Weird People, Wierder America

In high school I was in a debate club, I never participated in competitions but I did enjoy argumentation and of course winning. Later I'd abandon this niche for something a bit more broad; business but I later rediscovered the joy I get from debates when I started studying politics and religion. At a certain point this hobby of mine takes my time as with any fun hobby. I ended up researching stuff I really didn't have in some cases the time to research.

Winning arguments and forming axioms consequently led me on the idea of studying US government history to more depth. Doing this I found that my logic worked best throughout American history with the likes of Benjamin Franklin. I call myself a Jeffersonian only because Ben wasn't a President so he never had a chance to codify a lasting mandate.

This ideology of Jeffersonianism took several hits from both the left and right of it, eventually being tied to slavery and Jacksonianism. In truth it was about individual rights but history of the victors has a way of playing with the truth. For example Democrats today and leftist historians revised thoroughly the history and motivations therein of the civil war. If you listen to them they would concede that yes the South (rather than democratic party) had slaves and that Republicans over the 70's would become the party of plantation owners and old money.

If you listened to their Republican rightist counterparts you would hear that the Republicans of the 1800s were anti-slavery. No they weren't in truth the North had slaves as well, probably more people in the North had slaves, the difference being they named them house keepers, field workers and so on. In the south the name of this class of people was just slave... the south got the shaft for their honesty. I again state that the civil war was as much about slavery or the ending of as it was about climate change. But these rightist historians would have you believe the modern Democratic party is the southern Democrat...

I submit instead that ideologies endured certainly but the paradigms either side presents are aberrant reflections of each other.

The truth as it were is not something anyone can ween from the facts presented, what we have are of course just and right facts, and so I will share another perspective using them.

Words matter so I'll begin with defining words so we can be on the same page here:

1. Nazism used as it is today carries two connotations with many contexts. However the usage of it as a short cut to describe someone else can be attributed to a desired intention; rather than a helpful way to understand as the short hand usage might suggest.

The classical short hand use of Nazism is to refer to the state or a political group's usage of force to silence various ethnic groups and ideologies.

The neoclassical use of Nazism assigns motivation and states that pathos or a lack of ethos or both is in play.

One definition of Nazism aims to define action and the other aims to define thought.

Asserting now that the individuals at the woman's march (the all of them) and the other example of the Berkeley violent riot hold the neoclassical definition true or at least employ the method to some degree many things become acceptable or even expected as a result.

For example microaggression, it is a part of the definition of neoclassical Nazism refined and distilled into its core precept. That the opposite of your view is motivated by pathos. The logical question of a person who follows that mode of thought is of course "then what?"

If a person is led to believe that an argument formed and-or is argued from a position of pathos is by default invalid what is left behind is the question on how to fix it.

All of these things are very methodical and rely on several fallacies about human nature. As humans we want solutions, we also have an ego that implicates itself in our mental and physical endurance. We could see the consequences and attribute them to our actions but not see the mistakes involved and certainly not the ignorance; how can we know what we don't know?

A quick digression to answer that last question would normally be education, but this time I'd suggest self-education on matters of human nature, history and civics.

To continue... there is a level of manipulation going on however as complex as life is this could just be a set of consequences that have more greatly led to unfavorable outcomes against civil discourse and learning.

The seeking of how to correct a person who is now established as using pathos to argue leads to the most worrying part for me personally. It's one thing to see for example an Albanian man who outs his cigarette on a child's face because his skin complexion is many shades browner than his as sinister. But if a person says Afro-Americans shouldn't have more or less rights than any other American is being viewed as sinister then we have a shutting down of communication and an ending to debate because of what happens next... the solution. 

And it isn't so much what is being said, the distinction between the Albanian example and the Afro-American example is one involved physical injury and the other dealt with words.

The solution no matter the names used over history for when diplomacy and debate fail is war... it can either be a one sided affair or something prolonged. The Jews for example were at war with the Nazi party, a war which the Nazi won with little resistance until Allied forces responded.

The solution for those who follow this idea of microaggression is macro-aggression; the use of evil to combat evil and make no mistake war is evil. A person who believes in microaggression actually believes that they have been assaulted, in a normal world the savvy observer would say that person then cranks it up to 11 which is the use of physical violence, intimidation and well... some pretty evil stuff to silence dissent or opposition.

If this observation is true and the debate is over then it would have only have been if the perspective I am presenting holds any truth that both definitions of Nazism are held to be true at the same time. It may be that the reason people can believe in neoclassical Nazism is out of concern of classical Nazism.

In other words the ones destroying a Starbucks in the name of Anarchism or the ones burning a Berkeley building are the result of a layer cake of weird incentives, noble but weird intentions and weirder values.