Kneeling Nancy's a Marxist? Funny kind of communist, no?
It's called oikophobia:
An extreme and immoderate aversion to the sacred and the thwarting of the connection of the sacred to the culture of the West appears to be the underlying motif of oikophobia; and not the substitution of Hellenic Christianity by another coherent system of belief. The paradox of the oikophobe seems to be that any opposition directed at the theological and cultural tradition of the West is to be encouraged even if it is "significantly more parochial, exclusivist, patriarchal, and ethnocentric". (Mark Dooley, Roger Scruton: Philosopher on Dover Beach (Continuum 2009), p. 78.)
The term also occasionally appears in psychology with the more literal sense of a fear of home.
Scruton defines it as "the repudiation of inheritance and home," and refers to it as "a stage through which the adolescent mind normally passes." Roger Scruton, ''A Political Philosophy'', p. 24.
Super interesting. I’m wondering though if Marx and his disciples were not also suffering from a unique nineteenth century variant of oikophobia. I would say Rousseau, at least, and possibly all of the Romantics certainly were.
You give these generic leftist assholes too much credit for logical consistency and even the vaguest form of intellectual rigor. The short answer is they're all mental midgets with daddy issues throwing a tantrum by supporting whatever “radical” “Fight the Man” stupidity appears in front of them.
I have no idea of your background, but having studied with “actual economic Marxists” at the University of Chicago, I have zero basis for agreeing with your idea of their being “anti-woke.”
Anyway, these fine haired, angels-dancing-on-a-pinhead subtle distinctions don’t matter to me - because they don’t matter to the screaming hordes of Soros-funded clowns marching in the streets to call for the death of Jews.
All leftist assholes love some group of themselves being in total charge of everyone else, no matter how you define those possible theoretical dividing lines.
Seriously. It’s like Coke and Pepsi…I remember in the Greek elections thirty years ago my parents got two different ballots: one for the Marxist-Leninist party…and one for the Leninist-Marxist party!
My wife works at a “ prestigious “ medical school as a Prof. I used to work there as well but my central nervous system couldn’t take it. She can. And yes the DEI blatant anti- white racism is real and right out in the open. And sanctioned by the Institution.
I understand but I try to hold my outrage for those incidents that I know are true. I realize this is entirely likely to be true. The DEI nonsense is out of control
I wish this was not posted anonymously. It would seem easier to believe if we had the institution and faculty involved. Hard to be certain this is not fiction.
I can understand it. There can be repercussions for coming forward. My kid's private high school, Dwight-Englewood, had a DEI meltdown that made the newspapers in 2021. Parents were outraged and wanted to speak out, but someone pointed out that the school had quietly added wording to the tuition contracts that would allow them to expel a student if they or their parents challenged the DEI orthodoxy. The last thing a parent wants to do is get their kid booted, especially if it's during their senior year. So, lots of people spoke out anonymously knowing that it wasn't ideal, but their hands were tied.
I worked in higher ed admin (yes, part of the bloat) for 25+ years before I retired. I wish I could say your story is unbelievable but, well, I have a few stories of my own. Three years before retirement a faculty member invited me to apply for a department position answering to the chair, i.e. a high-level slot with a number of responsibilities. I prepared packets for each member of the hiring committee containing a CV and a thick pile of recommendation letters including one from a state senator and a previous university president. A USB stick containing a slide deck of a proposed re-org for greater output with estimated cost savings. When I sat down before the committee they had only one question, which I can still remember: "What have you done to advance diversity and what are your plans to promote diversity in this department?" I looked at the committee, each member being white, and answered that I thought diversity was a worthy goal but did they have any questions concerning the tasks mentioned in the job posting or my materials? They did not. Interview concluded. They got up and left. A week or so later the faculty member asked if I had been interviewed yet. She was astounded when I said I had and a bit angry they had not communicated the outcome to her. The committee eventually hired a young woman right out of school who was wildly unqualified for the job.
I've been on a lot of search committees and all of this feels familiar, but this is an order of magnitude more appalling than anything we've ever done. Maybe STEM disciplines just don't attract as many terrorists?
Are you referring to the claim by Cato? If so it's wrong. When people examined the database they found it was riddled with mistakes and omissions that, when fixed, showed the left being far more violent than the right. For example:
And that is still a left-biased result because Cato started counting in 1975, an arbitrary date presumably chosen to exclude the wave of leftist terrorism shortly predating that time. It also ignores communist political violence elsewhere in the world.
During the 1960s and 1970s, many extremists joined left-wing groups, often spurred by the civil rights movement or the Vietnam War. "Underground movement" radicals associated with groups like the Weather Underground, the New World Liberation Front, Chicano Liberation Front, and the Symbionese Liberation Army claimed responsibility for hundreds of small-scale bombings in the 1970s.[29] In an eighteen-month period between 1971 and 1972, the FBI recorded 2,500 bombings in the U.S.—nearly five per day.[29] They were usually detonated with prior warning or at night, resulting in few casualties and limited public outcry.[29][2]
I mean, the entire Weather Underground took over academia 50 years ago (after going completely unpunished for all of their terrorism). Why are we surprised?
I never understood how those murderers avoided jail. I guess the lives of poor minority janitors do not matter as much as those of cowardly rich white people.
Some comments saying that this is too much or too hard to believe. I don't find it hard to believe at all. I know a hiring committee in a STEM field - several very woke women and 1 meek male. They made it all about DEI. The original matrix for evaluating applicants-candidates was a certain percentage DEI but it was really the only thing. The search net was so wide - and research in the scientific field was soooo wide and generic, it opened itself to anyone and everyone in the field as a whole. It was an open secret the committee googled-social media-linkedin candidates to eliminate all white men and most white women. The finalists visited the campus - all intersectional minorities. The committee apparently told the candidates to avoid meeting with or talking to any of the men in the department. There was discussion as to why the most disadvantaged candidates should be chosen but they ended up going with a white woman - who of course claimed they-them and some other victim or oppressed status - and that angered the more extreme woke because she is white. There are other stories from other departments over the past few years about such hirings. So I can believe yours as it is very omnipresent and lurking around most universities and colleges.
As Jon McWhorter has frequently pointed out, a major effect of such DEI hiring is that it casts the shadow of suspicion as to the validity of all minority group staff. This is not anti-racism, it is racism - minorities need these (often white) saviour tactics like a hole in the head. Something they'd realise if they applied a bit of, ahem, academic rigour to the matter. But they did not, perhapas because the facts just get in the way of their moral posturing, and/or grifting.
Hah yes, there is that! However, I think that kind of racism (the stark assumption that black people cannot be good Drs, lawyers, etc) is old and aging (if not actually dead yet); whilst the accusation/suspicion of 'only there due to positive discrimination' is younger and growing. As McWhorter and others point out, most of the problem would go away if you simply gave affirmative action on a socio-economic class basis rather than a skin colour basis. As it is, we have a system that rates for Malia and Natasha as severely disadvantaged, and Cletus and Brandi as privileged.
Yeah, but we still faced the same kinds of questions. I was actually glad to learn that, when I was hired at university (with tenure, by the way, which rarely happens), they'd actually offered the job to a white man first (he and I were in slightly different aspects of the same field and the faculty had been divided which direction they wanted to go). But I could confidently say I didn't get the job because I was a woman, if it had been offered to a man first. Up till then, I'd heard the whispers questioning my competence (something that died out when I was hired with tenure, by the way).
Why would the problem (i.e., lack of confidence in ability) go away if you base admittance criteria on how much money the candidate has, or doesn't have?
a) It wouldn't be linked to race, which is the problem I was pointing out; also b) surely almost everyone can get on board with the idea that, eg, someone from an impoverished backround, poor schooling, who gets 70% on a test is probably at least as smart as someone from an elite background, schooling who gets 80%.
Thanks. Sounds like it would be linked to race since "impoverished background" and "poor schooling" means blacks and browns in a multiracial society. Especially when you, or McWhorter, then hedge on grading these groups on a different scale. You're just rephrasing the current practice of racial quotas to make it less obvious.
To give you an example, in ultra liberal Washington, DC, not only have they been grading on a racial scale (90% or better correct answers is an A for white students, 85% for brown students and 80% for blacks) but they have a lottery where a certain percent of all DC public school students can attend in Upper Caucasia, NW quadrant, if they win.
