Anthropomorphism: Not Just For Animals; Children and Leftists, Too. A “Gun-Free” Zone Post

Anthropomorphism: the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities. It is considered to be an innate tendency of human psychology.

You can’t avoid it. In fact, Facebook is largely devoted to the human tendency to anthropomorphize all sorts of animal behavior, from cat and dog videos to animals in the wild engaging in behavior that appears to cross over with humans, and so the same insight, integration, emotion, intelligence, and intentions are erroneously attributed.

Is it harmful? That’s asking the wrong question because almost everyone engages in it to various degrees, so it just is. What’s unhealthy about taking it to obsession and extreme is that it serves the purpose of unjustly debasing adult human intelligence and ability.

Non-human animals are environmental specialists. Certain environmental conditions give rise to a plethora of various species evolved to exploit every facet of the environment towards an equilibrium. If the environment changes on glacial scales, then the various species can evolve along with it. If it changes rapidly enough, the non-migratory species just die off. Contrasted with adult humans of adequate brain tooling, the latter don’t die off but mold their environments. They create new tool weapons (e.g., swords, bow & arrows, guns, cannons, and bombs). They create clothing. They create shelter. They build fires. They invent HVAC. They invent transportation. They landscape on massive scale. They create reservoirs of water by massive damming. They build fire breaks. They pave and pour concrete. They treat water and sewage. They sequester waste. They create art. They engage in sports with rules. They invent new forms of entertainment and amusement. They grow social networks on global scales that blur language and culture…

And the list goes on.

What if we qualify the definition of anthropomorphism just a bit? How about rather than just “humans” in general, we qualify it to adult humans with sufficient mental capacity to mold their environments? Well, what we’ve just done is exclude children and leftist political activists.

“Children should be seen and not heard.”

There’s two things I have a very low tolerance for. The first is hearing how smart and great some dumb kid is who’s a dependent of some adult. I don’t give a fuck, you’re wrong. In fact, you will not know anything about the kid’s prowess until such time as the kid is on his own so that you can judge that objectively. The second thing is a kid saying to me, “well I think…” No, you don’t. You’re a dependent. You express feelings and emotions. Shut your Similac Hole and observe competent adults and business people. Learn something. Demonstrate competency, then you’re qualified to say “I think” because you’ve demonstrated that you do, independently.

And this goes for virtually all students at America’s Institutions of Higher Leftist Indoctrination, especially those on mommy and daddy’s dime, scholarships, grants, and loans. Just look at the brewing disaster out there, now.

So, as to this: ‘We will be the last mass shooting’: Florida students want to be tipping point in gun debate, sit down and shut the fuck up. You aren’t qualified, and I don’t give a flying fuck or a runny shit about what a single one of you “thinks” about anything.

…I saw this piece, below, on Facebook this morning, written by my good friend and brother-from-a-different-mother, Gregg Wolf. It deals with the other element of my qualification vis-a-vis anthropomorphism, the activist political left. I’m quoting it in its entirety, denoted by italics—along with a little in-line image and added emphasis fun of my own. I’ll have some additional thoughts right after.

Every element of the left’s argument is either a falsehood, out of context, or meaningless inflammatory rhetoric.

In the 70’s approx 19 states had conceal carry laws and gun ownership was something like 50 million guns nationwide.

The death rate was almost 10 per 100,000, and as current as the late 90’s it was around 9.

Since then, over 35 states have conceal carry laws, and the number of guns owned by citizens is over 300 million.

Murder rate? Including those involving a gun? Down almost 50% to approx 5.4 per 100,000.

Where is it highest? In cities with the strictest gun control. So in the rest of the country, where the most guns are, it is as low as any European country.

Gun crime and the murder rate has gone down by 50% as the number of guns in the country has skyrocketed.

So it is not the guns. Clearly. Nor does “common sense gun control” lower gun crime or more importantly, murder.

As stated above, we already have gun control in America. We have registration, liscensing, background checks, all kinds of controls, in every state.

To claim we need it is absurd.

All that is left to demand, is to ban and confiscate all guns.

Many people actually want this, though they claim to be for “common sense gun control”, which we already have, but I digress.

Here would be a good place to mention something that renders all of this moot.

The Second Amendment. Duh!

You cannot ban guns in America, anymore than you can ban free speech, or freedom of religion, nor should you want to, for the same reasons.

Another thing, how many crimes are averted, and innocent lives protected by citizens using guns in America? Low estimates are around 50,000, others are as high as over a million, a year. Who knows, but is assuredly higher than the few hundred killed by rifles, which includes all of the “mass shootings” combined.

So why do those innocent people have to suffer, which they would if we banned guns, at the hands of criminals? Where is the compassion for them?

But none of that matters either, why?

The Second Amendment

Then there is the “but Australia” or “only in America does this happen” claims.

To begin with, Australia had virtually no mass shootings before their gun ban, so having none after is not that necessarily meaningful, and their murder rate is now equal to or higher than it was before the ban. So net effect? Zero.

Australia is also tiny, with only 23 million people, it would barely be a state here. Most European countries are tiny as well, as some are smaller than American cities, let alone counties. When we aggregate the countries of the EU, the differences in murder rate become much smaller.

Only happens In America right?

Norway mass shootings anyone?

Charlie Hebdo?

Paris shootings at the concert?

Guy in a van kills 89 in Nice?

That last one is a higher death toll than any mass shooting ever in America, including Mandalay Bay.

What about the mass stabbings in elementary schools in China over the last few years, or on mass transit?

So yes, mass killings happen everywhere.

Something else that is always ignored, is that approx 1/2 of America’s murder rate comes from a few cities. Ethnic urban gang warfare and the drug trade account for almost all of that. The European countries trotted out as evidence, do not have these demographics.

Besides – The Second Amendment.

Now what else is involved in everyone of Americas’ mass shootings for the last 30 years, especially since Columbine?

Anti-depressant drugs, depression, and mental illness. Hmmm.

So how about we stop pumping SSRI’s into children?

Also since many Universities have their own police force, why not have school districts do the same, or use local police? Too expensive?

Maybe we could stop paying superintendents and excess administrators $200-400K a year and use that money to pay for it?

Why is this so controversial? I mean why do you think these shootings do not happen at the private schools of the wealthy and powerful? Because they have armed guards maybe? ?

Lastly, if you think prohibition laws like gun control prevent crime, and thus will save childrens lives, then I guess you believe your kids cannot get illegal drugs either, in which case this rant was for nothing.

…Back to me. Of course, the above is a total loss and waste on all children, the left in general, and leftist political activists in particular. In the first two cases, you’re generally dealing with feelings, emotions, and dependency in various forms—from dependency on parents to dependency on meaningless government jobs, entitlement programs, victim politics, etc.—to Democrat Party exploitation of the former via its cartel of thieves, frauds, and conmen.


A couple of other thoughts. First, the mere term Gun-Free Zone is absurd on its face (as is the fucktarded federal act of 1990, introduced by Fucktard Biden and signed by Fucktard Bush I—and equally stupid). Generally, it’s an inversion of human cognition. That is, the human mind is an organ that senses or perceives reality and then integrates those percepts into a hierarchy of concepts that attempts to know something about reality, such that testing can commence, so that corrections can be made. I call this the process of being a little less wrong every day.

Coming up with a meaningless phrase like gun-free zone—meaning the reality to some, public policy to others, and hopes and desires to still others—is really an attempt to abuse human cognition by fallaciously “creating reality” with words.

Racist? I don’t give a fuck. It’s accurate.

The other thing is the laughable arbitrariness of the thing. One. Thousand. Feet. …As though this gives rise to yet another mind-created reality: that humans with guns can’t walk a thousand feet. It’s just more of the stupid political legislative imperative of both the left and the right: fake reality by passing a new law.

Look, if everyone is going to be stupid by creating laws with an arbitrary number of feet denoting legal from illegal, then how about do something that makes slightly more sense, since, and I sincerely believe, the viciously evil left actually loves mass shootings in “gun-free” zones so much that they resist any attempt to install armed, qualified personnel in schools as deterrent and protection. Scrap the original “Gun-Free” Zone Act—completely fucktarded since 1990—and enact something like the Guns-Close Act of 2018.

It would have two stipulations:

  1. The closest police or sheriff station to any and all schools in America will relocate their station to within 100 feet of such schools within 30 days of the passage of this act to temporary quarters until permanent stations can be built.
  2. All new schools shall be built within 100 feet of an existing police or sheriff station.

To conclude, I’ve posted this remarkable 6.5 minute video a number of times before. Time to post it again. It’s inapplicable to children, leftists, and Democrats in general for all the reasons already mentioned. They just don’t have the capacity of adult humans with the brain tooling to survive on their own, even to the point of changing or molding their environment. It’s also inapplicable to professional leftist political activist and leftist politicians. They’ll either ignore it, misquote it, equivocate about it, or plain lie about it, because the former collection of leftists constitute their core constituency.

