Comment: Final Solution: Lessons Of History

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Very interesting post! (see in situ)

Final Solution: Lessons Of History

We need the ability to discern … to recognize the patterns of fallacy, if we are to avoid the mistakes of the past. Don’t kid yourself, the efforts to sanitize the record are overt and covert and often aided by many handmaidens well meaning. Those who would control access, and presume to assemble the details to better serve up their self-serving bottom line for you always start with the premise that the masses ( that means you) cannot handle the truth. For reasons expedient to such interests of power, you should not be able to draw your own conclusions.

I shudder when I see the statement, probably added as an update to the original post, -- ‘Ready to pull this thread...The liberty movement is not good at self policing by definition.... then we will not be able to spread our message.”
The threat is real when we ourselves prove to be the greatest censor of our own message … and through so called self policing, supinely submit to sacred cowing in stanchions of our own construction. In this instance, the original poster who has invited our candid input, would presumptively claim the prerrogative to take ALL the worthwhile content of an intelligent discussion on important, though sensitive, topics down the drain with the bath water.
That form of cleansing of ideas used to happen more frequently here on DP when Jack’s pretensions of parlor room political decorum carried more credibility during the election season. Provocateurs of his ilk were more successful then in exploiting our vulnerability to such manipulation. Look at the consequence when the lessons of history must be relearned with no reference to a true account of what transpired in the past: Newcomers here might think that BigT or I were unwarranted in calling out of Jack in his new incarnation as F-Buzz. Without reference to his past indiscretions where he was flushed out to show his true colors, readers of this forum unfamiliar with his trail of tactics might be taken in when he pretends to the equanimity of a social worker preparing a case report to the judge. Make no mistake; the charlatans of history are usually only recognizable through the lens of retrospection … which is why we need to remove the tinting, rose colored, blue blocked, reflective, or dark so-only-they-can-see-out-ain't-nobody-can-see-in.

In regards to such questions, by way of illustration, I’m going to post an article that someone else first put up on DP several weeks ago, but it received virtually no circulation at the time ( perhaps out of timidity). I don’t post it as any final word of authority on the topics addressed, because to my view, that’s not how solutions are best arrived at. Experience has taught me that ideas are best confronted by the crucible of adversarial debate were no side is hobbled in the due process of deliberate scrutiny.

My solution, finally – you be the judge: