The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Full ArchivesKevin Barrett Podcasts
Prof. Michael Brenner on “Power of the Word”
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks


International Affairs professor Michael Brenner recently sent out an essay entitled “The Power of the Word.” It begins:

“A divide between elites and the populace is a recurrent feature of every large organized society. That has been true without exception since the abundance generated by the mastery of agriculture encouraged the growth and elaboration of earlier Neolithic tribes. There are no known exceptions; but there are variations in modalities. A key to elite dominance always was the superior group’s monopoly – or quasi monopoly – of crucial knowledge. Before the introduction of writing, it took oral form. The subjects covered matters temporal as well as sacred. In those cultures, like Hinduism, where most practical matters were sacrilized, access to religious materials – the mythic eschatology, prayers, rituals – was crucial to consolidating the power of a priesthood in alliance with warrior castes. That alliance, overt or tacit, has been the foundation stone of elite rulership and economic control throughout history. Only over the past 250 years has it been challenged by the radiating influence of the Western Enlightenment…”

Brenner says mass literacy has leveled the playing field…and today, the declining literacy of elites may be leveling it even more: “In the inaugural Nixon-Kennedy debates, linguists judged the level of speech at the 9th or 10th grade. The best estimates of today’s debates place it at the 5th grade level – that includes the grade inflation of Trump’s verbal ejaculations…” His conclusion: “These days we find ourselves in the intriguing situation where ultra-sophisticated scientific and technological advances continue apace, on the one hand, while our performance in managing our collective affairs seems to be getting stupider and stupider – or, at least, our managers are getting stupider and stupider, on the other.”

(Republished from Truth Jihad by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Culture/Society • Tags: Literacy 
Hide 9 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. A clear case of the Power of the Word is ‘appeasement’. When it is and when it is not an appeasement? It’s like ‘hate’. When Jews hate you, it’s not hate. But if you’re even mildly critical of Jews, you might be a ‘hater’. And what is ‘extreme’? These days, a man with a big chunky pair of balls who claims to be a woman is a ‘woman’. That is the New Normal. But a conservative(or a lesbian/feminist) who might disagree could be branded as ‘extreme’. Once, you had to be Nazi-like to be ‘extreme’. But now, the mere desire of Hungarians to preserve their national integrity is condemned as ‘extreme’ and ‘far right’. But then, when Jews are truly zealous of their identity, heritage, and territory in Israel, we must all get behind the Tribe. If you criticize Zionism or call for a measure of justice for Palestinians, you get smeared like Jeremy Corbyn. You are either an ‘Anti-Semite’ or harboring it among your flock.

    Back to ‘appeasement’. It’s a famous(and even infamous) term usually associated with the supposed wimps and weaklings who caved to Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich. Say the word ‘appeasement’, and Neville Chamberlain’s deal with Hitler will come to mind. In the West, it’s also been used to smear those who call for constructive dialogue with Iran(because, of course, whatever Jews hate is the ‘new hitler’). Neocon Jews and their cuck-puppets never tire of denouncing others as akin to the craven cowards who cut a deal with Hitler. So, acknowledgement of Iran’s legitimate interests is tantamount to repeating the mistakes of 1939 and paving the way for more horrors, maybe even Another Holocaust!

    ‘Appeasement’, like ‘phobia’, is not a neutral or objective term. It is judgmental and condemnatory. If someone is said to be ‘phobic’, it means his fears are utterly irrational, unfounded, and pathological. So, if someone is opposed to non-stop immigration that might forever transform the character of his homeland, he isn’t a patriot with sound anxieties but a bigot with sickness in his head(and soul): A ‘xenophobe’. Likewise, ‘appeasement’ isn’t merely negotiation or compromise but a craven bargain with the devil. Of course, the accusation can come from any side. After all, German critics of Hitler could have argued Der Fuhrer appeased the British and the French in promising not to press for more German territories lost in World War I in exchange for Chamberlain’s acceptance of German fait accompli in Czech Territory.

