditioned response under stress.[/quote]
Yup. You’re correct. Again. Different levels.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I can’t make you believe. I can’t make you read the books, interviews, videos and manuals. Your reluctance to accept I’m telling you the truth, and it makes sense is what it is.
[/quote]
Well, if I just chose to believe people when they just say “I read a lot on the subject; trust me!” for proof, then I’d have to believe the anti-gun folks too.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Feelings not facts are your only assistance here.[/quote]
Do you trust the folks driving around you to be responsible drivers who will not make short-sighted and silly decisions?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
One comes at the expense of freedom, the other is the pure expression of it.
[/quote]
Ok, but that doesn’t answer the question.
What advantages are there to having armed civilians (obviously with the freedom to use their guns, otherwise it’ll just be for show and so pointless) instead of a greater police presence?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
We all drive out of necessity. Big deal. You still trust that oncoming driver on that two lane highway not to swerve into your lane. Every. Single. Time you drive. If you didn’t you’d be driving off road. Every. Single. Time.
[/quote]
It could just be that I don’t give it all that much thought.
And if I did then I wouldn’t drive at all.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
“Being allowed,” huh?
The fact that your mindset shuttles that statement out your lips and through your fingertips speaks volumes.[/quote]
