The Religion of Politics.

[John D. Brey]

In the end, left and right are just directions on the Cain-like infinite circle-jerk know as ideologies, such that one should take care when exploring such philosophies especially when they self-proclaim the titles of "hand" and "maiden" as the right-she-is label of (Christian) theology.

It seems to me like a lot depends on whether a person considers the highest form of reality, or truth, to be a unity of left and right, or, on the other hand, that they believe there's no right, only left, which would mean left isn't really left (since left requires right) but is (left is), actually right-eous-ness (a perfect whole independent of dependent parts). "Right-eous-ness" implies there's nothing left in left but right-ness (correctness, fullness), which is at least semantically weird.

We saw a living example of the "right-ness" of the left in the Fox interview with Vice President Kamala Harris yesterday when Harris said, more than once, "You know what I mean," to Fox's Bret Baier. -----Baier responded, "No, actually I don't," evincing a slight grimace from Vice President Harris.

It seems highly unlikely that Harris for one moment considered the possibility that Bret Baier might not know what she meant, since in Harris leftist ideology, she doesn't appear to conscience a unity of left and right, or that her leftist ideology is one pole in a binary spectrum, but rather, she seems to think her leftist ideology is the full-reality of reality itself, singularly, rather than as one part of a left vs. right spectrum.

It's very likely that the grimace on Harris' face was evoked by her thinking Bret Baier was just messing with her, since in her admirable and refreshing innocence, she seems to doubt that anyone actually holds viewpoints they believe are true even though they're not founded in her singularistic ideology. In other words, leftist like Harris don't appear to think rightists like Baier have a legitimate opposing view of reality, but that they know the reality of their opponents is the real-reality, but they just want to proffer falsehoods, ala Harris' version of President Donald Trump, because, by reason of some "evil" (if that word isn't too strong) which she doesn't understand, people like Baier and Trump, though they know reality is as it is for Harris, try to thwart reality for their own subjective, singular, gain.



John

 

[Kathryn]

I agree, I think.

 

[GoodAttention]

We saw a living example of the "right-ness" of the left in the Fox interview with Vice President Kamala Harris yesterday when Harris said, more than once, "You know what I mean," to Fox's Bret Baier. -----Baier responded, "No, actually I don't," evincing a slight grimace from Vice President Harris.

It seems highly unlikely that Harris for one moment considered the possibility that Bret Baier might not know what she meant, since in Harris leftist ideology, she doesn't appear to conscience a unity of left and right, or that her leftist ideology is one pole in a binary spectrum, but rather, she seems to think her leftist ideology is the full-reality of reality itself, singularly, rather than as one part of a left vs. right spectrum.

It's very likely that the grimace on Harris' face was evoked by her thinking Bret Baier was just messing with her, since in her admirable and refreshing innocence, she seems to doubt that anyone actually holds viewpoints they believe are true even though they're not founded in her singularistic ideology. In other words, leftist like Harris don't appear to think rightists like Baier have a legitimate opposing view of reality, but that they know the reality of their opponents is the real-reality, but they just want to proffer falsehoods, ala Harris' version of President Donald Trump, because, by reason of some "evil" (if that word isn't too strong) which she doesn't understand, people like Baier and Trump, though they know reality is as it is for Harris, try to thwart reality for their own subjective, singular, gain.



John

“You know what I mean” is the most conniving of statements. To oppose it can imply stupidity on the responder, but the look becomes defiance when the “No I don’t know what you mean” is not followed up by a genuine opportunity for “please explain”.

Men can “mansplain” until the cows come home, but a woman must find the moment to be asked, and even then she must remain polite. A grimace is frustration, the bracing of either a repressed emotion or silenced explanation when constrained by the patriarchy.

Harris knows she isn’t going to convert the masses who watch the Fox network, nor is this even a discussion about left or right. But she is aware that perhaps there are some non-religious, educated, female swing voters, quietly watching over their husbands shoulder who could think to themselves, why am I voting for Trump?