I read your article, and it seems like the primary thesis is that large institutions (primarily universities) act as a sheltering mechanism for leftist radicals who promote violent social change.
I’m not assuming you wrote the article, but I want to ask to try to gain insight. If this is true, why is it that business institutions, that have a lot to lose from social upheavals, require 4-year degrees for professional positions, from these leftist institutions?
I read THAT article, and found that it neither affirms, nor refutes the claim that universities shelter violent revolutionaries.
The thing it says about education is that it’s harder to get into a college now than before. That is a change, but it can occur with or without also acting as a retirement home for “the shock troops” that was mentioned in GPs article.
That's a fun article but also so ridiculously, obviously biased that it's difficult to take the details seriously. The author really does the subject a disservice because of that, although at least the are being open about their bias.Because it really is an interesting part of US history. And although I'm not that old and I already knew about most of it, minus some interesting details, like supporting the murder of Sharon Tate, I would imagine he is right when he points out that a lot of people do not remember or know of this history. Especially considering how dangerous people think our society is nowadays.
I had never heard anything about the Puerto Rican separatists though. That's some crazy. Thanks a bunch for the link! The supposed analysis at the end is absurd though and can be effectively skipped. The author does not understand anything about the institutions that hold power now, along with a whole lot else.
Arbitrary knees in exponentially-growing metrics lined up with the introduction of fiat currency due to carefully chosen Y-axis scales by someone who makes money when you invest in Bitcoin.
(Some of those graphs -- especially the first one -- probably have interesting stories behind them, which may or may not relate to fiat currency. But all we get from that page is a Hayek quote structured to suggest he too would love Bitcoin so...)
Hadn't read this before, thank you. Mind blown. It's the missing articulation of why some of this stuff today is so serious.
The first half reads like it would be an amazing epic series, if it were written from the perspective of the complex anti-hero protagonists. I knew about Tupac's family link, and one of my high school teachers was among the white feminist women who were a part of the black liberation movement and told us stories about it, but to write about it as a history of before hiphop, before gangs, and before blacksploitation, after civil rights, this shit was real.
The second half about the mechanisms of right/left conflict is spot on, and describes undercurrents today very well.
I've always been fascinated by the depiction of the 70's in media: an era of excess and debauchery. the linked article (thanks!) reinforces the notion "truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; truth isn't." Each rabbit hole feels more bewildering than the former.
I’m not assuming you wrote the article, but I want to ask to try to gain insight. If this is true, why is it that business institutions, that have a lot to lose from social upheavals, require 4-year degrees for professional positions, from these leftist institutions?