Why Does the Right Embrace Ignorance as a Virtue?

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555
Most rational post in this whole thread. Thank you! The only chance this country has is if we all drop the right vs. left B.S..
It does my heart good to see many finally waking up.
For those of you that don't see that this petty infighting is EXACTLY what they want, keep searching, the truth is out there.

Peace




posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 12:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: FyreByrd

This method of controlling the masses is not by any means new or even creative. We the People are not that hard to control as long as we keep at each others throats and fail to see that the Right / Left argument is a tool to control us.



How does this tool control us? Perhaps by keeping us arguing? I can see that.

When I look at the Right/left spectrum, I don't expect to inhabit a single degree of that spectrum. It changes over time and with each decision.

I look at it rather classically - Right - Conservation are those that want to conserve what is - maintain the status quo. In that sense both major political parties are Conservative currently. It's a habit of mind and a conditioned view of the world.

Liberals - I would prefer to call them Socialists as classical liberalism is what we see today - the left is the end of the spectrum that wants to try new things that's why it's often called a progressive viewpoint. In that sense many libertarians are quite progressive in their outlook and thinking.

Both kind of thinking and acting are necessary for survival.

I think calling the universal and timeless 'battle', if you will, between the two types of thinking a tool of control or non extant is a cop out. It's not only intellectually lazy but it serves those very forces that you are saying are using the Right/Left dichotomy as a tool. A clear awareness and understanding of your own thinking against the spectrum of these two streams of thought are helpful in decerning the reasoning of others and of making your own points clearly.

I know this is not a common understanding - though I learned it from my parents and a few others throughout life.

I think that resistance to change (conservation) is our first mode of thinking and that willingness and acceptance of change comes to us later in life.

Thank all being said, I think we are at the very cusp of a new triune thinking (yes, no and maybe -- either, or, both). That beginning does make everything more difficult because some are ready (sometimes) and others aren't and it will take a millenium to become the norm.

Ontogeny is the recipitulation of phylogeny; therefore, one must master dualistic think before moving onto triune thinking.



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 01:37 AM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

I honestly believe that the two Parties are themselves a deception to keep our eyes off the ball so to speak.

By keeping us arguing amongst ourselves and our minds married to the ideologies of each Party, they do two things in my opinion; keep us from paying attention to them and what they are or are not doing and keeping us from bringing our ideas together to find compromise for the benefit of us all.

I think it is very carefully orchestrated and so well choreographed that what is truly going on is missed by even the most intelligent among us. I do not think they meet each other and plan, it is just something most of the politicians understand coming through the gate and they do not need to plan together.

I do not see it a grand conspiracy, but instead it is the same thing as you would see in company politics by those with a lust for wealth and power.

Look at how the election process has been carefully manipulated to stop anyone not in lockstep with one of the two Parties from even getting on the ballot most of the time.

The way we each define the members of the “other” Party is taught to us. They have turned it into a sporting event where the crazed fans are so eager for their team to win; all common sense leaves the building.

There are huge flaws with both Platforms, some of which I believe are included precisely to keep us at each other throats, Abortion for instance.

There is no possible way that a person who thinks a fetus is a distinct person, that has the same right to life as a newborn, is ever going to compromise with someone who sees the same fetus as just a mass of cells. That issue should not even be a political issue and should be a matter of each person’s own conscience, but as long as they can keep it in Party Platforms and encourage the hate from both sides, it is a way to control us and keep us from coming together.

They define the boundaries of our cages by enticing us into political parties and then we are easy to control. They prey on our weaknesses to control us. The drugs they use are so addictive that even those who are Independents end up aligning with the two choices or chose not vote at all. By limiting choices, they again control us.

Those who are corrupt enough and hungry enough to climb to the top in politics, are themselves conditioned by the time they get there. They need not even speak about it to each other by that time. They have gone past the point where whether or not it is even moral has long since left their minds.

Hate is trumped only by love in its power to control. Hate takes so many forms the tools to control us are endless. Race, religion, what we eat, how we look, do we smoke and............................................

Every election they pull out their weapons, clean them all nice and shiny, oil them up, add a few new parts and the game for control of us proceeds.


edit on 6/15/2014 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

When it comes to Party Politics I don’t disagree with you.

To quote Frank Zappa “Politics is the entertainment branch of the Military-Industrial complex.”

www.goodreads.com...

But I was never talking about Democrat/Republican, I was talking about (and the initial article I referenced was talking about was about Left (socialist) vs Right (facist). Or you could define it Liberatarian vs Authoritarian and you would actually be more accuate in this context but both are valid scales and together make up the “Political Compass”.

I’m really talking about an even narrower scope – a personal one. The Scope where the Right – Left divide actually operates in our personal lives in each and every decision we make – throught out or not.

This is were the Left being progressive (only in the sense of ‘seeking chage’ regardless of motive) and the Right (avoiding change regardless of motive) coes into play and is often called the conservative/liberal spectrum.

When it comes to the two major political parties in the US. Both are extremely conservative with only small caucuses in each of progressive. Progressive in the republican party would include the libertarian faction, progressives in the democratic would be the more traditional social democrats.

I believe this “newspeak” is a large part of the difficulty we are having in this discussion specifically and public discourse in general. And, whether or not, designed and consciously implemented, is a product of the dismantling of quality non-sectarian education for all (and in my opinion, it benefits those who profit from chaos and disharmony).

And who benefits from chaos – Corporations and the monied elite that reap the profits of the same.

But the point is, and I return to the idea that this is meaningless and pointless discussion. That “buying into” the left/right argument…..

The point is I can observe myself in light of my conservative ideas and decisions and my progressive ones and see where balance of the two is most helpful to me as in individual. That is where I start balancing the two poles in my own thought life. Only then can I understand how I may act to bring the public sphere back to moderation. I didn’t say that well.

Let me try this, on a macro level, on a political level. The two parties have become more extreme in their stands (platforms???) over the last thirty to forty years. At the beginning of that period (a period most of us would see as a silver if not golden period in US history for most people) most member of congress where considered to hold moderate (at least publically) views now the two parties don’t over lap at all. This macro example reflects the collective micro sphere that each of us participate in.

Here’s a link to a Pew Research study that looks at the micro effects:

www.people-press.org...

And a graph that shows the macro:




posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd


But I was never talking about Democrat/Republican, I was talking about (and the initial article I referenced was talking about was about Left (socialist) vs Right (facist). Or you could define it Liberatarian vs Authoritarian and you would actually be more accuate in this context but both are valid scales and together make up the “Political Compass”.


I disagree with your (or the article's) compass "categories".

Fascism is Left Wing. Anything Authoritarian and/or Totalitarian is Left Wing.

The American Republican Party nationally, is Semi-Left Wing as a whole group. Only some localities have some Conservative Republicans.

There's a lot of infighting going on within the entire Left Wing.

It's all about how to control and who to control.

Freedoms are getting scarce.





posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Because ignorance is the only way you can be right wing if not rich. Either that or you're a masochist.

So of course you're going to try to appeal to ignorant, prejudiced, maybe even obtuse people. And trying to appeal to these people you will need them to elect your puppets from among their midst.

Ignorant people are unlikely to vote for someone who makes them feel awkward about their ignorance.

Ignorant, small minded people fear and resent those smarter than them.



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

From Oxford (but you seem to know better)


fascism
Syllabification: fas·cism
Pronunciation: /ˈfaSHˌizəm /
(also Fascism)
NOUN

1An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Here is a bit more from Oxford:



The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43), and the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach

edit on 15-6-2014 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-6-2014 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Yes even respected Universities can be wrong.

They have no problem going along with the Progressive propaganda agenda that Is widespread and very dangerous indeed.

Fascism can't start or survive without big government Authoritarian rules. Therefore, it's ultra Left Wing.

Keep in mind that every government in history has failed.




posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: FyreByrd
Yes even respected Universities can be wrong.


Luckily, not so amateur right wing revisionist historians/armchair sociologists/political scientists.

Are you an Edward Griffin fan by any chance?
edit on C0635f30America/ChicagoSunday by Chiftel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Hey well at least the religious have an excuse to being ignorant, what is the excuse for the rest of you?



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   

a reply to: Chiftel


Are you an Edward Griffin fan by any chance?


Perhaps in the context of the worldwide central banking system.

Very "Collective" isn't it.

People fall out of the ultra-Progressive malarkey tree and hit every branch on the way down.

It seems the more "educated" they are, the farther and harder they fall.

Not my cup of "Tea". Sorry.




posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 03:25 AM
link   
Capitalism requires a banking system. As well as a perpetually growing money supply.

You don't realize it but you're actually asking for capitalism's demise when you demand a fixed money supply. But hey, that's fine by me.

No, the central banking system isn't collective at all. If it were, it would only issue money directly to human beings. All citizens of the nation, equally.

And the banks would only receive new cash for reserves for their fractional reserve monetary expansion mechanism from what the people deposited of the money they received they received from the central bank.

And when banks became insolvent the people would be bailed out. Not banks or businesses.

And so on.

I asked you if you were and Ed Griff fan because he is the sly and erudite type of right wing propagandist who invented the ruse of attempting to conflate or equate fascism with socialism in the mind of your audience on the grounds they're both somehow 'collectivist', whatever that means to you people on the right.

Just like other right wing propagandists attempt to claim the left-right paradigm doesn't exist and so and so forth.

So you think the left really is no different from the right and, hence, just as bad.

Which is patently false, in so long as there is a real left, not a left in name only like your democrats
.
edit on C0326f30America/ChicagoMonday by Chiftel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   
You mean like Al Gore and his global warming theory?

Sal


a reply to: FyreByrd



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Chiftel


Capitalism requires a banking system. As well as a perpetually growing money supply.


So does Marx's Communism.

It's part of those oh-so juicy 10 Planks.

You know. This one.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Please, let's stop using the word homophobe. Break it down into it's parts and consider what it means.

Homo the prefix means same. When you add it to sexual, it makes sense - same sex. When you try to make up something cute by merely adding the suffix phobe which means irrational fear. You get irrational fear of same which means nothing related specifically to what you think it means ... unless you take homo as the slur.

So, when you use homophobe, it only really works because the meaning is built on the slur in everyone's mind.

So, I guess I do have an irrational fear of the slur. If you use it in today's society, your whole world can be destroyed by the Gay Mafia.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Some of those welfare folks are gonna love plank 8.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

I love how they jump around or just ignore the difficult questions.

Climate change is a good one where the issue is dodged, misdirected, and all kinds of unreasonable claims and criticism of valid scientific research is thrown out there.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I rather think that social conventions dictate how words are used, and people use the word in order to describe a person who fears and hates homosexuals. How you chose to use the word is your own affair of course, but it might be wise to accept the method and manner of communication which is in common use, since it will improve the quality of useful communication between yourself and others on this subject.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Chiftel


Capitalism requires a banking system. As well as a perpetually growing money supply.


So does Marx's Communism.

It's part of those oh-so juicy 10 Planks.

You know. This one.


Oh, you like those? I wouldn't have expected it of you.

The first and the third are my own personal favourites. However, I'd abolish money rather than implement a heavy graduated income tax. That's more of stop-gap measure, in my view.





new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join