Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Intellectual Elites: Bad News
Hijacking Common Sense
Elites, like the poor, shall always be with us. As Thomas Sowell asserts in “Intellectuals and Society”, a majority, as I remember it, of the really difficult problems in the nation have been fostered by the intellectual elites. They should, in his opinion, be nowhere near the levers of power and influence. Public intellectuals, he goes on to say, those who come out from their sphere of expertise to deliver their wisdom on subjects far and wide, are especially dangerous and irresponsible, for they usually assume absolutely no responsibility for their ideas when they are taken into practice and then fail, but rather, they move on rapidly to the next hairbrained, cerebral popcorn idea immediately. Does Noam Chomsky ring any bells?
Hijacking Common Sense
Elites, like the poor, shall always be with us. As Thomas Sowell asserts in “Intellectuals and Society”, a majority, as I remember it, of the really difficult problems in the nation have been fostered by the intellectual elites. They should, in his opinion, be nowhere near the levers of power and influence. Public intellectuals, he goes on to say, those who come out from their sphere of expertise to deliver their wisdom on subjects far and wide, are especially dangerous and irresponsible, for they usually assume absolutely no responsibility for their ideas when they are taken into practice and then fail, but rather, they move on rapidly to the next hairbrained, cerebral popcorn idea immediately. Does Noam Chomsky ring any bells?
Labels: Elites, Intellectuals, Liberals
Thursday, December 09, 2010
Intellectuals
Discovering the Academic Intellectual
During my 43 year career in the computer industry as an engineer, project manager, chief engineer, and department head, I have been literally surrounded by high-powered intellects, most of whom had advanced degrees. For one project, for example, I had over 90 PhD level people working for me, together with even more masters degreed and bachelor degreed personnel, and their expertise covered the gamut of specialties needed for man-in-space endeavors. When these 90 were combined with the talent from other companies working on the same job, the concentration of mind power was awesome indeed. The problems we tackled and solved became legend in the manned spacecraft industry. Here was a case where both industry and trained intellectual academics worked together effectively to put men in space safely.
At the same time, our very close cooperation with academia exposed us to another type of academic, professional intellectuals that were a very different and curious breed. They were not on the same page as other intellects at all. Their entire focus was on thinking up ideas and publishing them in the hope that their fellow intellectuals would give them their stamp of approval, and that some government agency would provide them research money to continue to think up more ideas in a similar vein. These were not hard core scientists, but rather denizens of the soft worlds of imprecise disciplines such as literature, psychology, social sciences, and political sciences, where seldom any definitive answers take hold.. There was no use of logic or scientific method involved, but simply what their peers thought to be correct or merely interesting views.
At the time, I had no interest in delving deeply into this phenomena, but as I continued to observe them from afar for years, it became apparent that they had a following not only in academia, but also in government, industry, and politics, and were a significant influence on government policies, foreign relations, legislators, and other idea-oriented people that could potentially put their intellectual ideas into practice. In fact, these idea people were at the heart of the progressive movement, heavily populating professorial positions in our universities, and thus influencing the new generations of students with their most often heretical ideas. In their view, for an idea to be taken seriously, it must be fresh and challenging, yet sufficiently obscure, subject to multiple interpretations, and laden with inside jargon that only a handful of “the annointed” could hope to make sense of it.
What struck me most was their lack of controlled experimentation and hard analysis of their ideas, together with a total lack of taking any responsibility whatsoever for results from implementing their ideas in the real world through their “intelligentsia” compatriots in government and industry. In most cases by the time something measurable was available, these intellectuals were already far away from the idea and deep into dreaming up their next idea set. In contrast to scientists and engineers where failure could result in death of many people, failure of an idea didn’t seem to affect intellectuals in any way, either in standing or pay grade, except to ensure their tenure under the umbrellas of “academic freedom” and “publish or perish”. One exception to this was the fate of Ward Churchill of “Little Eichmann’s” fame, but it took a massive campaign to rid the university of his obnoxious presence.
