The Intellectual Idiot

I resisted the temptation to title it Intellectualized idiot.

Here’s a really interesting piece I only read recently. It may be a bit general and comes from a very accredited thinker/writer. I guess it was quite popular but I just discovered it.

He also requires anyone sharing it do so in full crediting it as extracted from his larger “Skin in the Game”. I only post the article, there are some updates to it at the link below.

The Intellectual Yet Idiot

View story at Medium.com
Nassim Nicholas Taleb

What we have been seeing worldwide, from India to the UK to the US, is the rebellion against the inner circle of no-skin-in-the-game policymaking “clerks” and journalists-insiders, that class of paternalistic semi-intellectual experts with some Ivy league, Oxford-Cambridge, or similar label-driven education who are telling the rest of us 1) what to do, 2) what to eat, 3) how to speak, 4) how to think… and 5) who to vote for.

But the problem is the one-eyed following the blind: these self-described members of the “intelligentsia” can’t find a coconut in Coconut Island, meaning they aren’t intelligent enough to define intelligence hence fall into circularities — but their main skill is capacity to pass exams written by people like them. With psychology papers replicating less than 40%, dietary advice reversing after 30 years of fatphobia, macroeconomic analysis working worse than astrology, the appointment of Bernanke who was less than clueless of the risks, and pharmaceutical trials replicating at best only 1/3 of the time, people are perfectly entitled to rely on their own ancestral instinct and listen to their grandmothers (or Montaigne and such filtered classical knowledge) with a better track record than these policymaking goons.

Indeed one can see that these academico-bureaucrats who feel entitled to run our lives aren’t even rigorous, whether in medical statistics or policymaking. They can’t tell science from scientism — in fact in their image-oriented minds scientism looks more scientific than real science. (For instance it is trivial to show the following: much of what the Cass-Sunstein-Richard Thaler types — those who want to “nudge” us into some behavior — much of what they would classify as “rational” or “irrational” (or some such categories indicating deviation from a desired or prescribed protocol) comes from their misunderstanding of probability theory and cosmetic use of first-order models.) They are also prone to mistake the ensemble for the linear aggregation of its components as we saw in the chapter extending the minority rule.

The Intellectual Yet Idiot is a production of modernity hence has been accelerating since the mid twentieth century, to reach its local supremum today, along with the broad category of people without skin-in-the-game who have been invading many walks of life. Why? Simply, in most countries, the government’s role is between five and ten times what it was a century ago (expressed in percentage of GDP). The IYI seems ubiquitous in our lives but is still a small minority and is rarely seen outside specialized outlets, think tanks, the media, and universities — most people have proper jobs and there are not many openings for the IYI.

Beware the semi-erudite who thinks he is an erudite. He fails to naturally detect sophistry.

The IYI pathologizes others for doing things he doesn’t understand without ever realizing it is his understanding that may be limited. He thinks people should act according to their best interests and he knows their interests, particularly if they are “red necks” or English non-crisp-vowel class who voted for Brexit. When plebeians do something that makes sense to them, but not to him, the IYI uses the term “uneducated”. What we generally call participation in the political process, he calls by two distinct designations: “democracy” when it fits the IYI, and “populism” when the plebeians dare voting in a way that contradicts his preferences. While rich people believe in one tax dollar one vote, more humanistic ones in one man one vote, Monsanto in one lobbyist one vote, the IYI believes in one Ivy League degree one-vote, with some equivalence for foreign elite schools and PhDs as these are needed in the club.

More socially, the IYI subscribes to The New Yorker. He never curses on twitter. He speaks of “equality of races” and “economic equality” but never went out drinking with a minority cab driver (again, no real skin in the game as the concept is foreign to the IYI). Those in the U.K. have been taken for a ride by Tony Blair. The modern IYI has attended more than one TEDx talks in person or watched more than two TED talks on Youtube. Not only did he vote for Hillary Monsanto-Malmaison because she seems electable and some such circular reasoning, but holds that anyone who doesn’t do so is mentally ill.

The IYI has a copy of the first hardback edition of The Black Swan on his shelves, but mistakes absence of evidence for evidence of absence. He believes that GMOs are “science”, that the “technology” is not different from conventional breeding as a result of his readiness to confuse science with scientism.

Typically, the IYI get the first order logic right, but not second-order (or higher) effects making him totally incompetent in complex domains. In the comfort of his suburban home with 2-car garage, he advocated the “removal” of Gadhafi because he was “a dictator”, not realizing that removals have consequences (recall that he has no skin in the game and doesn’t pay for results).

The IYI has been wrong, historically, on Stalinism, Maoism, GMOs, Iraq, Libya, Syria, lobotomies, urban planning, low carbohydrate diets, gym machines, behaviorism, transfats, freudianism, portfolio theory, linear regression, Gaussianism, Salafism, dynamic stochastic equilibrium modeling, housing projects, selfish gene, election forecasting models, Bernie Madoff (pre-blowup) and p-values. But he is convinced that his current position is right.

