We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Wednesday, March 12. 2008
"You can tell ahead of time, every time, which side of a dispute a lefty will gravitate towards. The one antithetical to the interests of America and capitalism. Period. Sure there's always greed, self interest, etc., but egotism is the most powerful motivator and the egos of leftists are built entirely on the foundation of the assumed moral superiority of their politics. Gramsci and his followers combined Marxism and Freudianism in a toxic brew devised to hold the indoctrinated masses' self esteem hostage to their leftist politics. That's why it is so durable in spite of all the contrary empirical evidence and the heavy burden of massive cognitive dissonance.''
A comment from Maggie's Farm reader Paul, this week, re our Chavez post
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Paul has got a terrific style. Excellent thinking in an easy, flowing manner. I hope he sticks with us. :}
I still do not understand how the Freudianism enters into it. There is nothing political about Freud.
To me, "Freudianism" in the mind of many a lay person implies a blanket apologia over the acts of individuals, and is thus very much useful in leftist "determinist" political dogma. Though his work may be technically apolitical, others have most definitely made political use of it.
Jeez I'm just a guitar and sax player who can barely string two sentences together, but thanks!
Perhaps Fruedianism is the wrong term but the idea behind the melding of the political with the psychological is to link one's politics to a sense of moral and intellectual supremacy (cheaply earned I might add) thus attaching one's self worth directly to one's politics. It uses narcissism to cement a political view emotionally so as to be impervious to logic or contrary empirical evidence. That's why leftists' wooden headed intransigence is so baffling to conservatives, who are swayed by and argue with reason.
The freudianism comment confused me as well. The 'progressive' trend toward centralization of power combined with mass communication presented Gramsci with his opportunity. The guy saw where things were headed. Control the bureaucracy, the schools and the communications media and the revolution will come but from above rather than from the masses below. The workers were brainwashed by the promises of capitalism and it's control of the state. A marxist elite, in power, could direct the revoltion from above through control of the institutions. Kind of a marxist business plan with targeted markets and aggressive advertising.
yes, it has moved from the "worker's paradise" Big Lie to the ''worker's representative's paradise'' Big Truth.
I do understand Buddy's comments; that Freud can be abused to try to justify victimization somehow - or something like that. Of course, he was all about the exact opposite. He was just a highly curious and smart doctor who wanted to understand mental illness. He always assumed that life was difficult and full of suffering, by definition - but that some of that pain was of our own individual creation.
But that's enough from me. I promised myself that I would post here, but not comment.
haha--true, nobody'll get sucked in faster than a shrink -- everybody wants some therapy--and most of 'em need it (present company mostly excepted)!
Anyhoo, re Freud, yep, like all creator/celebrities, inseparable among person, work, and perceived meanings--multi of aspect, like Visnu of the Ten Avatars.
Gramsci has been getting a good deal of play here at MF. Yoday we've brought into the discussion, The one antithetical to the interests of America and capitalism. Period.
It's the period. A bit of clarification . Are we definitvely satying with the Gramsci model or are there opportunities for a multicultural understanding and thus greater harmony by examining so other thesis /antithesis models? Just to suggest a few that have gravitas: They all secure the component of antithesis:
Heraclitus of Ephesus
Socrates and Plato
Zeno of Elea
Advancements made by Hegel and Marxism
Dialectic Method and Dualism
PADI Whack give the dog a bone
Ok , you caught me you sharp MF'ers, Yes I threw in the Gaussian curvature just as a test control.
note to self: cut back on the Nyquil, your entire composition is a study in saccade gone wild.
note to self II: when showing off that you have heard of Vishnu, do not misspell "Vishnu".
Habu ditch the NyQuil and get yourself some ZiCam. You'll thank me later.
I have little sympathy with Freud (that is a mental health, not a political comment), but I agree he is innocent here. I see the drive of leftists which Paul tentatively calls psychological to be more social. I acknowledge that this is a difference of perspective, as neither the individual nor the society exists without the other, but I think it an important difference.
The arts and humanities are far more dependent on social context than science or technology are. Those who gravitate to those areas of study are often more vulnerable to the opinion of others for validation. I see progressivism as a social and emotional rather than intellectual phenomenon. CS Lewis's That Hideous Strength describes the mindset chillingly well.
O'Sullivan attributes the anti-Americanism to "counter-tribalism," the desire to appear above average via the technique of rejecting the average. Capitalism is disliked because it often rewards the "wrong" people, and so much be unjust and despicable.
Buddy and Paul's takes on using Freud to sanction political behavior implies that those who use it have forethought that by itself implies they know they might be wrong and might need the crutch of psychological ballast.
Seems to me (with the boring repetition of Gramsci) there is more talk of just how mentally 'weird' liberals/progressives are that there is no changing them. With the psychological excuse, there is a chance. Take the apologia of their actions away and there they stand - without an excuse.
The psychological is of course dependent upon social relations. My point is that the leftist's ego is tied to his politics, and that makes it extremely difficult for him to change his political viewpoint without an attendant collapse of his psychological stability. David Horowitz' account of his slow motion evolution from left to right as described in "Radical Son" is a case in point.
Dr. Sanity's website is a good place to go for in depth discussions of this topic.
Thanks for making your point clearer Paul. Horowitz, though his journey started before, is a good example of the inner conflict and eventual change that affected many after 9/11… I include myself in that latter group.
Though the affliction, ego, may be more prevalent in the leftist hierarchy, it really knows no political bounds. I could give numerous examples… but we do live by ego, left or right... unless we are a perfectly practicing Buddhist.
So, the question that I asked earlier… how do we make substantive change? What avenues of approach do we use to change people’s minds? Using Meta’s example of stripping away psychological excuse… how do we accomplish that. What dialog can we initiate that is simple, broadly disseminated, and most important, understood by those whose minds could be receptive to change.
It is easy to talk of problems… but much less so to talk of solutions. Solutions are what interest me.
Everyone has an ego, but it is really only wedded to politics on the left. We all witness the emotionalism of leftist politics vs. the rational persuasion of conservative thought. That's why it's so frustrating to lay out a logical case for a position, something that would convince a rational thinker, only to have one's lefty opponent explode in rage or snark.
I can't proffer any magic solution Luther. It's like a military battle to be fought in the trenches hand to hand, an the outcome is uncertain.