Universities in America have typically been dominated by a liberal
bias. Why is that? Because, working for a University is sort of
like working for the Government. There is reason for the expression,
those who can’t do – teach.
The mindset of employees at such insitutions is quite different
than one might think. We’re not going to name any names in this essay; this
isn’t about a person or individual University. It’s about the
intellectual class, really the only public intellectual class in America with
any respect; the Ivory Tower. If you haven’t heard this expression
before, it refers to the high brow raised lip attitude class of University
Professors and their associates. They have influence on every aspect of
society. They are like Adam Smith’s hidden hand – the subtle advisors who
are secretly directing politics, big business, technology, and culture.
Fortunately however, they don’t have any power, and don’t really control
society, like the Illuminati do. Their influence however should be noted;
they’ve influenced Presidents of the United States, Bankers, the Media (most
notably) and literally every aspect of human life in America. I mean, who
doesn’t trust and respect a University Professor? They know what they’re
doing – right?
a state of privileged seclusion or separation from the facts and
practicalities of the real world.
“the ivory tower of academia”
Now to be fair, not all University Professors are alike, we shant
‘profile’ them, as they profile individuals who have ideas they don’t like.
There’s do-ers out there, especially around Silicon Valley where many
have left their Ivory Tower positions to join startups or start them
themselves. But the Ivory Tower class remains; and it remained until the
Trump victory in November – a major influence on society and hallmark of
American culture. But all that’s been shattered. Their hidden
influence on the media, should be noted by readers of Zero Hedge and other
sites, people ‘in the know’. Because they shape public opinion, possibly
more than the CIA with all of it’s domestic mind-control operations.
Venues like “NPR” and even “The Simpsons” are
carefully crafted with leftist messages, agendas for open expansion of foreign
affairs, expansion of government, anti-male value systems, and other
‘progressive’ ideas are implanted like seeds, waiting to grow like weeds when
the next rain comes.
Here’s one example, how Academia helped the Media with their war
against Trump. Have you been hearing recently “Studies show
that..” .. ““
or some such nonsense. Who are they polling? They claim their
polls aren’t biased, they are scientific.
Sometimes it seems surprising that science functions at all. In
2005, medical science was shaken by a paper with the provocative title “Why most published research findings are false.” Written by John Ioannidis, a professor of medicine at Stanford
University, it didn’t actually show that any particular result was wrong.
Instead, it showed that the statistics of reported positive
findings was not consistent with how often one should expect to find them. As Ioannidis concluded more recently, “many published research findings are false or exaggerated, and an
estimated 85 percent of research resources are wasted.” It’s likely that
some researchers are consciously cherry-picking data to get their work
published. And some of the problems surely lie with journal publication
policies. But the problems of false findings often begin with researchers
unwittingly fooling themselves: they fall prey to cognitive biases, common
modes of thinking that lure us toward wrong but convenient or attractive
conclusions. “Seeing the reproducibility rates in psychology and other
empirical science, we can safely say that something is not working out the way
it should,” says Susann Fiedler, a behavioral economist at the Max Planck
Institute for Research on Collective Goods in Bonn, Germany. “Cognitive biases
might be one reason for that.” Psychologist
Brian Nosek of the University of Virginia says that the most common and
problematic bias in science is “motivated reasoning”: We interpret observations
to fit a particular idea. Psychologists have shown that “most of our reasoning
is in fact rationalization,” he says. In other words, we have already made the
decision about what to do or to think, and our “explanation” of our reasoning
is really a justification for doing what we wanted to do—or to believe—anyway.
Science is of course meant to be more objective and skeptical than everyday
thought—but how much is it, really? I
was aware of biases in humans at large, but when I first “learned” that they
also apply to scientists, I was somewhat amazed, even though it is so obvious. Whereas the falsification model of the
scientific method championed by philosopher Karl Popper posits that the
scientist looks for ways to test and falsify her theories—to ask “How am I
wrong?”—Nosek says that scientists usually ask instead “How am I right?” (or
equally, to ask “How are you wrong?”). When facts come up that suggest we
might, in fact, not be right after all, we are inclined to dismiss them as
irrelevant, if not indeed mistaken. The now infamous “cold fusion” episode in
the late 1980s, instigated by the electrochemists Martin Fleischmann and
Stanley Pons, was full of such ad hoc brush-offs. For example, when it was
pointed out to Fleischmann and Pons that their energy spectrum of the gamma
rays from their claimed fusion reaction had its spike at the wrong energy, they
simply moved it, muttering something ambiguous about calibration.
The implications for politics and the broader economy are huge.
Studies, focus groups, corporate funded research retreats, are one of the
Establishment’s, and the Ivory Tower’s biggest tools. The election was a
crack in the dam – it’s a proof that you can’t manipulate public opinion to fit
your own. But it’s far from the only crack, just the most obvious one. What’s
happening is a major system-wide Ivory Tower Psychosis, the most basic form of
mental illness – but it’s happening at a class level, as a group.
Emotionally injured leftists are fleeing to Canada, or promoting
secession for California (which is really a good idea by itself, who needs a
Federal government). Reality is crashing down on them, as it doesn’t fit
with ‘their reality’ – but ‘their reality’ was artificially created for
decades, depending on how you calculate.. For decades, Establishment leaders like
George Bush created their own reality with their power, and even called it the
The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the
reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe
that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.”
… “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he
continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own
reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll
act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s
how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be
left to just study what we do.”
The Ivory Tower Bubble has popped; and we’re seeing the casualties
on a daily basis. It’s certainly not the last establishment-class that
we’re going to see crack from the pressure of reality.
learn how the Elite manipulate the news which in turn manipulates markets,
checkout Splitting Pennies – Understanding Forex for only $6.11 on Amazon, also
now available on your iPhone via Smashwords.