How to Create a Mob

Or if you prefer how to create the “bottom-up” part of  the “top-down, bottom-up, inside-out” structure of a revolution. This is how radicals I believe would create a mob:

1. Find some angry, disillusioned, frustrated, confused, naive young people. If you can’t find any then encourage them to have these emotions through colleges. Even far-Left parents can do this. The recruits have to be naive (most young are) so they don’t know what is happening.
2. Tell them what they are feeling is caused by the System oppressing them. That’s is not their fault. The System can be the economic system, political system, etc. It doesn’t matter what the System is or even if it is oppressing them or not.
3. Tell the young recruits they are special. That they are the future of the world. Again the recruiter doesn’t have to believe this. As long as the recruits believes it.
4. Tell the recruits that since they are oppressed it is okay even justified to act violently against society because society has been oppressing you. It is okay to steal from the rich since they did not earn their wealth anyway and kept you from getting what you rightly deserve.  You make the recruits feel victimized.
5. If a recruit says he is not being oppressed, then you tell him that it is because he has not “seen the truth” or that he is being tricked or brainwashed by the system to believe everything is okay. Karl Marx called religion  “opiate of the masses” for example. Basically the same thing.

Of course, it could be possible that the radical elite can create an atmosphere (high unemployment, hyperinflation, etc.) to increase the emotions or even to try to create them in the potential mob.  This could be the “top-down” part. 

These probably are not all the steps but I think are the main ones.

Americans Win Most Deadly Warrior Matches

If you never watched “Deadly Warrior” on Spike TV, a team of experts simulate on a computer different hypothetical combat matches between two teams or two people. They take into account weapons, tactics, armor and even “X” factors. It’s a fascinating show.

According to that show Americans won all but one match as you can see from the chart below:  Winner

                                       Match                                                                   Total kills

Green Beret	Spetsnaz (Russian army special forces)	481	519
SWAT	GSG9 (German federal counter-terrorism force)	578	422
KGB	CIA	450	550
Navy SEAL	Israeli Commando	518	482
George Washington	Napoleon Bonaparte	50.6%	49.4%
U.S. Army Rangers	North Korean Special Operation Forces	50.08%	49.92%
Teddy Roosevelt	Lawrence of Arabia	51.64%	48.36%

 

You can see the statistics of the matches at the Wikipedia webpage.

It’s too bad the Green Berets lost, but the Navy SEALs and Army Rangers made up for it. Although the Army Ranger match was a close one. Glad to see that George Washington can kick Napoleon Bonaparte’s rear-end.

Negative Rights

The Bill of Rights in the Constitution are what are called negative rights by people who study the Constitution. What this means is the government cannot take these rights away from you. They are God-given. But they are also don’t cost you anything—or shouldn’t anyway (one might, I’ll explain later). As philosopher Ayn Rand I believe said one time about rights if you ask “At what cost?” to a right and if the answer is nothing then it is probably a right.

For instance, freedom of speech, association, and religion doesn’t cost anyone (ie the government) anything. Well, it doesn’t cost the average citizen anything. If you tell the truth against the gov’t, or if join a religion that teaches to be skeptical of the gov’t then the gov’t might not like it---they they interpret that as a cost to them.

What about a right to work?  That’s a cost. And they are not God-given. The right to work was a right in the old Soviet Union. Since you had a right to work you were assigned a job the state calculated was the best fit for you. You did not have a choice which job you wanted. The state made that choice for you. It controlled your wages and benefits. Your working hours too. After all it had your best interests in mind. Isn’t that nice? Oh, yea you wouldn’t be allowed to be unemployed.

What about a right to a house? Again a cost. Labor, materials, and finding a place to build the house are all costs. And if it was a right, you would have no right to decide what the house would look like, what it would be made of, or how big it would be if the state had to build it. Also the state would put you in a house it deemed would fulfill your needs. Even though you might (probably would) disagree with them. Again the state is just looking out for you. You probably wouldn’t be allowed to be homeless either.

The same with healthcare. If it is a right, then the state basically owns your body. Think about that. It can tell you what to eat, drink, how much exercise to do, what drugs you can and cannot take, and any surgeries you would get. Also, it would decide if you should live or die if you have a incurable disease. If that doesn’t scare you, it should.

I could go on but you get the point. Earlier I said there might be a right that could be a cost and that is the right to bear arms. The state could go and give you gun (like that would happen). Although, I heard about an American town that required it citizens to own a gun. Their crime rate was near zero.  Anyway, if the state was that generous the gun would be cheap and not work half the time. And they would probably have you buy the ammunition. That’s why in the US Constitution it says “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  In other words it is not going to give you a gun.

The UN’s Agenda 21

How’s that for a name? What is Agenda 21? This is what the UN says it is:

Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.

Does that clear it up? No? The Agenda basically revolves around climate change. If you really want to know what it is you have to read it’s principles.

For example Principle 2 says: States (that is countries that sign on to the Agenda) can exploit (that’s the word the UN uses—gotta like the Left—always predictable) their own environmental resources as long as the other member States says it okay. Well, it did not say that exactly but that is how I interpreted the principle.  The actually principle said: “… the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.” How do you define “damage to the environment”? Environmental extremists think CO₂ is causing damage to the environment.

Principle 5 says:

All States and all people shall cooperate in the essential task of
eradicating poverty as an indispensable requirement for sustainable
development, in order to decrease the disparities in standards of living and
better meet the needs of the majority of the people of the world.

Sounds like world wide wealth distribution to me. Eradicating poverty? Lyndon Johnson’s “war on poverty” tried to do that. Guess what there is still poor people. How about if every country would allow a free market system. That would help.

Here are some of the other principles with my interpretation:

Principle 6: Developing countries especially those who are “environmentally vulnerable” (what the heck does that mean?) shall be given priority help.

Principle 8: The free-market system is bad. It should be reduced by the States.

Principle 10: A person in a State can sue (or be allowed to sue) if they think Mother Earth is being wronged.

Principle 12: A State has to get permission from other States to run their countries economically and environmentally.

Principle 13: A person can sue if has to breathe smog or other pollution.

Principle 23: The environment and natural resources of people under oppression,
domination and occupation shall be protected. That is an exact quote. So, who cares about the people being oppressed as long as the environment is protected? Is that the idea? The whole Agenda is oppressive, so I guess that would make it contradict itself.

Principle 24: You can fight wars as long as Mother Earth is not hurt. Again, who cares about the people who get killed or maimed in them.

Principle 25: Another exact quote: Peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and indivisible. Says it all don’t you think? Earth worshiping anyone?

According to the Patriot Update article where I got this info from, President Clinton, Obama, and George HW Bush signed on to Agenda 21 via executive orders.

A lot of countries have become members except for N. Korea and Iran. Actually, I did not see one middle eastern country sign on. One city in China signed on. And one city in Russia signed on.

Some states that have 10 or more cities supporting the Agenda in America are: Virginia, Massachusetts, Florida, New York, Illinois, Texas, California, Colorado.

I would check to see if the city you are living in supports the Agenda. And think about seriously moving if you can. You can sure tell which city is on the Left especially the far-Left by looking at the list.

Does The Left Have Groupthink?

According to the PsySR.org website this is the definition of groupthink:

Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” (p. 9).  Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups.  A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making.

Can’t comment of the “mental efficiency” of the Left but they seem to have deterioration of “reality testing” and sometimes even “moral judgment.”

Specifically these are the symptoms of groupthink with my comments in brackets:

1. Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.
2. Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions. [Warnings about overspending getting America in more debt because they believe Keynesian economics. Warnings about over-regulation hurting the economy.]
3. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions. [The Left believe that big gov’t can save society even though it does the exact opposite.]
4. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary. [The Left’s “enemies” are: Christians, conservatives, big business that does not take money from the gov’t, the Tea Parties, non-unionized people (that’s Jim Hoffa Jr.’s SOBs he was talking about), women and minorities who don’t go along with the party line, global warming “deniers”, etc.]
5. Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views. [Actually, the Left tries to suppress any view from anyone they don’t like.  But within their own group how about Juan Williams? Or even Senator Joseph Lieberman who had to switch to Independent.]
6. Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed. [If the Left allows this to happen then that means their ideology might just be false or empty.]
7. Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous. [And if they are not, a member cannot be trusted.]
8. Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions. [This the responsibility of the lame stream media.]

All cults and totalitarian regimes have these eight symptoms. Actually, cults and totalitarian regimes love these symptoms. Because members are easier to control. 

So, does the Left have these symptoms? Except for maybe #1 I would say yes—although I would not call the Left a cult per se but they are close to one.

What about the Right you might ask. Sure, the Right can have these symptoms (as the webpage made a point about President Bush and the Iraq War) but the Left main foundation revolves around groups and classes. Remember it was Hillary Clinton that said “it takes a village.” Village is just code word for group.

The way you counter groupthink if you read the webpage is to have most of the members be individuals ie have individual opinions. Otherwise if everyone thinks the same way then you will definitely have groupthink.

The Left in a Nutshell

The political Left is focused (obsessed?) around groups. Specifically here’s the rules/concepts:

1. A group has more rights than individuals. The individual doesn’t count.
2. If you insult a group then you insult all members of that group.
3. Members of a group don’t have personal responsibility.
4. Members of a group should act similarly otherwise they cannot be trusted.
5. Individuals can’t rule themselves. They must be a member of a group and ruled by an Elite who can guide them. See my “The Progressive Manual for the Masses” blog entry for more details.
6. Only Elites can rule themselves. Cause they are enlightened.

That’s basically it.