“Low information intellectuals”

I did a search for "dolts with glasses." This is what came up.

I did a search for “dolts with glasses.” This is what came up.

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?

5 thoughts on ““Low information intellectuals”

  1. This illustrates what I’m up against mentally right now. We’ve been right all along. All the people I had it out with back in ’08 before Obama got elected, I was right and they were wrong. But it doesn’t seem to matter, because they don’t care.

    I know Orwell comparisons tend to be overused as much as Nazi references, but seriously, this is straight out of 1984: just write or say whatever you want and it becomes the current truth. And I have to say I do get bothered the more we increasingly move to digital media. How long before the alleged fact-checkers are able to simply rewrite the facts? How long before people won’t even know how to prove otherwise? We’ve already been teaching people not to think as it is.

  2. And what I heard from my granddaughter today explains it all. Apparently one of the teachers asks 5 questions on their reading assignments and publishes the questions with the lecture. So the kids google the questions and have the answers for the test. And amazingly, they don’t all get A’s.

    So they go deeply into debt for a college education, don’t get one, and we have a nation of illiterates.

  3. This is why I’ve chosen a school as my front line — or perhaps it was my destiny. At a boarding school, I’m there for all kinds of critical moments outside of the classroom, and I have license to talk about pretty much anything. Not that we’re converting hundreds of kids per year from becoming future liberal morons, but there is at least a *chance* with several dozen of them. A new year begins, I’m going to need to keep my eyes and ears open.

  4. There are always several categories of intellect. The first doesn’t know the truth. The second knows but tries to keep the knowledge from themselves. The next category knows but won’t say the awful truth, out of fear. The last category knows and says what they know to be true. How many people are in this last category, across the political spectrum? Very, very few. MLK was a plagiarist, and was a proto-version of the various “reverends” we have to endure to this day. I don’t think he was interested in equality. I think he was interested in increasing black power, and since blacks had less power than whites at the time, the next logical step was to demand equality. I don’t think he would have stopped there anymore than any other “reverend.”

    As the great black conservative writer Elisabeth Wright once said, ( I only have the paraphrase because her works have been taken down since her death) Men who have less power but want more sometimes have nothing but appeals to the conscience of their more powerful foe. Had James Earle Ray missed that day, I suspect King would have grown to become like any one of the sclerotic members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Then there would have been the licensing of his name and likeness (and maybe portions of his “I Have A Dream” speech) for merchandising deals (his estate has been especially greedy, litigious, and shameful). There would have followed some indictments, some embezzlement, and the conclusion would have no doubt been sordid.

    How many people can admit this, or at least acknowledge some of what I just said could be true? Only those in the last category I previously mentioned, and none of those people, on the left or right, have much of a voice outside of blogs or in the privacy of their own homes or minds (and many times not even there).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *