I hope I can take some of the credit for having educated you. You certainly have earned a detailed response, (that was the Parris Island story above, this post is just chat). And now that you seem to be showing some understanding, I think I can reveal a bit more of myself. Some things you can't explain without ruining them, your student has to come up with them himself.

Yes, TB and I have much in common tactically, but we do differ in one crucial strategic respect. TB sees modern political life, the issue of the day, as the conflict between the individual and the collective, and that it manifests itself primarily in the economic arena, which is the true source of all power. I see the conflict as cultural, psychological and social. That conflict insists, it just isn't that important. Politics is the result, not the cause, of this conflict. It is a symptom of something deeper.

The true opponents in our conceptual struggle are those who respond to life, and those who make things happen, the passive vs the active. You see, even our language is programmed so that the former is automatically cast as the inferior, the latter as the goal. The market place has always seen itself as the arena of the go-getters, those who make things happen. But that mentality always rises, like grease, to the top of any societal stew, either as leaders of business or bureaucrats in the Party. Look at Russia and China, the same guys are in charge now as before, but now they have Armani suits, ride in limousines, and date leggy models. Yes, political and economic philosophies are important, but the community consists primarily of those who want to live their lives in peace with their families while engaged in useful employment that satisfies them and helps others. The others simply want power and control, and have nothing but contempt for those who don't.

I think TB and I are both in the first group, neither of us has succeeded wildly in business or the bureaucracy, but we both meet our responsibilities without stealing from others and take a quiet pride in that. We just want to enjoy our lives and families and are willing to work our fair share to make that happen. Both of us have recognized the rapacious greed of the predator and instinctively distrust him, and fear him, not to mention that he always is scheming to "plunder our goods". Where we differ is that TB has divided his world so that his politics coincide with that observation, while I recognize that politics has little to do with it, politics is primarily just an organizing administrative principle.

I feel no obligation to persuade TB, or change his mind on these issues, but I am compelled to blunt his efforts before they mislead others. He seems determined, by his dogged persistence, to keep the conflict alive.
In that sense, he is identical to Bowser. They are both true provacateurs, although I suspect Bowser only speaks to contradict and annoy TB. TB will continue speaking as long as there's anyone around to listen.

I don't need anyone to lecture me on how a socialist regime can turn ugly. In fact, I agree that kind of political organization favors the kind of predatory soul both TB and I fear so much. And I agree with him that a free market can mobilize natural forces that help keep the predators (perhaps "parasites" is a better word) under control. But that mentality can prosper under capitalism, too, especially if it gets to decide just what capitalism is, and it will disguise its pathologies as the typical business virtues of dynamism, ambition, boldness, courage, risk-taking etc. Well, the same can be said for the Mafia. Their clothes are expensive too, just tacky. When you forget this, as I fear TB has, you open the back door of your house to the Beast.

If you study my posts, particularly my running skirmishes with TB, you will note that I never resort to a blanket condemnation of "his side", or an unquestioning boosting of mine. Instead, I try to highlight the contradictions of his thinking by pointing out that the answer to this puzzle lies not in ideology, but in psychology and culture. Our mutual enemy is not a creed, it is a man. I also, as you point out, seek to educate my own allies when I detect they are straying into the same strategic error as our opponents. When someone who agrees with you strays into error, it brings discredit to your position and bolsters that of your rival.

This is also why I dismiss TB's insistence on assembling vast amounts of tiresome documentary minutiae to prove his points. It's not that his evidence is mistaken, or even that his points are wrong. I rarely even disagree with his "evidence"; it's just that it usually has nothing to do with what we are really talking about.

I am fatigued, we will meet in the olive grove again soon and continue our lessons. Have a nice day.