Arguing with conservatives (usually republicans, but also a few straying democrats) is most often tantamount to talking to a wall. A very TALL wall. A tall CONCRETE wall that echoes back to oneself what one is saying. A tall, concrete wall that is, thus, incapable of absorbing sound – or anything intelligible.
In other words – arguing with conservatives
The Borg are infamous for being an impenetrable group – a group of beings aligned mentally by collective thought that is programmed into their brains via a central computer nervous system that does their thinking for them. A group of brainwashed beings from other worlds that have been assimilated into a collective hive that is hell bent on growing ever bigger by assimilating yet more weaker beings. And they WILL succeed. Why? Because . . .
When the Borg chant incessantly to their prey “Resistance is futile. You WILL be assimilated” – they are not belligerent. They are not argumentative. They are not surly. They are not even determined. All of these qualities would imply that they had hearts. Souls. Individuality of thought. They don’t have any of these things. When they utter their dire words they are simply stating facts as they know them. End of argument. In fact, there is no argument to begin with. Resistance in any form, such as argument, is futile. They are stronger. You aren’t.
Unless, that is, you are a member of the crew under either Captain Jean-Luc Picard or Captain Katherine Janeway. Then you might have a fighting chance.
Now where am I headed with this? Jean-Luc once found himself up against The Borg. He resisted. It 
was futile.
He was assimilated.
For a time.
Now Jean-Luc is a Captain of the Federation which is part of the United Federation of Planets. The Federation is a really hip, liberal-minded group of folks who, after countless years of useless warring both at home and abroad (ahem – cough - that would be us now), have come together with other species and planets to strive to create a peaceful universe within which they can all comfortably live as they individually see fit while honoring both their differences and their opposing cultural values. Yes – somehow the peace-nik earthlings and the grumpy Klingons and brainy Vulcans and wily Romulans and brutal Cardasians and greedy Ferengi etc etc etc etc etc etc manage to live at peace (or a close proximity thereof – depending on that pesky neutral zone . . . but I digress . . .)
Anyway – my point is – that this hippy dippy tree-hugging peace-signing, no doubt all organic, smiling group of politically liberal thinkers (esp those federation folk with their prime directive) find themselves up against THE BORG – a group of mindless drones to whom they can not talk. With whom they can not reason. THE BORG represent everything The Federation and the United Federation of Planets isn’t.
After all – how can one possible argue with a collective that is so technologically powerful and advanced that they can soar through space faster than any other species in a SQUARE space ship!! The arrogance!! It ain't even remotely aerodynamic!!! While silly humans such as Jean Luc are raised to think of the putting of square pegs in round holes as the stuff of children’s folly – there are then the arrogant as all hell Borg who defy the laws of aerodynamics and build square pegs that sail effortlessly through space. The nerve!
When Jean-Luc is assimilated and his crew must fight to retrieve his mind from the collective clutches of the Borg drones – it becomes the ultimate fight between individuality of thought and collective mindlessness. The ultimate showdown between liberal-mindedness and closed-mindedness. The power of those of closed, controlled minds – The Borg – is awesome. Frightening. Intimidating. But eventually – Jean-Luc – the poster-boy for liberal thought, for open-mindedness – wins.
Years later Captain Katherine Janeway will fight her own battle of wits with The Borg – and survive – but just barely. And let us not forget Seven of Nine - the former Borg turned Federation citizen. Yes, the tide can turn.
Yes, THE BORG will terrify the Federation and its allies for generations. They will assimilate many for whom resistance was futile. But they are NOT always successful. Resistance, then, it would seem, is not futile. As long as a few escape collective brainwashing – there is hope. THE BORG may always be “on message.” They may always chant the party line. They are the ultimate, loyal foot-soldiers. But they are NOT always successful. They may adapt easily to suit each new form of resistance. They may seem invulnerable. But they are not.
We are up against a conservative media blitz and mind-control effort that has been going full steam ahead ever since Bill Clinton dared to take office. It gloated during the Bush years. Now its furor has increased since Obama dared to take office. It is getting shriller. It is beginning to all sound the same. It is so sanctimoniously certain that it is right and that it will assimilate those still astray into its way of thinking. It seems to grow more powerful every day.
BUT! Remember Jean-Luc, Katherine and Seven of Nine – resistance is not futile. And even great big square things that may seem like impenetrable walls aren’t.
At least I hope not
Oh the careless typos and mis-steps now fixed! Sorry folks.
ReplyDeleteMore than a coincidence, my dear Squid, that you should post on this subject tonight. The Borg sound downright polite compared to some of the wingers. At least the Borg will assimilate you. In contrast, there are wingers who want to eliminate you. Here is abstract from The Eliminationists by David Neiwert:
ReplyDeleteJim David Adkisson carried a shotgun and 76 rounds of ammunition into the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Church in Knoxville. Within minutes, he killed a 61-year old grandmother and retired schoolteacher and a 60-year old foster father who tried to shield others from the attack.
Later, detectives searched Adkisson’s house where they found: Copies of Liberalism is a mental disorder by Michael Savage, Let freedom ring by Sean Hannity, and The O’Reilly Factor by Bill O’Reilly.
In Adkisson’s car was a 4-page manifesto that said in part:
Liberals are like termites. Millions of them. Each little bite contributes to the downfall of this great nation. The only way we can rid ourselves of this evil is Kill them in the streets. Kill them where they gather.”
David Neiwert defines eliminationism as “a politics and culture that shuns dialogue and the democratic exchange of ideas in favor of the pursuit of outright elimination of the opposing side, either through suppression, exile and rejection, or extermination (…) It always depicts its opposition as beyond the pale, the embodiment of evil itself, unfit for participation in their vision of society, and thus worthy of elimination. It often further depicts its designated Enemy as vermin (especially rats and cockroaches) or diseases (…) traitors or criminals and that they pose a threat to national security.”
According to Neiwert, what distinguishes eliminationism from mere political hyperbole is: 1 – a focus on an enemy within, and 2 – excision or extermination of those blocs by violent or civil means.
Recently, I removed some links from our blogroll because I saw evidence of eliminationist rhetoric in their posts and comments. Here are some noteworthy examples:
Eddie said...
That Obama has launched a Stalinist and Hitlerist systemic and systematic civilian apparatus of domestic spying should be pondered within its appropriate context: Obama’s Civilian National Security Force (CNSF). August 24, 2009 9:33 AM
Julie's Jewels said...
You FASCIST COMMIE SOB! Yes, I said that about you and I stand by it now! YOU never bloged about a true American, NEVER, All you do is blog about HATE and about HATING other bloggers. YOU never met a dictator that you didn’t kiss up to NEVER. So don’t you call ME unAmerican, you Commie swine. August 24, 2009 6:04 PM
My Sarcastic Opinion said...
Truthie is a pinko commie! August 24, 2009 7:29 PM
Seenthelight said...
And anyone one that even visits your IGNORANT Anti American Anti White blog other than the IGNORANT Anti American Anti White Liberals are crazy. It's a Liberal Cesspool, that should be filled in with garbage. A mix of crap and lies that never fails to amuse. August 14, 2009 8:57 AM
ZZMike said...
PACK UP YOUR DAMN BAGS, GIVE UP YOUR CITIZENSHIP & GET THE HELL OUT OF MY BEAUTIFUL COUNTRY!! August 15, 2009 8:27 AM
http://christophersaid.blogspot.com/2009/08/liberals-are-terrorist-sympathizers.html
MY SARCASTIC OPINION: You liberals are nothing but parasites.
This is the dark side of the rightwing blogosphere. I'll return later with more comments. Meanwhile, I hope your post gets a lot of well deserved attention.
You give these Borg (right wingers) to much credit for their false power. As usual, it's the non-resistance of the opposition that gives them their success, not the truthfulness of their words.
ReplyDeleteIt is the ignorance of people that allows the "wing nuts" their overrated place in public opinion.
The ignorance of those who believe their oratory, and the ignorance of those who do not speak loud enough against their oratory.
I am guilty. I never thought good, commonsense citizens would allow such garbage voices to direct the course of the debate.
Yet, hear we are, seriously considering the insincere leadership of those who could care less about the well being of our citizens.
Lets not consider these folks conservatives just because they are anti-liberals.
ReplyDeleteYes, they are critical of everything espoused by liberalism but they cannot offer an alternative. They go on and on about liberals and their love affair with 'big government nanny state' yet they cannot express what big government nanny state is an alternative to.
They are just miserable lackeys who are overwhelmed and underprepared to face the future.
By the way, I do not believe THE BORG is a TALL wall but rather a FAT wall...I got the point! :)
Um, why does a spaceship have to be aerodynamic?
ReplyDeleteOne of my commenters emailed me a piece of racist dreck he found that is being emailed to conservatives, and I've posted it on my blog.
ReplyDeleteLater, I will be posting an audio clip of a pastor in Arizona who, from his pulpit, proclaims that President Obama should die.
TAO: “They are just miserable lackeys who are overwhelmed and underprepared to face the future.”
