title: “libwuhls” ain’t. the new aristocracy.
the 18th century & the enlightenment.
prologue. the principals of this essay are the american exponents of natural law, comprehended as the founding fathers, and two stalwart gentlemen of the left known as harold lasswell and harold laski, one a professor of law at various american universities, and the other a professor for many years at the london school of economics, and also a key figure in the british labour party.
theme. a theme of this essay involves the nuances drawn in contemporary political discussion between the words liberal and conservative, and what they mean, and who their adherents are, (and what they seek to become.) i well remember reading in college a book by lasswell (which i thought that he had co-authored with harold laski, and find it now to have been one) abraham kaplan, entitled “power and society: a framework for political inquiry,” which i remember vividly to this day. in it, lasswell makes the rather revealing observation that he who controls the definitions and nuance of words usually prevails in argument over them, … , something not altogether startling when thought about for just a bit, but quite revelatory just the same.
so it was in lasswell & laski’s day. and, so it is today.
in contemporary parlance, liberal has somehow become associated with and assumed to be a belief system conferring liberty, whereas conservative has become associated with and suffers the connotation of constraining person liberty, in favor of repressive social mores and/or government. this “nuance” obscures a central purpose of contemporary “liberalism,” its drive to a collectivism led by privileged political classes: this is anything but “liberal, as it is at the cost of personal liberties, and at the cost of individuals being able to govern their own conduct.
it is an examination of those contemporary assumptions and their implications which i propose to undertake. i do not “favor” the contemporary “assumptions."
natural law and the founding fathers.
in other essays in this blog, i have examined the works of john locke the great exponent of natural law philosophy and sir william blackstone, the great compiler of the english law and a person who struggled mightily, and i think quite successfully, to show the underpinnings of the common law as lying within locke’s natural law views. i see no reason to till that ground again.[1]
suffice it to say that the great exponents of american government hamilton, madison & jay, writing as “publius,” in their collective work “the federalist papers” were not only thoroughly conversant with locke’s and blackstone’s views, but also it seems safe to say, quite thoroughly advocates of the views held by locke, blackstone and other proponents of natural law.
cardinal in publius’s thought lies the assumption that men as individuals may be assumed capable of making rational decisions as to their own benefit, and that if left to rational discourse, may be presumed capable of rational decision making as a collective body, the community comprised of such men giving up only such powers and authority over themselves in these activities to the ruling magistrate, as necessary to preserve public order and discipline. central to this thinking is the community's reliance upon the magistrate to settle disputes between individuals, and the individual ceding of individual powers to the magistrate to perform a judicial task as would have been decided by force in a state of nature, in order to enjoy the benefits of order and civilization.
at the heart of this belief system lies the assumption that men are capable of governing their own affairs, the key concession to this view being the willingness of individuals to delegate dispute resolution between individuals in society to an independent and detached magistrate, who we may comprehend as meaning the judge, as the embodiment of english law.
if you doubt that this theme does not maintain currency even to this day, is not an issue in the public debate over the role of law, then you have not been paying attention to the struggle over the appointment of judges at all levels of the federal system for the last twenty years, nor the controversy which now swirls about the proposed appointment of ms. sotomayer to the supreme court of the united states.
were publius’s thoughts radical?
since this nation has lived the ideals of locke and the federalist for so long, we sometimes take for granted the environment of these ideals and beliefs, as fish are not supposed to notice water. but, radical? was the idea of self governance radical?
john locke penned his theories over a life time of constant public debate with supporters of the english crown and the authorities of the institutionalized church in england, vehemently opposed to the popular rule he expounded. he was exiled at least once that i know of, because a sitting monarch held his views subversive, and held the “party” to which he belonged as subversive: quite likely had he lived among his adversaries during the reign of that monarch, he would have been killed for his intellectual inquiry. when he did return, he couched his argument in the most theoretical and least offensive terms he could, re: the sitting monarchs, because what he was talking about was limiting the authority of the monarch and advocating expanding the authority of the individual over himself. he was talking about popular rule, and to do so too enthusiastically or openly, might have been to invite the gibbet.
locke was asked in his later life if he were not brave. he replied no, he was terrified his whole life. as well he should have been, for john locke was a radical subversive within the context of advocating increased personal autonomy for citizens.
the american nation as it emerged from the revolutionary war became, with the exception of the institution of slavery, the ideas of locke and blackstone and many other political theories made corporeal, ideas given expression by the lives of ordinary people, and the flowering of the human spirit and intellect.
the expression politically of the underlying assumption that the individual was capable of rational decision making created the blossoming of the world’s greatest economy, and the greatest and fairest distribution of wealth amongst a general population ever seen in the history of the world. were their inequities? oh, my yes, and pockets of poverty and ignorance gave eloquent voice to the fact that not all was perfect. but, in general, the world had never seen the flowering of economy on a scale as the system of hobbes, locke and blackstone loosed upon the new world, without the encumbrance of european shackles, and european social mores and structures, and certainly the developing american prosperity owed a great debt to the intellectual succor lent by locke’s stirring vision of self rule and self governance.
but, was the expression of these values in revolutionary america radical?
yes, … , and it remains so to this day. because that notion which we take so much for granted, that we are capable of and entitled to self governance, remains as radically subversive to the strain in humans for totalitarian rule, and for those who are or who would be totalitarians, as it ever was, and as it ever has been.
in the roughly two hundred twenty-five years since the notion became reality that men could rule themselves, without the imposition of theocracy, or aristocracy or some other form of rule, few instances exemplifying the history of the united states have occurred. constitutional monarchy as shaped by the rights of the magna carta gave england a period of free speech and expression, a heritage it is now rapidly pissing away. france and the low lands have had their moments, interspersed with chaos and incompetency, but have never really flowered as the united states. perhaps only israel has come close, and it is telling about the state of the world that infamous societies condemn israel as a fascist state: it is a moral inversion of the most ironical order.
yes, the expression of the notions of self rule as found expression in america, is as radical today as it was during the days of the revolution. if you do not believe so, then you should ask ayatollah khamenei what he thinks of self rule, or perhaps mr. ahmadinjad, or perhaps more tellingly, mr. chavez in venezuela. or, perhaps what mr. chavez thinks of self rule in honduras. people are dying in the streets in iran trying to give substance and body to those notions of free expression, free association and yes the right to peaceably assemble to voice that expression, and they are violently and murderously resisted and suppressed by the ruling theocracy, because the theocracy knows to its marrow how inimical those rights are to the maintenance of tyranny.
what have been the fonts of self rule in america?
in my view, there have been free speech and the concomitant rights of free association and assembly, and the right to keep and bear arms.
freedom of speech has encompassed the right to be correct and outspoken, when others around you have been wrong. these rights have been asserted by the likes of lincoln, and frederick douglas, and harriet beecher stowe, and countless others who have bestirred americans by being the outspoken voices of conscience, by being the moral goads and gadflies of an era. these proponents of free speech spoke as the proponents of good. freedom of speech as comprehended and protected in this country has encompassed as well the right to be wrong, and outspoken, when others around you have basked in the comfort and certainty of their own opinions. these rights of free speech have been asserted by the likes of norman thomas, the great american socialist and communist, who campaigned for so long and so hard that he transformed the democratic party into the very vehicle for his view of change that he could not make the american communist party: he has been widely quoted as saying there was very little need for the communist and socialist parties to have platforms, as the democratic party’s planks and platforms served equally as well. i think it error that the american public has accepted such notions, but understand that those who hold contrary views to thomas and his ilk, now have the task of persuading the public back to a more “enlightened” view of things. and the right to speak freely has been asserted by the likes of david duke, espousing the most blatant racism, as once did hugo black and robert byrd, as southern politicians seeking election and perpetuation of “jim crow.” they espoused evil, an evil which the american public rejected after many long, painful years of disputation and brutality, and hugo black and then robert byrd renounced what they had advocated, and their hearts and minds (presumably) changed.
such is the nature of free choice and free will, it is the synonym of morality now as it was when john dons scouts limned the dimensions of that problem centuries ago.
the other great foundation of individual freedom in this country has been the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms. some might deride this assertion. i would ask only, where else on earth do people own individual firearms, independent of political affiliation or privilege? and, where else do people assert the rights and privileges exercised by private citizens, high and low, as in this country?
the avowed marxist and the propagandist,
the not so avowed marxist.
which few paragraphs bring us to messers lasswell and laski, and their deconstruction and attack upon western democracy and its fundamental principles and avowed & implicit values. simply put, neither man thought much of the individual’s capability to rule himself, and, oddly enough, each thought his own kind better suited to the rule of others, than those others. yet, they are called liberal, by contemporary liberals
.
let us develop this.
my guess is few readers have ever heard of harold laski and harold lasswell, two professorial types whose influence was wide spread in socialist circles in england and the united states until interest in their work was diverted by the exigencies of surviving world war ii, and the menace of fascism.
that so little is known of them is indeed unfortunate, because to know them is to understand the dangers modern collectivism poses to democracy. to read them is to read prophesy, in a sense, as words written 60 and 70 years ago evoke and describe processes at work in the contemporary world.
the very structure of our government lies in the assumptions of individual and collective rationality giving expression to self discipline and ordered rule individually and collectively, as society and as government. one has only to read locke and the federalists to understand the verity of this proposition.
it must be understood that harold laski and harold lasswell were committed enemies of these assumptions, and believed devoutly that social order was achieved by the strictures of collective rule. i would recommend highly, that the reader turn to democracy on trial: the transatlantic debate from tocqueville to the present, by dennis smith, ______________, chapter 7, “laski and lasswell,” pages 107-128, for a more detailed description and bibliography of their thought.
if one is to look at the challenges to our liberties and rights, one has only to go to the seminal works of these two men (and this book does an admirable job of doing so) to see the expression of these challenges at work in the politics of this day.
lasswell was an assiduous student of propaganda. his doctoral dissertation at the university of chicago entitled “propaganda technique in the world war”, published in 1927, has been characterized as a “leading study on communication theory.” [2] and, the use of language as a tool of social manipulation would remain a theme of lasswell’s throughout his academic career.
this passage from wikipedia with regard to lasswell is a convenient thumbnail sketch of his views, and should give substantial insight into the manipulation of image and language would forms the language and content of political speech in this day and age:
“along with other influential liberals of the period, such as walter lippman, he argued that democracies needed propaganda to keep the uninformed citizenry in agreement with what the specialized class had determined was in their best interests. as he wrote in his entry on propaganda for the encyclopaedia of the social sciences, we must put aside "democratic dogmatisms about men being the best judges of their own interests" since "men are often poor judges of their own interests, flitting from one alternative to the next without solid reason".[3]
lasswell construed the specialized classes as ruling elites, the academics, the socially & economically well positioned, and politicians & political bureaucrats who knew best what was in the interests of the people that they ruled over, and from lasswell’s position, those who occupied those positions if not doing so by virtue, at least had earned the privilege by guile and craft. as this essay develops, you will notice in lasswell a curious detachment and amorality to his vision and analysis, a curious lack of concern for ethics and aspirations and values. lasswell’s world does not brook of such things, its paramount concern not being good but the absence of evil, shaped in his experience by the desire to avoid ruinous conflict. nor does he contemplate nor does he invite very much participation from the individual citizen in the nature of his own governance, or even in the formulation of his own dreams or thoughts: to lasswell, these seem to be realms which do not treat of an ordered politics.
let us look how this came to pass in the development of lasswell and laski. the following is heavily dependent upon dennis smith’s book, democracy on trial, see above, and i would urge you to read it in the original.
lasswell and laski formulated many of their criticism of democracy and capitalism, which of course nurtured them both in the comfort, privilege and prestige of professorial endeavor, in the 20’s and 30’s following the horrors of world war i. it may be said, and has been, that the carnage and waste of that war, which destroyed the flower of european and english youth and topped empires of long standing, also destroyed western civilization’s faith in itself. this, i think something of an oversimplification, as the common man persevered and functioned as ever before, (as is the common man’s wont), but it is true to say that wwi destroyed the intellectual classes’ faith in democracy and capitalism. as noted of lasswell and laski:
“both men rejected theories based upon the supposed preferences and actions of rational individuals and a sovereign state. their immediate intellectual predecessors had defined the ‘task of the hour.’ in lasswell’s words, this task was
‘the development of a realistic analysis of the political in relation to the social process, and this depends upon the invention of abstract conceptions and upon the prosecution of empirical research. it is precisely this missing body of theory and practice which … undertook to supply in england and which … has been most foremost in encouraging in the united states. (lasswell 1951a: 46)’” dennis smith, democracy on trial, page 109.
in short, lasswell argued for the development of a view of man not premised upon his rationality nor ability to decide what is in his best interests, but to develop a scheme of politics which would somehow inhibit the mischief that indulgence in this belief had caused, wwi bearing eloquent witness. lasswell would protect us from ourselves, and from our pernicious thoughts.
lasswell and laski were to bring science to bear upon the issues of politics and rule, and science would brook no tolerance of outmoded conceptualizations which had proved impotent to prevent the irrational war to end all wars. adherence to the old 19th century views of politics were deemed “unscientific,” and those who held to such views were not abreast of the times. or, as one professor put it, the view to be accepted was “… that the non-rational side of human nature should be accepted as a datum and built into the theories of political science.” dennis smith, democracy on trial, pages 109-110. science, (and by direct implication, scientists) should rule the day, with a view towards inhibiting man’s irrationality.
this assumption alone is inimical to the 18th century view of rational man governing his own affairs.
laski’s views of things were shaped by his experience in english politics, and he was a champion of the labour party and quite active in its governance. as such, it is not surprising that he became a marxist, and that his politics were shaped by marxist theory and consideration. early on he was a believer in the participation of the public in public policy, but late in life he may have been a believer in the necessity to the “vanguard of the proletariat” as in marxist-leninist thinking, as he was deeply disappointed in the unseating of the labour party shortly before wwii. at that point, he contemplated the forced imposition of socialist rule.
these passages make very interesting reading, as they apply to laski’s “progression” as a marxist:
“[bernard boanquet] stressed that all human achievement depends upon shared activity which draws people outside themselves. the isolated individual could achieve nothing worthwhile. it was necessary to participate in the encompassing spirit of the group.
