JANUS, THE POLITICIAN
Structural anthropology is based on Claude Lévi-Strauss' idea that people think about the world in terms of binary opposites—such as high and low, inside and outside, person and animal, life and death—and that every culture can be understood in terms of these opposites. "From the very start," he wrote, "the process of visual perception makes use of binary oppositions." [Structuralism and Ecology, 1972]
Lévi-Strauss' approach arose, fundamentally, from the philosophy of Hegel who explains that in every situation there can be found two opposing things and their resolution; he called these "thesis, antithesis, and synthesis." Lévi-Strauss argued that, in fact, cultures have this structure. He showed, for example, how opposing ideas would fight and also be resolved in the rules of marriage, in mythology, and in ritual. This approach, he felt, made for fresh new ideas. He stated:
Or, as Yogi Berra would say:
When you come to a fork in the road, take it!!!
The binary code as a computer language goes back decades; probably synthesized from the old Morse Code. Switches are on or off.
And the neurons in our brains go on and off. That is how we think; binarily.
So there is the raw and the cooked.
And there is the sacred and the profane.
There is darkness and there is light.
Back in July, before Joe Miller won a stunning upset over Lisa Murkowski in Alaska's GOP Senate primary, national attention briefly focused on his campaign when supporters were videotaped marching in a community parade with assault rifles over their shoulders and handguns strapped to their legs. (Watch below.)
At the time, Miller dismissed the media scrutiny, saying that guns are "not unusual in political rallies" in Alaska. But the so-called "open-carry" display actually underscores the unusual enthusiasm Miller's candidacy has generated among members of militia and Second Amendment absolutist groups in Alaska who are excited about his hardline stance against the federal government.
"It's safe to say that Joe Miller is a friend of patriots," Norm Olson, commander of the Alaska Citizens Militia, told Salon. "His beliefs and platform favor Second Amendment rights as well as the power of nullification when the federal government intrudes into the private lives of Alaskans."
Olson, who lives on the Kenai Peninsula, claims that his group has several hundred members and supporters, adding, "what fuels the militia is fear." The militia's ideology is outlined in a list of 17 "acts of war." The list includes "firearms restrictions or other disarmament," "mandatory medical anything," "federal patrols," "taking control of children under duress or threat," "federalization of law enforcement," and "surrender powers to a corporation or foreign government."
There is a post from July on an Alaska gun rights message board announcing that, "Joe Miller who is running for the US Senate has an entry in this parade. He is looking for Firearms Owners to come and march Open Carry with him. I and many others will be there to support him."
The claim that Miller or his campaign invited people to "march open carry" could not be confirmed. Miller's spokesman did not respond to requests for comment for this story. Here's the video from that parade in Eagle River, Alaska
There was unfettered capitalism (although it was never unfettered) and there was communism. Supposedly communism was pure but Lenin saw that that would not work so he came up with concepts like the ‘Vanguard’.
Capitalism would fail of course; it just needed a little push (or putsch).
And yet, there were still shop keepers in Moscow in the old days.
And there were government pensions in America.
One synthesis that was arrived at in order to bridge the gap between the idealistic communists and the idealistic capitalists was the concept of the socialist democracy.
Social Democracy kind of took the edge off of that concept.
So Bernie Sanders is a socialist but he maintains that he is a social democrat.
Now smart politicians attempt to synthesize opposites; at least as far as rhetoric and oratory goes.
The problem is Einstenian in nature. That is, everything is relative.
So we have ‘up’ and ‘down’.
But that does not tell us how far is up and how far is down.
The militias; at least those militias who have any sense of rhetoric, realize that NAZI symbols and the use of racial slurs do not necessarily further their cause.
So some militia spokesmen call themselves patriots.
And supposedly a patriot:
A patriot is someone who feels or voices expressions of patriotism, support for their country
Now in the 60’s the expression was: My country right or wrong!!!
At least that was one of those phrases (like get a job and a hair cut) that the not so silent majority would yell at us hippies all the time.
But these militia men have altered this concept.
They are patriots and they love this country.
But they are anti Democrat and anti Obama and anti Pelosi and anti progressive and anti urban and anti Federal Government…..
So they had to come up with a new synthesis.
Now it is more like:
My country as long as it is right, otherwise we shall make our own country and blow up the existing structure acting for our own interests.
So people like Miller come along and he brings with him some of the militia men but not all of them.
You see, right now Miller is one of us but as soon as he flies to D.C. he will become one of them.
But other militia men say:
When Miller gets to D.C., we will have one of us over there.
DeMint, Senator from South Carolina—the state that threatened to secede twice and succeeded in its secession once—has rhetorically left himself open to the concept of secession. He does all he can to separate himself from them.
He scoffs at other repubs who seem to make the attempt to get as much Federal Government dollars to their constituents as possible. (Which might make you wonder how much he cares of the poor whites and poor minorities in his state. A State with more poor whites and poor minorities than just about any other but a handful of states.)
He is pro gun and for less taxes, he would abolish the IRS tomorrow.. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34296_Page2.html
Governor Perry of Texas thinks that there are treaties going back to 1848 that would allow Texas to secede.
Sharron Angle who is running against Harry Reid speaks of a Second Amendment solution to issues surrounding big government.
I was thinking of how the left wing handled cheney/bush. The only way the left could synthesize the problem of ‘our country’ was to threaten to leave it. The usual mantra was: I will move to Canada. We came to this conclusion during the Nixon Administration; probably due to the fact that thousands of young folks moved to Canada rather than face the draft.
Both far right folks and far left folks must synthesize apposite ‘things’. Your ‘side’ lost according to the ‘rules’ so that must mean that the game is ‘rigged’ or whatever…
I would get into my reaction to the 2000 election results but there is not enough space to get into it. Bush won by the ‘rules in play at the time’ especially since the final arbiter over any issue of law has to be the Supreme Court. The result stunk and like Bugliosi I do feel that five SC members of that 2000 court should be prosecuted, but such is life.
The 2008 elections were never challenged. Obama received 53% of the vote to McCain’s 46-47% of the vote.
There were recounts on the Congressional level including Al Frankens close call, but the militia men do not care about that.
In the end it is ‘their country’ and they will never admit defeat. They cannot. They do not have it in them.
You could argue to the Alaskan Minutemen that citizens of their state receive far more monies from the Federal Government than they would ever or could ever pay the Federal Government. You could argue these types of arguments till you were blue in the face; but it will get you nowhere.
There is no synthesis for these people.
The best we can ever do with these militia folks is monitor their activities and take advantage of the information the local Barney Fifes might be able to give the authorities.
I arrived to my own synthesis with regard to the binary opposition of ‘us’ & ‘them’ in the context of left and right politics however: