Philosophy

Philosophy

Here's a thought from the book by Robert Ringer: There are leftist politicians that have been Winning Through Intimidation for years. Ringer wrote this in the introduction to his first book by that name. Ringer didn't mean intimidation in the same way that it might be commonly understood. When asked why, he replied "ala Ayn Rand", "for the reasons that make you afraid of it." Somehow, the idea that it is naughty to disagree has to go. There is nothing to fear from disagreements.

There's a lot of fear being generated out there, and it is for a reason. That reason is for political control. Winning Through Intimidation in politics could mean the "otherization" of people who disagree with the controllers. That is hardly compatible with an open and free society. Intimidation should not to be used that way. In the USA, it is against the law to silence dissent--- "Congress shall make no law" in the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

But there is a philosophical underpinning that provides the basis for intimidation. You can otherize someone if you were to call any disagreement as "extreme". Attach that to "right wing", and the label "fascist" pops up. The philosophy of Hegel figures prominently in Marxist thought. Hegel may have invented the concept of the dialectic, which Marxists use extensively in their political ideology. This is where the term "right-center-left" comes from. It is a dialectic. The dialectic can be abused thusly, and the entire point is to intimidate the opposition into silence.

It is so often used and abused in political discussion. Any time someone disagrees with a "leftie", they are somehow transformed into a fascist---the latest incarnation of Hitler and so forth. The left seem to want no dissent at all, instead of honoring honest disagreements, and a willingness to debate the pros and cons of the issues of the day. It is easy to "win" elections if there's no real debate. The "choice" could be between "dumb and dumber".

So in the USA, there's two political parties. However, it has become common to see that these two parties don't really disagree as much as the hype says that they do. Any deviation from the "norm" becomes "extreme". If there is no way to change anything, it is because it seems TOO SCARY to change anything. If the government is obviously doing a terrible job, the ones responsible seek to avoid responsibility and accountability through the use of this labelling. Therefore, if anyone challenges Brandon, they are "fascist" and "extreme". If nobody can challenge Brandon then, what is the point of elections? Do the lefties think they are divinely appointed to hold the reins of power forever?

Somehow, the GOP has to grow a spine and actually become an opposition party. The sure way to a one party dictatorship is to do exactly what Adolf Hitler DID DO. Hitler banned all other parties besides the Nazi party. If the Democrats really meant what they say they mean by "democracy", then why would they want to emulate Hitler? Instead, they should honor our Constitution, which is the law--and our Democratic tradition to boot. A loyal opposition should be honored, not sent to prisons.

The GOP should not be ashamed, nor INTIMIDATED out of offering a real alternative to the political left. If they are TOO INTIMIDATED, they cannot be leaders, nor should they be. If the political left succeeds in their attempts to WIN THROUGH INTIMIDATION, the GOP has nobody to blame but themselves if they allow it. If the left succeeds in producing the "monolithic" quality that the Soviet leader "Comrade" Khrushev referred to in his book, then we all lose something that may be impossible to regain. After all, the controllers could say that we "chose" it.

There is a philosophy to freedom. There is also a philosophy to tyranny. You ought to make yourself aware of that before you make a choice that cannot be undone.