If you want a good laugh, get a load of George Scialabba's review of Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion" in the Boston Review. Though no fan of Haidt, I must say Scialabba unwittingly validates Haidt's thesis more than his silly mind can ever fathom.
Early in the review, Scialabba summarizes Haidt's ideas thus: "Experiments repeatedly show—-to oversimplify only a little—-that we all believe what we want, regardless of reasons." In other words, as Haidt succinctly puts it: "Intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second."
As if to go out of his way to prove this thesis, the liberal Democrat Scialabba writes, rather gratuitously, later in the review: "Republicans cheat a lot. The Nixon campaign attempted to forestall a peace agreement in Vietnam in October 1968 that, had it succeeded, might have won Hubert Humphrey the election. The Reagan campaign allegedly attempted to delay the release of 52 American hostages held at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran until Jimmy Carter had left office. A Republican Supreme Court awarded the presidency to George W. Bush in 2000. The Swift Boat campaign against John Kerry in 2004, financed by Republican donors, was based on lies, while the CBS 60 Minutes report alleging Bush’s evasion of National Guard duty was substantially true, despite a firestorm of successful Republican denial. The dirty tricks of Republican operatives such as Lee Atwater and Karl Rove are too numerous to catalogue. Currently Republicans across the country are busy with voter-suppression efforts under the deceitful pretense of combating vote fraud. No doubt the Democrats are hardly political innocents, but compared with the Republicans, they are hapless pikers. Yet, oddly, the Republicans’ godly supporters do not object to this ungodly behavior."
"Democrats are hardly political innocents, but compared with the Republicans, they are hapless pikers."
Rotfl. My beef is not with the assertion that Republicans cheat a lot. Rather, the notion that Democrats are 'hapless pikers' when it comes to political dirty tricks makes me wonder what planet has Scilabba been on for the last 70 yrs? It's a clear case of using 'strategic reasoning' to buttress one's own political biases.
Democrats 'hapless pikers'? Does Scialabba know about how Kennedy won in 1960? Maybe he never heard about the Daley political machine in Chicago. Does he know anything about the political history of Lyndon B. Johnson? How he got where he got and how? Does he know about all the dirty tricks pulled by FDR during his 12 yrs of presidency? Or the Gulf on Tonkin Incident?
Surely, Scilabba knows that most big city politics--where the power and wealth are concentrated--have been dominated by Democrats. Does Scialabba really believe that the Democrats who've run places like Chicago, NY, New Orleans, Detroit, St. Louis, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Atlanta, Washington D.C., and etc are 'hapless pikers' when it comes to politics compared to Republican politicians of the suburbs and small towns? Is he really this naive about the role of Irish in big city politics? Or the collusion between liberal Jews of Wall Street and New York city politics? Were Daley and Koch able to run Chicago and NY for so long because they were 'hapless pikers'? What about Blagojevich, the governor of Illinois? Just another hapless piker, I guess. How about Clinton's sleazy career? The endless lies, selling of influence to Chinese, backroom dealing with Wall Street's globlalist Jews, and his pardon of Marc Rich? Reagan got in hot water in the late 80s for accepting 2 million from the Japanese, but liberal Democrats seemed to be impressed by Clinton racking up over 100 million since he left office. And how about Al Gore who reaped billions by having Obama's administration feed tons of cash into his 'green' ventures?
I do not defend the Republicans and their dirty tricks though, to be clear, the GOP has been dominated by Zionist neocons since the early 90s, i.e. the both parties are essentially run by globalist Jews who are the real masters of cheating.
Consider how Jews 'serving under'--more like 'lording over'--Clinton and Bush II rigged the system to allow Wall Street Jews to rake in huge fortunes. But when it went bust in 2007-2008, Wall Street Jews(socially liberal and economically 'conservative') got 'bail outs' from both Bush II and from Obama. And where were the media, the so-called Fourth Estate, on all this? Well, the media are also owned by globalist Zionists. And did Hollywood make truly critical movies about Jewish power in Wall Street? All we got were tepid movies that tended to HUMANIZE all those anxiety-ridden Wall Streeters.
Hollywood is more worried about North Koreans invading America(in RED DAWN remake) or Muslims abducting American women(TAKEN and TAKEN 2) than with the real power in America that happens to be globalist-Jewish. Did the government go after Wall Street crooks? Why would it when both parties depend so much on Wall Street for campaign donations. Obama, the 'hapless piker', filled his economic team with Wall Street insiders to be in good graces with the Jewish elites.
