Thread: GOP and the Rise of Anti-Knowledge

From the beginning of his presidency, Donald Trump has remained determinedly anti-intellectual. Taken by itself, such a misconceived stance is hardly unprecedented in American politics. What is worrisome is that despite steadily mounting evidence of far-reaching presidential incapacity, millions of fellow citizens remain unwilling to challenge such a willful posture of anti-reason.

Trump's core idea of American foreign policy has literally no connection to informed diplomacy or to legal obligation. Refusing, once again, to be tempered by sagacity, his obsequious preference for the approval of Russian President Vladimir Putin over the data-based conclusions of his own intelligence community reveal a particularly serious form of presidential dereliction.

To the main point, this starkly egregious preference for popularity has recently exposed an all-too-willing degradation of America's national security.

Nor have matters been helped any by the president's conspicuous inability to hold his own among other national leaders, or even to substitute some palpably coherent species of thought for his always ready-to-tweet amalgam of suffocating banalities. At the conclusion of their G-20 meeting, Trump and Putin agreed to work together on enhancing U.S. and Russian cybersecurity. On its face, of course, any proposed American agreement for cooperation on cyberdefense with precisely the same adversary responsible for recent cyberattacks on the United States is more than bitterly ironic.

It is either preposterous, or very darkly suspicious. Credo quia absurdum. "I believe because it is absurd."

For Trump, let us be candid: Intellectual impoverishment has now been elevated to high art. Without any subtlety, it is being worn boastfully by this accidental president – its utterly unapologetic champion – as an enviable badge of honor.

For Trump, observations on personal meetings or planned policies have generally been restricted to such vacant verbal spasms as "amazing," "fantastic," "incredible" and "beautiful." Apropos of these severely limiting forms of description, the legendary wall, we were told (remember "the wall," the physical barrier that would make America great again, and that Mexico was plainly anxious to fund?) will have "a beautiful door."

Does anyone even know what this means? Shouldn't someone – anyone – have already asked this elementary question?

There is much more. Assorted matters of international law, many of them overlapping or intersecting, must also be noted. Faced with a president whose very highest notion of correct reasoning is theargumentum ad baculum– that is, an overtly aggressive and presumptively illegitimate reliance upon personal defamation, shallow threats and persistent intimidation – the American people should already understand the consequences of such a cultivated disregard for international law. These results will prove irremediably harmful for the United States.

International law, Trump has yet to understand or observe, is an integral part of the law of the United States. In essence, this vital incorporation is codified at Article 6 of the Constitution(the "Supremacy Clause"), and also at several corresponding U.S. Supreme Court decisions (principally, the Paquete Habana, 1900).

In the fashioning of national policies, evidence of intellect should never be cause for embarrassment. Always, at least in still-civilized nations, learning deserves its proper place. Significantly, the very tangible nexus between national and international law can be extrapolated from certain basic writings of the Founding Fathers, who were, for the most part, capable thinkers themselves, and who plainly read difficult and enduring writings of jurists and political philosophers.

Does anyone seriously believe that Trump ever reads anything of importance, let alone write? Can anyone attest that he ever reads anything at all? Could he conceivably compose, in an entire lifetime, what Thomas Jefferson (without any benefit of electricity, air conditioning or computers) was able to produce on a single hot weekend in July? Has anyone ever perused a single paragraph of legible compositional thought by Donald Trump?

Virtually every American already knows the answer to these questions, even his most refractory supporters, but only a tiny fraction are apt to find this response perplexing or disturbing. The reason is simple, but also structural. Significantly, the Trump presidency's obvious disdain for intellect did not arise in any sort of historical or demographic vacuum. It was made possible, instead, by an underlying and longstanding cultural loathing of serious education.

There is more. The anti-reason problem in America is not just about a stubbornly obsessive national preoccupation with consumption and conformance. Karl Jaspers, the important 20th-century German philosopher who had tried to understand and explain an unintelligible buffoon's curious rise to power in 1933, observed correctly in his 1952 "Reason and Anti-Reason in Our Time": "There is something inside all of us that yearns not for reason, but for mystery – not for penetrating clear thought, but for the whisperings of the irrational." In part, at least, this indecipherable "something" now permits a manifestly incapable and compromised American president to create incalculable harms.

