The Image in the Picture

“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”

–Ayn Rand

 

With the Fast and Furious scandal, we are seeing how Rand’s words manifest in the real world. We are also seeing how Progressives operate more clearly and openly displayed than any time since FDR and Woodrow Wilson. It goes like this:

 

Progressives want to control you. They know that they cannot control an armed populace. So they set out to take away the 2nd Amendment, but they cannot do it by repealing the Amendment or even by Executive Order. They have to do it by regulations: so many regulations piled upon each other that gun ownership becomes effectively nullified. Even then, they need public support to pass these laws and regulations. So they design a gun running program where they lift some regulations, the drug crime shows a marked increase immediately afterward, the Mexican President then says the rise in crime shows a direct connection between American gun laws and reducing crime on the border and then President Obama will join him, supported by our own media and – eventually – Americans will call for the gun restrictions on their own. At least, that is the idea, but it doesn’t work that way because Americans are nowhere near as stupid and gullible as Progressives think them to be.

 

So, all we have to do is prove that Progressives really do want to take away our guns. This shouldn’t be so difficult; they have been telling us this is their goal for years. If you are a long-time reader on the RNL, then you might remember I actually chased down this quote from then Attorney General Janet Reno:

 

“Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.”

 

Reno said that on a morning TV show aired on the MSM. When Reno said this, she connected her political ideology directly to the ideology of Progressivism’s European cousins:

 

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.”
–Adolf Hitler

 

“A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.”
–Vladimir Lenin

 

This MO has been recently demonstrated by the media attempt to make Romney look out of touch by intentionally editing a video clip to make Romney appear to have been saying something he was not saying. In fact, once you wake up to this process, you will see it being used everywhere around you.

 

But this manipulation is like one of those optical illusion pictures that you have to stare at until you suddenly see the image. Then, once you see it, you can see it every time you look for it, yet the person standing right next to you will insist there is no image in the picture – just like you did before you learned to see it. That’s what you need to do here: you need to start reading history – real history – until you start seeing how this works. Once you do and you start to see what they are doing to manipulate people and how their methods work, you will feel as though you have just been liberated. You will see it everywhere, and you’ll be right nearly every time. But I warn you, that sense of liberation will soon give way to a state of deep concern as you suddenly realize just how many of your friends are still denying the image in the picture. That’s when you come to understand just how much troublke we’re actually in.

10 thoughts on “The Image in the Picture

  1. “all we have to do is prove that Progressives really do want to take away our guns”

    Considering that it’s now easier to own a gun now than before Obama took office, and you can carry firearms in more places than you could before, this seems a tough thing to “prove.” It’s also an overly simplistic claim, of course. I’m a “progressive” in almost every sense of the word, but having been born and raised in Idaho I own (and, importantly, actually know how to use) firearms, and oppose gun control more than my Southern Baptist, military brat, Reagan-idolizing buddy.

    And speaking of Reagan, of course he was more pro-gun control than Obama has proved to be. Reagan supported the Brady bill and joined former Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter in a letter published in the Boston Globe that called on Congress to pass a ban on assault weapons.

    • No, not really. There are two factors in play here. Relaxation of the federal gun laws – laws that are 100% illegal under the 2nd Amendment – was most likely designed to assist in generating something that was intended to be blamed on the relaxation of those same gun laws. In other words: “See, we told you. We let more people have guns, and now more people are killing each other with them. That’s why we need to ban them.” It is the very MO I just laid out and which is now plain to see for pretty much anyone who bothers to look without also looking through a political lens (which mean, I believe Bush had a hand in this too).

      The second factor is State push-back. The relaxing of CCPs is largely due to exactly that, as is the scare that Obama IS going to take them from us.

      Now, about Reagan. Let me help you out: REAGAN WAS THE DEVIL INCARNATE!

      Now, howes about we stop with these fallacious red herring distractions and focus on the devil who is in office TODAY – the very devil who has implicated himself in a federal gun-running program that was designed to help Obama ban weapons? 😀

  2. “was most likely designed to assist in generating something”

    I’m not saying it’s not possible (though I find it unlikely) — just that what’s “possible” or even “most likely” (assuming we agreed on that) is far from “proof.” This, and your line, “You will see it everywhere, and you’ll be right nearly every time,” sounds to a troubling degree like the argument of every birther, truther and conspiracy theorist from the left or right that I’ve encountered.

    “REAGAN WAS THE DEVIL INCARNATE!”

    Now there’s something on which we can agree. 🙂

    • I think you either missed the point I was making with my comment about Reagan or you chose to ignore it because you know it undermines your position to acknowledge it is a valid. 😉

      Now, I am not a birther, but I will admit they have VERY good reason to be suspicious. their questions have never been answered by anybody but a series of Party operatives.

      I am not a truther, and I will tell them they have NO valid reasons to be suspicious. their objections have been adequately explained.

      I am on the wall about the JFK assassination: not because I think it wasn’t possible for a single shooter to have pulled it off, but because – as a Marine who shot expert 9 times in a row (not marksman) – I doubt OSWALD could have made that shot with the rifle he used. For the record, the longest shot I ever made was at 850 yrds across a valley in the desert in the middle of the day. It was a head shot. I made 2 of them in 10 seconds and used three rounds. I suspect this should qualify me with most people to say I am suspicious of Oswald, but I will not say it wasn’t possible and didn’t happen.

      Now, as for the patterns: they are real, so why shouldn’t we see them everywhere. They started with men like Edward Bernays and Walter Lippmann (I suspect you know that last name). They have been taught in books, in college classes – even by community organization groups. The media is complicit in the efforts – and by that, I mean ALL media, not just the news. What’s more, both sides do it. I’ve even argued that Limbaugh does it to keep ‘conservatives” (i.e. TEA Party types) on the Republican reservation (go back through my posts). So, yes, once you learn what to look for, you will see it happening all over because it is a common method of controlling public opinion and votes.

      Now, let me ask you a question:

      As a reporter, are you not the least bit curious about the difference in the way the media has handled Watergate and Iran-Contra as compared to Clinton’s perjury case and now Fast and Furious?

  3. Yes, I’m familiar with both Bernays and Lippmann. As for the media, I don’t think they did enough with Iran-Contra, and Clinton’s perjury case turned into a circus. I notice you neglected to mention the lack of coverage of Bush administration misdeeds over Iraq and independent contractors.

    It remains to be seen what will be done with Fast & Furious, but with our lazy corporate media I suspect it won’t be much. And Issa’s investigation will go nowhere–partly because he’s a partisan hack, but mostly because under precedents set by Reagan, Clinton and Bush, executive privilege means that nothing damaging will be turned over.

    Another reason Watergate was a more successful media/government investigation was because Democrats were successful in passing a law providing for an independent prosecutor (also used in the Clinton investigation, resulting in the famous “Starr Report”). That law expired in 1999, and neither party showed much interest in renewing it.

  4. Reagan was not for the Brady Bill. Show me proof where Reagan stated he supported the Brady Bill. If Reagan had, it would have become law while he was President.

  5. Pingback: The daft and the spurious — another conservative conspiracy theory « James McPherson's Media & Politics Blog

  6. Pingback: All You Need To Know About Mr. Doctor McPherson, Ph.D…. | The Rio Norte Line

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.