Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Scum-sucking toads.

Intellectuals by and large disgraced the twentieth century. With rare exceptions, they whored after strange gods, of which the most odious and overwhelming was power. Writers, artists, philosophers, historians, even musicians and architects, enthusiastically committed their talents to the service of one cause or another. This treason of the clerks spread like an epidemic, diminishing the world’s hard-won stock of wisdom and morality, and civilization is still reeling from it.

Why did so many intelligent men and women choose to serve power rather than speak truth to it as conscience and an honorable tradition of principled opposition dictated?[1]

The strange aversion 20th-century intellectuals had to recognizing and publicizing the utterly evil nature of communist regimes in the last century is a disgrace. The did their best to advance the fortunes of communists which involved a great willingness to conceal their crimes, distort the idiocy of their ideology, and cooperate with communist swine in the subversion of their own countries.

The greasy, conniving, radical Saul Alinsky even dedicated the book that was the bible of the young Barack Hussein Obama to Satan. What intellectuals on the left ever thought to highlight this fact?[2]

Far from objecting to one comma of this creepy work, leftist intellectuals lapped it up.

Notes
[1]  "Andre Malraux: Politicizing literature, fictionalizing politics." By David Pryce-Jones, The New Criterion, March 2005.
[2] The National Education Association even saw fit to give Rules for Radicals a glowing review. Does it concern anyone that these trolls have a big say in how our children are educated? (The link in my post to the NEA page is dead but the Wayback Machine has the page here.)

4 comments:

  1. Is that a photo of Hillary back when she (supposedly) would let Alinsky shag her any time he was in the same town for a night or two? When Alinsky's secretary, Georgia Harper would (apparently) act as his "procurer" of female companionship by letting little Hillary know when he would be in town and available to see her? The one letter I've seen published that was written by her and answered by Harper seems to indicated that was how it worked.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is indeed Hillary. I'd not heard that about that angle. It keeps getting curiouser and curiouser with that woman. I didn't even know she knew Alinsky personally.

    I won't lose any sleep over her bonking Alinsky, if she did. The radical left-wing politics are what I detest. I long ago noted that she went out to California after law school to interview with a commie attorney. He left his card out on the table for her to see, so she'd have no illusions about where his allegiance lay. It indicated he was counsel to, a member of, or otherwise affiliated with some recognizable commie group.

    Obviously, it didn't bother her.

    Alinsky was an amoral man and Hillary obviously found his ideas very inspiring. Early in her legal career she impressed her boss on the Watergate Committee as an untrustworthy person. Her taking payoffs in the form of supposed cattle future investments is of a piece with her having established herself earlier as amoral and untrustworthy. Whatever her relationship was with Bill I don't think it was anything but a political alliance from the git, with only the voters being misinformed by those two. She was positively vicious to underlings in the Arkansas governor's mansion and in the White House.

    I figure, in retrospect, if you focus on her college thesis on Alinsky, you can see that it was a pretty strong clue as to how she figured she'd live her life -- manipulation and intimidation, "the fight."

    Obama's fascination with RfR can also be looked on in this fashion.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I sent that off without including this: https://www.scribd.com/doc/240077031/The-Hillary-Letters

    I agree, but I brought it up because, if true, it supports the picture of her as a starry-eyed young Communist who was so impressed by her professors, her mentors, that she would - and perhaps will in the near future - do her utmost to bring Communism to America. The kind of woman who would cling to those memories of the time she spent at the knee of men she saw as giants in the movement to bring their ideology to the "unwashed masses" of America.

    I knew girls in the '60s who, although lesbian, would still have sex with the professors whose "intellect" they revered, to encourage those men to keep them close.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hillary's career since school has not revealed any interest in her part in limited government and the rule of law. She shows that she thinks a free and open society can come from "organizing." She's shown a casual attitude to the truth and associated her self with a man who has been a hound dog and anything but a moral man. If such a sociopath was her choice -- and she was not fool when she threw in her lot with him -- it tells you a bunch about her agenda. Her "success" in investing in the cattle futures market was but Benghazi on a small scale. I don't know what the appeal of communism was. She's not the first person to have fallen for its supposed allure. 20th-c. man has shown an extraordinary ability to believe utter nonsense but the witch hunters of New England are up at the top of their all-time hate list of "superstition."

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated. I am entirely arbitrary about what I allow to appear here. Toss me a bomb and I might just toss it back with interest. You have been warned.