Think For Yourself

[Flanders]

Aram Bakshian, Jr. made my day. It’s always a treat for me when I come across someone praising Eric Hoffer (1902 - 1983). Having read and greatly admired Eric Hoffer since before he appeared in:

. . . a pair of riveting interviews of the "Longshoreman Philosopher" conducted by Eric Sevareid and broadcast on CBS television in June 1967 and November 1968.

it’s especially satisfying to see Hoffer reaching America’s young thinkers in Tom Bethell’s book.

Eric Hoffer’s insights are unsurpassed among twentieth century philosophers and political thinkers. Years ago these two resonated with me because of my view of the MSM’s role in society and socialism’s True Believers:

. . . "Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive themselves," and "An empty head is not really empty; it is stuffed with rubbish. Hence the difficulty of forcing anything into an empty head,"—capture the essence of what makes fanatical True Believers so invincibly ignorant.

The Ultimate Self-Made Man
By Aram Bakshian, Jr. from the July - Aug 2012 issue

Eric Hoffer: The Longshoreman Philosopher
By Tom Bethell
(Hoover Institution Press, 304 PAGES, $29.95)

The American Spectator : The Ultimate Self-Made Man

This excerpt comes from a message I posted on another board back in 2006:

I have heard that individuals only use about fifteen percent of their brains. I never did believe that. I maintain that whatever an adult uses it amounts to one hundred percent. It's just that in most folks too many gray cells are given over to accommodating junk.

Intelligent people are not using more brain cells than the average person uses, they simply have less trivia trash smothering real thinking. True geniuses have less junk in their noggins than does the average bumpkin. That's the concentrate that animates brilliance.

The percentage of debris in the average brain can range from 85 to 99.999 percent of total capacity. I'll take a big chance here and say that most people know their own names; so I'll record that as a sign of aptitude rather than imply that some people are without intelligence altogether.

Socialists represent the perfect example of what I am talking about. Socialism/communism has provided far too many people with an excess of political hogwash that leaves very little room for the discernment that is necessary to shatter the false promise of a communist utopia.

I don't know if Socialists/Communists invented newspeak, but they have certainly mastered its use. Newspeak has even become a form of politically correct speech. The percentage of available grey cells it takes to see through it varies with the individual. Even if education could increase the number of grey cells an individual uses, that won’t change newspeak’s effectiveness with boobs. A boob is a boob is a boob no matter how many grey cells are working. A rocket scientist can easily be a halfwit outside his own field. Movie stars who dabble in politics are good examples of dim bulbs who should stick to what they know best. Their major problem today is that they are trying to cash in on Ronald Reagan’s political depth. Not every actor is Ronald Reagan any more than every mathematician is Albert Einstein.

Newspeak, media bias, and omission, are the tools propagandists use to help people deceive themselves. Basically, thinking for yourself is the only way to defeat propagandists and totalitarians of every stripe. In the quotation following my signature Hoffer offers advice that requires physical courage and the intelligence needed to defeat collectivism in general; specifically socialism in today’s America.

Finally, Eric Hoffer’s books are important in what they say, but the greatest gift in his writing is teaching individuals how to think for themselves. That is the exact opposite of the education industry’s goal. Bottom line: There would have been no Eric Hoffer had he attended public schools.

 

[blimpo]

Didn't you own a field somewhere?

 

[MikeK]

Eric Hoffer was a indeed a prolific writer, which in itself is no cause for celebrity. There are many prolific writers. What made Hoffer stand out is the fact that he earned his living as a longshoreman, which imparted a romantic tone to his socio-political offerings.

I've read a few of Hoffer's books. I agree with some of his observations but for the most part I believe him to be highly overrated. In my opinion had he been a college professor rather than a longshoreman he would have remained as obscure as are many other good and prolific writers.

One outstanding example of what I believe to be Hoffer's mediocrity as a political observer was his persistent approval of America's intervention in Vietnam. He believed our defeat in that wasteful and unnecessary military debacle would result in the rapid emergence of totalitarian influence in our government. We were defeated. That was forty years ago and we are still a democracy.

So much for the "Longshoreman Philosopher."

 

[Flanders]

MikeK;5868581

I've read a few of Hoffer's books. I agree with some of his observations but for the most part I believe him to be highly overrated. In my opinion had he been a college professor rather than a longshoreman he would have remained as obscure as are many other good and prolific writers.

To MikeK: If nothing else the phrase “True Believer” and the fanatics Hoffer identified for all-time belies your opinion.

MikeK;5868581

One outstanding example of what I believe to be Hoffer's mediocrity as a political observer was his persistent approval of America's intervention in Vietnam. He believed our defeat in that wasteful and unnecessary military debacle

To MikeK: Fighting communism is never wasteful or unnecessary. The Far East, and the world, would be a better place today had American Communists not brought defeat to their own country. Their are two ways for young Americans to understand Vietnam:

1. Vietnam was one battle in the Cold War. Defeat in Vietnam was, and is, the crowning achievement for those old Communists still living; many won elections on the strength of their anti-war position. John Kerry, Joe Biden, and Bill Clinton for instance.

NOTE: Anti-war demonstration organizers were hardcore Communists, while sign-carriers were fools who will demonstrate at the drop of a hat so long as they are told their cause is morally superior to whatever it is they march against.

Victory in the Cold War was especially sweet because it not only saw the Soviet Union defeated, it wiped the smiles off the faces of the American Left.

(Bill Clinton devoted his administrations to saving communism’s worldwide infrastructure after the Soviet Union imploded; so he was too preoccupied to see 9-11-2001 coming.)

2. Ask any one of the old Communists still in government this question: Do you oppose the Korean War in hindsight?

If they answer “Yes” they show that fighting communism is what they oppose.

If they answer “No.” ask them why not since both wars were fought for the same reason?

To really understand Korea and Vietnam you have to look to the United Nations. Korea was a United Nations “police action.” Communists could not very well oppose the Battle of Korea without opposing the United Nations.

The United Nations did not approve of Vietnam; hence, American Communists were free to openly support communism under the guise of stopping an unjust war. Put the two battles in perspective this way; had the United Nations not sanctioned Korea American Communists would have done the same thing they did in Vietnam.

Had the United Nations approved of Vietnam there would have been no demonstrations.

And have you noticed the top Democrats who vehemently opposed the wear in Iraq after Bush suckered them? They were for the war when they thought Bush was going to put the UN in charge. They turned against the war when Bush acted unilaterally. Notice how silent they are about Afghanistan because that one is UN-approved.

Incidentally, Truman went into Korea with UN approval because the Soviet Union missed a Security Council meeting —— the first and only time that ever happened.

MikeK;5868581

would result in the rapid emergence of totalitarian influence in our government.

To MikeK: It might not be as rapid as Hoffer thought. One look at where this country is at today proves he was right on the money. It is happening and the pace is accelerating à la Hussein & Company.

MikeK;5868581

We were defeated.

To MikeK: Just to set the record straight. The American military never lost a battle in Vietnam. The defeat was a political defeat engineered by “Loyal Americans.”

MikeK;5868581

That was forty years ago and we are still a democracy.

To MikeK: You’re talking to the wrong guy if you think democracy is a good thing.

Democracy is a mass movement embracing all of the evils Eric Hoffer laid out in The True Believer. America’s founders had no use for it either.

Aside from parasites whose self-worth is determined by the amount of tax dollars they acquire, democracy has more than its share of true believers. They are legion in today’s world. Eric Hoffer could have been talking about democracy’s collectivist True Believers in the following two observations:

"The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready he is to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause."

"A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business."

 

[MikeK]

MikeK;5868581

I've read a few of Hoffer's books. I agree with some of his observations but for the most part I believe him to be highly overrated. In my opinion had he been a college professor rather than a longshoreman he would have remained as obscure as are many other good and prolific writers.

To MikeK: If nothing else the phrase “True Believer” and the fanatics Hoffer identified for all-time belies your opinion.

[...]

As stated, I do agree with some of Hoffer's observations, many of which seem to be influenced by de Montaigne. But overall his thinking was clearly influenced by the rigidly conservative social attitudes of the fifties and the prevailing anti-Soviet/communist propaganda of that era, which probably was imbedded by his immigrant parents.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

To MikeK: Fighting communism is never wasteful or unnecessary. The Far East, and the world, would be a better place today had American Communists not brought defeat to their own country. Their are two ways for young Americans to understand Vietnam:

1. Vietnam was one battle in the Cold War. Defeat in Vietnam was, and is, the crowning achievement for those old Communists still living; many won elections on the strength of their anti-war position. John Kerry, Joe Biden, and Bill Clinton for instance.

America's armed intervention in Vietnam was a shamefully wasteful mistake. We had no business sending our troops there to kill and die. If you are a Vietnam veteran I clearly understand the reasoning behind your rationalized notions about the "communist threat." But unfortunately you were misused. Your sacrifice was totally unnecessary and counterproductive.

The fact is the Vietnam "containment" was a complete and utter failure. Our troops did a lot of killing and dying there, all of which was pointless. The ending was absolutely shameful. The communists ultimately prevailed and it hasn't affected the average American in the least. The essence of the tragedy is we obviously didn't learn a thing from the debacle.

As regards your continued fascination with the specter of communism, it's not the communists we need to worry about -- it is the laissez faire capitalists who are incrementally laying waste to the American middle class. And if the Progressive movement doesn't manage to bring them under control we are headed for another Gilded Age in which there will be rich and poor with nothing in between but a militant management class.

 

[blimpo]

Think For Yourself-

George Harrison from "Rubber Soul"