Why, you ask? Because that's where the best schools are located. Demand is the same for blacks with high income from SE quadrant, or even Maryland if they cheat. They just don't want to send their kids to black schools. It's also why more affluent white liberals send their kids to private schools.
It's like, compared to Mexico the gringos have the best roads north of the border. Have you ever noticed that all the mass migration moves in one direction?
The whole point of education should be to encourage excellence, not social engineering. The rich whites will escape the black/brown undertow regardless.
The point of elite education should be to train the best to run the country - medicine etc. One of the best ways you can do that is to look for brilliance in lower echelons - and not just in the upper classes (they alreadyhave the best teachers, tutors, elite training in etc - they do not need a louder voice or another advocate to be heard!). Black does not equal deprived - there is a huge black middle class . Deprived equals deprived. Otherwise we have a system where, eg, the Obamas kids get positive discrimination to get into Ivies (B grades), whilst 'Cleetus' from Appalachia doesn't get in, even for higher grades!
The reason these people were willing to advocate so relentlessly for this candidate is because he's evil.
There are nuances, of course -- he's the right color, he has the right politics -- but the evil is what inspires their very real passion to go above and beyond.
Believe every sentence. Trust me, this level of shenanigans occur with equal levels of self delusion and smug stabby assholery in the private sector - the chief delineator being the grotesque levels of payment for uselessness.
Many. I agree you don't need to reveal the university because this is a near-universal story. I retired 15 years ago, before it got really insane, but the insanity was already setting in. What really bothered me was how condescending the white committee members were to minorities. This is, at best, only partly about elevating minorities. It is much more about making the white faculty members feel good about themselves. I had a conversation with a black scholar who had been derailed in his academic career by a university president who wanted to make him VP of diversity or something like that. He was still a junior faculty member so was he going to say no? Of course not. The president probably made the job sound like he could do real good for minorities, but when he got into the job, it turned out to have no power, no authority, and no funding. He was just a bauble on the administration's staff list and by the time he realized it, his academic cred had expired. I narrowly diverted a black colleague in my field from getting sucked into the same kind of decorative position. I told him in no uncertain terms that the ONLY reason the president was interested in him was because he was black and that he could make the (white) president look good. Fortunately, he heard me and has continued to make huge contributions in our science.
You have so many stories that seem entirely unbelievable; however, if you work as faculty at a university, you know that these stories are accurate. It's all true.
This hasn't just been restricted to academia. This same scenario has been happening across the culture - in media and the arts, education and medicine, politics and the law - for at least the last 15 years. All the major institutions across the West have examples like this. These stories aren't aberrations, they are the unspoken new norm. This shouldn't be shocking to anyone paying attention.
One terrorist was stopped, after a long struggle, from teaching our children. In this one instance. Imagine how many have gotten through. Our education system has been CAPTURED.
Now we all understand how someone with Claudine Gay's résumé wound up as president of Harvard.
We never misunderstood it. This is just one more datum about the insane Marxist evil infesting our universities.
They're not Marxist. They're anti-white male. That's what the article relates to at the beginning.
They are ALL Marxists, and don’t even know it.
Kneeling Nancy's a Marxist? Funny kind of communist, no?
It's called oikophobia:
An extreme and immoderate aversion to the sacred and the thwarting of the connection of the sacred to the culture of the West appears to be the underlying motif of oikophobia; and not the substitution of Hellenic Christianity by another coherent system of belief. The paradox of the oikophobe seems to be that any opposition directed at the theological and cultural tradition of the West is to be encouraged even if it is "significantly more parochial, exclusivist, patriarchal, and ethnocentric". (Mark Dooley, Roger Scruton: Philosopher on Dover Beach (Continuum 2009), p. 78.)
The term also occasionally appears in psychology with the more literal sense of a fear of home.
Scruton defines it as "the repudiation of inheritance and home," and refers to it as "a stage through which the adolescent mind normally passes." Roger Scruton, ''A Political Philosophy'', p. 24.
Super interesting. I’m wondering though if Marx and his disciples were not also suffering from a unique nineteenth century variant of oikophobia. I would say Rousseau, at least, and possibly all of the Romantics certainly were.
If you are interested in this topic please read my article:
https://ageofmuses.substack.com/p/western-oikophobia-a-study
Why would a marxist push to hire an anarchist? Those ideologies are strictly opposed to each other.
You give these generic leftist assholes too much credit for logical consistency and even the vaguest form of intellectual rigor. The short answer is they're all mental midgets with daddy issues throwing a tantrum by supporting whatever “radical” “Fight the Man” stupidity appears in front of them.
Probably its better to use a more accurate term for these people, like liberal. Actual economic Marxists in the academy are usually anti-woke.
I have no idea of your background, but having studied with “actual economic Marxists” at the University of Chicago, I have zero basis for agreeing with your idea of their being “anti-woke.”
Anyway, these fine haired, angels-dancing-on-a-pinhead subtle distinctions don’t matter to me - because they don’t matter to the screaming hordes of Soros-funded clowns marching in the streets to call for the death of Jews.
All leftist assholes love some group of themselves being in total charge of everyone else, no matter how you define those possible theoretical dividing lines.
Seriously. It’s like Coke and Pepsi…I remember in the Greek elections thirty years ago my parents got two different ballots: one for the Marxist-Leninist party…and one for the Leninist-Marxist party!
My wife works at a “ prestigious “ medical school as a Prof. I used to work there as well but my central nervous system couldn’t take it. She can. And yes the DEI blatant anti- white racism is real and right out in the open. And sanctioned by the Institution.
I understand but I try to hold my outrage for those incidents that I know are true. I realize this is entirely likely to be true. The DEI nonsense is out of control
These things take time. The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine.
I wish this was not posted anonymously. It would seem easier to believe if we had the institution and faculty involved. Hard to be certain this is not fiction.
I can understand it. There can be repercussions for coming forward. My kid's private high school, Dwight-Englewood, had a DEI meltdown that made the newspapers in 2021. Parents were outraged and wanted to speak out, but someone pointed out that the school had quietly added wording to the tuition contracts that would allow them to expel a student if they or their parents challenged the DEI orthodoxy. The last thing a parent wants to do is get their kid booted, especially if it's during their senior year. So, lots of people spoke out anonymously knowing that it wasn't ideal, but their hands were tied.
I worked in higher ed admin (yes, part of the bloat) for 25+ years before I retired. I wish I could say your story is unbelievable but, well, I have a few stories of my own. Three years before retirement a faculty member invited me to apply for a department position answering to the chair, i.e. a high-level slot with a number of responsibilities. I prepared packets for each member of the hiring committee containing a CV and a thick pile of recommendation letters including one from a state senator and a previous university president. A USB stick containing a slide deck of a proposed re-org for greater output with estimated cost savings. When I sat down before the committee they had only one question, which I can still remember: "What have you done to advance diversity and what are your plans to promote diversity in this department?" I looked at the committee, each member being white, and answered that I thought diversity was a worthy goal but did they have any questions concerning the tasks mentioned in the job posting or my materials? They did not. Interview concluded. They got up and left. A week or so later the faculty member asked if I had been interviewed yet. She was astounded when I said I had and a bit angry they had not communicated the outcome to her. The committee eventually hired a young woman right out of school who was wildly unqualified for the job.
I've been on a lot of search committees and all of this feels familiar, but this is an order of magnitude more appalling than anything we've ever done. Maybe STEM disciplines just don't attract as many terrorists?
Terrorists often have engineering backgrounds. It's more that STEM doesn't attract leftists as much, and it's always the left that's violent.
The data shows that politically motivated violence is much more associated with the right than the left.
The real difference is that engineering departments are busy doing actual work, so they are motivated to care about engineering ability.
Are you referring to the claim by Cato? If so it's wrong. When people examined the database they found it was riddled with mistakes and omissions that, when fixed, showed the left being far more violent than the right. For example:
https://substack.com/home/post/p-174301047
And that is still a left-biased result because Cato started counting in 1975, an arbitrary date presumably chosen to exclude the wave of leftist terrorism shortly predating that time. It also ignores communist political violence elsewhere in the world.
Data shows no such thing
The data SHOW no such thing.
Bull. Shit. Like the unite the right rally paid for by the splc?
During the 1960s and 1970s, many extremists joined left-wing groups, often spurred by the civil rights movement or the Vietnam War. "Underground movement" radicals associated with groups like the Weather Underground, the New World Liberation Front, Chicano Liberation Front, and the Symbionese Liberation Army claimed responsibility for hundreds of small-scale bombings in the 1970s.[29] In an eighteen-month period between 1971 and 1972, the FBI recorded 2,500 bombings in the U.S.—nearly five per day.[29] They were usually detonated with prior warning or at night, resulting in few casualties and limited public outcry.[29][2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_violence_in_the_United_States
🤣 Sure it does, dipshit. Oh, you work in A.I. What a … surprise. 😂 Go suck off a trannie at a No Kings march, commie.
The GRAMMAR shows that the data might show any number of things.
I would challenge you to share the data upon which you make your insane claim.
Oh, they do. They do.
I mean, the entire Weather Underground took over academia 50 years ago (after going completely unpunished for all of their terrorism). Why are we surprised?
They're still there!
I never understood how those murderers avoided jail. I guess the lives of poor minority janitors do not matter as much as those of cowardly rich white people.
I have much sorrow for the state of what some call “higher education.” It no longer serves those “Higher” ideals. That phrase should be abandoned.
Some comments saying that this is too much or too hard to believe. I don't find it hard to believe at all. I know a hiring committee in a STEM field - several very woke women and 1 meek male. They made it all about DEI. The original matrix for evaluating applicants-candidates was a certain percentage DEI but it was really the only thing. The search net was so wide - and research in the scientific field was soooo wide and generic, it opened itself to anyone and everyone in the field as a whole. It was an open secret the committee googled-social media-linkedin candidates to eliminate all white men and most white women. The finalists visited the campus - all intersectional minorities. The committee apparently told the candidates to avoid meeting with or talking to any of the men in the department. There was discussion as to why the most disadvantaged candidates should be chosen but they ended up going with a white woman - who of course claimed they-them and some other victim or oppressed status - and that angered the more extreme woke because she is white. There are other stories from other departments over the past few years about such hirings. So I can believe yours as it is very omnipresent and lurking around most universities and colleges.
Oh it’s not hard to believe at all. How many 1960s revolutionaries ended up being university faculty by the 90s and 2000s?
As Jon McWhorter has frequently pointed out, a major effect of such DEI hiring is that it casts the shadow of suspicion as to the validity of all minority group staff. This is not anti-racism, it is racism - minorities need these (often white) saviour tactics like a hole in the head. Something they'd realise if they applied a bit of, ahem, academic rigour to the matter. But they did not, perhapas because the facts just get in the way of their moral posturing, and/or grifting.
Well, luckily, once it is no longer, white people can go back to never questioning the merit/employment of black people like they used to. ;)
Hah yes, there is that! However, I think that kind of racism (the stark assumption that black people cannot be good Drs, lawyers, etc) is old and aging (if not actually dead yet); whilst the accusation/suspicion of 'only there due to positive discrimination' is younger and growing. As McWhorter and others point out, most of the problem would go away if you simply gave affirmative action on a socio-economic class basis rather than a skin colour basis. As it is, we have a system that rates for Malia and Natasha as severely disadvantaged, and Cletus and Brandi as privileged.
Sure it would go away. ;)
The biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action have been white women.
Yeah, but we still faced the same kinds of questions. I was actually glad to learn that, when I was hired at university (with tenure, by the way, which rarely happens), they'd actually offered the job to a white man first (he and I were in slightly different aspects of the same field and the faculty had been divided which direction they wanted to go). But I could confidently say I didn't get the job because I was a woman, if it had been offered to a man first. Up till then, I'd heard the whispers questioning my competence (something that died out when I was hired with tenure, by the way).
No, nowhere near the same questions historically or currently.
Of course you can confidently say that ;)
Sure of little, but it makes more sense to me.
White women have excellent PR.
Actually, looking at AOC, it appears that PR women have even better PR.
Why would the problem (i.e., lack of confidence in ability) go away if you base admittance criteria on how much money the candidate has, or doesn't have?
a) It wouldn't be linked to race, which is the problem I was pointing out; also b) surely almost everyone can get on board with the idea that, eg, someone from an impoverished backround, poor schooling, who gets 70% on a test is probably at least as smart as someone from an elite background, schooling who gets 80%.
Thanks. Sounds like it would be linked to race since "impoverished background" and "poor schooling" means blacks and browns in a multiracial society. Especially when you, or McWhorter, then hedge on grading these groups on a different scale. You're just rephrasing the current practice of racial quotas to make it less obvious.
To give you an example, in ultra liberal Washington, DC, not only have they been grading on a racial scale (90% or better correct answers is an A for white students, 85% for brown students and 80% for blacks) but they have a lottery where a certain percent of all DC public school students can attend in Upper Caucasia, NW quadrant, if they win.
Why, you ask? Because that's where the best schools are located. Demand is the same for blacks with high income from SE quadrant, or even Maryland if they cheat. They just don't want to send their kids to black schools. It's also why more affluent white liberals send their kids to private schools.
It's like, compared to Mexico the gringos have the best roads north of the border. Have you ever noticed that all the mass migration moves in one direction?
The whole point of education should be to encourage excellence, not social engineering. The rich whites will escape the black/brown undertow regardless.
The point of elite education should be to train the best to run the country - medicine etc. One of the best ways you can do that is to look for brilliance in lower echelons - and not just in the upper classes (they alreadyhave the best teachers, tutors, elite training in etc - they do not need a louder voice or another advocate to be heard!). Black does not equal deprived - there is a huge black middle class . Deprived equals deprived. Otherwise we have a system where, eg, the Obamas kids get positive discrimination to get into Ivies (B grades), whilst 'Cleetus' from Appalachia doesn't get in, even for higher grades!
The reason these people were willing to advocate so relentlessly for this candidate is because he's evil.
There are nuances, of course -- he's the right color, he has the right politics -- but the evil is what inspires their very real passion to go above and beyond.
Another chapter in the story of why Americans have lost faith in higher education. Doesn’t sound like anyone learned anything from this mess either.
Angela Davis has a chair at USC Santa Cruz.
!!!
She was an a FBI tool for decades. That was her get out of jail free card.
Believe every sentence. Trust me, this level of shenanigans occur with equal levels of self delusion and smug stabby assholery in the private sector - the chief delineator being the grotesque levels of payment for uselessness.
Why not disclose the the name of the university? Such a disclosure would strengthen your credibility.
I wish I had trouble finding it credible.
That's the thing — this university isn't unique. How many other universities have emails like these sitting on their servers right now?
Many. I agree you don't need to reveal the university because this is a near-universal story. I retired 15 years ago, before it got really insane, but the insanity was already setting in. What really bothered me was how condescending the white committee members were to minorities. This is, at best, only partly about elevating minorities. It is much more about making the white faculty members feel good about themselves. I had a conversation with a black scholar who had been derailed in his academic career by a university president who wanted to make him VP of diversity or something like that. He was still a junior faculty member so was he going to say no? Of course not. The president probably made the job sound like he could do real good for minorities, but when he got into the job, it turned out to have no power, no authority, and no funding. He was just a bauble on the administration's staff list and by the time he realized it, his academic cred had expired. I narrowly diverted a black colleague in my field from getting sucked into the same kind of decorative position. I told him in no uncertain terms that the ONLY reason the president was interested in him was because he was black and that he could make the (white) president look good. Fortunately, he heard me and has continued to make huge contributions in our science.
And get his house firebombed...
You have so many stories that seem entirely unbelievable; however, if you work as faculty at a university, you know that these stories are accurate. It's all true.
This hasn't just been restricted to academia. This same scenario has been happening across the culture - in media and the arts, education and medicine, politics and the law - for at least the last 15 years. All the major institutions across the West have examples like this. These stories aren't aberrations, they are the unspoken new norm. This shouldn't be shocking to anyone paying attention.
Yeah, this is all top-down stuff.
Who (or Who’s Money) is the ultimate Director is what I want to know.
One terrorist was stopped, after a long struggle, from teaching our children. In this one instance. Imagine how many have gotten through. Our education system has been CAPTURED.
Fabricated, boomer slop.