humor: Winning Political Arguments

Winning Political Arguments
Have you noticed that every government in the world was started by heroes, at least according to the people who started any particular government? However, anyone who is trying to overthrow an existing government is a criminal, at least according to that existing government.
>
So, how does that work exactly? Anyone who is in the process of overthrowing a government is a criminal, but if they succeed then they grant themselves amnesty or a presidential pardon or their conviction is overturned by the supreme court and then everyone else labels them heroes. Isn’t that right?
>
Let’s take Nelson Mandela. To the government he was trying to overthrow, he was a terrorist, right? Then, eventually he was made in to a hero, right?
English: Nelson Mandela in Johannesburg, Gaute...

English: Nelson Mandela in Johannesburg, Gauteng, on 13 May 1998 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

>
In the US, there were a bunch of colonists who were terrorists to the British, who the colonists were trying to overthrow, and then when the colonists succeeded in overthrowing the British, the colonists were labeled heroes. Then, in the civil war in the US, the Confederate soldiers were either heroic or criminal, depending on who you asked and when you asked them.
>
If some Native Americans were fighting against the colonists in America, the Natives were obviously terrorists, at least to the colonists. To the Native Americans, the invading colonists were the terrorists.
>
So, basically, all governments are formed by criminal terrorists who eventually are considered heroes.  Anyone who is trying to overthrow an existing government is not a hero, unless they succeed. However, heroes are only heroes as long as no one overthrows them.
>
People who are trying to overthrow governments never actually call themselves criminal terrorists. That is just what the existing government calls them.
>
They call themselves things like freedom fighters and revolutionaries. Then, if they win, they call themselves heroes.
>
Every existing government is called corrupt by some people who call themselves freedom fighters and revolutionaries. If you call a government corrupt, especially if you also call yourself a freedom fighter or a revolutionary, then there is probably some existing government somewhere calling you a criminal terrorist or at least a thought criminal.
>
If some slaves are trying to escape slavery, they are criminals. If they fight for their freedom, they are terrorists, unless they win. If they win, then they are heroes. Of course, before long, someone may come along to call them corrupt and try to overthrow them or at least escape from their rule.
>
Now, what does justice mean? Justice is whatever rules that the existing government uses, when referenced by them.
>
However, when revolutionaries talk about justice, they mean some other rules or patterns besides the popular patterns of an existing government. So, justice means different patterns to different people. However, no matter who is using the word justice, justice is whatever pattern that those people want to promote.
>
So, if opposing sides in a war or in a political debate are both calling for justice, that would be predictable, right? One side says “our side should win because that is the only way to promote justice.” The other side says something very similar: “our side should win because that is the only way to promote justice.” Every side in every political conflict in human history has said: “our side should win because that is the only way to promote justice.”
>
In other words, justice always means “the reason that our side should win.” Justice is the justification for our side winning. Justice is justification.
>
For the revolutionaries, they want to promote justice by replacing the corrupt leaders of the existing government. For the existing government, they want to promote justice by preventing the revolutionaries from competing with the heroes of the existing government.
>
To an existing government, justice means keeping the old heroes as heroes and preventing any new heroes from overthrowing the old heroes. To a revolutionary competing with an existing government, justice means replacing the old victorious criminal terrorists with some new victors.
>
The victors are the heroes. The losers are the villains.
>
Maybe you have noticed that the good guys always win. Now you know why. The good guys always win because the winners get to tell the stories about who won and about why the victorious good guys defeated the bad guys.
>
It does not really matter if the bad guys were still revolutionary terrorist criminals or were an existing government of corrupt former heroes. As long as the bad guys lost, that guarantees that they will be labeled as the bad guys. The winners label themselves the heroic good guys and the winners label their competition the corrupt criminal villain bad guys.
>
So, in summary, the good guys always win. Why? Because they have justice on their side.
>
What’s justice again? Justice is the justification that the victors give for why the bad guys were bad and corrupt, as in why some heroes would have ever competed with them. In other words, justice is the word at end of the following slogan used by all politicians everywhere: “our side should win because that is the only way to promote justice.”
>
Maybe you want proof for the idea that the winners define who were the heroic good guys and get to tell their story of which kind of justice motivated them to compete and win. Great! How about this?
>
Imagine the following campaign speech: “I am an extremely corrupt aspiring politician, in fact, a criminal terrorist. Why? Well, my justification is that the existing government is extremely heroic and good. Therefore, I seek to overthrow them in order to promote injustice.”
>
Did you notice that there was something unusual about that campaign speech? Yes, right? Further, you may notice whether or not you have ever heard any politician say the following: “our side should lose because the other side winning is the only way to promote justice.”
>
Want more proof for the idea that the winners define who were the heroic good guys and get to tell their story of which kind of justice motivated them to compete and to win? Well, here it is. This is the final and conclusive proof. This will convince you.
>
When there is a sports championship, before the competition, both sides may get nearly equal media attention, right? There is at least some degree of balance, right? However, after the event is over, who gets more attention from the media, like more publicity, like almost of all of the publicity: is it the loser or… the winner?
>

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

4 Responses to “humor: Winning Political Arguments”

  1. Mohammad Rafi Says:

    I like your article. Thought provoking indeed. Thanks for referring my article here (The Terrorist Inside Me). I feel we all need to work together to upset the ongoing man slaughter by the terrorist governments (specially the Western ones) to promote peace and justice.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      Thank you. I respect your sentiment. I used to share it.

      Then, I researched language with interest in the fact that different uses of the word justice seem to reference a rather wide range of behaviors, some of which are elsewhere referenced as “injustices.” In this blog, I reference the origin of the word justice (and “just”) which are still just whatever the ruling authority declares and successfully enforces.

      http://jrfibonacci.wordpress.com/the-linguistic-isolating-of-justice-from-money/

      In this next one, I do not address justice in particular, but the practical importance of language. I welcome you to review these posts and other content on my blog.

      http://jrfibonacci.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/the-supremacy-of-language-heaven-god-and-society/

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      Note that I offer no disagreement with your accusations, nor any apologies or rationalizations, nor any condoning or condemning of the behavior patterns you reference. I remember recently seeing some calculations on the total casualties of World War 2. I was surprised to find that China and the USSR each had dozens of millions of deaths, mostly of civilians of course. Those two nations combined had more casualties than all the others combined, if I recall right. Of course, they also had much larger populations than the others combined, but I had been led to believe that most of World War 2 happened in Europe. Propaganda can be a very powerful tool, huh

  2. curi56 Says:

    Reblogged this on Faktensucher.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 291 other followers

%d bloggers like this: