Category: Seen On Campus

Observations from an elderly student

Universitas Delenda Est

Seen On Campus, Two-Minute Hate

(I am comfortable using a paraphrased Latin expression for the title of this post, because most of the maggots at whom my ire is aimed are probably illiterate in the Classics and would understand neither the language nor the context of its origin.)

Victor Davis Hanson has written often (and most recently, here) about the death of Western Civilization, but in truth, the death blows are not actually being delivered by the Democrats, but by their philosophical supporters in academia.

Spoiler:  Western Civilization is a load of old racist rubbish, and shouldn’t be taught in today’s tertiary education systems.

From the Renaissance until the 1960s, the humanities, derived from the expression ‘studia humanitatis’ or the study of humanity, made it their purpose to make sense of and understand the world through the great traditions of art, culture and philosophy. There appeared in the 1970s and 1980s however, a range of ‘new humanities’ subjects which rejected this tradition. The new humanities were underpinned by a range of radical post-structuralism and post-modernist theories which had been conjured up in the previous decade by a predominantly French group of philosophers such as Jacques Derrida, Louis Althusser, Michel Foucault, as well as the psychiatrist, Jacques Lacan.
The new humanities maintain that for the last 500 years, Western Civilisation has got it wrong when it comes to knowledge, truth and science. These fields tend to claim that both knowledge and truth are not absolute, but are relative. For example, there is no objective truth and truth is dependent on who is speaking it and in what context. Insofar as science is concerned, they claim that scientific theories don’t really provide us with what we could call knowledge but are actually “invented” rather than discovered.
History as a discipline best exemplifies the influence of the postmodernists and their ilk on the humanities. Many historians have enthusiastically embraced the idea that truth is no longer within the historian’s grasp and that it’s impossible to use history to add to knowledge about humankind. This is the kind of thing which would normally signal the death knell for any discipline, but historians have risen from the ashes and have forged for themselves a new purpose—the attainment of social justice.
This is not social justice in the Enlightenment sense, which meant equality before the law and equal rights, but social justice in the activist sense, where the ultimate goal is to achieve perfect equality by destroying ‘oppressive’ institutions and rearranging society. The historians’ new role is to tell the inequality narrative of the oppressed and the oppressor through the lens of class, gender, and race.

Here’s my “modern” take on their attitude:

MFCS Commies… the sooner their whole rotten edifice falls over like the statue of Ozymandias, the better.  (They’re not going to get that reference either, the bolshie bastards.)

I should also point out that the university system per se was a creation of medieval European society (100% White people) and therefore as the university has its roots in racism, academia should probably be abolished in its entirety — just to be logically consistent.  However, logic is also inherently racist, it being an outcome of classical Greek thought, and we all know what racists the Greeks were (“Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes”  was the Turks’ Trojans’ opinion of the Greeks, although the actual expression was coined by a Dead White Man — Vergil — so that should probably be discounted as well).

I could do this all day.  But frankly, I’d rather pay a visit to a liberal arts faculty meeting at an Ivy League university.  Carrying a flame-thrower.  (What the hell:  none of them would be armed, right?)

And in the final irony:  the flamethrower was also an invention of White Europeans.

Why Not?

Culture, Men & Women, Seen On Campus

So here’s the thing.  William F. Buckley once characterized conservatives as people “standing astride the course of history, shouting STOP!”  I, on the other hand, prefer to think of myself as someone standing astride the course of history, but instead of shouting “STOP!”, I prefer to shout, “GO BACK TEN STEPS!”

Yes, I have always preferred to go back to an earlier (and better) time, when things made sense (e.g. two genders — male and female — instead of the fifty-six flavors now apparently on offer).

Of late, however, I must confess to finding secret glee in not being so reactionary.  Nowadays, I seem to find pleasure in urging on The Great Insanity rather than attempting to fight it.  Here’s an example.

A British university has recently come under fire for allowing a rather different kind of career option in a recent jobs’ fair:

A university has been slammed after its freshers’ fair had a stand that advised new undergraduates on how to be sex workers.
Brighton University’s freshers’ fair last week had a stand run by the Sex Workers’ Outreach Project, Sussex.
SWOP describes itself as ‘A discreet and confidential trans inclusive service for women working in the sex industry who live or work in Sussex’,
Before the fair, the group tweeted: ‘1 in 6 students does sex work or thinks about turning to sex work. We can help.’
On A Level Results day, the group invited students to visit their stands for advice and information on sex work.
At the Brighton freshers’ fair, the group offered free condoms and lubricants for all students and invited to ‘play on our wheel of sexual wellbeing’.
Prizes from the wheel included underwear.

