Two stories out of (formerly) Great Britain – the model for “gun control” for the hoplophobic.
One:
The most recent, a man travels to the U.S. and posts pictures on social media of him exercising a right which is denied to him at home: He’s photographed (awkwardly) holding firearms.
IT consultant arrested ‘for posing with a shotgun in Florida’
He returns to the UK. He is visited by the PoPo. He explains that he doesn’t own any firearms. He was in the Land of the Free, where it’s common to own and shoot guns. They go away.
They come back, seize all of his electronic devices (which he needs to do his job in IT) and arrest him “on suspicion of possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence.” After thirteen weeks the charges are finally dropped, but his business is destroyed.
The punishment is the process.
Two:
The wife of a registered gun owner in the UK is diagnosed with terminal cancer. Her husband is an avid bird hunter, and legally owns several shotguns. While is is caring for his dying wife, he decides, for whatever reason, that he no longer wants a couple of the shotguns he owns. He contacts the police to inquire about “deactivating” these two guns. An officer whose job is specifically dealing with legally-owned firearms, comes and takesALL OF THEM.
Why? Because his terminally ill wife “is a possible threat.”
His wife did pass, and then he tried to get his guns back. It took a while, but they did return them, but it is POLICE POLICY that if you or a loved one living in the home is seriously ill, they will take all the guns in the home.
This is “the slippery slope.” This is “common-sense gun control.” This is what gun control activists WANT.
And this is why U.S. gun owners have drawn a line and are pushing back hard.
UPDATE, 12/15:
On Sunday, 12/14 in Sydney, New South Wales Australia, two men armed with six shotguns attacked a gathering of Jews celebrating Hanukkah at a beach. The attackers, father and son, are, of course, Muslim. Fifteen victims have died as of the time of this update, and more than 40 were injured. One of the attackers has assumed room temperature, the other is wounded.
The attack took place over an approximate 20 minute span. Four apparently armed police officers were on or near the scene, but also apparently took cover – and stayed there. Two officers attempted to intervene and were wounded.
The society that disarmed their citizens with the promise that the police would be there to protect them, failed to protect them. As one person has observed, it was Uvalde at the beach.
So what are they going to do now? Ban all shotguns? If past history tells us anything, there will be an exception made for members of the Religion of Peace. Anything else would be RACISSS!!!!
“Something strange is happening in America’s most affluent zip codes. In suburban living rooms once filled with optimism and The West Wing reruns, a certain demographic—well-heeled, college-educated white boomer women—is staging what they seem to think is the final battle for the Republic.
“These women, dubbed Resistance Grandmas, aren’t fringe radicals. They’re PTA presidents emeritus, NPR tote-bag collectors, and retired therapists. But now, in the twilight of their years, they’ve taken up the cause of Saving Democracy™ with the same zeal they once reserved for banning plastic straws and praising Obama’s tan suit.
“Their political worldview is a curious patchwork—part To Kill a Mockingbird, part The Handmaid’s Tale, with a dash of MSNBC-induced paranoia. Their grievances are abundant, though loosely connected: Trump is a fascist, climate change is an extinction-level event, bathroom policy is civil rights 2.0, and Elon Musk is probably the Antichrist.
“None of this is deeply thought through, of course. It doesn’t need to be. The slogans are enough. Democracy is at stake. Nazis are back. Orange Man bad.
“But what’s actually driving this hysteria is more psychological than political. Deep down, many of these women sense something slipping away—not just political control, but the very narrative of their lives.
“They were promised progress, justice, utopia. The Great Society. Roe forever. A society where everyone listens to NPR and agrees on the science. Instead, they see the country rejecting their values, their party flailing, and their own children rolling their eyes at their activism.
“And so, without the flexibility to adapt or accept that the world has changed, they cling to pre-fabricated evils—fascism, racism, Christian nationalism—as explanations. Not because those terms mean anything coherent, but because they provide moral clarity in a moment that no longer makes sense to them.
“It’s a reaction not unlike that of the old Party diehards at the end of the Soviet Union: the project has clearly failed, but the faithful still believe, still chant, still blame external enemies. If only but for capitalism… becomes If only but for Trump.
“So they take to the streets with signs and slogans and fury. They join book clubs that double as war councils. They tattle on their old friends to the FBI, convinced they are doing their part to fight the Fourth Reich.
“One 74-year-old proudly told a focus group that she reported a lifelong friend to the authorities after she learned she’d entered the Capitol on Jan. 6. Not to vandalize, not to riot—just to look around. “It wasn’t an open house!” she snapped, drawing cheers from the other Chardonnay Jacobins.
“This is not politics. This is late-life existential panic dressed up as moral crusade.
“Their children are voting Trump. Their grandsons are quoting Joe Rogan. The country is drifting, in their view, toward madness—not because it is, but because it’s no longer revolving around them.
“And so they rage. Loudly. Self-importantly. With bumper stickers, protest signs, and a self-satisfaction that only comes from knowing you are on the right side of history, even as history packs up and moves on.
“There’s something tragic about it, really. These Resistance Grandmas arrived in the 1960s marching for peace and love. They’ll leave this world in the 2020s muttering about white supremacy, hunting down Trump voters like Cold War informants, and trying to find a moral compass in the op-ed section of The Atlantic.
“The truth is, the postwar liberal consensus is dying. Slowly. Loudly. Sometimes with a hand-knitted pink hat on. And deep down, these women know it.
“Their protests aren’t signs of power—they’re eulogies.
“Their moral absolutism isn’t strength—it’s fear.
“Their obsession with Trump isn’t resistance—it’s grief.
“And while their determination is, in a way, admirable, their political derangement is increasingly unhealthy and, yes, undignified.
“All things pass. Even boomers with graduate degrees and Facebook accounts.”
From “The Chardonnay Jacobins Are Melting Down” by N.S. Lyons, published on his Substack newsletter The Upheaval on October 31, 2024, apparently no longer available there or on the Wayback Machine. I suspect he pulled it for inclusion in his upcoming book.
Definitely NOT a Nazi symbol, the Jerusalem Cross:
DEFINITELY a Nazi symbol, the Totenkopf:
Everybody up to speed? The top one is bad because a Republican has it tattooed on his chest. The bottom one, tattooed on a Democrat, is just a drunken weekend. Nothing to see here. Move along.
This blog turned 22 this year, which is like 140 in blog years. If you’ve spent a lot of time here, you know that TSM started out as a Second Amendment / Gun Blog, but it didn’t stay that way. My political activism was initially spurred by the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (that wasn’t), it just took me nine years to discover blogging. Up until ’94 my thoughts on firearms laws was, “Well, that sounds nice, but it won’t actually do anything.” As SayUncle puts it, “Gun Control: What You Do Instead of Something.” This was largely true of the AWB too, but the intent behind it could no longer be ignored, and the rhetoric around it finally woke me up to the forces in this nation intent on, as Barack Obama put it just a few years later, “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
Well, they’ve about half-accomplished it.
However, that transformation started long before Obama was elected. His election, for good and bad, was a result of a lot of that fundamental transformation. His Presidency just spurred it along.
What I’ve learned over the years is that there is a determined, well-funded effort to destroy that which made Western Civilization the overwhelming powerhouse it has become, and especially to dismantle its crown jewel, the United States of America.
That effort originated shortly before World War I, and after an initial surge it has slowly, steadily advanced its agenda over the decades. Its roots are in Marxism, but it has morphed since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The ideology wormed its way first into the schools of education, and according to award-winning educator John Taylor Gatto it exploded from there into the primary public schools in 1967, its adherents having taken positions in school boards, teaching posts, administration and especially in teacher’s unions. The products of primary and higher education indoctrination mills have since migrated into positions to further indoctrinate, such as media – both “news” and entertainment (especially advertising), think-tanks, Foundations, non-profits, NGOs and government itself in elected, appointed and employment positions.
And the Left has totally co-opted the Democrat Party. That was line item 15 in the list of “45 current Communist goals” read into the Congressional record, January 10, 1963. The current party bears no real resemblance to anything Khrushchev or Brezhnev would recognize, but they’re doing the job intended. Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov explained it in 1984. Or read Eric S. Raymond’s essay “Gramscian Damage” from 2006.
I’ve watched since 1994 as the Left has inexorably tightened the ratchet, one click at a time, at best temporarily stalled but never really reversed. I came across this graphic representation of political partisanship in Congress that illustrates the ideological shift, and was so struck by it, I saved a copy:
Things have not improved since 2011. Elon Musk retweeted this on X recently:
I’m obviously not alone in seeing the shift.
I’ve spent the time since 1994 literally studying where we are, how we got here, and where the Left wants to take us. I’ve read dozens of books and thousands of articles, essays and columns. I’ve studied many judicial decisions and watched thousands of hours of speeches, discussions and debates. As a result, I’ve come to some very sobering conclusions. My first real “Eureka!” moment came when I read Dr. Thomas Sowell’s magnum opus, A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles. Suddenly all that I had read previously made sense. I did a rather in-depth (überpost) review of the book in 2010. In short, Dr. Sowell explains that two diametrically opposed worldviews have existed apparently since humanity came down from the trees, but can be documented at least as far back as Plato and Socrates. Both worldviews in their basest forms are not reached by reason or evidence, but by instinct. We’re born with one or the other of them, more or less. As we age and gain experience those worldviews can, but don’t necessarily have to, change. He calls them the Constrained and Unconstrained Visions.
In the Constrained Vision the worldview is that humans are flawed, some more than others, but no one is or can be perfect. Those flaws can be ameliorated but not eliminated, and the truly flawed can do great harm if they achieve great power. This is where “eternal vigilance is the price of freedom” comes from. This is why our Founders constructed our government with all the checks and balances. They were adherents of the Constrained Vision. As a result our government has Separation of Powers among three coequal branches – Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Two branches of the Legislative, just to make passage of laws that much more difficult. They put in a deliberately difficult Amendment process, knowing that they couldn’t have accounted for everything, but making alteration of the fundamental document simple would be no protection at all. Hard restraints were put on the powers of government.
In the Unconstrained Vision, humans are perfectible. We may be born flawed, but we can be educated, purified, anointed with wisdom and knowledge, and these purified, anointed people can then create Utopia. We just need the right people in charge, the anointed, to achieve this. But there are evil people who oppose this path to Utopia, and as long as they exist Utopia cannot be achieved. For whatever reason, this ideology has settled on Socialism as the path to the place where everyone is truly equal, and no one wants for anything: “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.” (According to a Hearst study carried out in 1987, “nearly half” of those surveyed believe that phrase is part of the Constitution. I shudder to think what the percentage is now, 38 years later.) But evil people are why, after over a hundred million eggs were broken in the 20th Century, the omelet of true Communism has not yet been achieved.
Those of us on this side of the aisle, of course, see it a bit differently:
For those truly captured by the Unconstrained Vision, they see it as their duty to work towards that future, to – in a word – evangelize. They migrate to professions where they can carry out their calling. Even when they choose other careers, they tend to be the ones who end up in management positions in order to influence the direction of the organizations they work for.
This fact has been recognized for a long time. O’Sullivan’s First Law, first postulated in 1989 states:
All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing.
The examples are endless. Here are just a few:
Public and private universities, obviously
The Ford Foundation
The Rockefeller Foundation
National Public Radio
Major corporations like Blackrock, and through their influence, other corporations
In any bureaucratic organization, there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization and those who work for the organization itself. The Iron Law states that the second group will always gain control, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions.
It’s quite deliberate that the ones writing those rules will be Leftists, and many aren’t really working “for the organization,” they’re working for Utopia. Dr. Sowell has observed: “The next time some academics tell you how important diversity is, ask how many Republicans there are in their sociology department.”
The Bud Light debacle is a good case in point. I’m certain Alissa Heinerscheid believed and still believes she was doing good for society when she sold the Dylan Mulvaney idea to management. She thought she was doing good for Anheuser Busch, but couldn’t have been more wrong. She’s not unique except in the public nature of her failure. There are hundreds of thousands of people like her in middle- and upper-management positions everywhere. A lot of them exposed themselves shortly after the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
The Warren Court interpreted the Constitution in a way that, in some respects, was too restrictive of the federal government’s ability to address some of the problems of the time. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution—at least as concerned the Commerce Clause—and as a result, was unable to bring about redistribution of wealth or redistribution of opportunity.The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it says what the states can’t do to you. It says what the federal government can’t do to you. But it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted.
He’s since tried to walk those words back when he first ran for President, but I think he meant exactly what he said. And he’s not alone. A recent op-ed from the New York Times:
In 2002 pundit Charles Krauthammer observed: “To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.” That fits neatly into Dr. Sowell’s observations, and explains why the two fundamental visions are completely incompatible, and why one of them is antithetical to our Constitutional Republican form of government.
This incompatibility was most recently illuminated by the comments of Senator (!) Tim Kaine of Virginia, when he said:
The notion that rights don’t come from laws and don’t come from the government, but come from the Creator — that’s what the Iranian government believes. It’s a theocratic regime that bases its rule on Shia law and targets Sunnis, Bahá’ís, Jews, Christians and other religious minorities. They do it because they believe that they understand what natural rights are from their Creator. So, the statement that our rights do not come from our laws or our governments is extremely troubling.
Senator Kaine has apparently never read the Declaration of Independence, or having read it, rejected its premise. That’s extremely troubling. What is more troubling is that he was comfortable enough to say it in a public forum, meaning he didn’t think he would receive any backlash. That suggests that Sen. Kaine is surrounded only by like-minded people.
But this brings up an important point. Remember that ratchet I referred to at the top of this post? That sucker has been almost exclusively a one-way movement. Take this image, for instance:
Where do you put the U.S. at this time? Where were we in 1960?
Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving. It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance. It has, for this reason, invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing. The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of contemporary developments.
Another commenter at this blog, Orin Litwin, once observed:
If the non-socialist end of the political spectrum cannot create a political philosophy that is both good theory and emotionally appealing, we’re doomed.
Any political philosophy that is not self-reinforcing is by definition not the best political philosophy.
He was referring to Libertarianism, but I’d like to discuss the basic philosophy of the Founders and how it has been scrubbed from our educational curricula. I’d like to, but that would be a distraction from this post. Instead I’ll point you at another post about a Leftist parent’s reaction to their kindergartener being exposed to patriotism in the classroom. That was almost twenty years ago.
Just note that what used to be “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” has been scorned as the words of old white slaveowners whose statues are being pulled down all over the country. It’s not that the political philosophy of the American Right isn’t self-reinforcing, it’s that it has been smothered in the proverbial crib by the adherents of the opposing political philosophy, and we didn’t stop it from happening.
The day after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Virginia delegate Nick Frietas posted on X a short piece that I copied here. If you haven’t already, please do read it, but one part in particular made my ears perk up:
It’s not a civil dispute among fellow countrymen. It’s a war between diametrically opposed worldviews which cannot peacefully coexist with one another. One side will win, and one side will lose.
I was reminded of something written as far back as 2005 by another blogger, Ironbear of the long-defunct Who Tends the Fires? In a three-way blogging exchange, Ironbear wrote something eerily similar:
This is a conflict of ideologies…
The heart of the conflict is between those to whom personal liberty is important, and those to whom liberty is not only inconsequential, but to whom personal liberty is a deadly threat.
These two ideologies, the Constrained and Unconstrained, cannot coexist. One side has to lose. The Constrained has been losing since the turn of the 20th Century, and more rapidly as of late. But over the weekend after the assassination of Charlie Kirk there were protests, ranging from large to absolutely massive. Are we near or have we reached an inflection point? A “Turning Point,” as Charlie named his organization? Hard to say. The needle has shifted, that’s for certain.
But now we get to the crux of the problem: Hate.
I have noted repeatedly the logic behind Krauthammer’s observation that the Left believes the Right to be Evil. (Capitalized on purpose.) If you believe your ideological opponent is merely wrong – ignorant, misinformed, erring in logic and reason – then you believe that they can be made to understand their error if simply exposed to information and thought that they have not seen or heard. That was the path Charlie Kirk took. He wanted to reach young people who he believed had been indoctrinated in falsity, and show them what they hadn’t seen or considered. He wanted them to question their unconscious assumptions. By the evidence, he was being successful at it.
But the Left doesn’t think the Right is wrong, they think it’s EVIL. And the result?
If your ideological opponent is Evil, you don’t engage. You don’t debate. You don’t negotiate. You don’t compromise. You placate until you can find a rock big enough to crush its skull. For the Left that rock is “Our Democracy!” – that is, one-party control of the political machine.
We’ve seen what that looks like. As the saying goes,
Always one mass murder away from Utopia. Always.
I was born in 1962, so I’m old enough to remember when the Democratic Speaker of the House could have a cordial dinner with the Republican President, when the Democrats were “The Loyal Opposition.” Nick Frietas:
I’ve said for a long time that the Left has been treated as that Loyal Opposition because the Right didn’t recognize that they had become The Other Side. They’re waking up to it. (The entire piece is available here and includes that essay.)
The near-assassination of Donald Trump got our attention, but assassination of political leaders has a long history. The assassination of Charlie Kirk didn’t do it either, but the thousands of people cheering his death and recommending who should be next has certainly had an effect.
So we have two choices. Charlie Kirk said “When People Stop Talking, That’s When You Get Violence.” Marko Kloos (aka Major Caudill 😉) wrote in his essay “Why the Gun is Civilization” in 2007:
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
One side has given up on reason. The other is finally recognizing that fact. This has very serious implications.
BUT…
We can still pull back from the brink.
Over the last so many months people have been leaving the Democrat Party:
Party
Registered Voters
% of Total Registered
Change Since 2020 (Net)
Democrats
44.1 million
23%
-2.1 million
Republicans
37.4 million
20%
+2.4 million
Independents/Undeclared
34.3 million
18%
+ (rising, exact net not specified)
Minor Parties
3.1 million
2%
Stable
And this data does not include the changes since January 1, 2025. Remember, Prof. Angelo Codevilla (PBUH) explained back in 2010:
When pollsters ask the American people whether they are likely to vote Republican or Democrat in the next presidential election, Republicans win growing pluralities. But whenever pollsters add the preferences “undecided,” “none of the above,” or “tea party,” these win handily, the Democrats come in second, and the Republicans trail far behind. That is because while most of the voters who call themselves Democrats say that Democratic officials represent them well, only a fourth of the voters who identify themselves as Republicans tell pollsters that Republican officeholders represent them well. Hence officeholders, Democrats and Republicans, gladden the hearts of some one-third of the electorate — most Democratic voters, plus a few Republicans. This means that Democratic politicians are the ruling class’s prime legitimate representatives and that because Republican politicians are supported by only a fourth of their voters while the rest vote for them reluctantly, most are aspirants for a junior role in the ruling class. In short, the ruling class has a party, the Democrats. But some two-thirds of Americans — a few Democratic voters, most Republican voters, and all independents — lack a vehicle in electoral politics.
Sooner or later, well or badly, that majority’s demand for representation will be filled.
The TEA Party was the first attempt at demanding representation. The 2016 election of Donald Trump was the second. He didn’t win because he was significantly better than Hillary but because he WASN’T HILLARY. That, and his campaign managers played the game with incredible finesse. For a lot of us, his performance in office in the face of rabid opposition by both the other side of the aisle and his own, an hysterically partisan media, and – we’re learning – the Deep State, was surprisingly good. But the ratchet continued to click along. He slowed some things, he didn’t stop them, much less reverse anything, and true to Republicanism he increased the National Debt.
Someone created this rather appropriate meme:
Trump won decisively in 2024, despite an additional four years of the Left screaming “JANUARY SIXTH!!!” every chance they got. And now, after dropping the mask entirely and exposing themselves for what they actually are, their approval ratings have cratered.
The problem is, the Republicans approval ratings aren’t that great, either. In 2016 Agonblog wrote:
The difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is not that one favors “small government” and the other “big government”; it is not that one favors “law and order” and the other “social justice”; it is not that one is “working class” and the other “business class.” No, the difference is that the Democratic party is a coalition built around a shared political philosophy, and the Republican party is a coalition, built around no philosophy whatsoever.
In lieu of a shared philosophy, what serves to unite Republicans — incompletely, intermittently, and incoherently — is opposition to the Democratic agenda. If you scrutinize the Republican coalition, it becomes obvious that the constituencies of which it is comprised have little in common. Evangelicals oppose libertarians on nearly every social policy. Neoconservatives oppose evangelicals on the aims of foreign policy, if not the means toward those aims, while libertarians oppose neoconservatives on every policy — social, fiscal, foreign, and domestic. East-coast “RINOs” (Republicans In Name Only, such as Michael Bloomberg) are reviled by both libertarians and evangelicals, but maintain a prickly alliance with neoconservatives.