“by the early 20th century, many english intellectuals were turning away from idealism. some, like laski, retained its sense of moral purpose but adopted a revised epistemology. …
“… [john meynard keynes argued state intervention necessary to re-establish full employment, but once achieved] ‘the classical theory comes into its own again from that point onward.’ (keynes 1973: 378) the result of increasing the powers and functions of the state would be to preserve an economic [and hence, political system, keynes being an economist, after all] system which gave ample scope for individualism, ‘the best safeguard of personal liberty.’ (keynes 1973: 380).” dennis smith, democracy on trial, page 111.
laski did not share in a keynesian view of preserving the old economic and political order, but he initially shared the notion of preserving something of the 18th & 19th century notions of individual freedoms.
laski for instance, was initially in favor of political “parties” as a safeguard of “political liberty,” but i suspect in his little marxist heart of hearts, by party he meant one party, that being the labour party:
“ ‘it is obvious that in the confused welter of the modern state there must be some selection of problems as more urgent than others. it is necessary to select them as urgent and to present solutions of them which may be acceptable to the citizen body. it is that task of selection the party undertakes. it acts … as the broker of ideas … . what, at least, is certain is that without parties there would be no means available to us of enlisting the popular decision in such a way as to secure solutions capable of being interpreted as politically satisfactory.’” dennis smith, democracy on trial, page 114.
laski envisioned the modern bureaucrat and party functionary as having particular importance in this scheme, in informing the populace as to what were desirable ends and programs, and in this he was presciently “modern.” he observed, as summarized by author smith:
“however, party government, argued laski, should be supplemented by expert advice and administration. contact with ordinary people was equally desirable for administrators and the judiciary. [i just love that: jjjay.] government would also benefit from the expertise and experience of social scientists, professional bodies and other experts, organized through a panoply of commissions, advisory committees and so.” dennis smith, democracy on trial, page 114.
finally, laski in direct contrast to harold lasswell held to a vestigial concept that citizens have some participation in the shaping of those issuances involving their own governance and that they have freedoms of expression and participation in the process of their own governance.[4] says the author of laski:
“laski did not relinquish the objective of a social order driven the the ‘instructed judgement’ of all its citizens. however, three aspects of such a social order were emphasized. first, active consent by the people was a necessary condition, implying relative equality: ‘the absence of such consent is, in the long run, fatal to social peace.’ (214) second, empathy and effective two-way communication were essential. political leaders have to be able ‘to interpret the experience of their subjects as these read its meaning.’ (223) third, people had to overcome the dogmas and stereotypes with bedeviled rational thought: ‘I do not know how to emphasize sufficiently the quite inescapable importance to freedom of the content of the educational process.’ (183) laski placed his faith in reason since ‘where there is respect for reason, there, also, is respect for freedom.’ (256)” dennis smith, democracy on trial, page 116.
but laski’s faith in freedom and reason was severely tested by subsequent troublesome political events, e.g., labour was deposed, the party unseated, by popular vote and a swing in the public’s views. the reason of the people of england had been tested, and, in laski’s view, the people had been found lacking in their judgment. laski is quoted as follows:
“In 1931, during the severe economic depression, the labour prime minister ramsay macdonald agreed to accept cuts in unemployment benefit in order to preserve britain’s international credit worthiness. only four labour ministers accepted this policy. however, macdonald agreed to impellent it at the head of a national government dominated by conservatives. it was a severe blow to laski’s hopes. In a pamphlet entitled the crisis and the constitution (1932) he admitted that ‘the road to power is far harder than labour has, so far, been led to imagine.’ (9).” dennis smith, democracy on trial, page 116.
in a subsequent publications, laski fully revealed the motives of labour, or revolutionary socialism, to bide its time and participate in politics as normal, until it could exercise its grasp upon power. despite his fondest hopes, laski did not think that revolution (in the soviet mode) would deliver either english or american society into the bosom of socialism, as neither society was sufficiently fractionalized nor weakened by the circumstances of ruinous war sufficiently to change. and, here, finally, laski tipped his hand:
“revolution was a very likely outcome, although it was hardly guaranteed success. the russian revoltion of 1917 had occurred under very special circumstances, including a defeated and divided army. in view of this analysis, it was ‘essential that any party which is [was] seeking to transform the economic foundations of society’ should ‘maintain as long as it can a constitutional order which permits it openly to recruit its strength.’ (laski [the state in theory and practice] 1935: 320).” dennis smith, democracy on trial, page 118.
in short, the forces of socialism should participate in participatory democracy and its political and legal systems so long, and he implication is, just so long, as it could recruit membership and grow, until such time as it were able to seize power and maintain the revolution.
if there was ever any doubt as to laski’s view of revolution paving the way to socialist nirvana, it was revealed shortly after wwii, when laski published _____________(1948). laski thought the united states fertile ground for revolution, probably because marxist dogma predicted it as such. yet, one pesky little factor prevented the promise of revolutionary socialism in america, and that was the american public and the american working classes, the proletariat of america, as it were, wanted little of it, a fact which laski sadly lamented. as author dennis smith notes, with regard to the failure of american to revolt as predicted by marxist theory:
“so far, promise was not being matched by performance. sadly, organized labour in america was divided and unable to see clearly the fundamental contradiction between capitalism and democracy. despite the fact that ‘america stands on the threshold of its third great revolution’ – laski meant the revolution leading to democratic socialism -- ‘the psychological preparation of its people has been declined by the very agency which should be taking the lead in its making.’ (262) unfortunately for laski, the unions were too american to see his point.” dennis smith, democracy on trial, page 120.
in short, much to laski’s disappointment, american labour was neither inclined nor ready to foment, revolution. the citizens of the world’s two great democracy felt no compunction to follow the theories of a professorial don and his pet marxist theories.
it was not for lack of effort on harold lasswells’ part. he wanted very much to psychologically prepare america for fundamental political, and collectivist, change.—
lasswell was a proponent of making the population “psychologically fit” to be citizens, and measuring them to try and determine their proclivities, e.g., what they might do:
“like laski, [lasswell] focused upon the dimension of political power. however, as the title of his book power and personality (1948) implied, the other dimension of his analysis was not economic, but psychological. in order to make democracy work, the key issue was not to put the economic structure right but to get personality right. scientists paid considerable attention to shifts in the physical environment, but:
‘our self-observatories are in a less-advanced state… . we need a never-ending inventory of the character-personality structure (with special reference to the requirements of democracy) of our one-year olds, our two-year olds and so on up. these annual cross-sectional patterns can be chosen by proper sampling methods throughout all accessible cultures, all strata in society, and hence during all crisis and intercrisis situations.’ (lasswell 1948: 169).
lasswell proposed that cross-section reports on ‘environmental and predispositional factors’ should be made. This would permit experiments to be carried out for the sake of determining the relative usefulness of different ways of changing the environment to help in ‘the formation of the democratic personality.’ (lasswell 1948: 169).” dennis smith, democracy on trial, pages 120-121.
in short, lasswell proposed fitting and crafting the person for suitability in the political scheme, and not crafting the political scheme to fit the needs, aspirations, dreams and desires of the person comprising it. so much, as they say, for the pursuit of happiness. lasswell’s motivation was the pursuit of suitability.
i am assuming that the prospect of an entire population being measured every year in order to measure the proclivities of its individual citizens, those proclivities in some measure being dependent upon values and beliefs, is profoundly disturbing. it gets worse. mr. lasswell was not simply interested in passively measuring attitudes, but in actively manipulating attitudes, beliefs, and “normative standards of conduct,” if you will, in order to make a society more tractable and governable.
his first efforts at the study of attitude and belief manipulation involved measuring the efforts of the various propagandists at work in world war one to see how they went about their manipulations. writes smith :
“tocqueville and mill had feared the irrationality of public opinion. through its agency, prejudice was liable to challenge the rule of the rational. lasswell demonstrated that nearly a century later the tables had been turned. the rational procedures of science and bureaucracy were fully equipped to create fantasy and strengthen prejudice within public opinion. in his study of propaganda during the first world war he showed that this function was systematically organized by the state. by directing a flow of signs and symbols for the attention of the target audience at home or abroad, the propagandist sought the ‘instigation of animosity toward the enemy, the preservation of friendship between allies and neutrals, and the demoralization of the enemy.’ (1971: 46)
lasswell concluded that propaganda by print, screen and so on was the modern substitute for the tribal tom-tom: ‘print must supplant the dance.’ (221).
