Kissing-Up and Kicking-Down Among Meckler Cultists

By Vinnie

Before 9-11, in many parts of the country Dr. Laura (Schlesinger) occupied the talk radio slot now occupied by Glenn Beck. She had a habit that I always admired, namely speaking to her callers in a manner that befit their station other than her own.

You see, Dr. Laura is a PhD, a very smart lady, but with a short fuse for certain kinds of behavior by her callers, especially pretentiousness and whining. When a person calls seeking absolution for a selfish act, she tears into them like a tiger. She kicks up. But when a simple woman calls, possessing a lesser command of the King’s English, maybe even a touch of hillbilly or redneck, Dr. Laura is as gentle as a kitten and as patient as a saint. She kisses down.

However, nowadays, a lot of educated professional people are just the other way around, more often kissing up, trying to impress powerful people above them, while kicking down or dismissing out of hand people they see as beneath them, often on the simple principle that those people can never do them any good.

In my business life on the West Coast I noticed this a lot among young lawyers and MBA’s; “Dig me” in a town where getting noticed is the biggest game in town. But with the rise of the internet, I’ve seen this practiced by an entirely different subset of professionals, or even fakes , the “wannabes”, and it is also very prominent among the Left to shout down or intimidate people as I mentioned in my last article. Storm-trooping opponents is an accepted Alinsky-tactic, whch makes it almost impossible to determine a person’s true political affiliation, a hireling or true believer?

But as I said earlier in the week, the name-calling, the kicking-down, has been employed almost exclusively by a small cadre of loud-mouths, some who seem to be linked to Mark Meckler and his orchestration of the original outing of Publius Huldah only a couple of weeks ago. It could be coincidence, but the manner in which her story was put out there wasn’t spontaneous.

In coming days we will present a list of sources, with quote-citations and internet links, comparing the two camps, pro- and con- Art V on matters of the proper etiquette of civil discourse, especially when speaking to or about people we consider less educated than ourselves. Then you will see. We are not the Alinskist lookalikes in this debate that long ago should have ended with a handshake..

It’s an irony, but also a shame, that Prof. Rob Natelson, whose article, “How Liberal Propagandist Suckered Conservatives into Opposing an Amendments Convention” was hi-jacked almost two months after it was published by a likely Meckler-inspired cadre, for they almost perfectly mimicked the tactics of the Left. (I hope Natelson and Meckler weren’t friends…..) Their purpose was to slime Article V dissenters and to propagate the manufactured narrative about Publius Huldah. (If you don’t know her, Huldah has been a relentless, and obviously effective, public speaker against the Article V convention of states idea, and while I don’t quite agree with her arguments, I would never question her fidelity to the Constitution, or claim of scholarly credentials.)

What they have tried to do to destroy her has been mean, which is why this site is here.

They’ve spoken of Publius Huldah as if she were a Biblical harlot instead of the Biblical prophetess, all because of who she is married to and his very tenuous relationship, twice removed through his brother, to a white supremacist group who is said to have murdered a talk show host. On this basis, they’ve slandered her legal qualifications, (which is about as ad hominem as you can get) yet still know nothing of her academic credentials, or the particular circumstance of her purported sin. It’s all really very crude and even a little bit childish.

I recommend you read Prof Natelson’s article, above for both tone and content, then note the comments, which came in three waves, the first wave, contemporaneous with the article academic in nature, followed by two waves in April, bulding in acrimony and name calling, then only a couple of weeks ago, a Meckler-style wave at about the same time of the anti-Huldah roll-out. (Pay attention to the timelines on  the comments.) The last group, just 10-11 days ago, sole purpose seemed to highlight anti-Article V commenters’ stupidity and capacity for lying, as well as Publius’ pending fall from grace.

What is developing here is a profile of a small team of Meckler-ites who walk about with one of those John Kerry looks of “who farted”, as they storm the room with rants against anyone who disagrees with their side of the argument. For people my age, we’ve seen these images in old Turner classic movies, from Margaret Hamilton as the nose-in-the-air self-righteous gossipy neighbor, to the effete French castle-dandy with a hankie in his sleeve looking upon a peasant.

Conservatism can do without these people. Article V can do much better without them.

Next time we’ll try to answer the question “Why?”. Think money.