Socialism and the Intellectuals By James Reed

     Over a glass of “turps” I was contemplating why intellectuals are socialists. The wisdom of the drink aided me to conclude that there is probably no singular reason, but rather a multitude of reasons ranging from being uniformed/ignorant useful idiots, to being at the low level of the global conspiracy. Those at these  upper levels usually work for various think tanks, doing things like getting immigration information and producing propaganda to be used by the globalists in the media. They write the books and textbooks that educate the next generation; we don’t.

     Common though to all of these critters, is a sense of hatred and resentment, a rejection of the society and its traditions that gave them everything. Their education is used to destroy the society that produced them, and perverse as it is, they are not put on trial for treason, but given the highest rewards, while those foolish enough to oppose them, are rendered unemployed. Unfortunately, our side of politics, being fundamentally intellectually challenged, do not understand social dynamics and the role that ideas play in propagating ideology, so, there is ultimately little challenge to the status quo of ideas because there is no cultivation of intellectuals by our side. This is because  our side is too cash-strapped and too mean. Compare this to Soros who has the money to spend, and is generous in getting the job done. My guess is that even if our side of politics had the money, we would still have the same problems of getting the job done due to this basic Scroogeness. The price paid by thinkers for supporting us is so great, that few are willing to risk destitution. I don’t blame them. Hence, in the longer term there will be no opposition thinkers and writers to oppose the march of the cultural Marxists, and our battles will all be for nothing.

     Consequently, there is no real challenge within establishment channels to dogmas centred around race, diversity, migration and gender, let alone finance and economics, only fringe work that gets minor viewing, and ultimate censoring if it does get more. Further,  the establishment does not require its propaganda producers in the academy to produce scientific proof, so as we have seen in article after article, academics simply say what they like, to impressionable students, and the system is perpetuated. Indeed, the whole idea of such proof and giving evidence is rejected by the postmodernists as a form of white male oppressive action reinforcing patriarchy.     Hence, it is inevitable that doctrines such as socialist, despite being discredited by history, continue to grow at universities. The culture of the place, much like a severely degraded pasture, is only suitable for the growing of intellectual weeds. Eventually though, the pasture is destroyed for any hope of fertile growth.