Why Intellectuals are Left Wing Wimps

[neonlyte]

I am going to saunter into this little foray, playing with words, being as insulting as I can possibly be as I casually mosey from issue to issue, savoring each egg I crush.

Intellectuals of the left wing ilk, bombast a righteous attitude of superiority over the common man in a dozen ways. They lord it over all with their feigned appreciation of the ‘finer things’ in life, with their Opera and Piano Concerts, their ‘theatre’ and entertainment associations, and especially with their Bohemian lifestyles heralding such things as promiscuity and prostitution, alternative life style as gay, lesbian and bi-sexual, flaunting social convention and tradition, and of course the age long use of narcotics, from opium to absinthe and cocaine.

The first intellectuals were probably those born weak and puny with poor eyesight, who could only exist if others cared for them. Thus they became the marginal, ‘go-fers’ of the vital and productive tribal members, existing by begging and stealing left-over’s.

But, having excess energy as they did not work, their minds developed more so than their fellow man and they learned to exist quietly and stay out of the way of others.

The first ‘true’ intellectuals were most likely the Witch-doctors, sooth-sayers and medicine men, trading on their powers of observation and manipulation, deceit and fraud to achieve a ‘status’ in the group.

Always seeking ways to ‘please’ their Masters, as they were incapable of ruling, they became a necessary adjunct to formal religion and the King’s Court. Their beady little myopic eyes facilitated the ability to be scribes and painters and again, they served their Masters bidding in every aspect.

This pretty much continued up until the Renaissance and then the emergence of a wealthy trading class and the Industrial Revolution.

When posturing for the glory of King and God began to wane and a trading empire emerged and the power and wealth began to shift base from the Church and the King’s Court, the poor lost intellectual turned, ecce bono, where the money is, the wealthy upper class.

Oh, how they hated toadying to the crass materialists, but, what the hay, it was a living.

So…they became the teachers and the lawyers and the writers and the bohemians, still selling their services to those who could pay, and internally corrupting everything they could in their life of discontent.

Then, finally, to their salvation, on a dark and dreary night, the god of the collective was found in swaddling clothes in a manger somewhere on Piccadilly street in London; Lo and Behold, a new king is born!

Thus it has been e’er since, the intellectual confronting the vital and producing members of society, parasitical in nature and clever and crafty as they continue to corrupt the young and helpless.

So, if you wonder the truth in ‘why intellectuals hate freedom’, that I posed some time ago, that might give you a brief idea or at least something to think about.

I had intended to present a rather scholarly document, based on Bertrand de Juvenal’s, essay “Treatment of Capitalism by Intellectuals” contained in a book edited by F.A. Hayek, “Capitalism and the Historians”, but this was so much more enjoyable..

Hope you enjoyed it.

Ahem…


Amicus…

Nicely put, Amigo, having spent most of my life surrounded by 'artist types' I too am fed up with their unequivical whining at the unfairness of of life, the lack of wealthy patrons, and the mercantile greed of galleries. They are cosetted and lazy, failing to understand that great art, the art that money is prepared to buy, requires personal sacrice, not hand outs and subsidies. Where are the thinkers of the Galileo mold, Van Goth or Solzhenitsyn. Intellectuals prepared to suffer to squeeze forth knowledge and understanding? Instead we have endless 'professors' and so called 'expert committees' spouting ridiculous notions about social order, how to avoid cancer (as if!), eat vegetables, but not the ones with pesticides, eat organic, shoo organics. When will it ever stop!

Can you imagine the tosser who sat about inventing the wheel while the rest of his mates were out hunting? I wouldn't have fed him, neither would you, Amigo. And that git Louis Pasteur who claims to have discovered penicillin. He didn't discover anything, penicillin was there all the time. It was the drug of the servile classes ingested everytime they ate mouldy vegetables. Yet Pasteur gets his name on every bottle of milk... WTF! But the ones who really get my goat are the so called 'Theologians'. Now these guys invented some cock and bull story about a 'saviour'... ok, ok... yeh, we all need some thing to aspire to, but most of us can get by a bigger house, the latest car, holidays in the Bahama's. These guys - the theologians - embark upon creating a world order, split into several parts directly opposing one another, then sit back and watch while the armaments industry outstrips the buying power of most countries. These wankers don't even have a share in making weapons! Can you believe that? Left wing intellectuals doesn't even come close to what I'd call them!

