Re: OT: Form 1040-ES

The Daring Dufas wrote:

As far as Bush is concerned, one philosopher observed: "A mass
movement can exist without a god, but it will always fail without a
devil. All mass movements must have something to hate."



I get it, Liberals are held together by hate and they need someone to
focus that hate on. So if Bush, Palin, Cheny and a host of others did
something so wonderful that the whole world couldn't help but love
them, Liberals would fall apart like a crumbling cake. Knowing
Liberals, they would hate them for succeeding. *snicker*


No, more likely the membership would move on to another group ("Membership
in mass-movements is interchangable") or find another target ("If the Jews
didn't exist, Hitler would have invented them"). It's the membership in the
group that's important, not the goals of the group.

Liberals are not all held together by hate - there are rational liberals.
It's when the congregation takes on the characteristics of a "mass movement"
and submits to "group-think" that difficulties begin. (To be fair, there are
also "mass movement" conservatives - think "Tea Party" protests.)

Here are some more examples:

* If whales were dying of natural causes, not many people would care. As
long as whalers exist, though, there will be groups opposing whaling.
* When Polio was eradicated, the March of Dimes did not cease to exist, they
merely changed their focus to respiratory diseases.
* Membership in a mass movement is essential for the well-being of many
folks. People join mass movements THEN adopt the goals of the movement.
* Religions that don't have anything to hate (e.g., Judaism, Buddhism, etc.)
or that hate "things" (poverty, disease, etc.) are relatively mild mannered
and seldom result in excitable crowds. Religions that have people as an
object of disgust are usually more demonstrative - their adherents are more
easily excited.


.

Relevant Pages