Vir Prudens Non Contra Ventum Mingit

In theory, the modern university operates under the quodlibet principle that it is free to discuss and inquire into what (quod) it pleases (libet). Within its ivied walls, it would have us believe, there are no sacred cows and everything is fair game. In reality, however, the motto of every modern university is vir prudens non contra ventum mingit, which is the erudite way to say that a wise man does not piss into the wind.

The ventum against which the modern university does not mingit is, needless to say, the typhoon of progressive cant, and the reason doing so would not be prudent is that the entire power elite stands behind this typhoon, their cheeks bellowed and their eyes bulging with the strain of adding to its force.

Texas A&M University has been keeping its cuffs dry in the aftermath of the Charlottesville affray by shutting down a proposed disputation of the question “do white lives matter.” More specifically, according to the event organizer, the now-canceled event was to have been a “protest” against “the liberal agenda of white guilt and white genocide that is taught at most all universities in America.” Perhaps the organizer was thinking about the A&M course in Hip Hop Philosophy, which invokes the quodlibet principle to consider arguments in favor of White genocide.  It’s on the schedules once again this fall.

Quodlibet for some, it appears, but not for all.

The canceled protest was to have taken place on September 11, and would have featured Richard Spencer, the well-known figure on the alternative right (whom the bien pensant routinely confuses with leaders of right-wing movements of eighty or a hundred years ago). Speaking with the backing of the University administration, all local politicians, obedient student organizations, the local newspaper, and every other organ of the local bien pensant, a fearless graduate student named Adam Key spoke truth to power and said:

“I thought they got the message last time — we don’t want them here.”

Key was the organizer of the violent BTHO Hate protest that attempted to break down the doors and assault the audience at Richard Spencer’s lecture last December. His mob of anarchists and communists was blocked by police in riot gear, but it was not dispersed, obliging Spencer’s peaceful audience to evacuate by way of a back door. The newspaper reports without comment Key’s interpretation of this event.

“Key said there was miscommunication with campus and state police over whether protestors were allowed inside the building . . .”

Actually, as I reported at the time, protesters were allowed in the building. They were allowed in the auditorium. There was a dancing clown; there were Che Guevara wannabes giving the red salute; there were angry students waving placards calling for Spencer’s death. The protesters blocked at the door were howling for blood.

Since last December’s Anarchist riot, Texas A&M has taken additional measures to trim the quodlibet principle and bar from campus anyone who might imprudently contra ventum mingit. Private citizens are no longer permitted to book campus facilities without the backing of a “student organization,” which is to say without the backing of students who know which way the wind blows. This is why the September rally was to have been held out of doors, beside Rudder Fountain, in what is technically a “Free Speech Zone.”

Was to have been held, that is, until the wind began to blow.

We see the first stirring of the wind in the newspaper’s descriptions of the event organizer Preston Wiginton, and its headliner, Richard Spencer. The newspaper takes care to defame Wiginton by reminding readers that he is not a collage graduate, and therefore, evidently, a no-account ignoramus with urine-speckled trousers. As for Spencer, one comes away with the impression he may have been in the passenger seat beside James Alex Fields, Jr., in Charlottesville, visibly egging him on. This used to be known as guilt by association.

We see the wind mounting in its representation of the December lecture, from which the violence and overt communist symbols of Key’s protesters have been absolutely expurgated, but in which much emphasis has been laid on the notion that Spencer enjoyed “little visible support.” It is true that turnout was not large, but we are not reminded that this might have been owing to the message the Provost sent to students saying that attendees might be filmed—and, you know,

Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit!

The wind rises to gale force in denunciations from local politicians with connections to the Right to Which Some Alternative is so Desperately Needed.

For instance, local Texas Senator, Charles Schwertner (R) opined that the “racist and bigoted hate speech promoted by these hate groups” should be “loudly and consistently condemned by all responsible voices of our society.” Similar sentiments were voiced by local State Representatives John Raney (R) and Kyle Kacal (R).

I, for one, would be curious to know whether Schwertner (R), Raney (R), and Kacal (R) are regular reader of Richard Spencer’s articles and speeches, or whether they are just careless when throwing around words like “hate” “bigotry,” and “racism.”

While we’re at it, I’d also be curious to know what they think about Professor Woke, and about the communist flag and red salutes that were so conspicuous a part of last December’s protest. Are they proud to be standing shoulder to shoulder with anarchists and communists? Would they mind a photo-op beneath the hammer and sickle?

The now-unnecessary counter-protest was to have taken the form of a “Maroon Wall” that would “block the rally and its message from view,” this to be set, as Key puts it, “as close as possible to Wiginton’s rally without disrupting pedestrian and vehicle traffic.” You see the modern university is all about the free flow of “pedestrian and vehicle traffic.” The free flow of opinions—not so much!

I don’t suppose I am what Senator Schwertner has in mind when he thinks of “responsible voices of our society.” I suppose he finds voices “responsible” to the degree they echo his own. In fact, a post like this one is the only voice I have, and so here is what I say:

To the University I say, apply the quodlibet principle equally. Let Professor Woke speculate about White genocide in his classroom, and let Richard Spencer speculate about White separatism wherever may be convenient. Recognize, however, that the quodlibet principle does not require allowing a “counter protest” at the same time and in the same space. What the principle does allow, and indeed demand, is a calm and deliberate answer to the ideas that are proposed. “No-platforming” speakers, or shutting them down with dancing clowns and “Maroon Walls,” strongly suggests an embarrassing lack of an answer.