We Americans are not likely to recognize, change or remove this "something" in time to suitably protect the country from this president's myriad derelictions. But we ought still try to understand that Trump himself is not the real "pathology." This markedly incoherent presidency is merely the most visible and familiar symptom of a far more widespread and deeply systemic disorder.

The true underlying disease here is a corrosive social and educational structure that openly frowns upon and suppresses any residual hint of American independent thought. Within this potentially lethal structure, the individual citizen now counts for nothing, absolutely nothing, literally nothing at all. When viewed against the once hopeful background of America's founding philosophies – especially natural rights and natural law – the irony of this crude suppression rapidly becomes overwhelming.

"The crowd," observed the Danish philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard, "is untruth." Accordingly, Trump's undaunted minions always insist upon chanting in chorus. For those who have had even a minimal acquaintance with modern history, the hideously dark tenor of any such ritualistic chanting is sorely familiar. Above all, it expresses the readily calculable hallmark of a frightened and lonely people, an anxious population that absolutely craves membership in the "crowd."

Ultimately, this irrepressible craving points directly toward a diminished national future without redemption. Hungrily, it speeds up the final drowning of American individualism in a squalidly acrid sea of so-called groupthink.

We must now inquire plaintively, audibly, and no longer sotto voce: "Is this still an excusable American presidency, or just a badly choreographed dress rehearsal for 'Lord of the Flies'?" Before answering, it is surely worth remembering that mortality is our indisputably common lot, and that drowning is always a difficult way to die.

Trump's remaining supporters (who still number in the several millions) yearn not only for the warmth of "belonging," but also for reassuringly simplistic explanations. The reasons behind this abundantly strong preference for simplification are unambiguous. Complexity, after all, is difficult and daunting; always, it demands correspondingly painstaking thought.

Why bother to think, when it is much easier to numb our brains with a steady barrage of readily available and grotesquely satisfying cheap entertainments, distractions that may typically include mountains of drugs, or vast oceans of alcohol.

The Founding Fathers did not generally believe in democracy. Most had agreed with Alexander Hamilton's trenchant observation that "the people are a great beast." Jefferson, arguably the most democratic of the Founders, had cheerlessly regarded "the people" as "refuse" from which a small number of gifted individuals might be culled once each year.

It has been the principal irony of the 2016 presidential election that "the people" chose that candidate who said proudly, "I love the poorly educated," and who very inelegantly now seeks to preside over an obligingly docile American "crowd." Trump did not actually win the popular vote, of course, but the Electoral College system – however much it's expected workings might have been subverted from abroad – was a creative democratic invention of the Founders. To be sure, the last thing "we the people" needed last year was to elect a president whose promised policies would intentionally confirm the Founding Fathers' expressly worst fears about an American "mass."

In the matter of President Donald Trump, the pertinent ironies continue to build inauspiciously, incrementally, one upon the other. Alas, such ironies are now a fixed impediment to American national progress (let alone to American "greatness"); fittingly, it is our reciprocal obligation to stand firmly for science and truth, and against political wizardry or more doctrinal anti-reason. The best current example of this responsibility concerns the Trump administration's de facto and de jure war on essential environmental protections, and on all corollary rules of civilizational improvement. Another is its unseemly disregard for human rights, in the United States and everywhere else.

Credo quia absurdum. "I believe because it is absurd." The alternative to acknowledging this unequivocal obligation – especially at a perilous moment when the American president may have to make certain momentous eleventh-hour decisions concerning nuclear weapons and nuclear war – is infinitely intolerable.

It is simply too abhorrent to be taken seriously.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/op-ed...son-in-america

For decades now, the conservative movement has sought to keep its core voters confined to a carefully curated media ecosystem — one where the Democratic Party is a Marxist-Islamist organization, America is the world’s most over-taxed nation, illegal immigrants bear sole responsibility for the stagnation of middle-class wages (and/or all violent crime), and there’s never been a better time to buy gold coins.