So I began to accumulate my observations over the years as I encountered these intellectuals, because I belatedly realized that they were in fact a dangerous breed to the American way of life, and in many instances were actively anti-American. Noam Chomsky comes to mind as a prototypical intellectual that fits this mold. Characteristic of the type is, of course, great intellectual depth in some discipline or other, such as semantics and linguistics in Chomsky’s case, and a predilection for giving outlandish opinions on any and all subjects that come to their mind whether they are well-founded and qualified on the subject or not. There are many examples of well-known academics that branched out into open commentary on the world as they see it; Albert Einstein is yet another example of a brilliant physicist but muddleheaded Public Intellectual.
As a beginning, I needed to develop a profile of such intellectuals to help me identify them for what they are as I came across them in real life, reading, or on TV or radio. My profile of such intellectuals became a relatively simple list of applicable phrases to describe their mindset and their actions. Not that every intellectual exhibits all of these characteristics, but most of them will have a significant number of the attributes in their makeup. Obviously, the more attributes one of them shows, the more certain the diagnosis will be that we are dealing with such a person.
So, on to the list of attributes and characteristics as I see them:
Attributes of Academic Intellectuals
1. Arrogance
2. Egotistic and condescending
3. Certainty of their reasoning with or without proof.
4. Brushes off alternatives with contempt
5. Articulate and deviously able to defend their ideas.
6. Frustrated Idealists
7. Materialistic
8. Will not take responsibility for their ideas or the outcomes of the ideas if used
9. Prefers the safety of the shadows behind the throne and the protection of academia.
10. Are horribly wrong much of the time, especially in the long view.
11. Will not admit their errors.
12. Tend to support collectivist ideas; socialistic, communistic, Marxist.
13. Supports the concept of non-discrimination across all disciplines and areas.
14, Pacifistic to a fault; hates war; and seems to be fundamentally a coward.
15. Atheist or Agnostic in their outlook on religion.
16. Shows contempt for the common man, and desires to remake him in their image.
17. Attempts to convert their students to their point of view
18. Not objective in their presentations
19. Prefer the academic life
20 Strives to influence government, industry, academia, and the military
21. Narrow expertise in some specialty; attempts to trade on that in other domains.
22. Tend to state opinions as facts without any proof.
23. Is facile in inventing ways that events support their point of view.
24. They drive to remake society in their most often Utopian image.
25. Use pseudo-philosophy to support their views
26. Usually Nihilistic and Hedonistic
27. Flaunt rules, conventions, traditions, and laws--all are malleable in their view..
28. Levelers for: equal outcomes; no discrimination; equal societies; redistribution of wealth.
29. Internationalists—one world government
30. Secular Humanists and progressives
31. PCMC
32. Supporters of Big Government, authoritarian, even totalitarian in outlook.
33. Use personal attacks against detractors rather than defending their position (calling the opposition racist, homophobic, etc.)
After composing this list, I was somewhat shocked to discover the unusually great correspondence between this list and my previous list of the attributes of Liberals. This leads me to the conclusion that most Public Intellectuals are Liberals. The converse may or may not be true, since one can be a Liberal without the depth of expertise and the recognition in some field that is evident in Public Intellectuals. It is quite possibly true also that the Elites of the Liberal camp are also Academic or Public Intellectuals.
Labels: Elites, Intellectuals, Liberals
Monday, February 01, 2010
Elites
Who the hell are they, anyway?
Some day, someone will take on the task of identifying these so-called “elites” and their real preferences in life, government, and associations. Till then, I think that the concept is far too hazy, sort of like “the poor”, which is quite largely a transient state in the US.
Tell me how to recognize an “elite” when I pass one on the street, meet one socially, or go hunting for one. Just who are they, anyway?
Are they the dreaded popcorn-idea-men intellectuals that Thomas Sowell writes about that want the power to make laws of their popcorn and to experiment on the public with all manner of provisions; are they the wealthy, the high Democratic officials, the professors, the politicos, liberals, Ivy League grads, kooks, some of all of this, or what?
