I'm a dummy when it comes to this stuff, so i'm just testing out my thoughts in this area for better comprehension

I have no way of truly understanding anything in Politics as it happens, it's all smoke and mirrors, and innumerable misunderstandings layered on top of each other. I do regardless feel like talking about some things going on in the world. If anyone wishes to instruct me on how to think, you shan't get very far though, but any info is at least info that can help shape my understanding a little better.

There's a popular book from the far right that I purchased called Unhumans, it's basically making Communism the most evil thing in the world today, and that it's threat is there, so whatever the MAGA movement does is to go against such nefarious plans that are said to be there, like respectively, if saying something enough makes it true.

I'd at least like to understand better, and this is not understanding along the party lines of either position and all the other mini positions within each.

It's so divisive though that even talking like this about it is gonna get me in hot water with many, but I don't care when i'm not doing anything I honestly don't think is wrong. Is being able to critique those in power inherently wrong? Well I guess we're living in another time than i'd like it to be.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

ninalanyon · 61-69, T

You paid money for that?

The title gives away the tactic: just make the other into a vague monster, create a monster with which to scare the ill educated into reacting in the way that the authors want. I read a few pages and it's essentially full of scare stories, buzz words, and name calling. The scare stories have enough truth in them to make it seem as though the whole thing is a truth but really it's using truths about people of the past to make it seem as though they are saying truths about the present.

The whole thing is just a way of sowing discord and fear so that those who are well resourced can become even more powerful. In a sense the book is right, the enemy does attempt to dismantle their opposition without a war but they don't actually specify who is doing this dismantling, they don't want you to notice that its is they themselves who are doing it. It's a classic case of

Accuse your enemy of what you are doing as you are doing it to create confusion.

Usually, and incorrectly, attributed to Karl Marx.

With a few changes of names though the book could probably describe the behaviour of the current executive branch of the US.