Staten og de intellektuelle

Hvorfor havner intellektuelle så ofte på venstresiden?

Her er exiztenz.com's referanse over mediavenstre og venstreintellektuelle, de snakkende klasser og deres forhold til den staten de bygger sin fordel på. Det er en samling lenker til essay og tekster på nett som forsøker å svare på hvorfor intellektuelle så ofte blir sosialister og antikapitalister.

Det er også pekere til dokumentasjon om det hegemoni som sekstitallsradikalismen har klart å etablere på universitetene og i media + litt om implikasjonene av det, nemlig det maoistiske prinsipp om politiske korrekthet, og om intellektuelt medløperi med de mest morderiske diktaturregjeringer som verden noen gang har sett.

For denne hyldest til og dette forsvar for slike regimer som den venstreintellektuelle eliten har stått for, det har den selvsagt ikke kunne gjøre uten at det måtte gå på bekostning av den vitenskaplige faglighet og de intellektuelle normer, dygder og standarder som vi burde kunne forvente at en elite først og fremst følte seg forpliktet på. Når intellektet skulle stå i politikkens tjeneste og den politikken den skulle tjene var diktaturer, så måtte det føre til en intellektulle perversjoner.

De venstreintellektuelles guruer som Chomsky, Galtung, Pilger &Co representerer et frontalangrep på folks sunne dømmekraft. Og det er sekstitallsradikalismens psykologiske selvforsvare i et nøtteskall. Det er gjennom angrep på folks dømmekraft at de forsvarer sin egen politiske gjøren og laten opp gjennom årene. På den måten forsvarer de indirekte sin støtte til de meste morderiske og undertrykkende regimer som verdenshistorien har sett.  Og regimers morderiskhet er nå vel dokumentert av forskere som Rudolph J Rummel, sånn at folk som Johan Galtung ikke kan juge om dette og bli trodd.

Når en av deres disipler Petter Nome, bruker sine venstreintellektuelle guruer til støtte for sitt syn at USA er den største massemorder etter den annen verdenskrig, og at USA etter krigen var en fortsettelse der Hitler slapp, så kan det nå tilbakevises som den sekstitallsradikalismens psykologiske forsvarsmekanisme som den i virkeligheten var.

Den agressive og intellektuelt perverse antiamerikanske og anti-israelske propaganda som de venstreintellektuelle føler seg tvunget til å forsvare seg med, den er jo egnet til å tilsløre hva dette i virkeligheten er, nemlig en reaksjonær og psykologisk defensiv form for indirekte revisjonistisk historieskrivning,  overfor kommunismens holocaust.

Men alle vet vi jo innerst inne, hvis vi ikke er helt forskrudd av venstreguruene, at de liberale demokratiene USA og Israel selvsagt ikker er like ille eller verre regimer enn for eksempel Nord-Korea eller Kina, eller noen av de andre regimer som venstreintellektuelle guruer har hyldtet og forsvart. Det er ikke mulig å mene noe slikt uten først å være intellektuelt korrupt, uten først å ha gå til angrep på  folks sunne dømmekraft. Det er jo dette allerede George Orwell advarte venstresiden mot i sine bøker, denne manipulasjon med språket, og med folks bevisshet og sunne forstand. 

Så hvorfor er det slik at så mange intellektuelle blir venstreintellektuelle, og hvorfor blir de venstreintellektuelle så intellektuelt korrumpert?

1. DANSK: Hvorfor er de intellektuelle imod kapitalismen? 
   Liberator Den 8. august 2003. Daniel Boss Nielsens oversættelse af ”Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism?”, der er et uddrag fra Nozicks klassiske essay fra 1986 af samme navn.
   http://www.liberator.dk/art-detail.asp?A_id=338 

2. E-bok: The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality 

   The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality av Ludwig von Mises.

   Why? Why, at the very moment when capitalism has brought the greatest material and scientific progress known to history should it be meeting with its greatest disparagement and opposition'?
   http://www.mises.org/etexts/mises/anticap.asp 

3. E-bok: Why Bad Ideas Survive 
   Ebok av Koenraad M. Swinkels. Inneholder en kapittel som oppsummerer Hayek, Mises, Nozick, Rothbard og Feser sine ulike teorier om hvorfor intellektuelle har en antikapitalistisk mentalitet.
   http://pcpe.libinst.cz/nppe/2005/nppe2005-swinkels.pdf 

    

4. Essay :: Natural Elites, Intellectuals, and the State by Hans-Hermann Hoppe 
   

   Even if most intellectuals have been corrupted and are largely responsible for the present perversities, it is impossible to achieve an ideological revolution without their help. The rule of the public intellectuals can only be broken by anti-intellectual intellectuals. Fortunately, the ideas of individual liberty, private property, freedom of contract and association, personal responsibility and liability, and government power as the primary enemy of liberty and property, will not die out as long as there is a human race, simply because they are true and the truth supports itself. Moreover, the books of past thinkers who expressed these ideas will not disappear. However, it is also necessary that there be living thinkers who read such books and who can remember, restate, reapply, sharpen, and advance these ideas, and who are capable and willing to give them personal expression and openly oppose, attack, and refute their fellow intellectuals.

   Of these two requirements--intellectual competency and character--the second is the more important, especially in these times. From a purely intellectual point of view, matters are comparatively easy. Most of the statist arguments that we hear day in and out are easily refuted as moral or economic nonsense. It is also not rare to encounter intellectuals who in private do not believe what they proclaim with great fanfare in public. They do not simply err. They deliberately say and write things they know to be untrue. They do not lack intellect; they lack morals. This in turn implies that one must be prepared not only to fight falsehood but also evil--and this is a much more difficult and daring task. In addition to better knowledge, it requires courage.

   As an anti-intellectual intellectual, one can expect bribes to be offered--and it is amazing how easily some people can be corrupted: a few hundred dollars, a nice trip, a photo-op with the mighty and powerful are all too often sufficient to make people sell out. Such temptations must be rejected as contemptible. Moreover, in fighting evil, one must be willing to accept that one will probably never be "successful." There are no riches in store, no magnificent promotions, no professional prestige. In fact, intellectual "fame" should be regarded with utmost suspicion.

   Indeed, not only does one have to accept that he will be marginalized by the academic establishment, but he will have to expect that his colleagues will try almost anything to ruin him. Just look at Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard. The two greatest economists and social philosophers of the 20th century were both essentially unacceptable and unemployable by the academic establishment. Yet throughout their lives, they never gave in, not one inch. They never lost their dignity or even succumbed to pessimism. On the contrary, in the face of constant adversity, they remained undaunted and even cheerful, and worked at a mind-boggling level of productivity. They were satisfied in being devoted to the truth and nothing but the truth.
   http://www.mises.org/etexts/intellectuals.asp 

5. Hoppe: Intellectuals and the State 
   Natural Elites, Intellectuals, and the State av Hans-Hermann Hoppe
   http://www.mises.org/etexts/intellectuals.asp 

    

6. Intellectuals and Socialism (PDF) 
   Intellectuals and Socialism av Friedrich Hayek. The University of Chicago Law Review (Spring 1949), pp. 417-433, The University of Chicago Press; George B. de Huszar ed., The Intellectuals: A Controversial Portrait (Glencoe, Illinois: the Free Press, 1960) pp. 371-84.
   http://www.mises.org/etexts/hayekintellectuals.pdf 

    

7. Intellektualismens dilemma 
   Om Intellektuelle med en gjennomgang og diskusjon av Paul Johnsons bok "Intellectuals".
   http://www.jernesalt.dk/intellekt.asp 

    