No one seems to want to name names and give bios, so the elites can’t be hunted down effectively, even with bird dogs.
It reminds me of Jeff Foxworthy’s: “You may be a Redneck if….” joke list. You may be an elite if you graduated from Yale, are worth over a million inherited dollars, have the required liberal guilt syndrome, are a frustrated professor of something exotic, write books no one reads, and vote Democratic across the board. (or not!)
Labels: Elites, Intellectuals
Friday, March 27, 2009
A Call to Identify and Profile Elites!
Just who are the so-called "Elites?"
The accusations flow swiftly from Republicans: Conservatives, Libertarians, and other hangers-on. They accuse these Elites of malfeasance against the nation to their own benefit, and to the detriment of the average citizen. They accuse Elites of manipulation of the Congress and the President to favor policies and legislation that will profit the investments and the companies that comprise Elite portfolios. They accuse the Administration of furthering tax policies that favor the Elites. The accuse the Elites of influencing our governance in international affairs to their benefit. On and on the accusations fly that it is the Elites that are harming the nation for their own selfish objectives.
So I ask in all sincerity for those who accuse the Elites of any malfeasance to stand up now and name the names and tell the story of these Elites, who they are and what damage they are doing that we should react to, and what their profiles are.
Perhaps many of us are afraid of stepping up and telling the story of the Elites and their roles in directing the nation. Well, I did so in one of the very first posts on this blog, and, of course, I received no responses. It was a useless exercise then, and I suspect it will be so again, because of fear of retribution from these powerful people. Let others do the dangerous work of resetting our nation onto a better course, if they can. Or, just let the nation go in whatever direction they take us, and hope for the best in our lifetime. What about the nation that we will leave for our children, and our grandchildren? They must count for something in our lives today.
So my question stands. Who are these elites that are pushing and pulling us in directions that we may not agree that we should go? Tell us, please!
Here is my original post on the subject in 2005:
Pseudo-Masters: Elites
Who are the Elite? For years I have heard the term “Elite” to refer to some group of people that are supposedly of superior intellect and human insight, and who want to have the power to guide or direct our lives into more “rewarding” channels. From an number of bloggers I have read a definition for Elite groups that goes like this: The Elite today are composed of most university professors, the media owners and editors, many Hollywood activists, the current leadership of the Democratic Party, a bunch of columnists and writers of Left bent, and a slog of very wealthy, progressive limousine liberals. No one, however, ever identifies the lot of them by name in a list I’d call “The Elite.”
There must be a reason behind this refusal to name names, and point fingers at the crowd that wants to rule us anonymously from walled and guarded bastions behind the scene. My first idea is fear of reprisal by one of several means, each one of ever greater total impact: 1) lawsuits for defaming the name of some rich family; 2) attack on the list-maker in the media; 3) attack by means of stealthy economic sabotage; and even 4) harassment and physical intimidation by threatening phone calls or actual bodily harm.Those of us that want to know the enemy and try to battle them ( or convert them to reason) are handicapped by the lack of specific intelligence as to just who the enemy is.
When one pops up in the media, they are dealt with, especially the moonbats of the left, and the outspoken pseudo-elite from media. I would hazard a guess that some of the elite are drawn from the communist or Marxist party, the socialist party and the humanist party of today. For the communists and the humanists, I know of their manifestos that set forth their grand and provably-impossible, Utopian ideas for governance. The socialist party statement of principles serves the same purpose.
The interesting point is that most of these people seem to have four common characteristics: 1) foremost, they are well-to-do or wealthy and their ideas for everyone hypocritically do not include sharing their wealth or reducing their large salaries; 2) they thus have time to play “ If I Were King” Utopian games which soothes their huge egos; 3) they have a higher than normal IQ and believe strongly in their intellectual and organizational abilities to do things better; and, 4) they somehow get connected with the radicals that swarm around in dark, stinky tunnels, and believe they are helping someone important to a better way of life, or some other altruistic idea, fostered on them by the radicals. They are deluded, duped and end up buying into the song of the radicals. Or else, in their ego-driven games, they believe that their participation in radical left movements will bring them into political power here in the US. Added: They may well be right!
