Okay, I admit I didn't read it all, but I can see what you're talking about. Guy balances idealism and practicality in a way I haven't seen before.

I'm also impressed at how well he talks on such a variety of topics. Usually people who are really persuasive speakers are like that because they specialize. This guy is what I aspire to be; someone who makes connections across the board and can see how everything influences everything else.

No kiddin? Even better, then!

I think I saw that on StumbleUpon last night.

Any chance you'll be coming to my meet?

The flashing rainbow bordered magenta gradient bars are kind of eyebleedy though. ^.^;;

Ow...

He certainly seems well spoken. I've considered doing this sort of thing myself before.

I've also considered making an animated essay series similar to Extra Credits with essential references linked, that explains situations like the global economic crisis, or other complicated systems.


It's a bit bothersome to consider, in relation to his Great Awful Truths speaking about Leo Strauss and his students, that he's effectively saying that a small and dedicated group of university students are able to change the political direction of an entire nation, yet by measuring the results this suggests that people opposed to this idea are not so dedicated.

Maybe it's just that their dedication doesn't include ruthlessness, because that's something they're trying to prevent? After all, anybody could kill one, perhaps all of those guys, if they were THAT opposed, but if they WERE that opposed then they're probably against capital punishment.

Pacifists survive because some non-pacifists value pacifists and will kill for their sakes, even if the pacifists don't want them to. That was something I realized a long time ago when I considered sociological evolution. White knights, you might call them. They're annoying as hell in a dungeon scene but in the real world they're an essential part of the softer side of society.



I can't say I entirely disagree with the whole "Keeping the power out of the hands of the Great Unwashed Masses" but it's a controversial thing I'm not decided on. Er, that was the 'Bad Guy' Leo Strauss position, this essay refers to it as the Neocons position as well. I suppose I'd rather elevate the masses then keep them under control, but either way, suggesting that there ARE masses and that I'm not included in them makes me instantly into... Well, people might think of me as a Nazi right there. So, whether I'm stamping them with my boot or trying to elevate them, the very imposition that they are beneath me to be elevated villainizes me. Of course, as I said, I'm not really sure about this controversial idea, so hopefully people won't villainize me in their minds for considering 'dark-sided' things. Of course, it doesn't help that people always assume they're the masses when I actually consider them on or close to my 'level'... The 'masses' don't talk or really care much about shit like this, so if you're still reading, you're probably not the masses, no matter how normal you think you are.

Short version: People are often offended if you try and help them, because it suggests they are weak and needy and you are strong and superior.


Ahh, this is a good bit, the fourth great truth he adds himself, that the quality of a person's capability is dependant on circumstances. While I do generally think of myself as intellectually superior to the majority, I'm also aware that this is largely the result of my situation. I often internally refer to any achievement as Luck, because no matter how hard you work on something, if you didn't have the foundation of your life, you wouldn't have the physical, emotional, and intellectual capacity to perform that work. That's one of the traditional Canadian values also, and part of why we have our nationalized health care and education. You guys have nationalized education too, but not nearly as nationalized as ours is. My college professors liked to point out that student tuition didn't even amount to enough to pay all the building's janitors. Mostly it's paid for by the government.


There is an interesting bit where he suggests that the U.S. needs to turn away from being a Plutocracy and return to its roots as a Meritocracy. I'm usually uncomfortable with the idea of a meritocracy because in a strict meritocracy, the unfortunate are often left behind. If you have a medical situation, your merit could crumble and prevent you from recovering. Yet in this situation, he is reccomending it at the same time as a society where education and opportunities are guaranteed for all people, and likely medical support as well. Because everyone would be guaranteed the opportunity to improve themselves, it becomes less of an issue of capability and more an issue of desire, which I can accept. The only problem, which is a key problem especially for someone like me, is that everyone has a history that is more and more visible. Even if you're ready, willing and able, someone who didn't spend five years in a fugue is likely to claim an opportunity. Well, I guess that's why in my society we have disability job supports programs...



In general I prefer more academic thought on these matters, while this fellow is more revolutionary and interested in acting out change. I think that's great for him, I'm just stricken by apathy and depression. In any regard I didn't expect to read all of those essays when I saw you link them. I'm used to my friends linking to hacks and kooks and having to roll my eyes a lot, so reading the essays of someone who has a very similar perspective to my own is rather refreshing. The primary complaints I have, and I may send this person an email to offer constructive criticism, are the lack of references and that godawful eye-burning bar at the top of the article. That bar nearly scared me off from reading the essay even without the stress of politics. The references are a little more serious. Saying things like "Studies show" without giving a proper reference is bad. A link would be better. Heck, a link to a news post about studies wouldn't be that bad, if you can't link the specific studies. It would give his essays a lot more weight if he had a proper bibliography and references page.


