The said figures are the targets because they dare to speak in a different voice on behalf of what might be good for the people who are not major stockholders or property owners, and the danger is it might come to pass if more people heard this.
It might not be possible to have another affairgate, and some way of throwing sand about to create a storm and make people shield their eyes had to be found.
......................
It might be informative to read of some of the details, and even disheartening, to find out about various public figures who tried to do good for people and spoke out on behalf of them, to find out that White water consisted of middle class and poor getting a raw deal bordering on cheating and Pelosi owns expensive resorts with no one allowed to join unions, to find out how Soros played with economies of various nations and how Streisand does not pay happy wages. To find how few of them employ any minorities, any other races or cultures, or even women.
But only if one thinks that this book gives all the information there is to give on any of those, with no context spared, and no mitigating circumstance left out.
Let us give benefit of doubt and say the writer is sincere, and not merely throwing mud at people who are likely to be good for the people of US who are not the top rich people.
But then one looks at his conclusions towards the end and sees the agenda clearly. Their practices are completely right and justified while it is their thinking and speaking and general public stance that is wrong, he states emphatically. They employ only "white" males because they want the best, and he does not blame them, he concludes.
To begin with humans are not, ever, "white" - except as an exaggeration or a euphemism. Cows, dogs, cats, horses, various birds and flowers are or can be white, but no human ever looked naked while wearing white clothes, of any shape or size. If there were such a risk no white clothing would be allowed in public much less formal occasions.
That aside, to conclude that employment of males of a certain origin implies that they are the best, is to go with a logic much like rich making money because they are rich - by being given positions and higher pay packets and market tips and club memberships where real deals are struck and expensive gifts worth millions that they don't need.
Or one could conclude that any conqueror was always right, which is why the attack succeded - whether Attila the Hun or any of those that managed to attack various western nations, including their own parts.
Shocking? Yes, it is - and so it is to conclude that "white" males get all the well paid jobs only because they and no one else is good enough.
The real agenda of the writer is not even for the men and women who can do it, as it was of Ayn Rand, but it is of rich white men ruling because they according to the writer are the only competent ones.
............
If such conclusions along his logic were warranted, let us see where it can take us.
Schweitzer says that people who speak for the poor and against malpractices of stocks and business should not indulge in stock. If they do, it is because their practices are good and their speeches are fraud.
Would he say Roman church consisting of bishops indulging in paedophilia and other unsavoury activities amounts to their theory being no good and paedophilia being good?
He says Streisand and others lobbying for fair pay and hours are fraud because they do not practice it. And he further says this proves their theory is wrong, since they cannot live it.
Would he admit that any male MD or otherwise medical professional practicing in ob-gyn is deficient in knowledge by definition, since they their professional activities have nothing to do with their own personal experiences? Would he condemn them for fraud?
Would a lawyer be fraudulent in practicing defense or prosecution of murder accused without having experienced murder? Should an actor die in process of portrayal of death?
According to his logic, no male, much less a celebate institution, should have any right to say a word about pregnancy or anything related to it.
In fact no celebate person should have anything to do with a marriage, much less proclaim rights and wrongs of one, or performing the ceremony.
..............
That was a few of the natural conclusions arising from stretching the logic of his concluding chapter and applying it to other fields of life where it might make more sense, such as male ob-gyn or celebate males dictating rules of marriage and reproduction.
He could just as easily have left it at a more natural conclusion, which is that while these people preach much lofty sounding stuff they practice another. But that had the danger of people merely holding them on par with the fallen bishops who have after all not all been automatically ex-communicated.
In fact one parallel with his logic and conclusion about practice of left wing being better than their theory applied to the paedophile bishops would be to say that it is priesthood that is wrong while porn and paedophilia is the only right thing to do. Shocking, right? But it is his logic and his conclusion, only shifted from those who speak for people and do not practice their theory in their life in perfection, to those who uphold celebacy of their own as superior to others while practicing otherwise in private and preaching compulsory childbearing to all married people and almost all women.
............
He goes into another plane of vitriol when dealing with Steinem, and wishes to know what she expected to find at playboy if not sexism.
Fact is the said sexism was not only about women prancing about in impossible, silly, unhealthy gear for fancy of well fed males - that much is visible from outside the building for any decent person to be disgusted with.
Her working there for investigative jounalism was on one level about exposing how little the pay and how tough the work, unlike the advertisements about fun and glamour and good pay, and how discriminatory the employers towards the women employed compared to male employees, in various terms.
On another level it is about making those women seem less objects and more human to the casually dismissive Schweitzers of this world if possible, by telling their story, even if through one person.
One might as well question Memoirs of a Geisha or indeed all literature with the same Schweitzer question of "what did they expect" of anyone in trouble. One might question what a woman "expected" if her husband murdered her or if her brand new date raped and butchered her. One does not, because one expects more humanity from humanity.
................
He mentions about women who did not marry due to listening to Steinem and are now left alone and forgotten. He blames it on her.
But isn't the idea in west that one marries for love, that love is all, that one should not marry except for love no matter what?
If those women had found love they would have never been alone, married or not; and if they did marry what guarantee did Schweitzer have that they were not divorced, left alone and forgotten after a few or even many years of a marriage? Has it not been happening in his culture, his nation? All too frequently, at that?
His words blaming Steinem indeed belie the notion that west marries for and only for love. While they do not have a system that takes care of a woman finding a home, a husband, security, and is not "left alone and forgotten", they also do not have any social system that would guarantee an equal opportunity to them of a life otherwise, whether socially or professionally. So they are left at the mercy of men who might or might not offer marriage and there are the Schweitzers of the world to blame them for letting go of "opportunities of marriage", in a twisted logic that forgets conveniently about love in blaming the women in every way.
Is love merely a convenient word for the husband of a few or several years divorcing the older wife for a younger toy trophy?
Or is it all just blame the women, blame even more the women who speak - and denounce marriages of any other cultures because they work, with no control by Schweitzer's capitalist system?
...........
Schweitzer would be doing fine if only he refrained from commenting or drawing conclusions, if he merely documented the gaps between practice and speech by various public figures, and it might help if he were not discriminatory in picking on the Streisands and Clintons and Steinems and so forth while leaving alone the paedophile bishops of Roman faith and other goons on the side he claims is honest if thugs.
