He is the 1%er


On January 17, 2012, Simon Rierdon posted this blog posted I am a 1%er Part 2 with this picture. At the end of the post, he challenged his readers to figure out three stories.

His readers posted in the comments section what they thought were the stories. Recently I earned the third explanation, so I decided to post all explanations

Commenter NotsoAnon posted:

Challenge accepted!

Looking at the answer, the purpose of it is to draw lots of attention to the judicial system and anything that is attached to it. However, when you look at the picture and the mention of the husband and child, I think you could argue that what they “want” you to correlate the banning of the second-admendment with an increase / violence wave / godthinkofthewomenandchildren in the number of incidents against women.

To briefly summarise: 1. Generic think of the women/children, 2. Banning the second admendment will provide a negative effect on the well-being of women, 3. They want to sway voters / etc. to a certain direction by using this example ad as a woman getting beating / shot will for some reason always elicit a greater response.

Even after analyzing, I still feel that I am missing the point. Maybe by proving a unstable foundation for the current government or taking people’s mind of other current issues by introducing this? (Just know from experience that the Sec. Adment. can really give a rise in Americans when you talk about it).

When Simon Rierdon told this commenter that he nailed it for the most part but missed the point, NotsoAnon posted another comment that was right on the money.

If people notice 2 black eyes and the moniker below it of a Father, could the argument then be made that the people reading it would believe that by banning the Sec. Adment., women would have no defense against their evil abusing husbands and in turn raise more abusers? Could it be then that they are trying to push acceptance of “self-defense” through firearms (or more like murder in cold blood) if a man gave them the impression of doing harm?

Find it difficult to explain through words. I have to say, the longer I live (only 23), I am asking myself some pretty soul-searching questions to which I hardly have any answers to.

But besides the main point, could be argued that a feminist or like-minded individual would perhaps see it like this: Woman on the floor with 2 black eyes and pale skin (dead) -> Read text of a husband / son / Sec. Ad. / Criminal -> 2 black eyes correlates to domestic violence -> Woman could not use firearm for her defense due to ban -> Judicial / legal system / Patriachy protecting husbands / men -> Assume son turns into future abuser -> In the end, creates more victims -> Men are the criminals, women are the victims as conclusion.

Commenter Ryu posted a comment providing the second scenario:

Well, I’m a WN first. Since she’s white she has a white husband who will in all probability not beat her. California is full of Mexicans and blacks. Probably she was followed after work or her home was invaded and that’s what was left after the morlocks were done with her.

She should have turned around, shot twice a piece and walked away. Instead ZOG propagandized her night and day that the poor “youf” were her equals in every way. She’s dead, thanks to multiculturalism, one of 400,000 victims since 1965. The TV news doesn’t cover her story and they run a piece on a Nigerian who wants a better life in South Dakota.

I posted my own interpretation of the picture:

Woah. Kind of a mindfuck here. I feel like I see something and then I don’t.

Borrowing from Ryu and NotsoAnon:

This advertisement looks like it could be interpreted in one of three ways:

White Nationalist – Woman not allowed self defense, gets killed by minorites

Feminist – Domestic Abuse. Because woman is not allowed self defense, she gets killed by her husband

I actually can’t really articulate the third perspective (I know it’s there besides the fact that you mentioned so).

But the ad seems to designed to draw people of all backgrounds to the same conclusion (protect right to bare arms) through their own flavors of rationalizations. Feminists see what they want to see (misogynist!) , White Nationalist see what they want to see (minorities!), and all come to the same conclusion that the right to bare arms in important.

A day later, when my blog was only at a couple posts, Simon challenged me to write more and if I did he would tell me the third explanation. Now that I have 9 posts total and many more in reserve, he told me:

Dead bodies don’t look that good

Nobody these days experiences death by being a witness to what death really does to a body. In my life experience, I’ve been witness to more death than I care to admit to and let me tell you, even if you came upon her almost immediately after the fact, she wouldn’t look near as good as she did in the pic I posted.

Everyone denies death these days even though deep down inside we all know it’s going to happen to us. Most people have never seen a dead person before and if they based their impressions on the pic I posted, they will think that their body will look like what it does now. That’s a fallacy, decomposition starts almost immediately and if you had found her even a couple of hours later, she wouldn’t have looked anything like the pic.

Take a minute to soak that in. As I did I realized a couple of things. Modern society today seems stuck in a perpetual opposite day. It is as if our culture is trying to avoid the thought of death so much that is manifests itself everywhere, like repressed sexual desires. There is Violence and Death in video games, movies, plays, operas, advertisements. Everywhere. And this is acceptable. No one seems to object when there is gratuitous violence in a movie, but when a kid sees one stray breast, there is an uproar.

People see so much death in the news, movies, and video games that they become de-sensitized to it. A headline of “300 people dead in Africa” no longer surprises us and a headline of “Man found dead in park” fazes no one. But the desensitization we feel is a false one. Like kids who mistake video games for reality, we don’t understand what we think we see. Hardly anybody in first world countries these days have seen a real dead body or someone get beat up, get hurt, or shot. We have seen this on TV or in Movie, but not in real life. We don’t feel any emotions that we should when we see or hear about these sorts of things.

That is to say, when people finally do encounter death in real, because they do not usually feel such strong emotions because of it in virtual life, they get torn apart. Unable to function. Because they are not used to deal with such strong emotions that few things like death can elicit.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *