Skip to main content

The Price of Intellectualism

There’s something remarkably impressive about the notional, theoretical compulsions which drive people to accept that other people’s money, the product of their labor, even a not-so-modest fraction of their own, ought to finance a near-infinite space of institutions, of near-infinite cost, which academically purport to advance select idealistic notions of the famed, mislabeled, and ill-defined public good while pragmatically and historically failing to ever sustainably achieve these ends, only to expend exorbitant sums of wealth in the pursuit of this great masquerade and other interests completely remote from those of the published and implied official mission. It is, of course, easy to accept the costs, as they are collectivized and distributed so as to appear negligible; thus, the costs are largely inapparent and invisible to the layman whose personal interests stretch only so far as his visible profile and reputation, his own pocketbook and his theoretical convictions and dispositions. The public sphere, as far as he is concerned, operates not from any regard to finite capacity but rather from the otherwise limitless abstractions of demand spawning from heartwarming intellectualism and executive control, the popular synthesis of which is enabled through the illusion of democratic, that is unit-based instead of merit-based, participation. 

The pitfall of unit-based calculus over merit-based process is the former’s insensitivity to retained, personalized risk and its circumvention of palpable, replicable exposure to the circumstances and costs attending the whimsical ambitions punctuated by the moment’s swipe of a pen. Within the institutions of a democratic republic, there exists this unfounded vestige of virtue which stands only to further the expectation that one's ignorance ought to be just a powerful as one's knowledge. As evidenced by the largesse of debt spanning the United States, the thresholds of one’s wishful demands often outstrip the capacity of his budget. This is only exacerbated in that space which seems ever-prepared to finance itself into oblivion.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Kaepernick Craze: Exposing the Nation's Fools One Conversation at a Time

The Kaeparnick craze and other viral movements haven't merely pressured people into becoming simpler caricatures of their prior selves, but they have manifestly exposed people for how foolish and uninformed they've been all along. 



In his final year in the NFL, Kaepernick ranked 17th in passer rating and 34th the year before that. 

He played through an entire season in only two of his six years in the league, and his best full-season performance ranks far outside of the NFL's top-250 single-season passing performances in the league's history. 

For reference, the oft-criticized Tony Romo posted a career passer rating of 97.1, as compared to Kaepernick's 88.9. 

Romo's passer rating dipped below 90 for only one season of the eleven seasons he played, whereas Kaepernick failed to eclipse the 90 mark on three of his six seasons, a full 50 percent of his time in the NFL. 

In fact, Kaepernick accomplished this feat only once if we are to discard those other two seasons in …

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century. 

Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties? 

The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery. 

It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession. 

It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860.

It was a war that would blur the lines and jurisdictions between sovereign states, that would indiscriminately sacrifice the founding principles etched …

Institutional Racism: The Sasquatch of Political Folklore

A great confusion has arisen out of the clamor of political debate, one which presupposes that any dismissal of the merits of “institutional racism” somehow equates to one’s rejection of personal struggle. 

Whereas the struggle of any individual remains always and everywhere unique and wholly personal, his common bond of complexion with others who have struggled serves inadequately as the basis for any argument which regards this commonality as the cause, or as the reason, for that veritable struggle. 

To condemn the unidentifiable and nebulous abstraction, then, by castigating an unnamed institution which persists beyond our specific capacity to recognize its power, serves only to absolve individuals of their personal responsibility, to shift blame and culpability to a specter which exists only by the creative designs of our imaginations, which exists as the scapegoat for all outcomes popularly maligned as undesirable. 

This unactionable practice, then, swiftly and categorically excuses…