Yet, Scilabba the gutless liberal says nothing about Jewish power but bitches and whines about Rove and Atwater. Yes, Rove is a low-down dirty pig, and Atwater was a shark--though his Willie Horton ad was correct, factual, and justified; the real shame when it comes to black crime is the liberal media establishment has done everything to bury it; instead of calling black crime by its name, blacks are referred to as 'teens' and 'youths'. If white youths went around beating up blacks, the liberal-dominated media would be calling out race. Even when the Hispanic Zimmerman defended himself from a black thug, the media spun it was 'evil white guy attacks innocent black kid'. The weasels and liars in the media--of which Scialabba is a part--are certainly no hapless pikers when it comes to cheating, deception, and mendacity. Willie Horton ad was to the point because it was about a black guy overpowering a white guy and raping a white woman. It is a racial FACT that blacks are tougher, stronger, and more aggressive than whites, and therefore whites do have much to fear from black aggression. And this can be seen in blue states where most white liberals try to live apart from most blacks. Not many wonderful white liberals taking advantage of cheap rents and housing costs in Detroit. Gee, I wonder why. Most white liberals may denounce Atwater, but deep in their hearts, they act with Atwaterian instincts about race.
Michelle Malkin is a total partisan when it comes to politics, but she hits the bull's eye on this one:
And Ramzpaul makes much the same point in this video:
Even if we assume that the GOP cheats MORE than the Democrats, why would this be? Maybe they need to cheat more since most of the major institutions cheat on the side of Democrats? After all, much of politics is driven by the media, and something like 95% of journalists are liberals or leftists. 90% of the media are owned by Jews, and most Jews are liberal. And even most neocons are essentially Jewish social liberals who use the GOP for Zionist and Wall Street interests.
Let us assume Kennedy was cleaner than Nixon. But Kennedy had the media on his side. The media covered up for Kennedy no matter what he did. But the media were out to get Nixon from day one. Nixon was 'paranoid' about the media, but the media were 'paranoid' about Nixon. More recently, the media have served as Obama's propaganda wing, portraying him as the neo-messiah and then the gay messiah. In the 2008 election, the liberal media knew all about John Edward's affairs but kept it secret so as to make him steal white votes from Hillary, thereby helping Obama. As for Obama's links to the Far Left and lunatic Jeremiah Wright, MSM initially buried that story, and when it finally leaked out, covered it 'objectively' without any sensationalist rhetoric, thereby preventing it from 'gaining traction'. But imagine if the GOP candidate had Far Right ties. MSM would have foamed at the mouth, like they did over Buchanan's convention speech in 1992.
According to liberal MSM, if one goes after the Far Left, one's being 'McCarthyite'. But if one goes after the Far Right, one's being 'courageous'. So, liberals get to attack any conservative for far right ties, but conservatives are not allowed to go after liberals with far left ties. This is how the game is rigged. Many more people's lives and careers have been ruined by witch-hunts for 'racists', 'sexists', and 'homophobes' than have been ruined in the so-called 'witch-hunts' for communists. While McCarthy did abuse his power, liberals seem to forget that the more grievous abuse of power happened under FDR and Truman when many Soviet spies were allowed to gain access to all levels of the US government, culminating in the passage of atomic secrets--the most carefully guarded secrets in America--to mass murderer Stalin.
But somehow, that is considered a less evil than HUAC's search for communist subversives. Why is our understanding of history so twisted and corrupt? Because history departments are dominated by liberals and Jews. Since many of the suspected communists of the 40s and 50s were Jewish, Jews have rewritten history so as to make it seem as though it'd been a case of 'innocent' liberals--oh those hapless pikers--set upon by monstrous 'red-baiters'. In the liberal mind, passing atomic secrets to a communist tyrant who killed 15 million is less grievous than blacklisting some Hollywood writers for a few yrs.
Of course, the very liberals who were for 'free speech' back then are now pushing for 'hate speech' legislation since they have all the power. What need for free speech protections when Jews own government, Wall Street, media, law firms, courts, etc? Now they want to shut down free speech of people who are critical of Jewish power.
The real dichotomy when it comes to dirty politics is not Republicans vs Democrats but Jews vs gentiles. We gentiles are hapless pikers compared to Jews. Liberal Jews and Neocon Jews colluded to give us the Iraq War. The Jewish dominated media spread the lie that the Iranian president wants to wipe Israel off the map when he never said any such. Jews preach about equality to the rest of us when, in fact, they are the most powerful and privileged people in America. Under both Democrats and Republicans, American history of the past 30 yrs can be summarized as "Jews get richer, goyim get poorer." Jews denounce racial stereotyping, but Jewish Hollywood fills the screens with Zionist war porn that dehumanizes all Muslims as terrorist subhuman. Though black crime is a daily reality in America, most criminals and thugs on the big screen are 'angry white males'. Jewish Hollywood make movies like RISING SUN and the coming remake of RED DAWN to spread yellow peril paranoia in order to distract us from Jewish power.
And Scialabba, the lying liberal, lacks the guts to speak truth to Jewish power. Jews have, of course, rigged the game so that anyone who speaks critically of Israel or Jewish power shall be blacklisted or destroyed, like Rick Sanchez or Helen Thomas. It's okay for Jews to scream about THOSE Russians, THOSE Muslims, THOSE angry white wasp males, THOSE yellows, THOSE Mormons, and etc, but we cannot say THOSE Jews. Why, that would be 'antisemitic' and you'd be a 'Nazi'. Jews in the media bitch about 'white privilege' when, in fact, the real power and privilege in this nation are concentrated among Jews, followed by gays. It's okay for Jews to shout 'white privilege'--connotation being US is ruled by wasps--, but imagine what would happen to a white gentile if he or she yelled 'Jewish privilege'. He or she would be cast out of positions of power forever.
The proof that white gentiles are hapless pikers compared to Jews can be seen in white conservatives. Most Jews are liberal, Democratic, and anti-conservative, but white conservatives are the biggest fans of Jews, Jewish power, and Israel. Jews spit on white conservatives, but white conservatives want to worship and serve Jews. Indeed, if one really wants to understand Jonathan Haidt, one needs to consider his Jewishness. His lukewarm endorsement of conservatism has really nothing to do with philosophical thesis. It's really about Zionist interests. Haidt is worried that the rising numbers of global leftists, blacks, and browns in the Democratic Party may not be amenable to Zionism and Israeli interests. After all, what if blacks and browns identify more with oppressed non-white Palestinians than with European-Jews who rule Israel? And among Mainline Protestant churches and some members of the academia--and even in the pop culture world--, there's been increasing comparisons between Israel and South Africa under apartheid.
Then, it's not surprising that Haidt would have warm feelings for someone like Sarah Palin, the pro-Zionist political porn star. A man as intelligent as Haidt cannot possibly respect a dodo like Palin for her intellect or ideas. What he likes is her blind commitment to Israel, her insane worship of Jews. In this respect, Haidt's partial turn to the 'right' is much like David Mamet's, whose turn toward 'conservatism' is also largely fueled by his Zionist interests.
Another reason Haidt has made himself prominent as a 'liberal Jew with friendly feelings toward conservatives'--and indeed has been promoted as such by the Jewish-controlled MSM--is because Haidt, along with many Jews, are worried that white conservatives may be waking up to the fact that Jews really hate them. Since Jews are behind Obama, illegal immigration(to increase non-white numbers so as to play 'divide and rule' among various goyim), the ridiculous 'gay marriage'(if 'same sex marriage', why not 'same family marriage' or 'incest marriage'?), political correctness, and etc. Also, Jews run the foreign wars but all the dying are done by gentiles, most of them white gentiles. If white conservatives wake up to the real nature of Jewish power, they'll stop rooting for Israel and start taking a critical look at Jewish power. So, Haidt puts himself forward as the liberal JEW who has learned to LOVE conservatives. And some conservatives are dumb enough to fall for this con game worthy of David Mamet movies.
Haidt plays the rational philosopher/psychologist of morality, but his real motives are tribal-Zionist.
-------------------
"Experiments repeatedly show—to oversimplify only a little—that we all believe what we want, regardless of reasons. Changing one’s views in response to an opponent’s arguments is about as rare as an honest member of Congress. (Cases of both are known, but only a few.) Arguments are largely instrumental; they are meant for attack or defense. Most of the time, we argue like lawyers rather than philosophers."
This is only true on a short-term basis. If you sit down with someone and try to change his/her mind with reasoned argument, it's not going to be easy, even if you're right. Part of the reason is the matter of Ego. Oftentimes, the person is not so much resisting the argument as resisting the domination of one's ego by another person. Children don't like to admit they're wrong even when they're wrong.
But there are many instances where people's views can change very fast. Especially in cultures known for authoritarianism, people are more likely trust what is told them by the authorities. How else does one make sense as to why so many Germans turned to Nazism so quickly? How did so many Russians and Chinese swallow communism(an alien/radical idea) almost overnight? In some cultures, there is a kind of master/student structure to relationships so that even if the student may disagree with the master, he will feel great pressure(both inner-psychological and outer-social)to change his own views to conform to that of the dominant authority.
Such is less likely in the US where individualism is a core facet of life. But then, America isn't just about individualism but popularism, which isn't the same thing as populism. Popularism is the desire to be popular and be liked, to feel a part of whatever happens to be cool and trendy. Thus, mass culture can change people's views and values very quickly. 20 yrs ago, most Americans would have said NO to 'gay marriage'. But ever since the airwaves have been filled with 'gay is cool', 'gay is beautiful', 'gay is saintly', 'gay is hip', and 'gay is the new straight' celebrations and propaganda, a whole lot of Americans are now for 'gay marriage'. So, it's not necessarily a case of "we all believe what we want" but more a case of "we all believe what THEY--the controllers of mass media--want us to believe."
Or consider the mentality of team sports. In highschool, suppose students are divided into several teams. Members of one team will form a bond very quickly and feel as a close-knit group. Each tries to play well to be liked by other team players. If the team members are switched around, kids will feel disoriented for a day or two. But a new powerful bond will form very quickly among the new groupings. So, the mortal enemy can suddenly be your best friend. Europeans who hated one another in Europe quickly became one people in America. Ancient hatred vanished almost overnight because everyone watched John Wayne movies together and rooted for the same Team America. Red China was the worst nation on Earth as far as Americans were concerned in the 50s and 60s. But when Nixon met Mao--and with US media portraying a happy and healthy China under communism--, American view of China changed almost overnight. They were our 'friends' against those evil Rooskies.
If reasoned conversions can sometimes be difficult, emotional conversions can be instant. Many non-believers have instantly become Muslims or Christians. Why? They were feeling down in their lives and the sudden acceptance by a community of religious people made them feel at home. If you're an agnostic or secular Arab immigrant in America and feel alienated from everything, imagine coming upon a Muslim community that embraces you. Instantly, you feel 'at home' even if you're in America. You may instantly wanna be part of that faith. A lot of hippies who burned out from too much drugs became born again Christians almost overnight.
There is also the power of sensual conversion. Take Rock n Roll music. Many white conservatives hated it, and some even called it 'nigger music' and denounced Elvis as a 'white nigger'. But it wasn't long before Elvis was embraced by white conservatives as a good southern boy with charisma and talent. And white leftists generally disdained popular music as 'capitalist'. White leftists jeered at Dylan for going electric or 'commercial'. In their eyes, he went from a loyal Jewish leftist to a Jewish capitalist. But Dylan's electric music was so good that even most leftists began to embrace him again. And Muhammad Ali, the 'nigger troublemaker' of the 60s--the man who opposed the war in Vietnam--became the icon of American patriotism in the 70s, traveling around the world as the goodwill ambassador of America, even shaking hands and taking photos with dictators and tyrants chummy with America. Leftists who praised him for his anti-Americanism were praising him for his pro-Americanism.
There are two kinds of values. Values in sync with human nature, values in opposition to human nature. This was the flaw of communism. Despite its having created generations of people sincerely indoctrinated in communism, people wanted to feel free as individuals. So, when the time came, it crumbled overnight; even diehard communists seem to morph overnight into liberal democrat capitalists.
Communism came to power by tapping into certain aspects of human nature. Humans are naturally envious and want what others have; and people love easy scapegoats. Communism offered land and bread and scapegoated capitalists and the old elites. So, communists rode the waves of human nature to victory. But once in power, communists banished all freedoms, and it wasn't long before communism was in opposition to human nature--there may be only one human nature but it has many facets, e.g. human nature is for both love and hatred, for both individuality and community, for both power and servility, etc.
