[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

The term “pseudo-intellectual” was popularized in the 1960s, just to describe the self-described, self-appointed “intellectuals” of the period, who were just as naive and lacking both a real education and common sense.

Granted, studying Latin and the “Harvard Classics” are a good way to round out an education, for some. But in no way do they comprise a core study. For the most part, they are trivial or archaic. Good bathroom reading matter, for cocktail party ego chatter, but of little use in the real world.

And thus, the attraction of socialism and other paper enterprises to academia. On paper, it appears comprehensible and logical; but its adherents are both blissfully unaware of its inherent failures in the real world, and in denial that they could have failed on their own merits.

It is a “silly mythos”. Discovering a fantasy novel that seems so real, tangible, and desirable, that its readers forget it is nonsense, sucked out of the thumb of an entertaining writer. They forever try to define the world in terms of their philosophy.

Anti-knowledge, in that to its believers, it is infallible. Little different from those who believe all knowledge is contained within the Koran, and all else is extraneous and corrupt.

In truth, such people are themselves “anti-intellectuals”. They only tolerate what reinforces their prejudices. They are unlearned bigots.

[jazusamo]

You’re exactly right about the “pseudo-intellectuals” from the 60’s from what I remember. My friends and relatives were working people and to us they only embarrassed themselves.

[rmlew]

I'd be happy to forward you the curriculum for Columbia College's Core. When you have finished it, get back to me.
There is nothing trivial or archaic about the touchstone writings of Western Civilization. Your comment is a mirror of that taken by the deconstructionist and multicultural left. Sadly, whereas they know and hate the West, you are proud of your ignorance.

[Old Professer]

Some tails are just too long to be ignored.

[RipSawyer]

And thus, the attraction of socialism and other paper enterprises to academia. On paper, it appears comprehensible and logical;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Only because it is obscured by “intellectual” language, when stripped to its core and expressed in no nonsense terms a third grader will instantly reject socialism and see exactly why it cannot work.
But then I must remember that I have my own special problem, all my life it has seemed that the things that are supposed to be very complex often seem as simple as one, two, three to me while other things that are supposed to be simple and self-evident quite often leave me baffled.