This one time, at band camp, (a response to annoyance)

Journal Profane MuthaFucka's Journal: This one time, at band camp, (a response to annoyance) 22

Journal by Profane MuthaFucka on Friday June 05, 2009 @02:25PM

OK folks, there's this anonymous coward who keeps strongly and urgently disagreeing with me. Now, he's actually useful here, because he brings up a lot of questions, and highlights a lot of places where he just doesn't understand what I'm trying to communicate here.

So, I'm going to re-post two comments from an exchange, in hopes that his questions are useful to all of you in understanding these examples of political rhetoric that I'm posting.

For context, if you have a bunch of time, you need to read the Wikipedia entry on Wilhelm Reich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Reich and you should read the full text of his book "The Mass Psychology of Fascism" which is available here http://www.whale.to/b/reich.pdf

----------------------------
First, the anonymous coward:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1257825&cid=28224969

Re:Orgone? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 05, @12:27PM (#28224969)

No, not to annoy you. It's to get you out of your political rut, and to understand the biological nature of everything we do and are. Later on I will find your those very same "liberal" morals in quotes from people you won't want to believe. And the motivations behind them are the very same that Obama and the people who voted for him carry. I wonder if you consider love(of yourself, your other, your life, all life) to be a moral value, being uniquely human..because it is notably absent on both columns A and B. Which one of your moral values will serve to tear down the barriers to a gratifying sex life? Which one will make work a pleasurable, gratifying part of our lives, instead of a burden or an "obligation". In fact which one of your values can even put the two into the same sentence? You just won't get it as long as you keep this wall up between you and your natural self. You won't get it as long as you actually believe that society is separate from the individual. To tell you the truth, you're being just as closed minded as Mr. P himself. The sameness of all your politics extends way beyond the republican and democrat. Your words are different, but you both believe you know how to tell people how to live their lives. I'm not sure if either of you understand that the 6,000 years or so of conditioning precludes our ability to live free of state/religious control at this point. The solution is here, but you gotta rip down the barriers you put up.

"Those who know the living function in the animal, in the newborn or in the true
worker, be he a mechanic, a researcher or an artist, cease to think in those terms created by party systems.

"Ignorance of the character structure of the human masses again and again results in sterile explanations." -- getting the hint yet?

So great, Obama can motivate the liberals and Rush can motivate the conservatives. So what? It's just saying, "I'll buy, you fly". Let's see either one draw people from the other side. Try to get a teetotaler to go buy you a bottle of wiskey. Or the pope to get you a hooker. Then I can say you/they know something we don't. Otherwise you're just stimulating feeling the person already has. Which is how politics works. DUH! The "victim" has to have moral beliefs for the politician to have any effect on them. And there's nothing like fear and hate to put that "morality" into a person's soul. They come up behind you, and BOO!. "Wanna prevent that from ever happening again? Buy my spiel(usually anti sex), and I will protect you". You're going through all these mental gyrations without understanding the real mechanics behind it. Too many abstractions(distractions) me thinks.

Orgone? That's what got him locked up, and there he died, not in Germany, but in the good ol' USofA. And the government, that's the American government, literally had his books burned. The whole affair was pretty disgraceful. Just goes to show fascism isn't about politics or nations, it's about normal, natural desires. It's everywhere.

----------------------

And then, my response:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1257825&cid=28225577

Re:Orgone? (Score:1)
by Profane MuthaFucka (574406) on Friday June 05, @01:11PM (#28225577) Homepage Journal

Later on I will find your those very same "liberal" morals in quotes from people you won't want to believe.

If people don't conform to archetypes, then all you will have proven is that people are human. Plus, I've already addressed your statement another way, but you're awfully stubborn it seems.

I wonder if you consider love(of yourself, your other, your life, all life) to be a moral value, being uniquely human..because it is notably absent on both columns A and B.

The category that belongs to is absent, but now that you bring it it I will address it.

