(originally launched into cyberspace on 03/15/2007)
Let's have a discussion about how far one has to sail out into the
ocean before he falls off the edge of the earth. Is it 50 miles?
Maybe 150? Or is it more? Wouldn't that make for an informative,
intellectually stimulating debate?
Well, no. It would be a stupid waste of time. Why? Because (brace
yourself if you haven't heard this yet) the earth is spherical
(more or less); it doesn't have an edge. So discussing how far away
the edge is would be pointless. A discussion based entirely upon a
false premise isn't likely to enlighten anyone.
Notice that I describe this list as "anti-political." If you're
expecting me to endorse a party, encourage voting in some
particular way, or advocating some sort of legal reform, don't hold
your breath. Instead, on this list I will do something you will
NEVER hear in any "normal" political debate: I will look at some of
the underlying premises upon which ALL so-called "political"
discussion is based.
Be warned: I will get around to goring the political ox of almost
everyone on this list, and people don't like that. (I know I
didn't, back when I had a political ox to be gored. Thankfully, my
ox has since died the death it so richly deserved.) I will dissect
things we've all taken as self-evident, and address topics that
proper, obedient peasants don't like to think about.
Unlike the 861 issue, however, the discussion here will not be so
much about facts and evidence as it is about consistent, non-
contradictory thinking. Put another way, I intend to expose the
inherent contradictions which ALL mainstream political beliefs
have. As an analogy, suppose that someone said to you, "I know the
earth is spherical, but the edge is 200 miles off the coast of
Florida." The problem is not merely that he has his facts wrong
(though he does); it's that his own beliefs contradict THEMSELVES.
As you'll see, almost all so-called political philosophy does the
Most political debate consists of two people flinging superficial
assertions and beliefs at each other. "Your guy is a poopoohead!"
"Oh yeah? Well your guy is a liar!" "Your guy wants the poor to
starve!" "Well your guy would tax the economy to death!" The
discussion never accomplishes much (or anything) and never gets
anywhere near anything of real substance. That won't be true of
Just for fun, I'll start the next message by taking a swing at
Republicans (since some people seem to have gotten the impression
that I am one). But beware: people are so accustomed to thinking in
terms of a two-sided political spectrum that if you bash "Team A,"
they automatically think you support "Team B." (Then there is the
lukewarm "middle ground," which has acquired the label "moderate,"
which pretends to be an alternative to the two "sides.") If it
makes you feel better, rest assured that whoever your political
opponents are, I'll be lambasting their beliefs zealously and
frequently. In fact, I expect to offend at least 95 percent of the
people on this by the time I'm done.
I guess that's enough of an introduction. Let the extremism* begin!
(* These days any belief which doesn't empower politicians and
subjugate the masses gets labeled as "extremist." As such, I'm
proud to be an "extremist.")