At lectures and symposia, you cannot get away with waffling, even assisted by Powerpoint slides. That also applies to blogposts – there are limits.
Ann Barnhardt ignores that and yet she puts together a quite cogent argument [vid at the foot of this post], her main points powerpointed, which goes on for 2 hours and 53 minutes. She wasn’t boring, proceeding from section to section logically and I found her arguments had force in most cases, particularly when supported by concrete examples from public life.
She is though one hell of an eccentric woman but isn’t that always the way with groundbreakers or those with alternative angles? The way the camera cuts to observing her side-on is weird.
Even her identity is a puzzle because there is also a professor, Anne Hendershott, nee Barnhardt and I wonder if it’s the same person.
It appears she’s left the Catholic Church and has dismissed all political parties and politicians, but there’s still a strong strain of Catholicism running through her youtube below, even down to a rosary on the table.
If you are so prejudiced against Catholics [maybe for Northern Ireland reasons], or maybe because your atheism is of the apoplectic type – you get furious at any Christian reference – then you’re not going to like her. Also, being female and in-yer-face, that has an effect on people not unlike our feeling towards SJWs.
She shoots wide, IMHO, a few times, e.g. around contraception – not the right or wrong of it but to what she ascribes it.
Ms Barnhardt opens her lecture with – if you cannot accept any form of metaphysical world, then you’re simply not going to get this at all, which is very true.
Though she herself is personally religious, her argument turns out to be far more psychological and therefore accessible to most readers. She goes into a type of mind [or soul] who runs things. Others have attacked this from a different angle, that of the sociopath or psychopath, she gives it a different name and characterization.
A psychologist says the person becomes that way through some trauma or upbringing, she admits the demonic but does not apply it to all. Interesting distinction.
She gets onto feminism and Islam too, quite necessary if you’re to have any credence as an observer of world affairs but the major issue I foresee in the average viewer is the urge to immediately apply these criteria to someone one knows. And it is easy, if a leftist, to immediately apply it to Trump and look no further.
She certainly lists the negatives well but does not go much into the ameliorating traits. For example, given that Trump’s and Obama’s bad traits are as stated and publicized the world over, it’s when looking at the good that the two separate. Trump is known for his constant philanthropy, Obama is known for none. Obama has never been portrayed as one who got much into charity – he tended to play golf in those moments.
This does not come through much in the vid and so the temptation remains to sum up someone we know of – oh look, that’s such-and-such. My feeling is it’s better to just look at the overall arguments, for if she’s right, then we are in the hands of some pretty bad people up there.
And such people always worm their way into key roles.
One of her key arguments, very female indeed, is that a main ingredient of the type she portrays is someone incapable of real love. My issue here is that the Venn diagram set of people incapable of real love include not just perpetrators but also victims, plus victims who have become perpetrators, in a vicious cycle.
She mentions coldness, harshness and I’m perfectly capable of that – often I come over as a cold fish – but that does not mean I’m incapable of love, incapable of folly with a woman and/or friend, even now. And as she portrays the [something]opath as substituting mock, playacting compassion for real love, charity and caring, that can also apply to the ordinary person who has had the real thing knocked out of him/her, e.g. an Aleppo child. Not all go on to be perpetrators, some remain just victims all their lives.
One of the major points she makes is that this type we’re speaking of [Them or PTB type] wants to create an environment where no one else can enjoy it either, a dog in the manger approach, deliberately helping create dystopia, such as atonalism in music, ugliness in art, and it derives from hatred inside the soul.
Alinsky was a classic example and that whole tawdry bunch of so-called philosophers, including Benjamin and Marcuse, not to mention Russell. Evidence was in their own perverse sexuality. These were sick people who were able to write and lecture persuasively, as they knew the technique, millennia old.
She gives the motivation a name – pure spite. Spite is a major driver of these people. They will deny someone pleasure or joy, simply out of sheer spite. I’d suggest that there is a difference between a feeling of justice, closure, karma when some baddy gets his … and actual schadenfreude – pleasure in the failure of others.
It’s a very fine line – when does your natural feeling of justice and vindication dislimn into an actual [something]opathy?
Perhaps the lesson is that all of us possess all these traits in some small degree – the issue is when the negatives take over and starts to run the person, who then projects that onto others around, as many as he or she can get to.