@FermentedAgave
Ideologies are just “made up”. There is nothing real about an ideology except in the mind of the person following it. Further, ideologies are a means to look outward rather than inward and use thoughts and ideologies to distract from core emotions.
People feel joy, sorrow, fear - those are the reality and they are 100% within the person feeling those emotions. Anything else than 100% acceptance of responsibility and the reality of one’s own core emotions is just so many dramatic soap opera stories. You yourself have an ongoing saga about Liberals that distracts you from recognizing, accepting and working with whatever emotional state you are in. The absolute reality is, it has nothing to do with Liberals.
The victim - oppressor - saint / rescuer dynamic is not “reality”. It’s a shared hallucination. Two or more willing participants chose to ignore their inner reality and instead chose to make another person responsible with varying stories and a dramatic plot line. In the case of Republicans vs Liberals it’s a mass shared hallucination. The base reality shared by all people at both ends of the spectrum are fear and anger. Anger is usually a cover up for fear or sadness. Show me a very angry person and 99/100 times I’ll show you someone who is very afraid or very sad.
Of course this has to be presented more skillfully and after other prepatory psychological or spiritual work with 1% of the population who have experienced actual trauma caused by an outside factor such as by a molester, rapist or rogue police officer, being in the wrong place at the wrong time, etc.
As for “tier” - the victim / oppressor / rescuer shows up in all of the first tier. The reason being is that it usually has its root in fear at the very base crimson survival level that at some point the individual has unconsciously suppressed. These basis crimson survival fears and sadnesses were suppressed during childhood and infancy as a perceived necessity for survival by a personality that had not matured enough to be able to deal with whatever was going on at that time.
Common fears that I have observed many people suppress are:
“I am not worthy of basic needs (food, shelter, love)”
“I am bad”
“I am not safe”
And similar needs at the base survival level. The infant or child felt fear or sorrow when these needs were threatened, but closed it off because the persona was not yet developed enough to deal with it. Over adolescence and adulthood when these are not dealt with, these fears and sorrows grow and fester and are projected outward to another individual or group, and / or people find another person who subconsciously also wants to create a dramatic story line to not address the root supressed issues.
Glad we are in agreement. I think the division comes in how much others can do this for someone, as opposed to creating an environment for the individuals, families, communities to climb their hills on their own.
Perhaps we debate whether it’s possible for someone to rise to a higher sustained level without “doing the work themselves”??
I had not heard of Russell Kirk so either I’m not a “good” Conservative, which I’m most assuredly not, or claim that Russell Kirk is “Father of American Conservatism” is overstated.
Regardless, it does seem he’s born of a different era - specifically post WWII with a seemingly declining level of influence decades prior to his death in 1995.
I would suppose that Kirk likely was a Conservative opposite what we would consider classic Liberalism, as opposed to the Left/Far Left we see today that claims to be Progressive and Liberal.
But again, I’m no expert on Kirk.
This description may or may not be valid in Kirk’s time, but would seem to give you a bit of “ah ha! Here’s where the Republicans went off the rails.” Not a dissimilar argument to as an example back in the day when I was a Liberal Democrat. Democrat’s today aren’t anything like the Democratic party that I was a member of for so many years.
It also seems that Kirk is seen more as an academic philosopher rather than something implemented in the real world.
I did see a couple quote that I’m sure would inflame today’s Leftist’s into “sharpening their knives” for a crack at the “father of American Conservatism”.
I understand that you and Corey want to decompose the ideology from the political party from the social holon. Personally I’m not so hung up on how you decompose but do assume intent is to then run CT on each independently before reconstituting into a “therefor it’s all wrong” counter. That’s ok for an intellectual exercise, but as we’ve seen it’s very easy to “lose the essence in the decomposition” process.
But back to your more specific questions which I am reordering answers based on how I would rank in priority:
Yes, individual rights supersede all others. This would include personal property rights. I would add that exercise of responsible informed agency should be an ideal for all citizens.
