One of the constants in Democratic Party “thought” since the mid-1950s has been a sharp distinction between what they think of as “right-thinking people” and everyone else.
“Right-thinking people” are invariably highly educated at the “right” schools (Harvard, Yale, etc.), work at the “right” kind of jobs (i.e., they have law degrees), do the “right” kind of “public service” (i.e., they look out for poor people), and are terribly concerned about whatever their peers decide is The Most Important Problem In The World at any given moment (nuclear war, global cooling, global warming, etc.). They also only associate with people like themselves.(Which handily insulates them from having to listen to opinions different from their own- which are invariably wrong, in their opinion.)
As a rule, “right-thinking people” do not like religion, as it implies that there may be an entity more powerful than themselves- which makes them uncomfortable as it affects their egos. They also dislike the idea of actually dealing with the dirty work of preparing food- to them, all food should come from a “Star Trek”-type replicator, not just to avoid hurting an animal, but to avoid having to get involved with dirt (ugh). And they view anyone who does not have a problem with either one as… vaguely repellent, possibly some sort of Neanderthalic throwback.
Their views become downright schizoid when it comes to crime and government power. They believe that as long as government power is in “the right hands” (theirs), government must have no limits to its power- because they are motivated solely by “good”. At the same time, they resent the idea that criminals should face punishment, because “they’re just acting out against the inequalities of society”- as though robbery, murder, etc., were just a form of “performance art”. (In fact, they actually see criminals as sharing their contempt for the “common herd”, and secretly wish they had the nerve to flaunt their contempt as openly as the criminals do.)
Seen in this light, the “enlightened ones’” desire to disarm Americans is easy to understand. Simply put, they fear those who are different from themselves, and seek to achieve absolute control over them in a quest for absolute safety. Which they define as permanent power that can never be challenged in any way. As long as Americans have arms which they cannot find, and therefore confiscate, they can never have the absolute power they crave- in the belief that it equals the absolute ability to both “do good”- and remain eternally safe from the world. (And all those criminals whom they secretly sympathize with would make such wonderful “guard dogs”, too, with just a little “grooming”.)
What you have to ask yourself is- with this sort of mindset, if they ever even got close to such a level of power, what would they do with it?
Or more exactly, what would they do to you- whom they regard as inherently inferior to their own perfect selves?
clear ether
eon
