tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post1957411381457724624..comments2024-03-26T06:17:49.527-07:00Comments on Had Enough Therapy?: Mind Control in AmericaStuart Schneidermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12784043736879991769noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-39720978033332937522014-06-08T19:19:23.333-07:002014-06-08T19:19:23.333-07:00Let's give the full Acton quote, which is even...Let's give the full Acton quote, which is even more interesting:<br /><br />"I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, <b>increasing as the power increases</b>. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. <b>There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.</b>"Soviet of Washingtonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-55708709813580309252014-06-08T12:49:30.933-07:002014-06-08T12:49:30.933-07:00That the powerful
will always try to gain control...That the powerful <br />will always try to gain control of the masses is nothing new. <br /><br />But why is this happening in a free democracy? In the past, wasps used to rule America, and there were plenty of radical and subversive voices that challenged and took on the elites. <br /><br />But why is there such silence from the masses and the conservatives? If anything, conservatives seem to get riled up only about taxes, which is rather funny since Bush's tax cuts mostly did wonders for the Liberal urban super-rich. <br /><br />How come Republican politicians are so afraid of taking on the homosexual agenda? <br /><br />Maybe it's because conservatism is, by nature, conformist and submissive to authority. <br />In the past, when conservative forces had the power, it was natural for liberals and leftists to challenge and subvert the established order. Opposing power came naturally to the liberal mentality. <br /><br />But now that the Liberals have taken over the system, they are the ruling elites. <br />Therefore, Conservatives should be taking on the subversive role once held by the left, but conservatives don't make good subversives since they are, by their very nature, conformist and prefer to defer to authority... which may be why so many Conservatives are deciding to just bend over to the homosexual agenda. Since the rich and powerful in Wall Street and Silicon Valley are totally for the homosexual agenda--even in conservative Texas, the big urban and academic centers are ruled by Liberals--, Conservatives prefer to go along than play the role of the new radicals. <br /><br />Liberal elites rule but still act like they are subversives. <br />Conservatives are out of power but still act like the rich and powerful are on their side... when, in fact, the rich and powerful are on the side of Liberal globalism and the homosexual agenda. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-7795452965856328732014-06-08T07:09:34.382-07:002014-06-08T07:09:34.382-07:00What an interesting word "clerisy" is. ...What an interesting word "clerisy" is. <br /><br />Now, Mr. Kotkin, WHO makes up this intelligentsia? He mentions places where they reside, roles and professions, and how they're tapped into power structures. But who, o who, do you say they are? In the article, he mentions Peter Orzag and Tom Friedman (a "Had Enough Therapy?" fan favorite). But that's it. Other than that, the Pritzker family gets mention, Larry Ellison's daughter, the Kennedy/Pelosi/McCain kids, etc. but these sound like celebrities and rich folks who are riding coat tails. I would like to know who the real thought leaders are, and their intellectual ancestry of their ideas. It's easy to follow the money. Following the ideas -- who influenced who, why, and the what and how of their actions -- is more difficult, but I assert is more instructive and meaningful. Why? Because these ideas can be challenged in the arena. You can't challenge inherited wealth or name-brand... family names. You have to get at the ideas and the self-serving lies they're based on. Things like "I'm a good person because I care about _____. People who don't care about _____ are bad, if not evil." Indeed, there is little substance beyond this framework in an Obama speech (unless they don't want to say anything, in which case they hide behind mention of an "ongoing investigation"). <br /><br />It seems that the regulars on "Charlie Rose" (like Mssrs. Friedman and Krugman) would be a good place to start assembling a thought leader list. Maybe I'll start doing that and see what I find...<br /><br />This is where Lord Acton's longer quote is more useful: "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority."<br /><br />Intellectual and other thought influence is a greater source of power today than ever before. Academia, media, etc. At the end of the 19th century, the progressive movement was on the move, using democratic means to secure ideological victories amidst massive economic shifts. It was really a form of "soft power." The progressive left pursued and consolidated power in the early 20th century, gained a foothold during the New Deal era, and vaulted ahead in the second half of the 20th century into the 21st. This is where influence met power and linked with authority. In academia, that authority is hegemonic, and we get a peek at what it leaves in its wake. Obama is the most obvious example... a man who daily shows he's not learned anything since college.<br /><br />It's really not enough to just talk about a "clerisy." We have to name the members of this intelligentsia, and publicly dissect their ideas and positions, one-by-one, while simultaneously demonstrating their direct connections to power structures. This is where their naked ambition and benefits they gain will betray their declarations of proletarian sympathy and make-nice posturing on vacuous talk shows. <br /><br />What's happening now is that the intelligentsia and their ideas operate tangentially, out of view, away from scrutiny. My hope is that getting these ideas (and their devastating economic, social, political and spiritual consequences) out in the open will break the heretofore shadowy (now overt) hostility to the American idea of government. We can reverse today's dismantling of American constitutional traditions and a restore a federal republic founded on the rights of the citizen (read: not citizen groups). Perhaps I'm naive on this one, but that is what I hope for.<br /><br />For as long as the Obamatrons have been in power, I have used their cries of "Racism!" as a gauge for their discomfort and fear. These cries are heard more often these days. As Lincoln said at the close of the Civil War, "Let the thing be pressed."<br /><br />TipAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com