Kontri pipo for up kontri fit waka about for night afta eight months weh governor put order say from 9:00 pm make deh no catch any man for outside.
archive source
In my previous post on "The Alt-Right", I came to the conclusion that the phrase "alt-right" is the result of a manipulation of language with the intent to subvert an enemy.
The manipulation of language for dubious causes has been a continual process occurring over many generations. Many scholars would say that it's natural for a words to drift away from their root meanings as the language evolves.
I believe that the meaning of a word must match it's root, otherwise it loses all meaning by becoming an oxymoron. English is precise and through this precision, complex ideas may be accurately conveyed by it's users.
"Up" means away from a gravity well, "down" means towards a gravity well, and "terrific" means causing great fear because of it's shared roots with "terror".
But why is this important in the context of censorship and weapon prohibitions?
The lawful citizens of States founded by Europeans are shackled with multi-generational weapon prohibitions because of the manipulations of language.
Words have been and continue to be redefined, scrambled, and joined in oxymoronic ways.
A classic example is "fully-semi-automatic"
Fully automatic and semi-automatic are Boolean states. Like a light switch, a firearm cannot be both at the same time. A selector switch can allow some firearms to change states between semi and fully automatic, but even they cannot be both at once.
As you can see, the meanings of words have been twisted to a point where the audience is forced to interpret meaning based on context. If you want to see more examples of this concept, simply go to the BBC's Pidgin website.
Kontri pipo for up kontri fit waka about for night afta eight months weh governor put order say from 9:00 pm make deh no catch any man for outside.
archive source
What is a weapon?
1. a. Any instrument used in combat.
b. Any part of the body used in attack or defense, such as an animal's horns or claws.
2. Any means employed to get the better of another
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1975
Sharp sticks, rocks, and even water can be classified as weapons.
Check it out: Independently targeting particle beam phalanx. Fry half a city with this puppy. We got tactical smart missiles, phase plasma pulse rifles, RPGs, we got sonic electronic ball breakers. We got nukes, we got knives, sharp sticks, you do not want to fuck with me.
So what makes something a weapon if anything is a potential weapon?
The only difference between a weapon and an object is intent.
The baseball bat by your night stand may never be used in combat, but you store it there with the intent to use it in defense.
The tire iron under your passenger seat might never be used in combat, but you keep it there with the intent to use it in defense.
The pistol strapped to your bible in your purse might never be used, but you put it there with the intent to shoot someone.
Until someone intends to harm another, whatever it is they'll use isn't a weapon, it's merely an inanimate object.
But those baby killing AR-15s and 8 inch knives!
Neither are capable of acting on their own. Someone has to be wielding them with the intent to do harm.
If intent is the only thing separating a weapon from an object, then the real "weapon" is intent.
But what is intent?
Aim
Purpose
Having the mind fastened upon some purpose.
Latin alternative past participle of intendere: to stretch toward
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1975
Intent is a state of mind.
If a weapon is defined by intent, a state of mind, then weapons prohibitions can be turned on states of mind.
Political dissent, artistic expression, and even personal interactions all involve different states of mind, and therefore could be prohibited.
An image in opposition of the political structure is a weapon against The State.
A painting of dayglow fluorescent dye is a weapon which harms the eyes.
Telling your wife you dislike your bosses is a weapon against the corporation.
And so on.
But if censorship and thought-crime are the inevitable outcomes of weapons prohibitions why haven't we seen foundations for future legislation?
We have.
U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 15 chapter VII, subchapter C.
Encryption items specifically designed, developed, configured, adapted or modified for military applications (including command, control and intelligence applications) are controlled by the Department of State on the United States Munitions List.
Encryption is simply a language you do not understand.
The Department of Defense's use of obscure languages to send coded messages during World War Two is the example.
Because Navajo has a complex grammar, it is not mutually intelligible enough with even its closest relatives within the Na-Dene family to provide meaningful information. At the time, it was still an unwritten language, and Johnston believed Navajo could satisfy the military requirement for an undecipherable code. Its complex syntax and phonology, not to mention its numerous dialects, made it unintelligible to anyone without extensive exposure and training. One estimate indicates that at the outbreak of World War II, fewer than 30 non-Navajo could understand the language.
