Re: Rick Ross - thank you for this "forum"
Date: September 15, 2009 10:28PM
It is as though this message board serves some of the functions of a witness protection program.
LGATs hate it whenever there is a venue for discussion that they cannot control, either by shutting it down, or by running shame games by making it seem those persons bearing witness are getting off on 'victim mentality'.
Or the LGATs try to disrupt discussion by sending in 'astroturf' trolls who often invoke the First Amendment.
I suggest and this is my personal opinoin, that LGATs devotees and trolls, in their use of the First Amendment, do it in a way in which their stated intention during the present discussion does not match their covert intention for future discussions. They aim to use the First Amendment as a mere tool, to arouse guilt and self doubt in those discussants who are in good faith, so as to taking control of the discussion or to disrupting it if the LGAT cannot control it, a future in which the First Amendment is shoved aside.
LGATs invoke the First Amendment for guilt tripping purposes, not to support diversity of opinion, but so as to get future control of discussion venues not currently under their control. In the future envisioned by the LGAT, but not disclosed to non LGAT members, the LGAT (or perhaps a cluster of LGATs)aim to attain ownership communication channels and control of all discussions.
Present stated intention does not match the future intentions of the LGAT--invoke the need for balanced discussion today so as to arouse doubt and disruption so as to take control of the discussion or kill it in the future.
After all, these entities are On A Mission.
That mission and our conversion is For Our Own Good, So We Must Not Be Told Now, Because Later, We Will Be Grateful.
The true spirit of the First Amendment means using it not only to support a present discussion that is civil and where a range of viewpoints can be discussed, but to support a future in which discussions will remain civil and a range of viewpoints will continue to be discussed.
I contend that what LGATs want is a present in which they can use the First Amendment but only for tactical purposes--so to create a future in which the First Amendment cannot exist, because the diversity of viewpoints and needed for the First Amendment to mean anything, will be rendered extinct.
In that future, only the LGAT ( or a cluster of LGATs) will own the communication channels and only the LGAT (or a cluster of LGATs) will set the terms of discussion.
THe first Amendment is relevent only when there are many communication channels, whose owners have a diversity of viewpoints. THe First Amendment means something only when, within such communication venues, content of the discussion reflect a diversity of viewpoints and flexibilty of discussion and where the participants want future discussions to remain open to diverse viewpoints and new information.
The discussion is in good faith. No one member has a covert mission to take total control and eliminate diversity of veiwpoint.
Using the First Amendment and invoking balanced discussion in the present, so as to work for a future in which there only the LGAT party line remains, isnt the spirit of the First Amendment at all.
The only future the LGAT is interested in is a future where it dominates all discussions, and where its viewpoint rules all and where alternatives are suppressed. Thats a future where the First Amendment will no longer exist.
The First Amendment cannot exist in such a monopoly, short of little rituals in which the parties pretend to discuss alternatives to the LGAT before deciding that the LGAT is best.
Discussions like that are what I term 'domesticated dissent.' They present a facade of sweet reasonableness but actually bear a closer resemblance to the sham elections held in dictatorships.
We might have a barren world in which a variety of LGATs co-exist in mutual support, but all are hostile open discussion that is genuine and provides an alternative to the LGAT world. Palu Watzlawick calls this 'the illusion of alternatives.'
Hitler pretended to hold free elections during his regime. Watzlawick described an election poster (government printed) that read:
"National Socialism or Bolshevik Chaos?' (Implying that if the voters must choose between voting Nazi and voting Communist, there was no choice--of course one must vote Nazi).
Well, an anti Nazi prankster had the last work and arranged to create little stickers which under cover of night, were placed on the pompous posters.
The stickers read, 'Erapfel oder Kartoffel?'---'Spuds or Potatoes'?
No matter what the name of the LGAT its a case of spuds or potatoes. The First Amendment is used to disrupt present diversity of discussion and viewpoint, to create a world where where LGATs hold monopoly and the First Amendment dies for lack of air to breathe.
(Watzlawick The Language of Change, page 68)
And in a footnote on page 54, Watzlawick wrote: 'The Gestapo had its own joke department (may I be forgiven this horrid non sequitur) whose task it was to trace the
originators of political jokes. After all jokes are political dynamite...')
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/15/2009 10:55PM by corboy.