 

[keeblercrumb]

Nicely put, Amigo, having spent most of my life surrounded by 'artist types' I too am fed up with their unequivical whining at the unfairness of of life, the lack of wealthy patrons, and the mercantile greed of galleries. They are cosetted and lazy, failing to understand that great art, the art that money is prepared to buy, requires personal sacrice, not hand outs and subsidies. Where are the thinkers of the Galileo mold, Van Goth or Solzhenitsyn. Intellectuals prepared to suffer to squeeze forth knowledge and understanding? Instead we have endless 'professors' and so called 'expert committees' spouting ridiculous notions about social order, how to avoid cancer (as if!), eat vegetables, but not the ones with pesticides, eat organic, shoo organics. When will it ever stop!

Can you imagine the tosser who sat about inventing the wheel while the rest of his mates were out hunting? I wouldn't have fed him, neither would you, Amigo. And that git Louis Pasteur who claims to have discovered penicillin. He didn't discover anything, penicillin was there all the time. It was the drug of the servile classes ingested everytime they ate mouldy vegetables. Yet Pasteur gets his name on every bottle of milk... WTF! But the ones who really get my goat are the so called 'Theologians'. Now these guys invented some cock and bull story about a 'saviour'... ok, ok... yeh, we all need some thing to aspire to, but most of us can get by a bigger house, the latest car, holidays in the Bahama's. These guys - the theologians - embark upon creating a world order, split into several parts directly opposing one another, then sit back and watch while the armaments industry outstrips the buying power of most countries. These wankers don't even have a share in making weapons! Can you believe that? Left wing intellectuals doesn't even come close to what I'd call them!

Supect Number 4, please step forward.

-KC

 

[neonlyte]

Supect Number 4, please step forward.

-KC

sorry, couldn't find 'tongue in cheek' smiley.

 

[egelante]

~~~

We've clashed before, I suppose we will again.

I think it was Ayn Rand who wrote, 'Show me the woman a man sleeps with and I will tell you his values..." sumpin like that...

That vast majority of 'intellectuals' those who earn their livelihood with their minds instead of their bodies, are politically left wing, that is to say, socialist, advocating the collective over the individual. That holds true for artists and musicians and teachers and such, sometimes as high as ninety percent.

The historian I referenced, de Jouvenal, presented quite a logical history of the birth and growth of 'intellectuals' in society. It made quite a bit of sense to me, and others who read and critiqued his work.

In the past hundred years or so, an aristocracy of the intellectuals has developed, with an attitude of looking down on the majority of mankind rather than contributing to the accumulation of knowledge and science.

It has solidified, of recent, into an anti free market, anti industrial, anti capitalist bastion that has infiltrated all levels of society.

Most people are in awe of the blue blood intelligentsia and yearn to bask in the glory of the art and music and entertainment they espouse.

I wanna rain on that parade.

Amicus...

And so your views on "left-wing intellectualism" are influenced by a historian's perspective... Presuming that he is significant enough to count as an academic, does academia no longer count as intellectualism? Not to mention the fact that without social awareness (surely the root of socialism), there is only a minimal chance that this man would ever have learned to read.

Now... I'm not "left wing", nor am I stupid enough to define myself by politics or believe that I "should" think something that I plainly cannot, but neither am I so sublimely arrogant that I dismiss everything that affronts me.

Nor am I so naive as to believe that the benefaction of intellectual pursuits is a modern, "left-wing" phenomenon. If we are to be a "cultured" species of "thoughtful pursuits", then there is an inevitable cost.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Amicus

Left-wing intellectual is an oxymoron. There are left-wing cerebral narcisscists, but few, if any, intellectuals.

 

[keeblercrumb]

sorry, couldn't find 'tongue in cheek' smiley.

I will admit the first sentence almost had me going....



but then I was a little wound up....

Thanks for restoring peace and reason to my world.

-KC

 

[Liar]

I am going to saunter into this little foray, playing with words, being as insulting as I can possibly be as I casually mosey from issue to issue, savoring each egg I crush.

In other words, business as usual.

 

[ishtat]

Where's "Berkley"?

Berkeley(with 3 e's), the first one is a small town of 2000 people in the west of England famous as the site of one of history's most famous murders. Two guys Gurney & Multravers took a red hot poker and drove it into the rectum of soon to be late king .

Now why did that memory occur to me when I was thinking of Amicus??

 

[neonlyte]

Berkeley(with 3 e's), the first one is a small town of 2000 people in the west of England famous as the site of one of history's most famous murders. Two guys Gurney & Multravers took a red hot poker and drove it into the rectum of soon to be late king .

Now why did that memory occur to me when I was thinking of Amicus??

Or it's a hotel in Knightsbridge favoured by Americans. Curiously, it is where Scouries will be staying in my Christmas Comp entry, it has the unique ability of placing him among his fellows whilst being pissed off at being in London... again. I did fleetingly wonder if Scouries and Amicus were the same person. Nonsense of course, Amicus has brains.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Or it's a hotel in Knightsbridge favoured by Americans. Curiously, it is where Scouries will be staying in my Christmas Comp entry, it has the unique ability of placing him among his fellows whilst being pissed off at being in London... again. I did fleetingly wonder if Scouries and Amicus were the same person. Nonsense of course, Amicus has brains.

Really? Amicus has brains? This is a relative thing, I assume

I have not been here long enough to puzzle out this Scouries thing.... but that is some scathing indictment of the chap...

Now this red-hot poker thing king thing..... Not unlike what happened in the 1960's at our Berkeley....... Our kings at the time were named LBJ and Tricky Dick......

Uhhhh.... you don't happen to still have that poker laying about, do you?

I mean if it is just gathering dust, a practical use for it has occurred to me.




-KC

 

[neonlyte]

Really? Amicus has brains? This is a relative thing, I assume

I have not been here long enough to puzzle out this Scouries thing.... but that is some scathing indictment of the chap...

Now this red-hot poker thing king thing..... Not unlike what happened in the 1960's at our Berkeley....... Our kings at the time were named LBJ and Tricky Dick......

Uhhhh.... you don't happen to still have that poker laying about, do you?

I mean if it is just gathering dust, a practical use for it has occurred to me.




-KC

Mr S, in a public service gesture, posted a critique of all the entries to one of the competitions last year. His comments were both constructive and informative... and almost universally scathing. Either side of this venture, he accused illustrious members of the AH of rigging the competitions, one can imagine the outcome. On the brains thing... Mr S regards 'hits' ie opening his stories, as 'sales', need I say more? I happen to have a three foot long piece of railway track in the attic, if you can't find that poker.

 

[WRJames]

Are we blasting the whole left wing, or just the "left wing" intellectuals. There are plenty of "right wing" intellectuals who have the same deplorable traits. Isn't it an intellectual trait to be seuced by the beauty of ones own words and reasoning power, even when it has left reality (or "common sense") far behind? Of course I, personally, would never, never do that! (Yeah, right!)

It looks like I will be paying almost five thousand dollars for heath insurance for my wife next year -- here is an area where a "left wing" solution might be appropriate?

 

[Pure]

Wr

"right wing" intellectuals do exist, but a rare as hen's teeth.

i'd say george wills is one. wm buckley.

most smart right wingers however end up defending a political party or government, and then their creds disappear.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

PURE

At last we agree on something.

I do not think any conservative is an intellectual if their fund of knowledge includes Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, or Bill O'Reilly....or Sean Hannity.

Florence King qualifies as a conservative intellectual, though she'll argue she's a lesbian libertarian. Peggy Noonan is conservative and intellectual. George Will is okay. Walter Williams is most definitely a conservative intellectual. As is Thomas Sowell. David Horowitz? David was like the Michael Moore of the 60s. He was so Left he was frightening. Now he's a Right Winger.

Camille Paglia is my idea of a Leftie Intellectual. She has moments of Leftie Lunacy, but for the most part she calls the balls correctly.

 

[egelante]

Please note, that I did not say 'all' intellectuals are left wing wimps, nor do I discount all cultural, just the corrupt and disabilitating part that demeans the innate goodness of the species.

Do you fancy defending the notion of innate goodness? And defining what is corrupt and debilitating (I believe is the word...). Where does one draw the line?

There is another aspect of intellectualism and intellectuals that begs to be discussed in more detail as many are subject to alienation because of their intelligence and station in life.

Yes, I had noticed that...

Whilst I do not understand what you're getting out of it aside from some cerebral stimulation, I'm not so straight-laced as to miss the fact that you're playing a little game by posting these threads. Or at least I hope you are.

In spite of this... suspicion, I would like to note that discussions entitled "Why Intellectuals are Left Wing Wimps" might, in fact, be a symptom (or even become a cause) of that alienation.

There is great art, great literature and great music and those gifted individuals reach beyond themselves sometimes into the far reaches of comprehension and discover great fear in the realizations on the envelope of knowledge and emotion.

It is those I adore and value, but they are very few in number.

And the many whom you do not "adore and value" are of less worth? All of the arts rely on influence, Amicus, as I'm sure you are aware, and none of it exists in isolation. Sometimes the influences behind great works of art are surprisingly banal or "corrupted".

At least I got your attention.

regards..

amicus...

Glad you appreciate the fact. We lazy artistic types are known for being such butterflies...

 

[sr71plt]

Berkeley(

Well, yes, I knew that. Amicus apparently never figured it out.

 

[sr71plt]

I did fleetingly wonder if Scouries and Amicus were the same person. Nonsense of course, Amicus has brains.

Scouries has brains enough to send a whole lot of posters on this board all twitter twice a week.

 

[ms.read]

Scouries has brains enough to send a whole lot of posters on this board all twitter twice a week.

you just made a funny

 

[amicus]

“…The history of the Western Intelligentsia during the last ten centuries falls easily into three parts. During the first period the intelligentsia is levitic; there are no intellectuals but those called and ordained to the service of God. They are the custodians and interpreters of the Word of God.

In the second period we witness the rise of the secular intelligentsia, King’s lawyers being the first to appear; the development of the legal profession is for a long time the main source of secular intellectuals; amusers of Noblemen, progressively raising their sights, provide another` very minor, source. This secular intelligentsia grows slowly in numbers but rapidly in influence and conducts a great fight against the clerical intelligentsia, which it gradually supersedes in the main functions of the intelligentsia.

Then in a third period coinciding with the Industrial Revolution, we find a fantastic proliferation of the secular intellectual, favored by the generalization of secular education and the rise of publishing (and eventually broadcasting) to the status of a major industry (an effect of the Industrial Revolution). This secular intelligentsia is by now, far and away, the most influential and it is the subject of our study.

An enormous majority of Western Intellectuals display and affirm hostility to the economic and social institutions of their society, institutions to which they give the blanket name of capitalism. Questioned as to the grounds of their hostility they will give affective reasons: concern for “the worker” and antipathy for “the capitalist; and ethical reasons: “the ruthlessness and injustice of the system.” This attitude offers a remarkable superficial resemblance to that of the clerical intelligentsia of the Middle Ages (and a striking contrast, as we shall see, to that of the secular intelligentsia up to the eighteenth century).

The medieval church centered its attention and its work on the unfortunate. It was the protector of the poor and it performed all the functions which have now devolved on the welfare state; feeding the destitute, healing the sick, educating the people…”

Pg 102-104 “The Treatment of Capitalism by Continental Intellectuals”, “Capitalism and the Historians”, University of Chicago Press, pub. 1963, Edited by F.A. Hayek.

The above is a small excerpt from one of five essays in the work and provides a most interesting understanding of why intellectuals in general are left wing and anti capitalist. Most interesting is an essay by L.M. Hacker, “Anti Capitalist Bias of American Historians”, which explains the emergence and growth of the still current myth of “The Robber Barons” and the Greedy Capitalists attributed to the era.

The essays are scholarly and quite readable, but not nearly as colorful as my interpretations, but then, I doubt you will appreciate my rhetoric regardless.

Amicus…

 

[amicus]

"...Do you fancy defending the notion of innate goodness? And defining what is corrupt and debilitating (I believe is the word...). Where does one draw the line?..."

Do you favor defending the notion of innate evil, or that which is good and beneficial? Or are you agnostic and claim neither? Where does one draw the line makes for an interesting discussion but one must really define ones terms, I think.

All of the arts rely on influence, Amicus, as I'm sure you are aware, and none of it exists in isolation. Sometimes the influences behind great works of art are surprisingly banal or "corrupted".

You might want to reconsider your assertions there egelante, (I always type elegant, sighs)

Over the years, I have read the auto biographical memoirs of many, many artists and scientists. It seems to me that practically all of the seminal work was in fact done in abject isolation.

While it may suit your political thesis that all great works are a collective effort, a function of the group, it is my conclusion that great ideas come from a single human mind, usually alone and alienated from others.

That is not to disregard peer approval and influence for it surely does exist for some; but I personally think and write and create quite all alone, thank you.

Amicus...

 

[rosco rathbone]

I am going to saunter into this little foray, playing with words, being as insulting as I can possibly be as I casually mosey from issue to issue, savoring each egg I crush.......

Hilarious rant!

"effete and impudent snobs" I call them.

 

[amicus]

Hilarious rant!

"effete and impudent snobs" I call them.

~~~

"effete and impudent", yeah, ah likes that.

Rosco rathbone feels good when I mouth it...


amicus...

 

[oggbashan]

Culture?

What is culture?

What is High Culture? Is it opera, ballet, 'serious' theatre? What is low culture? Cartoons, popular entertainment?

If so, why was Nessun Dorma a football anthem? Why do Welsh Rugby fans sing in tune? Is Carmen Jones low culture and the original Carmen high culture? How could Looney Tunes have produced cartoons featuring classical music? Was Disney's Fantasia intellectual and therefore leftist?

What is an intellectual? Why should they be damned for being leftist or is that just one of Amicus' assumptions that anyone with any pretension to academic excellence is a leftist?

Mrs Thatcher was academically the highest qualified Prime Minister the UK had. If she was accused of being leftist or a wimp she would have clobbered you with her weighted handbag.

A little learning is a dangerous thing, but a significant amount of learning does not necessarily make you leftist or wimpish.

Og

 

[egelante]

Do you favor defending the notion of innate evil, or that which is good and beneficial? Or are you agnostic and claim neither? Where does one draw the line makes for an interesting discussion but one must really define ones terms, I think.

Without being awkward...

I believe that it was I who asked you to define terms, and where the line might be drawn in your thoughts.

I do not believe that we are innately good or bad, but that I "claim neither" has nothing to do with being agnostic, which means "not knowing" (quite exactly).

You might want to reconsider your assertions there egelante, (I always type elegant, sighs)

Over the years, I have read the auto biographical memoirs of many, many artists and scientists. It seems to me that practically all of the seminal work was in fact done in abject isolation.

Isolation is a temporary thing. Whilst they might have appeared to be isolated at the time, I rather suspect that they were influenced by innumerable things - past readings, past conversations, recent observations. Sometimes it is isolation that gives the time, or impetus, or allows the thoughts to solidify to the extent that they are expressible, but it is knowledge (and influence) that gives a point from which to progress.

While it may suit your political thesis that all great works are a collective effort, a function of the group, it is my conclusion that great ideas come from a single human mind, usually alone and alienated from others.

I have no political thesis... And I agree to the point that great advances are often individual. To ignore the entire life of the individual and the things that have impressed upon them, and therefore to regard them as entirely "alone
and alienated" is folly - there is always a starting point... I apologise for the tautology.

That is not to disregard peer approval and influence for it surely does exist for some; but I personally think and write and create quite all alone, thank you.

It is not peers that interest me, Amicus; influence is much more extensive than "peer approval" - it is restricted only by transmission and circumstances.

Some of my influences died centuries, maybe millenia ago... I could hardly call them peers in any normal sense.

I am glad that my SN amuses you

 

[egelante]

What is culture?

What is High Culture? Is it opera, ballet, 'serious' theatre? What is low culture? Cartoons, popular entertainment?

If so, why was Nessun Dorma a football anthem? Why do Welsh Rugby fans sing in tune? Is Carmen Jones low culture and the original Carmen high culture? How could Looney Tunes have produced cartoons featuring classical music? Was Disney's Fantasia intellectual and therefore leftist?

What is an intellectual? Why should they be damned for being leftist or is that just one of Amicus' assumptions that anyone with any pretension to academic excellence is a leftist?

Mrs Thatcher was academically the highest qualified Prime Minister the UK had. If she was accused of being leftist or a wimp she would have clobbered you with her weighted handbag.

A little learning is a dangerous thing, but a significant amount of learning does not necessarily make you leftist or wimpish.

Og

Nicely done