Racism

[Mac]

Cool Dennis, right we are where we are, how do you teach kids to navigate it. What advice do we give them firstly for their own sake and to slowly eradicate it from a future society. I'm not disagreeing with you, just I can't talk about stuff without throwing out solutions for now and maybe the future, as naive as that might seem. The day we all wake one Morning and say oh we get it, is not going to happen anytime soon. Bxxger isn't it 8)

I'm not political btw it bores me stupid. Last person I voted for over here was Corbyn. Not because of his politics because he was an honest decent Man, not owned, but he blew it on Brexit. The lies and slander dumped on him was so blatant but, lapped up.

[Dennis Leahy]

Posted by Mike (here)
welcome to the thread Denno, you're off to a crackling start.

i don't have an issue with a single thing you've written.

my issue is this: what happened at Evergreen, and what's happening in college campuses across the country, and what is spilling over into corporate culture as well (Google and the whole James Damore debacle) is a postmodern plague that isn't seeking authentic equity - it's seeking power....not power with but power over. It's seeking a reversal of the historic roles between oppressors and victims. Someone could make a pretty good karmic argument for that maybe - and I would have a hard time disputing it! - but what postmodernism attempts to do is make an intellectual argument for it, which to me is a disingenuous attempt at what is really a power-play masquerading as something else, all enforced by a hyper inflated sense of PC victimhood by people who aren't really victims at all, but instead future tyrants in the making

p.s. i really wish you'd watch the 3 videos i've included on this thread on the evergreen events. i watched your 3 hour marathon, so you owe me you bastard

Mike, I did sample the videos. I won't bother to watch them in their entirety. (Sorry, give me a different assignment as payback for watching a brilliant, eye-opening video that you told me should be required viewing.) What do you want me to say about the Evergreen student idiots? Did you think I'd defend them? Or are you just looking for someone with clear skin (I'm only called "white" - I'm much more transparent-skinned showing blood in muscles-pink hahahaha) to say that people of color can be/act racist?

I went back to college and finally got a degree (from the 6th college/university I had attended) when I was 40, but the last university I attended was primarily night school, and primarily adults, so I didn't get the teenage and early 20s drama that your current college experience is evidently assaulting you with. But, what did you expect, signing up for a Gender Studies major, with a minor in Flat Earth Geography? It may seem like these knuckleheads with more angst than substance are the future of humanity, but really, the Evergreen debacle and whatever you're experiencing on your college campus now is really not a microcosm of reality. I don't think "postmodernism" is a good handle for what you're seeing and disgusted by. And this most certainly isn't the core tenets of "the left" (though in this example you have provided, there might be some who are also anti-war and anti-"Establishment" - meaning anti-American-Corporate-Fascist-Imperialist-Empire.) I'd stick to specifics, rather than labeling this a "postmodern plague", or your reaction to it seems more like a "Reefer Madness"-esque, pearl-clutching, hand-wringing response.

I do see your Evergreen students (prior to their assault/siege) as victims - both in terms of what society has done to actually make them victims, but more importantly, victims of programming/brainwashing. Identifying primarily as a victim, repeatedly ripping open your own wounds, doesn't seem to be a wise trajectory toward either self-healing or societal healing. On the other hand, pretending that the culture and cultural programming isn't sick, ignoring the agenda of the psychopathic monsters that control the world, and just being a smiling android that shows up to work on time isn't doing anything to help society develop.

Are you familiar with Picasso's Guernica? Do you accept that form of expression of outrage at atrocity? Probably, yes. So, there are lots of ways to try to attack and disassemble and heal our society that has accepted false history and deliberate programming - including notions such as that racism ended in 1863 in the US. I'm sure you don't want outrage and speaking out about racism - especially systemic and institutionalized racism - to end, or for individuals to pretend that they are not really victims of racism if they are (and in the US, if your skin tone is dark and you are not rich, or a world-class athlete or performer, you are almost undoubtedly a victim of racism.) I'm sure you're looking for a more sane, more intelligent approach.

I've been the victim of some crimes in my life, and if I stop and think about them, I get really pissed off. Imagine living an entire life of even minor and fleeting racism, consistently and constantly brought to your awareness. Actually, like childbirth (to a man) I don't think there is any way to convey the feelings of racial discrimination and prejudice over a lifetime unless you've lived it. It's really hard to "get over it" when you know it's still going to be ongoing tomorrow, and the day after...

[Mike]

what i was hoping you'd notice is that the evergreen debacle is a perfect case study for what's happening on a much larger scale. also hoping you'd notice that it wasn't just a race thing, but far far more than that. it's also a trans thing, and a gender thing between men and women...but mostly it's a war against common sense, punctuated by the tendency for emotionally motivated people to mob up and attack people who are making sense..and silence them. oh, all in the name of "equity" of course.

i was hoping you'd notice how hypocritical it is. it really does need to be seen in its entirety to be appreciated.

and i was being silly when i called your video a marathon. it was excellent, and i do wish not only high school and college kids would watch it, but the entire world. if it were up to me it would be required watching for all the citizens of the earth. i'm glad you put me onto it. thanks again

[Dennis Leahy]

Posted by Mike (here)
what i was hoping you'd notice is that the evergreen debacle is a perfect case study for what's happening on a much larger scale. also hoping you'd notice that it wasn't just a race thing, but far far more than that. it's also a trans thing, and a gender thing between men and women...but mostly it's a war against common sense, punctuated by the tendency for emotionally motivated people to mob up and attack people who are making sense..and silence them. oh, all in the name of "equity" of course.

i was hoping you'd notice how hypocritical it is. it really does need to be seen in its entirety to be appreciated.

and i was being silly when i called your video a marathon. it was excellent, and i do wish not only high school and college kids would watch it, but the entire world. if it were up to me it would be required watching for all the citizens of the earth. i'm glad you put me onto it. thanks again

I stayed away from the trans and gay issues I saw in my glimpses into the videos, for this thread, because I hate to see threads get diluted. This one is already about culture-ism and racism, and I figured that's enough. Plus, I did comment and gave my (quickly encapsulated) views on transgenderism in your thread about the Argentinian soccer player.

Yes, being oppressed and attempting to create change by being the oppressor is hypocritical (in the case of kidnap/detaining and threatening, it's beyond hypocrisy and into criminal behavior) - and ineffective to the issues as well as counter-productive in getting someone fired that wasn't the progenitor or even cheerleader of the issues that pissed the students off.

That video that you committed the time and energy to watch is a marathon. I think I must be slipping in my ability to tease effectively and make sure the teased knows I'm teasing.

[Mike]

the evergreen vids are also a marathon, in fairness! but i think a worthwhile one.

my tease mechanism is all corrupted too. ive been too damn serious lately. i think i need to start drinking again

[Mac]

You've got to laugh at times just to keep yourself sane heh. I have to bit my lip because there's loads could be said but can't, so much for free speech. Some know the truth but have to talk round it all the time, strange times. The Bad guys think they're the good guys and can't figure out why most decent people are repulsed by the way they do business. But hey it's a game ffs, may they one day look in the mirror and see who they are and what they have done and are doing. Getting smashed won't work Mike it's still there when you're sober learnt that decades ago. I'm going to enjoy my family and life, pitying the poor tortured souls that can't just be. Nothing more to add from me on this topic, think we're all more or less on the same page, I'm going to stick to the lunatic threads in future, life really is too short.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
Bill immediately saw this as a cultural issue, misidentified as racism. I disagreed strongly.

A very brief note!

1. I genuinely and highly respect every contributor to this discussion.
2. I'm staying out if it (largely! ), too.
3. I do remain pretty firm in my view. Without taking anything away from the very many thoughtful, fascinating and detailed posts from others, I do strongly believe that most (but not all) 'racism' is a defensive-aggressive response to the deeply ingrained need and desire to preserve one's identified culture.
   
   That's why I think some Ecuadorians feel uneasy about my being here. Nothing to do with skin color, or 'race'. But because they don't want their culture to be eroded or diluted by non-contributing, opportunistic immigrants like myself — and they fear that happening. I completely understand their concerns, and as I've posted elsewhere, I think the ethical grounds for me being resident here are really pretty thin.

[Praxis]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)

I know that all Trump followers/supporters/cheerleaders are not racist, but those that are not racist do rationalize/excuse/ignore Trump's racism. It's not the only reason to abhor Trump as a person and as a president (oh dear god, don't compare Clinton to Trump as an excuse to support him - we're smarter than to fall for that binary claptrap) but I saw, in 2016-17, overt racism infecting Project Avalon, and wanted to stop it. In my mind, Project Avalon was never a place where lowbrows had a pulpit to spew racism/prejudice with a "first amendment" unfettered privilege, it was a place for people who were thinking outside the mainstream babble, people who saw deeper than their programming, and people breaking free from the programming - such as being ok with "acceptable" racism, ignoring systemic racism in the US, or excusing the US president's racism due to some perceived good thing that trumps Trump's racism

So, I guess I have breached this thread now. This is my opening volley.

This is important to reiterate

Some are seeking power over other using social justice as their flag and they are bad but then again Donald trump is wrapping himself in the flag while holding a cross. Which is more of a problem?

One is student movement or organizations trying to raise awareness(whether their cause is good or bad) the other is the executive branch of the federal government and largest military apparatus in the world.

He removes people from EBT(which you guess it hits non whites the hardest) and then is cheered by the Evangelicals for giving them the opportunity to work.

I mean didnt jesus say "Blessed are the poor for they are granted the right to work"? I am pretty sure he said something like that.

At the very same time he puts children, which are not white children FYI, in cages because they came with their family, and a horrible no good culture that cant mix with the pure native culture, fleeing from political chaos in their homeland

Again, I have to admit there is scripture for this:

Mark 5:1 "On the other side of the sea, they arrived in the region of the Gerasenes. 2As soon as Jesus got out of the boat, He was met by a man with an unclean spirit"

John 15:"If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."

Shame on us for not following through and actually burning these people.

But here we are talking about Evergreen college and post modernism . . .

[Mark]

Posted by Mac (here)
I don't know what it feels like to be a black Man, but what I do know racism is always going to be around in some form, until we evolve a bit more 8) What in your opinion is the best way to teach kids how to see past it, look down on it for what it is. Everyone can be capable of racism/tribalism whether they know it or not when push comes to shove, again see history. Your jails are full of the results of a demographic who believed the lies, not all obviously but the cultures sometimes within disaffected groups can be a bit unhealthy. How can we get it into the children's heads not to own it or be affected by it,because it's never healthy if they do. Same goes for the non racist white folk who get labelled guilty. How can we get it in their heads yes it's history but it's not you,forgive, learn from it, don't repeat it and move onward and upwards.

Real education. Which is what we all here claim to be all about. And this covers so many areas that we are interested in, not just in regards to this issue but all of them. Real science education, real history education, real physical education. The world needs to move on, beyond these issues and it can be done, if people know the real stories about the past, the real foundations of science, the real nature of the body, mind and spirit connection.

It is not in the interest of any vested power to foster a world where people truly know what is going on. But it is in the interest of the human family to create educational means by which children grow up understanding the nature of their societies and how they got that way. When it becomes possible for people to know better, they do better. Until they know better, they do what they know, which often is worse, not better. Even babies are altruistic, so there is a core nature of goodness that exists for many people, I won't even say most or all because that is certainly not so. Difference begins when we are taught it.

Our teaching has to be better.

Posted by Mac (here)
I also understand that a black Man in some jurisdictions would get jail probably quicker than the white boy from a different part of town. Although I am only guessing at that, haven't looked at the stats,but fairly confident. I still think just teaching them to remove the baggage, if they can is the way to go imho. To be fair the majority do don't they. We manage fairly well here in the UK for all our faults. Brexit got a bit weird but normal service resumed-ish. The times are a bit bleh but been far worse so we ought to be hopeful...maybe. We've moved on a bit, again see history. Still a way to go but doable. 8) (fingers crossed)

If the cops' baggage was removed, their fear of black men removed, then things would be different, yes. But that is a societal issue. We are programmed from a very early age in this culture to fear dark-skinned people. It affects all of us, even dark-skinned people, who are subjected to it every day. Who recognize it because they've been subject to the exact same programming as everybody else.

I hear from black Brits that things may not be all that great there either. These nations are going to grow more diverse, that is inevitable. We just have to teach each other who we are and institutionalize that to the extent that mass ignorance and miseducation as it is done here in the USA and elsewhere cannot take root and flourish for centuries to come.

[Dennis Leahy]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
Bill immediately saw this as a cultural issue, misidentified as racism. I disagreed strongly.

A very brief note!

1. I genuinely and highly respect every contributor to this discussion.
2. I'm staying out if it (largely! ), too.
3. I do remain pretty firm in my view. Without taking anything away from the very many thoughtful, fascinating and detailed posts from others, I do strongly believe that most (but not all) 'racism' is a defensive-aggressive response to the deeply ingrained need and desire to preserve one's identified culture.
   
   That's why I think some Ecuadorians feel uneasy about my being here. Nothing to do with skin color, or 'race'. But because they don't want their culture to be eroded or diluted by non-contributing, opportunistic immigrants like myself — and they fear that happening. I completely understand their concerns, and as I've posted elsewhere, I think the ethical grounds for me being resident here are really pretty thin.

But, where is this mono-cultural Shangri La nation? The USA brags about being poly-cultural, most of Europe was already multi-cultural before a recent large influx of war refugees were forced from their own nation by USA missiles and bombs. (If a large number of ex-pat German citizens were forced all at once to emigrate to Germany, don't you think that would have caused high tensions in Germany? I agree that the tensions of foreign refugees was partly cultural, but logic tells me it had more to do with moving in too many human bodies, too fast to be absorbed gracefully.)

Australia is poly-cultural. Canada is poly-cultural, and even has a province where French is the primary language. The story of humankind is one of migration, and the mixing or at least tolerance of cultures. Places like "Chinatown" in the US are cultural islands within the poly-culture, and fully accepted by the rest of society. You want a great bagel in New York? Anyone knowledgeable will direct you to a Jewish bakery or deli. The best Vietnamese food in southern California is going to be in a Vietnamese-dominant area. Other than a few tribal peoples (like where the idiotic "Christian" missionary caught a bunch of arrows, relatively recently), or nearly inaccessible mountainous places, there is no mono-culture to protect.

Your example is powerful, but your conclusion that your Ecuadorian neighbors don't want you there due to culture is likely your own projection. What do you think would happen if you wrote out a short paragraph and used google translate to put it in Spanish, and said:
"Hola, mi nombre es Bill Ryan y vivo cerca de ti. Disculpe mi pobre español, pero quería decirle que si alguna vez tiene problemas, estaré encantado de ayudarlo en todo lo que pueda. Quiero ser un buen vecino." *

And, maybe take them a jar of your favorite marmalade.

What do you think would actually happen?

Genociding 100 million indigenous (but yes, even they migrated there a few thousand years earlier) tribal peoples and codifying it into the US Constitution and laws is racism - regardless that the "Indians" had a different culture than the European interlopers who wanted to (and did) steal their land. The "Uncle Tom" African slaves that mimicked/acquiesced into the plantation owner's culture (and religion!) were still SLAVES. I do think you bring an interesting element into a discussion of racism by examining culture clashes, but the real clash is over property and resources, not culture.

*("Hi, my name is Bill Ryan and I live near you. Excuse my poor Spanish, but I wanted to tell you that if you ever have problems, I will be happy to help you in any way I can. I want to be a good neighbor.")

[Mac]

Even babies are altruistic " Amen to that. Nothing to say further think w're on the same page. 8)

[Mark]

Posted by Mike (here)
My remedies to the current situation won't resonate with you at all because I don't view western civilization as being an inherently evil, patriarchal society run by white supremacists. But it mostly involves facing what's in front of us (reality) with courage and strength(not inventing subjective narratives to avoid it), cultivating virtue, and embracing personal responsibility instead of blaming everyone and everything for one's issues (hey I warned you that it wouldn't resonate with you! lol)

I understand exactly where you are coming from. Thank you for sharing your perspective in the thread.