Amazingly (in today’s world), this has caused something of a negative reaction in social media:

One user commented: ‘Saddened to see this. Students should not be encouraged into prostitution.’
Another added: ‘What the f***? Are you seriously encouraging young people to sell their bodies to fund university? “Sex work”? Do you mention this to prospective parents at open days?’
A third simply said: ‘This is grotesque beyond words.’

Unsurprisingly, SWOP responded with the “If they’re going to do it anyway…”  liberal trope (see also:  handing out condoms to, and discussing anal sex techniques with preteens in Sex Ed classes):

‘Rising living and tuition costs mean that more students than ever are turning to sex work and SWOP believe that they deserve our help as well.
‘Sex work is work.’
‘SWOP have never idealised sex work. However, we understand why students may turn to sex work, and navigating the legal precariousness as well as potential danger mean that students are extra vulnerable and we will help.’

As I said earlier, this whole thing would once have brought from me a thundering denunciation of the decline of morality and the liberal-mindset catalyst that has enabled and encouraged it.

Now?  I shrug.  Because whenever I and other conservatives have have had this kind of attitude in the past, the response has often been that we’re being too judgmental, too harsh and too unforgiving.

So now I say:  Go on.  Tell these young girls that prostitution is a reasonable option towards funding their university education;  tell them how to set up “client lists” and draw up “business plans” for the exploitation of their vaginas, and tell them how best to advertise their wares vaginas and where best to set up operations.  Hell, given what’s being taught here, make it part of a business degree — it’s pretty much what’s taught in business schools these days, except that instead of using the hypothetical “widgets” so beloved of business-school professors, they can use real-life vaginas — their own vaginas withal, so there’s not even a need to set up a product manufacturing process!

I know this sounds cynical, and it is.  But my cynicism pales by comparison to that of the people who have re-labeled “fucking strangers for money” as “sex work”.

Fools, Idiots And Feminists (Some Overlap)

Lies and Untruths, Seen On Campus

I think I’ve told the story before of how I was taking a Sociology class at college when the Commie / feminist professor [redundancy alert] asked the question of the class:

“Is gender a social construct?”

…whereupon I answered quickly:

“Yes it is… provided that one ignores completely all genetic study and research conducted on the topic since the 1970s.”

Icy silence from the professor followed.  (Incidentally, I got an A for the course because she never could dispute any of my papers’ theses.)

I was reminded of this happy little exchange when I read Heather Mac Donald’s latest article in City Journal.  Hie thee hither and read all of it, for verily (as always with Heather) it’s nothing but net, and will give you all the ammo you’ll ever need when debating some loony feminist [redundancy alert, again] on the topic.

Heather Mac Donald’s collected writings should be required reading in any Humanities course at university, which means that it will never happen because Commies hate any writing which places fact over dogma and disturbs The Narrative.

Asked And Answered

Seen On Campus

Question:

“Interestingly, this very segment [White men] produces by far the most of our engineers, and judging by what we have accomplished, they have done a damn good job,” he said. “Why do these ideologues want to run them down?”

Answer:  It is precisely because White men have produced this long, storied list of achievements, and the social justice warriors haven’t (and can’t), is the reason why they seek to run us down.

It’s the politics of envy, pure and simple — pulling the outstanding back into the herd — and there’s no accommodating or reasoning with this mindset.  The sooner we all recognize this — and crush these pathetic fuckers wherever we can — the happier and more successful we all will be.

At Last, Some Sanity

Behind Enemy Lines, Gummint, Seen On Campus

…even if it’s coming from the French, surely one of the loopiest nations on Earth.

Smartphones and tablets have been banned from all French schools ahead of the academic year, after a new law was voted through Parliament yesterday.  The phone ban will apply to all pupils in France up to the age of 15, as of the start of the new term in September.

I’ve always thought that giving kids smartphones was a recipe for disaster — similar to letting them go play all day and night in a mall, unsupervised.  And I don’t want to hear whines of “What about their securityyyy?” either.  If that’s so important to Mumsy (or actually, Madamesy), she can buy little Francine or Jacques a flip (dumb) phone.  Calls and texts only (and only a few of those, too).

Perhaps — and I know this is a radical thought — the schools can actually keep a closer eye on the little dears for a change.

And if the kids go all whiney at the indignity and the oppressive injustice of it all, we can call it a cheap life lesson.