Guest Post: Has America Been Crippled By Intellectual Idiots?

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Brandon Smith from Alt-Market

Has America Been Crippled By Intellectual Idiots?

As far back as I can remember, the overarching message of the American social atmosphere has been one of idolization.  Oh to one day join the ranks of the “professional class”; that 5% to 10% of our culture which enjoys unparalleled respect and an assumed position of knowledge, so much so that they are rarely even required to qualify themselves to anyone besides their own compatriots.  The goal of every person I knew during my formative years with a desire to succeed was to one day hold in their hands an official looking embossed document announcing their ascension to the ranks of the intellectually anointed.  I was never so keen on the idea…        

The dangers of academic deification are numerous.  Those who dominate the educational language of the times determine the moral compass (or lack of compass) of the curriculum.  They control who is accepted and who is rejected, not by measure of intelligence or skill, but by their willingness to conform to the establishment ideal.  They construct a kind of automaton class, which has been taught not to learn independently, but to parrot propaganda without question.  Simultaneously, those of us who do not “make the grade” are relegated to the role of obliged worshippers; accepting the claims of the professional class as gospel regardless of how incorrect they happen to be.  To put it simply; the whole thing is disgustingly inbred. 

Elitism has always lent itself to morbid forms of educational molestation.  This is nothing new, especially within their own limited circles.  However, to have such perversions of logic and reason gutting the minds of entire generations across endless stretches of our country without any counterbalance is a far more heinous state of affairs in the long run.  Ultimately, this highway can only lead to a deterioration of our future, and the death of reason itself.

Recently, I attended a discussion panel on Constitutionalism at a university in Helena, the capital of Montana, and admittedly, was not expecting much insight.  (At the moment of arrival I noticed the buildings had been plastered with Kony 2012 posters.  The campus seemed to be completely unaware that the YouTube film is a George Soros funded ‘Wag the Dog’ farce.)  Even in a fiercely independent region such as the Northern Rockies, the collectivist hardline reigns supreme on most college campuses.  Sadly, very few actual students attended the discussion, and the audience was predominantly made up of local political players, retired legislators, and faculty.  Surprisingly, Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers was invited to participate in the discussion, obviously to add at least some semblance of balance or “debate” to an otherwise one-sided affair.  The mix was like oil and water.

The overall tone was weighted with legal drudgery.  Many of the speakers were focused intently on secondary details and banal explorations into individual Constitutional cases without any regard for the bigger picture.  When confronted with questions on the indefinite detainment provisions of the NDAA, government surveillance, or executive ordered assassinations of U.S. citizens, the panelists responded with lukewarm apathy.  The solutions we discuss regularly within the Liberty Movement, such as state nullification based on the 10th Amendment, assertions of local political control through Constitutional Sheriffs, and even civil disobedience, were treated with indignant responses and general confusion.

A consistent theme arose from the academics present, trying to run damage control on Rhodes’ points on federal encroachment and ultimate tyranny.  Their position?  Defiance is unacceptable (or at least, not politically correct…).  Americans have NO recourse against a centralized government.  Not through their state and local representatives, and not through concerted confrontation.  In fact, to even suggest that states act on their own accord without permission is an outlandish idea.  In the end, the only outlet for the public is….to vote.

No one seemed to be able to address the fact that both major parties supported the exact same unconstitutional policies, thus making national level elections an act of pure futility. The point was brushed aside…

Sickly shades of socialism hung heavy in the room.  One speaker even suggested that the states could not possibly survive financially without centralized aid.  He was apparently too ignorant to understand that the federal government itself is bankrupt, incapable of producing true savings, and printing fiat Ad Nauseum just to stay afloat.  Every 30 seconds I heard a statement that made me cringe.                    

