Stereotyping

2002-10-14 05:06:00

It has been indicated that I have stereotyped the various groups on the Right. Some have thought I have done this and some think not.

I thought I made it clear that the various groups on the far left and far right are far from the same but merely have some ingredients in common. I also said that the Libertarians have ingredients on the left and the right making it impossible to stereotype them as on one side or the other.

The fact is that even the most diverse and opposing groups have elements in common, but a simple grouping by using elements in common is not what stereotyping is.

For instance, I could say that both Republicans and Democrats see America as a great country. Pointing out a similarity does not mean both parties are being stereotyped as having the same ideology.

Even so, I said that a number of groups on the far right have a similar view of what constitutes tyranny in America. I also speak somewhat from experience from talking with and reading about them.

The same is true of the far left. The violent ELF which burns up housing projects to save trees (their reasoning behind this is strange) has elements in common with the non-violent Sierra group. They both have a chip on their shoulder toward the capitalist system, but the Sierra club has a much different approach than ELF.

Of course there are exceptions in any group, but I speak as a general rule not meaning to offend the left or the right, but wanted to make the point that the three groups I mentioned see tyranny differently and have different views as to what it is.

JJ quoting DK;
"Today, such a thing as a true democracy is unknown, and the mass of the people in the democratic countries are as much at the mercy of the politicians and of the financial forces as are the people under the rule of dictatorships, enlightened or unenlightened." Externalization of the Hierarchy Pg 52

Blayne
I really like the post JJ overall, but I just could not pass this up. Here DK seems to classify politicians and financial forces (international banksters?) in the same class as Dictators. This would also seem to lump them both under the heading of tyranny since the people of both are at the mercy of their respective governments and influences? One a dictatorship, the other a democracy... Thereby vindicating some of us who made the same comparison in a bit different words, fueling the debate over the definition of tyranny. Whether one tends to be more benevolent then the other does not seem to deter DK from making the comparison without hesitation.

I must say DK expresses my sentiments just fine here and I was never arguing for anymore then he says here. And I must admit I at least do feel a bit vindicated here since DK is somewhat of an earned authority with you. ;-)

JJ
From the way you define tyranny you may be right, but using the definition I was trying to covey and teach in Chapter Thirteen this would be interpreted differently.

We are at the mercy of many things that are not a tyranny to us (by the definition I used). For instance, the child is at the mercy of his parents, yet the parents can be loving and gentile. Roman citizens were at the mercy of the dictator Marcus Aurelius but he was a just man and the people loved him and did not consider him a tyrant.

The Nephites were at the mercy of King Mosiah who had the powers of a dictator, but he certainly did not rule over a tyranny.

The same would go for Solomon.

Whether we have good or bad leaders, the Beast always abounds as an unjust authority and can surface through any organization with a will to destroy those who challenge it. Because of our laws the Beast is not as tyrannical now as it has been in times past, but remove its restraints and the saints would again be thrown to the lions (speaking symbolically).

I enjoyed your posts on Bush, Blayne and think you have some great insights there.