Search This Blog

Monday, October 15, 2012

The Sophistry of Elitism


Much mumbling has sallied forth from the lips and pens of pundits and others in a frantic effort to define elitism and justify the lofty notions of this honored place on Olympus where the ignoranti maximus can be trained to do simple tasks, such as voting for leftists.

The usual definition of elitism reads like a cartoon of an urgent competition among a thoroughbred horse in rivalry and a string of three-legged mules in a stakes race. It is clear to all observers that the elites can provide the answers and solutions to many, if not all in all possible cases, social problems. Let us all be thankful there are so many among us to guide us through the swamps of life and taxation.

Members of this august group would have the following attributes: inherent outstanding personal abilities such as oratory approaching the finest works of Cicero, a soaring intellect with the implication that their IQ levels must be past 150, usually great wealth as in the case of the Kennedy Klan, Kerrys, Rockefellers and now the Clintons, a unique expertise in several fields of endeavor such as law or logic or philosophy, or a combination of divers factors which would make them natural sages or leaders or more.[1] The antonymous elements of this class include the populists, common folk, uneducated and vulgar, Republicans and residents of Pennsylvania. Half the Methodists unconsciously fit into this later category.

The Brits and their slower congeners in the colonies use the pejorative term Tall Poppy Syndrome, derived from Aristotle [the king of sophistry][2] where he and Livy give an account of how the Roman King Tarquin the Proud had Sextus cut off the heads of the higher class citizens of Gabbi.[3] This syndrome is in retaliation to snobbery and elitism and seeks to adjust the intellectual imbalance inherent in society. A backlash against arrogance is a common occurrence in politics.

We are faced with a dilemma here. We, the politically and socially inept, need expert leadership to decide how our tax monies will be properly spent and where to live and talk and how to think.  So why is there such antagonism against the Tall Poppies who guide us through the darkness? We cannot appreciate our ignorance any more than book works eating through a calculus book could appreciate the Limit Theorem.[4]

This thesis now must be extended by asking the following question: Are those elites who parade before the TV cameras really so elite? The definition of elite is complicated.[5]

Part of this dilemma can be solved by inspecting the themes and comments of the elites running for President in the Party of Democrats. We can inquire as to education and find two Ivy League graduates. That works. Next we can look at their list of achievements and note that they are both successful politicians. Check on that item. But, elites must have been educated and we can wonder who influenced them and with what political theories.

As for Hillary Clinton, she must have been strongly influenced by Eldie Acheson[6] [7] [8]and Saul Alinsky as the record shows. Other students of Alinsky, a sworn Communist include: Ed Chambers, Cesar Chavez, Tom Gaudette, Michael Gecan, Andrew Vachss, Patrick Crowley[9], Fred Ross and Barack Obama.[10] [11]  These people are [or were] all radical activists who are anti-capitalist, anti corporation and favor command economies as did Lenin, Stalin and Mao.

So, subtracting out the contributions from their speech writers, especially in the Clinton cases, what do we get? Ordinary left-liberalism?

We can find nothing novel about any of their political theatre or economic or social positions from either Democrat. Senator Obama is rated 100% liberal so we can wonder where the intellectual power went. They offer nothing outside of the narrow left-liberal notions that have produced disastrous social and economic programs like the Great Society, HUD, War on Poverty and a few world wars. They cannot be considered elites if they do not understand that tax cuts benefit all society in the creation jobs and growth. How can they talk about restoring lost jobs in the auto industry when they want to tax corporations until they flee the country? They want to punish business success with taxes? Their legal training in the Rule of Law prompts them to summarily ignore gun laws and allow illegal aliens to have driver’s licenses and live in sanctuaries at taxpayer expense? Their moralities seem to be buttressed by a fondness for homosexuality, kiddy porn, sloth, sodomy and the urgent need to legalize drugs so their constituents can ‘feel good.’ One of them even used crack.

One of this pair is a consummate liar whose lack of credibility [12] [13] is well known in the polls.  She cannot communicate without a premeditated script. The other candidate sat for 20 years listening to the low-class ethnic rants [14] of a unhinged racist and abject loser who howls for revenge and hates his own country as he builds a new 10,000 square foot mansion in an all white neighborhood. Obama stripped of his pin stripe suits and ignoring his slick rhetoric is a common closet racist who must tantalize his half-brothers to political action. Both of these two candidates practice ideological racism [15] for political advantage.

All this evidence leads us to conclude that the candidates have only the sophistry of identity politics and are steering their constituents toward the polls with ordinary political tactics. These people are not elites—they are slow-witted mechanical chum chuckers who will not deviate from sausage-machine political slogans in fear of alienating their base. Their views are exceedingly narrow and shallow.

These two frauds are not elitists nor can they be associated with Tall Poppies. These two are just crude political operatives devoid of morality or even class and will say or do anything to make more money for themselves from their book sales.

Let him them rave on so men will know them mad—[a paraphrase of Ramses II][16]

“"Out of their own mouths they are condemned," and they are so base they do not even know that they are publishing their own shame."[17] Georgia 1865.

Yes they do. Shame has nothing to do with politics when they win.

There are no poppies in this group—only weeds.



[2] "Periander advised Thrasybulus by cutting the tops of the tallest ears of corn, meaning that he must always put out of the way the citizens who overtop the rest."  Pol Pot used this advice to the extreme in Cambodia it seems.
[6] Granddaughter of Dean Acheson.
[17] Source: Eliza Frances Andrews, The War-Time Journal of a Georgia Girl, 1864-1865 (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1908), pp. 370-373.

No comments:

Post a Comment