Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

Either Extreme is Unsustainable

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2014 6:36:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The problem with extremes is an issue of stability. The average person is not an extremist is self-evident; so, the extremist government is one ruled by violent force. Seeing the strictest degree of censor is one that controls for all variables, which in itself is an impossibility, the extremist government must work against its center of gravity, thereby destabilizing itself.

Of course, this doesn't happen suddenly, yet with time. The extremist either gained control through deceptive (placating the populace) or violent means. With time the pacifist is revealed and the extremist's true objectives are either secretly, if possible, or violently implemented. In assurance of secrecy, the extremist must control and abolish the free press, creating an institution of propaganda. However, it is an unfeasible task, to create a perfectly hidden agenda; things must and will be revealed with time. In an age of technology, it is exponentially more difficult to quell all unfavourable communication. Unfortunately, for the extremist, it leaves only violence as his, or her, means of oppression. Violent regimes, such as the one, presently, in Syria, are not sustainable, for any length of time; fragmentation, and division, is inevitable. In the past, before the age of technology, extremists were able to rule large swathes of people, by deception; and, their governments, though not entirely sustainable, were viable for relatively longer amounts of time; today, with technological advances, violence is the only alternative; and, violence by its very nature creates division; and, division creates instability.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2014 10:50:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/18/2014 6:36:31 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The problem with extremes is an issue of stability. The average person is not an extremist is self-evident; so, the extremist government is one ruled by violent force. Seeing the strictest degree of censor is one that controls for all variables, which in itself is an impossibility, the extremist government must work against its center of gravity, thereby destabilizing itself.

Of course, this doesn't happen suddenly, yet with time. The extremist either gained control through deceptive (placating the populace) or violent means. With time the pacifist is revealed and the extremist's true objectives are either secretly, if possible, or violently implemented. In assurance of secrecy, the extremist must control and abolish the free press, creating an institution of propaganda. However, it is an unfeasible task, to create a perfectly hidden agenda; things must and will be revealed with time. In an age of technology, it is exponentially more difficult to quell all unfavourable communication. Unfortunately, for the extremist, it leaves only violence as his, or her, means of oppression. Violent regimes, such as the one, presently, in Syria, are not sustainable, for any length of time; fragmentation, and division, is inevitable. In the past, before the age of technology, extremists were able to rule large swathes of people, by deception; and, their governments, though not entirely sustainable, were viable for relatively longer amounts of time; today, with technological advances, violence is the only alternative; and, violence by its very nature creates division; and, division creates instability.

Hmm, Eric Hoffer wrote an excellent book on why precisely the opposite is true; that mass movements are composed of normal people who, under extraordinary circumstances, are catalyzed by a strong leader into something terrible in the true sense of the word. The idea that mass movements are composed of a small group of essentially madmen coercing or fooling the noble general populace into following their twisted vision simply isn't accurate, there are many levels of complicated symbiotic relationships involved. I really do recommend his 'The True Believer' if you are interesting in this topic, as it really delves into every level of the formation, execution, and collapse of mass movements, drawing heavily on historical examples.

"The truth seems to be that propaganda on its own cannot force its way into unwilling minds; neither can it inculcate something wholly new; nor can it keep people persuaded once they have ceased to believe. It penetrates only into minds already open, and rather than instill opinion it articulates and justifies opinions already present in the minds of its recipients. The gifted propagandist brings to a boil ideas and passions already simmering in the minds of his hearers. he echoes their innermost feelings. Where opinion is not coerced, people can be made to believe only in what they already "know.""
- The True Believer, Eric Hoffer -
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 2:38:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/18/2014 10:50:16 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/18/2014 6:36:31 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The problem with extremes is an issue of stability. The average person is not an extremist is self-evident; so, the extremist government is one ruled by violent force. Seeing the strictest degree of censor is one that controls for all variables, which in itself is an impossibility, the extremist government must work against its center of gravity, thereby destabilizing itself.

Of course, this doesn't happen suddenly, yet with time. The extremist either gained control through deceptive (placating the populace) or violent means. With time the pacifist is revealed and the extremist's true objectives are either secretly, if possible, or violently implemented. In assurance of secrecy, the extremist must control and abolish the free press, creating an institution of propaganda. However, it is an unfeasible task, to create a perfectly hidden agenda; things must and will be revealed with time. In an age of technology, it is exponentially more difficult to quell all unfavourable communication. Unfortunately, for the extremist, it leaves only violence as his, or her, means of oppression. Violent regimes, such as the one, presently, in Syria, are not sustainable, for any length of time; fragmentation, and division, is inevitable. In the past, before the age of technology, extremists were able to rule large swathes of people, by deception; and, their governments, though not entirely sustainable, were viable for relatively longer amounts of time; today, with technological advances, violence is the only alternative; and, violence by its very nature creates division; and, division creates instability.

Hmm, Eric Hoffer wrote an excellent book on why precisely the opposite is true; that mass movements are composed of normal people who, under extraordinary circumstances, are catalyzed by a strong leader into something terrible in the true sense of the word. The idea that mass movements are composed of a small group of essentially madmen coercing or fooling the noble general populace into following their twisted vision simply isn't accurate, there are many levels of complicated symbiotic relationships involved. I really do recommend his 'The True Believer' if you are interesting in this topic, as it really delves into every level of the formation, execution, and collapse of mass movements, drawing heavily on historical examples.

"The truth seems to be that propaganda on its own cannot force its way into unwilling minds; neither can it inculcate something wholly new; nor can it keep people persuaded once they have ceased to believe. It penetrates only into minds already open, and rather than instill opinion it articulates and justifies opinions already present in the minds of its recipients. The gifted propagandist brings to a boil ideas and passions already simmering in the minds of his hearers. he echoes their innermost feelings. Where opinion is not coerced, people can be made to believe only in what they already "know.""
- The True Believer, Eric Hoffer -

Even though I agree, in some respects, I can't wholeheartedly agree extremists secure and sustain power by purely honest means. If honesty were the order of the day, a "gifted propagandist" would be unnecessary. Hitler rose to power, as do most despotic rulers, with the use of violence and deceit; his party was not that of the majority. Even though Hitler was a gifted speaker with a godlike ability to move the masses, his speeches were replete with omissions. Anyone who stood in his way, and there were many that did, met with a violent end; these were executions to which the general public were not privy. The propagandist machine was in full force throughout Hitler's violent reign. Even though I agree many of his ideals were romanticized in the hearts of the German people, it's disingenuous to make the implication, his ascension and continued reign were not secured by violence and deceit.