Yesterday, I wrote:
They [the left] may have succeeded in creating a horrifying generation of “low information voters,” but they’ve become something worse — “low information intellectuals.” The professors who set about creating a proletariat of parrots did it to their own as well.
When you stop teaching history, facts, writing, and analytical skills to schoolchildren, you have nobbled your own heirs too. Today’s mighty Ivy liberals know nothing of their own history or of western civilization’s. They know how to attack someone else’s argument with monolithic cant and vile abuse, but they can’t construct an argument of their own to save their lives. They have absorbed an impression of history their didact tutors insisted on, but they have no power left to critique any idea, let alone the ideology they embody without appreciating that belief is a thing to be first understood and, second, defended with the power of reason and fact.
They are destitute. Credentialed retards in charge of the body politic…
So, this morning, proof positive of my point shows up right on cue. Three Los Angeles Times reporters shared a byline on a story covering the Martin Luther King celebrations. Which prompted NewsBusters to chortle:
Memo to the Corrections Department at the Los Angeles Times: The following sentence is utterly unhistorical. “Since Democrats led the passage of civil rights legislation that marchers pushed for in 1963, Republicans have struggled to recover with black voters.”
Civil rights legislation of the 1960s was favored more by Republicans than by Democrats, so how did Democrats “lead the passage”? With three reporters contributing to the story – Kathleen Hennessey, Richard Simon, and Alexei Koseff – none of them could locate the actual Sixties voting record as they labored to make the GOP look bad for the Democratic unanimity of the event…
NewsBusters seemed to assume we all knew how ridiculous that statement was. Columnist Larry Elder researched the facts, which as reported by Malkin, are:
Only 64 percent of Democrats in Congress voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act (153 for, 91 against in the House; and 46 for, 21 against in the Senate). But 80 percent of Republicans (136 for, 35 against in the House; and 27 for, 6 against in the Senate) voted for the 1964 Act.
Wikipedia, which has been known on occasion to get its facts right, has the same numbers.
btw, I’m not claiming prescience here. This kind of arrogant ignorance is an almost daily phenomenon in the MSM. For example, here’s a cute story about one of MSNBC’s bright young anchors. She knows just enough about Joe McCarthy to compare Ted Cruz to him. What she doesn’t know is that Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs really were Soviet spies. And so it goes.
Saddest thing is, history isn’t all the bright young things don’t know. They haven’t actually read the Bible, despite their abiding contempt for Christianity, as this fun CBS anecdote demonstrates. My guess is, they haven’t read Shakespeare either, or Milton or Blake or Dante or anything deeper than the lyrics of Bob Dylan, if they’ve even read those. Cause, you know, you can google those if you need them for anything, like maybe a piece about, uh, social justice.
They have Ivy degrees, but they don’t have Ivy educations because those aren’t being offered anymore. We live in a universe of fakes — fake knowledge, fake authority, and fake credentials.
But they don’t smoke, and some of them have killer abs and great fucking skills. What more could we ask of the generation that seeks to inherit without doing any real work?