In many respects, this project has been a great boon to the Republican Party. Research suggests that Fox News’ existence significantly boosts the GOP’s vote-share (and might have even swung the 2004 election to George W. Bush). And, in addition to helping Republicans win elections, the right-wing echo-chamber has given the party a freer hand once in power. More tax cuts for the wealthy, less social insurance for the working class, and near-total impunity for polluters and predatory lenders is not a popular platform, even with Republican voters. But by supplying conservatives with “alternative facts” about such policies; stoking their cultural resentments and racialized fears; and branding all non-conservative media as biased or liberal (or, in today’s parlance, “fake news”) the GOP has succeeded in retaining the loyalty of its grassroots, while betraying their stated preferences on a wide range of economic issues.

But cultivating mass delusion has also had downsides for the GOP — or, at least, for its Establishment. During the Obama years, the tail began wagging the dog — the party’s propaganda outlets went from selling the leadership’s policies to dictating them. Alarmist lies about an imminent debt crisis didn’t just provide momentum to Paul Ryan’s austerity agenda — they nearly forced a debt default that the Speaker (along with all of corporate America) had no interest in. And then, of course, Fox News lost control of its own audience, and the network’s “birther” correspondent became the GOP’s 2016 standard-bearer.
Now, Republican consultants are concerned that the combination of their voters’ insulation from reality — and Donald Trump’s fragile ego — could cost the party control of the House.

And their fear is quite rational. The party that controls the White House almost always has a tough time mobilizing its base in midterm elections. When voters see their team in power everyday, they feel secure; and thus, complacent; and thus, less obligated to drive to their polling places after work. GOP strategists hope to combat this perennial problem by turning their party’s weakness into a strength: With polls predicting a “blue wave” this November, Republicans hope to instill an energizing panic in their base over the terrifying prospect of Speaker Pelosi.

But the president’s narcissism compels him to undermine this gambit. To acknowledge that Democrats are poised for a landslide would be to acknowledge that the American people do not overwhelmingly approve of his job performance. Therefore, Trump has assured his voters that all those reports about a “blue wave” are fake news, and that Republicans are certain to keep Congress in November. Fox News has dutifully echoed this message, and the GOP base has fully absorbed it.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018...-own-good.html

A stunning example of GOP logic. I'm sure if they made bible reading mandatory he'd be feeding them haute cuisine.

Another GOP Wanker.

WEST MEMPHIS, Ark. — One Arkansas lawmaker wants to get more students reading by putting money on the line—specifically, their lunch money.


Rep. Alan Clark (R-Lonsdale) proposed a bill that would cut lunch funding in schools that struggle with reading, and he is working to get others to support the idea.

Clark's proposed bill, if passed, would reduce a district’s “national school lunch funding” if they’re struggling in the reading department over a period of time.

"I don't understand, and hopefully that bill won't get passed in Arkansas," Laquita Chalmers, a parent in West Memphis, said.

Chalmers has four children, and one has recently had some trouble reading. Even though she knows what Clark is aiming to help fix, she doesn't understand how cutting lunch funds could help literacy struggles in the state.

"I don't see any connection in that," she said.

The National School Lunch program pours into schools and is different than the National School Lunch Act program, which provides free and low-cost lunch to students. Still, the parents we talked to said it's a stretch to touch lunch funding at all.

"This is most definitely not the option," Marilyn Canady, a grandmother to five, said.

She understands the bill is supposed to act as an incentive to push those schools to improve, but she still doesn't agree with how it could impact students.

"That's not right," Canady said. "It’s just not fair."

She wants state leaders to rethink it and maybe consider another way to get schools fired up about reading.

Clark told KTHV in Arkansas that the bill does not punish a district if it is stuck at a certain level, only if it decreases.

Late Wednesday afternoon Clark explained the reasoning behind the proposed bill:

"I am not new to controversy. You don’t get anything important done without confrontation and taking a few knocks. Seeing that Arkansas children can read is worth a few bruises. When we were at 32 percent reading proficiency I was told my bills were too controversial and we couldn’t do any better than we were. Now we are at 41 percent so I am thankful I didn’t listen. But that still means that almost 60 percent of our kids are graduating and can’t do the most basic thing we send them to school for well: Read. My bill would require that a school district improve their reading proficiency by .0001 every 2 years. In most businesses I would be laughed at for suggesting such a small goal. But sadly many educators act like I have asked them to storm the beaches at Normandy. Improve .0001 every 2 years. Basically, the standard is just don’t go backwards.
It appears I have much more faith in our schools than many of our educators do.
State Senator
Alan Clark"

https://wtkr.com/2019/02/21/arkansas...eading-skills/

now it is obvious where the shithouse light gets his information from

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

"That's not right," Canady said. "It’s just not fair."

