Skip to content

Superiority Mentality of Randist Rhetoric clearly evident

November 5, 2013

When It Comes To Hate, The Left Beats The Right, Hands Down
http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswanger/2013/11/04/when-it-comes-to-hate-the-left-beats-the-right-hands-down/

Tries to psychoanalyze “the angry left” as simply projecting their own failure:

The Angry Left’s vision of puppet masters who pull the strings comes from a deeper cause: a feeling of personal inadequacy. “Some sinister forces out there are robbing me of my just deserts.”

When such a person finds one of his desires thwarted–when he doesn’t get a promotion at work, when his “green” investments turn sour–he defends against it with his mantra: “The good have no chance in this world, the selfish bastards are too powerful.”

And when you see rage at the idea of honoring the successful…you are witnessing the ressentiment of those who secretly regard themselves as failures, whatever their outward success, and are desperately struggling to bury the knowledge that they themselves are responsible for their fate. Hatred for the achievers is the outward projection of their own self-loathing.

But just about everything he claims the left says, you can find from the Right, and the Right has been far louder, at least in the past 35 years.

So what is it what the Right trashes Obama as a POS, and LIAR (see how they defend Bush from people calling him a liar on WMD’s) and all the other stuff? It’s that he’s simply WRONG (a “socialist”), and we’re speaking the TRUTH.

This link was from another FB friend, who had been quiet since Obama won the second term, but has stepped up the posting recently. From the other guy, who’s always posting every day, I had just gotten this one right before seeing the Forbes link:

Will someone explain how anyone group winds up begin so right? Is it still divine election? (Most of these writers are not coming from a religious angle, and this one is a heavy advocate of Ayn Rand. Another article is “Capitalism Without God: Freedom Is A Secular But Absolute Value”).

One great response in the comments:

It is no doubt true that you get a fair number of illiterate hate mail messages; however you are generalizing excessively. Pretty much anyone who expresses an opinion on a public site will get such messages. It sure seems as if the world has gone nuts, but really it is only the 39 people who bothered to write to you you can be sure of. Most people I imagine read your comments and roll their eyes, those how don’t mentally say “Right on”.
Currently the left, as you put it, has no public voice. The right accuses the mainstream media and academia of being the organized voice of the left, and indeed over the last forty or so years the right have deliberately and specifically organized countervailing organizations. But the fundamental difference is that academia got to the position of supporting the “Liberal” position because that’s the way it rolls when you specifically try to figure out the best way of behaving. They didn’t start with the need to somehow justify a liberal stance. The right, on the other hand did explicitly set up to support a conservative, or rightist stance. Harvard wasn’t set up as a bastion of liberal thinking – it just turned out that way because that’s the way intelligent people tend to (not always, but mostly) think. The Heritage foundation (to take one example) was explicitly set up to provide intellectual backing for a pre-existing point of view. The result is that anyone with a smidgeon of intellectual honesty has to take the Harvard position as being much less likely corrupted by bias than the Heritage position.

On the left it seems that the right has explicitly set up organizations to promulgate their point of view, and it is indisputable that this is in fact the case.
The right, having seen that it is possible and practical to do this, now apparently considers that the left has done what they themselves did, and blames them for it.

The difference is that the left didn’t. The right is essentially a propaganda machine bankrolled by a number of extremely wealthy individuals and organizations – the left is a heterogeneous collection of organizations and individuals wondering what happened. Sure there are a few powerful and rich people on the left, but nothing like those on the right.

Then, on the side, I find this article:

Give Back? Yes, It’s Time For The 99% To Give Back To The 1%
http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswanger/2013/09/17/give-back-yes-its-time-for-the-99-to-give-back-to-the-1

As I say in “Makers-Takers”, it is CLEAR that the mindset of these people is identical to the slaveowners of old.

For their enormous contributions to our standard of living, the high-earners should be thanked and publicly honored. We are in their debt. Here’s a modest proposal. Anyone who earns a million dollars or more should be exempt from all income taxes. Yes, it’s too little. And the real issue is not financial, but moral. So to augment the tax-exemption, in an annual public ceremony, the year’s top earner should be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.

And, at a deeper level, it is the monstrous perversion of justice that makes the IRS possible: an envy-ridden moral code that damns success, profit, and earning money in voluntary exchange.
An end must be put to the inhuman practice of draining the productive to subsidize the unproductive. An end must be put to the primordial notion that one’s life belongs to the tribe, to “the community,” and that the superlative wealth-creators must do penance for the sin of creating value.

