Oath Keepers: When the Teabaggers Just Aren’t Whacked Enough

[Searcher08]

lbo, Thank you for your reply. Just to let you know, I have started on a response but it will probably be tomorrow before it's posted.

[compared2what?]

A lot of people here do not seem to be objecting to either taking oaths or keeping them, but to underlying motive, organisational behaviour, communications on the website.

It may be a cultural attribute, S08.

We like to mouth the words "innocent until proven guilty", but our actions sometimes reflect "guilty until proven innocent."

Which often stems from a presumption that we know someone else's true motives better than they do.

Interesting.

Would that be sort of like not feeling the need to do any of your own thinking about -- let's say -- whether or not a radio-talk-show host is a fascist or not, when you could just base your opinion on your presumptions regarding the judgment of his guests instead?

It may be a cultural thing. I see evidence of that presumption a lot these days. In conversations that folks have between themselves on a daily basis.

Yeah, well. The trouble with "folks" these days is that they're too caught up in their comfortable old routines and their familiar old lenses to even hear what they're saying themselves, never mind anybody else. Poor you. And on a daily basis, too, you say. That must be a challenge.

Do you ever get the feeling that you might as well just be talking to yourself?

[compared2what?]

lbo, Thank you for your reply. Just to let you know, I have started on a response but it will probably be tomorrow before it's posted.

What lovely manners you have, S08. I think I'm going to make a little pre-New-Year's-resolution to aspire in some way to be as naturally gracious as you are, starting right now. So thank you for your reply to my ceaseless keening, whining and whimpering. Regrettably. I haven't started on a response to you yet, though. Because I haven't had two brain cells to rub together in order to get a spark going for a single day yet this week. You know how it is. Holidays. I've been looking forward to responding to you some day, though! I really have! It's just that I don't want to give you a less thoughtful reply than you deserve.

Sincerely yours,

c2w

[23]

Yeah, well. The trouble with "folks" these days is that they're too caught up in their comfortable old routines and their familiar old lenses to even hear what they're saying themselves, never mind anybody else. Poor you. And on a daily basis, too, you say. That must be a challenge.

Do you ever get the feeling that you might as well just be talking to yourself?

Actually, most people don't talk to each other. They talk to images that they've formed of each other.

One person's image of himself talking to the image that he formed of the other person, and vice versa.

It's uncommon for two people to talk to each other. It's more likely that their images, of themselves and of the other person, are engaged in the conversation.

[compared2what?]

Yeah, well. The trouble with "folks" these days is that they're too caught up in their comfortable old routines and their familiar old lenses to even hear what they're saying themselves, never mind anybody else. Poor you. And on a daily basis, too, you say. That must be a challenge.

Do you ever get the feeling that you might as well just be talking to yourself?

Actually, most people don't talk to each other. They talk to images that they've formed of each other.

One person's image of himself talking to the image that he formed of the other person, and vice versa.

It's uncommon for two people to talk to each other. It's more likely that their images, of themselves and of the other person, are engaged in the conversation.

This has not been my experience. But thank you for sharing your thoughts.

[23]

My pleasure.

Labels are effective tools of representation.

If a conversation is ridden with labels, chances are that images or representations are being formed of whatever or whomever is being discussed.

And if you use labels to image/represent others, it's a good bet that you're doing that for yourself as well.

Labeling ourselves gives us the proclivity to label others.

Which is what projecting essentially is.

Yeah, well. The trouble with "folks" these days is that they're too caught up in their comfortable old routines and their familiar old lenses to even hear what they're saying themselves, never mind anybody else. Poor you. And on a daily basis, too, you say. That must be a challenge.

Do you ever get the feeling that you might as well just be talking to yourself?

Actually, most people don't talk to each other. They talk to images that they've formed of each other.

One person's image of himself talking to the image that he formed of the other person, and vice versa.

It's uncommon for two people to talk to each other. It's more likely that their images, of themselves and of the other person, are engaged in the conversation.

This has not been my experience. But thank you for sharing your thoughts.

[compared2what?]

My pleasure.

Labels are effective tools of representation.

If a conversation is ridden with labels, chances are that images or representations are being formed of whatever or whomever is being discussed.

And if you use labels to image/represent others, it's a good bet that you're doing that for yourself as well.

Labeling ourselves gives us the proclivity to label others.

Which is what projecting essentially is.

Well. If what you mean is that no person can understand anything better than he or she understands him- or herself, I can not only say that I agree with your premise, but that to me personally, it's such a foundational truth as to be globally and universally a precursor to all of the thoughts, perceptions, feelings, judgments (and so forth) from which my view of the world -- as well as my view of every being, thing, action, dynamic, and/or concept in, of, or related thereto -- proceeds that I honestly couldn't imagine myself or anything else without it.

But I'm not sure whether that's what you mean. I tend to be very literal-minded about language, especially written language. So to me there's really no functional distinction between sentiments as broadly stated as "Labeling ourselves gives us the proclivity to label others" and labels themselves. At least for interpersonal-communications purposes.

Because from my perspective -- especially absent any of the clues that I might be able to deduce from personal or environmental factors were this discourse occurring in a more richly detailed and less starkly verbal communications medium -- such general statements are exactly like labels in that they might represent anything or nothing from the perspective of the person, largely unknown to me, who's using them. In this case, you.

In any event. Since I have no reliable way of discerning what those statements represent to you in particular, but can perceive that they at least appear to represent something that's both meaningful and important to you in general, I'm hesitant to do you the disservice of presuming to understand more than I have any way of knowing that's much more certain than that. Provisionally, I guess I'll just consider every possible option to be in play equally and without prejudice on a theoretical basis, until such time as I have a reason to exclude any. Which is not at all an uncommon concomitant of a strong commitment to projection-avoidance. Kinda obviously, in fact. So please forgive me for telling you something that in all likelihood you already know. And may very well just have told me, even. I mean, for all I know.

Which is basically that I don't know much.
__________________

Back to topic on my next post, I promise.

[23]

"Well. If what you mean is that no person can understand anything better than he or she understands him- or herself, I can not only say that I agree with your premise, but that to me personally, it's such a foundational truth as to be globally and universally a precursor to all of the thoughts, perceptions, feelings, judgments (and so forth) from which my view of the world -- as well as my view of every being, thing, action, dynamic, and/or concept in, of, or related thereto -- proceeds that I honestly couldn't imagine myself or anything else without it."[

I understand. And I agree; it is extremely difficult to imagine oneself or anything else without it. I completely understand and agree.

Consider this, however. Our proclivity to label ourselves, and therefore others as a consequence, may not be the problem. What may be problematic is our willingness and/or need to identify ourselves with our labels. Commensurately, others as well.

As long as we occupy our inhaling and exhaling spacer suits, we will naturally be labeling or describing shit. Our brain will make sure of that.

But we don't have to identify ourselves with the labels that we generate about us. Quit this, and you just may find that you have a reduced need to identify others with your labels too.

"As it is inside, so it is outside"... as a wiser man than me once said.

Make sense?


"But I'm not sure whether that's what you mean. I tend to be very literal-minded about language, especially written language. So to me there's really no functional distinction between sentiments as broadly stated as "Labeling ourselves gives us the proclivity to label others" and labels themselves. At least for interpersonal-communications purposes."

To be aware of your own internal process... including the process of identifying yourself with the labels that you create about you... is simply being aware of the process. It isn't labeling the process; it's simply being aware of it.

And, sometimes, just being aware of something that is going on inside of you... without feeling compelled to judge or label or comment on it... is enough for the process to lose considerable potency and even cease.


"Because from my perspective -- especially absent any of the clues that I might be able to deduce from personal or environmental factors were this discourse occurring in a more richly detailed and less starkly verbal communications medium -- such general statements are exactly like labels in that they might represent anything or nothing from the perspective of the person, largely unknown to me, who's using them. In this case, you."

That's why they invented clarifying questions, n'est-ce pas? We may draw conclusions too quickly from something that someone said, and don't ask enough clarifying questions.


"In any event. Since I have no reliable way of discerning what those statements represent to you in particular..."

Don't be shy about employing clarifying questions, then. They don't bite.


"but can perceive that they at least appear to represent something that's both meaningful and important to you in general, I'm hesitant to do you the disservice of presuming to understand more than I have any way of knowing that's much more certain than that. Provisionally, I guess I'll just consider every possible option to be in play equally and without prejudice on a theoretical basis, until such time as I have a reason to exclude any. Which is not at all an uncommon concomitant of a strong commitment to projection-avoidance. Kinda obviously, in fact. So please forgive me for telling you something that in all likelihood you already know. And may very well just have told me, even. I mean, for all I know.
Which is basically that I don't know much."

Bingo. You have said something that I resonate strongly with. It's in bold.

