The Ritual Humiliation of Misunderstanding Power


Public educational institutions are Liberal.

This has been the case, broadly, since the inception of public education. While there have been exceptions to this rule, the institutions of ‘learning’ so-called in the modern context have first been used as a battering ram against other institutions (turning the nation’s youth against them), and once this had been accomplished, as a confirmation control mechanism. For the most part, the governmental interest in schooling is not economic, but ideological.

Everyone knows the quote most often attributed to Adolf Hitler:

“Let me control the textbooks and I will control the state. The state will take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing. Your child belongs to us already..what are you?”

While this is viewed as being a very sinister insight into the führer’s lust for power, it really isn’t anything out of the ordinary as it pertains to the use of public education to shape opinion and craft generations of revolutionaries. Whether they are National Socialists believing in the purity of the Germanic race, or good Liberals believing in the purity of same-sex marriage, this exact content of the programming is nugatory to its enduring reality.

Conservatives are very angry about this. To make their case, they point to examples of both lunatic attempts to stamp out anything deemed to be offensive (Dartmouth College clamping down on the Phi Delta Alpha fraternity for hosting a ‘Phi-esta’) to outright suppression of Conservative thinkers (DePaul University banning Ben Shapiro from speaking there). Shapiro said the following about his exclusion:

“It’s both pathetic and predictable that the University is happy to grant a veto on speakers to snowflake leftists so long as the leftists threaten violence. This is how free speech dies: when people in power cave to the bullies rather than standing up for basic rights.”

Evidently, Shapiro only sees the surface of things, believing that spoiled teenagers protesting and threatening the university are the reason for his exclusion, and the poor university authorities are being cowed. Not so. The deans and professors hate Conservatives just as much as the obese ball of rage in this video from UMass Amherst, and protests from empowered students only give them recourse to make the decisions they do. Who exactly do Conservatives think put the ideas of ‘social justice’ into their ugly little heads?


The stupidity it requires to buy into the lie that educational institutions have ever been the bastions of ‘free inquiry’ is breathtaking. If censorship and threats are more prominent and noteworthy today than they have been before, it is only due to the ever-increasing speed of the radical left’s evolution that has taken place since the 1960s. The agenda in 1949 did not require safe spaces. Today it does.

A great case study for power realism surrounding the issue of censorship is the first section of this episode of ‘The View from 22‘ podcast which featured Brendan O’Neill taking on college leftist Harriet Brown in regard to an abortion debate being shut down at Oxford University. Two points in particular mark the slippage from the farce to the hard reality.

Here is the farce:

“Censorship is a legal process by which the government shuts down debate, through legal means.”

Brown defines censorship here in such a way as to have her form of censorship be excluded, a play I defined a while back as the illusion of neutrality. Through this kind of verbal trickery, a violation is deemed to be impartial and reasonable. In fact, this idea has suckered in even valiant little Ben Shapiro, as he so nobly declared in this interview:

 “Of course there are legitimate racists, and we should target them, and we should find them, and we should hurt their careers, because racism is unacceptable.”

This is a kind of special censorship which is perfectly okay because of its basis in private individual action. Now, back to Harriet Brown. as the podcast goes on, she gets more and more frustrated, and then comes the hard reality:

“You, by dignifying this position of violating women’s bodily autonomy with a response are promoting a system in which this is even up for question. You know, we don’t debate everything. Would you answer a debate on the women’s suffrage movement? No, because it’s a closed question, and frankly abortion should just be a closed question as well.”

Sleight of hand brushed aside, this gets to the heart of the matter. The dominant powers have debates, and when they decide upon the preferred answer, the debate becomes a ‘closed question’. Opinions to the contrary become heretical, just as the Ecumenical Councils in the Church settled doctrinal conflicts with the losing opposition thereafter being declared anathema. The same principle is in effect. Forgetting for a moment Shapiro’s own background, would he have in fact offered sound advice to the Emperor had he counseled tolerance for Arians? Surely, to tolerate their heresy would have defeated the very purpose of the Council in the first place. There really isn’t much point in even having a debate if a conclusion to the dispute cannot be reached, and at that point it merely becomes a thought exercise.

The question comes down to the same blunt point made by Publius Decius Mus in his controversial essay ‘The Flight 93 Election‘. If you truly believe what your political opponent is promoting is wrong, destructive, harmful, toxic, then it is madness to aid in the propagation of their ideas in any way. In the context of America’s vapid electoral system, Conservatives must vote for Donald Trump or admit that Hillary actually isn’t that bad, and the ideas of the Democrat Party actually do work.

all that remains of Flight 93

We tend to value the nation, the larger group, the collective, the civil society, while Liberals value the individual as paramount, but the application of power remains the same. Liberals shut down what they feel is threatening to the individual, to his self-esteem and self-image. They don’t care about free speech, and never have in any sincere way. They laugh at the fools who bought into it because while Ben is crying about his free speech rights being violated, the Liberals go on churning out loyal party voters, enraged ethnic minorities, and freaks who sexually identify as civil attack helicopters.

Remember the hysteric, obese SJW I mentioned earlier? If Ben Shapiro and others like him had their way, she would do just fine. She’d go on being offended and go on causing a ruckus. Her pathetic parents would continue to think they’d done a good job with their daughter, and that her outbursts were a wonderful expression of youthful energy. Nothing would change except that he would be allowed to trigger her. What an achievement for the nation! What a benefit!

There is a little known secret that those who do not intend to use power, rarely if ever take power. One of the first steps from Conservatism into Reaction is to be honest with yourself about the logical outworking of your own beliefs, independent of arbitrary commitments to supposedly universal principles. If you truly believe that the ideas of the left are dangerous and poisonous to society, then it is a complete dereliction of duty to allow Liberalism to have any kind of platform.

Imagine a small village that drinks from one well, and the well is guarded by two men. One is a Liberal, the other a Conservative. One day, the Liberal guard invites his friends to come to the well and dump a gallon of cyanide into it. The Conservative guard wants to pour some delicious lemonade into the well, because the citizens might not like the bitter taste of cyanide. Pushing him to the ground, the Liberal guard tells him where he can shove his lemonade, and the Conservative guard begins to cry about how the citizens’ thirst won’t be truly quenched as they keel over in agony.

you’ve really done your job, Conservatives
now everyone’s dead


The scenario is insanity. Of course what the story requires is for the Reactionary authorities to come through on their horses and string both of the guards up for accessory to mass poisoning.

I re-iterate; if people believe as we do, that the various social, governmental, and economic changes wrought by the political left are damaging to our way of life and the things we value, then what on earth is their motivation for empowering Conservatives? Conservatives pledge to do absolutely nothing to stop the left, and instead beclown themselves with free speech theatrics that no college dean or professor cares about. What a sweet deal for our opponents.All they ever have to worry about is ‘being faced with opinions they don’t like’, while we are threatened with censorship, physical violence, jail, etc. Conservatives are usually the ones to point out how hard it is to win a war when you play by one set of rules, and the enemy plays by another, yet they fail to understand this is one the key reasons that Liberals have been stamping on their faces for decades. Maybe its part of this pathetic ‘tribe of liberty‘ mentality pushed by Jonah Goldberg and his ilk:

” […] whatever our differences with American liberals may be, conservatives understand that our argument with them is still within the family. The fighting is intense, but we’re all trying to figure out what it means to live in this country bequeathed to us by the American Revolution and the Enlightenment.”

No, you are not in their “family”. They don’t believe in families, they believe in ideologically tinged warfare in the name of evil’s emancipation. The only reason that this warfare isn’t conducted with force of arms is that, looking at their own track record, they find the success average is far higher in parliaments and senates as opposed to trenches somewhere in Majadahonda. There is a segment of the voting public in the United States who are pulling the lever for Trump, consciously or subconsciously, because they believe he will give the left a bloody nose. Whether he will or not is besides the point, the fact is that some people are smelling the roses aboard Flight 93. They’re sick of pretending that right wing ideas are equivalent to left wing ideas, and complaining when leftists don’t do things that they are in no way obligated to do. If you want an idea to be heard at a university, then run it. Recognize where power lies, and whether you hold it or not. If you don’t, then make it so that you do, and waste no time wondering what the other side will think of you. When you have power, use it.

The message to those on the right: don’t get equal. Get even.

Kwame Holmes – his day can’t come soon enough

(Recommend people check out P.T. Carlo’s response to The Flight 93 Election over at Social Matter)
Advertisements

8 thoughts on “The Ritual Humiliation of Misunderstanding Power

  1. The rules of democratic cohabitation went to shit the day the leftist half of society decided to use mass immigration as a device to shut out of democracy the rightist half.

    The way you counter an opponent whose objective is to eradicate you is to develop an ideology to eradicate them. If your objective is restoring the democratic rules it means you accept a playing field where if you win there's a rematch and if you lose, you lose.

    Like

  2. Romanian guy here, call me Iancu (a pseudonym).

    I have to agree with this. In the comment section of te previous article, when I've mentioned freedom of speech and otherwise “libertarian” type influences on hard right politics, I was having in mind only what a sovereign might allow his subjects based on the particular tradition of that realm. Assuming we're in power. In the future or in the ideal. I just want to make that clear.

    At this point the situation we have now in the real world is Spain, cca. '33-'34. God help us. (And fear not, He will.)

    Like

  3. Indeed. This wasn't really in response to what you had said, I understand what you meant, it was addressing Conservative whining about their free speech rights being violated, as if the Left was under any obligation to allow them free speech. The Left does not care.

    The situation at present is more dire than Spain's. In Spain, they dumped the frog into the boiling water and it jumped out. For us, the frog has been put in the cold water, and it is being slowly heated to boil.

    Like

  4. ” If you want an idea to be heard at a university, then run it. Recognize where power lies, and whether you hold it or not. If you don't, then make it so that you do, and waste no time wondering what the other side will think of you. When you have power, use it.”

    At some point, I need to collect my thoughts, review some old posts, and talk about Sovereignty. In the end, it's really all just about who gets to live where and run the institutions.

    Like

  5. Mr. Citadel…

    I wouid state it more succinctly…

    If you are a white male who believes “radical autonomy” to be self-annihilating then you must convert to (w)hite (S)upremacy.

    This is truly your next radical step.

    Like

  6. Well, if it provides any consolation, apparently what actually happens in nature is that the frog eventually jumps out every time; one can't actually boil a frog that way – it's what they call a “myth”. Hail kek?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s