Rock n Roll and its related values/attitudes conquered America(and much of the world)because it was so much in sync with human nature turned on by sex, thrills, youth, narcissism, will to power, and excitement. Since culture carries values, embracing rock n roll also meant one embraced values/views/attitudes one may have disdained earlier. And this can happen quickly, almost dramatically. Such is the power of seduction. Why was it that Germans and Japanese who'd committed their lives to fighting to the last man in WWII almost overnight became pro-American democrats? It wasn't just the defeat and agony. It was American chocolate bars, American pop culture, and American culture of freedom. Japanese who'd been bowing down before the Emperor were bowing down before MacArthur and Marilyn Monroe. Germans who not long ago worshiped Hitler as the greatest man of all time were rocking to Elvis in the 50s.
Sometimes, it may seem as though people's minds don't change much because the labels remain. For instance, take the Chinese Communist Party. It still goes by its old name, still commemorates the founding of the People's Republic, still uses Mao iconography, stills plays the Internationale, and etc. But today, what is it really? It's a nationalist party that has made peace with capitalism and capitalist giants all over the world. So, everything changed, but the fiction remains that China is still ruled by 'communists', and since most Chinese are obedient to the party, we can maintain the fiction that China is still 'communist'.
Same can be said for the labels 'liberal' and 'conservative' in America. Liberals of yesteryear would not recognize today's liberals. Same with old conservatives and new conservatives. The GOP used to be the party of Lincoln. Today, it's more the party of Neo-Confederacy and Neocon Zionists, or Neocon-federacy. Conservatives used to be anti-big-government, but Nixon greatly expanded welfare and Bush II did nothing to make government smaller; if anything he made it bigger. (An average conservative would rather side with a Republican politician pushing a liberal agenda than with a Democratic politician pushing a conservative agenda. Same goes for liberals. Clinton did a lot of 'conservative' things, but he was still hated as 'that dirty liberal'. Bush II did a lot of liberal things, but he was still hated as 'that dirty conservative'. Nixon is remembered for his Southern Strategy, but he also attempted the Liberal Strategy. By expanding welfare, government, and affirmative action, he hoped to win over liberals and non-whites. But they still saw him as the 'arch conservative'. Labels matter.)
Democratic Party used to be the party of white ethnics, working class, southern farmers, and etc. Today, Democratic Party is essentially the Jewish-and-Gay party, what with nearly 80% of Democratic party funds coming from those two groups who make up maybe 4% of the population. Since 2/3 of the superrich are Democratic and since Democratic Party relies on Wall Street as much as GOP, Democrats have been major pushers of globalist free trade, especially when New Democrat Clinton signed NAFTA.
And the idea of 'gay marriage' would have been laughable to most Democrats even 20 yrs ago. Indeed, leftism used to see homosexuality as a decadent 'bourgeois' disease, not least because so many gays were into fancy and privileged things. If anything, fascism was chummier with homosexuality than communism was, that is until Hitler and Himmler made their move against Ernst Rohm and his gay-led S.A. If Rohm had prevailed over Hitler, Nazism would have been a full-blown gay-led movement. Leftists often used to attack Hitler as a closet-gay, mocking his 'gay' gestures and manners. So, just how did leftism and liberalism become synonymous with the gay agenda? Today's liberalism and leftism aren't yesterday's liberalism and leftism.
But the label remains. And as long as labels remain, there's the fiction that the 'right' and 'left' dichotomy cannot be changed since most people are so locked/trapped in their ideological fixations and certitudes. But in fact, conservatives changed so much over the years that they are no longer like conservatives even 20 yrs ago. And liberals changed so much that they are no longer like liberals even 20 yrs ago. Even many Republicans are clamoring for 'gay marriage' and saying it's 'conservative' to have gays marry since marriage is conservative. And liberals now love billionaires as long as they fund causes like 'gay marriage'.
At one time, the hallmark of liberalism was a total commitment to free speech. Today, liberalism is defined by political correctness and 'hate speech' legislation.
At one time, conservatives used to argue for censorship against communists, subversives, and perverts. Today, feeling the pressure of the liberal-dominated media, academia, courts, and government, conservatives are calling for total freedom of speech. So, what is 'liberal' and what is 'conservative'? During the Bush II presidency, liberals marched endlessly and tirelessly against war. Under Obama, liberals are suddenly no longer anti-war, even as Obama rained down bombs on Pakistan and Yemen; even as he expanded the 'War on Terror' to Libya.
So, even as people cling to labels, they often change profoundly and quickly when it comes to values, attitudes, and views. They just don't know it because they are so enamored of their label. So, it doesn't matter if you're for Wall Street and 'gay marriage'. If you still go by the label of 'liberal', you are on THIS side as opposed to THAT evil side.
No comments:
Post a Comment