    Because the term ‘appeasement’ is so judgmental, historians should be careful in its use. It is more a form of editorializing than understanding. The term is problematic even within its own definition. After all, if ‘to appease’ means: To placate or attempt to placate (a threatening nation, for example) by granting concessions, often at the expense of principle”, then it is an all-too-common occurrence. Power differentials are a fact of life as most parties in any situation are not equal. Some are richer, better connected, more prestigious, more influential, and more powerful. So, it’s often the case that the weaker party has to make concessions to the powerful side. But, most such interactions or transactions are not called ‘appeasement’. So, even appeasement isn’t ‘appeasement’ if it’s approved by the Power/System or the established way of doing business.

    What is the most powerful group in the US? It’s the Jews, and so much of US politics, economics, and social policy is about non-Jews sucking up to Jews. Politicians suck up to the demands of Wall Street and the Donor Class, both heavily Jewish. Anyone who wants to work in Hollywood has to suck up to Zionists. Mutter something about BDS or criticism of Jewish Power, and you shall be blacklisted. US politicians of European backgrounds never make pilgrimages to their own ancestral homelands. Rather, they go to Israel, put on a yarmulke, and stand before the Wailing Wall. They all suck up to Jews by invoking the memory of the Shoah while ignoring most other horrors of the 20th century or any other era. US politicians shill for Israel and spew hatred against Iran. They stand in line outside AIPAC as willing lackeys for More Wars for Israel. All such behaviors certainly qualify as acts of appeasement but are never called out as such by the Big Media and Big Academia that are controlled by Jews.
    Appeasing Jewish Power is so approved and ‘normal’ in US politics that it’s never slapped with the seal of ‘appeasement’. Indeed, it’s become so second-nature to Americans that they’re blind to their own craven cuckery. After 2020 election, you’d think American Conservatives would finally wake up to Jewish Power. Trump surely appeased the Jews a thousand times but got rammed in the arse just the same. In other words, ‘With Jews, you lose’. But all we get from The Donald is more appeasement to Neocons who threaten Iran and all we get from Trumpeteers is ‘China, China, China’. Never mind China too was in the business of appeasing the Jews as the go-to ruling elites of the US. The bargain was China would get a piece of the pie if it aided Jews in the demise of white identity and power.

    Apparently, ‘appeasement’, like ‘Hate’, is always something done by people, regime, or nation that happens to be disapproved by the Power — when Jews hate(Russia, White Christians, Syrians, Arabs, Palestinians, Hungarians, etc.), it’s never called hate. While it’s been said a million times that Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler, it’s hardly been mentioned that Winston Churchill(and FDR) appeased Joseph Stalin by conceding all of Eastern Europe to the Iron Curtain. After all, Churchill and FDR are still remembered as great men. Richard Nixon was much lauded for meeting with Mao Zedong. It wasn’t called an appeasement of a Red Monster. But the merest sign of Trump wanting to work with Vladimir Putin was condemned as ‘appeasement’ of ‘Putler’. But then, the GOP cucks called Obama’s deal with Iran as ‘appeasement’, once again invoking World War II, even though Obama did it under the control of J-Street Jews who were seeking to ease Iran out of the Russia-China orbit. GOP cucks misled the public with the charge that the US under Obama funneled billions upon billions of US taxpayer money to Iran when the money was Iran’s own that had been frozen in the US.

    In the West, there are two kinds of appeasement. There are those who appease Jews in the most pathetic and shameless manner. John McCain was champion at this, but most GOP and Democratic politicians are top contenders. They know all the doggy tricks. This might be called ‘positive appeasement’. But there is another kind that might be called ‘negative appeasement’. Take Rand Paul. While he often displeases Jewish Power by refusing to back every War for Israel, he won’t call out on Jewish Power. He turns every discussion or policy issue into an abstract discussion of principles and the Constitution. But current events and prevailing trends cannot be understood apart from the hypocrisy of Jewish Power that yammers about ‘equity’ and ‘social justice’, all the while pushing for policies that only make Jews even richer and make Israel even more dominant in the Middle East.

    In a fair world, nothing should be called ‘appeasement’ or anything fitting the description should be thus labeled. So, if what Chamberlain did was appeasement, so was Churchill’s deal with Stalin. And all the minor nations and powers within the US empire should also be called appeasers. What does Europe do nowadays but constantly appease the US that is controlled by Jews? Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and etc. are appeasers of the US empire. Colombia is a suck-ass appeaser of US power. And US politicians are mostly craven appeasers of Jewish Power.
    But, the term is used selectively to demean ONLY THOSE who concede in a manner that is disapproved by Jewish-controlled US empire that shapes the narrative and discourse around the world via its lock on academia and media and deep state.