[Mark]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)

"...but I saw, in 2016-17, overt racism infecting Project Avalon, and wanted to stop it. In my mind, Project Avalon was never a place where lowbrows had a pulpit to spew racism/prejudice with a "first amendment" unfettered privilege, it was a place for people who were thinking outside the mainstream babble, people who saw deeper than their programming, and people breaking free from the programming - such as being ok with "acceptable" racism, ignoring systemic racism in the US, or excusing the US president's racism due to some perceived good thing that trumps Trump's racism..."

It started here earlier. It was August 4th, 2014. Henrik Palmgren and Red Ice radio. He hosted John Lash and we discussed it here a small bit. Froze my soul and I knew the AltCom was changed forever.

[Mac]

That's a whole other ball of mess Mark, and people like him are never helpful. Like most religions they have their issues,plus the unhealthy tribalism of some the non religious among them. Understandable fear but best left for them to sort themselves. The treatment the Palestinians receive is shocking and taking the above route stops the legitimate criticism. Anyway best thought I'd add that before I removed myself, as most people who supported Corbyn were deemed ant semites/enablers. It's beneath contempt heh.

Edit: Mark thought this was an interesting chat. I haven't many thoughts on the matter as still digesting it and halfway through. Initial reaction, he's a bit short sighted.
Won't have time to comment further as busy but thought worth sharing here.
R.Brand is a good interviewer imo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvAhquRJf_A

[Mike]

Posted by Mark/Rahkyt (here)

Posted by Mike (here)
My remedies to the current situation won't resonate with you at all because I don't view western civilization as being an inherently evil, patriarchal society run by white supremacists. But it mostly involves facing what's in front of us (reality) with courage and strength(not inventing subjective narratives to avoid it), cultivating virtue, and embracing personal responsibility instead of blaming everyone and everything for one's issues (hey I warned you that it wouldn't resonate with you! lol)

I understand exactly where you are coming from. Thank you for sharing your perspective in the thread.

respectfully, i don't think you do. i think you still imagine that you're the good guy and i'm the bad guy. am i wrong?

do i believe in systemic, or institutional racism? i do! but i don't think it's responsible for every single little disparity we see out there. it's all vastly layered and complex.

the racism that's most prevalent currently is a form of generational racism, or echoing attitudes that get passed down thru families. we all get a dose of that - white, black, chinese, indian, etc

the only way to remedy it is thru education (fact based education) and personal responsibility. you can't legislate thoughts and attitudes. and you damn well can't genuinely change anyone's racism thru so called 'sensitivity training'. all that does is cause more bitterness and resentment. people that refuse to do it will be labeled racist, and the people who do it will only be doing it for fear of being labeled racist. it's a bad game all the way around.

i'm just as horrified about our racial history as you and Dennis are! all i'm saying here is that it's wrong to ascribe all disparities to some form of discrimination, and it is wrong to try to correct those disparities thru reverse discrimination.

those kids at evergreen get to sleep in till noon and have warm meals whenever they want at the school cafeteria. they have heat and air conditioned rooms. they're getting drunk and dancing and partying and f#cking and having a grand old time. they probably drive better cars than i do. one of those kids referred to himself as a "slave". that's an unforgivable insult to all real slaves, the ones we had here in america and the ones all around the world throughout history. and the ones that still exist today.

their required reading should begin with the book 'the gulag archipelago', by alexander solzenitsyn. first he was on the russian front in world war 2, and then he wound up in the dreaded gulags for 10 years, doing the most brutal forms of forced labor imaginable.

those kids think they have problems? no. that guy had f#ckin problems.

they don't know what real problems are. and it's not even really their fault. they're too young to know what real problems are. they'll know what a real problem is the moment they enter the work force. they'll know what a real problem is the moment the rent is due and they can't pay it, or when they are too broke to buy groceries. or when they get a terminal illness.

the postmodernists have a point - and you made it earlier - and that is that the world is open to a near infinite number of interpretations. fair enough! i will grant you that. it's very hard to rank order those in terms of quality. i'll grant you that too. but then they cross the line by saying therefore there are no qualitative distinctions between modes of interpretation. that's where they go too far. there is a finite set of viable interpretations. and i say that because that is self evident, and you can't have a dialogue with someone if they won't acknowledge what is self evident...

...like this character here. this is that video i told you about where the professor claims there's no biological differences between the sexes. he mentions it almost immediately:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=jcDKCmC9gWU

[Mark]

Posted by Mike (here)
respectfully, i don't think you do. i think you still imagine that you're the good guy and i'm the bad guy. am i wrong?

Not at all. Good and bad are relative positions. It is how the world works. I do understand where you are coming from. Your good. Blessings to you and yours.

[Mark]

Posted by Mac (here)
That's a whole other ball of mess Mark, and people like him are never helpful. Like most religions they have their issues,plus the unhealthy tribalism of some the non religious among them. Understandable fear but best left for them to sort themselves. The treatment the Palestinians receive is shocking and taking the above route stops the legitimate criticism. Anyway best thought I'd add that before I removed myself, as most people who supported Corbyn were deemed ant semites/enablers. It's beneath contempt heh.

I hear you.

I was a supporter, a fan of Red Ice radio, listened to them regularly, and John Lash and his work with Gaia-Sophia before that day. After that day I could no longer countenance his work nor visit that site as it felt heavy and Archon-laden, which was something that was very, very prevalent throughout the AltCom during that time. I can remember the feel of the energies here at PA, at another site I built and worked at also, we were going through it, there were psychic attacks and the shift of intention began to push me away until I had to go, for a couple of years, until the energies shifted again. I'd check the site every few months or so for news, but it took this thread to bring me back, as I've mentioned before.

Posted by Mac (here)
Mark thought this was an interesting chat. I haven't many thoughts on the matter as still digesting it and halfway through. Initial reaction, he's a bit short sighted.
Won't have time to comment further as busy but thought worth sharing here.
R.Brand is a good interviewer imo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvAhquRJf_A

Thank you for sharing, I'll check it out. And thank you for adding your thoughts to this record, it is timely and much needed. Anytime you want to contribute further, feel free. Blessings.

[Dennis Leahy]

Ouch, Mike. Those Evergreen kids really got under your skin. You have strong opinions, but you're presenting them as facts.

Think of the absurdity of a white guy declaring what the most prevalent form of racism is currently, and multiply that by a thousand when declaring it to someone non-white. Kinda like a guy lecturing women on menstrual periods.

The gender issue is a dilutant to this thread, which is already (at its inception) blended with or compared with culture-clash.

[Praxis]

Posted by Mike (here)

Posted by Mark/Rahkyt (here)

Posted by Mike (here)
My remedies to the current situation won't resonate with you at all because I don't view western civilization as being an inherently evil, patriarchal society run by white supremacists. But it mostly involves facing what's in front of us (reality) with courage and strength(not inventing subjective narratives to avoid it), cultivating virtue, and embracing personal responsibility instead of blaming everyone and everything for one's issues (hey I warned you that it wouldn't resonate with you! lol)

I understand exactly where you are coming from. Thank you for sharing your perspective in the thread.

respectfully, i don't think you do. i think you still imagine that you're the good guy and i'm the bad guy. am i wrong?

First, Mark is a good guy and I hope we all know(not imagine) this is true.

Second, I supremely dislike what you are doing here with this statement. Like pick up artist level debate tactic. Dont you see yourself as the good guy?

Are you the bad guy? No. Why would you think that anyone here thinks that? Are some of your points not what others think? Clearly yes we all do not agree on everything. We have a difference of opinions on some things and that is why we are here discussing. This doesnt mean that you are the bad guy in any sense.

This feels like projection mike. Why try to pivot to the victim stance?

Reverse Racism is a white nationalist dog whistle.

It doesnt exist. There is racism.

When a black person says "**** crackers, not allowed here" That isnt reverse racism. It is racism full stop. If a Mexican calls me snow white, it is racist full stop.

Reverse racism is a perspective that only ethnonationalist have because think of how it shifts the perspective. It makes them now the victim.

All racism is wrong no matter who it is directed at and where it came from. Humans are humans.

[Mark]

In order to render a bit of this recent discussion a bit less obtuse, here are some considerations from someone who worked for the National Review - hence the subtle-yet-present ideological slant - that shed a light on some of these issues we've been discussing, particularly the impact of the Postmodern revolution on college campuses and in the Liberal Arts tradition. This is related to our world in general but also to our topic in particular in how Critical Race Theory (I'll post on that next) intersects and furthers the Postmodern impetus driving societies toward a deeper understanding of what makes them tick.

The Predicament of Contemporary Academia

Introduction

In 1987, when the Reverend Jesse Jackson led hundreds of student protestors at Stanford University, chanting “Western civilization has got to go,” it was a perplexing spectacle for many outside observers. Why would students at Stanford—presumably an exemplary testament to the moral, philosophical and cultural accomplishments of the West—be so ardently opposed to our civilization’s very existence? In the context of the 1987 protests, Stanford’s requirement that all its students take certain classes in the study of the Western tradition (a common, eminently reasonable expectation at liberal arts universities throughout the West) was the source of student outrage. However, the larger antipathy towards the idea of Western civilization itself, which animated the Stanford protests, is a sentiment that now pervades contemporary academia, extending even to include reports last week of Yale discontinuing an introductory art history class over concerns about artists taught being, “overwhelmingly white, straight, European and male.”

In the modern liberal arts, the Western tradition is increasingly regarded as a symbol of oppression and suffering, and its major achievements are all thought to be emblematic of this inherently oppressive character. When the Stanford protestors petitioned their university to abolish any mandated engagement with the intellectual inheritance of the West, this was the underlying objection: the conviction that Western civilization, particularly for historically marginalized groups, is irredeemably marred by a history of racism, sexism, and any number of other mortal sins. In the context of the modern liberal arts, the consequences of this tectonic shift are difficult to overstate.

The Rise of Critical Theory

The West is experiencing a crisis of confidence; this is more apparent in our current moment than it was in 1987, though events like the Stanford protests were a foreboding warning to anyone who was paying close attention. One of the most significant causes of this pervasive cynicism is the transformation of the modern university, pursuant to a radical shift in the dominant conception of the purpose of a liberal arts education. In contrast to the classical understanding of a university education as an initiation into the intellectual inheritance of Western civilization, a new conception of the liberal arts began to emerge in tandem with the popularization of the “oppressive” understanding of the West; the liberal arts, argued the proponents of this new understanding, must be transformed into a tool for liberation from the Western inheritance. The result was various iterations of “critical theory,” from the neo-Marxism of Antonio Gramsci to the postmodernism of Michel Foucault, and it sought to replace the ancient Platonic formulation of education as a search for the good, the true, and the beautiful.

Simultaneously, a Socratic love of wisdom (the traditional guiding principle of liberal education) was superseded by a critical skepticism, which saw its preeminent task as deconstructing and attacking the philosophical convictions of the past, rather than engaging with them as potential sources of wisdom.