8. John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr: In Denial: Historians, Communism, & Espionage 
   Forfatterne viser hvordan kommunister i USA etter annen verdenskrig var lydige propagandister for Sovjetunionen, og hvordan de fleste amerikanske intellektuelle (akademikere, journalister, forfattere, filmfolk, etc.), pga. sitt venstreorieneterte politiske ståsted på alle vis forsøkte å fornekte og å fortie sannheten om det som skjedde bak jernteppet.

   http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1893554724/qid=
   1083777492/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/104-1664495-2787152?v=glance&s=books 

9. MP3- audio :: The Role of the Intellectuals Ralph Raico 
   Forelesning fra Mises Institute av Ralph Raico, i MP3-format. 55:45
10. Mp3-audio 46:06 :: Classical-Liberal Roots of Marxist Class Analysis Recorded 
    Forelesning av Ralph Raico :: The Classical-Liberal Roots of Marxist Class Analysis , fra Mises Institute 15. 10. 1988.
    http://www.mises.org/mp3/marxism/Raico.mp3 

     

11. Naturlige eliter, intellektuelle og staten. Av Hans-Herman Hoppe 

    Dansk oversettelse av Natural Elites, Intellectuals, and the State, Liberator, 2003. Oversatt til dansk av David Bakkegaard Karsbøl.

    Hvad har de intellektuelles og de naturlige eliters rolle været i civilisationens udvikling? Og hvad kan de gøre for at bevare vore civilisatoriske fremskridt?
    http://www.liberator.dk/art-detail.asp?A_Id=324 

12. Rummel om venstreakademia: Leftswille 

    Eliminate Tenure—Cure Leftimania: "the state of American universities, particularly the social sciences, humanities, and special studies or programs (woman’s studies, ethnic studies, etc.). In effect, they constitute anti-American, socialist, and leftist propaganda factories. I will refer to them all as leftsville."
    http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/2005/02/eliminate-tenurecure-leftimania.html

    Se også Rummels blog On Ward Churchill and Academic Leftimania

13. Student utvist for å ha sagt sin mening 

    Student utvist fra skolen for å ha skrevet en artikkel som tok til orde for streng disiplin i klasserommet.
    http://www.thefire.org/index.php/case/666.html 

    Se også: Webloggen The Education Wonks

14. The Destructive Romance of the Intellectuals 

    FrontPage magazine.com :: The Destructive Romance of the Intellectuals by David Horowitz.

    How many intellectuals believed and spread this lie and thereby colluded in the enslavement, death, and generalized social misery of hundreds of millions of socialist citizens?

    This is Martin Amis’s answer: “The overwhelming majority of intellectuals everywhere.”
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=2132 

15. The Intellectual Origins Of America-Bashing (Fascinating!) 
    Schumpeters teori om hvorfor intellektuelle er involvert i "a never ending condemnation" av kapitalismen: Det skyldes kapitalismens enorme overproduksjon av universitetsutdannede.
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1131830/posts 

     

16. The Intellectuals and Socialism By FA Hayek
    http://www.mises.org/etexts/hayekintellectuals.pdf 

     

17. Why Bad Ideas Survive av Koenraad M. Swinkels Ebok, PDF.

    Why it is that such bad ideas as socialism and interventionism have survived for so long when such a superior alternative as Austrian Economics is available.