The IYI is member of a club to get traveling privileges; if social scientist he uses statistics without knowing how they are derived (like Steven Pinker and psycholophasters in general); when in the UK, he goes to literary festivals; he drinks red wine with steak (never white); he used to believe that fat was harmful and has now completely reversed; he takes statins because his doctor told him to do so; he fails to understand ergodicity and when explained to him, he forgets about it soon later; he doesn’t use Yiddish words even when talking business; he studies grammar before speaking a language; he has a cousin who worked with someone who knows the Queen; he has never read Frederic Dard, Libanius Antiochus, Michael Oakeshot, John Gray, Amianus Marcellinus, Ibn Battuta, Saadiah Gaon, or Joseph De Maistre; he has never gotten drunk with Russians; he never drank to the point when one starts breaking glasses (or, preferably, chairs); he doesn’t even know the difference between Hecate and Hecuba (which in Brooklynese is “can’t tell sh**t from shinola”); he doesn’t know that there is no difference between “pseudointellectual” and “intellectual” in the absence of skin in the game; has mentioned quantum mechanics at least twice in the past five years in conversations that had nothing to do with physics.

He knows at any point in time what his words or actions are doing to his reputation.

But a much easier marker: he doesn’t even deadlift.

The Blind and the Very Blind

Let’s suspend the satirical for a minute.

IYIs fail to distinguish between the letter and the spirit of things. They are so blinded by verbalistic notions such as science, education, democracy, racism, equality, evidence, rationality and similar buzzwords that they can be easily taken for a ride. They can thus cause monstrous iatrogenics[1] without even feeling a shade of a guilt, because they are convinced that they mean well and that they can be thus justified to ignore the deep effect on reality. You would laugh at the doctor who nearly kills his patient yet argues about the effectiveness of his efforts because he lowered the latter’s cholesterol, missing that a metric that correlates to health is not quite health –it took a long time for medicine to convince its practitioners that health was what they needed to work on, not the exercise of what they thought was “science”, hence doing nothing was quite often preferable (via negativa). But yet, in a different domain, say foreign policy, a neo-con who doesn’t realize he has this mental defect would never feel any guilt for blowing up a country such as Libya, Iraq, or Syria, for the sake of “democracy”. I’ve tried to explain via negativa to a neocon: it was like trying to describe colors to someone born blind.

IYIs can be feel satisfied giving their money to a group aimed at “saving the children” who will spend most of it making powerpoint presentation and organizing conferences on how to save the children and completely miss the inconsistency.

Likewise an IYI routinely fails to make a distinction between an institution (say formal university setting and credentialization) and what its true aim is (knowledge, rigor in reasoning) –I’ve even seen a French academic arguing against a mathematician who had great (and useful) contributions because the former “didn’t go to a good school” when he was eighteen or so.

The propensity to this mental disability may be shared by all humans, and it has to be an ingrained defect, except that it disappears under skin in the game.

[1] Harm done by the healer.

See Original page source

Advertisements

Another Leftist Prof Marched Off Campus

Every event, no matter how evil, is only another ripe opportunity for leftists to expound their vile remarks. Only when outrage is severe enough are there any consequences. Otherwise it is usually just accepted or ignored.

Another hate-filled leftist professor fired for lack of decency

via GOP USA – Washington Times

“Is it wrong of me to think that Otto Warmbier got exactly what he deserved?” asked Ms. Dettwyler in her since-deleted Facebook post, captured on Campus Reform.

[Otto] “acted like a spoiled, naïve, arrogant US college student who had never had to face the consequences of his actions.”

“His parents, ultimately, are to blame for his growing up thinking he could get away with whatever he wanted,” Ms. Dettwyler said. “Maybe [in] the US, where young, white, rich, clueless white males routinely get away with raping women.”

Read at: http://www.gopusa.com/another-hate-filled-leftist-professor-fired-for-lack-of-decency/

When you can attack the victim of a brutal dictator like Kim Jong-un and a dead captive prisoner, how far will you go?

But the irony is that what she is blaming the Warmbier parents and student himself of is exactly what the left teaches. She is projecting. They lecture no accountability while bashing parents with any moral standards, trying to put a wedge between families. It’s what the left does. Now she bashes the parents? The spoiled child phenomena is her front yard; it’s what they profess.

A little odd for the university to cut ties with a teacher who expresses so openly what many of them think.

What makes a speech: the good, bad and intolerant

Routinely, when Obama gave a speech the press would take excerpts to highlight praiseworthy sections using all kinds of adjectives — historic, inspirational, soaring, etc.

When Trump gives a speech, the exact opposite happens. So when the mainstream media must use Roger Stone’s criticism of Trump getting an award to make a case against him, there are no bars under which they won’t crawl. They’ve called Stone every name in the book. But now they reference his valid criticism of Trump stooping as he gets a meddle from the King of Saudi Arabia. That’s how the Left rolls.

For MSM, a great speech is made by 1) who the speaker is and 2)who the audience is and 3) by the vague and lofty liberal rhetoric therein. What makes a great conservative speech, to liberals and media, is not giving it in the first place. Case closed

Notice with progressives, the key subject is government and that we should just all cede to its (gubmint’s) one “united force” for “progressive values.” Conservatives, on the other hand, give speeches about individual opportunity and the liberty to aspire to heights as far as you can imagine, against all the odds — including government. Something once admired.

Liberals can manage to unify around dissent to that message, talking about leveling playing fields, and government making results fair, government putting its foot on the scale to pick winners and losers. (that’s what gubmint is for… to promote progressives)

Case in point: Pence goes to Notre Dame to give a speech and they stage a walkout to show him how they feel about him. Of all places, Notre Dame was the place that welcomed Obama to speak even with his staunch Planned Parenthood and abortion advocacy. That was no problem, but Pence coming to Notre Dame is a huge problem. Also a place that arrested Alan Keys for protesting Obama’s abortion “values” at its open doors policy.

There is more. Liberals love to give emotional, big-government speeches. When conservatives speak about individual freedom, they are protested by a unified bloc. Which one is inspiring? Which appeals to individuals? How is a big government speech inspirational? It’s only an inspiration to the state. Does it leave one with an inspiring message of what they can do? So that is the paradox.

Giving a commencement speech is a time for inspiration on applying his/her time and talents. But liberals would rather have an argument over whether someone is, in fact, a “he or she” or a genderless human genaphobe?(add that phobia to the lexicon) They find inspiration in any protest, resistance. Not resistance to the status quo…no, they resist in order to preserve government status quo. Change is bad but two years ago they stood for “change you can believe in”. They don’t want change from chaos and corruption.

 

That was the problem with Obama. He stood for reversing any time- honored traditions and basic common sense. To Obama, dignity is a value only if you stand for cultural revolution. Traditions and cultural mores are to be reversed. This turns protection of life to an agenda of protecting the killing of your progeny. The concept of civilization morphs into uncivil behavior. Violence is the only viable option to a peaceful society.

Under this agenda, it is only natural to prefer a screaming insurgency speech about “liberal values” over inspiration. What rallies progressives is good lecture on intolerance — for not against it. Intolerance is a redeeming value to the left. A giant 180 degree reversal.

Of course the political message is of utmost importance to the left, while individual freedom is marginalized — unless you define killing babies as freedom, and preserving that freedom considered a “reproductive” civil right, and protecting deviancy is a value.

It used to be liberals always said “protest stops at waters’ edge” when a president went overseas. That was tradition. Now the waters edge is where protest really begins. Trump went wheels-up in AF-1 for Saudi Arabia, on his first trip, as MSM and NYT rolled out their latest attack on Trump. ‘Is it time for impeachment,‘ media asks?

The attack was over words spoken to Russians in the oval office the week before, calling Comey a nutjob. So Comey is allowed to call the president a liar but Trump cannot call Comey crazy, after everything he did in the last 18 months? Trump’s first foreign trip was the opportunity they waited for. As soon as he’s off the ground, they throw the dirt. It would be the first president they tried to impeach on foreign soil.

They could not find a single thing in Obama’s world apology tour to criticize, even as Obama criticized the US. Wasn’t it soaring? An offering to the world.
 

Another example of the backwards programming of the left is their investigation on Russian collusion. ‘No, nothing there, which is why we need to investigate.‘ See, the investigation itself justifies their charges. Why is he under investigation if he did nothing wrong? Then they want to use the fact that they have all these investigations as grounds for impeachment. Who did they not want to investigate?

It is an investigation of his campaign, before he even took office. If they wanted to attack someone for running a corrupt campaign it would be Hillary Clinton. But no, that is precisely the person we are not supposed to investigate. The stuff she did was in office.

Now the process, and corruption thereof, justifies charges against someone. Due process takes on a new meaning to the left. Warrantless searches, surveillance, were fine on Trump while the corrupt process protected the Hildabeast. But due accountability and responsibility never happens. Thus, the good guys get accused and the corrupt ones get a pass or worse, protection. The presumption of innocence is only for the corrupt.

These uber-leftists are the people who make great, soaring, progressive speeches that media can find no fault with. They are the historic ones? The process protects its own. The proof is that in 7 months they reversed everything they said they stood on. Note: revise speeches accordingly.

RightRing | Bullright

Harvard does separate and equal, by choice

Now isn’t it neat when black students decide to have their own graduation?
From the halls of Ivy League to separate but equal. What can Brown do for you?

Ivy League Black Students Decide To Hold Their Own ‘Black-Only’ Graduation Ceremony

Amber Randall — 05/08/2017 | Daily Caller

Black Harvard graduate students plan to host a “black-only” graduation ceremony later in May.

Approximately 125 students will participate in the ceremony, which took over a year to plan, reports the College Fix. The event is supposed to celebrate how black students have succeeded in higher education.

“This is an opportunity to celebrate Harvard’s Black excellence and Black brilliance,” Michael Huggins, a master’s student in public policy, told The Root. “It’s an event where we can see each other and our parents and family can see us as a collective, whole group. A community.”

More at http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/08/ivy-league-black-students-decide-to-hold-their-own-black-only-graduation-ceremony/

A Tale Of Two Terms

Two terms I heard in the last week jumped out at me: ‘intellectual atheist’ and ‘intellectually honest.’ Both struck me as very odd.

The first was used in a Christian apologetic, the second was referring to Obama as “intellectually honest.” I think you can imagine why I had a problem with the second. Obama will give his farewell address in Chicago while his allies prematurely billed him as being “intellectually honest.” Really? Calling Obama honest is dishonest.

