Some Thoughts on What WE Are Doing to Ourselves
Published on March 18, 2004 By Wahkonta Anathema In Politics
Some thoughts on the two party system.

At this site we see a great deal of political debate of this party or that, this vote on an issue or that, the ‘liberal’ and the ‘conservative’ etc. I have been engaging in tit-for-tat debates for long enough to see I am becoming immersed in it too much. Because I am a third party advocate, and because there is precious little time devoted to the concept, I want to put forth my perception of the way things are and can be.



Let me give you an example of the difference between a 'liberal' and a 'conservative' that cuts another way than what we think of usually, and influences how we become on or the other.. Oliver North was willing to take the position of his Secretary, and say of his criminal behavior in the Iran-Contra affair, "Sometimes one has to act above the law." He then proceeded to plead NOT guilty as charged, for those same actions he claimed to champion on moral grounds. Martin Luther King, Jr. also acted 'above the law' in his public and open criminal behavior in the sixties. Yet placed in the same position, he INSISTED on being tried and found guilty of the crime.

When the law is unjust, should one act to oppose it? Should one act to escape accountability for the violation of it? One in this example was a liberal, the other a conservative. King, Jr. acted from a strong sense of right and desire to create change. North sought to preserve the law he saw as unjust by going along to get along.


Had Oliver North sought to stand by what he said, I would have respected him. His choice of not standing for his own first principles was a betrayal of his own self. If he will not stand for his beliefs then why should I? It is these type of experiences with the two type of people that contribute to the forming of a person's bias for one type of Citizen or another. This type of principle is different from what is being foisted in our politics of today though.


Liberals do tend to be the more activist for change of the systems of society, true. The conservative tends to seek to maintain the status quo and so oppose change. In many instances I side with conservatives and think the change offered is worse than the status quo, given the 'agendas' of those who drive the liberal political engine. Sadly, I usually support a solution that would be more liberal, better for both parties but am never allowed to offer it, because the ‘system’ is designed to lock out any other point of view. Let me explain:


One problem of this type of paradigm is in the polaric nature of it. To think in terms of for or against, neglects to address the process whereby the resolution of debate is decided. This is used against all Citizens by the 'Hegellian Dialectic' others have spoken of here. Using this system of the Hegellian Dialectic, the powers that be can manipulate the Citizenry into abject and total servitude by co-opting the system of resolution. It works by using a simple system of thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis.


If a group sets things up properly, using a Hegellian dialect, they can decide amongst themselves the objective they wish to attain and use the People. They introduce a thesis, then use a 'divide and conquer' tactic on them using polaric thinking. This is the creation of the good guy and the bad guy. It's the white against the black, the rich against the poor, the Republican against the Democrat. So long as the People are given no third option - which erases their power and control - the system of manipulation works.

In an example of the use of it, we all know how ‘haggling’ is done, and it illustrates it well. We see a car we like, and the owner tells us he wants X amount for it. Knowing he can better sell the vehicle with an aid, he inflates the value to be able to ‘give’ us a deal on it. We don’t want to pay the amount asked as it is clearly too high, and we can get that price anywhere. So we say we’ll pay 30% less. He responds by saying that would be too little and so offers to knock it down 10%. We are now tempted and so offer to pay 20% less. This is the amount he wanted and we think we have made a deal for ourselves and so the handshake seals the deal.


To me this has always been a archaic and nonsensical way to do things. I tend to be like a ‘Vulcan’ and know what I am prepared to pay up front, and can’t be fooled or ‘sold’( I was a salesman myself for a while and quite good at it). I have no use for a sale and advise people who are running off to one, “Recall that in American business EVERYTHING is for sale and so this is not a special thing at all.” Marking up a price to lower it, satisfies the psyche of the more primitive mind, to my view. Like Ross Perot in corporate negotiations, I would just as soon sit at the table let the guy offer his ‘deal’ and then say, “Great now let’s turn the table and you take my deal I’ll take yours. If it’s fair for you, it’s fair for me.” Still, most people like the satisfaction of feeling they got the best deal by getting over on the other guy.

Now if the two people discussed the car sale at a true and actual price, they’d be able to avoid the nonsensical moves and tactics to get to where they end up anyway. But there is more to the tactic than we see when applied to political money. Let’s take an example of two car salesmen in the U.S. House of Representatives now.