You have no choice about the necessity to integrate your observations, your experiences, your knowledge into abstract ideas, i.e., into principles. Your only choice is whether these principles are true or false, whether they represent your conscious, rational conviction—or a grab-bag of notions snatched at random, whose sources, validity, context and consequences you do not know, notions which, more often than not, you would drop like a hot potato if you knew.
But the principles you accept (consciously or subconsciously) may clash with or contradict one another; they, too, have to be integrated. What integrates them? Philosophy. A philosophic system is an integrated view of existence. As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation—or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight: self-doubt, like a ball and chain in the place where your mind’s wings should have grown.
That’s exactly right. The Left advanced the ratchet because its advocates had a philosophical grounding, regardless if that grounding is based on a “junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans,” etc. The Right had no common philosophy at all but “Stop the Left.” But now the MAGA movement is getting those disparate groups together. That’s what Tim Pool was referring to in the clip above. And all those disparate groups are willing to talk. Willing to “agree to disagree,” but live and let live. If not they’re just shunted to the side. The “shared political philosophy” of the Left has now shown itself to be abhorrent to more and more people who are walking away. Some to the Republicans, some to independence. Inside the Democrat Party the Woke are in control, and the one thing you cannot do from inside that echo chamber is question the inconsistencies. As a result, that cadre will hopefully continue to wither.
Charlie Kirk believed that the Republican Party could coalesce around three pillars:
Though he admitted that virtue would be the toughest sell.
Those sound pretty promising as a basis for a widely appealing philosophy, but we have to stand up and advocate for them. We have to publicly discuss. We have to confront. We have to stop self-censoring and keeping our heads down in the face of the Woke Mind Virus.
Charlie Kirk’s death appears to have triggered a Preference Cascade all over the planet, and significantly a large number of the people turning out are young. There’s a possibility that this might come to pass:
They’ve proven that the tiny core cannot be reasoned with, but a good chunk of their support can be pulled away.
Considering what’s going on in the world today, I think this poem from 1917 is appropriate:
The Beginnings – Rudyard Kipling
It was not part of their blood, It came to them very late With long arrears to make good, When the English began to hate.
They were not easily moved, They were icy-willing to wait Till every count should be proved, Ere the English began to hate.
Their voices were even and low, Their eyes were level and straight. There was neither sign nor show, When the English began to hate.
It was not preached to the crowd, It was not taught by the State. No man spoke it aloud, When the English began to hate.
It was not suddenly bred, It will not swiftly abate, Through the chill years ahead, When Time shall count from the date That the English began to hate.
A friend of mine who is a political activist said something interesting the other day, and that was for most people on the left political violence is a knob, and they can turn the heat up and down, with things like protests, and riots, all the way up to destruction of property, and sometimes murder… But for the vast majority of folks on the right, it’s an off and on switch. And the settings are Vote or Shoot Fucking Everybody. And believe me, you really don’t want that switch to get flipped, because Civil War 2.0 would make Bosnia look like a trip to Disneyworld.
There is a reason for it being a switch for the Right.
The most terrifying force of death comes from the hands of men who wanted to be left alone. They try, so very hard, to mind their own business and provide for themselves and those they love. They resist every impulse to fight back, knowing the forced and permanent change of life that will come from it. They know that the moment they fight back their lives as they have lived them are over.
The moment the men who wanted to be left alone are forced to fight back, it is a form of suicide. They are literally killing off who they used to be. Which is why, when forced to take up violence, these men who wanted to be left alone, fight with unholy vengeance against those who murdered their former lives. They fight with raw hate, and a drive that cannot be fathomed by those who are merely play-acting at politics and terror, true terror will arrive at these people’s door, and they will cry, scream, and beg for mercy… but it will fall upon the deaf ears of the men who just wanted to be left alone. – Author Unknown
The difference is, on the Left, the dial is deliberately adjusted by each individual for zirself. On the Right, the switch is flipped for them by the Left.