It glosses over all the negative stuff these big banks and others have done, and now even acts like the entire IRS is only there to give disenfranchised people someone else’s money! (When one thinks of the big bad tax collector coming after you, we don;t think of him as the protector of the poor!)

One good response:

To say that a community doesn’t exist because it consists of a series of individuals is like saying there is no such thing as a forest, just a stand of trees. It’s childish and incorrect. Like it or not, you are a member of a community, of several in fact. Rand’s figures are fictional. Real life entrepreneurs don’t live on a cloud and teleport their ideas into reality.

Is that what you’re doing when you coerce someone into an economic contract that leverages their desperation against them? Is that what company stores were doing, those who bound employees into commodity debt through price making and total dependence on the company? Is that what feudal lords were doing when they forced the tenant farmer to give his daughters virginity to the lord of the manor and the lionshare of his crops? Respecting their rights? I’m sure you say it was, you could have left them to starve or forced them through threats of immediate rather than future violence.

Democracy, unions, communities and so on are just doing unto you far better than you would do unto us. We’re balancing the scales rather than having them tipped against us. This is how society truly moves forward, class struggle. If we did as you wish and acquiesced the world would be lucky to have gotten past the renaissance.

No society, thank god, recognizes the rights of people to do whatever they want. That would be a tautology, you could just call it the jungle.

And my combined response to both:

Both here and in the “leftist hate” article, I see the tendency to make one side all good, and the other all bad. This one makes “the powerful” out to be almost faultless, and glosses over a lot of the harm they have done, and that climbing to the top often involves more than just “sacrifice” or “delayed gratification” (they’re probably gratifying themselves a lot on the way up), but rather other things like timing (who you know, etc), talent and ever temperament (personality), and a lot of dirty dealing at times as well, including cronyism where they buy out politicians and their own kind of “welfare”. All of this is ignored. The people pointing it out are just in one broad sweep, “envious”.

Nobody is saying that nobody should be richer. The charge from the Left is that their wealth has gone up tremendously, and far greater than whatever value they are creating. A lot of quality has gone down (planned obsolescence and other cost cutting methods, including cheap overseas labor, etc), yet the profits rise as the Right keeps blaming someone else for all the financial problems.

But over and over, I keep seeing it all attributed solely to some depth of character on the part “the rich”, which everyone else is then judged as lacking.

So then, people have come to blame everything on the poor (with the accusations they don’t want to work, and are thus simply trying too get everything for free), and these articles go along with that by saying the 1% are the ones who are “due”, (and in fact don’t have enough), and that everyone under them are a bunch of spoiled envious self-loathing parasites. I’m seeing a clear superiority mentality, and while you may not have said “slavery should come back”, you can see a similar view of “the inferior little people” who owe the powerful something; hence that’s why the left reacts to this philosophy as if it did push for slavery.

So the Right have been saying just as much, or really more “The good have no chance in this world, the selfish bastards are too powerful”, only making the “powerful” the poor, aided by their leftist advocates who are only “using them for votes”.

Which is more ludicrous? Blaming the rich and powerful, or blaming the poor? [and if “blaming”=”envying”:] Envying the rich and powerful, or envying the poor? (Wouldn’t we all like “free rides”? Wow; ‘how good they have it’, so many obviously seethe in anger! And even if the poor were getting so much money; by spending it up, on whatever frivolity they are often accused, they would be the ones putting it back into the economy. They do not have the power to SIT on the money, or take it out of the country, like these global corporations do).
Yet if saying it’s the rich is just a reflection of one’s own failure; then what’s blaming the poor? Sounds like deflection to me, by those trying to get everyone (“the community” I may dare, which the article puts down the “liberal” notion of) fighting each other, making it easier for them to have control.

So these articles ignore that in how pointing out what the other side does, you do the same things.
The hatred toward Obama has been far louder than any hatred toward anyone else. They call him a “liar” far more than Bush gets called a liar. And while the left may have stepped up some conspiracy rhetoric, it nowhere near matches what the Right has been doing for generations. I hear the term “leeches” coming strictly from the Right, aimed at the entire “47%” if not the 99%! As the guy in the comments of the other post said, the left has been rather silent in comparison (which the Right often acknowledges, taking it as proof the left has no answer to the Right’s [monopolized] “truth”).

It’s so ironic how the other article even talks about “projection”. We all have a “shadow” (the darkness that gets projected), and when you point at someone else, you’re pointing back at yourself, and the more fervent, the deeper it is. Nobody has mastered any “truth” THAT much.