………………………..
“…. The propagandist concerned with stirring passions in wartime typically wanted to put a match to the bonfire. the peacetime politician was usually more interested in pouring water over the danger area. this was a central theme in psychopathology and politics (1951a).
“in this book lasswell dismissed the idea that politics was about rational discussion and democratic consultation. in a passage which took a point of view diametrically opposed to the line adopted by laski in the grammar of politics, lasswell complained about the ‘vast diversion of energy towards the study of the formal etiquette of government.’ he added:
‘in some vague way, the problem of politics is the advancement of the good life, but this is a once assumed to depend upon the modification of the mechanisms of government. democratic theorists in particular have hastily assumed that social harmony depends upon discussion, and that discussion depends upon the formal consultation of all those affected by social problems. the time has come to abandon the assumption that the problem of politics is the problem of promoting discussion among all the interests concerned in a given problem. discussion frequently complicates social difficulties, for the discussion by far-flung interests arouses a psychology of conflict which produces obstructive, fictitious, and irrelevant values.’ (lasswell 1951a: 196-7)
“in lasswell’s view, the problem of politics was less to solve conflicts than to prevent them occurring. political activity should direct society’s energy at ‘the abolition of recurrent sources of strain in society…’ the tension level should be reduced as far as possible through ‘preventive politics.’” [5] dennis smith, democracy on trial, pages 122-123.
“this should be guided by ‘the truth about the conditions of harmonious human relations, and the discovery of the truth is an object of specialized research; it is no monopoly of people as people, or ruler as ruler.’ (197)” dennis smith, democracy on trial, page 123.
in short, the art of politics is to get everybody’s head right, to prevent the social discord present when everybody doesn’t have their heads right. this is an extraordinary passage, and an extraordinary insight into the ideologue’s mind, as it reveals that “truth” is known, and is in conformity with the ideologue’s notion of how things should be, and that the discovery and verification of that truth is to be the object of research, … , by, … , well, who else, the social scientist. and, the truth to the collectivists of the world shall be that we shall all live in harmony without war, and that science will confirm that this is truth, and this is so, and science shall discover by propaganda how to impose this truth upon the will of the populace and within their psyche. “i’d like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony, …” coca cola commercial, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mOEU87SBTU . and, also buy it a whole bunch of coca cola.
in short, people shall find truth as it is revealed to them by their political leaders, and as latterly confirmed by research. and, social and political policy shall flow from these truths, and propaganda shall assure that we are happy as our lives are formulated and manipulated in this fashion.
that is the function of the state. not acquisition, but accommodation and molding of social attitudes.[6] as noted at the end of the footnote, the chorus of “i’d like to teach the world to sing” is to be repeated, until it fades. the task of the propagandist in charge of “state teachings” is to make sure that it never fades.
my dear friends, … .—
if you do not see in the above paragraphs the well spring of the anti “hate speech legislation” so prevalent in the european states, and in canada, and which is sought to be introduced into the united states, you have indeed an obtuse mind. if you do not recognize the state sponsored immigration of islamic laborers into europe and the united states, and the governmental reassurance and pabulum that they are just like us, and will bring no change, that they will not harbor islamic terror in their hearts, then you do not recognize the social engineers of the collectivist state at work. if you do not recognize in these passages electioneering as it has become with the sound bite and the manipulation of image and mood and feelings, and the like, then you have a tremendously obtuse mind: it is no accident that b. hussein obama chose the images and content of his campaign, and that he openly copied the graphics and techniques of the great nazi propagandists in his campaign posters, and other political images. his pose as a rather idiotic appearing mussolini, complete with aped gaze to the horizon and facial expression, was no accident, but a studied maneuver to evoke certain emotional responses on the part of the american electorate. you may rest assured that all such campaign stratagems were researched and confirmed before study groups, and calculated to evoke certain innate responses in human behavior.
friends, you should understand that left/collectivist politics in not interested in being shape by you, but that leftist/collectivist politics is interested in shaping you, … , by “informing” you attitudes, and by withholding “disquieting” and “conflict producing” from you, if need be. the leftist/collectivist view is not interested in you shaping your own governance, but in shaping you into the modern, “democratic man,” as noted by lasswell: (so, so, so not unlike the “soviet man” that soviet russia tried so hard to produce.)—
the leftist press does not want you to think of matters which run counter to the leftist agenda.[7] christiane amanpour, and others of the great “war correspondents” of her ilk, have reported nothing of the conflict between theocratic tyranny and the struggle of a people yearning for self governance and self rule, because the left does not want you as a public to understand and think about what it means for a people to be free, and to exercise that freedom. the christiane amanpour’s of the left do not go to iran, because they are personally afraid that the iranian regime will arrest, torture and kill them without hesitation: you can be sure, that neither christiane amanpour or the rest of her ilk envision being a rotting corpse abandoned in a remote ditch as part of their self image or self actualization. but, neither do they report on this, because to do so would be to cast the iranian regime in its true light as a brutal, intransigent, stubborn and brutal regime, intent on accomplishing its tyranny at any cost and measure, because to do so would be to impugn the image of iran as a reasonable government, willing to achieve rational purposes and ends, and willing to use negotiation and diplomacy to settle dispute. this is what christiane amanpour withholds from you by her silence, and it is not accidental, it is purposeful. in like manner, muslim thugs have taken to french streets again, and have burned thousands of cars and even the business district of a small town. there are over 750 police districts or “precincts” in which the french police have told the politicians who govern them that they are incapable of enforcing french law, and that these districts are run by muslim sharia courts, and french muslim gangs who specialize in the drug trades. the reason that you have not heard it, is because the french government has shut down all news broadcasts and coverage of such matters, and they can do that because the french media are either owned by the government or controlled directly by its directorates.
do you not recognize lasswell’s ideology in this, and the work of the collectivist state and its elites, it policy formulators, who have formed these policies, by the way, without consultation with you? lasswell pointed to the worth of suppressing discussion to produce a tractable population so as not to “complicate social difficulties,” and not to produce discussion of “irrelevant values.” it might very well be asked, just irrelevant to whom? lasswell envisioned a state in which dissemination of information would be restricted, or upon which censorship was imposed, to “ … [abolish] recurrent resources of strain in society, …” and to reduce tension levels and conflict in society via “preventive politics.” in short, sit down, shut up, and enjoy the ride. keep your mouth shut, and don’t bother thinking, this will be done for you, by people better equipped for the task.
this is harold lasswell’s legacy to you.
do you not recognize the censor in all of this? and, that it works in the modern state, especially in the european union?
but, harold lasswell would have been a busy man in today’s world.
for, not only would he have been busy censoring any news which might “disturb” you, or “disturb” you to recurrent disquieting thoughts, but he would also have been busy as work shaping your attitudes, by propaganda. and, by shaping the context of the vocabulary of your public discussion.
the collectivist state disseminates propaganda in very subtle ways, and tries to inform and form public opinion in ways that you may not be aware of. take for instance, a subject near and dear to my heart, and that is the peril that europe, england and to a lesser extent the united states face from what robert spencer and pamela geller describe as the “stealth jihad,” an insinuation of favorable attitude into the body politics by arab apologists. a corollary to this is to purposively suppress information which to a thinking public, interested in its own self preservation, might deem relevant information. but, with regard to insinuating a view of matters, and waging a propaganda war of image, i can think of no better effort than the obama administration to court arab & muslim interests diplomatically, and the intellectual fronts put forth to the public in the form of policy rationale. i speak, of course, to the state department position paper entitled “changing course,” published by the u.s.—muslim engagement group, the report issued under the aegis and fronting of madeline albright, former secretary of state, and funded by george soros. in this report, as in official state department communiqués, we no longer refer to terrorists as terrorist, but with some phonied up euphemism typical of the permanent bureaucrat, and we do not discuss “jihad” as waged by jihadist, (makes no nevermind that they continue to refer to the jihad and to themselves as jihadists), … , but the state department types who ghosted the report and its purported authors deal with ways in which muslims the world over and american citizens can be convinced that we love each other, in spite of what we may have felt before, inspired by 9/11 and the bombing attempt on the world trade centers, and 60 years of unrelenting arab attacks on american and european interests by arab terrorists.
this report suggests, among other things, that u.s. and muslim societies exchange students, … , that popular arab entertainers be brought to america so that we can watch and listen to them perform song, dance and musical pieces, … , that american film and news broadcast production crews interchange with their muslim counterparts and discuss way in which the societies might foster interchange and communication, so as to grow closer in understanding and cultural affinity to each other. it further recommends that diplomats get to know each other better, and that diplomacy be undertaken to bring the (formerly) contesting states and societies together.[8]
this is propaganda. the very publication of this report is propaganda, because it gulls the unwitting and unprepared into thinking that reconciliation between the west and islamic jihad through enlightened diplomacy is possible, and, sadly enough, it is not.
the “operation” of such practices would essentially be a dumb show favoring the tactical and strategic advantage of islam, while again, gulling a western public into believing “progress” is being made, a snare and a delusion for the unwitting.
this report is “preventive politics” as practiced by the collectivists elite, so as to ameliorate tension between warring societies, … , to keep placid and to placate a passive society, … , to make us think that we are one happy coca cola family. it is to suppress disquieting discussion and boisterous debate, all in the name of delaying inevitable conflict. it is simple propaganda, and nothing more.
and, finally, harold lasswell would make us into “democratic men” by teaching us democratic “speak.”
in europe, the belgian nationalist phillipe de winter was prosecuted, and his political party vlams belang was “delisted” as a party permissible to participate in belgian politics, because he said that he was an “islamaphobe.” he was exposed to criminal penalties and incarceration for this speech.
in the netherland, geert wilders was prosecuted by the dutch authorities in charge of right thinking and correct speaking, for producing and publishing the film “fitna.” he was prosecuted for inciting contempt and opprobrium upon muslims, for unfairly portraying them as a people and religion by the film. and, just how did he do that? well, he published quotations from the koran, word for word and very accurately, first in their arabic script and then translated, which directed the faithful to do certain things, such as wage jihad against the unfaithful, and then by showing images of muslims following these edicts around the world. some of us considered that truth telling of the highest order.
geert wilders has emerged from the process something of a hero, and as the leading candidate to be the dutch prime minister if elections were held today, and his party has grown to where it is projected it would win the greatest number of seats in the dutch parliament. by the way, it helped wilders not one whit that he was a member of the dutch parliament when prosecution was undertaken.
mark steyn, the great canadian essayist (he is very good, indeed, perhaps rivaled only by victor david hanson for the clarity of his exposition, and persuasive power of same) was hauled before a canadian tribunal on hate speech charges, the allegations against him filed by three muslim law students who claimed that his writing negatively and prejudicially cast aspersion and contempt upon muslims. and, you might ask, the nature of steyn’s remarks which triggered such an accusation. well, what mr. steyn did, was simply to quote, with exact accuracy, the assertions of one islamic cleric the aims of islamic jihad as said cleric perceived it being waged in europe and against the united states, and, if i remember clearly, the clerics view that islam would emerge victorious and dominate over both adversaries of islam. so, mr. steyn was hauled into a canadian kangaroo court, and forced to defend against accusations, in essence, that he had told the truth about the islamic cleric, but that by so doing he hurt the tender sensibilities of certain muslims by doing so.
friends, this is again censorship of the rankest order. it is lasswell’s policy, given substance, of suppressing discussion “which complicates social difficulties.” again, to prevent “recurrent strains in society” such speech is to be suppressed. or, as my mother used to say, “if you cannot say something nice about someone, don’t say anything at all.” i have no idea at all if mom was a disciple of lasswell.
but, such “hate speech” legislation is propaganda in its rankest form.
what it is designed to do is to foster and force one portion of society to say nice things about another portion of society, … , or, as my mom would have put it, … , to say nothing at all that is not positive and endearing.
it is to create the mindset of pleasantness. it is to prevent tempers from flaring by insult and argument. it is preventive medicine.
it is also a lie, and a perpetuation of ceaseless lying, or, in other words, an enforced propaganda forced upon society by threat of prosecution for any deviation from what those who occupy the positions of authority in a society, … , let’s call them elites for lack of a better word, … , have determined is the so very pleasant truth of the matter.
so, in europe, if you see you society inundated by muslim immigrants, if you see them rioting in your streets and burning cars, if you see them assaulting your fellow citizens, and, if, as in scandanavia, you see the incidence and rate of criminal rape absolutely skyrocketing with scandanavia girls being the primary victims, … , why then, you had best keep your damned mouth shut about it, … , or, say something nice.
the government types think they are preventing conflict. the muslims scorn the idiots, and go their merry way. europeans seethe.[9]
not a good recipe in the long term, in my view of the matter.
but, back to harold lasswell.-- lasswell did not understand his work as encompassing the merely theoretical, but viewed his work as reflective of certain political realities and resultant social norms and structures. his work really has a certain “as it was, as it is, and as it ever shall be” determinism to it, especially as he regarded the presence of social and ruling elites. in a societal sense, they were sort of like nipples on a boar hog, all hogs having them, and all societies predictably having elites.
as noted in an article on lasswell at answers.com, he was preoccupied with the function of societal elites, those in positions of power and authority and influence, and also in control of knowledge and information. the answers.com article notes this strain in lasswells thinking as developed in the following:
“ [in the book] ….politics: who gets what, when, how (1936), a work in the elitist strain (the theory that no matter what the formal structure of government, a minority always will have real power) in which he stressed as motive forces in politics the drives of income, safety, and deference. the work also showed his preoccupation with defining political terms. from 1937 to 1950 political science journals did not publish lasswell's work, but his writing found a home in psychiatric journals. however, lasswell's work found new supporters in younger academics, and in 1955 he was elected president of the american political science association.” http://www.answers.com/topic/harold-lasswell.
lasswell had disciples, so much is obvious.
lasswell’s observations were not based on a theory of society, but upon what he no doubt believed to be empirical studies of the structure of elites. he believed that they ruled, and, i suspect, believed that with the aid of social scientists, (such as himself), technocrats and the sorts of groups identified by laski, that they probably should govern.
lasswell might very well have seen no danger of tyranny or despotism in the ideas he advanced. indeed, i suspect that he was motivated principally by the desire to see society(ies) use his ideas and techniques to promote harmony and lessen conflict, especially conflict as it boiled over into war. in this academic myopia, he was totally oblivious to the potential tyranny he espoused: he seems to have had no notion that such techniques and attitudes could be directed toward depriving people of rights and liberties.
lasswell’s work reeks of the totalitarian state.
but, among his motivations existed the desire to moderate the violence of human passions. he wanted his science applied in real life by real life practitioners, social scientists and elites alike, to foster order and to avoid disorder, especially war. these last passages are most interesting:
“in politics: who gets what, when and how? (1951b), lasswell’s interpretation was based upon ‘the working attitude of practicing politicians’ concerned with ‘influence and the influential.’ (7) the book is organized in three parts. the first part distinguished between the elite and the mass according to their success in obtaining values such as deference, income and safety within the social order. elites could be analyzed in terms of their capacity to manipulate a variety of techniques which kept them at the top of the pyramid of values. their economic and other characteristics could also be considered. most of the book is devoted to an exploration of these two dimensions of elites.
