Oh No, No, No…We Can’t Be Doing This

In 1975, Ronald Reagan famously remarked, “The problem with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t true.” The truth of that statement couldn’t be more apparent than it is today.

The advent of social media and interactive internet platforms has validated Reagan’s statement and proved that this truth is even more prevalent than we suspected.

At every turn—on any given day and on any given subject, erroneously advanced inaccuracies and untruths can be found because someone “liked,” forwarded, and/or posted a meme, statement, or opinion on something without actually taking the time to validate the meme or statement or read the provided content.

This intellectual cancer isn’t just an attribute of “our liberal friends.” It exists just as prevalently on the ideological Right, and instances of this are getting more frequent.

Recently, I had an old acquaintance from high school—by all accounts, a solid guy; thoughtful and an engaged member of the community, completely out himself as someone who finds it more important to opine on what he thinks he knows rather than what he actually would have known if he had taken the time to read what he was opining on.

He is not alone. I have been guilty of this at one time or another, although today I make a conscious effort never to do it. We will read a headline and maybe the first paragraph of an article, and because we believe we understand the gist of what the author is saying, we feel confident that the opinion we’re about to craft for the consumption of others is valid; and based on a full knowledge of the subject at hand. Yet it’s not because we didn’t read the full article, white paper, research, or book or listen to the full podcast or presentation.

This is a dangerous practice because when a not-fully-informed opinion is advanced—and then re-advanced, again and again, and liked and quoted—it takes on the appearance of fully researched truth, and a non-truth co-opts the appearance of legitimacy.

Disingenuous actors, those who manipulate the public for ideological and opportunistic purposes, prey on those who engage in such acts—those who exist intellectually vulnerable because of their “excitability”—to seed statements that sound legitimate but aren’t. This allows them to create division and discontent while capturing the power of narrative control. Think of the Steele Dosier and the Trump-Russia scam, the Hunter Biden laptop denial, or, today, the Obama-Jennifer Aniston rumor.

This intellectual susceptibility in our society makes us incredibly vulnerable to maleficent actors—government agencies as well as political organizations and ideological NGOs—employing PsyOps.

Some of the more egregious PsyOp campaigns in recent years include:

* Trump's Business Dealings: Accusations of money laundering and illegal business practices at the Trump Organization, circulated often without substantial evidence

* Republican Voter Suppression: The claim that Republicans are actively suppressing minority votes, an allegation repeatedly disproved and lacking in both evidence and context

* Trump's Mental Health: Speculation during Trump’s first term about the President’s cognitive abilities and mental fitness, allegations completely baseless and without evidence

* Republican War on Women: The notion that Republicans are waging a war on women's rights, even as conservatives are on record as supporting policies that empower women.

* COVID Mask Use: During the COVID pandemic, it has now been proven that a purposeful PsyOps campaign was employed to encourage the widespread use of face masks. This operation aimed to instill fear and compliance among the population by exaggerating the effectiveness of masks and the ineffectiveness of natural herd immunity. Inconsistent messaging from health authorities, along with the constant bombardment of frightening statistics and images in the media, created a state of panic that made people more willing to accept unconstitutional restrictive measures like mask mandates and the closing of businesses, maintaining that the information on mask-wearing and social distancing was based on scientific evidence.

And the list goes on and on and on.

In each case, well-meaning individuals were duped into advancing these untruths on social media and interactive internet platforms, as well as directly into the public square. They were duped because they failed—they failed—to do their due diligence in ascertaining the facts of the matter, to any responsible extent, before they opined on the matter.

Now, I’m not advocating for the restriction of free speech in any way, shape, or form. I believe that the way to combat mis– and dis–information is by applying more free speech (which facilitates access to the truth), not less, and it certainly doesn’t facilitate the discovery of truth when the government (or any arrogantly self-important NGO) assumes the mantle of arbiter of the truth.

What I am saying is this—and I specifically urge this among those who consider themselves conservative and constitutionalist, although I beseech those on the Left as well as all those who feel the need to opine: Don’t just read the headline or the first paragraph and feel you have the intellectual authority to opine. Yes, you have the right to state your mind, but to feign an understanding of the information in an authoritative way is the height of deceptive irresponsibility. It is almost as egregious as the actions of those who seek to manipulate the people for opportunistically disingenuous gain. It’s insanely irresponsible and arrogant.

No one has the intellectual capacity—the clairvoyant ability—that allows them to divine whole swaths of content because they feel they understand the gist of an article, program, podcast, or presentation’s content. It cannot—cannot—be about the feeling that you get it. It can’t even be for your want to believe that you understand it. It has to be about acquiring the full context and content of the information.

For that to happen, as the Blues Brothers said (and I paraphrase) you, me, everybody—everybody—we need to be responsible. We have to gather the information first and opine and make statements afterward. We must advance information that is based on fact and truth, not feelings or the want for the appearance of authoritative knowledge without having first earned that station.

Bottom line: If you have the time and compunction to advance information, then you have time to consume that whole of the information on which you feel the need to opine first so you know the information you are advancing isn’t complete bullshit; so you don’t make a complete ass of yourself by exposing your intellectual laziness; so you don’t come off looking the fool for your ignorance.

If we all do this—all of us—imagine how Teflon we will be against the manipulation of the Deep State manipulators and dividers.

Then, when we return, our segment on America’s Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM930 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida..

Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber.

A Few Words On The Left’s ‘Stupidity Games’

As reported in a variety of mainstream media news outlets—both on the Left and the Right, the United States Air Force, arguably the wokest of the military branches as far as its hierarchy is concerned, has ordered the removal of some training courses focusing on the Tuskegee Airmen and Women Airforce Service Pilots who served during World War II.

The order comes, they argue, to “comply” with President Trump’s crackdown on DEI initiatives throughout our government institutions, including the military. And while the problem may not be with the course content itself, the subject matter was co-opted by radical ideologues and incorporated into DEI coursework.

There is a stark difference between DEI policy, advocacy instruction, and actual history. In fact, removing historical teachings from the USAF curriculum goes against the very spirit of Trump's Executive Order. This move is, itself, discriminatory.

Trump's order is extremely clear: Demographic preferences, i.e., race, gender, religion, sexual preferences, etc., are not to be employed in any way, shape, or form in any training curriculum or promotion-based decision-making. Instead, merit and ability are to be the basis for everything, regardless of demographic. Certainly, the Tuskegee Airmen and the Women of WWII proved their merit, both making history.

The Tuskegee Airmen were part of the 332nd Fighter Group and the 477th Bombardment Group of the US Army Air Corps, the precursor to the US Air Force. Despite facing racial segregation and discrimination, they proved their skill and valor in the skies over Europe, North Africa, and the Mediterranean.

The Women Airforce Service Pilots, often referred to as WASPs, were a remarkable group of women who served during World War II. These brave ladies—over a thousand women— took to the skies flying aircraft of all kinds, including bombers, transports, and even the iconic fighter planes. They ferried aircraft from factories to military bases, towed targets for live-ammunition training, and even tested newly repaired planes. But, despite their invaluable contributions, the WASPs weren’t granted military status until 1977.

So, whoever in the US Air Force hierarchy made the shallow-brained—or pu