Regarding social change, I think we live in the pinnacle society and system that mankind has developed. It’s adaptive and inclusive beyond anything else we’ve seen in history, making it the most Liberal Democratic Republic system we’ve ever seen. Our system has built in adaptability, that’s readily exercisable if perhaps not whimsical to do so. The mechanism to change laws are open and transparent. The mechanisms to even fundamentally amend our governance are clearly defined, transparent, and highly inclusive. Like I’ve said many times here, the process is clearly defined so “just do it” if you want to abolish the Electoral College, pack SCOTUS, infuse Authoritarianism through the government, Federalize everything, etc, etc…
Believe in hierarchy and authority with limited role for the federal government. Believe is an interesting term, but yes I pay my taxes, very judiciously break laws (rolled several stop signs yesterday on the motorcycle). I’m more of the Scandinavian “authority believer”. Convince me that you know what you’re doing and I’ll support. Prove to be winging it or have ulterior motives and I won’t support.
Believe in tradition and custom, maintain status quo or even revert to earlier conditions. I look at “what works and what doesn’t work”. I do honor that which does work - new, current or old. I do respect that which has come before and have studied a fair amount of history, not immersed in political ideology. Yes am skeptical of historically bad ideas that have failed and ideas that have not be tested in reality. The greater the wholesale changes proposed the increasingly pragmatic (or fearful of victimization ) I get. Change the couch pillows and I’m game for anything short of molokov cocktails on the sofa. Propose jack hammering the foundation to look for untold riches of nirvana and I’ll want to see rational justification on benefits, possible impacts, and why it’s not going to destroy our home just like it’s destroyed every other home it’s been tried in. You know all that multi systematic rigor that’s so irritating. Destroying the house and saying "ooopsie, no one could have know " just isn’t good enough.
Honestly, this is normal practice at FOX and in Right wing media.
They have been misquoting and deliberately misrepresenting what people say for three decades.
FOX hosts also deliberately lie to and mislead their audience and even tell them after the fact, as in the 2012 election when the Right wing media led by FOX and Rush Limbaugh deliberately misled audiences to think they had a chance to win in order to get more voters to get out. Then completely admitted to deliberate manipulation rather than admitting they were wrong.
Where’s the issue if it’s common practice?
Are you suggesting an overall reform of all Media including FOX news and hosts such as Hannity (Limbaugh is dead and beyond regulation now)?
Oh, or were you talking about Politicians that lie and manipulate and create falshoods - a common practice on the right?
Great to hear @LaWanna. I was a bit disappointed in your deflection and focus on convincing me I was “playing the victim” by having a large bag of rice in the pantry. Your focus and determination almost came across as gaslighting, or perhaps more Integrally projection into my inner quadrant without actually testing your hypotheses?
Regarding source of Conservative philosophy, I think it’s actually quite simple.
I would consider you to be a Left “Progressive”. My hypothesis is that from the “Progressive” perspective, literally anything that exists in the real world is “conservative” and therefore is in need of “significant change”. Many on the Left also see everything that exists as unfair/rigger at best and soul crushingly oppressive (here’s our Victim-Oppressor paradigm) at worst.
Is the Left steeped in an echo chamber where discussions are only about “faster or radical” change, or is it genuinely ever asked “we know it’s all f’ed up, but f’ed up compared to what?”
The only echo chamber in here is you. You are the only person in here who is completely separated from reality. You have so surrounded yourself with straw men and have made such a poor showing of yourself that even conservatives on this forum have completely abandoned you.
Since even the dullest person on the planet would see that you could probably get more support in another community - my conclusion now is that you are a masochist.
There is a part of you that just loves to have your ideas torn apart rather than reinforced.
I believe you actually like to be intellectually beaten to a bloody pulp.
When I was in High School there was this tiny little guy who would always tease and make fun of the big stupid jock of the school. Inevitably the jock would have enough and beat up the little guy. Once all the guys just got tired of him and left him in the middle of the gymnasium hog tied with his own jock strap.
