Psycho Elites

There is an undenying elitism which runs through leftists. The media elite feel they are the purveyors of all moral rights - and any of those who disagree with them must be a racist, or a bigot in some way.

But why is this? Why do leftist have this tendency?

John Ray has written some very interesting pieces on this subject. Let me quote just a bit...

Why is a man as privileged as John Kerry on the Left of politics? Why are people who are rich, well-organized, well-paid and successful in life often Left-leaning? Surely they should be thankful for the system that gave them their success instead of wanting to tear it down? The answer is really quite simple. If your life had made you feel superior to most people wouldn't you want to be treated in a superior way too? More importantly, wouldn't you feel that your inferiors should be got out of your way and told what to do? Wouldn't you feel that they should be herded onto public transport and thus leave the roads free for you to drive where you want without being held up by traffic jams? That is EXACTLY how elite Leftists think. Only they cannot say that out loud of course. To say it out loud would not only be obnoxious but it would also achieve nothing. So our elites are smarter than that. They know they have to cloak their oppression in the mantle of a claim that "It's all for your own good". And knowing how rich, clever and well-organized they themselves are, they are confident that they will be able to escape the limits and confines that they put on other people. Even high taxes are no worry to them when they already have most things that money can buy. So regulate, regulate, regulate is their cry. And regulating and controlling others is what Leftists have always got 1,001 reasons for -- with the most extreme form of control being exercised in Communist regimes.

The above comes from his piece Why Elites Tend Left.

He also has another rather long piece called The Psychology Underlying "Liberalism". To which I will lift a couple of bits...

My basic proposal, then, is that most (but not all) Leftists/liberals are motivated by strong ego needs -- needs for power, attention, praise and fame. And in the USA and other developed countries they satisfy this need by advocating large changes in the society around them -- thus drawing attention to themselves and hopefully causing themselves to be seen as wise, innovative, caring etc.

====

...in all cases, bitter experience has shown that Leftists in power are very dangerous and destructive people. Where their power is effectively unchecked, they generally seems to resort sooner or later to mass murder (as in the case of the French revolutionaries, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Jim Jones and many Communist regimes and movements worldwide) and where they are partially thwarted by strong democratic traditions and institutions, they at least bring about large-scale impoverishment (as in post-independence India and pre-Thatcher Britain). By contrast, conservatives just muddle along with piecemeal reforms that don't require them to murder anybody. So giving any power to Leftists is a most dangerous thing to do and working to prevent that happening is a matter of no small importance.

If you have half an hour or so, do yourself a favor and read both pieces. And especially if you are a leftist. I know, if you are a leftist, it will be hard for you to see the truth of the leftist movement, but self-honesty is a must - otherwise you are guilty of conscious and willing self-delusion (and therefore not as elite as you think, hey?). If you are a rightist, then read both pieces anyway. You might not discover anything you don't already know, but you will discover a deeper version of it. Either way, they are well worth the read.

Research Topic Of The Week

During the week, certain thoughts, words, ideas, etc., pop into my head. Most of these I let flitter away. Some, however, stay with me. Those I deem interesting enough, I Google to find out more.

This week's research topic was inspired by John Travolta's character in Welcome Back Kotter.

"Mondo". Just what does it mean and where did it come from?

Correct a mondo. Does saying such a thing make any sense at all?

It turns out that Yes, it does make sense. Because according to Zen, a mondo is a question asked and replied to. So if someone asks you a question and you answer "Correct," that is a Mondo. So the term "Correct a mondo" does make sense. And would be like saying, "Correct, question asked and answered."

However, if it was so simple, I wouldn't have bothered making this entry. It does get a little more complicated. Because it appears that Mondo is also the Italian word for World. So "Correct a mondo" now means "correct a world". And even though Vinny was an Italian character in Welcome Back Kotter, saying Correct a mondo doesn't make any sense now.

But we do have the band Mondo Rock. So their name could mean, "World Rock" - as in, their music is world music or suitable for all cultures of the world. Or it could mean, their music is in answer to questions of some kind. And seeing as Ross Wilson was the head of Mondo Rock and also the front man for Daddy Cool, Mondo Rock could be the answer to the question "what comes after Daddy Cool?"

To throw a spanner in the works, these days it is supposed to mean "weird" in English. And this meaning is purported to have come from the 1962 shokumentary "Mondo Cane" - A Dog's World. A movie with bizarre scenes. Thus, Mondo evolves to mean weird or bizarre.

Taking this meaning, "correct a mondo" could be an insult as in "correct, you weirdo". Mondo Rock would thus mean "Weird Rock" - and if you hear their stuff you might agree with that fully.

But let's dig deeper...

Checking Mondo on dictionary.com we get:

Enormous; huge: a mondo list of pizza toppings.
Extremely; very: a mondo big mistake

So "correct a mondo" either means "correct in a big way" or "very correct." This makes sense.

Mondo Rock would then mean "Big Rock" or "Extreme or Very Rocky Rock". Both have a sensibility about them.

And in Spanish (according to the translator at Google), Mondo means "clean". So we have "Clean Rock" - suitable for all broadcasting, I suppose. And "correct a clean" - which may have given rise to the idea of Liquid Paper.

So take your pick: dictionary meaning, English cultural-use meaning, Italian meaning, Spanish meaning or Zen meaning. Whichever meaning you choose, I hope you found this Mondo Interesting.

Language Creep

Years and years ago, decades even, the movie Trading Places was shown on free-to-air TV in Australia. During the course of the movie the word "fuck" is said a couple of times.

One time being when the character Clarence Beaks is on a public phone and he turns to a woman waiting to use the phone and says, "Fuck off."

The second time is at the end when Randolph Duke collapses on the floor with a heart problem and his brother Mortimer is raving on. When asked about his brother Mortimer says, "Fuck him."

When this was originally shown years ago, both instances of the word Fuck were replaced with the word Stuff. So Beaks said, "Stuff off" and Mortimer said, "Stuff him."

Last night the movie was shown once again on free-to-air TV. This time, however, the word Fuck was left in, in all its magnificent expletive glory.

Same movie as before. Shown at the same time of night. With the same classification. The only difference is, this time is years after the first time. So one can only assume it is now okay to say the word Fuck on free-to-air TV whereas years before it was not ok. For some reason, the ruling around the word Fuck has been relaxed.

Maybe it is deemed ok in this day because the movies have "warnings" before them now. Such as "This movie contains strong language". But years ago those kinds of warnings did not exist.

That's all nice and well. But what happens if you don't turn onto the channel in time to see the warning - as we did?

Funny. My cable TV provider was set to screen Reservoir Dogs. They screened something else instead and never gave an explanation. I called them to ask about it. They said they didn't screen it because it contained the word Fuck.

This is a PAY TV provider mind you. NOT a free-to-air provider. And as a PAY TV provider, they allow the client to set classification ratings in case children are about. So a movie like Reservoir Dogs would not appear on the screens of those parents who had set the classification screen - much like porn won't appear on the computer screen of those computers the parents have put filters on.

I pointed out that other movies also contained the word Fuck so why should this movie be different. Their answer was that it wasn't so much that the word was said - but - that it was said so often in the movie. Apparently there is a set number of times the word can be said before it is deemed offensive and the movie not shown.

The other odd thing about it was, they also told me a different channel could show the movie!? Because that other channel was an additional subscription item.

It wasn't enough I was already paying. Or that parents could change a setting which would stop such movies being shown. If I wanted to pay more to get one additional channel, then that additional channel would be allowed to show it. But whether they would show it was totally up to the channel's producer. And seeing as it was a channel devoted to foreign films, the chances were slim to none.

Also, the same Pay TV provider than deems it okay to show me movies about poofs.

They withdraw a movie because the word fuck is said too many times. But think it is okay to show a movie about poofs!?

I must come from a different reality. Because I certainly do not understand a decision to promote poofs and that men having sex with other men is ok, while we can't hear a word more than a certain number of times. Go figure.