I would like help in building a list of organizations and individuals that are of this mindset. My starter list is given in the archives under “The Shunning List.”
The Shunning List
The only weapon I have as a private citizen, other than the vote, against the blasphemers of the constitution and laws, the Elite, the America haters, the obstructionists, and the liberal twits is to ignore them. They do not respond to logic, they do not respond to patriotism, they do not respond to ethics, or etiquette, nor do they speak with a straight tongue. When I thought about it, I decided to make a list of those who I felt had earned the right to be ignored; in short, to be Shunned.
Thus was born The Shunning List. What does shunning entail? Act as if that person does not exist. Do not read their words, do not listen to their speeches, do not watch them on TV or in the movies, and do not socialize with them. Further, those who rise to their defense will likewise be shunned (I hope none of my favorite people defend any who are shunned!). I would not interfere with these people, nor constrain their rights as citizens, but I do not have to be assaulted by their thoughts.
How are the people selected for the list of The Shunned? By their words and deeds as seen through my own filter. My filter is that of a Christian believer in God, where love, truth, honesty, conservative thought, and fighting evil are all paramount.Categories of The Shunned: There are a number of broad categories of people I am inclined to shun, but I would seek evidence to confirm my suspicions: Secular Humanists and Liberals, Socialists and Communists (Democrats are always under suspicion for actually being one of these!), the Hollywood Activists, Liberal Professors, Activist Judges, those who hate America worldwide, and terrorists and their organizations.I have no time for such people.
Of course, I cannot achieve a full and complete shunning! I would be foolish not to pay attention to what the internal and external enemies of our country are saying and doing! This isn’t meant to be a “head in the sand” tactic, but rather a selective approach to the shrill cries and demagoguery of the Left, and a constant reminder of where these people stand in the pantheon of nuts. Many of them go to legal extremes to carry their point, or try to, such as the ALCU. But I would avoid supporting them in any way I can, such as not going to their movies, or buying their books or other products. There will always be those trusted bloggers who will analyze the latest rants from the Left and summarize them for the rest of us, so I can avoid much of the drivel directly, unless I have the urge to take the measure of one of these nutcases from time to time.
The reason for this Shunning is simple. If I immerse myself in the evil words and images, and the awful actions and speeches from the Left on a daily basis, it will affect my disposition in a horrible manner. My rage at some of these idiots is fierce and body-wrenching! So, as a self-protection measure, I am pulling back, and simply voting with my Shun list. There is a sense of gratification in adding a new name to the List! There! Take that, you wacko! Lurking in the back of my mind is the thought that maybe others feel the same way. What if they joined me in creating a Super List and actually Shunning the people on it? A grassroots effort would be promoted simply to trivialize and ignore the irrelevant kooks in our society! Inculcating an “Oh, Him!” reaction to the Listed Ones. And letting the world know who is to be listened to about America and who is on The Shunning List. We might soon be able to retire some of these pains in the ass to their Malibu or Cape Cod homes.
Added: This is not easy now in 2009 with the Left in charge of the nation, led by Barack Obama!
A list of names is all I will present for the moment. Later, I plan to use quotes to illustrate why that person is on the list, much as John Hawkins has done. But, go see his site and read the reasons for his list. I am developing a list of organizations as well that deserve our contempt and shunning. Here, however, paying attention to them may be far more important, so the list will serve to alert a few people to the left-driven organizations we must deal with over time.
The Shunning List(This list comes from my reading and TV viewing, but my somewhat aging memory has been greatly aided by John Hawkin's list of the most annoying liberals for 2002, 2003, and 2004, whose blog, Right Wing News, is outstanding!)