“in the section on the manipulative techniques of actual and would-be elites, lasswell illustrated their use of symbols, controlled violence, material goods (e.g. through rationing or pricing policies) and political techniques (such as centralization of government or careful dispersion of power). …
“the book just described was complemented by world politics and personal insecurity (1965). this was an attempt to come to terms with world-wide shifts in the pattern of elites and the symbols associated with them since the russian revolution of 1917. partial incorporation of the new social pattern had occurred outside russia in the form of the european fascist movements with their single-party rule, extension of government bureaucracy, reliance on fuctional rather than territorial representation, and use of plebiscites.
“since 1929 these political movements had flourished in a contest of intensified economic parochialism which was undermining the world market. the consequent insecurity could b analyzed using a mixture of ‘extenisve’ and ‘intensive’ procedures, extensive procedures were typified by the work of marx and engels in ‘tracing the lineaments of social development.’ intensive procedures included studies of ‘the genetic sequence of personality development”(lasswell 1965:18), relating to each other the career lines of people living in the same epoch. using these techniques the analysis could work out how mass tension was likely to be discharged – in response to which social changes and which symbols -- and encourage ways of doing this which were less costly than wars and revolutions.” dennis smith, democracy on trial, page 125.
in some sense, this entire intellectual effort to control a society’s passions is somewhat akin to loosing ping pong balls filled with electronic sensors into a tornado to try and understand its mechanisms: interesting, but not quite likely to give one a grasp on the big picture. but, in another sense, the modern world is much like the world harold laski and harold lasswell envisioned. You are not paying attention to what is going on around you, if some of these passages do not stir a tremendously strong response of recognition and insight.
and this is the gravamen of the modern socialist state. it is not interested in the flowering of intellect and life brought on by free and inquiring and boisterously vocal citizens, but in the management of conflict. --thus, in france the news of riots is suppressed to avoid unfavorable reaction by a sleeping public. –thus, in england, british citizens are prohibited of speaking of the dangers of muslim immigration, while the authorities are powerless to stop muslim clerics and activists from advocating the death of the queen, and muslim activists protest and hurl epithets at english troops returning from afghanistan. (is there not an “alice in wonderland” aspect about english troops fighting the jihad in afghanistan, while english citizens at home are prohibited from mentioning it, or advocating opposing islam?) --thus, in europe, where hate speech legislation turns the government, its bureaucracy, its savants & its supporters, into lying propagandists, and in america, where the same is contemplated. all designed to suppress free and antagonistic expression, on the market place of ideas, designed to suppress criticism and value judgments on matters of politics, ethnicity, religion -- all in the name of order. the mechanisms are simple minded propaganda about the unity of peoples, and the beatific nature of humans, …, and the cudgel of criminal prosecution for speaking the truth of the matter. by the way, muslims are not prosecuted in europe, england or canada, for openly advocating jihad killing of infidels, e.g., the very people who give their worthless asses refuge and freedom. ask me, in a candid moment, what i think of that.
all nonsense, of course, but all of it enforced, ... , enforced, ... , by draconian laws limiting the content of speech, and prohibiting criticism of certain populations.
all enforced unevenly in favor of protected groups. and, all of it absolutely unenforceable against third world populations and governmental entities.
the new aristocracy: the image makers & manipulators
the left aims to be an aristocracy of image makers and image manipulators, who control not by persuasion, but by the use of such manipulation. this whole scheme is not defined by ideology and the content of ideas, but rather, simply by an overweening desire to control.
in no spheres are these aims as apparent and near the surface as the green movement spearheaded by european intellectuals and bureaucrats, and the desire to inundate the west with muslim immigration, a drive led by the bureaucratic denizens of the europen union and gleefully endorsed by the proponents of arab societies and governments, who at the very least wish to rid themselves of vexing, useless and very dangerous demographic gluts of teenage and young adult males, and at their most ambitious expression in the global jihad, seek to dominate europe and the u.s. under a demographic tidal wave of muslim immigrants.
who aspires to this aristocracy?
well, aristocrats, for one. prince charlie of england has got on the global warming bandwagon, and now is preaching doom to the world. and, then driving away in his pet jaguar or rolls or whatever, powered by alcohol distilled from all the very bad brandy that his private vineyards produce. i too would be responsible and run my car on alcohol made from brandy, if only i had a vineyard, some grapes, and some bad brandy. no analysis yet as to energy cost required to tend and produce the grapes, ferment the alcohol, and then to distill it out. i don’t know what brandy costs a gallon, but i will bet you a sweet bippy as against your doughnut that it costs more than gasoline.
all image, don’t you see. a moment’s reflection will tell you what a preposterous gesture this all is, … , but none of us are in the moment’s reflection business anymore, are we. we just accept the crap as it comes to us over the airways.
well, politicians, obviously. al gore, he of carbon foot prints galore, (his ample girth must support the food intake of at 3 pakistanis), and carbon offsets up the kazu, … , might very well have secured the nomination of the democratic party for president of the united states. you think al gore does not have a taste for the exercise and a lust to grasp political power? well, would could satisfy that taste and lust for power more than being president of the united states? why, the office of guru of the green revolution, that’s what. if you think the green revolution is about trees, or preserving chimpanzees, you are a simpleton, … , simply put. it is about curtailing the industrial production, and the near monopoly on the same, of the industrialized nations of the west, and of the world. it is about controlling the patterns of labor devoted to the same, and ultimately, though the “workers of the world” have not tumbled to it just as yet, about controlling which workers of the world work, and in which places, and in what patterns. what a very lovely irony, that the very marxists/socialist/leftists/& greens of the world are going to starve and exploit the working classes, and not the greedy capitalists. (of which there are none, by the way, but more on that in just a little bit.)
well, bureaucrats for one. think for a moment as to who controls the conduct of industry and commerce in your country. think about who controls, more than anyone else in the western world, save for the united states of america and obama seeks to change that as quickly as he can, the content of speech and the conduct of speakers in the west. friends, it is called “hate speech,” and all over europe the content of speech as it relates to immigration, population densities, and the fate of europe as against the hordes of muslim immigrants is regulated by government agencies with parameters on what is acceptable to be spoken by whom. so, we have in england, the spectacle of english citizens prohibited from speaking out against muslim immigrants, while those muslim immigrants are free to call for the beheading of tony blair or the queen (i do not make this up), without hindrance, because the authorities do not prosecute them.
and, academicians. the academicians train and educate the bureaucrats. they move back and forth professionally, academicians becoming bureaucrats and bureaucrats become academician. in a very large sense, they are basically interchangeable, and they have one uniting characteristic. they are all funded and financed by public money, … , tax dollars, doncha know. college campuses are the common loci of all of these influences. it is from here that power emanates.
well, the press for one. if you think the press and the talking heads are interested in truth, and in disseminating the truth to the public, … , well, here comes that idiot accusation again. the mainstream media is the propaganda arm of the radical left and marxist ideology in this country, and with rare exception, such is the dominate ethos of reporters, talking heads and production staff. Where is the coverage of the anti-war movement, for instance? (oh, yeah, what anti-war movement, now that george bush is out of office, and afghanistan is now b. hussein obama’s bailiwick?)
well, big business for another. do you think of warren buffet and bill gates as entrepreneurs? or, do you think that general motors and ford and hewlett packard or dell are run by entrepreneurs. in my view, you have another think coming. these businesses may very well at one time been run by and driven by entrepreneurial instincts, but they are no more. they are, first and foremost, about controlling market and market share through the careful cultivation and massaging of what the market is, and by a carefully interface of product line with perceived demands, a demand that is tended and nurtured by intense advertising, … , e.g., by the careful cultivation of market propaganda.
and, how about the public interest advocacy groups, such as sierra club. have you ever noticed that if a public utility wants to build and outhouse, they are sued by a dozen public advocacy groups, protecting this and that aspect of the environment, or the ability of rich people to access remote wilderness all by themselves, or seeking to protect this or that view from a fabulously expensive development that happened to get their first. i am 61 years old, and well traveled, and i have never met a member of the sierra club, nor ever lived in a neighborhood likely to be infested with any of them. yet these groups, asserting the “public interest,” which just happens, by the way, to be the interest which they advocate, affect and impact and influence everything from industrial policy to energy and conservation policy, and access to the public lands of this nation. yet, they are faceless. they are also comprised of a lot of very old and a lot of very new money, and truly are peopled by the elites of this country. accountable to no one, beholden to know one, not inclined to explain their motives except when they want more money from the schmucks, … , and completely removed from the electoral process or public discussion of their function.
foundations. ditto. just damned ditto.
there is a common thread running through some of these “loci of influence,” (g_d forgive me, but i was a political science major years ago), and that is their immunity from scrutiny, and immunity from any influence or control of the public via the electoral process. and, another thing is common to each of them, and that is the near reverential regard with which they all behold each other. the federal courts have been a for litigants like the sierra club and friends of earth, as you might expect of a court system comprised of judges who are appointed for life and quite literally beholden to no one. the same is true of the reception extended by academia to their fellow leftist, and college professors who are granted tenure for their careers and thus beyond any reach of influence they do not court, welcome the support of foundations and public interests groups alike.
all removed from public scrutiny. all virtually immune from any political process or criticism. all sinecures and refuge for committed zealots, totally removed from public discussion.
almost everyone of them funded by public dollars. almost all of them totally devoid of any productive capacity, and almost none of them contributing to the public weal. they are extractive, and they control or influence much or all of our lives.
and, they live damned high on the hog.
and, last but not least, we have the entertainers equipped with talent and big breasts, to greater or lesser degrees, depending. as it was, as it is, and as it ever shall be. laughing.
just who is it that is the face and voice of the propaganda mills. who is incessantly in the public view, and who is guilty of the most egregious self promotion of limited talents than entertainers.
this is where the rubber meets the road, in terms of social influence, propaganda, and manipulations of societal and “intellectual” attitudes and fashions.
do you remember the coca cola “ … i’d like the world to live, in perfect harmony, …”?. well, of course you do, unless you have been living under a rock for the past twenty years. well, go back to footnote _ and read the lyrics again: it is not a song, it is the new order’s social policy, and embolmatic of its social polity. do you remember the quincy jones produced and choreographed campaign commercial for b.hussein obama, in which all of the various hollywood personalities and singer got up and sang in sequence the little paean of praise for obama? it was about change, and it was about the white majority feeling good, and perhaps a little obliged, about voting for a black man.
it was beautifully and artistically very well done, and it was the most blatant example of campaign propaganda ever seen in this country, or perhaps anywhere else. do you recall one scintilla of substance or public policy discussion or other political issue “discussed” in that song? do you recall the parts about plunging the country into a multiple trillion dollar debt, or nationalizing the auto industry, or the most blatant attempts in this history of this country to limit free speech, or confiscate guns? well, of course you don’t, all there was, was “image” and “emotion,” and a wholly fabricated sense of warmth and sincerity projected onto a man who is neither warm nor sincere.
do you really think george clooney or barbara streisand know anything about public policy?
what are the policy aims of this aristocracy seeking to birth itself, sui generis, as it were?
what difference does it make to them, really, so long as their aristocracy maintains control and its favored position as elites.
the issue of global warming is a perfect example.
leading exponents of global warming were the leading exponents of a new ice age 25 years ago. they are not embarrassed by that at all. they are not at all embarrassed that the science supporting the assertion of global warming is as phony as a bernie maddoff portfolio. the leading exponent of global warming taught al gore at yale, inspired him to build a giant house with more carbon credits than you or i will ever garner or harvest in 20 lifetimes, and made al the "committed" environmentalist: he has to be, he has personally consumed about three environment niches. yet, this fellow, when he decided that he had jumped the gun intellectually and scientifically by proposing a phenomena that he had come to feel could not be supported by the tenets of science, was roundly dismissed as “senile” by al gore and his other “devoted acolytes.”
it is not a search for truth, or for pronouncing truth, this global warming stuff.
it is about control of academia, and about control of the institutional process by which governmental funds are allocated to this or that university and department to do this or that kind of research, and it is a multi-billion dollar a year business, and much prestige is associated with running these programs and being at the forefront of scientific inquiry: never mind that it is not very inquiring, seeking only to perpetuate itself, and never mind that it is not very scientific or even remotely scientifically rigorous in its approach. quickly now, somebody tell me what the temperature of the earth is, right now. it cannot be done, actually. inferred, perhaps. but, not done.
it is about the control of the industrial policy of the industrialized west, to the benefit of the third world. it is about the overweening influence of bureaucracies over business, by the governments of individual nations, and by the oversight of the united nations.
pick another subject.
say world diplomacy. or immigration policy of third world muslims/arabs/islamists into western europe.
the conversation is not about the merits of the regulation. the only dispute is who gets to tell whom what to do. other than that, it really doesn’t make much difference.
it is an accretion of the glib, the pretty, the facile and the rich telling the rest of us benighted schmucks what to do.
harold lasswell would be roundly pleased, to see his research vindicated and brought to ultimate fruition. and, he would take sly and rueful satisfaction to note, that those who propose to control the activities of all the rest of us so carefully, and so rigidly, would fancy themselves “liberal” in the doing of it, in the curtailing and abridgment of the liberties and rights of the rest of us.
john jay #@ 07.21.2009
p.s. one wonders why lasswell and laski have flourished in england and europe, and why this elitist nonsense has become so dominate.
i have an observation which i will put forth for general comment.—
i think it the nature of the european educational system, which has created the largest state supported population of loafers, layabouts, grafters and egoists on the face of the planet. nothing grows in europe, so there is no demand for new professors and engineers and educators and lawyers and doctors, because the people holding these positions never die, and they never retire. so those coming up have to wait for a death or dismembering before they can move into what amounts a rent controlled flat.
so, they languish for years in student dormitories, and eating barley and oat soup in student cafeterias, and living to preposterously old age as adults in forming while they meander about writing dissertations and theses, on god knows what.
they are subsidized, coddled, and in a perpetual state of suspension until they move into professional positions, quite late in life.
they have nothing to do. they think themselves terribly smart, and erudite. and, they think themselves terribly deserving. and, finally, just as proper “philosopher kings,” they think themselves entirely gifted for telling everybody else on earth what to do.
they gravitate to the state structure, and the ideas of elites as set forth by laski and lasswell, as flies gather to shit. who else, they ask in their leisured stupor, who else to tall everyone else what to do than us, who do nothing, but who know and understand everything, and have the most elevated notions of what is right and proper, of anybody? somebody has got to tell everyone else what to do, and why not us?
that is my thought and observation on the matter. europe produces so damned many otherwise worthless philosopher kings. simple as that.
p.s.s. lasswell posits that society benefits when elites do the decision making, and control attitudes and beliefs by the use of propaganda, to get mind straight of the “democratic man,” surely an irony disguised by pun if ever there.
but, says lasswell, there have always been elites. he studied them, he identified those factors which made them elites, including control of economic mechanisms and wealth distribution and so on.