They agree how much money they wish to take from the Citizenry. Say they want to take 80 million from the People for their friends and to get some of it for their re-election. They then use the Hegellian dialectic technique by manipulating the Citizenry to taking sides. One says, "I want to take 100 million dollars from the people to give to my college owning friends." This is an outrageous amount to anyone who knows how much college returns on investment anymore. So the second one says, “Hey that’s way too much and I won’t let you take that much from the People. I won’t vote to give you more than 60 million.” They then ask and argue, “Let’s ask the People what they want to give.” Of course the Citizens want to give as little as needed to get by and tend to side with the 60 million amount. The other politician then says, “Okay, you win. I’ll cut it back to 80 million.” What is the choice? It’s either 100 million or 80 million, right? So the one says “Okay, you win. I’ll just give my friends 80 million of your money.”


Well if that isn’t enough to pull off the scam, they have another trick to use on the People. One says, “I’ll give it to the specific college that I choose.” The other says, “Hey, no way man. You have to let the people use the money for their education as THEY choose.” The People say, “Yeah! It’s our money and we should be able to CHOOSE who to give it to.” They say, “Okay. Here is a check for your education. Now go give it to the college we made eligible to get your money. They place the check in the Citizen’s hand and the Citizen, who just won the right to only give up 80 million instead of 100 million, now has the right to give it to the college owner in check form his/her self.

Wallah. The two politicians have gotten the Citizens to give theme the 80 million they agreed to take What’s more, they then made the People take it and hand it to the friend. The college owning friend will give them a cut for their re-election to help him in the future and the deed is done with the Citizens happy to be robbed. Next time, they will switch roles of good guy/ bad guy and the People will once again do as they already decided they would, through use of this manipulation and all is fine for all.

It works so long as the People do not control the ‘system’ of how the decision is made. As long as the People can only choose what the politicians say they can, the People will always be dupes for the two politicians. Do you see what I’m getting at?

Our views of ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’, of rich /poor, white/black, old/young, are all based on a dialectic having only the solution the definers of the issue, crisis, and need, decide for us. This is second grade stuff they are pulling on all of us, my fellow Citizens. Whether you are one or the other, YOU are allowing others to define your whole way of life by trapping you in a polaric paradigm of only ONE choice. It is one dimensional thinking in a two dimensional world. We live in three folks.

We are divided - and so conquered. In this election it is ridiculous how clear the two are friends. Tell me the difference between frat brother A, who won’t discuss his relationship with frat brother B, because he is sworn to not betray that trust between the two, and frat brother B who won’t do it either. They are frat brothers who are friends for life. They are not enemies, but good friends who are tricking you with a Hegellian dialectic. It’s right in front of you, the best place to hide a secret, or a conspiracy. There is a saying in poker, “If you sit down at a poker table and don't know who the patsy is by the third hand, you’re it.” How many hands are you going to play?

All the nonsense about Democrat or Republican is a front of two lying, scam artists who both have rigged it to win no matter which one you vote for. In most elections we can find SOME issue to define a difference between the two parties. Now this is outright silly. There is NO difference between Bush and Kerry.

I can’t get everyone up to speed on the goings on around us. Many I’ve read here are able to see how this Nation is being ill-used by both the Republicrats and the Republicrats - and for ends other than our own. Some are still in this trap and blind to what is going on though. We have to be patient with them and try to peaceably show them the error of their ways, not get into arguments of polarity. We should do it for our own benefit. As we liberate our fellow Americans from the Hegellian dialectic paradigm, we gain in our own ability to eventually get control of the ‘system’ that decides what our choices are.

I once saw a short clip taken from a Vonnegut, Jr. story in which a man walked into a courtyard and saw a circle of a variety of people walking around in a circle as Hitler looked down on them. As he watched, Hitler said, “DISAPPEAR!” and the people did. Hitler then smiled at this and after a time said, “APPEAR!”, Whereupon they reappeared and started circling for him again. Hitler repeated this several times until he grew bored with them and said, “DISAPPEAR!” and did not bring them back. He then saw the man who was observing this and turned to him and yelled, “DISAPPEAR!” The man flinched and bent over as if in pain, but did not do so. Hitler then yelled it again in anger. The man again flinched but would not do so. Hitler began stomping up and down and screaming at him, “DISAPPEAR, DISAPPEAR, DISAPPEAR!!!” Finally, when Hitler became exhausted by this, the man stood up and pointed at Hitler and said calmly, “Disappear” and poof Hitler was gone.

You see Hitler had only the power the People gave to him by their own minds. Their fears were what made them his servants of evil. If they had just changed their mind, it would have ‘fundamentally’ changed them as a people, and Hitler could not have had any form of power over them.

I’m not saying the politicians of America today are Hitlers, and know some lesser minds will seize on this parable and tell you it is my whole point, to try to keep some trapped in the paradigm that limits them and you. I am saying this:

“Fundamental change has nothing to do with a political party or ‘your’ Candidate winning or losing an election. Fundamental change, for purposes of your life, is as simple as changing YOUR mind.”

