9bf7d44b   
   XPost: soc.men, can.politics, uk.politics.misc   
   From: klunk@theothershoo.org   
      
   ROTFLMAO.... 8-D   
      
      
   yew speakum UV hay-tun violenz IN WOIDZUV hay-tun violenz.....   
      
      
      
      
      
   "Moderator"  wrote in message   
   news:b3c464d2-1785-45df-8b6d-6bef34f57f85@n2g2000vba.googlegroups.com...   
   > In terms of political power, there are, and always have been, only two   
   > teams. Marx uses different terminology but we can refer to them using   
   > modern labels of the political left and the political right. We can   
   > start at the very beginning which presents a simplified model and the   
   > root of modern complex power struggles so let’s go back to a time   
   > before large civilizations and after hunting and gathering have   
   > developed into agriculture and the society of the day is a small   
   > settled tribe or village.   
   >   
   > The chief of the village is a representation of the political right.   
   > The right is the dominant political power. The villagers pay homage to   
   > the chief by either payment or worship. Over time, the chief transfers   
   > power to his or her children. Over generations the family’s power   
   > becomes consolidated and insulated. Most if not all attempts at   
   > overthrowing the chief by force are futile. The chief has security   
   > forces and weapons enough to defeat any such attempt.   
   >   
   > Enter, the political left.   
   >   
   > A bright individual devises a scheme to entice the chief into sharing   
   > some power. There is too much power still siding with the chief and as   
   > no coup is possible, the individual goes along for the ride and   
   > receives the benefits of shared power which in no way compares yet to   
   > the chief’s but has raised the individual to a place of prominence.   
   > Unfortunately for the rest of the village, homage is now paid to both   
   > chief and the individual sharing the chief’s power.   
   >   
   > Eventually other bright individuals following the lead of the first   
   > individual devise schemes to entice the chief to share power but still   
   > no coup is possible and homage owed by the villagers continues to   
   > grow. Regardless of growing discontentment among the tribe, overthrow   
   > is still not possible.   
   >   
   > Make sense so far? Ok, let’s adapt the analogy to present day.   
   >   
   > The existing power structure is a combination of right and left. With   
   > our vast political systems it is difficult to tell which is which. To   
   > the people, they are one in the same even though they make clear   
   > distinctions between them often fostered by the left. Despite a   
   > growing decentralization of power by the left, the people can only   
   > accept their plight or devise a scheme to join the power structure.   
   > Whether or not their intentions are to overthrow or to simply join in   
   > is questionable, but the increasing cost being carried by the people   
   > not in power is far less questionable.   
   >   
   > If the left still believes overthrowing the leadership is possible,   
   > they are deceived or naive. As it was in the village, no coup is   
   > possible because no matter how much power is shared with the left, the   
   > right maintains dominance and it is the right that dispenses the power   
   > to the left but never so much that itself is threatened. As more and   
   > more power is shared, the cost to the people increases until finally   
   > there aren’t enough people available or willing to support the power   
   > structure.   
   >   
   > The eventual result of the process may decentralize power, but it can   
   > never overthrow it for reasons already mentioned. Even if everyone has   
   > found a place on the left, the right maintains its domination and   
   > there is no one left to provide homage. The right now claims homage   
   > from the left and we arrive back at the start with essentially the   
   > same model we started with at the village.   
   >   
   > The left’s attempts to bring about a new paradigm end in failure while   
   > the financial burden on the general public increases. In the end,   
   > despite what may or may not be considered good intentions, the left   
   > joins the right and from the perspective of the public, nothing   
   > changes but it does not stop there.   
   >   
   > The left eventually realizes that no overthrow is possible without   
   > violence, as Marx would attest to. So hate and violence is encouraged   
   > by any means possible by inciting and disseminating hate and chaos   
   > among the unsuspecting public and attacking institutions that form the   
   > backbone of the society. From the hard work of their covert war on   
   > culture and race, they now seek a violent and bloody overthrow of the   
   > culture they hate so much. They exploit the general public’s   
   > frustration and the hate the left nurtures so effectively with the   
   > hope that the perceived culture representative of the dominant power   
   > will overthrow itself through violence. It’s simply a strategy of   
   > wanton destruction where an innocent and unsuspecting public are pawns   
   > manipulated to destroy themselves.   
   >   
   > From the perspective a political tactician the strategy of hate and   
   > violence could be viewed as brilliant but from the perspective of the   
   > hapless public it can be considered nothing less than tragic when the   
   > effects on people’s lives and family’s are considered.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)