It’s just dumb all the way down.

Curious about Bitcoin and the cryptocurrency phenomenon, or not, but just want to support all of my work on all channels? Then check out my Patreon Profile.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More


  1. MB on February 20, 2018 at 13:12

    So. You are perhaps opening up to the notion that cafe au lait is not the preferred way of the world.

    A few years ago you said a coffee colored world was inevitable, and good. Marriage to a Latina no doubt influenced your thoughts.

    Can people maintain what they did not design, develop, and build? Can America remain, if populated by people who neither designed, nor developed, nor built it? What will come along to improve upon our current standard of living?

    • Richard Nikoley on February 22, 2018 at 09:01

      Hey MB.

      First, thanks for paying attention and taking me to task on past writings. I love that. It’s the highest form of respect in this sort of blogging gig. Nice.

      So, without going back over my (often hyperbolic) writings, nor you quoting them, let me say that I do think light brown is likely inevitable. It’s not good or bad, just the natural homogenization in a modern context, which, incidentally, allows for the freedom to fuck (and make babies) with what’s the most visceral to you and not what’s prescribed by a state, church, or cultural authority.

      So, “better” or “preferred” is the wrong question, since if free, it happens anyway.

      To be more precise about it, there are three categories of antagonism, from most primitive to most enlightened: tribalism, racism, and culturism.

      Culturism is the most enlightened and is the first antagonism where it begins to differentiate from tribes and race. I wrote about it here, way back in 2005:

      The Yin for that Yang is that I have my own visceral desires. I do not care for white women, never have since like 13, I absolutely hate big floppy sow tits, and etc.

      My visceral wheelhouse is a light brown skin Asian or Latina with perky tits (I call them rocket tits) and the sort of small hard butt I want surgically attached to my face. 🙂

      But that’s just me. The point is, the race is completely irrelevant in terms of “must.” What I know is that I’m not particularly attracted to whites or blacks (with exceptions both ways, of course). On the other hand, culture becomes an issue because I’m solidly of the American culture created by white folk.

      So, in the case of my wife, the antagonism is not over her lovely, well maintained bod. It is more that her cultural values have come to a point and I do not share them.

      There could be a lot more to say, but that’s enough for now.

  2. MC on February 21, 2018 at 18:51

    Gregg’s thoughts on gun control come very close to mirroring my own, but I think he’s off on this:

    “When we aggregate the countries of the EU, the differences in murder rate become much smaller.”

    EU average came in at about 1 per 100,000 in 2015, compared to the US’s 4.89 in the same year:

    • cremes on February 22, 2018 at 15:45

      Try stripping out Chicago, Baltimore, Miami, and a handful of other cities, then compare again. We’re at about 1.0 too. Hell, just strip out *Cook County* from Illinois and the nationwide rate will drop measurably.

    • MC on February 22, 2018 at 17:43


      Nah. Take out the top 7 cities by homicide rate and the US still comes in at 4.4 per 100,000. This guy does the math here:

  3. EDR on February 28, 2018 at 16:00

    Great post. I have to avoid talking about guns in some of my social circles…I shocked some people close to me a while ago when I was asked if I owned guns or had a concealed permit. I announced that I was proudly guilty on both accounts. I think an atomic fart would have gone off better based on some of the looks I received.

    I tried to explain that most gun owners are responsible people and that most of the students at my recent firearms training class were elderly women who only wanted to protect themselves should the need arise. I remember one who shared that she lived in the country and after some asshole tried to break into her house she realized she needed a backup plan so she could be around to see her Grandchildren grow up.

    She was a polite and kind lady. These are the folks that the anti-gun crows seems to ignore.

  4. Tim J Penner on March 6, 2018 at 15:08

    Hi Richard. Your latest FarceBook ban seems to have brought you back to being yourself.

    I think its all about the “Patriarchy.”
    Men who are white like guns. Laughtists hate guns and white men. Gun confiscation.
    Men who are white built our industries. Laughtists hate white men and STEM. Carbon tax.
    White men love pretty girls. Laughtists are ugly. #metoo and rape fantasy culture.
    White men get off-color jokes. Laughtists have no sense of humour. Triggered.

    White men are hated by laughtists just for being, therefore they need to transform till the laughtists are no longer relevant to white men. All the other men need to do the same. Many are.

Leave a Comment

Follow by Email8k