Meanwhile:

How Republicans Have Trashed The Economy, In 1 Chart
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/04/republican-spending-cuts-economy_n_4213435.html

Advertisements

From → Politics

4 Comments
  1. Get a load of this one:
    http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/03/22/5-ways-america-is-creating-a-generation-of-wimps-n1812893

    Even reprinted by Right Wing News: http://www.rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/5-ways-america-is-creating-a-generation-of-wimps/

    Particularly this statement:

    Americans rode in wagon trains across this country, tossed the Brits’ tea in the Boston Harbor, outfought the superpower of the 18th century to get our freedom, pounded the Indians, Mexicans, and Spanish into the ground to fulfill our Manifest Destiny and then for an encore, we saved the planet in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War. Our pioneer-pilgrim, hard-fighting, gold-mining, wagon-training, gun-fighting ancestors were so hard, Kid Rock’s American Bad Ass should have played when they walked into a room>. We conquered a continent, built the Hoover Dam, went to the moon, and not only did our Olympic athletes refuse to dip our flag to Hitler during the 1936 Olympics, we made the most evil man who ever lived kill himself in fear before we could get to him.

    That’s the stock that Americans come from, which begs an obvious question: What the hell happened to us?

    Have you ever seen such blatant superiority? (Of course, a mix of evils with some good acts, of course not mentioning that we were reluctant to even go after Hitler).

    Of course, it’s all the sensitivity being infused by the Left. Everything good is from us; everything evil split off onto some other group that has corrupted us?
    And the conservative Christians who believe “all have sinned and fallen short” are often at the forefront of this mindset. And they don’t see anything wrong with this. I guess if a people like this show up on your shores, you should just hand everything over to them, because they’re the chosen ones!
    (Though I agree, they’ve gotten ridiculous when a kid gets in trouble for chewing something into the shape of a gun).

    Yet as much as they despise weakness and complaining, they complain about the Left and what it’s doing the them and their country; they complain about taxes, even though they still live the American Dream, and many others suffered with nothing, without complaining as much, and they overall claim to be “tread” on now.

    Behind all this rhetoric of “valiance” and tough talk is their own shadow.
    They are really the scared little girls, hiding behind a persona of “manliness”, and projecting their fears and perpetual discontent onto everyone else.
    The reason society has swung to such sensitivity in the first place is because of all the rampant abuse of the past (which many hold as such a golden age of righteousness).

    It’s just a refusal to admit; you know, I’m a frail human with needs and wants and pains from the difficulties of life; and I should thus respect others as the same.
    Instead, it’s to appeal to the wildness of the frontier, and to follow the law of the jungle, but then complain when someone bigger comes along and in some way takes away your power over those weaker than you. But then, that’s not “whining”; it’s actually “fighting”, for your God-given “rights”; which also makes it doing His work.
    The same exact behavior changes its nature depending solely on who’s doing it. The end result, without fail; our concerns are valid, everyone else’s are not.

    Again, when you’re so great that you’re “due” everything in the world, the “whining” you criticize everyone else for is “defending your rights” when you do it. You get to make the rules and break them.

    They romanticize the past, claim discontent is from fall from ideals of the past, and this is differentiated from the discontent of those seeking change. So you can criticize others for (among other things) “discontent” (“whining”, etc), and yet do the same just as much and even more, yet it’s “different”.

    One commenter responds:

    To John Hawkins- TOO BAD they missed me when they were “pounding the Indians into the ground!” – You’re talking primarily old west legends. Cherokee helped the traitorous backstabber, Andrew Jackson at Horseshoe Bend, only to be driven off our ancestral lands on the East Coast because Jackson was not beholden to the Supreme Court ruling! — But if you, John Hawkins would like a chance to “pound me into the ground” -you have the means (with the help of the govt) to find me. 🙂
    I am a CONSERVATIVE but have to say, John Hawkins, that your article is another divisive tool that widens the gap in the race war, and I HATE the race card that is played all too often. But you opened it up and invited it in with your comments!! Oh and yes, I can prove my Cherokee heritage unlike the white Cherokee in the Senate.

  2. Here’s one posted by a Randian FB friend from an “objectivist” page:

    Someone then comments “They and other producers like them, are persecuted because they successful. Envy. Hatred of the good because it is good. Gates and Jobs did not steal people’s money. People wanted their products and were willing to exchange their money for them. Value for value exchanges. Both sides benefited equally. They changed the world for the better and were rewarded for it. Some just cannot take greatness in others and want to pull then down.”

    It’s not them who are hated personally (amazing how the world gets divided into these “all good” vs “all bad” people who only hate the good just for being good, and yet everyone “owes” them “a debt they can never repay”. Sounds like it would justify some sort of slavery/domination, but then that’s exactly what’s happening in this economy, financially ⦅which would explain everything about why things are rigged the way they are. We’re all stuck in an eternal debt for not “pulling our bootstraps” like they did, and so cast into a sort of financial “hell”⦆. Everyone worries about government domination, but because we end up depending on big business so much, it can exert just as much power, in different ways. Here, we’re basically yielding all of our ‘rights’ to them).

    What people complain about is a system based on a premise of “scarcity”; like there’s not enough resources for for everyone (so no matter how much these people make, they still have to cut back on jobs, wages and quality. —then have us blaming the poor for getting all the tax money. Even Apple products are going down, and you download a required “update” that essentially kills the pad/pod and you then have to buy a new one. THIS is one issue people may have with these “creators”).
    So it’s like if we don’t become like one of them, we haven’t “produced enough value” to be able to live decently.

    And they’re not being “persecuted”. People condemn a “victim” mentality when the weak/poor do it, so why is it OK for the rich and powerful?
    No one has taken anything away from them. Mentioned was the “progressive income tax”, but this is still not taking away from their lives, where they could be called “persecuted”.

    (So then they recover the costs and profit even more by raising prices, taking away jobs, etc. and then that becomes the justification, again, to blaming all these other people, seen as getting a ‘free ride’ off of these “taxes”, which is a great overgeneralization as it is. The poor and middle class are the ones who spend it right back into the economy; they aren’t the ones sitting on the money or taking it elsewhere, and not all the money is going to them to begin with. A lot of it is going [right back] to the rich in various ways; i.e. cronyism, tax breaks and loopholes; let’s not forget, etc.).

  3. This is interesting:

    Clinical psychologist explains how Ayn Rand helped turn the US into a selfish and greedy nation
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/clinical-psychologist-explains-how-ayn-rand-helped-turn-the-us-into-a-selfish-and-greedy-nation/

    Never knew how much she was tied up (an understatement, really) with Nathaniel Branden. (His original last name being “Blumenthal”, but he changed it to “BRANDen” after her!) I remember him as this self-help author my parents gave me to read once, and this explains why I found his teachings so cold and so similar in ways (at least the “objective” way he presents it) to some of the conservative political ideology I was hearing in the ’80’s. I even remember him saying something like a woman should wear a lower neckline on the job to impress the boss! (As I pointed out here: https://erictb.wordpress.com/2014/11/15/ordering-vs-aligning-the-tefi-vs-tife-difference-in-my-experience-and-self-help-teaching, it is clearly a Te/Fi “Ordering Assessment” perspective to the core!)

    Rand said, “Capitalism and altruism are incompatible….The choice is clear-cut: either a new morality of rational self-interest, with its consequences of freedom, justice, progress and man’s happiness on earth—or the primordial morality of altruism, with its consequences of slavery, brute force, stagnant terror and sacrificial furnaces.” For many young people, hearing that it is “moral” to care only about oneself can be intoxicating, and some get addicted to this idea for life.

    I have known several people, professionally and socially, whose lives have been changed by those close to them who became infatuated with Ayn Rand. A common theme is something like this: “My ex-husband wasn’t a bad guy until he started reading Ayn Rand. Then he became a completely selfish jerk who destroyed our family, and our children no longer even talk to him.”

    Ethics—self-interest. For Rand, all altruists were manipulators. What could be more seductive to kids who discerned the motives of martyr parents, Christian missionaries and U.S. foreign aiders?

    Rand’s integrity was her vanity, and it consisted of getting as much money and control as possible, copulating with whomever she wanted regardless of who would get hurt, and her always being right. To equate one’s selfishness, vanity, and egotism with one’s integrity liberates young people from the struggle to distinguish integrity from selfishness, vanity, and egotism.

    Politics—capitalism. While Rand often disparaged Soviet totalitarian collectivism, she had little to say about corporate totalitarian collectivism, as she conveniently neglected the reality that giant U.S. corporations, like the Soviet Union, do not exactly celebrate individualism, freedom, or courage. Rand was clever and hypocritical enough to know that you don’t get rich in the United States talking about compliance and conformity within corporate America. Rather, Rand gave lectures titled: “America’s Persecuted Minority: Big Business.”

    It concludes on how “the 1 percent…used her books to congratulate themselves on the morality of their selfishness”, but shied away because of her views on religion. Ultimately, her “god” is herself!