The new conception of liberal arts learning understands its fundamental goal to be, in the words of Robert P. George, “liberation from traditional social constraints and norms of morality—the beliefs, principles, and structures by which earlier generations had been taught to govern their conduct,” resulting from a belief, “that the traditional norms and structures are irrational – vestiges of superstition and phobia that impede the free development of personalities by restricting people’s capacities to act on their desires.” The liberal arts was no longer to be an engagement with one’s intellectual heritage but, rather, a training in its rejection. Simultaneously, a Socratic love of wisdom (the traditional guiding principle of liberal education) was superseded by a critical skepticism, which saw its preeminent task as deconstructing and attacking the philosophical convictions of the past, rather than engaging with them as potential sources of wisdom.


Newly emergent ideas of “critical theory,” which regard inherited traditions, habits, and forms of knowledge as objects of suspicion rather than as genuine achievements are the ascendant causes of this radical shift in the liberal arts. In particular, the postmodern theories of fashionable philosophers like Foucault transformed the way that academics viewed the world around them: every aspect of our social conditions, in Foucauldian thought, is the cumulative result of concealed systems of power and domination. Consequently, in contemporary intellectual life, the critical impulse that began in the ancient Socratic search for wisdom and truth has assumed its own rigidly ideological character; in short, the initial emphasis on resisting dogma—sapere aude!—has become a dogma in and of itself. In the pursuit of liberation from the antiquated assumptions of the past, the liberal arts has taken on a new set of assumptions and convictions, increasingly viewing every aspect of the history and thought produced by Western civilization as deserving perpetual critique.

The Rationalist Challenge

In searching for an explanation of the predicament that contemporary academia finds itself in, we should direct our attention to two major intellectual trends that have emerged and taken hold in the liberal arts since the advent of the Enlightenment. The first of these influential factors is rationalism—specifically, the modern Enlightenment iteration of the rationalist impulse, which possesses a near-limitless optimism about the capability of human reason to remake the world in its image, viewing every imperfection in the human condition as a mathematical problem to be solved and eventually overcome by a particular method or formula. This rationalist mode of examination is skeptical of everything but its own skepticism, which it ironically accepts without question; subsequently, for the rationalist, the quest for wisdom is no longer a contemplative endeavor to locate the eternal and transcendent but, rather, the perpetual accumulation of data and methodologies in an attempt to apply the precepts of rationalist inquiry to every question of human existence. In the words of the political philosopher Michael Oakeshott, the rationalist thinker, “has no sense of the cumulation of experience, only of the readiness of experience when it has been converted into a formula: the past is significant to him only as an encumbrance.” In attempting to understand the critical condition of the modern university, one immediately finds a culprit in the spread of this reductionist mode of inquiry.

The impulse to place all of one’s inheritance under the microscope of dispassionate scientific inquiry makes liberal learning a cold and joyless affair. It also foments a distinctly critical attitude towards the object of one’s study—specifically, in the context of the humanities, this disposition has resulted in a deep suspicion towards many of the political and philosophical achievements that characterize Western civilization. For this suspicion, too, rationalism is at least partially to blame; in the mind of the rationalist, Oakeshott writes, “nothing is of value merely because it exists (and certainly not because it has existed for many generations), familiarity has no worth, and nothing is to be left standing for want of scrutiny.”2 The Enlightenment rationalist project, which strives to study politics and philosophy in the same way that one might study mathematics has resulted in a strong dislike for inherited habits and traditions of ideas. In contrast to the classical liberal arts practice of engaging in conversation with these philosophical traditions, rationalism is irritably impatient of them. Consequently, as the rationalist disposition became predominant in intellectual life, the liberal arts became similarly displeased with its intellectual inheritance. In this way, the modern scholar’s rejection of his own civilization is a testament to rationalism’s influence on institutions of higher education in the post-Enlightenment West.

Downwards to Nihilism

Despite its undeniable influence on contemporary intellectual thought, rationalism is not the sole culprit in the predicament of the modern university. Although modern rationalism presents significant challenges to the integrity of the academy, many of the achievements of Western academia were made possible by the Enlightenment project’s emphasis on free inquiry and the use of individual reason. In many ways, the more insidious foe of the traditional liberal arts ideal is nihilism, a radical philosophical innovation borne out of the rationalist tradition but simultaneously at odds with it. Rationalism, though reducing intellectual inquiry to the pursuit of methodological perfection, still affirms the possibility of universal truth and a natural right accessible to human reason. Nihilism, on the other hand, possesses no such confidence.

“God is dead,” Nietzsche tells us, and with him dies the possibility of anything beyond the temporality of our mortal state of being.

The nihilist sees himself as daring to take philosophy to the place that the rationalist could not stomach, transforming the rationalist’s focus on the materially quantifiable into a radical disavowal of the possibility of anything existing at all beyond our material realm. The infamous introduction of this epoch of nihilistic disillusionment was the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche’s proclamation that “Gott ist tot,” a prophetic warning of the Enlightenment project’s destruction of the possibility of religious belief.3 Whereas rationalism had cast doubt on the idea of a religious faith inaccessible to pure reason or formulaic measurement, nihilism took this skepticism and applied it to the possibility of any transcendent or universal truth of the cosmic order; “God is dead,” Nietzsche tells us, and with him dies the possibility of anything beyond the temporality of our mortal state of being.

As a voice crying out in the wilderness, Nietzsche completed the descent from Enlightenment rationalism into the nihilism of what has often been called, “the historical point of view.” Specifically, Nietzsche radicalized the rationalist emphasis on historical situatedness and proclaimed all aspects of the human experience relative to the context of historical time and place, devoid of intrinsic meaning or eternal significance. In the words of Leo Strauss, this “historical insight” claims that “all ideals are the outcome of human creative acts, of free human projects that form that horizon within which specific cultures were possible; they do not order themselves into a system; and there is no possibility of a genuine synthesis of them. Yet all known ideals claimed to have an objective support: in nature or in god or in reason. The historical insight [therefore] destroys that claim and therewith all known ideals.”4

Though antithetical to the utopian optimism of Enlightenment rationalism, nihilism is in some ways the final stage of a trend in post-Enlightenment thought within which rationalism was a way-station; particularly in the context of political philosophy, rationalism is at least partially to blame for its own demise. The rationalist reduction of political and moral questions to a series of technical problems removed the contemplation of the transcendent from political thought; with the Enlightenment and the scientific revolution, a focus on the here-and-now—the material realm accessible to human reason—became the preeminent concern of intellectual life. This shift in emphasis was concomitant with the emergence of a heightened historical awareness; that is, the success of rationalism was the simultaneous downfall of a concern for anything that might rise above the historical context of the current conditions of material existence. Increasingly, the study of politics, philosophy, and history was conducted with an emphasis on the historical context of a particular moment, rather than the contemplation of eternity. This was an inevitable development: The eternal is of little use to the rationalist, who instead prefers that which conforms to formula and logical discernment. Tragically, however, rationalism’s assumptions regarding the significance of this historical context were to eventually spell its own demise.

As the Enlightenment rationalist had proclaimed the historicist insight to be the precursor to the perfection of human nature, seeing nature as infinitely malleable to the political and social conditions of the time, Nietzsche turned this insight on its head: The terrible truth of historicism, he argued, was its destruction of any objective notion of “perfection” itself, along with an overturning of the ancient belief in good and evil, right and wrong, and eternal truth. The rationalist project was done in by the very insights it had produced.

The Death of Metaphysics

With the rise of Nietzschean nihilism (wherein the idea of truth itself was postulated to be merely relative to historical context), the idea of metaphysics itself was also destroyed; if everything is merely relative to the context of our historical situation, then nothing can exist beyond or above the material realm. Contemporary life has been corrupted by the nihilistic destruction of the metaphysical, which lurks beneath much of our modern intellectual inquiry—often unacknowledged but nonetheless exercising enormous influence over the state of political and philosophical thought. Herein lies the core challenge of our time: We moderns possess a distinct, pervasive mistrust of any lingering attachments to the eternal. In the Sisyphean quest to subjugate nature to the tribunal of individual reason, we have instead found ourselves lost in the barren wilderness of a cosmos that appears altogether more incomprehensible to us than it once did; the human race has been forsaken by its own ambition.

Under this new nihilistic regime of disbelief in the very possibility of belief, liberal education is no longer a quest for wisdom or truth but a prolonged apprenticeship in the trade of metaphysical despair, rejecting the very idea that any transcendent wisdom or universal truth exists at all. Rationalism (though still predominant in the liberal arts) is no longer fortified by its previous confidence in the truth of what it claims to pursue; as Strauss writes, “modern western man no longer knows what he wants—he no longer believes that he can know what is good and bad, [or] what is right and wrong.”5 The scientific skepticism of the rationalist remains omnipresent in the university, but its bold proclamations of being one data set away from Utopia are less pronounced than they once were.

Nihilism destroyed the possibility of completing the utopian Enlightenment project, but the present-day scholar has found no satisfactory replacement to the rationalist mode of inquiry. Quixotically, rationalism continues to predominate the university experience despite a newfound uncertainty in its own claims. Instead, rationalism in the post-modern world becomes a sort of distraction—a manic search for existential meaning in the endless pursuit of formulaic solutions to the material problems of the moment, haunted by the ever-present spectre of nihilistic dread. The desperate state of the liberal arts is a testament to this condition.

Modernity and the Liberal Arts

The predicament of contemporary academia, then, might be understood as the odd marriage of rationalist optimism and nihilistic despair. In the experience of today’s liberal arts education, one notices a distinct loss of faith in the metaphysical assumptions of the Enlightenment paired with a recommitment to its material ambitions. Man naturally seeks meaning beyond his mortal temporality; constantly in search of reprieve from the inescapable nature of time-bound existence, the human condition is thus oriented towards the transcendent. The death of God has left contemporary man with little hope of meaning beyond the material experience of the moment. Therefore, despite a newfound lack of confidence in the rationalist project to remake the world, the modern intellectual has no choice but to recommit himself to this dream, hoping to find some kernel of meaning therein but simultaneously despairing of the possibility of ever doing so.

This is, perhaps, an explanation for a resurgence of emphasis on political activism in the university in recent years. Activism, once understood as having little place in any reputable institution of liberal learning, has become ubiquitous on university campuses throughout the West. Man’s search for meaning, no longer satisfied in religious belief or the philosophic quest for wisdom, has been relocated to the pursuit of a political program. As a result, liberal arts education has been dragged down into the world that it previously resisted, subjugating honest intellectual inquiry to cheap ideological attachments and the profanities of political activity. In this new formulation, the academic no longer merely attempts to understand the world he inhabits, instead actively seeking to change it. This particular phenomenon is a testament to the continued influence of rationalism in the liberal arts: Political activism in the university is the result of the rationalist’s displeasure with the state of existing social arrangements, and it exhibits rationalism’s utopian confidence in the ability of the well-trained mind to discard the asymmetrical imperfections of a given provinciality in favor of uniformly imposed revisions. However, due to the failures of the utopian projects in the twentieth century, the bright-eyed activist with the infallible political program is less certain of himself than he once was; he continues to see the world as a series of mathematical problems, but now doubts his own authority in prescribing valid solutions.

…the flower children of the 1960’s have been replaced by the youthful anger of a generation that already feels betrayed by the world it inhabits.

Following upon the heels of this new doubt, a cloud of apocalyptic sentiment has overtaken the liberal arts experience. Hopelessness, paired with a bitter anger at a world that refuses to conform to utopian aspiration, pervades the academy. Activism is angrier and more petulant than it once was; the flower children of the 1960’s have been replaced by the youthful anger of a generation that already feels betrayed by the world it inhabits. Greta Thunberg thunders that her generation “will never forgive” their elders for the sins of inaction on climate change, Black Lives Matter protestors chant “what do we want? Dead cops!”, and presidential candidates tell newly arrived refugees that America is a nation infected to its core by white supremacy; everywhere, one encounters a hysterical anger at the state of existence.

The classroom, too, is not immune to this: The project of “deconstructing” Western civilization, revealing the hidden organs of political power concealed beneath every aspect of the Western tradition, still dominates the social sciences—but the revolutionary aspirations of the rationalist no longer have a future utopia to look towards. Rather, the university has found itself in a state of endless revolution, perpetually attacking the world it inhabits without a semblance of an idea of the world it desires. The old rationalist desire to tear down existing social arrangements in order to start anew has been abridged, and the post-modern program only seeks to deconstruct and dismantle, with little hope for the subsequent reconstruction of a perfected future.

What is colloquially referred to as “safe space culture” is undoubtedly a reaction to this new despair engulfing the university; having torn down all objects of social affection, rejected any notions of gratitude as mere parochialisms, and deconstructed the mystic chords of memory that bind a civilization together, the post-modern intellectual finds himself adrift. He has little confidence in the scientific “reason” that his Enlightenment predecessors championed as the tool with which men would become gods, and yet he continues to regard the cosmic order with the skeptical eye of the Baconian method. Having encountered the terrible truth of nihilism (yet still hopelessly engaged in the endless revolution of the rationalist), the contemporary scholar turns to comfort as a last resort. As the doctor administers morphine to the chronically ill patient on the verge of death, the child-proofing of the university is an attempt to make the futility of the post-nihilist state of intellectual inquiry more bearable.

Trigger warnings, safe spaces, the rise in emphasis on “holistic” pedagogies and increased concern for mental health, demands for the censorship of sentiments that make students feel “unsafe” and the intolerance of any cause for offense or discomfort: all are the result of an unspoken disillusionment that now pervades the liberal arts. This coddling of the university has been written about at length, but critics of such trends often blame the emotional immaturity of younger generations or particular radical ideologies for these developments. While such indictments might contain some truth, they are surface-level indicators of a significantly deeper issue: an attempt to contend with the nihilistic predicament.

Conclusion

Liberation, that vaguely defined but perpetually overemployed neologism, continues to be the dominant goal in contemporary understandings of liberal arts education. No longer attached to a specific political program, modern liberative efforts instead pursue the rejection of all social mores, traditions and habits, viewing the abolition of all constraints on individual behavior as a necessary precursor to true freedom. The contemporary academic, suspicious of any political program that claims to possess the final truth of human association, now rejects truth itself as an unbearable imposition on his desire, “to live each day as if it were his first.”6 The critical impulse that predominates today’s liberal arts experience is a result of this development: Liberation, once understood as the rationalist project of remaking the world in pursuit of perfection, now doubts its own ambitions. A dislike for the existing state of the world remains, but any claims regarding utopian truth are now seen as similarly suspicious; instead, liberation is now concomitant with destruction—a rejection of all that is.

In the context of liberal arts education, however, liberation was not always understood as the radical rejection of one’s heritage. Instead, Robert George writes:

“According to the classical liberal arts ideal, learning promises liberation, but it is not liberation from demanding moral ideals and social norms – it is, rather, liberation from slavery to self…Our critical engagement with great thinkers enriches our understanding and enables us to grasp, or grasp more fully, great truths – truths that, when we appropriate them and integrate them into our lives, liberate us from what is merely vulgar, coarse, or base. These are soul-shaping, humanizing truths – truths whose appreciation and secure possession elevate reason above passion or appetite, enabling us to direct our desires and our wills to what is truly good, truly beautiful, truly worthy of human beings as possessors of profound and inherent dignity.”7

Liberation, in this understanding, is the result of engagement with the legacy of our intellectual tradition rather than a rejection of it. This understanding must be pursued once again in the liberal arts. This is no easy task, for the dominance of historicism and nihilism in our current moment cannot be entirely escaped; it must instead be reconciled with. Men cannot be forced to believe once again in God, nor can the ancient conception of knowledge as timeless and universal be entirely recovered. A recuperation from this predicament instead requires a more humble proposition: A restored gratitude and respect for our inheritance as participants in the Western tradition. To anyone who cares to notice, the limitations of the historical point of view are revealed when one encounters the wisdom of the greatest thinkers in this tradition, in the revelation that Plato’s The Republic or Hobbes’ Leviathan still have something valuable to tell us about our current situation. Entering into a conversation with the wisdom of past epochs, we realize that the human condition is not wholly confined to the circumstances of its historical context—transcendence is possible, if only we regain the inclination to search for it once again.

Nate Hochman is a student at Colorado College and a former editorial intern at National Review.