Al Franken
Al Gore
Al Sharpton
Alan Colmes
Alec Baldwin
Andrew Sullivan
Barack Obama
Barbara Boxer
Barbra Streisand
Barney Frank
Bernie Sanders
Bill Clinton
Bill Gates
Bill Maher
Bill Moyers
Bruce Springsteen
Bryant Gumbel
Carol Mosley-Braun
Charles Rangel
Charles Schumer
Cher
Chevy Chase
Chris Dodd
Chris Matthews
Cinthia McKinney
Dan Rather
Danny Glover
David Benior
David Souter
Dennis Kucinich
Dianne Feinstein
Dick Gephardt
Dustin Hoffman
Ed Asner
Eleanor Clift
Eleanor Smeal
George Clooney
George Soros
Gore Vidal
Harry Belafonte
Henry Waxman
Hillary Clinton
Howard Dean
Howard Stern
Ibrahim Hooper
James Carvelle
Jane Fonda
Janet Reno
Jennifer Aniston
Jesse Jackson
Jim Jeffords
Jim McDermott
Jimmy Carter
John Corzine
John Edwards
John Gere
John Kerry
John Zogby
Julianne Malveaux
Kitty Kelley
Kofi Annan
Larry King
Leonard Pitts
Leslie Moonvess
Linda Ronstadt
Martin Sheen
Mary McGrory
Maureen Dowd
Max Cleland
Maxine Waters
Michael Moore
Mike Farrell
Nancy Pelosi
Ralph Neas
Noam Chomsky
Norman Mailer
Paul Krugman
Peter Arnett
Ralph Nader
Ramsey Clark
Richard Berthold
Robert Byrd
Robert Scheer
Robin Williams
Ron Reagan, Jr.
Rosanne Barr
Rosy ODonnell
Russ Feingold
Sean Penn
Susan Estrich
Susan Sarandon
Ted Kennedy
Ted Koppel
Ted Rall
Ted Turner
Teresa Kerry
Terry McAuliffe
Tim Robbins
Tom Brokow
Tom Daschle
Tom Harkin
Walter Conkite
Warren Beatty
Whoopi Goldberg
William Kuenstler
Woody Allen
Woody Harrelson
Several names have been removed from the original list as they have died in the meanwhile. R.I.P.
Many authors have railed against the Elites and their practices in the previous few years, including, in no special order:
Mona Charin-Useful Idiots
Bill O'Reilly-Cultural Warriors
Bernard Goldberg-100 People Who are Screwing Up America
David Horowitz-The Politics of Bad Faith
David Horowitz- Unholy Alliance
Jed Babbin-Inside the Asylum
Laura Ingraham-Shut Up and Sing
Keir Alfia and Alan Lipton-A Field Guide to Left-Wing Wackos
Bernard Goldberg-Arrogance
David Horowitz- The Professors
Peter Schweizer-Makers and Takers
Grover Norquist-Leave Us Alone
Ann Coulter-Traitors, and many more
Labels: Democrats, Elites, Elitists, Government Handouts, Liberalism, Pelosi, Reid
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Alinsky's Rules
These are the rules of the Radical Left for sowing dissention. You can see them in action daily if you look sharply for them. Paraphrased from :
Craig Miyamoto, APR, Fellow PRSA
RULE 1: "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Power is derived from 2 main sources - money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
RULE 2: "Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don't address the "real" issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
RULE 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity's very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
RULE 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid "un-fun" activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
RULE 7: "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists' minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
RULE 10: "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive." Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management's wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
RULE 11: "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Never let the enemy score points because you're caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
Watch for them.
Reference The American thinker for more:
September 25, 2008
Barack Obama and Alinsky's Rules for Psychopaths By James Lewis
"... the community organizer ... must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression.' -- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals
"THERE IS ONLY THE FIGHT --- An analysis of the Alinsky Model."
-- Hillary Clinton, BA Honors Thesis, Wellesley College, 1969.