Er, sorry, it looks like my comment is bigger than your post and all the comments that were written when I started writing my comment. Well, I'm posting it anyways.

I appreciate all the thought you put into this, but I don't think I have the mental ability to give it the reply it deserves. Sorry! -__-

Yeah I'm awesome like that. Incidentally I've never deleted any notes on FA so all our discussions over the last few years and any bit of private info we've shared is apparently now public or something because FA got hacked.

wha intelligent wha

Little heads have invaded your sentence.

yes and and these speeches and talks frm him are s intelligent wha

Oh, I was going to say: "Yes, I know his art, that's a really talented caricaturist/cartoonist!" :)

LOL! Standard reply does not always work. ;)

Mmm just wrong Bidstrup, this name first makes me think of Herluf Bidstrup... who really is what I wrote above.

I clicked the second link first and was like, "Wait, why would Alex like something from Leo Strauss?" Then I realized it was about what a piece of work the man was.

Yeah. I mostly agree with the author of the website. What he said is factual as far as I know and his logic is correct. I do question if he has some kind of paranoia though. You have to take things you've read with a grain of salt.

I did get kinda paranoid reading his stuff, especially about the possible rise of fascism in America. Though it's largely because he backs up his ideas with facts and reason. I've heard a few times that the Tea Party may be a far greater threat than anyone thinks.

And the idea of America turning into a police state... My Grandpa was watching Cops today and they showed an old guy sitting in his truck, trying to stop a guy with a tow truck from taking it away. Two cops asked him to get out, he said no, and so they maced him and slammed him into the concrete ground. One of them even put his knee on the old man's neck. And these were young cops; early twenties. As they carried him to the police car, with half of his face inflamed red from the mace and him nearly in tears, his story emerged. The cops were called out by the tow truck guy, then found out the old guy had a warrant for failing to pay a fine, due to a charge of possession or discharging a weapon (they didn't say which). The old guy said he was refusing to pay it in protest, because his court-appointed lawyer fucked things up at his trial. The truck incident happened because he'd parked in a handicapped spot and the tow truck came. Turns out he actually IS handicapped, but forgot to put his sign up in the window. When he showed them he had every right to park in that space, the tow tr guy said that once the vehicle was hooked up, they were towing it no matter what, and he'd have to pay them to release his truck. The worst part? At the very end of the segment, one of the policemen talked about what a sad situation the old man's in, and adds that he'll also be charged with "resisting" arrest, but then says it's all the old man's fault because he made the situation worse.

I was so furious and heartbroken I felt like going crazy. I wanted kill those two cops. To brutalize a disabled old man, to protect a business over a consumer, and then to show absolutely no responsibility or remorse for their actions? This was nothing but bullying. These cops were thugs; no different than a street gang. And this was on television. The cops let people see this. Because they knew people would do nothing. Because they knew the people would say, 'Well, it's sad, but they're just enforcing the law!'

This is the kind of thing that makes me paranoid, because America could easily become a fascist police state, and people would sit on their asses and do nothing. They'd probably cheer it.

For the Tea Party, people thinking that political violence is new to this country should read up on the civil rights movement.

For those cops, people thinking this behavior is new should look to the south in the 30's. People murdered black people openly and let their photo's be taken as they did it. There was no penalty for them.

Furthermore, it was common for most of the nation to be ambivalent. It's only when the evil is made crystal clear and widely shown that people act.

Oh, I'm not at all suggesting that this is extraordinary behavior. But with the Tea Party, I think there's a great deal of underestimating going on. We tend to think of them as loonies, but they've managed to get their people into congress. The side of rationality doesn't have anywhere near the fervor they do. Plus there's the fact that they're absolutely a third party, but manage to get votes by pretending to be Republicans when it suits them. I hope they'll eventually embarrass themselves and fall apart, but it seems very possible they could keep slowly gaining power until they have enough to genuinely fuck us up.

To this, I have no argument.

Plus there's the fact that Sarah Palin's been campaigning this whole time and hardly anyone's recognizing it for what it is. Palin is a truly stupid person, but she's also incredibly wily. Virtually all her intelligence is devoted to playing the political game and clawing her way towards greater and greater positions of power. So while other candidates run the same boring campaigns they always do, Sarah Palin puts out bestselling books, and has a TV show with her family, and sends out Tweets. Name recognition can do wonders when you have no underlying substance. (Disney's been coasting on it for decades!)