    1. Bad Ideas
    - Ideas and Ideologies
    - Bad Ideas
    - Minority and Majority
    2. ‘Spectacle of Folly’
    - The Predicament of Libertarians
    - Paradigms and Progress
    - The Austrian Paradigm vs. the Statist Paradigms
    3. Explaining the Insanity
    - Dumb or Evil?
    - Sub-questions
    4. Second-hand Dealers in Ideas
    5. The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality
    - Hayek
    - Mises
    - Nozick
    - Rothbard
    - Feser
    - Wrapping Up
    6. The Origins of the Power of the Intellectuals
    - From Natural Elites to Democracy
    - World War I and the Intellectuals
    - The State as a Coalition of Special Interest Groups
    7. The Survival of Socialism
    - Reliance on the Market
    - Controlling Education and Media
    - Lack of Competition
    - Terror, Ideals and Power
    - The Inhumanity of Socialism
    8. The Survival of Interventionism
    - Reliance on the Market
    - Controlling Education
    - Public Schools and Compulsory Education
    - Higher Education and the Intellectuals
    - Democratic Epistemology
    - Changing Meanings of Terms
    - Controlling the Media
    - Nationalising the Airwaves
    - Educational Output
    - A Tool for Special Interests
     - Crises, Reporting and Ratings
    - Intellectual Gossiping
    - Keeping the Mainstream Mainstream
    - Lack of Competition
    - Trusting the Experts
    - The Intellectual Bureaucrat
    - Ideas vs. Interests
    - Interventionism: all-too-human
    - Greed, Envy, Jealousy
    - Irresponsibility, Immaturity and Anti-Social Behaviour
    - Animalistic Behaviour
    9. Power and Ideas
    - Creation and Destruction: Hayek Revisited
    10. Stopping the Insanity
    - Secession: amputation
    - Bringing in the Competition: rejuvenation
    - Breakdown: death of natural causes
    - Public Opinion: getting better
    - Convincing the Intellectuals
    - Creating New Intellectuals
    - Getting the Message Out
    - The Emperor’s New Clothes
    - The Fortuyn Revolt
    Bibliography.
    http://pcpe.libinst.cz/nppe/2005/nppe2005-swinkels.pdf

18. World War I as Fulfillment: Power and the Intellectuals 
    Murray N Rothbard: "World War I as Fulfillment: Power and the Intellectuals" fra Journal of Libertarian Studies1989, 9(1), pp. 81-125. Hoffhistorikernes demoniseringen av kapitalismen.
    http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_5.pdf 

     

19. Yates: Biases of the Intellectual Classes 
    Biases of the Intellectual Classes av Steven Yates Of course, many university professors and others who identify with the intellectual class subsist at the expense of the state, which means at the expense of taxpayers. This in itself inclines many of them to political and economic philosophies that favor expansionist government instead of economic freedom. But ...
    http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1094&id=77

Universitetsvenstre

1. The Strange and Dishonest Campaign Against Academic Freedom
   By David Horowitz. Ever since I launched the campaign for an Academic Bill of Rights some eighteen months ago in October 2003, the most salient feature of the battle against it has been the dishonesty of its academic opponents.

2. A Shiv in the Back :: How politicized college courses mangle education. 

   Anmeldelse av Ben Shapiros bok Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth.

   Consider the numbers: 84% of professors voted for Al Gore in 2000; 57% identify themselves as Democrats, compared to 3% who call themselves Republican. And if you break down party affiliation by department, the numbers are even more depressing. Stanford's history department has 22 Democrats and 2 Republicans; Dartmouth's 10 Democrats and zero Republicans.
   http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/thornton100604.html 

3. Academic Freedom, Then and Now 
   Omtale av boka "The Development of Academic Freedom in the United States" av Richard Hofstadter og Walter P. Metzger, ved femtiårsdagen for utgivelse av den.
   http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2005/02/17/mclemee6 

    

4. AcademicBias.com 
   working to document the lack of intellectual diversity on American college campuses. Regrettably, the academic environment at most of our universities is dominated by political correctness, a view of the world that is invariably anti-free market, suspicious of the United States, and reflexively intolerant of opposing views. Because true intellectual debate is often stifled in college, students graduate woefully uninformed about the philosophical foundations of Western liberal democracy, the true workings of capitalism, and the full history of America.
   http://academicbias.com/ 

    

5. Colleges: An Endangered Species? 

   Andrew Delbanco anmelder bøker om "the decline of undergraduate education in the U.S" i The New York Review of Books.
   http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17777 

