As media becomes increasingly viewed among the masses, you should notice “intellectuals” seem to appear more and more out of the blue. The first question you should ask is, “Why are these intellectuals broadcasted on mass media?” The second being, “Who are they and why should I care to hear what they have to say?”
“Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.” – Marcus Aurelius
Before I get into the meat of this post, I would like to go into the background of the current situation with our nation’s media in order for you to see how it discredits itself. In 2012, 90% of all media (this includes television, news, radio, and movies) was owned by only 6 corporations and not much has changed since then. This consolidation of power gives you the illusion of choice. Also, during Barack Obama’s term, there was an out of the ordinary amount of familial ties between his presidential cabinet and media executives:
- David Rhodes: President of CBS News, brother of Ben Rhodes who is the Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications.
- Claire Shipman: Senior National Correspondent for ABC, Married to Jay Carney, former White House Press Secretary.
- Ben Sherwood: Co-Chairman of Disney Media Networks and President of Disney-ABC, former President of ABC News, brother of Elizabeth Sherwood who is the U.S. Deputy Security of Energy.
- Virginia Moseley: Vice President of CNN, married to Thomas Nides who is Deputy Security of State for Management and Resources.
This is not to get you to suspect conspiracy, but to get you to question if what you hear on television is really as unbiased as they’d like you to believe. Surely you have noticed the recent surplus of intellectuals who idealize values of the left. Coincidence? Not likely. I am not saying that the left in its entirety is bad, the moderates have many good ideals. At the moment, however, these intellectuals are able to go on television and spout opinions as truth with no opposition from the other side whatsoever. These intellectuals are given so much freedom that they are able to shriek about social issues that don’t even exist. The media has a monopoly on intellectuals by only showing the masses the intellectuals that they approve of or fit their agenda. Now, for the remainder of this post I will be using only one very well-known “intellectual” to provide an example. I will use a fictitious name, John, to describe him.
5. They Justify Behavior of Those Morally Wrong
John has gone so far as to defend a convicted terrorist that threw a grenade killing a soldier and planted roadside bombs by saying he was just “defending his village.” This young terrorist that was protecting his village plead guilty to the five charges against him, including murder in the violation of the laws of war and providing support to terrorism.
We cannot downplay and justify immoral behavior. If people we esteem as intellectuals continue to do this we can expect virtue to be abolished from daily life. With every immoral deed justified by someone of merit, no one will feel the need to take responsibility for their actions. They will only claim victimhood. We are already starting to see this mentality progress among a large percentage of our youth, but that will be a post for another time.
4. They Base Their Position on Emotion, Not Fact
Intellectual: noun. An extremely rational person; a person who relies on intellect rather than on emotions or feelings.
Although I have not seen John discredit himself with this point, many pseudo-intellectuals do and it is very easy to observe. The reason John may not do this is that he does have a lot of credit behind his name and has been a public dissenter for quite a while. However, with the spewing of new intellectuals, many are not as experienced in the use of logos and realize the only way to get people to entertain their ideas is through the use of ethos. They will pull on the audience’s heartstrings instead of providing factual evidence to back any of their claims.
3. They Frequently Contradict Themselves
John has constantly ridiculed the U.S. for not protecting free speech (which it has ever since the Bill of Rights amendments) meanwhile praising Vietnam fervently. What is hypocritical of praising Vietnam while saying one cannot practice free speech in the U.S.? In 2009, Le Cong Dinh was arrested and charged in Vietnam for the capital crime of subversion and many human right’s groups alleged that this was because of his support for freedom of speech. In 2012, three bloggers in Vietnam were jailed for 4, 10, and 12 years for “having made propaganda against the state.”
He has also preached about class warfare using “us” vs “them.” When John refers to “them” he is talking about the top 10 percent. We have heard this divide and conquer tactic from all corners of the media. We should question, are these people really in it for “us.” This man that says he is with “us” has a net worth of $2 million, nice and snug in the top five percent. With all of these contradictions you start to realize these “intellectuals” are just blowing hot air.
2. They Provide no Real Solutions but Propose Overly Exaggerated Problems
John has constantly fear mongered the populace about the state of our current slow environmental demise. Yes, landfills, littering, and nuclear disasters are decaying our environment, land and sea, but he is more interested in CO2 emissions and global warming. John constantly tells the woes of global warming but you will only ever hear him speak of environmental disasters like Fukushima once. Not a peep about other human activities that constantly plague our environment.
So, is global warming real? If you take the definition of the words separately yes and it has been warming and cooling for about 420,000 years. Pseudo-intellectuals would like you to believe that you should panic about CO2 emissions. John and other pseudo-intellectuals will have you believe that Earth is the hottest it has ever been. Let me show you how they use incomprehensive data to push their exaggerated problems.
The graph above or something similar has most likely been what you have seen in regards to climate change. This is very misleading as it only shows you data from 1900 even though we know the Earth’s average temp and CO2 emissions from 420,000 years ago by looking at ice cores in Antarctica. Below is a graph with much more data. How do they compare? You can never base something as factual when you only use 0.025% of the data you have available.
Seeing the comprehensive data, we can now see that CO2 emissions are not the most pressing issue when it comes to our environment. But let’s give John the benefit of the doubt. He sees this as a problem, so what has he done besides whine? Absolutely nothing. Which is surprising since, as I said earlier, he has the wealth and resources to do something about it. He hasn’t even done so much as invest in Tesla Motors stock, an electric car company. If you look at John’s investment portfolio you will actually see that he is making those that make this “problem” worse richer. When confronted about it he exclaimed, “Should I live in a cabin in Montana?” This goes to show how far they will go to find a problem but how little they will do to actually find a solution.
With superior intellect, one would expect the responsibility of solving social, environmental, or political issues. However, they seem to only ever uncover problems. It could be that they are not trying to solve problems or it could be that they simply are not capable of finding solutions. Worse yet, perhaps they know that the problem they have found is fabricated and never had the intention of solving anything in the first place. In that case, are they really an intellectual?
1. They Have Monetary Ties to the Government
Pseudo-intellectuals, no matter how much of a dissenter they may sound like, will never reveal information that will greatly harm their monetary provider. They are smarter than to bite the hand that feeds them. This is why you should always be skeptical of a public dissenter who has a history of obtaining money from governmental entities.
John has said that the Pentagon is “one of the most evil institutions in world history.” He has not gone into much detail about this claim like you would expect of an intellectual. Why? because he has been paid millions by the Department of Defense. Also, John’s first books would not be in existence if it were not for grants from the U.S. Army, the Air Force, and the Office of Naval Research. Can you really blame John for not actually revealing the evils of the Pentagon?
You must always proceed with caution when listening to an intellectual that you suspect has ties to the government or mainstream media. These intellectuals are not here for the betterment of society, they are here to distract you and push an unidentified agenda supported by the government and those at the top of the food chain. Sometimes these intellectuals truly believe they are doing the right thing, they have just been misled by their education, media, parents, etc. For this reason, do not look down upon them and vilify them but try to steer them in the right direction by providing a sound argument. It is up to us to spread knowledge and truth.