I, too, don't know much. And as time passes, I know less and less. Which is fine by me, 'cause we may just have to unlearn all the stuff that we learned... to be able to implement the radical solutions to the radical problems that currently confront us.

I'm a big proponent of unlearning much of the shit that we've learned... to have real, substantive hope for my daughter's future. And her children's future.

Thanks for your reply.

“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” - Albert Einstein

[compared2what?]

"Well. If what you mean is that no person can understand anything better than he or she understands him- or herself, I can not only say that I agree with your premise, but that to me personally, it's such a foundational truth as to be globally and universally a precursor to all of the thoughts, perceptions, feelings, judgments (and so forth) from which my view of the world -- as well as my view of every being, thing, action, dynamic, and/or concept in, of, or related thereto -- proceeds that I honestly couldn't imagine myself or anything else without it."[

I understand. And I agree; it is extremely difficult to imagine oneself or anything else without it. I completely understand and agree.

Consider this, however. Our proclivity to label ourselves, and therefore others as a consequence, may not be the problem. What may be problematic is our willingness and/or need to identify ourselves with our labels. Commensurately, others as well.

As long as we occupy our inhaling and exhaling spacer suits, we will naturally be labeling or describing shit. Our brain will make sure of that.

But we don't have to identify ourselves with the labels that we generate about us. Quit this, and you just may find that you have a reduced need to identify others with your labels too.

"As it is inside, so it is outside"... as a wiser man than me once said.

Make sense?

Sure.

"But I'm not sure whether that's what you mean. I tend to be very literal-minded about language, especially written language. So to me there's really no functional distinction between sentiments as broadly stated as "Labeling ourselves gives us the proclivity to label others" and labels themselves. At least for interpersonal-communications purposes."

To be aware of your own internal process... including the process of identifying yourself with the labels that you create about you... is simply being aware of the process. It isn't labeling the process; it's simply being aware of it.

And, sometimes, just being aware of something that is going on inside of you... without feeling compelled to judge or label or comment on it... is enough for the process to lose considerable potency and even cease.

Yes, I know.

"Because from my perspective -- especially absent any of the clues that I might be able to deduce from personal or environmental factors were this discourse occurring in a more richly detailed and less starkly verbal communications medium -- such general statements are exactly like labels in that they might represent anything or nothing from the perspective of the person, largely unknown to me, who's using them. In this case, you."

That's why they invented clarifying questions, n'est-ce pas? We may draw conclusions too quickly from something that someone said, and don't ask enough clarifying questions.


"In any event. Since I have no reliable way of discerning what those statements represent to you in particular..."

Don't be shy about employing clarifying questions, then. They don't bite.

I know that also. And thank you for the encouragement. But I have no questions. I would have asked them if I did. I'm not actually at all shy about such things, as it happens. It's just that I'm perfectly fine with the unlabeled, uncommented upon, unjudged state of internal awareness I've already got, just the way it is, for the purposes of this little convo. And I feel under absolutely no compulsion at all to express, analyze, explore, share or otherwise probe that any further.

I fully concede and stipulate that I may very well be mistaking blind complacency for internal awareness. Be that as it may, since I feel no need whatsoever for further clarification, I have absolutely no clarifying questions to ask that I could even begin to pretend to be asking honestly. I opt therefore to ask none, whether rightly or wrongly.

Apart from that, I have nothing more to say that isn't about the Oath Keepers. Except that in the event that you may feel some kind of independent or existential need to give clarifying answers, irrespective of whether I felt any need to ask the corresponding questions or not, please do so. And please rest assured that if you do, I'll read them with interest, albeit without comment. You have my word for it.

"but can perceive that they at least appear to represent something that's both meaningful and important to you in general, I'm hesitant to do you the disservice of presuming to understand more than I have any way of knowing that's much more certain than that. Provisionally, I guess I'll just consider every possible option to be in play equally and without prejudice on a theoretical basis, until such time as I have a reason to exclude any. Which is not at all an uncommon concomitant of a strong commitment to projection-avoidance. Kinda obviously, in fact. So please forgive me for telling you something that in all likelihood you already know. And may very well just have told me, even. I mean, for all I know.
Which is basically that I don't know much."

Bingo. You have said something that I resonate strongly with. It's in bold.

I, too, don't know much. And as time passes, I know less and less. Which is fine by me, 'cause we may just have to unlearn all the stuff that we learned... to be able to implement the radical solutions to the radical problems that currently confront us.

I'm a big proponent of unlearning much of the shit that we've learned... to have real, substantive hope for my daughter's future. And her children's future.

Thanks for your reply.

“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” - Albert Einstein

Indeed. And thank you. I appreciate the interest.

FWIW, I do have some comments and questions about the Oath Keepers that you haven't yet addressed. So if you feel any inclination to reply to those, I very much look forward to your responses.

[American Dream]

[American Dream]

Pockets of White America Are in the Throes of an Existential Crisis

By Rich Benjamin, AlterNet
Posted on December 19, 2009

http://www.alternet.org/story/144672/


The headlines snared my attention over the last several days. "White Americans' Majority to End By Mid-century," announces The Associated Press. "Projections Put Whites in Minority in U.S. by 2050," declares The New York Times.

The Census Bureau has been churning some provocative press releases between its last head count (2000) and the one next year. Why, I wonder, the palpable anxiety? And why don't these headlines announce a positive reading of this statistic? Why not: "By 2050, People of Color Will Be a Majority"?

Already, 40 percent of Americans under the age of twenty-four are not white. Between now and 2050, the Latino population is projected to triple, the Asian population to double, and the non-Hispanic white population to flatline.

Meanwhile this week, two white police officers in Shenandoah, PA were indicted in federal court for filing false reports about the beating death of Luis Ramirez, a 25-year old undocumented worker. (When the immigrant was murdered in 2008 in the Pennsylvania hamlet, one of police officers was dating the accused teenage assailant's mother.) And the Justice Department announced this week that federal hate crimes cases are at their highest level since 2001.

"Do you understand what the New York Times wants, and the far-left want? They want to break down the white, Christian, male power structure, of which you're a part, and so am I," said Bill O'Reilly to John McCain in 2007, complaining about the number of undocumented Latino immigrants. "They hate America, and they hate it because it's run primarily by white, Christian men. They want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have."

Sealing the Mexican border would not significantly disrupt the Latino population increase. Nor does a sour economy. Domestic births currently outpace immigration as the key source of Latino population growth. In bellwether California, for example, births to Latina mothers outnumber births to all other races combined.

Racial demographics singe my thinking like a slow-burn fuse. When exactly did I grasp white people's proportional population decline? When, at last, did I realize what explosive emotions Latino immigration triggers? Was it reflecting on the many Census-related headlines, or while noticing other media's metaphors for Latino immigration ("flood," "tidal wave," "overrun," "invasion"), metaphors firmly in the vernacular of catastrophe, the idiom of natural disaster?

Was it absorbing all the reports in March of 2001 that announced black Americans' declining population share, a news flash that hit me more like an eviction notice. Hey, effective immediately, the Hispanics have ousted the blacks as America's largest minority! Or was it watching deposed Alarm King Lou Dobbs's "Broken Borders" segments, or clicking through the competing doomsday scenarios on cable TV, or noticing the spate of panicky best sellers, like Peter Brimelow's Alien Nation: Common Sense About America's Immigration Disaster, Patrick Buchanan's State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, and Samuel Huntington's Who Are We?: The Challenges to America's Identity. I can't put my finger on any moment, no. It has been a ten-year drumbeat, a rat-tat-tat, of quickening alarms alerting drastic, unprecedented cultural changes to our nation, complete with compression intervals.

By 2050, White People Will No Longer Be the Majority. The next census is being conducted against this backdrop, what I call "The White People Deadline."

Our country's Obama-era racial politics rarely mentions race in debate, though it lodges race just under the surface of "nonracial" issues: taxes, health care reform, immigration, public spending. There is a slim silver lining to the economic slump: It may inspire a greater commitment toward our nation's common good and more confidence in the public sector. For too long, an anti-government, race-tinged mindset has corroded belief in "one nation for all," while fertilizing conservative myths that "explain" the economic meltdown and rebuke President Obama's recovery agenda: "too much government regulation," "high taxes," "wasteful spending," and "undeserving welfare recipients."

Tea party protests. Combusting town-hall forums. A nativist Birther movement. Rising hate crimes against Latino Americans and immigrants. "You lie!" Right-wing calls to boycott the 2010 Census. Pockets of white America are suffering an existential crisis.

As the Census "time bomb" ticks, fear mounts over a perceived loss of whites' raw power - demographic, social, economic, and political.

[lightningBugout]

This is a drive to put Oath Keepers educational care packages into the hands of active duty military. This drive runs from Veterans Day, November 11, 2009, to Bill of Rights Day, December 15, 2009, honoring both those who served, and what they defended.

Tyranny cannot come to America if our military members refuse unconstitutional orders. We must remind them that their oath is to the Constitution, not to any politician or party; we must teach them about the Constitution they swore to defend; and we must steel their resolve to keep that oath.

If we reach enough of them, it is game over for any attempt to destroy this Republic. Whether we reach enough of them will depend on what you do.


Why This Mission is So Vital:

Like ripples in a pond, you never know what ultimate effect each care package will have. [b]Even one could lead to a whole company or battalion being good-to-go on their oath. But the more packages we get out there the faster the message of the oath will go viral, spreading far and wide, – which is exactly what the enemies of this Republic don’t want (which tells you precisely what needs to happen!). Make no mistake, the enemies of our Republic do not want the brave men and women in our military to understand the Constitution, their oath, or their obligation to refuse unconstitutional and unlawful orders. Would-be tyrants prefer blind obedience. The Founders understood this, which is exactly why they made the oath to the Constitution, not to any man or office, and why they put the oath requirement right in the Constitution itself. The oath is like kryptonite to tyrants, as the Founders intended. The time has come for us to use it to its full effect.



Each Oath Keepers Educational Care Package Will Include, at a Minimum, the Following:

Pocket Constitution and Declaration of Independence.
We will encourage all service members to not only read those documents, but to memorize them. How can they defend it if they don't know it?

Oath Keepers Handbook.
The principle authors of the Handbook will be CDR David R. Gillie, USN; Maj. Rex McTyeire, U.S. Army Special Forces (RET); and Oath Keepers founder, E. Stewart Rhodes (Army Airborne veteran and graduate of Yale Law School). The Handbook will also include statements by other current serving or retired, both officers and enlisted, to speak directly to each branch. The handbook will teach the troops about their obligations under the oath, will teach them more about the Constitution, will give them historic examples and comparisons to show how unique our civic order is, and will inspire them to keep their oath.

Oath Keepers Educational DVD.
This DVD will include a class on the Constitution by Oath Keepers Founder, Stewart Rhodes and a class on the constitutional command structure by CDR David R. Gillie, USN. The DVD will also include video testimonials by respected veterans of each branch of the service speaking directly to the current serving, and video from our historic first gathering on April 19, 2009 on Lexington Green, where current serving and veterans renewed their oaths.

Oath Keeper Tab.
We will also include at least one "Oath Keeper" tab with velcro on the back, as our gift to each service member.

Oath Keeper bumper stickers and small window/trunk stickers

Oath Keepers Outreach Materials. We will include some Oath Keepers brochures and cards.

This speaks for itself, I think.

[lightningBugout]

"So seeing someone in a flag or with a beard or hunting rifle may be subconscious triggers to patterns unrelated..."


Which is why choir lofts, where everyone sings by the same song sheet, and echo chambers aren't particularly good for one's health. Harmonious vibrations need discord, from time to time, to jar themselves out of the rut of similarity.

My daughter and I are exposed to members of the discarded class, on almost a daily basis. They too, like your Rasta friend, are often taken aback by our willingness to give them the commodity of attention, and not just the loose bills or change that we have.

At present, I spend more time socializing with members of the discarded class than I do in the company of any other human beings on a daily basis. Although my closest and most intimate relationship is not with a member of the discarded class, at present. Or a resident of the same city.

In any event. I would never have thought to call them the discarded class. Although they sure are. I just think of them as my homeless crack addict friends. But it's a useful appellation, for which I owe you some gratitude. Because while I could not say that I am or have ever been a homeless crack addict, I could say that I have been and will probably again some day be a member of the discarded class. Which will have some real practical value to me as a clear short answer to a question I otherwise inevitably end up lengthily failing to answer. I mean, to me, those friendships are just a natural and uninflected part of my life -- you know, they just happened to develop because we meet every day on the streets where they literally and I figuratively live. But to the friends who join me in the more prominently perceptible class to which I belong at present (white, middle), they're fucking totally unaccountable. So thanks.