I thought the first was very strange way to say someone is an academic intellectual while also an atheist. A person who is an atheist has made a choice not to believe in God. The reasons for their decision may vary, but they made that choice.

If it was an intellectually based decision, then it sort of questions intellectual acumen itself. We know that God is the source of wisdom and good, so why would it be intellectual to deny the existence of a Creator? Solomon wrote a lot about his own extensive quandary in Ecclesiastes. He finally determined, after much deliberation, he held a reasoned and obvious belief in a Creator. Using intellectual capacity for the reason of disbelief seems dishonest. Could that person believe in evil?

As to Obama being intellectually honest, I find that illogical and laughable. He has not been honest. That Obama, in his elite arrogance which taints everything he does, is intellectually honest is ludicrous. When radical political ideology determines one’s actions, is that honest? If one is as bitter as Obama when not getting his way, how honest is that? I guess he is true to his arrogance and narcissism, first.

He spewed out so many twisted lies about Trump in making a case for Hillary that he can not stand on honesty. He strategically lied to pass his agenda. Gruber admitted they could only get ACA past the people by lying. Their arguments were intellectually dishonest.

Of course, they don’t want to call him intellectually dishonest. But why try to call Obama “intellectually honest;” a man who sought out the most Marxist of professors in school, and used racism as the basis for any opposition to him? (it’s a lifelong pattern)

So the common denominator in both terms is “intellectual.” Is Obama now going to make the case that the reason for all his arrogance and shortfalls is his intellectual ability? (his intellectual ability to lie) When intellectual ability is used to deceive and undermine truth, is that an honest use of intellectuality? A person can still be an academic intellectual, but if it is used in that way it certainly cannot be honest.

I don’t know if anyone else sees a little similarity between those terms? Just a thought.

RightRing | Bullright

Students choose Castro over Trump

Surprised…not! I know, it must have been a trick question. Nah.

Campus Reform has the pathetic story.

  • Fidel Castro’s recent death evoked conflicting assessments of his legacy from world leaders, but college students are no more prepared than prime ministers to justify their support for the Cuban dictator.
  • A number of students at American University acknowledged the brutality of Castro’s regime, but insisted that he was a better leader than Trump because he did “good things” for the Cuban people.

President-Elect Donald Trump, for example, referred to Castro as a “brutal dictator,” whereas Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called him a “remarkable leader.”

Read more @ http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8455

Really what can you say about that? I think it is self-explanatory. Are we  in trouble?

And for your amusement pleasure:  let’s see the DNA.

The evidence is in. I think it’s a hung jury on that one.

Redistribute this….

This has circulated the Internet but worth reading.

College Student Ashamed Her Father Is A Republican, Until He Said THIS…

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn’t even have time for a boyfriend, and didn’t really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, “How is your friend Audrey doing?”

She replied, “Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She’s always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn’t even show up for classes because she’s too hung over.”

Her wise father asked his daughter, “Why don’t you go to the Dean’s office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.”

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion, angrily fired back, “That wouldn’t be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I’ve invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!”

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, “Welcome to the Republican Party.”

Think of that the next time you hear “fair share” or “level playing field.”

H/T Allen West and The Federalist Papers

Crossing paths with Clintons

Once one crosses paths with the Clintons, in an unflattering way, they don’t forget it.

WND — Jerome Corsi | 05/13/2016

“I would like to share with you and your friends in the MSM why this subject is important,” she continued. “This situation is NO longer about that. It’s not about the details of these multiple assaults and rapes involving numerous women who never knew one another, telling the same [or] similar stories.

“This is NOT about infidelities, indiscretions, adultery, girlfriends or consensual sex,” [Kathleen] Willey emphasized. “This is about Bill Clinton’s multiple sexual assaults and rapes for over 40 years and Hillary Clinton’s threatening, bullying, intimidating and terrorizing all of the women who have suffered at his hands. It’s as simple as that.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/05/bills-sex-assault-victim-lashes-out-over-hillarys-terrorizing/

Even the Washington media joined the bully party.

Newsweek’s Evan Thomas, the author of this piece, said on a Washington talk show that Jones was just `some sleazy woman with big hair coming out of the trailer parks.’

More http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-gladnick/2016/01/20/new-york-times-identifies-wrong-woman-carville-trailer-park-quote

It’s no longer, if it ever was, about the tawdry affairs, details or sex. It is about the abuse, or crime in Bill’s case, of women who crossed paths with the Clintonistas — the first crime family of American politics. There was even a White House war room with their inner circle to deal with what they termed the “bimbo eruptions”. As James Carville said, “Drag a hundred dollars through a trailer park and there’s no telling what you’ll find.”

Oh, did Hillary ever stand up for any of those women? No, she was right there to attack them and call them incredible. In fact, she was all for not believing women then. She attacked them and then played the victim.

Now she says women should always be believed. Then she says believed until they are shown to be liars. But this is a woman who Called Mrs. Smith a liar because it didn’t fit her political ambitions or agenda. Hillary defended the rapist of a 12 year old girl, then laughed about getting him off. That’s an advocate for women.

But about the sex and infidelity? It really never was… or is.

Must watch this

Hillary, the “Champion for Women?” — Still think it is just about Bill’s sex scandals?

Screw the Debates

I look forward to and enjoy the debates as much as anyone. They are informative and have a place. But they are only one part in the whole process. Like everything else, we see how biased or corrupted they can be. Politicized, for sure, but have they outlived their status?

I mean what else would we expect? It is their system, the establishment likes its control and uses it every way they can. So debates are one of their tentacles. They own it.

However, in case the elite inside, power-control estabos — who know better than the people — have not noticed, the people have been having a debate from the beginning. That’s the real debate, a referendum on them. Estabos do not like that one at all.

So if they haven’t noticed by now, we have come to a few conclusions too. The status quo has got to go. The ruling class told us we are irrelevant and what we want doesn’t matter. They tell us what issues are important. And they tell us how we should vote. That’s the way it is done, they say. Our vote must be based on others’ their choice and endorsements.

While we had this kick down dragged out debate this far, they’ve opposed the will of the people every step. They didn’t notice we won every round. People are fed up. We get faux hearings about phony responsibility with no accountability. Nothing short of that is on their menu now. The establishment is insulted that we dare resist their status quo bargain.

These days they complain about “structural racism” inherent in all places, yet they have a structural bias in the whole election process — from establishment to media — just as they have in government. That structuralism doesn’t bother them one bit, they thrive on it.

Now this elite status-quo is using the race card in every way to keep their establishment in control of the process to control the results. Then the debate injects the label of racist even into the debate. They play the gender card in the same way. Put that together with the smear tactics and you have a structural establishment cocktail to destroy any opposition to it. That’s their plan. Some value debates mey have, but they change nothing.

Under that light, what do even the debates really mean? Use the debates to screw us? What’s new? It’s better not to bestow any more value on them than they deserve — consider the source.

RightRing | Bullright

One Incident Away From Mayhem

I don’t have to even write this piece to make the point. It’s all too true.

Society meltdown is just an incident away. How sad that our system cannot withstand any more than that? We’ve seen it over and over again.(Ferguson) One shooting or incident now triggers instant, almost endless anarchy. We are told this is in the name of peace and social justice. If this is social justice then who votes in favor of it?

No, it’s more of a means to some of their ends. The event, whatever it is, is just a means to another agenda. It erupts on a moments notice, anywhere, as if it were planned. Only the results look like it was anything but planned.

Problems with it are too numerous to mention. I’ve heard enough about the so-called “peaceful demonstration” BS. Peaceful it isn’t and any semblance of a demonstration is MIA. We get phrases like “otherwise peaceful protest.” Right, other than the violence and looting, and sheer anarchy, it is a peaceful protest. It doesn’t match the script.

Anarchy is not included in the first amendment protections.

“This is not who we are.” — Apparently it now is. Welcome to new Obamasized America.

I watch reality unfold in front of me live on TV. Reporters flood to the scene and protestors turn their violence on media as if they are the problem. Reporters are assaulted and blamed. So this is the new demonstration protest? Soon everything sucked into the violence of the red zone is fair game.

Then clergy are sucked into the whole “epicenter” as they call it. A word to clergy: do you realize you are also being played for tools? To what grand achievement?

Charlotte NC is now the latest in a long list of cities fallen to this new protest protocol. I’m sickened by what I see. So I have a simple idea.

First of all, to all the media, I know you have hours of the events from start to finish. The unedited footage should be strung together. Take that complete film to schools of junior high students. (for openers) Don’t narrate or describe the events in advance. Just show them the real footage without the opinions of news anchors etc.

After the film, ask them if anyone advocates for and wants to live in a society like that? Any student who does should be able to write an essay defending why. Students who don’t can write one, too. But I want to see advocates for that society explain their reasoning. Though I bet schools could not do that without injecting their opinion.

RightRing | Bullright

Trump millenial swing

ABC poll: Trump surge due to massive 36% millennial swing

By Ron Meyer | May 23, 2016 | Red Alert Politics

A shocking new poll from ABC News reveals Hillary Clinton is losing to Donald Trump nationwide 46 percent to 44 percent. That’s an 11 percent shift from March, when Trump trailed Clinton by 9 points.

What was the biggest driver in this shift in the polls? Surprisingly, it’s young voters.

Clinton’s support among young voters ages 18 to 29 has dropped 19 percent since March — and Trump has gained 17 percent support from the same demographic. That’s a 36 percent swing.

While Clinton leads Trump in the demographic 45 to 42 percent, this margin in the general election would ensure a Republican landslide. Mitt Romney lost the youth vote to Barack Obama by more than 20 percent…/

Screenshot

Read more at http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/05/23/abc-poll-trump-surge-due-massive-36-millennial-swing/

One more big demographic Hillary is not doing particularly well with. It’s still early. …barring the Leavenworth Caucus.

BDS pumps out the hate…fistbumps

BDS Spreads Anti-Semitism Across U.S. Campuses

by Noah Beck
Special to IPT News
May 12, 2016

Anti-Semitic incidents seem to spring up each week on college campuses throughout the United States. According to a study, “The strongest predictor of anti-Jewish hostility on campus” is the presence of a Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel.

The greater the BDS activity, especially involving faculty members, the more likely anti-Semitic episodes become, said the study issued last month by the AMCHA Initiative, a non-profit organization dedicated to investigating, documenting, and combating anti-Semitism on U.S. campuses.

One recent example occurred on April 15, when the City University of New York Doctoral Students’ Council passed a resolution calling for an academic boycott of Israel, 42-19. Weeks earlier, a CUNY professor and BDS advocate claimed that the killing of Palestinians in Gaza “reflects Jewish values.” On CUNY campuses, the New York Observer reports, Jewish students were harassed, with “Jews out of CUNY” uttered in at least one instance, and a professor who wears a yarmulke was called a “Zionist pig.”

On April 21, two-thirds of a union representing about 2,000 graduate students at New York University voted to approve a motion to support a BDS resolution against Israel. The motion also urges the union and its affiliate, the United Auto Workers, to divest from Israeli companies. The resolution asks NYU to close its program at Tel Aviv University, claiming the program violates NYU’s non-discrimination policy. […/]

Continue http://www.investigativeproject.org/5351/bds-spreads-anti-semitism-across-us-campuses

That’s an excellent update on the BDS and anti-Semitism movement and what’s happening across the country. It has been on the rise and radar for years.

This goes back to something Hillary said at AIPAC. In her keynote speech, she criticized the BDS movement, but never acknowledged they are her supporters and base. So Hillary’s an honest voice on BDS? Her words paper over truth and reality:

“Many of the young people here today are on the front lines of the battle to oppose the alarming boycott, divestment and sanctions movement known as BDS.

(APPLAUSE)
“Particularly at a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise across the world, especially in Europe, we must repudiate all efforts to malign, isolate and undermine Israel and the Jewish people.
(APPLAUSE)

“I’ve been sounding the alarm for a while now. As I wrote last year in a letter to the heads of major American Jewish organizations, we have to be united in fighting back against BDS. Many of its proponents have demonized Israeli scientists and intellectuals, even students.

“To all the college students who may have encountered this on campus, I hope you stay strong. Keep speaking out. Don’t let anyone silence you, bully you or try to shut down debate, especially in places of learning like colleges and universities.

(APPLAUSE)
“Anti-Semitism has no place in any civilized society, not in America, not in Europe, not anywhere.”

Interesting that if it anti-Semitism were such a problem on the rise, then surely she would have mentioned it on the campaign trail or at the many college and universities she speaks to. But no. You’d think she was a national spokesperson against anti-Semitism.

Only here she stands up as if she’s been condemning it. She has mentioned transgenders and LGBTs using restrooms, but not this. Only at AIPAC she rails about it, while it is her own people spreading and breeding the hatred. Oh that is the new third rail in politics, on the Left, not to speak ill about it. You could call them the who’s who of BDS.

And as you might suspect, her words caused lots of blowback from her supporters. They came out in scathing criticism about her speech. She hasn’t acknowledged that either. Oh but she claims the mantle for standing up against bullying, anti-Semitism, and the BDS movement. Silence. But note the applause lines above.

Yet Hillary said, “Anti-Semitism has no place in any civilized society, not in America, not in Europe, not anywhere.” But no problem if you are also a Hillary supporter.

Story from student studying abroad

Voices: Why I’m embarrassed to be an American while studying abroad

By Alexandra Villarreal, Columbia University April 5, 2016 | USA Today (Please see)

I may have come to some of the same conclusions in my dorm room in New York City as I have in Madrid, but I don’t think I would have come to all of them. I’ve gleaned a lot from talking to my Spanish friends about politics, from being around internationals, and from seeing our global weight on every street, where Starbucks and McDonald’s line every corner. And I’ve learned that people don’t necessarily respect the United States, and that their opposition to our nation may be well-founded.

More at USA Today http://college.usatoday.com/2016/04/05/voices-embarrassed-american-while-studying-abroad/

And before you wonder about her political philosophy, note the Columbia U. Sounds like another liberal trying to come to grips with reality, if you ask me. That can be a very dangerous proposition. Sorry for the necessary speculation.

Welcome to shades of reality, 2016. Careful now, not too much truth …it has caustic side-effects.

Islam indoctrination 101

Once again, a public school firmly putting its foot down on the side of Islam indoctrination of students. Case in Maryland ignites suit.

Daily Signal

A Maryland couple are suing their county school system, the school board, and their daughter’s high school principal over what they claim was “Islamic indoctrination and propaganda” in a world history class.

John Kevin Wood and his wife, Melissa, say they are Christians and were upset to learn their 16-year-old daughter brought home homework that characterized Muslims as having “stronger” faith than Christians.

Read: http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/29/christian-family-sues-over-islamic-indoctrination-homework/

Not just “stronger faith”, but students are made to recite the profession of faith. And we know how importantly significant that is to Muslims. Order the prayer rugs.

Prof of gun rant goes to Washington, as Obama’s guest

Check out this university professor in Nebraska who apparently is in love with the “F” bomb but hates guns with a similar passion. In case you wonder English is her subject.

Amanda-Gailey-Rant-Edited

The woman, Amanda Gailey, an English professor, is also the director of a group known as Nebraskans Against Gun Violence, according to her Facebook profile.

Source: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/01/14/fk-police-officers-fk-laws-professor-gets-personal-invite-to-meet-obama-after-this-rant-294264?hvid=2ZZYR4

This is why we need a license and background check on the first amendment. Yet this gets a personal invitation to the WH.

Obama is Sincerely Wrong

We were bombarded by images of Obama and his tears as he said every time I think of those kids in Newtown “it makes me mad.” Then he turns toward the camera to show him wiping his tears. Whatever you thought of his performance, he made it obvious so we couldn’t miss it. (I wondered how much practice it involved)

But such is the news cycle, it took on a life of it’s own. Surely that one will be enshrined in his library one day. Just in case people say he was emotionless or cold, they can have that starring people in the face.

What happened though in the coverage was a consensus formed quickly. Most people came along to say “well, he may have been sincere.” Of course libtards would say he was very sincere and moved.

That started me thinking. Is that the only point, whether he was sincere or not? So he may have been but he was sincerely wrong, too, if so. It’s as if we are supposed to judge his plans and ideas on whether he was sincere — or sincerely crying. Remember they made fun of Boehner for getting emotional. He just can’t control himself, he’s a wreck. But this was Obama so they were righteous tears. (can’t have too many of those Obama tears) And we are supposed to pay attention to those like punctuation marks.

His ideas on gun control are wrong, his motives for doing them are wrong(at least very highly suspect), his use of power is wrong, and his rationale was wrong. But they all want to focus on whether he was “sincere” or not. Sure he believes in his cause and reasons. But whether he is “sincere” or not about them does not change what they are. So the majority of people in media missed that point. Since when do we want someone creating law out of their emotions?

But that is what libs want (and Jeb Bush too). Make amnesty plans on emotions, do Obamacare on emotions. Then say, well no one can deny he was sincere. So no one can deny you were wrong because they cannot deny your emotions. I can’t help thinking that’s just how the WH planned it. We’re supposed to control our borders based on emotions. We’re supposed to run the economy on emotions, and taxes on tears. Policy, education, defense, environment, resources, justice, and even elections on emotions. But hey, they are “sincere” that’s all that matters.

RightRing | Bullright

P/C BS in PA

This story happens to be from a Pa college. It is a pretty good indicator when things are happening there, they are probably happening everywhere else. Probably with the same mindlessness.

WND

Take the small campus of Lebanon Valley College in Pennsylvania, please. Students there are demanding that administrators rename a building called “Lynch Memorial Hall” because of the racial overtones of the word “lynch,” which recalls the public murders of black men in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

Never mind that Lynch Memorial Hall is named after Clyde A. Lynch, president of the college from 1932 until his death in 1950.

Read http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/pc-madness-spreads/

So now anyone with that name is subject to a ban. Too bad the name Barrack Obama doesn’t carry that kind of stigma. They must not be aware of the name of our Attorney General or we’d have a major revolt on our hands.

Can anyone keep up with the perpetual offenses these people seem to see, or feel, everywhere? That would be hard since they are inventing them every day.

Oozing from the Universities

Another one popped up on the radar. A professor calls for murdering cops.

Drexel University Professor George Ciccariello Calls For Murdering A Police Officer…

Weasel Zippers

If that’s what they want to do to cops, then what should people do to professors like this? Have a couple more:

Oh a world without police sounds inviting, doesn’t it? He denies being a Guevera fan, and also tried lying about doing cops like old yellow. He claimed he didn’t know how the movie ended. Then plead that he was doing satire or something. I guess we just have no imagination or sense of humor.

Sounds like your typical liberal prof. He makes the honor roll.

It’s about the about, stupid

This post is about the about. Allow me to explain. We always talk about what the left or globalists are doing and reacting to it. Sometimes we get so busy with documenting what is going on, or the media does, that we don’t spend enough time on getting the bigger picture. By we, I mean the public at large. Those here know better.

A good explanation of this whole subject is a great article Pepp posted on her blog. It diagnoses the cause and effect of basically the treason going on. I recommend it. This is only one aspect of it. We’ve all been aggravated and frustrated with what is going on. We see stories or examples in schools, media and public but it deserves a closer look.

why photo: WHY!?? OneWord-Why.jpgIt all reminded me of something a teacher used to say that stuck with me: “it’s not enough to know what or how to do something, but you have to know why.” That coincides with the article explaining the media connection. It is tough to explain, but stay with me.

I believe, as that article suggested, people are just being fed the scripted play by play news. They report just enough of something to cover the surface. And we’ll know what they want us to. Yet we’re always lectured about context. The context of what is happening is important. A person can be informed but what does it really mean? So it is possible to see the play by play news without understanding the context of the whole picture. Media can only be blamed for part of it. The rest is on the people.

So to put it together as to what is happening in real time with what it means is incredibly important. “You have to know the why too” – or why it matters. It is possible to do things without knowing why in which case it turns you into just a machine. No one wants to be a robot. Even monotonous things have some significance in the greater picture. It’s the same way with current events. You can, as Tom Snyder said, watch the pictures and words fly through the air, but we must grasp the contextual meaning. I see that missing more and more with some people. It’s enough for them only to know what happened.

Seeing the Democrats’ whole platform turn to socialism disturbs us because we know what it means. Those that don’t, or don’t care, are the same mindset of Dems who just go along with it. We are in a pretty bad, dark place when people don’t see why socialism is such a bad thing? History won’t be kind to those who don’t bother to understand.

