home > archive > 2008 > this article

Search this site Search WWW

Wily winning: A manual of mutating political philosophy – December 15, 2008

By Joseph Randolph
web posted December 15, 2008

Dear M. 

Yes, there is a work of rehabilitation going on with the new regime at it comes to power.  That rehabilitation concerns our standing in the world.  This change will be difficult, simply because we are at such a low position in the estimation of the world at large.  Nevertheless, we will see our stature raised from a trough to a trophy.  Our new comrade—we loathe the designation commander in chief—will show the world that we have no aggressive tendencies toward any nation of the world, no matter who or how many belligerents line up against us.  As I told you some time ago, war is a thing of the past.  The future will know nothing of it, and we will justly claim credit for this latest piece of human evolution.  In time our grandchildren, when they study history, will ask us, "What was the thing called ‘war?'"  We will resolve our conflicts in this age with reason, not weapons.  Once our "enemies" understand that, they will throw their own weapons down, and we will realize to our utter dismay and dissatisfaction, that they only had their weapons in position because they saw ours.  We have thus led with bad example before now; now and in the future we shall lead with good example.  Once our present "enemies" see we intend no harm toward them, they will no longer desire to harm us.  The mammoth amount of revenue we can garner from turning in our military will be gigantic.  Every tank or weapon that is built is a school or community center or spa not built.  The previous machinery of war will be recycled and rebuilt for peace.  Military museums will start to take on the aura of museums about the distant past.  Indeed, the ages of war in time will become as distant as the age of the dinosaurs. 

I see that you have not grasped the political value of using the terms "community," or "sense of community," or "building community."  This is a huge mistake, for by such notions we commend ourselves to our voters.  Even more importantly, by all such words we muffle any antagonist who opposes our principles.  To oppose "community" is to exhibit a motive of selfishness which we justly criticize as being indifferent or hostile to "community."  The word "private" for such reasons always provokes an air of suspicion to us.  It connotes fences and borders.  As a member of the "community," by contrast, one exhibits selflessness.  You see to be for "community" is to be for the "common good," not the uncommon good or the individual private good.  The latter in fact are not good, but the opposite.  In a word, getting our voters to affectionately gravitate toward "community" is simply another step toward socialism, which amounts to much of the same thing.  If we build our communities into what we want, one day they will awaken to see that they are socialists without the word.  By then, in love with the community they—rather, we—have fashioned for them, they will no longer find themselves averse toward the hallowed word.  Like the wars we have ridded them of for the cause of eternal peace, so too they will feel understandable regret that they did not become socialists earlier. 

You need to constantly increase the size of "community," until there are virtually no persons that matter to us outside "community."  Remember, as I have often said, we are not for all, but for the most.  This in effect means that you have no opponents whom you do not wish to have as opponents.  This means too that belligerents who are not part of the "world community," must therefore be brought within it—but of course only the ones we want in our community.  This means also that one thing that gives the gangs of community their power is the intimidation they bring to bear upon their enemies.  Who are our enemies?  Those who do not want to fall into the lock-step movement of "community."  And he who commands the largest "community," commands respect of the mob under which the "community" façade establishes itself.  Communities are faceless; their leaders give them the face they have.  Let the power of this idea sink into your thinking, and then act on it. 

You see we take respected terms and we turn them into terms that we can use to mask well nigh everything.  Thus, the power of "community" we use to indicate a selfless adherence and respect for others, with the impression given of no thought saved for the self and its selfish interests.  The term as we use it thus conveys the idea of the cohesive element of community, and not the tyrannical power that comes with it.  We, however, simply abuse the cohesion for the tyranny which cohesion offers to muffle dissidents.  Furthermore, in "community" as we would have it, there is the goal of equality, so we can exert our leverage against any differences amongst people unfavorable to our political gain.  Remember, our ultimate goal is everything for everybody, with no distinctions among any.  Remember too, that our "all" language too is a façade for the most. 

If this provokes any rebellion, we need not worry, for as long as we have the allegiance of the "community" we will have everything needed to put it down. Thus we aim for the tyranny of the majority against the minority by making sure we are always in command of the majority—or the "community."  Furthermore—and our best mask for our effort—is that we have groomed a "community" which in appearance looks like the oppressed minority of the past, except we have now made it the oppressing majority of the present.  This we do of course by making our adults into demanding children, and we are only too willing to meet the demands of "community" in exchange for their vote.

Ponder these things in your heart, but meanwhile, go out and build some "community."  ESR

Joseph Randolph is a writer and academic who lives in Wisconsin.


Send a link to this page!
Send a link to this story





Site Map

E-mail ESR


1996-2020, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.