The UN oversaw the genocide in Rwanda, and now they want to disarm Americans.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
Recent Comments
- stewartpid on COP29 Preview
- GeologyJim on A Giant Eyesore
- GeologyJim on COP29 Preview
- GeologyJim on COP29 Preview
- arn on Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Richard E Fritz on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- William on A Giant Eyesore
- arn on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- Gordon Vigurs on COP29 Preview
- Peter Carroll on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
I actually don’t agree that it can only happen after they disarm all of their intended victims. Lenin’s genocide began with the Bolshevik revolution, and the Bolsheviks largely stole their weapons from their intended victims. They depended on the element of surprise, they depended on psychological tactics to disorient their opponents, and they depended on a tactic of repeatedly lying about what was going on (on both sides) in order to produce hesitation in their opponents. Lenin later said that seizing power in the relative vacuum that then existed in Saint Petersburg was “as easy as picking up a feather”. There was really no time at all between that moment and the onset of genocide for the systematic disarming of royalists or anti-communists. I suspect that one might also say the same for Mao and Castro, though I am not as well versed in the history of China and Cuba.
So I think that while disarming certainly makes their intended task easier, it is not a prerequisite for genocide. I would agree that would-be mass murderers seek to have a military or tactical advantage of some kind over their intended victims. But we should not labor under the belief that if we manage to preserve our right to keep and bear arms, that we have vanquished genocide forever. I can foresee a situation where a firm and unwavering global dictatorship emerges under a ruthless dictator, who begins wiping out his enemies in the U.S. without first systematically disarming all or even most of them. All he has to do is, of course, to make the label of “unstable” or “disloyal” stick in a way that his security officers might find believable (no matter how ludicrous it may be) and that then provides a pretext for disarmament (and imprisonment) of individuals without requiring a general surrendering of weapons.
I know Hitler did it differently and I know that historically the worst genocides are of a disarmed populace. But I still think that we should understand that in the fog of a communist revolution, all kinds of genocide can happen before any systematic disarmament even gets started. Food for thought, and I hope not too contrarian for your liking.
RTF
I’m not sure gun buyers are motivated by fear of the gov’t today. It may be more about fear of gov’t blunders and incompetence making matters worse. When you look at what passes for “progress” in the last 50-60 years, that’s what really worries people.
Nobody really thinks they can overpower the US military, should a revolution ever happen. But people certainly believe they can defend themselves in a time of chaos and anarchy resulting from whatever manmade or natural calamity happens.
Amen to that.