Whenever we have discussions, friendly or otherwise, it is important to always define terms first. Unfortunately, ideologues have no interest in debate, let alone discussion, for any reason beyond target practise. For the socialist, those who support free markets must, by necessity, be lumped in with corporatists and fascists for appearances' sake.
"Perception is more important than reality" - Ivanka Trump
To which, the rebuttal is such:
"Style prevails over substance only when there is no substance." - Karel Janáček
We, in turn, should take every opportunity to use their own bad tactics against them, not in a serious manner, but for the purpose of making them look foolish. For instance, since fascism is, technically, a form of socialism, I love lumping self-described socialists in with actual fascists and watching their heads explode.
For the record, when I use the term "idealogue," I'm actually working with a slightly different definition in the context of this comment from usual. Up until now, whenever I've used the term "ideologue," it has included all those who are blindly married to an ideology, whether they have a vested interest or not. This has, traditionally, included the midwits of society (a.k.a. "useful idiots," despite their higher-than-average IQ), but over the course of my recent (and possibly still ongoing) discussion with @newexperience, I have decided that my current working definition is far too broad, and should be narrowed down to exclude the midwits, thus focusing on the much more intelligent and exponentially more dangerous individuals who devote themselves to propagating bad ideas (and, quite frequently, are the very people who invented these ideas in the first place).
I have decided that my current working definition is far too broad, and should be narrowed down to exclude the midwits, thus focusing on the much more intelligent and exponentially more dangerous individuals who devote themselves to propagating bad ideas (and, quite frequently, are the very people who invented these ideas in the first place).
Your logic is sound - if incorrect, if using history as a measure...
The structures created by the manipulators (the higher IQ's individuals - those at the the top of the pyramid) can only be dismantled by first dismantling the legitimacy of the midwits underneath them.
They are the foot soldiers .
The bureaucrats without any credibility no longer have power.
The numbers of those at 'the very top' offer no defense without any foot soldiers.
De-legitimizing those at the top is what 'we' have been doing forever - yet here we are... the fruits of that offensive (or lack of) show with stark clarity - the effectiveness of it.
By destroying the supporters of the system - through the de-legitimizing of their positions - THEN...then the whole edifice will come toppling down....
I never once said that midwits should be ignored, only that we should probably start distinguishing the two types of people who employ the ideological method. Repeating a lie doesn't necessarily make one a liar, after all, but the lie spreads nonetheless. In other words, to de-legitimise the dupes, de-legitimise the liars, and vice-versa. It's an uphill battle either way, since they outnumber us by several orders of magnitude.
Bear in mind, I had already written rather prolifically about this very phenomenon (i.e. the ideological method) by the time I first encountered the term "midwit." Now that I have a more specific term to work with than "useful idiot," it's time to update the lexicon, compile my thoughts in a much more concise fashion, and pry the great grift wide open.
pry , pry.... and pry some more, matey !!!