The Protocols is not an organized book. It is rambling, repetitive and sometimes imbecile. But these qualities contribute to its literary effect as an exposé because they set the book’s clear declarations in a world of shadows and strange sounds. The Protocols remind me of Dostoyevsky’s Notes from Underground, or of a monologue by a man who has something important to say but who frequently mumbles and is not entirely sober. The tone shifts from sly to bombastic to muttering. Sudden segues enhance the cloak-and-dagger mood.
The Protocols purports to describe a plot to install “the King-Despot of the blood of Zion” as ruler of the world. The qualifier despot means a bad king who rules for his own benefit and this King-Despot of the blood of Zion is thus the antitype of what St. Paul called “the blessed and only Potentiate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords” (1 Timothy 6:15). Where Christ is the good shepherd who “giveth his life for the sheep,” this King-Despot is an antichrist, a bad shepherd who is worse than a wolf.
Where Jesus said the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, the Protocols say
“There remains only a short distance and the cycle of the Symbolic Serpent—that badge of our people—will be complete.”
The second section of the Protocols begins by stating that it is “indispensable” for the purpose of the Learned Elders “ that wars should not produce any territorial alterations.” The Elders plot require that the political map of the world be static, just as it has, in fact, been static (with minor exceptions) since 1945. This doctrine of sacred and inviolate boundaries will put war on “an economical footing,” and by so doing will transfer power from the military men of the old aristocracy to the money men of the new plutocracy. When nations fight for territory, the indispensable man sits on the field marshal’s horse. When nations fight for market share, the indispensable man sits in the big office at the bank.
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is one of those many books that are more often mentioned than read. Most literate people know from hearsay that the Protocols is a libelous forgery of the Czarist secret police and that the Protocols says Bolshevism was actually a stalking horse of supremacist Jews. That, at least, is what I knew from hearsay (although my claim to literacy is in some quarters disputed). In any case, I have at last decided to actually read the infamous tract, and propose to tell all who care to listen exactly what I find. Continue reading
So what should we do? Should conservatives and Christians in academia keep keeping our heads down so that some are in positions of influence when–if–the current mania passes? Should we be speaking out, and damn the consequences? Is it time to throw in the towel, to give up on academia and look for new lines of work?Continue reading
COVID was an IQ test and I failed, thank God. Nearly everyone has stopped wearing masks. Everybody has gotten COVID at least once by now, and it’s not a big deal. However, the few physicists I still see wearing masks everywhere are the ones that I would say are definitely the best and most intelligent of the bunch. Interestingly, these are not the most ideological. Presumably, their opinions are as nauseatingly conformist as the rest of the faculty’s, but these are not the ones who are eager to start “difficult conversations about whiteness”. The more zealous guys (or, rather, gals) stopped with the masks as soon as they were allowed to, just like I did.
I was chatting with one of the mask-wearers. He and one of my graduate students were telling me about the horrible sicknesses they’d endured after their most recent boosters. My colleage did note that the booster he got after he had gotten COVID was less troublesome. I suggested that COVID had partly immunized him against the vaccine.
I got the vaccine to immunize myself against unemployment, but now I’m not keeping up with boosters. Instead, I lost 40 pounds, started exercising, and got off my blood pressure medicine. I expect my colleagues who are more intelligent than me would admit that most likely my response to the virus will prove to be more beneficial to myself than theirs will be to them. However, their big brains come with vivid imaginations. I dislike not being able to breath freely because of a mask, while they can imagine some poor person gasping for his or her last breaths because COVID passed through a chain of unmasked carriers until finally, inevitably, it struck someone hard. Thank God I’m stupid and can breath easy, untroubled by such imaginings.
@The JollyHeretic, on Odysee, January 20th, 2023
Dietrich Stapel former professor of social psychology at Tilburg University was fired for fabricating evidence. “Stapel has retracted dozens of papers, settled with Dutch prosecutors and agreed to 120 hours of community service, after resigning from Tilburg University and relinquishing his PhD.” https://retractionwatch.com/2016/09/13/no-teaching-post-for-fraudster-diederik-stapel-after-all/#more-44194
He made up data to prove left-wing and environmentalist ideas to be correct. One paper argued that people who eat meat are more selfish than vegetarians. It is typically only possible to publish in top journals, which are controlled by leftists, if you show that left-wing dogmas are correct. Since they are seldom consistent with the facts, it can be necessary to fabricate the data. Generally, conservative ideas, hereditarianism, are correct. Both intelligence and personality are largely inherited, contradicting left-wing doctrine that believes in social constructionism – that society, and not genetics, makes us what we are. By 2023, Stapel had had 57 of his articles retracted for fraud and for making up the data.
Dutton looks at the site “Reversals in Psychology” https://www.gleech.org/psych.
The criterion for a reversal is a study that does not replicate, for which there is only very weak evidence, or is simply fraudulent or manipulated. It was up to Dutton to note that it was largely papers supporting left-wing or liberal dogmas that had these problems.
Left-wing people are liars who value equality and harm avoidance, but are low in sanctity, loyalty, group orientation and obedience to authority. Telling lies violates sanctity. Since they are anti-social, pro-individual, self-promoting, and high in Machiavellianism, they do not care what is good for the group and are prepared to lie. They are also low in conscientiousness, which also promotes lying. They care about their own prestige and power, as opposed to those who care about the power and prestige of the group to which they belong. In fact, they are traitors who identify with the outgroup, which allows them to collaborate with them to try to promote themselves. Conservatives, on the other hand, care about the in-group. Continue reading
I have a little ritual of browsing the university bookstore at the beginning of each semester to see if I find anything interesting in the required readings. I have sadly decided that this will be my last semester doing this; it’s gotten too depressing.
The first thing I notice this spring is how few required textbooks there are. I don’t know if students are doing less reading than before (standards are plummeting everywhere), or if it’s just that more reading is being done online via services like Perusall. I myself find astronomy textbooks so horribly written that I’ve decided I might as well save the students money and let them read whatever dreck is on Perusall. There are subjects, though, where one must go to the primary sources: literature, philosophy, history. These too are sparser than they used to be, but there are still enough books to paint a clear and dismal picture.
Browsing the English books, which–a tiny blessing–are still mostly fiction and only minority theory, I was dismayed to find that ABSOLUTELY NONE of them were what one would ordinarily regard as being among the classics. Indeed, as far as I noticed, NONE of the books were written before the mid-twentieth century. Of course, there was plenty of race-and-sexuality bilge, but the most striking lack of diversity was chronological. In fairness, I saw that there was one class in the “Humanities” department that had students read The Trial of Socrates (the least interesting thing Plato wrote) and Oedipus Rex.
Wokeness has almost completely conquered and replaced history. It’s all race-and-sexuality demonology, with the exception (that I saw) of a generic American history text and a course on ancient warfare (which included a biography of Alexander the Great and a book on the Roman legions).
Unless these students are reading real literature and real history on their own, WSU is now turning out complete barbarians who have been totally deprived of their heritage.
No, I will not go back there again.
They’re all over now–job applications, research proposals. It’s the usual Leftist Motte and Bailey tactic. What they actually want is a loyalty oath to the anti-white ideology. If someone refuses to provide this or points out that such a thing is illegal, they can fall back on saying that it’s not conformity to an ideology that they’re testing but ability to teach, interest, and inspire people from “diverse” and “underserved” backgrounds.
The latter actually is a valid thing to expect from an academic, but I see no reason to believe that “people of color” respond differently than others to different teaching strategies. When one gets down to practicalities, diversity in academic background and preparedness turn out to be the real pedagogical issues confronted. For outreach and research recruitment, the challenge of engaging those with little prior exposure to a given academic field turns out to have more to do with class and region than membership in a sacralized group per se. So, most of these “diversity” initiatives that aspiring academics or grant recipients promise to do actually are worthwhile. The category of people they might actually help correlates with but is not exclusive to the groups they are most advertised to help. Surely, though, there is something corrupting in winning the opportunity to do good (e.g. improving teaching of those with weak backgrounds, performing science demos at rural schools) by pretending that one wants to do evil (promote anti-whiteness).
“Among the most important characteristics of our age we must mention the presence, in the midst of society, of a number of individuals who, for one reason or another, have been unable to adapt themselves to the necessities of modern civilization, and are unable to find a place therein. They form a superfluity which cannot be utilized. They are the unadapted.”
Gustave Le Bon, The Psychology of Socialism (1899)*
I am myself a superfluous man who is only barely adapted to modern civilization. I am not unemployed, incarcerated, or a fugitive from justice, but I am conscious, sometimes acutely, of my alienation, irritation and disgust. I am, therefore, to some considerable degree a misfit. It is only with effort, and then imperfectly, that I adapt myself to my environment.