12
   

The Herd of Independent Minds

 
 
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2012 11:21 am
The Herd of Independent Minds

Quote:

Just about any gregarious conservative can register the same complaint: his friends of a liberal persuasion firmly believe in evolution, the hydrocarbon menace, technogenic global warming, and the virtues of green energy; they are convinced that racism is still rampant in America, that all the ills of inner-city schools can be cured by throwing more money at them, that criminals are actually victims of society, that voter fraud is a myth concocted by evil conservatives, that cheating at the polls is a sacred right of minorities, that illegal immigrants have committed no crime even though the word "illegal" is self-explanatory, that George Bush attacked Iraq at the behest of Halliburton to grab Iraqi oil...

In short, it is always the same mantra, demonstrably stupid and illogical, yet fervently espoused by all ardent liberals, irrespective of their social status or educational attainments.

How to account for it? And why are liberals totally impervious to any counter-arguments -- on those rare occasions, that is, when they actually deign to listen to the contrary views? The easiest explanation, of course, would be that those who persevere in beliefs glaringly devoid of any meaning or logic are just plain dumb. But no, there are a lot of highly intelligent people -- in fact, almost the entirety of academia -- among the most vocal proponents of that idiocy. So there must be some other explanation. And as a matter of fact, there is.

The estimable Lee Harris, in his wonderful book The Suicide of Reason (Basic Books, 2007), explores the concept of the shaming code developed by Thomas Huxley. Huxley, widely known as "Darwin's Bulldog" for his ferocious defense of evolutionary theory, thought long and hard about the inherent contradiction between man's "innate tendency to self-assertion ... as the condition of victory in the struggle for existence and the obvious fact that in the struggle for survival loners are losers and individuals who banded together increased their chances of survival." Upon reflection, Huxley came to the conclusion that the glue that holds together individuals in a group is the collective shaming code.

"It is this code that makes the members of the group feel as one," writes Lee Harris. "They are disgusted, angered, delighted and shamed by the same things. The unanimity of their visceral response is what provides the powerful sense of collective identity. It makes them feel and think as a tribal Us, in contrast to those tribes who are not disgusted by what disgusts us, or made angry by what makes us angry, and who feel no shame at what we think of as shameful[.] ... A tribe that shares a powerful visceral code that inhibits the natural tendency of the individual to self-assertion will present a united front against its enemies."

Therein lies the explanation of the total information blockade built around the highly dubious figure of Barack Obama by the left-leaning salons and the mainstream media, even including the respectable conservative media. It doesn't take unusual intelligence to see that the 44th president is a patent mediocrity with a totally contrived past. And yet, crickets. In 1600, Sir John Harrington penned these immortal words: "Treason doth never prosper; what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason." In other words, treason attains respectability once it becomes a prevalent trait of the social mores, part and parcel of society's shaming code. Today, it is the very same shaming code that causes polite society to rally around the "right-thinking" Obama and rebuff all attempts to expose him as the fraud that he is. Even the late, utterly fearless Andrew Breitbart refused to wade into the controversy around Obama's birth certificate, advising his followers not to "go there," because he believed that it was unproductive and harmful to the conservative cause. He understood the power of the shaming code.

But why is today's social and political scene dominated by the left, allowing it to impose its shaming code on society? In the struggle for survival and supremacy, the advantage invariably goes to those who are more committed to maintaining and expanding their cultural traditions and who, because of the strength of that commitment, are united by the more powerful sense of group feeling. Hence the liberals' domination of the public discourse.

Conservatives are usually reluctant ideological warriors. For the most part, they want only to be left alone, to live and let live. Having won a battle, they sigh with relief and waste no time beating their swords into ploughshares. Not so the liberals. They never tire or despair in their attempts to impose their views on all others; if they lose a fight, they pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and, undaunted, continue to slog toward their goals. And in the struggle of opposites, the more fanatical will always win.

The vicious hatred of the left for its conservative opponents, belied by the liberals' constant protestations of their high-mindedness and tolerance, is also easily explainable in tribal terms. It is the hatred of the righteous for the sinner, of the acolyte of the one true faith for the heretic. Distilled to its essence, it is the hatred for "the other," of "us" for "them." It is also the reason why liberals so liberally lie and cheat in their dealings with the conservative "enemy." Everything is fair in love and war, and politics is war by other means. Why are liberals infinitely understanding and patient toward the Islamic terrorists who threaten to destroy Western civilization? Not only because the Islamofascists are of the third world and thus automatically endowed with virtue, but also because they offer no competition to the left for supremacy in American society, while conservatives do.

Today's left is every bit a tribe with its unthinking, fanatical devotion to the tribal code and animal fear of being ostracized. The ancient Greeks believed banishment from the tribe to be the harshest of all punishments, worse than death. Human nature has not changed, and the dread of being cast into outer darkness is still as strong as ever. Sure, there are some exceptions, but they pay a heavy price for their bravery. That's why so many bright people, eager to toe the line, join the fawning fandom of Obama; it's the price of admission to the club. They may have some doubts in the beginning, but as time goes by, they undoubtedly lose their qualms. The mask fuses with the face; they convince themselves of the truth of the cult and internalize its code, for to acknowledge the truth and rebel against the tribe is too painful and too dangerous.

Emerging from the questioning by the grand jury investigating President Clinton, Vernon Jordan loudly declared that he had "kept the faith" -- i.e., lied to save Bill Clinton's bacon. Jordan's standing with the tribe was more important to him than the potential perjury charge. The handlers assigned by John McCain to guide his inexperienced VP candidate, Sarah Palin, through the dangerous shoals of the 2008 presidential campaign chose to throw her to the media wolves. They failed in their duty not due to incompetence, but because their primary concern was preserving their credentials with the Washington in-crowd, paying obeisance to the tribal values. And so they blithely sacrificed their ward to safeguard their social status.

The astute Robert Heinlein in his 1961 best-selling SF novel Stranger in a Strange Land invented a special word, grok, to describe the phenomenon of tribal consciousness carried to its extreme: "Grok means ... to merge, blend, intermarry, lose identity in group experience[.]" The practical corollary of the dissolution of one's identity in groupthink is that all Republican outreach efforts are a total waste of time, money, and hope. It's just too much trouble to open one's mind; how much more comfortable just to go on grokking in the tribal Nest!

Liberal intellectuals like to pose as bearers of the culture of reason, as fiercely independent thinkers. But they are kidding themselves. They have traded their intellectual primogeniture for the mess of pottage of group identity. They are fully integrated into the socially and politically dominant tribe, sharing the same visceral likes and dislikes, the same shaming code. Rather than being autonomous rational actors, they are merely an assemblage of cipher units marching in lock step to the tribal drumbeat. Harold Rosenberg mordantly branded them the herd of independent minds.


What a juicy nugget of truth we have here. This is the most brutally honest observation of modern liberalism I have read.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 12 • Views: 4,418 • Replies: 92

 
JLNobody
 
  5  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2012 11:40 am
What desperate nonsence!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  10  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2012 12:06 pm
There's about as much truth in that idiotic rant as there is real ale in ginger ale. Basically, it's a tour de force of baseless conservative stereotypes of those who have the temerity to disagree with them. Of course, whether one speaks of liberals or conservatives, there are always a certain number of such a group who allow others to do their thinking for them.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2012 12:22 pm
@Setanta,
It’s as if about age 13 an ultimatum: Choose now, lib or con for the rest of your life: If lib you must believe and espouse a, b, c, and d; if con, adopt e, f, g, and h
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 07:07 am
@Setanta,
I think that a herd of independent minds is quite a good explanation of liberal group think though. Yeah, the article is quite a rant, but there is truth to be found within Set. At least from my perspective.

Remember, stereotypes are there for a reason.
Setanta
 
  6  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 07:18 am
@McGentrix,
Yes, in politics, stereotypes are there to assue the faithful that those who don't think like them are evil and must be resisted at all costs. I don't see an iota of truth in that hatchet job. Do you think exactly like all other conservatives? Do you hold exactly the same beliefs as all other conservatives? Tarring tens of millions of people with one brush is very entertaining i'm sure--so long as one is not being tarred one's self.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  5  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 07:38 am
@McGentrix,
So... you don't believe in evolution?
DrewDad
 
  4  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 07:42 am
@McGentrix,
I'll add this:

What you've posted is just a convenient lie. An attempt to demonize the opposition so that "liberals" don't deserve respect or consideration.

Go ahead and believe it if you must, to protect your little ego when you're rebuffed by a "liberal."

But don't get your panties in a twist, then, if someone stereotypes all Republicans as misogynist, anti-science nutjobs who don't understand basic biology, m'kay?


Edit: I see that Setanta responded to this point more calmly.

Second edit: Obvious troll is obvious, yet I still rose to the bait. D'oh!
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 07:56 am
@McGentrix,
I love the that the author is clearly a fan of heinleins stranger in a strange land,just like Charles Manson. Ohh the stereotypes are there for a reason. Nothing like presenting facts for your argument from a science fiction novel written fifty years ago.

Mcg that you can't see this as utter crap is beguiling. It cites learned texts on group mentalities without acknowledging that conservatives are just as much a group as liberals. Bizarre.

Replace the word liberal in his text with the word christianand it doesn't read any more or less ridiculous.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  4  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 07:58 am
@McGentrix,
Conservatives are usually reluctant ideological warriors


Ive often sympathized with the job thrust on fox news talking heads. Poor buggers, they just wanted a simple life.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 08:28 am
You--- You mean i've been brainwashed into believing all conservatives eat babies?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 08:51 am
@DrewDad,
oh, no, I agree with you. It is sad that so many conservatives are the way you describe. Idiots really. Especially the folks in the south. Bunch of uneducated over-opinionated pinheads.

But, that doesn't make the article any less truthful about liberals (as a whole). You can redirect to Republicans if you like instead of admitting the truth of the article, but it doesn't change it.

Not trolling, I had been looking for an answer to a similar question that the article answered for me.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 09:02 am
@McGentrix,
Victor Volsky wrote:

Just about any gregarious conservative can register the same complaint: his friends of a liberal persuasion firmly believe in evolution, the hydrocarbon menace, technogenic global warming, and the virtues of green energy; they are convinced that racism is still rampant in America, that all the ills of inner-city schools can be cured by throwing more money at them, that criminals are actually victims of society, that voter fraud is a myth concocted by evil conservatives, that cheating at the polls is a sacred right of minorities, that illegal immigrants have committed no crime even though the word "illegal" is self-explanatory, that George Bush attacked Iraq at the behest of Halliburton to grab Iraqi oil...


Talk about begging the question!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 09:14 am
@McGentrix,
There is no truth in the article. Every time it identifies what might reasonably be described as a point of view favored by liberals, it skews the description so as to make it sound either sinister of idiotic.

This first paragraph . . .

Just about any gregarious conservative can register the same complaint: his friends of a liberal persuasion firmly believe in evolution, the hydrocarbon menace, technogenic global warming, and the virtues of green energy; they are convinced that racism is still rampant in America, that all the ills of inner-city schools can be cured by throwing more money at them, that criminals are actually victims of society, that voter fraud is a myth concocted by evil conservatives, that cheating at the polls is a sacred right of minorities, that illegal immigrants have committed no crime even though the word "illegal" is self-explanatory, that George Bush attacked Iraq at the behest of Halliburton to grab Iraqi oil...

. . . reeks of that sort of distortion. Why would any reasonably well-educated person not consider a theory of evolution to be the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth? "The hydrocarbon meance?" What the hell is that when it's at home? This is the first time i've come across that tripe. Must be a rightwingnut buzz phrase. Only a fool would deny that the climate is changing. Whether or not it is anthropogenic has not been established. (Is this clown a shill for the energy industry?) Racism certainly is still rampant in America, as any honest white boy will acknowledge. Certainly i have not the least doubt that the number of racist blacks is legion. Who has said that the ills of inner city schools can be cured by throwing more money at them? (That reeks of a FauxNews commentators rant--who wrote this, Lush Lamebrain?) While certainly a good deal of criminality is likely the product of environment, i personally still consider that crimnals should be apprehended and prosecuted with all the rigor of the law. Who has said otherwise? (While we're at it, although blacks are incarcerated at far higher rates than whites, the majority of prison populations are still whites. The majority of welfare recipients, by the way, are white and rural, not black and urban.) What evidence do you have that voter fraud (such as tampering with their own voting machines by Deibold) is rampant? Who has said that minorities are entitled to cheat at the polls? Ask the producers of fruit and vegetables, who contribute heavily to the campaign chests of both parties, whether or not illegal immigrants are by definition criminal. There is certainly a lunatic fringe that believes that the invasion of Iraq was an attempt at an oil-grab. Small wonder they think so when Cheney is a former Halliburton executive, given that Halliburton got an exclusive, un-bid Defense Department congract, and then proceeded to rape the taxpayer for the gasoline the army used.

This is so much drivel. I'm not surprised, though, that you treat it as gospel.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 09:18 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
DrewDad" wrote:

So... you don't believe in evolution?


oh, no, I agree with you.


But, that doesn't make the article any less truthful about liberals (as a whole).



You god forsaken, commie-pinko, Obama worshipping liberal! Surely, you shall burn in the firey pit of everlasting hellfire!

Why, you probably also believe in the virtues of green energy, don't you?!
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 09:39 am
Here is a perfect example of the point of the article above.

Niall Ferguson Defends Newsweek Cover: Correct This, Bloggers

Quote:
First, duck the argument. Second, nitpick. Third, vilify. That’s what Niall Ferguson says liberal bloggers did after reading his Newsweek story on Obama’s record. Here, he offers a point-by-point defense of his argument.
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 09:44 am
@Setanta,
Yeah, that opening was full of sound and fury.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  5  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 09:56 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Here is a perfect example of the point of the article above.

Niall Ferguson Defends Newsweek Cover: Correct This, Bloggers

Quote:
First, duck the argument. Second, nitpick. Third, vilify. That’s what Niall Ferguson says liberal bloggers did after reading his Newsweek story on Obama’s record. Here, he offers a point-by-point defense of his argument.



Ferguson made several embarrassing factual errors in his piece, and also displayed some real ignorance regarding a variety of statistics he quoted out of context. His 'point by point defense' doesn't acknowledge any of that.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  4  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 09:58 am
Regarding the overall topic of the thread, I see no reason why the same arguments couldn't be equally extended to Conservatives.

But, I have to ask - surely you don't think that many of the posters on this site, who are of a liberal bent, are incapable of defending their beliefs with logic and factual basis? Are we all nothing but sheep, to you? What happens when the sheep lays out a point-by-point accounting for why their preferred policy is a better one, or examines the historical record in depth to try and discover the truth behind recent events?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  5  
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 10:34 am
The author denies evolution and then cites Thomas Huxley in support of his position. Is this some kind of joke?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Herd of Independent Minds
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/22/2021 at 11:11:41