No wonder these wretched, demonic creatures want us helpless.
I also said I'd post a tangentially-related piece that I wrote about 10 years ago. Here it is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VANISHING ACT
Stalinist Propaganda Tactics of the Gun-Banners
Art historian David King's The Commissar Vanishes: The Falsification of Photographs and Art in Stalin's Russia provides graphic evidence of a key disinformation technique used by the infamous tyrant, the erasure of disfavored individuals from the memory of the collective.
Quite simply, photographs were retouched to eliminate any evidence that a purge victim ever existed, the same picture being revised again and again as new unfortunates fell into official disapproval. In a macabre real-life version of Agatha Christie's Ten Little Indians, the cover of King's book shows four versions of the same photograph, the number of people in it dwindling with progressive edits down to a solo portrait of Comrade Stalin.
The methodology for creating (or rather, obliterating) what Orwell called "unpersons" in his nightmare vision of totalitarian domination, 1984, reached new levels of bald-faced outrageousness under the Soviet despot's brutal rule. That is, until the advent of the latter-day gun grabbers.
It's not surprising that gun control advocates have adopted deception to cover their tracks and remove evidence of affiliations that could expose their hypocrisies. After all, these are the people who, as proven by Aaron Zelman and Jay Simkin in Gun Control: Gateway to Tyranny, translated Nazi gun laws into the 1968 Gun Control Act–and do you really think that anyone who embraces Nazi laws would blanch from using Stalinist methods to get what they want? These are the liars who would corrupt the intent of the Constitution and disarm their countrymen. And these subversives deserve our contempt and resistance as surely as if they openly advocated the rest of the dictatorial agenda they are enabling.
Strong words? Aren't I being a little rough on people who simply hold a different political view than I? Let's walk through this and do a little experiment by examining an elementary question: How do you know if someone is lying?
Obviously, you look at what they say, and then you compare it to what they do. If there's a disconnect between the two, Bingo! Simple, right? So when Orrin Hatch or Trent Lott make noises about supporting the Second Amendment, and then turn around and endorse anti-gun legislation, you have every right to assume that you have just been betrayed. When they rationalize it as necessary to forestall even more draconian legislation, what they're really saying is they want to see how stupid you are, and how much you'll let them get away with. And when they tell you that a vote against them is a vote for someone who will really hurt you, they have committed the political equivalent of date rape, counting on your being too bewildered and powerless to do anything about it. Historically, they've been right 999 out of a thousand times, and by the way, you'd better put some ice on that.
The guy who is the master at this is Bill Clinton, possibly the most accomplished liar in a tradition dating back to the first shaman who ever duped his way into power. So when he tells you that it's paranoid to worry about the camel's nose under the tent, and that he only wants "to save kids' lives," you would do well to look at what his Justice Department argued in the current Emerson case, i.e., "it is well settled" that the Second Amendment is not an individual right. In other words, if you compare what he says to what he does, there's no other conclusion but the guy is lying to you and rejecting your claim to an unalienable right–by denying it was ever a right in the first place. Could any but an idiot or a lying apparatchik zealot characterize the motives of someone who would do this as benign?
If you're going to consistently deceive the masses, it helps to have the media on your side. If nothing else it's what they don't report that gives aid and comfort to the anti-defense lobby as much the outright falsehoods and naked socialist advocacy that they foist on the public as news.
Case in point: suppose (hypothetically, now!) that someone prominent in the "gun culture," say, Tom Selleck, murderously assaulted Charlton Heston and then threatened to return and finish him off. If I could document such an attack, do you think that anti-defense media outlets like The Los Angeles Times would restrain themselves from pointing out the "gun extremist" tie-in? Do you doubt that the association with "the culture of violence" would be exploited with fervor and glee?
So if the same thing happened on the other side, you'd at least hear about the connection, right? No? You never heard that WHEN HE'S NOT MAKING DEATH THREATS, LATRELL SPREWELL IS A LEADING SPOKESMAN FOR GUN CONTROL?
Contemplate the following that I wrote back in December, 1997, at the height of Sprewell's notoriety–which certainly made it timely and newsworthy. My writing limitations notwithstanding, all of the information was documented with referenced sources, and then made available to the aforementioned LA Times, which wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole. It's original title was "Catch a Falling STAR," but I now like to think of this as "The Story That Never Was" :
The Converse STAR Team Program, according to Handgun Control, Inc., "is the nation's PREMIER gun violence prevention program…designed to help youth…manage problems, such as conflict…non-violently without guns." Described as a "joint effort of Converse, Inc. and Center to Prevent Handgun Violence (CPHV)," STAR program materials are being taught in grades Pre-K through 12 "in over 70 municipalities nationwide, including…New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago and Dade County (FL)."Now here's the kicker–what ties this in with Stalinist propaganda of the first order: shortly after making this story available to the media, Sprewell's name was deleted from the list of STAR celebrities. I don't know if this reflects a tip-off or not, but the coincidence of timing is certainly curious. Also, were this simply a reflection of his being booted off the STAR team, as Converse publicly did when they removed him as a product spokesman, such a deletion would be legitimate. But the erasure did not occur until 1998, and the list they modified purported to be the roster from 1995 to 1997!
Leading the list of "prominent athletes [who] serve as spokespersons for the program" is none other than Latrell Sprewell! Spree (which my dictionary defines as "an unrestrained indulgence") demonstrated his ability to "engage in creative expression and leadership" by throttling Golden State Warriors coach P.J. Carlesimo, and, after being pulled off, returned to attack his boss again, this time threatening to kill him.
Describing himself as "a good person" who "never had a situation like this come up before," Spree insists that he is being treated unfairly. He complains we never see him smile. He doesn't think his punishment is warranted. Jumping to his defense is anti-gun San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, who suggests that, "Maybe the coach deserved choking."
If this is true, might Mr. Sprewell still be an effective voice to teach our youth "gun violence prevention messages and strategies"? Actually, if you look at his past behavior, he seems to provide an excellent illustration of the need to carry a gun, if for no other reason than as a defense against himself.
Case in point– two years ago, he went after teammate Jerome Kersey with a 2-by-4. His reaction after being restrained? He threatened to return with a gun! Sounds like the perfect "prominent voice [to] highlight solutions to America's escalating crisis of handgun violence," doesn't he?
And in 1995, the same year he joined the Converse STAR Team, Oakland police officer Scott Fakuda reported that Sprewell threatened him over a traffic incident, telling him, "You can be shot real easy and people get shot out here." Charges were dropped only because the Alameda County D.A. believed the comments lacked "credibility and immediacy as a righteous threat." What is not known is if Willie Brown thinks maybe the cop deserved shooting.
Something else that's not known is why Spree's HCI connection has not been covered by anyone in the media. I compiled the information needed to write this piece in under two hours. Where were the major players? Could anyone credibly argue that, in light of recent events, Sprewell's endorsement of gun control is not newsworthy?
This is the astounding hypocrisy which the gun banners and their corporate, political, education and media accessories apply to everything they do. How dare CPHV and Converse hold this violent misfit up to our children as someone to be heeded and emulated? A group truly interested in the welfare of kids would have recalled the program materials after the incident in 1995. But apparently, the money this would cost takes precedence over doing the right thing.
Latrell Sprewell can teach my kids nothing– as a matter of fact, I don't want them subjected to his influence in any manner. It's time he and his promoters got sidelined from our schools for good.
In other words, HCI went into their promotional materials and REWROTE HISTORY, removing someone who could turn out to be a public embarrassment from the record. The Commissar, I mean, the Converse STAR vanishes.
But then, deception has ever been the stock in trade of those who would take away our rights. And to mistake their core motives as anything but evil would be a grave mistake.
Consider the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the domestic arm of Socialist International (Stalin, you'll recall, led the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, whereas Hitler headed up the National Socialist Party). Basically, these are the folks who want to supplant freedom with a plague that has produced tyranny, misery and genocide since it first broke out. In another time, we would have called them "Nazis" or "Commies." Now, more often than most people realize, we call them "Congressman."
For affiliated with the DSA is an entity known as "The Progressive Caucus," 58 of the most rabidly left-wing politicians to ever menace the future of the Republic. These are people like David Bonior and Maxine Waters, Charles Rangel, Barney Frank and Henry Waxman. And importantly, one of the things they share with our former president is a contempt for the Second Amendment. Because they know that every tyranny that ever beat its subjects into dehumanized submission had first to disarm them, rendering them subservient and helpless.
And lest you think I'm overly alarmist, I'd like to offer a final bit of cheer from the good folks over at the DSA and their Progressive Caucus executors.
Do you like songs? So does the DSA, so much that they have devoted a page on their website to hymns glorifying their "struggle" (i.e., what Hitler called Mein Kampf ). The following in particular should be of special interest, since the people they're talking about, the "bourgeoisie," are you and me! And they really explain (better than anything I could say) why the socialists need to take away our guns. Ready? All together now:
Are You Sleeping, BourgeoisieNice bunch, huh? Kinda makes you want to be a good citizen and register, better yet, turn in those guns?
Traditional American song, sung in rounds to the tune of "Frere Jacques".
Are you sleeping, Are you sleeping,
Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie,
And when the revolution comes,
We'll kill you all with knives and guns,
Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie
Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie, See How They Run
Usually sung in rounds after "Are You Sleeping, Bourgeoisie". Sung to the tune of "Three Blind Mice".
Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie,
See how they run,
See how they run
And when the revolution comes,
We'll kill them all with knives and guns,
Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie
EPILOG:
The Democratic Socialists of America have removed "Are You Sleeping, Bourgeoisie" and "Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie, See How They Run" from their website. No evidence that the songs were ever posted remains. They have vanished without a trace, as if they never existed at all.
