Should We Discuss Our Differences?

Pessimism versus optimism about disagreement.

Substack latest.

Comments

[Joe Odegaard]

No discussion is possible with those who think you are "deplorable" and "irredeemable."

To see the attitude of the Left, go over to "Salon."

There is nothing more to say.

[Elliott]

“We need to apply ourselves to the very difficult question of how to achieve a viable form of the political equivalent of divorce at the national level.”

This is indeed a difficult yet important topic.

The problem seems exacerbated because it does not involve disagreement between competent epistemic peers. Such a case might justify divorce based on irreconcilable differences between two parties, each adept in the realm of reason. Rather, the disagreement appears to be something like Plato’s metaphor of the Ship of State (Republic Book VI), according to which the unwise multitude jockey for control – which the winners use to gratify their bodily desires – while the wise navigator they regard as useless. In this sinking situation, there is discord between wise and unwise, but regrettably, the latter outnumber and thus prevent the former from applying their understanding of navigation.

How can a national divorce be worked out reasonably if there is a significant gap of rationality between the two parties and no qualified arbiter to help settle the dispute?

[Joe Odegaard]

There is no possibility of a divorce, because the the left wants total control. They will not leave you alone. our choice is either to defeat the left, or to become slaves, or worse.

[BV]

I fear you are right, Joe.

Islam gives the 'infidels' three choices: embrace Islam; fight and be put to sword; accept dhimmitude.

The Left gives 'the deplorables' three choices: embrace hard-leftism/wokery with all of its destructive absurdities; enter into hot civil war; accept political dhimmitude.

Or is there a way to avoid the just-mentioned trilemma?

There is no retreat (Benedict Option, for example) because, as Joe says, the Left won't leave us alone. The assholes want the whole enchilada. For example, they are not satisfied if we merely tolerate their paraphilias; they demand that we accept, embrace and celebrate them.

And of course no one in his right mind could wish for HOT civil war. If you have any knowledge of history, of human nature, any basic sense, you know that that would be hell. As Sherman said, "War is hell." It won't 'romantic.' You won't enjoy seeing your loved ones take 5.56 rounds to the head. And if you have any moral decency at all, you won't like having to reply in kind.

So my question to Joe and the rest of you is: How do we defeat the Left?

[Whitewall]

How do we defeat the Left? Gradually just like they did us. I believe it would be helpful to correctly label them as what they are: Democrats. To borrow a line from this blog, "To vote Democrat is to vote for the continuing politicization of the universities and their ongoing transformation into leftist seminaries. This is part of the reason decent Dems have jumped ship."

Democrats cast the votes needed to fill offices with "liberals, leftists, progressives" etc. These other terms allow a degree of relief from the votes he casts which allows a 'Leftist' his 'moral certainty' when confronted by conservatives. Under these conditions, there is no debate to be had.

[Joe Odegaard]

William Tecumseh Sherman also said' "War is the remedy our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want." And I am afraid it will come to that.

[BV]

Whitewall,

What I am looking for are specific, concrete actions. Here are examples of what I mean (I grant that they are unoriginal and won't get us all that far): (1) Vote with your wallet: never give money to the Left. If for example your alma mater calls you for a contribution, say "Not one cent as long as you embrace the DEI agenda" (2) Vote with your feet; get out of NYC for example; this will also help defund the craphole; (3) Break contact with all leftist 'friends' if doing so is consistent with broadly prudential considerations; they need to be punished for their willful self-enstupidation.

Got any ideas?

[Whitewall]

BV,
Along the lines of deprive them of money, or our company or our presence in there communities...it gets uglier. Deprive them of their presence in our neighborhoods, organizations and even communities. Picket their homes nightly and their travels daily. Follow them to restaurants and to work. Make them want to leave and return to 'Blue Heaven'. As we divorce-Balkanize- then complete the job. Why should we let them among us? Yes I know there are the little things like freedom and the law...but isn't that really what this cold civil war comes down to?

[BV]

Ostracism, yes. Subtle forms of exclusion. Boycotting. Segregation along political lines, but openness to conservative blacks.

[Joe Odegaard]

One thing we can do for freedom is to identify ourselves to each other, by means of some pin or sign: wear a cross; have a liberty bell pin; a flaming sacred heart pin; there could be a large range of choices (and that's probably better); we will be encouraged if we know our true numbers. The left is extremely good at loud-mouthed squawking, and so they appear to be way more numerous than they really are. We need to take that intimidating power away from them.

[BV]

Religious symbols are OUT, Joe. Why? Because we need a BROAD coalition to defeat the Left. It has to include conservative non-Christians and conservative atheists.

But we do need to explore winning through intimidation. Leftists, who have no respect for anything, do not respect us; but they can be made to fear us.

How about 2A as a sign of conservatived solidarity?

[BV]

Images here: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=2A&atb=v314-1&iax=images&ia=images

[Joe Odegaard]

Small liberty bells might be the ticket, then.