    Appeasing Jewish Power means one must also appease whatever is favored by Jews. So, if Jews say BLM, one must appease black thuggery as the ‘new sainthood’. Even though blacks are the most violent criminal class in the US, one must sing hosannas to magic blackness. And of course, the homos. Jewish Power promoted holy homos, and that means one mustn’t upset homos lest he also displease Jews who must be appeased at all times. Jews are the ‘Made Men’ of US power, and that means the only functional ‘law’ of the land is Whatever Jews Want. Appease globo-homo. Sodomy is the new god, or godomy. Jews demand it, so you better obey. If a tranny says he’s a woman, you better use ‘proper pronouns’ where he is a ‘she’ or even a ‘they’. Surely, powerful Jews are cracking up behind closed doors at the sheer stupidity and/or cowardice of goyim.

    So, we have a situation where everyone must appease the Jews in order not to be labeled an ‘appeaser’. It’s like one must hate whatever Jews hate in order not to be called a ‘hater’. And it’s not enough that most people in the West appease Jews. There are still some who say the US should be on better terms with Russia or some nation hated by Jews, and that is lambasted as ‘appeasement’. Jewish Power is like a jealous god that says “Ours Only”. Everyone must appease the Jews, but that is not appeasement apparently. But if you dare suggest that US negotiate or compromise with any side hated by Jews, you are a damn ‘appeaser’! What a rotten state of affairs.

    In the current order, your appeasement is not appeasement if it’s approved by the Power. But even if you don’t appease but call for negotiations or dialogue with a side hated by Jews, you are an ‘appeaser’. If you smooch the Jewish Supremacist Ass, you’re not an appeaser. But if you merely call for the end of the illegal US occupation of Syria, you are ‘appeasing’ Assad the ‘butcher of Syria’.

    Just like the US dollar is the world currency, Jewish Outrage of Tri-Supremacism(centered on Jews, Negroes, and Homos) has become the world moral currency. The only way to earn ‘woke’ currency is by appeasing the supremacism of Jews, megalomania of Negroes, and vanity of homos. Thus, every European nation has a Holocaust Museum, and homo prides are spreading around the world to showcase that “Our nation has accepted Gayspel as the new gospel’. Or even nations without blacks or black problems make a fuss with BLM to show they are with the program.

    Western elites are worse than ever because the terms of elite selection favors the supremacists among the Jews but saps and flunkies among whites. A Jew who is conscientious and critical of Jewish Power hardly gets anywhere. Just ask Norman Finkelstein who couldn’t even secure a gig at second-tier college DePaul. A Jew has to be supremacist to make his way to the top. But when it comes to whites, anyone exhibiting any independence of thought or anything resembling courage/integrity is struck down. He’s not even admitted to elite college if, for example, he posted something on Twitter or Facebook that might displease Jews, homos, or blacks. That means the kind of whites who rise to the top are saphead cucks who go along to get along. They may still be smart and capable, but they are born appeasers and toadies than mavericks and men of independence. In other words, the likes of Mitt Romney, John McCain, Ben Sasse, Brian Kemp, Paul Ryan, and etc. are allowed to rise to the top. (It’s an Asianization of the West. In the East, exams are treated as an end than a means to an end. Exams aren’t so much a gauge of success as success itself. So, Asians don’t think independently but merely study whatever is approved to pass the exams as proof of their success. In the quasi-Confucian Neo-West, whites must pass the PC exam of approved thought than think independently. Millennials grew up to favor approval of thought than independence of thought.) So, the result is a system run by sniveling Jewish supremacist masters and groveling white goy cuck dogs. But, we are told that white cuckery isn’t appeasement because Jews control the narrative and decide what is what.

    • Agree: Sick of Orcs
    • Thanks: John Fisher, St-Germain
  2. Druid says:

    This guy is not as smart as he thinks! And he should get off the booze!

    • Replies: @Druid
    , @Justvisiting
  3. “These days we find ourselves in the intriguing situation where ultra-sophisticated scientific and technological advances continue apace, on the one hand, while our performance in managing our collective affairs seems to be getting stupider and stupider – or, at least, our managers are getting stupider and stupider, on the other.”