  4. http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/10/30/president-obama-jabs-at-ayn-rand-knocks-himself-out/

    Obama had said, “Ayn Rand is one of those things that a lot of us, when we were 17 or 18 and feeling misunderstood, we’d pick up. Then, as we get older, we realize that a world in which we’re only thinking about ourselves and not thinking about anybody else, in which we’re considering the entire project of developing ourselves as more important than our relationships to other people and making sure that everybody else has opportunity – that that’s a pretty narrow vision. It’s not one that, I think, describes what’s best in America. ”

    The article then point out, basically, that you can’t focus on everyone else and neglect yourself.
    “Anyone who makes ‘everybody else’ the primary issue – who needs upfront reassurance about the status of other people in a philosophical system – isn’t worth convincing. If someone is so hysterical about establishing the status of others that they insist on putting it before the question of their own, then they are weak, dependent, irrational, and, by their own admission, irrelevant.”
    I myself would say a balance of both self and others is needed.
    This is clearly the difference between a Fe/Ti and Te/Fi perspective, as I’ve discussed.

    The statement that really stands out is:
    “Objectivism is a philosophy for winners, leaders, producers, creators, alpha males and females and those on their way. It is a philosophy for people with self-respect, self-loyalty, self-confidence, self-esteem, and independence. It is for those with a rugged individualist spirit. That is why Ayn Rand has an enormous reservoir of goodwill among the American people. America is a culture of winners. This is an exceptional nation, and Americans are still an exceptional people.”

    “Alpha males”, even! A highly idealized image, as you can see here http://www.askmen.com/top_10/dating/top-10-signs-youre-not-an-alpha-male.html that people think they live up to with that old “frontiersman” image, but as it’s really more than that, they really don’t.

    It’s obvious there will be no room for any sort of humility or grace. No sense that you’re a fallible human like the “losers” they contrast their attitude with, and under a different set of circumstances, you still could have become one of them. (The “timing, talent, temperament” of “fate”). No sense that “you do not have anything you did not receive“. Or, some who do acknowledge this will abuse the notion of “God’s sovereignty” to say that God “favored” them and the nation. But to them, “if you did receive it, then why do you boast as though you did not?” (1 Cor.4:7)
    From what I discuss here: https://erictb.wordpress.com/2013/04/09/solar-vs-lunar-in-gender-dynamics-and-individuation/#comment-3071 the philosophy is all “nature”, seemingly supported by the hard “facts” of the universe, but it lacks “integrity” (which includes such virtues as care, amiability and justice. We could make a video; “It’s all about that Tao; ’bout that Tao; no ‘te[grity]…”)

    This, as I’ve said elsewhere, is why conservative “patriots” can see no wrong in the nation’s history (right there failing #9), or modern capitalism, and throw a conniption over “the race card” and just turn blame back around to the disenfranchised (failing #4 just as much as those they sneer at as falsely playing “victims”, which is exactly what they do in return, by claiming all their freedoms are being taken when they really aren’t). If they are so “exceptional”, then why not enslave or control financially others?

    It’s an immensely narcissistic posture that casts an immense “shadow” of all the opposite qualities they despise, and thus must project onto everyone else, even though it is present in all men. It is clearly secular, “humanistic” philosophy, and totally at odds to the Gospel’s message that all have sinned and fallen short of the true standard, which is God’s glory; thus it makes you wonder how so many conservative Christians have gotten caught up in this thinking.

    It should be pointed out that in embracing “objectivity”, men forget their own humanity; that they are nevertheless still subjects with a natural subjectivity (reality helplessly divided between self and everything else) that will color and ultimately skew everything, including their interpretation or application of “objectivity”. To deny this, is to presume some sort of superhuman perspective!


    #1 strike against being a true “alpha male” is about “bullying others”, but we see how in practice, if one thinks they are so “exceptional”, then naturally, they should rule over others, and thus conquer the “weak”. Even though idealistically, “he knows that his hard work and persistence will eventually turn the tide in his favor” [and thus shouldn’t have to blame, or otherwise manipulate the situation to his favor], still, the people get impatient and pull strings on their own to gain the dominance.
    For one, their “hard work and persistence” is not perfect, and is often self-serving (like the plantation owners using slavery for quick profit. This would not produce a climate that would ultimately be favorable to their character image, so the practice had to be defended, through blaming the victims ⦅”inferior”, “lazy”, “dangerous”, “sensual”, “cursed by God”, etc.⦆ and then through intimidation of others, and ultimately, civil war. Yet all of this gets glossed over in the odes to “American exceptionalism”).

    #7 (about gossipers) says “You don’t mind pointing out other people’s failings and weaknesses and having a good laugh at their expense. An alpha male never betrays his pack, but he doesn’t feel the need to belittle others either. He doesn’t need to build himself up by tearing people down.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: