The Left Is Too Smart To Fail

 

 

Vote Intellectual

 

 

” Manufactured intelligence is the smarmy quality that oozes out of a New York Times column by Thomas Friedman, Maureen Dowd, Frank Bruni and the rest of the gang who tell you nothing meaningful while dazzling you with references to international locations, political events and pop culture, tying together absurdities into one synergistic web of nonsense that feels meaningful.

  We all know that George W. Bush was a moron. And we all know that Obama is a genius. We have been told by Valerie Jarrett, by his media lapdogs and even by the great man himself that he is just too smart to do his job. And it’s reasonable that a genius would be bored by the tedious tasks involved in running the most powerful nation on earth.

  But what is “smart” anyway? What makes Obama a genius? It’s not his IQ. It’s probably not his grades or we would have seen them already. It’s that like so many of the thought leaders and TED talkers, he makes his supporters feel smart. The perception of intelligence is really a reflection.

  Smart once used to be an unreachable quality. Einstein was proclaimed a genius, because it was said that no one understood his theories. Those were undemocratic times when it was assumed that the eggheads playing with the atom had to be a lot smarter than us or we were in big trouble.

  Intelligence has since been democratized. Smart has been redistributed. Anyone can get an A for effort. And the impulse of manufactured intelligence is not smart people, but people who make us feel smart. That is why Neil deGrasse Tyson, another obsessively self-promoting mediocrity like Carl Sagan, is now the new face of science. Sagan made science-illiterate liberals feel smart while pandering to their biases. Tyson does the same thing for the Twitter generation. 

  Self-esteem is the new intelligence. Obama’s intelligence was manufactured by pandering to the biases and tastes of his supporters. The more he shared their biases and tastes, the smarter he seemed to be and the smarter they felt by having so much in common with such a smart man.”

 

 

     Read the whole brilliant piece from Daniel Greenfield and read this companion piece from CainTV that further explains the farce that constitutes the meme of the “Elitists” who know better and thus require our unquestioned acquiescence …

 

 

” Take a look at the organization’s own case for why it is not elitist. Classic:

How do you decide who gets admitted to the live TED events?

  Our goal is a diverse community of amazing people from numerous fields. We also try to maintain a balance between longstanding TEDsters and invaluable newcomers. We are admitting around 1,500 people to TED, and a year ahead of each conference there is already demand from far more people than will fit. We give preference to people who: 

  • are curious, passionate and open-minded
  • have done something fascinating with their lives
  • show evidence of creativity, innovation, insight or brilliance
  • would be wonderful to sit next to at lunch and have a conversation with
  • are well placed to help make a difference in the world
  • have made a contribution to the TED community already

Translation: 

  You get to attend when you’re part of the elite crowd as defined by them. It’s not that different from trying to get into a fraternity or sorority, except that the kegger only lasts 18 minutes. The pretentiousness is pretty much the same.

  Why does any of this matter? Because it explains how people are capable of believing nonsense that simple facts demonstrate to be nonsense. Liberal policies have failed to solve poverty, failed to generate economic growth, failed to make us energy-independent and are now in the process of making a total fiasco of health care. Look at the real-world results and you can come to no other conclusion.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements