What annoys me instead is that some people actually still thinks like that in our century. A clear sign we are still basically a bunch of apes fighting for a branch.
Abachler argument is one of those - these constructions have a name actually. Wish I knew the right word - falsehoods hiding behind a hard to interpret logic that on the surface makes it look a truth.
The words are these:
And then goes on defending this point of view with such pearls as "Freedom comes from the barrel of a gun" and even "Political power is a measure of your willingness to kill those that oppose you.".Originally Posted by abachler
First, I don't recognize in abachler an authority on these matters. The fact he leaves no room for discussion and uses his words as if they were absolute truths is the mark of the ignorant. A clear sign he has very little knowledge on tyrannies, how they form, why they form, and the historical aspects that may lead to the formation and perpetuation of a political regime and the subservience of the populations. Ultimately he should be ignored. However, because I love to argue... I'll argue.
Forgetting any historic considerations that may had lead to the formation of a dictatorship, it's the main characteristic of such political regimes that they want themselves to perpetuate. The methods used are collectively called as Oppression. Oppression has the characteristic of making it hard for an organized resistance to be formed and become successful. But every single dictatorship meets resistance. There are always those who fight oppression. Eventually they will succeed. Sometimes with external help, sometimes not. Certainly with many defeats.
As such, abachler idea that a dictatorship is a sign the population is weak, is completely false. There are historical, political, social and sometimes even economical reasons behind the formation of a dictatorship. Always! And once formed, resistance will follow suit. Because dictatorships use oppression as a means to stay in power, resistance is hard to organize, meets many setbacks and defeats, and along with terror and fear the regime instills will take a long time to succeed. But will succeed invariably. Always has.
Then you have another problem with his logic. He ignores the historical reasons behind the formation of a dictatorship, we discussed that. But he also ignores its victims. By so boldly and cruelly assigning them the term "meek". I would like to see how meek abachler would feel with a whip on his back and torture on all his body after having been caught by the political police for being so brave and having to watch his family being tortured too. His death and that of his family would have no meaning. After all abachler was caught. He died and consequently failed. Meek? Of course not.
Because then we will have to say the millions of Jews that died in the concentration camps were all weak and only got what they deserved for having not fight back. They inherited the grave, right? We would have to say the black slaves were weak and deserved being slaves for not fighting back. Speaking of which, blacks in US during the oppression were all weak and deserved being oppressed and having to go to black only places. Ghandi was weak and only got what he deserved. The millions of Russians that died to Stalin, the worst dictator of human history, were weak and a waste of space... etcetera, etcetera...
Abachler argument is ridiculous and false. No nation in human history ever accepted oppression. No people in human history ever accepted oppression. Not all oppression was defeated at gun point.