ReplyDeleteIn my view, it is a serious mistake to be dismissive of these malcontents and misfits. This year alone – the shooting incident in the Unitarian Church, the murder of an abortion doctor in Kansas, an attack upon police officers in Pittsburg, the killing of a Holocaust Museum Guard, gun-toting hooligans showing up at town hall meetings.
Those so-called “miserable lackeys,” as you describe them, are not children left unattended by Mr. Rogers whose absence causes them to turn pint-sized “Lord of the Flies.”
When you merely dismiss malcontents and misfits, you fail to hold them accountable for the domestic terrorism that their reckless rhetoric helps set off.
When the magnitude of public dissembling is so enormous, those who wield “The Big Lies” are basically saying: “I am no longer a participant in the democratic process.” That is when the death of discourse turns into an invitation to violence, and it should be emphasized that eliminationism is the signature trait of fascism.
The Borg is as a great metaphor for the totalitarian utopia where every individual is turned into an automaton, and even one's private innermost thoughts have been collectivized.
"a pastor in Arizona"
ReplyDeleteAnd that's another thing - a boating organization I belong to isn't allowed to tell members to call the county commissioners to support a clean water plan, for fear of losing our 501(c)3 status, but these tax-exempt leeches get to play political lobbyists with money they take from the poor.
They get to issue fatwahs, undermine education and attack democracy with forced taxpayer support just as they have since the middle ages -- all while pretending to be victims.
Pastor my Astor - this guy is a traitor.
"and it should be emphasized that eliminationism is the signature trait of fascism."
ReplyDeleteYes, but it's so obvious that it shouldn't have to be. Frankly I'm fed up with attempts to head off any comparisons with history by invoking some fake rhetorical principle.
If it preaches hate like a Nazi, if it goosesteps like a Nazi, if it disrupts meetings breaks windows and shouts down challengers and talks about rounding up people like a Nazi, it's a goddamn Nazi.
Wait a minute.
ReplyDeleteYou have one major flaw in your whole comparison. The Borg are an absolute collective, where the individual is suppressed in favor of the collective (state). It's a pure form of communism, which is the bane of the Right.
The Federation, on the other hand, is all about empowering the individual (although I will give you that they have universal health care).
Octupus, glad to see you are coming around to my thinking and that is why I attack the reactionary right every chance I get! While I see them as lackeys and malcontents I also realize that was the core of the Nazi movement during the 20's...
ReplyDeleteWhile I am NOT comparing the reactionary right to the Nazi's once in power I do recognize that the germination process is the same.
Patrick, you assume that all collectives, all group think, and the sacrifice of individual freedoms only occurs under leftist and or communist regimes. The right has dictators and fascist regimes which are just as notorious for demanding blind obedience.
Fear extremism regardless of whether it originates from the left or the right.
Patrick, either you did not read the comment thread, or you are being deliberately obtuse. Get your thoughts together.
ReplyDeleteTAO: “Octupus, glad to see you are coming around to my thinking …”
ReplyDeleteIt is presumptuous to pretend to know my thoughts inasmuch as you can only know those thought that are expressed through the written word, and the written word hardly captures all thought.
You and I have conversed with the same folks on the right, held the same conservations, and expressed similar viewpoints … under the assumption that dialogue is participatory democracy. Differences in tone and style do not necessarily reflect differences in position.
My contention with those on the right with whom I had these conversations: They have turned eliminationist; they are no longer participatory; they are no longer the folks I thought they were. In retrospect, the conversations were mere window dressing, and I feel quite betrayed.
You can accuse me of being naïve, but I don't equivocate.
The important question is still about the need for aerodynamic design in interstellar spaceships. You on the right and the left should have a rightwards or leftwards opinion, right?
ReplyDelete"Fear extremism regardless of whether it originates from the left or the right."
While I agree, I don't limit the danger to a linear, two dimensional universe. If you think of everything as right or left, you've already been assimilated by the Right.
Now back to spaceship design. . .
Wow - to be honest I wasn't at all sure what kind of response this post would generate. I was aware when I wrote it that my analogy wasn't perfect - but hopefully food for thought.
ReplyDeleteEliminationists?! I am not pleased to learn of these folks. The Borg eliminated individuality, but not the living form of a species - it assimilated it. Yeah - ok - not much better - but still . . .
In fact, it ocurrs to me, that the Borg were, in some sense, liberal minded like the Fedration to the extent that they were willing to assimilate ALL species - they weren't choosy. They were equal opportunity assimilationists. So, in a sense, they were simply a mindless collective version of the Federation. (OK - maybe I'm pushing the analogy a bit)
The reason the Borg popped into my mind recently was due to a comment on Dino's post. Octopus referred to civililty as being a case of both sides being given equal time to reasonably lay out their position. The Borg - like the willfully deaf conservative extremists growing in shrillness in our midst - never acknowledge the need for civil discourse. It was futile. They were strong, you weren't. Case closed.
Fogg - you make a good point about the over simplicity of "right" and "left" - hence the "beauty of the Star Trek analogy. There is no middle ground when confronting the Borg. No compromise. No coming to terms.
Tao - yes - a FAT wall - I stand corrected!
Fogg - you are right (haha!) - why do spaceships need to be aerondynamic? Though the Borg did not start of trend with their cube.
There is a reason why spaceships need to be aerodynamic:
ReplyDeleteAlbert Einstein: "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."
Ever hear of Dark Matter? That is what you get when you read rightwing blogs.
Enjoyed Squid’s Trekker Post. This dino is impervious to any impending Borg assaults because its mind is so tiny that it has stealth capacities….
ReplyDeleteAnyhow, the implacability we are discussing might also be construed as coming from within a democratic polity rather than from an external force: Thucydides makes the victorious Athenians say the following at Melos: “But you and we should say what we really think, and aim only at what is possible, for we both alike know that into the discussion of human affairs the question of justice only enters where the pressure of necessity is equal, and that the powerful exact what they can, and the weak grant what they must.” In other words, “resistance is futile; assimilate or be destroyed.”
Well, in our American context, there seems to be an angry, fearful element always working against any progress we make: our every age has had its “birthers,” “town howlers,” and other reactionists. At its worst, this element seems almost unconquerable in its sound and fury, its inability to accept any sort of change whatsoever. But it’s worth remembering, as Squid makes clear, that in the end the sound and fury may well signifiy nothing. Progress still gets itself accomplished, however painfully and haltingly, even though there are no guarantees that it will continue forever.
I suspect that underlying reactionism is something quite human: the primal dread of death. What else could an unreasoning hatred of even the most positive change suggest but the fear of this one inescapable condition of life? A tolerant, generous, and humane individual – precisely the qualities most often lacking in right-wing brutes and low materialists – has probably admitted this condition, and knows that all proceeds, as Victor Hugo wrote, in the shadow of death: “Les hommes sont tous condamnés à mort, avec des surcis indéfinis.”
Finally, in case nobody has mentioned Richard Hofstadter’s 1964 Harper’s Magazine article, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” I’ll do that now.
Octy,
ReplyDeleteWhere did I say you were naive? Never said that did I?
You make some very sound arguments that should be read seriously and thought about and I must say that is true of almost all the posts on The Swash Zone...
But it is kind of like Obama and Bipartisanship...its a fools dream.
There is a reactionary right and they are intent on destroying this country and they have decided that their enemies are 'liberals."
You can debate a conservative but you cannot debate the reactionary right....to them you represent intelligence and they are an anti-intellectual bunch.
You represent rational thought and they aspire to emotionalism.
You represent objectivity and they want banners, slogans, and parades.
I lost a great aunt and a great uncle in Dachau because they refused to salute Hitler and they were turned in by neighbors all of whom had benefitted from their kindness over the years. They loved Germany so much that they refused to resettle with the rest of the family in the United States and they were charged with being 'traitors.' They were NOT jewish.
While we focus on "Never Again" we actually need to focus on how and why something like a Hitler started in Germany and ask "Could it happen here?"
Sure could...maybe it is already...
You can hide behind three syllable words and concepts like "the eliminationists' all you want but you are talking above the heads of the masses and missing the boat entirely. You can go back to Atwater to Rove and they understood, just like Goebbels did, how to manipulate, motivate, and distract from the truth...
A majority of Americans now believe the 'myths' of the healthcare debate; in other words a majority of Americans now believe the lies...
Its time to find a liberal who can spin a message and get it across the cultural divide that exists in America.
On the left/right distinction, Hofstadter's article should prove interesting. But I suppose the problem with maintaining this binary too rigidly is that it presupposes a coherent philosophy. Some of the yowling we've heard lately from certain pols and their followers hardly rises to that level; its source seems rather to lie in half-crazy fear and full-throttle anger as if those emotions were sufficient causes in themselves, not in a coherent view of how things should be and what should be done to make them that way.
ReplyDeleteIt has been interesting today to read people's comments about choosing up "sides" and how in fact we define these sides - highlighting the fact that our world does not present the easily categorized polar opposites provided by my Star Trek analogy.
ReplyDeleteAnd Dino's comment - thoughtful as always - harking back to the ancient world - also highlights another civilization defined by both its ideals and its contradictions - as are we now. Ancient Athens is remembered as the birthplace of democracy - yes, well, it was a democracy of free men - slaves and women had no rights. And, for all its enlightened thought - Sophocles, Socrates etc - it was also capable of brutality and ruthlessness - as recounted in the Melian Dialogue quoted by Dino. It was a civilization of ideals - such as the United States - but in practice it slipped from its ideals. Though, in defense of the Athenians, we idealize them more than they idealized themselves.
As I see it - labels aside - we have in our midst, elements in our society that are challenging our ideals - advocating their own disturbing version of the same ideals in some instances. And, as you Trekkies know, even the United Federation of Planets slipped off its own idealistic pedestal from time to time as Klingons battled Romulans etc.
So how does idealism do battle with idealism? Even the Borg had an ideal - the collective. When both sides are convinced they are right - who can win? In the instance of the Borg & the poor, conquered Melians - it was the "ideal" that carried the biggest stick. Short of an all out war in our society, we seem to be battling it out uncivilly in the media or townhalls. A different sort of blood shed.
8pus: I have my thoughts together. I was questioning the premise.
ReplyDeleteTao has the better bearing on my point.
Tao,
ReplyDeleteAm not sure this blog is really aimed at “the masses,” so there’s no need to shy away from the occasional fifty-dollar word where it’s appropriate. But no matter on the semantics. I think it’s true that one can’t debate the fringe elements to any purpose – they aren’t rational in the first place, and their very sanity is often in question. As Octo suggests, they are dangerous because they incubate a climate of hatred and violence. Not quite sure what, if anything, anyone’s disagreeing about there….
I suppose that to turn things around in the public opinion polls, President Obama would have to do something cleverer than negate the opposition’s lies. Just saying, “no there are no death panels, no we’re not going to decimate Medicare, no the bill isn’t all about abortion, no it isn’t a government takeover of the entire health care system,” etc. isn’t going to do much. There’s nothing quite like an official denial to confirm people’s suspicions, even if the suspicions are groundless. So how about something like, “Here’s an itemized list of the contemptible liars and here’s why and how they’re taking you all for suckers”? Many people are easily taken for suckers, but they hate nothing so much as knowing they’ve been taken for suckers. Bold populism based on the truth might be the best way to counter pseudo-populism founded on vicious lies.
Obama made a very basic mistake in his political calculations in regards to passing healthcare reform he forgot that his most ardent supporters are young people, wealthier people, and more educated.
ReplyDeleteThree groups with the least political capital on the line in regards to health care and its not a personal issue for them as it is for those who have been laid off or the elderly on social security.
I also think he should have started with the concept of reforming healthcare to make it more efficient and effective and less expensive and worried about those with no insurance down the road...
Insurance companies are fighting for their lives because no one likes their insurance company and I think someone should stand up and ask these town hall protesters who are on medicare why they believe they are entitled to socialized medicine and not others....
Obama has allowed himself to be boxed in and he has now had to defend rather than attack...
Because now we have another example of the 'swift boat' attack and it is working...
I always figured that Bush pushed through the Wall Street Bailout in an attempt to limit the amount of change that the next president could achieve of course that all is now seen as the Obama Bailout.
I think bringing up Wall Street bonuses and tying lies and attacks to lobbyists and then tieing lobbyists to who pays them would be a great campaign and I see nothing wrong with a little liberal 'swifting boating'
Sometimes you have to get your hands dirty a little bit to get what is best...
Bloggingdino, indeed we are all condemned from the moment of birth, and this interval of life is tenuous at best. A very young child, although dependent on parents for survival, knows only omnipotence. There are adults, although gainfully independent, who never mature in emotional terms beyond childish omnipotence. We call them narcissists, a trait all wingnuts seem to share.
ReplyDeleteTAO: “Where did I say you were naive? Never said that did I?”
No, you didn’t. I did.
Squid: “Though, in defense of the Athenians, we idealize them more than they idealized themselves.”
And we idealize ourselves more than we should.
TAO: "Obama made a very basic mistake in his political calculations in regards to passing healthcare reform ..."
ReplyDeleteObama made the mistake of not learning from the Clintons. In 1992 when Bill Clinton was campaigning for the presidency, there was the infamous "War Room" to counter slurs and misrepresentations in real time. Obama's mistake: He waited too long. There was no "war room." When the deceptions went viral, it was too late. In politics, if one waits too long, the biggest whopper has staying power. Once it takes root, kudzu is impossible to remove.