Universities are today’s centers of connection.  They are one of the last vestiges of American tribalism and community in an age of self isolation and artificial technological cultism.  Adults do not meet face to face much anymore to share knowledge, or discuss the troubles of the day.  The academic world provides such opportunity, but at a terrible price.  To connect with the world, students must comply.  To be taken seriously, they must adopt, consciously or unconsciously, the robes of the state.  They must abandon the passions of rebellion and become indifferent to the truth.  All actions and ideas must be embraced by the group, or cast aside.  They must live a life of dependency, breeding a culture of fear, for that which others to keep for us, they can easily take away.   

How could anyone possibly sustain themselves on a diet of congealing fantasy, and personal inadequacy?  The intellectual life bears other fruits as well.  Where it lacks in substance, it makes up for in ego, proving that being educated is not necessarily the same as being intelligent.  The following is a list of common character traits visible in the average intellectual idiot, a breed that poisons the American well, and is quickly eroding away any chance of Constitutional revival…

1)  An Obsession With The Appearance Of Objectivity

I say “appearance” of objectivity because the intellectual idiot does indeed take sides on a regular basis, and the side he takes invariably benefits the establishment.  He would never admit to this, though, because he believes it gives him more credibility to at least be thought of as standing outside an issue looking in.  It is not uncommon to find Intellectual Idiots being contrary regardless of your view, even if they would normally agree.  They often try to approach debate with the façade of detachment, as if they do not care one way or the other.  The costume soon wears away, however, when they are faced with an opponent that is not impressed with their educational status.  I have seen lawyers, doctors, engineers, and even politicians devolve into sniveling toddlers when they are derailed by an argument beyond their ability to tap-dance around.  Their middle of the road persona evaporates, and the real person erupts like an ugly pustule… 

2)  Clings To Labels And Status

Like anyone else, Intellectual Idiots cradle a philosophy they believe in, or are told to believe in.  But unlike most of us, they see themselves above the scrutiny of those who do not pursue a similar academic path (i.e. only a lawyer should be allowed to debate another lawyer).  The reality is, anyone is privy to the information a proponent of the professional class knows.  With the advent of the internet, it is easier than ever to educate one’s self on multiple subjects without aid if that person has the determination to do so.  Reputation is not earned by shelling out tens of thousands of dollars for university approval.  A Masters Degree or Ph.D is not a get out of logic free card.  In fact, because the Intellectual Idiot often uses his position to avoid true opposition, he tends to become lazy and even more incapable of defending his methodologies when the time comes. 

3)  Predominantly Collectivist

The curriculum of the average college is partly to blame for this, and because the Intellectual Idiot is so desperate for acceptance and accolades, they can’t help but fall into the trap.  Collectivism is marked by a distinct attachment to the state as the source of life.  All social and all individual crises thus become a matter of government purview.  Individual self reliance is a terrifying notion to them.  In fact, many Intellectual Idiots have lived on the dole since they were born, moving from their family’s money, to state money through grants and loans.  It is not unheard of for these people to become career students, avoiding work for years, and then moving on to a bureaucratic job when the free money runs out.  They cannot fathom why anyone would rebel against the system, because they are a part of a select group which has always benefited from it.  How could the federal government be bad when it has paid their way for half of their existence?

4)  Disconnection From Reality

The Intellectual Idiot is not necessarily afraid to acknowledge that the system is troubled.  For them, the federal government is not infallible, even if their favorite party is in office, but, it IS unapproachable.  Academics revel in the disastrous nature of government.  They see political and social catastrophe as a sort of mental gameplay.  An exercise in theoretical structures.  For them, America is not a country built on an enduring set of principles, but a petri dish; an ongoing anthropological experiment that they can watch through a microscope at their leisure.  The idea that the disasters they view from the safety of their sub-cultural bubble might one day come to haunt them is a distant one. 

5)  Abhors Those Who Step Out Of Bounds

Have you ever entertained a view that went against the grain of the mainstream only to be met with accusations of extremism and sneers befitting a leper?  You were probably talking to an intellectual idiot.  The rules, no matter how distasteful or meaningless, hold special power for these people.  They make the system what it is, and when the system is your great provider, you might lean towards defending it, even in the wake of oligarchy and abuse.   This penchant for overt structure for the sake of centralization is especially damaging to our Constitutional rights, because alternative solutions are never treated as viable.  During the panel discussion in Helena, pro-collectivists consistently tried to redirect the conversation away from the 10th Amendment as a method to counter federal overreach.  They did this by bringing up abuses of the states, including slavery and segregation, as if that somehow negated the nightmare of the NDAA. 

Ironically, they saw the use of violence by the federal government to push states to recognize civil liberties as perfectly practical.  But, the use of force by states to protect the same civil liberties from Washington D.C.?  That would be lunacy…

6)  Believes Academia To Be Free From Bias

The Intellectual Idiot assimilates every bit of information he is given at the university level without a second look.  He simply assumes it is all true, and if something appears mismatched, it is only because he does not yet fully grasp it.  Very rarely will he go beyond designated source materials to get a different opinion.  This habit is the root of his idiocy.  Being that most universities draw from the same exact materials, and peer reviewed papers are usually tested by those with the exact same underlying educational backgrounds, I can’t see how it is possible for much variety of thought to form.  Whether intentional or not, severe bias cannot be avoided in this kind of environment without considerable strength of heart.

The shock that these people express when faced with Liberty Movement philosophies is quite real.  They have spent the very focus of their future life within the confines of a miniscule spectrum of truth; like seeing technicolor for the first time after a long limited existence in black and white.   

It’s hard to say when it all really began, but for decades, Americans have been progressively tuned like pliable radio antenna to the song of the elitist intellectual.  Many of us want to be him.  Others want to follow him, straight to oblivion if need be, as long as they don’t have to blaze their own trail.  This is not to say all professionals are a danger to the Republic.  Some are fantastic proponents of freedom.  But, without a drastic reversal in current educational trends, I see little hope of Constitutional guardians becoming a mainstay of U.S. campuses in the near term.

With mashed potato minds fresh from the psychological Cuisinart of public schools, the next generation in line to inherit the most fantastically schizophrenic nation in history will be like candy for social engineers; utterly unequipped for the mission.  Strangely, the drastic financial slide the elites have also triggered might hold the key to our salvation.  The next batch of would be statist citizens may find themselves so poor that higher educational brainwashing will be impossible to afford, giving them precious time to think for themselves, and come to their own conclusions.   As they say, in all things, there is a silver lining…

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
MillionDollarBonus_'s picture

Join the campaign to make America carbon-free by 2013. Scientists have proven that by varying our 0.28% contribution to global green house gas emissions we will have an immense and statistically certain impact on the environment. Also since there are no other significant factors (known or unknown) affecting the climate, no further analysis is required. We need to act NOW before it's too late. Support the Carbon-Free Revolution. Make America CARBON-FREE by 2013!!!

Flakmeister's picture

You can do better than this.... 

Whattsamatter, did one of the Billy Goats Gruff Gore you?

MillionDollarBonus_'s picture

There has been a notable silence on this issue in the press over the last six months or so, and I find this extremely worrying. Climate Change is a serious issue, and it has withstood the criticisms of many scientists and right wing interests. Therefore this is the time to ACT and not to question. But it seems my words are falling on increasingly deaf ears, which is both saddening and disturbing.

Now: don't get me wrong. I welcome constructive criticisms such as,

"maybe we should impose a cap on carbon emissions instead of mandating carbon offsets"


"isn't it better that the government subsidises biofuels rather than food crops".

But criticisms like "water vapour is the most powerful and abundant greenhouse gas to which humans contribute only 0.01%" etc. have become wearisome and are simply not worth responding to.

Flakmeister's picture

Sad thing is that there is nary an asshat here that could coherently make the argument that you are wrong about AGW....

GetZeeGold's picture



Saul Alinsky ridicule tactic......well played.


“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

“…you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments.”- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

GetZeeGold's picture



49 Former NASA Scientists Send A Letter Disputing Climate Change

Read more:


Flakmeister's picture

I'll quote from the Chief NASA Scientists reply

"NASA sponsors research into many areas of cutting-edge scientific inquiry, including the relationship between carbon dioxide and climate. As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue 'claims' about research findings. We support open scientific inquiry and discussion.

"Our Earth science programs provide many unique space-based observations and research capabilities to the scientific community to inform investigations into climate change, and many NASA scientists are actively involved in these investigations, bringing their expertise to bear on the interpretation of this information. We encourage our scientists to subject these results and interpretations to scrutiny by the scientific community through the peer-review process. After these studies have met the appropriate standards of scientific peer-review, we strongly encourage scientists to communicate these results to the public.

"If the authors of this letter disagree with specific scientific conclusions made public by NASA scientists, we encourage them to join the debate in the scientific literature or public forums rather than restrict any discourse."

Translation: You are welcome to provide research to the contrary...

From SKS:

Based on the job titles listed in the letter signatures, by my count they include 23 administrators, 8 astronauts, 7 engineers, 5 technicians, and 4 scientists/mathematicians of one sort or another (none of those sorts having the slightest relation to climate science).  Amongst the signatories and their 1,000 years of combined professional experience, that appears to include a grand total of zero hours of climate research experience, and zero peer-reviewed climate science papers.  You can review the signatories for yourself here.

BTW, Harrrison Schmitt is on the Heartland Inst. Board of Directors... do you see a potential issue with that?


GetZeeGold's picture



Saul Alinsky ridicule tactic......keep pounding.


Flakmeister's picture

Ok, would you like to discuss the science? Can you come up with 2 paragraphs that show why the science is wrong? We can start from there...


Flakmeister's picture

Well GZG... its 35 minutes later... and I don't see anything. I take this as an admission that you are (wisely) tucking your tail between your legs and admitting you are out of your league... It's that or you are enrolling in a U of Phoenix Climate Science course...

MayIMommaDogFace2theBananaPatch's picture

4 scientists/mathematicians of one sort or another (none of those sorts having the slightest relation to climate science)

Flak you apparently do NOT understand what makes up a "Climate Science" education.  Your assertion does not even make sense.


Flakmeister's picture

While climate science does rely on many disciplines, some are much less relevant than others... For example, rocket science is not high on the list...

Now, if these guys are the real deal as is implied by the letter, they should be able to bang off a few peer-reviewed works that would put to rest the issue of AGW, n'est ce pas?

TBT or not TBT's picture

We live near the end of an interglacial period, based on the recent climate pattern of this planet.   If a bit more CO2 in the air will stave that off, that is a GOOD THING for humanity.

The problem with the CO2 warming theory is that the principal greenhouse gas warming our planet, the absorbtion spectrum of which almost entirely overlaps that of CO2, is a ubiquitous gas that we'll never see the end of called dihydrogen monoxide.   The planet is 70% covered on average a few miles  deep in the liquid form of that deadly stuff.    From the very beginning of the CO2 warming hypothesis was this fraud.  The other was of course Gore's treatment of CO2 rises CAUSING warming, whereas what we can determine from ice cores and other proxies is that CO2 rises AFTER temperature rises, historically and prehistorically.    This new situation where humans burn lots of fossil carbon is a new, interesting twist, but it is absurd to suppose CO2 adds much greenhouse effect on a planet covered with a much more powerful greenhouse gas that almost entirely overlaps the effect of CO2.    Also, there are massive feedback loops that come back to dampen temperature increases, such as oh, weather, and ocean currents.    The whole alarmism thing is attempt to collect money and have something "important" and "moral" to spout about.

Flakmeister's picture

Is H20 vapor forcing or a feedback? Please be consistent with the Clausius-Clapeyron relations...


You may want to check this out regarding the C02 lag:

I'll forgive you for not being aware, it came out very recently...


Please reconcile your statments regarding radiative forcing with this

(you know, the data)


How does weather and currents dampen feedbacks? Sounds like you are bullshitting to me...

John_Coltrane's picture

Questions to ask yourself:

1)Is gas solubility in water (oceans) lower at higher T? 

2)Are clouds the major influence on radiation absorbance and emission and thus the average global T?

I'l answer these for you in case you've never boiled a pot of water.

1)Less, therefore, higher T causes lower CO2 solubility in its major reservoir-the oceans.  Not surprisingly, as TBT points out throughout all of geological history, T increases first then CO2 elevates with a temporal delay due to ocean outgassing.  However, the cause of T increasing is often mysterious but likely related to total solar flux which is influenced by the angle of tilt of the earth's rotational axis, changes in its orbit and solar activity.

2)Yes, H2O is the major green house gas as it determines cloud formation.  More clouds in the day = global cooling, more at night = less radiative loss.   This effect is never calculated in any climate model as its a highly non-linear system with multiple feedback loops.  (i.e. likee the stock market) and too many unknown parameters.

You seem to be under the layman's illusion that scientific consensus means anything regarding a model or theory (see the emergence of quantum mechanics at the turn of this century-where the entire physics community was concinced of the validity of Newtonian mechanics)  Models/theories can never be proved-only falsified.  Correlation is not causation.

Now, you may actually start to understand the scientific method.  Its quite useful.  Start using it to figure things out for yourself and always be skeptical. 



Clay Hill's picture

Rather than posting two paragraphs, I will ask two basic questions.

Would you please describe in layman's terms how gaseous emissions from volcanic, and other natural sources are weighted against man-made ones in calculating the total greenhouse effect?

Are we sure that we can accurately account for the contribution of gaseous emissions from deep sea fumeroles without actually mapping their locations, and measuring their emissioms ?

Genuine curiosity on my part.

Flakmeister's picture

If you estimate the amount of C02 produced from burning fossil fuels you see that it is greater than the increase in C02 readings....  How can you explain an non-anthropogenic net source of C02 when the anthropogenic sources saturate the observed increase? We also know that ~40% of the C02 produced is absorbed by the oceans...

There is also the C13/C12 ratio.  Plants have a lower ratio than the atmosphere and the ratio tracks the increase in C02 atmosphere readings...

Actually volcanos are a great test of climate models, the cooling effect from the S02 aerosols lower the temperature thereby decreasing the GHE from water vapor...(

For more see here


MayIMommaDogFace2theBananaPatch's picture

There is also the C13/C12 ratio.  Plants have a lower ratio than the atmosphere and the ratio tracks the increase in C02 atmosphere readings...

How much understanding does one need about dynamical systems to realize that this is post-normal science?

Flakmeister's picture

Oh... please elaborate... I am all ears...


Clay Hill's picture

Thank you for the links.

If I am understanding your response correctly, the answer is that total human contributions are tiny, though they (may) be capable of skewing the balance on what must still be considered a relatively long time scale.
Somewhere on the order of several human lifetimes, as opposed to millenia, if production rates remain constant. In other words, ... Maybe.

As for the calculation of volcanic contributions, it would seem to me that the jury is still out, and without a sufficient improvement in measuring techniques, may remain so. Let's call that another... Maybe.

Flakmeister's picture

I think you may have misunderstood the implications...think of a bath tub with a leak and a running faucet... eventually it overflow. Now when you look at the GHE, that small excess of C02 is very potent.... 

I came across this wonderful laymans description

that should clarify some of your questions...

Edit: This one is good but a tad more technical


Here is some discussion and a link to a paper on volcanos

Read the comments, but to make a long story short, volcanos are 1% of human emissions of C02

Precious's picture

Hey dickwad.  I'll give you 4.5 billion reasons.  That's the approximate age of the Earth before you were here.  And we can add to that another 4.5 billion reasons.  That's how many years the Earth will likely exist after your sorry ass is gone.  

So the answer for pompous pints like you goes as follows: The Earth doesn't need your fucking help.  It got along fine before you came around.  It will get along fine after you're gone.  

Save your shallow evangelism for your Mother.  She's probably the only person who actually gives a shit about your sorry existence.

fuu's picture

"none of those sorts having the slightest relation to climate science"

But, but, but climate science is taught in schools...

Flakmeister's picture

Not when they went to school....

Here, I have a proposal, I have to run out for about 15 minutes, why don't you come up with 2 succint ideologically free  paragraphs about why AGW is wrong... When I get back we can discuss... kay?

fuu's picture

Nope, that's your schtick.

Flakmeister's picture

Yep... its my schtick... data and science and rationalism...unlike yours, which is ad hominems, ideology and misrepresentation....

BTW, I don't have to ridicule guys like you, you do such a good job on your own...

Precious's picture

I think you have to be 13+ to have an account in ZH.

fuu's picture

Hahah. Swing and a miss.

Flakmeister's picture

Still nothing resembling a scientific argument from you...


riphowardkatz's picture

and 80% of scientists agree, they took a vote you know.

TBT or not TBT's picture


of PhDs!   

From schools dependent on government aid and beholden to big government intervention and social engineering!

We're so impressed!

MayIMommaDogFace2theBananaPatch's picture

Your dismissal of mathematicians, physicists and any other individual that has not had the formal "Climate Science" education makes you the POSTER CHILD OF THE ABOVE ARTICLE.

Climate Science in all of its forms relies upon mathematics and physics (and chemistry and even biology perhaps -- depending on what you're focused on). 

The fundamental sciences are the tools of Climate Science -- you seem to think that it is the other way around.

This snide implication that Climatogists have some special or unique grasp of the fundamental sciences only impresses the emotional weak (and people who invested a lot of money in getting a university degree in Climate Science).

Flakmeister's picture

Where did I dismiss those disciplines??

So 4 guys that had real scientific training signed the letter... Wow...

Like I said, if these letter signers really want to change the concensus, go out and publish, don't write letters trying to muzzle institutions.... 

ClassicalLib17's picture

Mr. Plakmeister , perhaps this website will enlighten you on the topic of AGW or whatever you people currently call it.

Flakmeister's picture

Naw... I prefer this one where I keep track of peer reviewed publications...

tarsubil's picture

Surely as a scientist you know of the bias towards positive results. No journal wants to publish that your hypothesis is not true. Any scientist with any experience knows this. And then you get to face real objective editors that are all devoted to the popular dogma. Then you get the most prestigious scientists in the field actively attempting to create a blacklist of everyone that would question them. Oh yeah! Just publish! No problem. It is no problem if you go along with the herd. You know all of this so your argument is deceptive.

Flakmeister's picture

Wow... what a cunning riposte...

Buzz Fuzzel's picture

You would know wouldn't you.  Alinsky would be proud of your efforts.

fuu's picture

If you look very closely you will see I never disagreed with you in this thread. You are a believer with a hair trigger. I find it more entertaining to just poke you and watch you foam, froth, and flail.

"Sad thing is that there is nary an asshat here that could coherently make the argument that you are wrong about AGW...."


Flakmeister's picture

If the ass fits, why don't you wear it?


fuu's picture

Well it's a little too warm for a hat today.

Flakmeister's picture

I think you just made my point... :-)

fuu's picture

Not really. I do help you contradict yourself though.

"BTW, I don't have to ridicule guys like you, you do such a good job on your own..."

Flakmeister's picture

Apparently, you don't have much of a sense of humor....

riphowardkatz's picture

data and science and rationalism

should be

data and science and rationalizing why I should control your life for a couple of degrees of temp ....maybe...possibly...could be 

Flakmeister's picture

I really don't give a fuck about controlling your life or any one elses....

Instead of denying AGW, why not just admit, "I am selfish and it is my right to do what ever I want regardless of any long term consequence."

It would be more intellectually honest.

I just hope that you can explain why you felt the way you do to your grandchildren....