Since the U.S. Federal government views language as a weapon (U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 15 chapter VII, subchapter C.), and the judicial branch approved the law, all weapons regulations can be applied to language.
But that's encryption!
The First Amendment will protect U.S. Citizens!
You better buckle up fucko.
Memes function like IEDs.
Despite the government research and interest inside the military for applying memes to war, it seemed to be insurgent groups that used them most effectively.
In the words of those nasty little warmongering disarmament advocates: We're coming for your thoughts!
So where does that leave this long winded rant?
Now before I go further down this never ending rabbit hole you need to understand two terms and how they relate to each other.
The first is "nation".
1. A people, usually the inhabitants of a specific territory, who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language or related languages.
Middle English nacioun, from Old French nacion, from Latin natio, "race," "breed," from nasci (past participle natus), to be born.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1975
And the second is "state".
8.a. The supreme public power within a sovereign political entity.
b. The sphere of supreme civil power within a given polity: matters of state.
9. A specific mode of government: a welfare state.
10. A body politic; specifically, one constituting a nation: the states of eastern Europe.
Middle English stat(e), from Old French estat, from Latin status, manner of standing, condition, position, attitude.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1975
As you can see a Nation is a people, and a State is a government.
Even more manipulations of language have morphed "nation" into the same meaning as "state"!
Now back to my previous train of thought regarding censorship and weapon prohibitions.
Censorship and even weapon prohibitions aren't always a bad thing.
A Nation could choose to protect itself by censoring ideas it views as harmful, or even disarm foreigners.
You can see this throughout modern culture if you define "liberal" as a nation without borders. The liberal nation has decided to disarm it's enemies and censor incompatible notions by subverting the State while using it's control over the socio-economic landscape.
A State could even censor ideas to protect it's Founding Nation, but that power would likely be turned against it's Founding Nation if the State were to become subverted by the Nation's enemies.
This leads me to the main reason for States to censure and prohibit their Founding Nations from arming themselves.
The fear of intent has permeated formerly European States.
The National Firearms Act, passed on June 26, 1934 one year after Franklin D. Roosevelt took office, was the first in a long series of radical weapon prohibitions targeting the Founding Nation.
The officially stated reasons for it's wide approval were the recent assassination attempt against Roosevelt by recent immigrant Giuseppe Zangara, as well as the criminal activities of alcohol syndicates operating out of Chicago. However, it's more likely that the Roosevelt administration learned to fear the Founding Nation after witnessing the 1932 "Bonus Army" incident.
That, and the rising economic threat posed by the rapid recovery of Germany guided by the NSDAP government were the impetus to disarm the Founding Nation in order to sap it's vital revolutionary spirit.
What followed was a series of foreign wars which the Founding Nation did not unanimously support, and societal upheaval which has created a miasma of depression and suicide amongst the Founding Nation.
And this is where things get interesting.
The same pattern of events has been continually happening since Franklin Delano Roosevelt's regime.
1. Import immigrants for some reason, historically industry, but now for their supposed sexual vitality
2. Immigrants bring their corrupt culture with them
3. Criminal syndicates break some sort of prohibition, most involved syndicates are immigrant run
4. Immigrants kill citizens of the State
5. Why won't somebody do something?
6. Gun Grab
7. ???
8. War
9. Profit
And now it's gone one step further with Emergency Protective Restraining Orders.
Don't speak out against State approved expression!
Don't speak out against legislation!
Don't speak out against enforcement!
Did you piss off a woman?
Did you get in a public argument?
Does your neighbor hate you?
Is your family shit?
Did you have a mental breakdown after returning from war?
Now you can be executed by representatives of the State for exercising your natural rights!
I leave you with three questions:
1. Who comprises the Founding Nation of These United States of America?
2. Who has The United States Government targeted with legislation?
3. Are the lawful or lawless more capable of single-handedly defending their lives and property?
