I get tired of being right all the time. Just once, I would like to get something wrong so I would know what it feels like. It might even make me more humble than I already am.
Did I call it or what? In my recent article about Sam Bankman-Fried where I explain the importance of the Ugly Girlfriend Rule, I stated that there were a number of factors that would have prevented me from having financial dealings with SBF or FTX. One such tipoff was his hyphenated name and that both his parents were Stanford Law Professors. With just this limited information, my over-sized brain deduced exactly what these people were like with lightning speed. I stated:
“Woke entitlement. Hubris. Insufferable know it alls. To sum up the creed to which they live their lives: “even though I don’t know how to change the oil in my car, and have never had a real job, I am smarter than everyone else and have the right to look down upon you and tell you how to live your life.”
Oh how prescient I am! Y’all could learn a lot from me. It seems that both his parents believed that “individual responsibility” was an outdated concept. They espoused the concept of “rationalism” and “utilitarianism.” The former being defined as all decisions are to be made based on known facts and predictable outcomes. Sounds reasonable, but what it really means is that no pangs of consciousness are to enter our decision making. You see, to the Godless Left, we are just blobs of cells and evolutionary experiences make us autotrons. We have no free will. We can’t help our decisions because we are soulless creatures. In the first chapter of C. S. Lewis’s masterpiece, Mere Christianity, he brilliantly explains the concept of natural law, or as he explains, the “law of right and wrong.” This law has been manifested to us by the Almighty, and Lewis cites a multitude of examples. As humans, we choose whether to obey this law or not, i.e. free will. The weight of sin is what we feel when we violate these laws. But Sam’s parents don’t buy the whole “free will thing.” It doesn’t exist, we can’t help doing the things we do, therefore individual personal responsibility is a notion that doesn’t and more importantly cannot exist. Mmmmm….., convenient. Do you see where this is going and how it fits cleanly into a Leftist agenda? Why if we can’t help what we do, then we have not only license, but are justified to do whatever we want, and the ends will always justify the means. Back when I was younger than Sam and did not have the benefit of elite law school ethics classes, I remember multiple occasions where my friend the bartender or waitress would try and give me something. I, like I am sure most of you, refused the freebie because it was not theirs to give away. Indeed, I was always a bit offended that they would think I would participate by accepting this gift that was not theirs to give. But somehow, Sam’s parents, law professors who teach ethics at Stanford can accept a $16.4 million beach house in the Bahamas knowing that they are defrauding shareholders and account holders. Did I mention that they teach ethics at Stanford?
Now, guess what utilitarianism means in the parlance of pointy-head Stanford professors? Outcomes are what’s important, not the principles or the intention of the actor. Thus, Mom Barbara Fried can defraud over one million account holders to give tens of millions of dollars of FTX money to extreme left wing causes and purposefully violate election laws. Did I mention she is a law professor at Stanford? You see, it is the outcome that’s important, not the people who got screwed. At Sam’s recent extradition hearing in the Bahamas, the so called “distinguished” law professors behaved like petulant little children, disrupting the proceedings with audible outbursts and unhinged gesticulations. The insufferable elitists could not believe that they were subject to age old conventions of human conduct ( see 8th Commandment).
Leftist academics are very clever and indeed manipulative in fabricating new gobbledygook words and phraseology out of whole cloth. See “intersectionality,” “micro-aggression,” “positionality,” etc., all nauseatingly meaningless. However, if you pay attention, all the these jumbled up polysyllabic words are simply cover to justify the core ideological principle of the Left. We can do what we want, because the ends justify the means. There are no constraints of consciousness. Raised in this environment, is there any wonder son Sam turned out as he did?
How is it that one of the country’s so called great law schools has professors that denigrate personal responsibility? How can anyone with an IQ over 80 not recognize that all human achievement, all wealth and all greatness is a direct result of human self-discipline and personal responsibility? As usual, I have the answers.
Think of intelligence as a loaf of bread divided into 24 slices. Some of those slices are what we tend to think of as true academic skills; mastery of semantics, reading comprehension, ability to “spit back” material, etc. But there are other markers of intelligence the prototypical academic may not have, such as good judgment, honesty, critical thinking, practical knowledge born of experience, good social skills, and the ability to decipher causation and the ripple effects of actions contemplated. Each of these skill sets is a slice making up the whole.
Not everyone can be brilliant, good looking and a world class athlete like myself. Most of us excel at one thing and not many things (except me of course). Academics are no exception. Indeed, it is not uncommon for those extraordinarily gifted in one area to have dysfunctional psychosis in another area. This is best illustrated in the Super Hot/Super Crazy theory of women depicted in this You Tube video ( before you call me a misogynist, every woman I know agrees with this video’s conclusion).
How to explain the insufferable haughtiness of the Bankman-Fried class? Think of the hubris and self-importance that is bound to grow in the Ivy Tower petri dish. One is constantly told how smart they are, but the obsequious sheep doing the praising live in the same bubble, and like those they praise, have very little knowledge of the practical world.
The reason people like Bankman and Fried advocate ideas that are totally adverse to all human experience and knowledge is they have to have a schtick in order to get wheelbarrows of money. Stanford has 16,937 students, but 18,138 faculty and staff. It is a giant self-protecting fiefdom paid for by taxpayers (grants, student loan guarantees), outrageous tuition and huge endowments. Since there is general wisdom on so many conventional issues, such as the importance of personal responsibility, the Bankman/Frieds of the world likely don’t have access to the massive amounts of money flowing to their institutions unless they create new theories of nonsense out of whole cloth to give themselves academic “street cred.”
Unfortunately, most of our national political class comes out of the elite university bubble. Like the ancient sirens who enticed sailors with their melodic wailing, these skilled lyricists can string together enticing and alluring sentences, but do their lyrics make sense? More often than not they are like John Lennon’s I Am The Walrus.
They often “sound” smart,