Why is the state or federal government responsible for feeding your feral illiterate bastards? Is it the responsibility of the parents or the government to keep your ugly kids? Governments should feed NOBODY but prisoners -- and then only pigs assholes and hardtack.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

I've noticed for a while that there's a distinct wave of anti-intellectualism, not just confined to the U.S. either.

It's almost as though being able to articulate a coherent and logical thought has become something to attack in its own right.

Jeremy Corbyn fits the bill nicely, got 2 E passes at A level then flunked out of N London Polytechnic, hardly ever read a book, allegedly. Supports terrorists and communism and hates Jews and Israel defending itself. His slightly demented shadow home secretary cannot add up numbers or construct a simple argument, got a degree pass by getting white friends to do the work for her, allegedly. Got the job by sucking Corbyns cock in the 1970's.

Originally Posted by britanicus

Got the job by sucking Corbyns cock in the 1970's.

who saw that ? any video ? is it on pornhub ?

Originally Posted by britanicus

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

I've noticed for a while that there's a distinct wave of anti-intellectualism, not just confined to the U.S. either.

It's almost as though being able to articulate a coherent and logical thought has become something to attack in its own right.

Jeremy Corbyn fits the bill nicely, got 2 E passes at A level then flunked out of N London Polytechnic, hardly ever read a book, allegedly. Supports terrorists and communism and hates Jews and Israel defending itself. His slightly demented shadow home secretary cannot add up numbers or construct a simple argument, got a degree pass by getting white friends to do the work for her, allegedly. Got the job by sucking Corbyns cock in the 1970's.

That actually has nothing to do with what I posted.

Great spech by a great President

Try a lure instead of dynamite.

Counterintuitive as it might seem the results are actually better.

Originally Posted by Texpat

Why is the state or federal government responsible for feeding your feral illiterate bastards? Is it the responsibility of the parents or the government to keep your ugly kids? Governments should feed NOBODY but prisoners -- and then only pigs assholes and hardtack.

Wouldn't you rather educate those feral illiterate bastards so that they can get good jobs and pay taxes?

You know, so they don't turn out to be just a waste of oxygen like yourself?

Originally Posted by britanicus

hates Jews

You must be cool with that though, no xanax?

Originally Posted by Texpat

No objection to teaching them, but why does the state have to feed them, too? That is not the purpose of government. It seems that providing the slackjawed parents with food stamps and housing and public transportation isn't enough. Now they expect the schools to shovel the free food down the gaping maws of their slapheaded sucklings. Next the helpless liberal nitwits will be demanding the state send a Nanny by, before school, to clothe the dumb bastards and wipe the drool from their faces.

"It's just not fair!"

Yeah, they should have abortions rather than bring a child into the world that they can't feed.



Oh.

Originally Posted by Texpat

"It's just not fair!"

takes a few years after birth until they are able to become cannon fodder and corn syrup is cheap when you subsidise the fat white country boys to grow it

^Loved him. RIP...

GOP Rep. Paul Gosar says climate change isn't real because of photosynthesis


At a Capitol Hill press conference Wednesday opposing the Green New Deal, Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) was asked by a young person what he is doing to address climate change. He responded:


“Unfortunately you haven’t been taught about photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is where plants take carbon dioxide to produce oxygen. That’s a problem in today’s world. We haven’t taught kids exactly what’s going on in America and in science.”


Reality check, per Axios Science Editor Andrew Freedman: The issue isn’t photosynthesis. We’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air each year than plants, trees and oceans can suck out. That is what’s causing rising global temperatures. CO2 levels are the highest they’ve been in at least 800,000 years, and the driving reason is human activity.

https://www.axios.com/paul-gosar-cli...2fb1fd393.html