"(Barack) Obama worked in the organizing tradition of Saul Alinsky, who made Chicago the birthplace of modern community organizing...."
-- The Nation
A psychopath is a person without conscience; someone who constantly breaks the moral rules of the community. Saul Alinsky was a "community organizer" who found a career that fit that personality disorder. In the Orwellian upside-down world of the Left, community organizers disorganize communities. That is the meaning of revolution, to overturn whatever exists today in the raw pursuit of one's own power.
Alinsky boasted about his close alliance with Frank Nitti, Al Capone's second in command in the Chicago Mob during the 1930s. Al Capone's Mob were domestic terrorists, and not for any noble cause either. They poisoned the Chicago politics of their era. Alinsky's close alliance with Frank Nitti tells us something crucially important today. Alinsky was also a lifelong ally of the Stalin-controlled Communist Party, at a time when Stalin was known to have murdered tens of millions of people. He was proud of building a bridge between organized crime and the power hungry Left. That tacit alliance may continue today.
Alinsky's personality fits the definition of a psychopath -- someone who has no guilt or shame toward others. But Alinsky also discovered how to teach psychopathic behavior to college students. That is the key to his success: To persuade hundreds of thousands of ignorant young people that it is much more moral to be immoral. Or, as Bill Ayers famously said, "Bring the Revolution home; kill your parents."
Bill Ayers is now a highly influential professor of education. That is not an accident; it reflects a deliberate program of radical agitation and propaganda through the school systems. If you want to know who brought down American education, Bill Ayers is part of the answer.
A lot of the Boomer Left is marked by psychopathic behavior, in politics and in the rest of life. That is why the actions of the Left are so shocking to many of us.
Alinsky's disciples -- including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- have a warlike political style. They learned politics as war from the Master. Obama is so well-trained in Alinsky tactics that he used to teach workshops on it. That is why Obama can knowingly violate Federal law against usurping the presidential power to negotiate with Iraq before ever getting elected. Actual election to head of state by the voters means nothing, just as it means nothing to Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, who have negotiated with Syria and the Muslim Brotherhood in clear violation of law while serving in Congress.
Teaching hatred for the normal majority is the key to power for radicals. But Alinsky taught that you can't easily hate millions of people. To do that effectively you need a one-person scapegoat to focus all your hatred on. "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." That is the politics of personal destruction, and it doesn't matter if the target is black like Clarence Thomas, or a woman like Sarah Palin, or a severely wounded war veteran like John McCain.
That is why Obama is now instructing his followers to "get in their faces" of those Americans who are not down for his cause. Obama acts like a nice guy, but he is a political warmonger. He's been very clear about that: "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." That's the language of gang war.
Today we can see the Left's rage reaction to John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin. The New York Sun quoted one feminist saying "All of my women friends, a week ago Monday, were on the verge of throwing themselves out windows ...People were flipping out. ... Every woman I know was in high hysteria over this. Everyone was just beside themselves with terror that this woman could be our president -- our potential next president."
The "comedienne" Sandra Bernhard suggested that Sarah Palin would be "gang-raped by blacks in Manhattan" if she dared to go there.
A British Leftist writing for Pravda (!) called "Sarah Palin - The Devil in disguise...
Sarah Palin, Mrs. Nobody know-it-all shreiking cow from Alaska, the joke of American politics, plied with a couple of vodkas ... cheap little guttersnipe ... suppose you shut up ... you pith-headed little bimbo from the back of beyond ... So next time suppose you keep your mouth shut and while you're at it, make sure the members of your family keep their legs shut too. ... "
That warlike rage has been systematically whipped up over decades by the Left. That's what college "Women's Studies" does, just as "Black Studies" is deliberately designed to whip up black rage and victimhood. Michelle Obama's Princeton thesis is a case in point.