    True.

    And what follows from this? – Could it be that philosophy and social psychology are on the right track where they reject postmodernism and deconstructivism and oppose the attacks against free speech? – So – Claire Lehman with Quillette is on the right track as is Ron Unz with his “little webzine” (Ron Unz) and Joe Rogan and Megyn Kelly and Matt Taibbi, and – strange pairing, but nonetheless – Jürgen Habermas with his The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity is on the right track as is free speech virtuoso Noam Chomsky and as is Stefan Molyneux and – Jonathan Haidt with his  Heterodox Society and Toby Young with his Free speech Union in GB and Thilo Sarrazin in Germany with all of his five books so far. Even sarcastic and super melancholic Michel Houellebecq does make an energetic case for Switzerland – as a realm of a sound public sphere and a reasonable political discourse – ehh voilà!

  4. @Druid

    I used to think the Chinese Cultural Revolution was a bad thing.

    However, arrogant professors like this need to be working out in the fields doing hard labor for a couple of years–it will clear out the cobwebs.

  5. @Priss Factor

    After 2020 election, you’d think American Conservatives would finally wake up to Jewish Power.

    You’re assuming conservatives aren’t doing what they’re supposed to do when they’re already playing their pro-wrasslin’ role of ‘heels’ to perfection.

    democrats: we promote the (((radical))) commie agenda

    recucklicans: we pretend to oppose them and always throw the fight.

  6. One of the lamest role-plays ever, Barret, of yours truly. —Not engaging in the floated preposition of your guest Brenner, why and how the common slime of the think tanks is produced, while supposedly being populated by highly individualistic, better cognitive capacitated individuals. How this fits into the bigger picture of the Men of Nothing in Congress and the White House. —I myself tend to think that it “adds to it”. Then moments later your mushy tirade on religion and it’s role in intelligent believe system dissection. Not even kicking the tires when your interlocutor posits London as the capital of Cayman Islands. Dull, as never, you must have had an off-day onto the nihilistic stretchers. Then the bell calling, and the excuse of the time-frame, more MSM as them. A great opportunity missed to come up for once with positing an interesting guest and his well-formed thesis-es. Back to Australia!

  7. Daisy says:
    @Priss Factor

    Good comment, but a little long.

    GOP cucks misled the public with the charge that the US under Obama funneled billions upon billions of US taxpayer money to Iran when the money was Iran’s own that had been frozen in the US.

    Not quite. Only $1.9 billion of Iranian assets were frozen in the US, which were NOT returned to Iran under the JCPOA deal.

    Most peg the global value of frozen Iranian assets at around $100 billion, but the actual amount going back is closer to $56 billion according to US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew. Iran is being forced to accept most of this back as goods and services rather than cash. For example China’s investing EUR 22 billion in housing projects in Iran.

    As for ‘appeasement’ we’ve been appeasing the Jewish lobby far too long: wars in the Middle East, the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians; turning a blind eye to the horrors of Bolshevism, and the establishment of the state of Israel itself – according to declassified CIA reports in 1948, 80% of Jewish emigrants shipped to Israel from Soviet-controlled Black Sea ports reportedly were communist Jews trained as terrorists and guerrillas according to the US military attache as per declassified CIA docs.

    Isn’t it interesting that Jews were allowed to openly leave the Soviet Union even though no one else could? This was at start of Cold War so while the US was allegedly fighting communism all over the world, America ended up taking the side of the Communists in Bolshevik Israel – an act of treason.

    In addition, to quote Douglas Reed, ‘the two victors of WWII were Communism and Zionism’. The first world war gave them the promise of Palestine, in return for which America was dragged into the war.

    The second world war enabled them to actually seize Palestine, and enabled the expansion of Judeo-Bolshevism across the European heartland, with every eastern European soviet satellite state run by Jews after the war.

    America has been appeasing Jews for far too long.

  8. @Priss Factor

    Thank you for that, Priss Factor. And thank you Ron Unz for providing a platform for comments and commentators like this and many others.

    There are too many quotable lines in this comment to single out one or two, so suffice to say that you rather exhaustively defined “appeasement” in its present reality, as opposed to the present Wonderland of Lies that engulfs our life the way water engulfs Atlantis.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Kevin Barrett Comments via RSS