yet, in lasswell’s judgment, those elites as spawned by democracy and capitalism made egregious mistakes, such as fostering the muddle of free speech, of such magnitude that “change” was required in his estimation.
for, a new elite. to perform the watchdog function of making sure everyone has the right attitudes, and makes the proper choices.
comprised of educators, and those educated by the educators, and those informed by the educators. in other words, rule comprised by elites made up of such persons, entirely, … , well, pretty much, … , just like him.
i am reminded of two learned commentators on such matters philosophical, friedrich hegel and shel silverstein.
after describing an historical dialectic, hegel applied it to contemporary circumstances, and found the dialectic he had invented applied to the modern german state, pronounced that state the pinnacle and result of the historical dialectic as it had worked to that point, … , and pronounced himself mightily pleased with the dialectal process and himself as part of the german folk. you can look it up. i suffered it, and so should you.
shel silverstein, eminent political and social commentator that he was, had this to say about watchdogs. these words should be particularly apt for those who have kept track of teddy kennedy’s various peccadillo’s, over an illustrious life time of misdeeds. do you really want teddy kennedy in charge of public virtues, and political and social norms? Really?—
WHO BEEN SCORIN'?
I wonder who been scorin' with the scorekeeper's sweetie
While the scorekeeper doesn't know the score,
And who's on the floor with the doorman's darlin'
While the doorman's busy mannin' the door,
Someone's savin' the life of the lifeguard's wife
While the lifeguard's guardin' lives out in the sea,
And while I been movin' all around this town
Tell me who been movin' in on me?
Now who been diggin' the ditchdigger's daughter
While the ditchdigger's diggin' in the ditch,
And who's playin' switch with the switchman's bitch
While the switchman's busy twitchin' at his switch,
Someone's grabbin' the ass of the astronaut's lass
While the astronaut is flyin' through the blue,
And while I been goin' all around the world,
Who been goin' round the world with you?
I wonder who keeps gettin' into the innkeeper's cutie
While the innkeeper's keepin' the inn,
And who's cuttin' in on the tin cutter's sin
While that tin cutter's cuttin' his tin.
Someone's gettin' the honey from the beekeeper's honey
So what can a poor boy do. . .
I might as well go score with the scorekeeper's sweetie
While the scorekeeper's scorin' with you!
http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2008/04/john-locke-on-t.html
http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2008/04/the-right-of-th.html
http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2008/04/a-personal-righ.html
http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2008/04/blackstones-com.html
http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2008/04/sir-william-bla.html
http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2008/02/the-revolutiona.html [on martin luther & religious liberty, and personal liberty.]
[2] http://www.answers.com/topic/harold-lasswell. for a short blurb, this is a pretty informative short blurb.
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/harold_lasswell . again, a short blurb, but informative.
[4] it should also be born in mind that latter on laski advised his fellow socialists that until such time as socialism was positioned to assert rule, if should avail itself of the opportunities offered by participation in democratic institutions to recruit and gain strength for the final revolution. these words, therefore, may well have been intended as reassuring pabulum intended to reassure and placate a public nervous about socialist aims. in other words, laski may very well have been lying about labour’s ultimate ends.
[5] lasswell was no dummy. just amoral as hell, and no doubt convinced his techniques would ameliorate conflict in society, by manipulating people to be good. he made this fascinating observation about personality types, specifically between the social agitator and the bureaucrat. said lasswell:
‘agitators as a class are strongly narcissistic types. Narcissism is encourage by obstacles in the early love relationship, or by overindulgence and admiration in the family circle.’ (125).
he said this of the bureaucrat, by contrast:
‘as a class the administrators differ from the agitators by the displacement of their affects upon less remote and abstract objects. In the case of one important group this failure to achieve abstract objects is due to excessive preoccupation with specific individuals in the family circle, and to the correlative difficult of defining the role of self.’ (lasswell 1951a: 151).
I'd like to build the world a home
And furnish it with love
Grow apple trees and honey bees
And snow-white turtle doves
Chorus:
I'd like to teach the world to sing
In perfect harmony
I'd like to hold it in my arms
And keep it company
(That's the song I hear)
I'd like to see the world for once
(Let the world sing today)
All standing hand in hand
And hear them echo through the hills
For peace throughout the land
That's the song I hear
(That's the song I hear)
Let the world sing today
(Let the whole wide world keep singing)
A song of peace that echoes on
And never goes away
(Repeat 1st stanza and Chorus)
Put your hand in my hand
Let's begin today
Put your hand in my hand
Help me find a way
(Repeat Chorus til fade)
[8] i have long been curious about the modern leftist’s infatuation with all things arabic and muslim. but, it makes a certain amount of sense from one perspective. muslims, though violent and barbaric personally, are docile as sheep when it comes to thought, political expression, and participation in politics. the hierarchical nature of the religion dictates and imposes upon the individual muslim all that he needs to know about his politics, … , which is obedience. the muslim is the perfect subject for the state envisioned by lasswell, … , passive intellectually, and accepting of the dictates of the elite.
there is no free will here. there is only obedience and order. there is no morality. there is only obedience, and political order. the european and american leftists think they will remain atop this new order. islamists think that leftists have another think coming.
[9] a couple pages from now, i discuss lasswell’s faith that the resulting witches brew could be kept at a managalbe simmer by societal managers, … , by the elites, with their scientific techniques. as quoted from dennis smith’s book, “using these techniques the analysis could work out how mass tension was likely to be discharged – in response to which social changes and which symbols -- and encourage ways of doing this which were less costly than wars and revolutions.”
in short, just as propaganda could be used to incite warfare, and lasswell’s studies of the propagandists of world war one had convinced him this was so, so could propagandists influence a population to peace, and harmony. just at the expense of free thought, free expression, and a minor casualty of the whole process, … , the use of truth and sought truth as a measure of governing society and making choices throughout that society.
Now that was quite the bloviation.
My question: Do you have a shift key on your keyboard?
Posted by: John West | July 26, 2009 at 11:15 AM
john:
refute my argument on the merits, 1,000 words or less. and, without "bloviating:" it should not be difficult for you.
use all the capital letters you feel you need.
john jay
Posted by: john jay | July 26, 2009 at 05:20 PM
John Jay,
What I said to you should have been taken as an amateur golfer offering Tiger Woods a tip.
I was quite impressed with your post. You are obviously well read and knowledgeable on the information you were covering.
When I started reading it I didn't realize it was pretty close to reading an entire book. You took a lot of my Sunday away from other stuff I had planned.
I live in Canada where we are already well down the road of no free speech and big government control. We have socialism here big time thanks to Pierre Elliot Trudeau and his minions. He was our Obama. We will never recover from this and it's been three decades. Our health care is free (yeah right) but not available unless you are connected or are willing to not die on the waiting list. Or ... if you can afford to go to the USA to get needed care. It is against the law to have private health insurance and the unions geniuses are running most of the health care system.
I am warning Americans to avoid socialism and vote for no democrats next time around.
Regarding you, you appear to be thin-skinned and lack humor. That is my criticism of you personally, your post was excellent. Kudos.
Now stop Emailing me unless you have something nice or funny to say to me.
Posted by: John West | July 26, 2009 at 06:10 PM
John, incredibly impressive. I've never read such an erudite description of elitist bigots portraying themselves as common everymen in my life. The hypocrisy will make you cough! (Well, actually, if the elite bigots in the WH have their way, it will bankrupt you and leave your body on a gurney in the hospital corridor to die.)
Anyway, thanks.
Posted by: Carolyn | July 27, 2009 at 05:23 PM