Alinsky called ordinary Americans "the enemy." Normal people don't declare war on all of society. But Alinsky wrote in Rules for Radicals that radicals
"...have contemptuously rejected the values and way of life of the middle class. They have stigmatized it as materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized and corrupt ... They are right ... "
Normal, decent America is the enemy for these people.
Obama and Hillary are lifelong followers of Alinsky. They use his tactics and ideology. That is why American politics became the politics of personal destruction when the Boomer Left came to power.
These claims require proof; but we have been looking straight at the evidence since the first Clinton term. Bill Clinton fits the diagnostic description of psychopathic personality, now relabeled "antisocial personality' in the DSM IV, the official diagnostic manual for psychiatry. Three out of the following seven criteria nails the diagnosis:
1. Failure to conform to social norms ...
2. Deceitfulness ... or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
3. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
4. Irritability and aggressiveness ... ;
5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
6. Consistent irresponsibility ... ;
7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.
I would give Mr. Clinton credit for Numbers 1, 2, 6, and 7, and possibly 3 (impulsivity) and 4 (irritability and aggressiveness). Dick Morris, who advised the Clintons for 20 years, describes dramatic scenes that certainly fit the description. Or Bill's inability to stick with a meeting agenda, impulsively running endless bull sessions at the White House. As for 5, his picking up women opportunistically and in a way that put his career, not to mention his family life and American security, at risk. The Monica affair showed an impulsive, reckless president who got into power by endless lying and conning.
Liberal Democrats used to be normal Americans before the Boomer Left rose to power. Hubert Humphrey and Harry Truman had a strong sense of American morality. They despised the Stalinist Left and fought to keep them out of the Democrat Party. They were sensitive to ordinary shame and guilt, the emotions that make us civilized. When Bob Dole asked "Where is the shame?" in the 1996 presidential election, the answer came out: Not in the modern Democrat Party. People without guilt or shame make merciless power mongers.
Normal people slow down in School Zones where kids might run across the street -- not because they're afraid of getting a speeding ticket but because they can't stand the thought of hurting kids. They don't need to cheat compulsively on wives and husbands to prove how irresistible they are. Normal people have internalized some modesty and humility, and are capable of respect and love for others. A common feature of psychopaths is the inability to feel authentic love and respect for others.
True psychopaths are often charming, seductive, and treacherous. They make natural con artists. Many psychopaths are extremely manipulative -- and what is more manipulative than stirring up hatred among victim groups to empower oneself? That is Jeremiah Wright, the diabolical Father Pfleger, James Meeks, and by his own definition of radicals, Saul Alinsky.
The worst are "malevolent psychopaths" -- people who sadistically hurt others. Hitler and Stalin, Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot, and probably many famous Western intellectuals fit the description of malevolent psychopaths. That is tragic and shocking. Historian Paul Johnson presents compelling evidence for malevolent psychopathy in the life of Jean-Paul Sartre, for example, and many others in his important book Intellectuals. Western intellectuals have been the home team of Leftist radicalism for a century now.
But the single most important point about Alinsky's "community organizing" strategy is that normal people can be trained to act like psychopaths: To become convinced that a "higher morality" allows them to act without conscience. As Alinsky wrote admiringly about V.I. Lenin, well known as a large-scale murder leader:
"Lenin was a pragmatist; ... he said that the Bolsheviks stood for getting power through the ballot box but would reconsider after they got the guns!"
That is a laugh line, believe it or not.
Alinsky called this "pragmatic radicalism." He differed from his Communist friends only in being more practical and less ideological. Alinsky was a radical because it suited his personality, because it was fun, brought him power and influence, and made him feel good. He was very clear in saying that, and he inspired the Boomer Left to follow his lead.
Alinsky dedicated Rules for Radicals:
"... to the very first radical . . . who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer."
If that doesn't send a shiver down your back, you haven't been paying attention.
James Lewis occasionally blogs at dangeroustimes.wordpress.com
on "Barack Obama and Alinsky's Rules for Psychopaths
Labels: Elites, Liberalism, Radicalism
