Reference: WSJ
Many news outlets are reporting how the "tectonic" changes in demographics are altering the electorate.
They are right but they draw the wrong conclusions - which is good news for John Galt (yes, I spelled it "gault" - but you'll see why below).
This means that the major is now the least educated, least able to fend for themselves, and least able to think for themselves ever. Yes, I am sure many of the "older educated whites" especially, would have gone to college but I am quite certain they didn't pick up any of the critical thinking skills.
Now you might argue that this group is far more educated than your 1700's farmer in terms of schooling - and in a direct sense you'd be right. But in the 1700's you were a survivalist - if you didn't plan well you died. So though you might not understand the arithmetic elements of calculating a percentage you certainly knew when you had enough food for the winter and when not.
The "educated" created by today's colleges can perhaps with a calculator find a percentage but I am quite sure most have little clue what it means.
In the 1700's you had to farm, garden, hunt, and gather to eat. You had to use a gun, a bow and arrows, and a knife. You had to process animals for cooking. You hand to plant recurring crops year-to-year.
Again, today's "educated" know nothing of these skills.
(Here's a good example of today's "thinking"... honestly, where do these ideas come from?)
They barely can identify them.
So someone living in an "off-the-grid" environment will be totally foreign to these people. My guess is basically invisible.
Why?
First of all to farm, garden and hunt you must live outside of urban areas (sure urbanites have small "plot" gardens sometimes but its not the same as a real food production garden).
Unable to clearly identify growing crops, farm structures or activities, and having not been taught about any of this the exurban areas will simply look like foreign lands.
And since a trip there will be outside comfortable surroundings, i.e., out of town, there will be even less impetus to go there.
Gender and women's studies skills don't teach you how to put food on the table.
This lack of education skills mean that their "planning horizon" will be very narrow. Since most are told what to think they will simply "not see" what they are not told about.
A look at any modern US by-county election map, such as this one from (which flips from 2000 which is less blue to 2004 which is more blue)
shows that relative to the area of the country and relative to the areas of rural resources there is a vast area of the country that's completely outside the perception of these folks, i.e., red.
And often in a blue area the concentration within even a county of "blue" is small.
So you can count this map as showing the growing expanse of ignorance to some degree as well.
The bottom line here is that the growing ignorant expect to see "red" in a particular way: well dressed, expensive cars without Obama bumper stickers, fancy houses, big office buildings. They don't possess the ability to see past these things because they have not been taught to.
And given that the John Galt's of the world are not large in number there is little need for the liberal press to bother with them.
Now as the growing areas of ignorance expand it also leaves them ever more dependent on the red areas for resources: food, coal, oil, gas and water all come from red areas, i.e., the blue areas produce nothing but consumption and the red areas the things consumed.
Many news outlets are reporting how the "tectonic" changes in demographics are altering the electorate.
They are right but they draw the wrong conclusions - which is good news for John Galt (yes, I spelled it "gault" - but you'll see why below).
This means that the major is now the least educated, least able to fend for themselves, and least able to think for themselves ever. Yes, I am sure many of the "older educated whites" especially, would have gone to college but I am quite certain they didn't pick up any of the critical thinking skills.
Now you might argue that this group is far more educated than your 1700's farmer in terms of schooling - and in a direct sense you'd be right. But in the 1700's you were a survivalist - if you didn't plan well you died. So though you might not understand the arithmetic elements of calculating a percentage you certainly knew when you had enough food for the winter and when not.
The "educated" created by today's colleges can perhaps with a calculator find a percentage but I am quite sure most have little clue what it means.
In the 1700's you had to farm, garden, hunt, and gather to eat. You had to use a gun, a bow and arrows, and a knife. You had to process animals for cooking. You hand to plant recurring crops year-to-year.
Again, today's "educated" know nothing of these skills.
(Here's a good example of today's "thinking"... honestly, where do these ideas come from?)
They barely can identify them.
So someone living in an "off-the-grid" environment will be totally foreign to these people. My guess is basically invisible.
Why?
First of all to farm, garden and hunt you must live outside of urban areas (sure urbanites have small "plot" gardens sometimes but its not the same as a real food production garden).
Unable to clearly identify growing crops, farm structures or activities, and having not been taught about any of this the exurban areas will simply look like foreign lands.
And since a trip there will be outside comfortable surroundings, i.e., out of town, there will be even less impetus to go there.
Gender and women's studies skills don't teach you how to put food on the table.
This lack of education skills mean that their "planning horizon" will be very narrow. Since most are told what to think they will simply "not see" what they are not told about.
A look at any modern US by-county election map, such as this one from (which flips from 2000 which is less blue to 2004 which is more blue)
shows that relative to the area of the country and relative to the areas of rural resources there is a vast area of the country that's completely outside the perception of these folks, i.e., red.
And often in a blue area the concentration within even a county of "blue" is small.
So you can count this map as showing the growing expanse of ignorance to some degree as well.
The bottom line here is that the growing ignorant expect to see "red" in a particular way: well dressed, expensive cars without Obama bumper stickers, fancy houses, big office buildings. They don't possess the ability to see past these things because they have not been taught to.
And given that the John Galt's of the world are not large in number there is little need for the liberal press to bother with them.
Now as the growing areas of ignorance expand it also leaves them ever more dependent on the red areas for resources: food, coal, oil, gas and water all come from red areas, i.e., the blue areas produce nothing but consumption and the red areas the things consumed.
No comments:
Post a Comment