ASK A SHEEPLE

This article reprinted in it’s entirety with permission of it’s author and the site on which it was originally posted.

Ask a Sheeple

While God may prefer to interact with us via tangible things—like burning bushes or human form—the Devil’s preferred vector appears to be ideas (they’re much harder to nail to a cross, after all). The top two most evil ideas that I can think of, in order of least to most evil, are as follows:

2. Nazism

1. Communism

Nazism is pretty much dead (except in the fevered minds of the highly lucrative paranoia industry). But communism is still very much alive and well in the West—just in cloaked form.

And our nation is about ready to fall to communist totalitarians. Of course, most people don’t realize this—or actively dismiss the idea—in part because the totalitarians are communists in everything but name.

Sheeple, by definition, are either not terribly intelligent or not very inquisitive people, so they are happy to take politicians at their word. “Oh, you say you’re not a Communist? Then obviously you’re not a Communist!”

In fact, so impressionable and manipulable are these sheeple that they have been effectively conditioned to laugh at anyone using the term “Communist” or “Communism” in any context. They have been trained to be, in a term, “coincidence theorists“.

Patriots, however, are not so easily conditioned, and also require a bit more than blind faith in the words of sociopaths (i.e., politicians). As such, they look not to the words but to the actions of these sociopaths.

And their actions speak volumes. Let’s take a look at just a few examples.

Disarmament

The greatest impediment to the totalitarians’ subjugation of the American people is the fact that the American populace is armed to the teeth. Therefore, we must be brainwashed into giving up our guns. Any wonder why, then, the second amendment is constantly talked about in reference to hunting? Or, in even more Orwellian language, a top-notch university’s professor claims that “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” means limiting the right to bear arms?

And, of course, there are the endless cries that gun control is for public safety—an evilly devious tactic only the most hopelessly retarded could possibly entertain given the fact that there is not a single [honest] study showing gun control lowers crime, but, rather, countless studies showing the exact opposite. (And let’s not forget that the police are not there to protect you, so without guns you’re not only asking for more criminal behavior, but you’re rendered completely defenseless to boot.)

Failing effective brainwashing, I suppose gun confiscation could be an option, right?

If not that, then there’s arms registration—always the precursor to confiscation, of course (registration = confiscation, kiddies).

So ask a sheeple: If “gun control” is not only demonstrably counter-productive but also clearly against the will of the people, why would our “representatives” (hah) be so obsessively fixated on limiting—if not outright eliminating—our second amendment-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms? Why?

Electing a New People

…[T]he people had forfeited the confidence of the government and could win it back only by redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier in that case for the government to dissolve the people and elect another?

– Bertolt Brecht, Elegies, “Die Lösung”

If the totalitarians can’t disarm the population, then how about they simple replace these uppity people with a more servile one? I.e., if the hallmark of traditional America (read: white & Christian) is a fierce independent streak that distrusts concentration of power in the federal government, and America had democratically elected representatives, then why not simply dilute the historical populace into electoral irrelevance via flooding the nation with third-worlders? Then, once achieved, they can use this ignorant, stupid, credulous and government-dependent population to elect those who will push through the totalitarian agenda?

Then the totalitarians can claim the “moral high ground” by pointing to the fact that they passed all their tyranny legally, through the “democratic process”. Never mind that it upends the US Constitution; never mind that it destroys the guarantee of individual liberty that is the defining characteristic of the United States; never mind that it has effectively ethnically cleansed the nation of its founding stock in order to advance a bloodless coup. Never mind? Yes—never mind. Because, you know…democracy and diversity!

So ask as sheeple: What, exactly, do you think “diversity” and “multiculturalism” and “comprehensive immigration reform” are really about?

Speech Restrictions

To understand Marxism—the basis of Communism—is to understand that it is a perpetual war against the truth. Speaking of the true motives of the totalitarians (i.e., absolute power) and their machinations (disarmament, electing a new people, etc.) is therefore forbidden. Hence the first order of business of any good communist regime is to suppress the truth.

As mentioned above, “diversity”, “multiculturalism” and immigration “reform” are merely euphemisms for the ethnic cleansing of whites so that The Powers That Be can trammel the Constitution—i.e., that which constrains their power. Therefore, anyone who speaks out against any of these big three euphemisms is to be silenced.

And how to silence them?

First, attempt to discredit any opposition to “diversity”, “multiculturalism” or third-world immigration with logically fallacious ad hominem smears such as “hate“, “extremism“, “natavism“, “xenophobia“, “bitter clingers“, “Neo-Nazism“, “white supremacism“, etc.

Should that fail? Then simply revert to the tried-and-true method: Use the power of the State to silence them by force.

So ask a sheeple: Is it ok for the US government to silence those who disagree with its overt (and covert) policies? Because, if you take a moment to pull your head out of your ass dear sheeple, you’ll see that that’s exactly where we’re heading.

Ideological Purges

With freedom of speech banned, then what to do with those who defy your mandates? Well, first, punish them; if that doesn’t work, get rid of them.

Punish them?

After we win this [2012 general] election, it’s our turn. Payback time. Everyone not with us is against us and they better be ready because we don’t forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded; the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve. There is going to be hell to pay.

– Barack Hussein Obama’s chief advisor, Valerie Jarrett, October 2012

(“Who is Valerie Jarrett?” a sheeple might ask. Well, there’s this, for starters.)

Get rid of them?

Who are they? Right to life, pro-assault weapons, anti-gay — if that’s who they are, they have no place in the state of New York because that’s not who New Yorkers are.

– New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, in a radio interview on WCNY on January 17, 2014

So ask a sheeple: Are we to trust these sociopaths that their words were merely “taken out of context”, or are these more likely preludes to a purge?

Global Government

Of course communism proper was to be a global movement (but aren’t all Utopian schemes?). Hence the need for the Soviet Union to try to take over the world (and hence why the West sought a policy of containment).

Having lost the Cold War, the communists therefore went wholly underground. They still want global government—i.e., global power—but they certainly won’t be able to convince the US to forfeit its sovereignty, now can they? Hence, they need a subterfuge.

That subterfuge is global warming (or is it global cooling? Or is it climate change? So hard to keep up…). Again, it’s not to say the globe isn’t warming, nor that that warming isn’t in part caused by human activity. The subterfuge is that the only way being offered to solve this is problem (if it is, indeed, a problem) is for 1) the US to forfeit its sovereignty to a cabal of global power brokers, and 2) for it to transfer its wealth to “developing nations” while crippling its own industry.

So ask a sheeple: Does it sound like the only legitimate solution to fighting “global cooling warming climate change” is to impoverish the world’s largest, most creative, most dynamic economy by “redistributing” all her wealth to the world’s most violent, chaotic, backwards nations? Or does this sound more like a communist plot?

One more question for a sheeple: Any reason why China—the world’s biggest polluter and second largest economy—is not the relentless focus of the UN’s mission to fight “global cooling
warming climate change”? Did I happen to mention that China is a Communist nation?

Out of the Closet?

The properly trained sheeple by now will still be refuting the above evidence of conspiracy, dutifully echoing the “coincidence theory” that sociopathic politicians are to be trusted and taken at their word, while all the evidence pointing to their evil designs is to be chalked up to paranoid misinterpretation. Besides, they will say, there are no communists! Communism is a thing of the past! We’ve moved on!

One may wish to remind these sheeple that China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam are still currently communist nations. (Btw, sheeple, care to move to any of them?)

One may also wish to remind these sheeple that Bill de Blasio was elected mayor of New York City in a landslide. Who is Bill de Blasio? A liberal progressive Commie wannabe.

And, lastly, one may wish to review this statement by the United Nations’s “Climate Chief”:

[T]the political divide in the U.S. Congress has slowed efforts to pass climate legislation and is very detrimental to the fight against global warming. … China is also able to implement policies because its political system [ed: Communism!] avoids some of the legislative hurdles seen in countries including the U.S.

– Christiana Figueres, UN Climate Chief, in an interview at Bloomberg News headquarters in New York, January 14, 2014

And no sooner do I publish this post than Salon–a staple rag of lefties the world over–publishes this article whitewashing Communism. Quote:

Given the technological, material, and social advances of the last century, we could expect an approach to communism beginning here and now to be far more open, humane, democratic, participatory and egalitarian than the Russian and Chinese attempts managed.

So ask a sheeple: Do you think Communism is preferable to the constitutional republic that is the United States of America? Do you not see that, unless you wake up and start paying attention, we will be a communist nation in just a few short years?

Read more at http://angrywhitedude.com/2014/02/ask-a-sheeple/#ly76gtHbYSo1P4S4.99