Mr. Key, for instance, bills himself as an expert debater—a “debate coach,” in fact. Why not have him answer Spencer rationally, instead of with howling mobs, not to mention the the help of the Chancellor, the newspaper, and the Republican party?

To those time-servers of the Right to Which We So Desperately Need an Alternative, I say that I hope you enjoy keeping that legislative seat warm for Mr. Key and his howling mob. Your party will be dead in twenty years, if not sooner, because the ventum into which you are too timid to mingit is going to blow you away.

14 thoughts on “Vir Prudens Non Contra Ventum Mingit

  1. Pingback: Vir Prudens Non Contra Ventum Vingit – Son of Locksley

  2. Pingback: Vir Prudens Non Contra Ventum Vingit | @the_arv

  3. By 2035 I expect to see articles complaining that employers deliberately avoid hiring people with non-STEM degrees, and how this, along with student debt, is sexist and racist because most white men do not go to college.

    Nor will most white men have jobs that the government knows about. Why pay taxes when the government would just give that money to people who hate you?

  4. Sadly, I see no other way forward but inevitable civil conflict (perhaps something roughly analogous to the Troubles in Northern Ireland) that could escalate in a variety of ways. As in, there will be coordinated violent political attacks made by dissident rightist groups (no doubt done in secret and in stealth) as well as disproportionate violence from Marxist groups (oftentimes brazenly and in the open). The police will be unable to stop the right (who will adapt and use quick, surprising, and efficient tactics) and unwilling to stop the left (who will be given justification by the media to riot/destroy). Each incident will fuel the fire for the next one. Each side will become more radical and less sane, further alienating the apolitical and destroying any type of social trust.

    The church has an opportunity here, but sadly much of what I’ve read has been nothing more than culturally-approved sentiment–largely one-sided (i.e. against racist chants but not communist violence), light on biblical teaching regarding sin and evil, and incapable of dealing with the alienation and distrust felt by those on either side. Pray for Christ’s return, and quickly.

  5. White separatism is only viable when it aims at a sustained separation. It’s not good enough to avoid and confront one’s demons today and merely separate from degenerate evil tomorrow. A sustained separation indicates desire for (S)upremacy. White men who seek sustained separation from the totalitarian cult of “Equality” are, properly-speaking, white (S)upremacists. Inherent to their being is the intention of perpetuity within The Eternal and against the annihilating entropy of total redundancy, i.e. “Universal Equality.”

    Our enemies DESIRE annihilation. Our enemies are self-annihilators. Their unquenchable thirst for “universal equality” renders them less capable of satiation than the parasite, itself. Their MOTIVE is clear in their constant drumbeat of absolute inclusion. The very word modernly translates into an immoral force. “Inclusion” now memes “immoral force.”

    An ideology of racial discarnation invokes and will provoke a sustained separation of white men. This will be known as white (S)upremacy.

  6. To the University I say, apply the quodlibet principle equally.

    I am hoping that the left’s attacks on ‘free speech’ will awaken some on the right to the fact that there is no such thing as truly neutral free speech: there is always some implicit moral code that is presupposed in determining what counts as free speech.

    The left has been making this more explicit recently by saying that speech that denies the humanity of others does not count as free speech. For example, from <The New York Times (via Steve Sailer):

    … We would do better to focus on a more sophisticated understanding [of free speech],… of the necessary conditions for speech to be a common, public good. This requires the realization that in politics, the parameters of public speech must be continually redrawn to accommodate those who previously had no standing. …

    The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks. It means balancing the inherent value of a given view with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can participate in discourse as fully recognized members of that community. Free-speech protections — not only but especially in universities, which aim to educate students in how to belong to various communities — should not mean that someone’s humanity, or their right to participate in political speech as political agents, can be freely attacked, demeaned or questioned.

    Those on the right who defend free speech do the same sort of thing, limiting what counts as free speech by some more fundamental moral commitments. It’s just that they don’t typically realize that this is what they’re doing. For example, speech that is intended to incite violence does not count as free speech. I’m even told that back in the racist, misogynist past, speech that was obscene or blasphemous did not count as free speech (ah, those were the days!).

    So, I’m hopeful that the left’s re-definition of free speech will make this more apparent, and so those on the right can start defending our principles by explicit appeal to the truth rather than by appeal to free speech.

    In a healthy society, there might still be howling mobs protesting and shouting down speakers. The difference would be that the speaker being shouted down would be someone advocating sodomy rather than someone defending the white race.

    • Free speech is something that kind of works among a white, Anglo, Christian nation. So the Founders bounded free speech by more or less defining or thinking of America as a white, Anglo, Christian nation.

      • Hey Andrew,

        Right, but how is this different from any other society? Every society will have certain limits within which speech is acceptable and outside of which it’s not. The difference is simply that different societies have different limits and thus the content of what counts as free speech is different among different societies.

        So I’m not sure what the concept of ‘free speech’ adds to the idea that some speech should be tolerated and some should not.

      • Agreed. I guess I’m stipulating that free speech doesn’t mean a whole lot without a contextual framework to place it into. The Founders mostly had that framework when they wrote about these things and took it for granted. And I’m saying obviously we’ve lost that contextual framework of race/ethny/religion/culture so free speech devolves into culture war these days because no one can agree on the priors.

    • An appeal to free speech may be taken as a concession that the speech in question is, as they say, “problematic” and “not normal.” I suspect that many people suspect there is something morally dubious about a man who claims the protection of “free speech,” since they themselves have never said anything out of the ordinary. The triumph of the Left has been to make the people who oppose taking down a hundred-year-old statue look like the lunatic fringe, and the people who beat them with clubs look like upstanding citizens.


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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.