The political parties are both notoriously coalitions. It's a simple fact that both the Republicans and the Democrats do not purely represent even a slice of a true political spectrum. But because of the mathematical nature of a "winner takes all" election, people are forced to shoehorn themselves into one of two parties.

One of the factions of the Democratic party is a group of people called environmentalists. They are distinct from other Democrats, like any political distinction, in their moral value heirarchy.

In particular, the moral value of stewardship is turned up very high on the environmentalists' moral value stereo equalizer, relative to other moral values. Stewardship is the value of taking care of the land and all living things that exist. It is a recognition that everything has a place and a natural purpose in an interconnected holistic world.

The other varieties of love come directly or indirectly from the liberal moral value of community, so don't need to be specially treated here.

Which one of your moral values will serve to tear down the barriers to a gratifying sex life?

The moral value of tolerance, which allows people the freedom to disagree with each other, but absolutely not to hinder another person's development. The primary value of community means that a person who contributes to the growth of everyone in the community is a good person. Community in combination with tolerance supports the idea that every person must become the person they were meant to be.

I notice that you haven't asked any questions about specific definitions of words. This is important, and since you haven't asked, you cannot possibly understand.

Community: (sense liberal) - a nurturing environment where every child can realize their full potential and grow up to contribute to the world around them. It follows that the only person who can decide their potential is the person themselves, so a community that a liberal would find good would be a community where people had the freedom to determine their own personhood.

Community: (sense conservative) - an authoritarian environment where everyone has a specific, immutable position where they can physically defend the domain from external threats.

The conservative definition of community derives almost wholly from their metaphor of a family as a physically strong father in authority, with the weaker elements of the family expected to accept his discipline. Discipline in that family model will raise strong children who are able to in turn take their place as a family authority. What you do only depends on your place in the family, not your desires.

Also note that I do not use the terms liberal, conservative, and names of political parties interchangably.

Let's see either one draw people from the other side.

Ah, now you're talking about the wonder of bi-conceptualism. We have a two-party system (I've already given my viewpoint on that) so we have bi-conceptuals to match. This is because physical structures in the brain form and strengthen in response to the two metaphors of the family that are common. The correct rhetoric activates the desired circuits in the brain, and the message is integrated into the narrative.

Getting people from the other side is as simple as using the established neuro-circuitry for your own purpose, while doing your utmost to let the enemy's neural circuitry rot and wither.

You're going through all these mental gyrations without understanding the real mechanics behind it. Too many abstractions(distractions) me thinks.

This is proof that you talk too much. I covered all this way back, and obviously you missed it. If you say "too many abstractions" they you are obviously ignorant of the direct mapping of abstraction (the competing metaphors of the family) to actual neurons in the brain. It's a direct mapping, so there's no need whatsoever to continually mention that fact. If you're paying attention, you know that when I speak of a particular kind of family, that I am speaking also of a very specific circuit of neurons in the human brain. It's not an abstraction or a neuron analogy. I'm talking about real brain cells.

So great, Obama can motivate the liberals and Rush can motivate the conservatives. So what?

So what? I'm not talking to Obama and Rush here. They already know this shit. I'm talking to people who watch the news and fail to understand the connections from that to the underlying moral beliefs. You can't see the bullshit unless you see the connections. And you continually harp on the uselessness of the parties, which although different, don't represent a direction that offers sustainable freedom.

Of course.

But when you try to tell that to someone who has no true understanding of what their "freedom keywords" actually mean in terms of morals, you can't be persuasive or instructive. It's not enough to tell people that happiness could be theirs. You need to make sure that the people to whom you are promising happiness understand that there are 6 different kinds of happiness, and there are different moral reasons for desiring each one.

Then they have to grok it. Only then can they form the new metaphors of a SUSTAINABLE family.

Now stop bothering me with all this shit. I keep telling you the same thing, and I still don't see your journal anywhere.

Fuck, I'm going to make a journal, featuring you. Next time you pop up with the same bullshit, I'll just give you the link.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.