I still can't entirely articulate what sensitivity in myself this triggered. But I can report that it inspired me to ask a fairly close friend of mine who lives on the street what he thought of the term "discarded class." His response? He laughed and said "says who?" and asked if the claimant had ever lived on the street. He told me he thought of himself as a traveler. I buy it too. My friend, like many vets, was in the service in Vietnam and later stationed in Germany. His wife was killed on the Autobahn and he became an addict, eventually winding up in a Texas penitentiary. But, unlike most vets, he's mentally healthy and, today, other than a bit more booze than is healthy and some weed, his substance abuse is maybe easing the discomfort of, but certainly not causing, his predicament. And truth is, I don't think of him as all that different than I do any of my acquaintances. There's a crack house across the street from my studio. They're a royal pain in the ass. But I don't really think they are all that different than you or I. The more I am exposed to the druggies and homeless in my neighborhood, the more I realize they are not that different than you or I. That's, btw, not a humanist platitude, I mean it practically - they watch TV, use the web, read the paper, etc. Some of them have jobs, but at least most get some sort of check from the Feds. They just don't have a house and taking a shower requires a lot more planning.

[compared2what?]

"So seeing someone in a flag or with a beard or hunting rifle may be subconscious triggers to patterns unrelated..."


Which is why choir lofts, where everyone sings by the same song sheet, and echo chambers aren't particularly good for one's health. Harmonious vibrations need discord, from time to time, to jar themselves out of the rut of similarity.

My daughter and I are exposed to members of the discarded class, on almost a daily basis. They too, like your Rasta friend, are often taken aback by our willingness to give them the commodity of attention, and not just the loose bills or change that we have.

At present, I spend more time socializing with members of the discarded class than I do in the company of any other human beings on a daily basis. Although my closest and most intimate relationship is not with a member of the discarded class, at present. Or a resident of the same city.

In any event. I would never have thought to call them the discarded class. Although they sure are. I just think of them as my homeless crack addict friends. But it's a useful appellation, for which I owe you some gratitude. Because while I could not say that I am or have ever been a homeless crack addict, I could say that I have been and will probably again some day be a member of the discarded class. Which will have some real practical value to me as a clear short answer to a question I otherwise inevitably end up lengthily failing to answer. I mean, to me, those friendships are just a natural and uninflected part of my life -- you know, they just happened to develop because we meet every day on the streets where they literally and I figuratively live. But to the friends who join me in the more prominently perceptible class to which I belong at present (white, middle), they're fucking totally unaccountable. So thanks.

I still can't entirely articulate what sensitivity in myself this triggered. But I can report that it inspired me to ask a fairly close friend of mine who lives on the street what he thought of the term "discarded class." His response? He laughed and said "says who?" and asked if the claimant had ever lived on the street. He told me he thought of himself as a traveler. I buy it too. My friend, like many vets, was in the service in Vietnam and later stationed in Germany. His wife was killed on the Autobahn and he became an addict, eventually winding up in a Texas penitentiary. But, unlike most vets, he's mentally healthy and, today, other than a bit more booze than is healthy and some weed, his substance abuse is maybe easing the discomfort of, but certainly not causing, his predicament. And truth is, I don't think of him as all that different than I do any of my acquaintances. There's a crack house across the street from my studio. They're a royal pain in the ass. But I don't really think they are all that different than you or I. The more I am exposed to the druggies and homeless in my neighborhood, the more I realize they are not that different than you or I. That's, btw, not a humanist platitude, I mean it practically - they watch TV, use the web, read the paper, etc. Some of them have jobs, but at least most get some sort of check from the Feds. They just don't have a house and taking a shower requires a lot more planning.

That's what makes it such a true and also such a useful appellation, though. I would never have thought of it, as I said. And I doubt that anyone to whom it was applicable as a matter of immediate external circumstances or who truly understood that realistically speaking, it's permanently and equally applicable to everybody** in there-but-for-the-grace-of terms would self-identify that way. But it's the perfect shorthand phrase to use with members of the class that perceives them as discarded and assigns agency to their class rather than themselves than any other I can think of. It's in their language and it's too subtly flattering to raise their hackles. I was planning on trying it out on my most un-freaky relatives over the holidays to see how they responded.

I'll report back if I get any interesting results that aren't too demeaning to my relatives. Whom I love like family irrespective of where they fall on the spectrum of freakiness, of course. That's only natural.

*** Except for the handful of people who have so much capital and power that they can neither be acquired nor discarded by any natural force. Hence theirs is not to reason why, theirs is but to acquire and discard.

[lightningBugout]

lbo, Thank you for your reply. Just to let you know, I have started on a response but it will probably be tomorrow before it's posted.

Thanks, bump, looking forward to reading it Searcher, hope you are well.