I imagine he had a keen desire to connect with the jock, but the only tools that he knew were to tease someone into beating him up and giving him the attention he craved.
I think we have a similar situation here where you get negative results from the overwhelming majority yet continue despite it. It can’t possibly be that you think you will “convince” anyone here - because you have done such an extremely poor job of presenting your case time and time again multiplied a hundred times.
All I can conclude is that you are an emotional masochist.
Attacking a person’s character or motivations rather than a position or argument.
Appealing to the emotions rather than to logic or reason.
Of or relating to ad hominem.
appealing to personal considerations (rather than to fact or reason)
noun
To the man; to the interests or passions of the person.
A fallaciousobjection to an argument or factualclaim by appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim; an attempt to argue against an opponent’s idea by discrediting the opponent himself.
Well, yes.
You refuse to engage on subjects and and you yourself drag all debates back to ad hominem - so yeah - it’s no longer about the topics and pretty much all about you.
So get the fuck out of here with that bullshit.
You want the topic to be about the topic - then stay on the topic.
You want to constantly drag every topic off topic and be about individuals - then I’ll make it about you as an individual.
You have no idea how very much this whole thing is - yes - ALL ABOUT YOU.
Back on topic, a couple of interesting tidbits on “Misinformation” groups and organizations.
One excerpt we might want to consider more deeply is:
Consider the fact that Russiagate, a yearslong effort to prove that Donald Trump was being blackmailed and controlled, proved untrue yet was given constant media attention, while the story of Hunter Biden’s laptop and its contents, which proved true, was actively suppressed with the explicit purpose of protecting Joe Biden’s chances of becoming president. We live in a surreal information moment when the lie was given ample airtime and featured prominently in print, while the truth was smothered and labeled disinformation.
And yet our self-appointed misinformation warriors have proven unwilling to engage in self-reflection. Harvard’s Shorenstein Center used the New York Post’s story on Hunter Biden’s laptop computer as the basis for one of its case studies during its recent misinformation sessions.
While I could rouse some pretty good arguments against this statement, I’m going to pass. Instead, I’m going to commemorate this moment by remembering that there is always a choice as to whether to escalate and further any conflict. Whatever you want to believe about me today is fine. I do hope you can also believe that I value our shared humanity, and the commonalities that you and I specifically share, and the “God-Goddess-ness” that is absolutely the same in you as it is in me (to use my own spiritual language/philosophy).
Progressive on some issues, conservative on others.
Some people might say “compared to what it could be.”
Is this really the first Conspiracy charges against ANTIFA? Looks like Andy Ngo might be getting uncancelled a bit and a small ray of light escaping the black hole of mainstream media. Even Project Veritas’ expose on the High School “groomer” gets out a bit.
Prosecutors Make First Move to Break Up Antifa Cell as 11 Activists Charged With Violence
Reps reading into record House Intel Committee Chair’s pre-election imaginary Russiagate whistleblower PR campaign.
Given the imaginary nature of Russiagate, should there be some level of “cleaning up” the madness instigated on the population? At what point does disinformation become a criminal act?
I’m not at war with anyone.
If someone else says “we”, I have to ask them because I probably do not include myself in their “we”.
This isn’t pacifism - just I’m not at war with anyone or any thing.
I’m also curious when people use the word War, because it is usually misused and turns out has the opposite meaning in hindsight. The war on Poverty is code for a war on the poor. The war on drugs is code for a war on drug users. The war on terror is code for a war to create more terror.
) I get. Change the couch pillows and I’m game for anything short of molokov cocktails on the sofa. Propose jack hammering the foundation to look for untold riches of nirvana and I’ll want to see rational justification on benefits, possible impacts, and why it’s not going to destroy our home just like it’s destroyed every other home it’s been tried in. You know all that multi systematic rigor that’s so irritating. Destroying the house and saying "ooopsie, no one could have know " just isn’t good enough.