6. Conservative Professors, an Endangered Species 
   In some departments (English literature most of all, followed by philosophy, political science, and religious studies), more than 80% of the faculty calls itself liberal and less than 5% calls itself conservative. This disparity has prompted "a substantial shift to the left" since the mid-1980s, and is still increasing.
   http://www.danielpipes.org/pf.php?id=2526 
7. Why Are Universities Dominated by the Left? 
   Why Are Universities Dominated by the Left? av Edward Feser
   http://theleftrightdebate.com/
   archives/2004/12/21/counter-point-understanding-intellectuals-and-the-left/ 

    

8. The Fire 
   The FIRE har hjulpet tusenvis av studenter som har blitt intimidert og sanksjonert mot fra venstrevridde psykopater på universiteter i USA. Se filmen Brainwash 101: http://academicbias.com/bw101.html
9. Student utvist for å ha sagt sin mening 

   Student utvist fra skolen for å ha skrevet en artikkel som tok til orde for streng disiplin i klasserommet.
   http://www.thefire.org/index.php/case/666.html 

   Se også: Webloggen The Education Wonks

10. NoIndoctrination.org 

    Amerikansk organisasjon som arbeider for akademisk frihet og åpenhet i amerikansk akademia, grunnlagt og ledet av Luann Wright.

    Colleges piously proclaim a commitment to diversity, open inquiry, and freedom of thought and expression, yet there are courses and programs that exhibit blatant intolerance or amount to sociopolitical thought reform. Our goal is to expose this hypocrisy (through our website’s postings, writings, and interviews) so that legislators, taxpayers, tuition payers, and donors will see what their dollars are underwriting. With the exposure, it is our expectation that colleges and universities will actually start enforcing the statements on academic freedom and codes of conduct that they claim to endorse.

    When my son entered college in the fall of 2000, I was shocked to learn that sociopolitical agendas often drive the discourse - supplanting, suppressing, and ultimately excluding alternative legitimate views. I discovered that university administrators are often well aware of these ideological fiefdoms, yet they do very little to rein in those who dishonor the teaching profession. Students had nowhere to turn to express their outrage, and nothing was being done to stop the abuse. Out of utter frustration, I decided to try a new tactic: NoIndoctrination.org. -- Luann Wright.
    http://www.noindoctrination.org/

11. Destructive generation 
    Amazon.com:  Books: DESTRUCTIVE GENERATION: Second Thoughts About the 60s. av Peter Collier, David Horowitz

     

12. DiscoverTheNetwork.org 
    A guide to the political left.
    http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/default.asp

Mediavenstres hegemoni i Norge

1. Venstrevridde journalister
   I en undersøkelse som Opinion har gjort for Mediedagene i Bergen 2003 kommer det fram at journalistkollegiet i Norge er en oppsiktsvekkende venstrevridd gruppe.
   Dersom bare journalister kunne stemme ved stortingsvalg ville Arbeiderpartiet, Sosialistisk Venstreparti og Rød Valgallianse hatt 135 av de 165 representantene. Høyre får 19 og Venstre 11. Ingen andre partier blir representert.
   http://www.ba.no/meninger/spaltist/henriks_helg/article658765.ece
2. 14. mars 2003 refererte fagbladet Journalisten.no er undersøkelse som viste at 36 prosent av norske journalister foretrekker SV, mens 33 prosent svarer at de vil stemme på Ap. Dermed har de to venstrepartiene en oppslutning på nesten 70 prosent av de spurte journalistene. Fremskrittspartiet har 3 prosents støtte blant norske journalister, og Høyre 12 prosent.
3. Journalistenes storting blodrødt Hadde det kun vært journalister som fikk stemme ved valg i Norge, ville de rødgrønne hatt hele 120 av 169 seter på Stortinget. FrP som samtidig er det største største partiet på meningsmålingene, havner langt under sperregrensa.
4. Journaliststudentene er ikke så venstrevridde Hele 46 prosent av studentene på journalistutdanningene i Oslo og Volda definerer seg selv et godt stykke til venstre på en politisk venstre-høyre-akse. Når man legger til at sju prosent av studentene oppgir at de befinner seg på «ytterste venstre», betyr det at over 50 prosent av dagens journaliststudenter definerer seg politisk et sted fra Arbeiderpartiets venstrefløy til AKP.

Mediavenstre dominerer også i USA

1. How the media wote i USA 
   • 81 percent of the journalists interviewed voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election between 1964 and 1976. 
   • In the Democratic landslide of 1964, 94 percent of the press surveyed voted for President Lyndon Johnson (D) over Senator Barry Goldwater (R).
   • In 1968, 86 percent of the press surveyed voted for Democrat Senator Hubert Humphrey.
   • In 1972, when 62 percent of the electorate chose President Richard Nixon, 81 percent of the media elite voted for liberal Democratic Senator George McGovern.
   • In 1976, the Democratic nominee, Jimmy Carter, captured the allegiance of 81 percent of the reporters surveyed while a mere 19 percent cast their ballots for President Gerald Ford.
   • Over the 16-year period, the Republican candidate always received less than 20 percent of the media’s vote.
   • Lichter and Rothman\'s survey of journalists  discovered that "Fifty-four percent placed themselves to the left of center, compared to only 19 percent who chose the right side of the spectrum."
   • "Fifty-six percent said the people they worked with were mostly on the left, and only 8 percent on the right — a margin of seven-to-one."
   • Only one percent strongly agreed that environmental problems were ovestated, while a majority of 54 percent strongly disagreed.
   • 90 percent favored abortion.
   • 80 percent supported "strong affirmative action for blacks."
   • 54 percent did not regard adultery as wrong, compared to only 15 percent who regarded it as wrong.
2. Medias manglende representativitet, USA 
• Self-identified liberals outnumbered conservatives in the newsroom by more than three-to-one, 55 to 17 percent. This compares to only one-fourth of the public (23 percent) that identified themselves as liberal.
• 84 percent of reporters and editors supported a so-called "nuclear freeze" to ban all future nuclear missile deployment; 80 percent were against increased defense spending; and 76 percent opposed aid to the Nicaraguan Contras.
• 82 percent of reporters and editors favored allowing women to have abortions; 81 percent backed affirmative action; and 78 percent wanted stricter gun control.
• By a margin of two-to-one, reporters had a negative view of then-President Ronald Reagan and voted, by the same margin, for Walter Mondale in 1984.
3. Den offentlige mening om venstrevrien 
• 67 percent said that "In dealing with political and social issues" news organizations "tend to favor one side." That was up 14 points from 53 percent who gave that answer in 1985.
• Those who believed the media "deal fairly with all sides" fell from 34 percent to 27 percent.
• Republicans "are more likely to say news organizations favor one side than are Democrats or independents (77 percent vs. 58 percent and 69 percent, respectively)."
• The percentage who felt "news organizations get the facts straight" fell from 55 percent to 37 percent.
• Of respondents with an unfavorable view of network TV news, 50 percent couldn’t give a reason for their dissatisfaction, leaving "news is biased" as the most cited reason at 14 percent. Another seven percent listed "give opinions not facts," and three percent offered "too liberal" as their response. Those three reasons totaled 24 percent while conservative bias didn’t make the list.
4. THE MEDIA'S POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS USA 
• 44 percent of journalists identified themselves as Democrats, compared to only 16 percent who tagged themselves as Republican.
• Journalists are 5 to 10 percentage points more likely to be Democrats than the general population and 10 to 15 points less likely to be Republicans.
• The study authors found "minorities are much more likely to call themselves Democrats than are white journalists, especially blacks (70 percent), Asians (63 percent) and Hispanics (59 percent)."
• Women journalists (58 percent) are much more likely than men (38 percent) to prefer the Democratic Party.