It’s hard enough even for conservatives on the right to avoid this syndrome by making a constant conscious effort to understand the why seeing the big picture. That is the central problem and theme. So even when we know what is going on, one may not understand the significance, or care to. One can see what happens but not know the agenda.

Democrats have played this “we know” game. They play dumb with the facts. They know enough. They’ve gone to the point of developing a faux reality. Then there is what they want to see or believe. It is convenient for them to accept what they want and discard the rest. Anything inconvenient to their faux reality is wrong. Thus. Democrats’ exuberance for socialism at the debate, or raising the debt limit — never mind what it means.

Context matters

People bought into ObamaCare and all the hype. After the fact, Johnathon Gruber came out to boast how Obamacare passed only thanks to “the stupidity of the American voter” and the lies they were told. Even then Dems didn’t want to believe it. So they carried all the talking points and became useful idiots. They attacked Gruber. Even when known it’s a lie they act as if it was not. Not just a lie, but everything was constructed on one big lie.

funny quote photo: Bye bye Sanity... SanityDeparted-NoForwardingAddress_zpsc1a699ab.jpgThere’s an alternative reality aspect just as there is with Obama. From Benghazi to the green agenda, to Obama’s daily narrative. They buy into it as willing dupes. Even when framed in the most naive way, one should not be able to deny the truth. Not so with Democrats. They can block out anything inconvenient or countering Obama’s narrative. Hillary comes out, ironically, to say “what difference at this point does it make?” That is how it works with the Left. What difference do the facts make? What difference does the truth make? What difference does reality make? What difference does the bigger-what it means-picture make? None. Whether it is they can’t see it or just don’t want to.

So we saw it in virtually every scandal. Fast and Furious, a manufactured scandal. It didn’t matter. In IRS, maliciously targeting people didn’t matter. Solyndra, nothing. Obama playing politics with issues and scandals, nada. Then when Obama came along saying not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS, they repeated it. They knew this much: if they encounter a problem with that statement, Obama and Dems would issue a new one to explain it. That much they depend on. The left only has to repeat the talking points. Obama’s election, reelection, now Hillary and her record of scandals — it doesn’t matter. They become useful idiots.

When Obama calls on Israel to stop the excessive use of force, and State makes an equivalence with Israel and Palestinians committing terrorism, facts and truth don’t matter. Does he not know Israel is under attack? Sure, how can anyone avoid knowing? But he denies it and implies an equivalency. Democrats fall in line and do the same. The Crusades were resurrected as an equivalency to barbaric ISIS terrorists in an Islamic caliphate. Yet Obama cannot admit their religious, Islamic basis for a caliphate.

Hahahahaha!!! photo 529972_3782902340029_937477600_n.jpgThe left claims to believe in the process until it goes against their faux reality. Then, the process like the Benghazi committee is corrupt What difference at this point does it make? Hillary could have been talking about her Democrat base. So they call it a political stunt. But the Benghazi scandal was caused by Obama playing politics. Now the excuse and defense is it is a political witch hunt.

The same thing applied to the Green Agenda when one by one the truth came out. Leftists went into denial pretending it wasn’t so. The same mentality applied to the IRS scandal. The about part, the bigger picture and meaning is ignored. They don’t know or don’t care, either one amounts to the same thing. First, the Left claims facts show there is no there there. Then, when shown, they simply deny it. It’s not just a case of drinking the Kool Aid, they deny the truth when faced with it. They are useful idiots that follow Obama’s lead and Democrat spinsters who never met a scandal they couldn’t spin their way out of. Whether is was Jonestown or under Obama, it has the same effect.

RightRing | Bullright

Conspiracies abound on WH

Well, so it is a fictional one. So what. With this guy in office about anything could happen. Ghouls in the White House wreaking havoc. Didn’t I see that movie already, I thought I did? Anyway it’s just a play, just entertainment, according to the creators.

Feds Spend $60,000 for Play About First Gay President Who Fights Zombies in WH Basement

Also an ‘adulterous First Gentleman’
BY: Elizabeth Harrington | Washington Free Beacon
October 9, 2015 2:35 pm

The National Endowment for the Arts gave $60,000 for the production of a play about the first openly gay president of the United States who has to fight zombies in the basement, and who has a cheating First Man.

Sen. Jeff Flake (R., Ariz.) highlighted the grant for “Zombie: The American” in his running series meant to expose wasteful spending.

“The year is 2063 and Thom Valentine, the first openly gay President of the United States, faces a host of problems,” reads the Woolley Mammoth Theater Company’s description of the play. “An imminent civil war, the threat of an African invasion, an adulterous First Gentleman, and zombies in the basement of the White House!”

“With his power, his marriage, and the nation’s well-being at stake, he must decide what he cares most about saving … and at what cost.”

More: http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-spend-60000-for-play-about-first-gay-president-who-fights-zombies-in-wh-basement/

Whoa, orgasmic plot line! Could happen, you say? What else could they throw in… werewolves, zombies and sex? How about lies, scandals, usurpation and treason? Right, fiction. If someone endowed me with about 60.000 dollars, I think I could bring a good fictional, entertaining plot to fruition. It might be a tad better and more practical. The script is macabre and also has some wild characters.