Once you’ve changed that, there is no power over you or your decisions anymore. Behold all things will become new and you will live in a different world because you live in a different mind. We all live in our mind, and all life is the attempt to manifest that reality. Change your mind and change your life, friend.


Comments
on Mar 18, 2004
This is a very interesting explanation of events, but how do you propose we get out of it? Just thinking differenty?
on Mar 19, 2004
Excellent article! I vote independent and so many times stand there thinking how can these be my choices. I love the clip from Vonnegut Jr. and your ending paragraph!!
on Mar 19, 2004
I thank you both for the replies. I had put up a extensive reply to Sherye's question and then went to edit as I mis-spelled Ayn Rand and was in a hurry to post and get off line for a bit. When I corrected it and went to delete the other post, it stole both of them and so I am at a loss to re-write the whole thing now. Hope to respond more copmpletely soon, as it is a relevant wuestion and deserves a reply.
on Mar 21, 2004
Good stuff!
on Mar 21, 2004
Thank you Corio.
To answer Sherye, yes, thinking differently is the key.
Nathaniel Brandon once said, "Individuation and separation mark the birth of the human being." Sadly, most humans will exist an entire lifetime and never be born in this sense. Recall Rousseau saying, "Men are born free yet everywhere I see them in chains." Also, "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." This is true and it is because they lack the courqge to stand alone with thier own judgement that this is so.

A great example of the individual was shown by Ayn Rand at the end of her life. She made a rare public appearance in the 1980's on the Phil Donohue Show at the Felt Forum in Chicago. Her philosophy was the great work in the field of the 20th century. She had come to America shortly after the Russian Revolution and spent her life arguing against 'collectivism' in all its variant 'socialist' forms, on the ground that selfishness was a virtue and selflessness the root of all social evil.

I watched 'live' as she incited the crowd of feminists and liberals with her words. By the end of the hour there were 17,000 people screaming at her to 'shut up'. She laughed and I'll never forget her as the show ended. She was laughing as not one had a refutation of her works and she was a 'majority of one' in the room. I fell in love hopelessly that day watching her and feeling pride, as I was very much into her philosophy - still am, though not totally.

The individual who thinks for his/her self is a majority of one, incapable of being bribed or compromised by any one or group. For me, I tell my kids and friends with pride of my voting record and they know that their friend and father is not part of the problem in this country. It does not matter to me that any 'popular' idea says, 'do this', 'dress this way', 'think this way' I never go along and get along, cannot be compromised or led to betray what I believe is right. It gives rest in a crowd.

"An honest man's pillow is his peace of mind." It does not mean I have never lied or done wrong, but that I have learned to choose right in face of opposition and think for myslef. An example of this is when, once in grade school, I witnessed a substitute teacher and my classmates mocking a poor kid's State report made of crayon and having smears. He was poor and his parents did not help him. I stood and told the teacher to stop, that our reports may be made from good posters with magic markers and our parents helped us, but he had done the best he could, he deserved our respect and to not be mocked for his effort. The teacher was so shocked by my words she was silenced, along with the class. It was a willingness to stand alone and for what I believed was right without regard to consequence that ruled the room, because it was asserted. The wrong, no matter how numerous its' supporters, was exposed and run off.

There is great value to one's standing for right in this day and age, moreso than then as so many are un-willing to stand and say what is right. It can only happen when one 'thinks differently'.

This was once my specialty in discourse and I could go and on about it, but hope this makes my point as to how and why 'thinking differently' is the necessary first step to 'fundamental change'. It must always start within us individually or it exists not at all.
on Mar 21, 2004
I see your point. Scott Peck called this individuation. This happened for me when I was thirty-five. I moved away from my family and away from their view of me and the world. I am now friends with my brother and mother, but they in no way dictate what I believe. I admire someone with your courage. I read in a book about how John Woolman believed that slavery was wrong and went to every Quaker slaveholder in the entire United States and told them of his conviction. The Quakers before the revolutionary war renounced slavery. Those who disagreed left Quakerism. The others got rid of their slaves. One of my ancestors was a Presbyterian who became a Quaker because he no longer believed in owning slaves. He left Carolina and moved to Indiana.
on Mar 25, 2004
This is a really interesting article. I wish I'd seen this earlier as I would have featured it.
on Mar 29, 2004
Why thank you Brad. I am reminded you too have a little 'objectivism' in your works.
Meta
Views
» 507
Comments
» 8
Category
Sponsored Links