The Psychology of Prohibiting Outside Thought By James Reed
There is an insight piece by Justin Murphy, http://jmrphy.net/blog/2017/05/15/psychology-of-prohibiting-outside-thinkers/, which deals, from the perspective of the Left, with the Left-wing dominance of the culture of discourse in the West.
Why does the Left close down Right wing thought, on moral grounds? Actually he should have probed deeper and recognised that the Left openly resort to violence to shut down anyone they see as a threat. On university campuses, even notices challenging aspects of globalisation get torn down. Therefore, the article is somewhat superficial and does not address the clear fact that the Left has state-legitimated terrorists who freely break the law, and are permitted to get away with it. These terrorists within a few years move into positions of power and continue the agenda of national suicide and racial destruction.
Still, for its limits, the article has some merits, although written in the usual academic language:
“An interesting question is, because respectable intellectuals are often pretty smart and capable, why are they so fearful of outside intellectual projects, even if they are as evil as some fear? They are smart and capable intellectuals, so you’d think they would embrace some interesting challenge as an opportunity for productive contestation. Why don’t they? Well, here’s where the reality gets ugly. The reason respectable intellectuals so instinctively close ranks around the moral exclusion of NRx intellectuals is that currently working, respectable intellectuals privately know that the intellectual compromises they have made to secure their respectability and careers has rendered most of their life’s work sadly and vulnerably low-quality.
To convince status-quo cultural money dispensers to give you a grant, for instance, any currently “successful” academic or artist has to so extensively pepper their proposal with patently stupid words and notions that knowingly make the final result a sad, contorted piece of work 80% of which is bent to the flattery of our overlords. But we falsely rationalize this contortion as “mature discipline” which we then rationalize to be the warrant for our privileged status as legitimate intellectuals. This is just good old fashioned conservatism, the standard psychology of bourgeois hypocrisy that is the molecular basis for the stability of a capitalist society organized around unjust and unequal exploitation.
Because we know deep down inside that our life’s work is only half of what it could have been had we the courage to not ask for permission, if there ever arise people who are doing high-level intellectual work on the outside, exactly as they wish to without anyone’s permission or money, then not only are we naturally resentful, but we secretly know that at least some of these outsiders are likely doing more interesting, more valuable, more radically incisive work than we are, because we secretly know that we earn our salary by agreeing to only say half of what we could.
(Aside: The only reason I’m psychologically and sociologically capable of writing this is precisely because through the internet I am shifting a large share of my eggs into the basket of the outside, instead of writing grant bids that actively make me less interesting and less honest; and I am young enough in my academic career that my sunk costs and interpersonal investments in academic networks are sufficiently low that I can admit these realities without too much pain.)”
Well, that is an interesting confession, but still superficial I think. It is not just the quality of the outside Right wing work which is feared, but it is precisely because it is a direct ideological and philosophical challenge to the status quo. The Left are useful idiots whose agenda coincides with that of the ruling Dark Lords, the global financial elite, so the Left are permitted to engage in their shock troop tactics to keep any opposition suppressed.
For example, we recently received a communication about a particular research project at an unnamed university which investigated the marking of international students. There was apparently interviews with markers who reported that their plagiarism software detected 90 percent match of numerous international student papers, indicating massive plagiarism. Australian students would have failed. Yet, administrators told markers, who were junior lectures, not to fail any one. The research was then shut down. We are trying to get more details but no one will return my calls, so we cannot say more. The report apparently also documented that international students were usually admitted as migrants, so that there is a hidden aspect to immigration figures.
We have imported the next generation of elites who will be far worse, as hard as that is to conceive, than even the present Leftist elites now running the circus.
This then is one of my main arguments for closing down the universities and starting again. These institutions have become intellectually and morally corrupt, and a danger to tax payers. This argument has not yet been appreciated even by Alt Right intellectuals e.g..: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2017/05/21/justin-murphys-the-psychology-of-prohibiting-outside-thinkers/, who still cling to the illusory hope that the universities can be saved. But, the universities ceased to be centres of free thought long ago, if they ever were: http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.net/university.html.
Time for the intellectual bulldozers!