Who Runs the Universities? In a Word, Communist Globalists By James Reed
A tremendous article by V.S. Solovyev, details, mainly with American examples, who runs the modern university. The discussion is focused upon the Covid plandemic, where the universities have pushed the mainstream narrative, with suppression of dissenting views. The US has many campuses vax only and this is growing in Australia to, like a social disease, with many Victorian and New South Wales, and soon South Australian campuses, doing this. What for? Their main argument is to protect students and staff from the unclean, unvaxxed. But, vaccinations were supposed to make one IMMUNE to the disease, and if so talk of protection is just nonsense. Of course, the vaxxed spread the Covid disease as germ carriers too, so the protection argument is nonsense. But the mandates serve the purpose of conditioning the young to life under a Chinese communist system. It is all about replacing liberal democratic values by the CCP Covid New World Order. A lot of evil planning has gone into the plandemic.
As for the universities: “The modern university is the modern corporation, but unlike the corporation, the college or university lives in a constant state of conflict and dissonance as it seeks to maintain the illusion of an intellectual academy, with the awkward desperation of a social shelter that cannot feed itself. It is a desperation, and a vanity, that has created a new kind of bureaucrat—one that will say or do anything for money; it will lie, deceive, pretend, even endanger, by the intellectual and scientific tools of its own making, for the rewards of protection. It will readily sacrifice its students as fodder for social experiment, if anyone pays them sufficiently, and especially, if in their devotion to authority, someone gives them a directive. In the world of Covidianism, the administrator is the Judas Goat, and the campus is the stockyard.”
“A tyrant needs above all a tyrant-state, so he will use a million little civil servant tyrants who each have a trivial task to perform, and each will perform that task competently, and without remorse, and no one will realize that he is the millionth link. At every link in the chain, obedience has been made comfortable.” Henri Verneuil, I comme Icare, 1979.
“If a situation is defined as real, it is real in its consequences.” W.I. Thomas
“In ideal dictatorship, there is but one will involved in choice; there is no conflict of individual wills.” Nobel economist Kenneth Arrow, Social Choice and Individual Values (1951)
When the Covid virus suddenly appeared in major media in early 2020, initially as a limited story about a localized problem in a generally unknown town named “Wuhan,” it gradually but insidiously developed into a local health outbreak in a foreign country, based purportedly on a simple story of outdoor food market practices, to suddenly one threatening the rest of the world. Cruise ships were the next part of the narrative, and supposedly “infected” Americans were on some of them, now circling out in the Pacific Ocean, waiting to dock in California. Another story thread was soon added that asserted the presence of trapped Americans in China who now had to be brought back to the U.S. by specially chartered military flights. Detroit-based air freight operator and government Department of Defense subcontractor “Kalitta Airways,” was hired to pick up American citizens and fly them back home, where they were filmed landing and deplaning at a Texas military air field.
Suddenly in March of 2020, the U.S. university system became the active center of the Covid story, as classes were cancelled and students were even evicted from dormitories. In fact, the U.S. higher education complex was the first, large-scale corporate institution to organize, broadcast and operationalize the Covid, and “coronavirus” program, first with university presidents making formal, highly aggressive mass-media statements (“We Lead Three Universities. It’s Time for Drastic Action”) (see Stanford, MIT and Harvard president NYT joint letter), asserting their belief in the virus narrative, and through their offices, lending their credentials and the symbology of expertise and authority, to the quickly building Covid panic. Stanford, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Case Western, and others were suddenly acting as public relations operations. One of the earliest university Covid promotions came from University of Texas at Austin president Greg Fenves (now president at Emory, where a vaccine “pill” is being produced)), who out of nowhere, before hardly any student, faculty, or parent even heard of Covid, broadcast to the university community, system-wide, the preposterous story that, out of UT’s community of over 50,000 people, somehow he and his wife alone “tested positive for Covid-19” while coming home on an airline flight after a fund-raising tour in March. He was forced therefore to make an emergency closure of the entire campus, and had to “shelter in place” at home to care for his sick wife.
Immediately afterward, hundreds of other universities and colleges joined in the hysteria and mass conformity, plastering their websites with statements, warnings and new policy; indeed their bureaucracies were suddenly “on steroids” with a top-down, 24/7 all-hands-on-deck fire drill to transform themselves into biosecurity institutions. But it was obvious to anyone paying even modest attention, that an effective script was being followed; that the higher education complex was moving together as one massive monolith in the use of language, the establishment of cognitive frameworks, and the formation of new behavioral expectations, strategy and conditioning. There was no deviation across universities in the use of terminology, in the formatting of rules, or in the conceptualization of safety and the setting of behavioral boundaries. Indeed, the classic “Foucault” corporate model of discipline and punishment was being followed in an almost textbook manner.
But are university presidents and their staff actually smart enough to do this on their own? Where were the new technical enframements coming from? What institutions were feeding universities with information, and directing their operations? What moreover, was the source of viral data, and how robust was it deemed to be? (tellingly, as of October 2021, not one state legislature has convened and passed any legislation that mandates forced medical submission). The University of Chicago is an especially interesting case. Its network of external influences is fairly complicated, but it is centered in three primary organizations that steer its strategic direction: the Rockefeller Foundation, the U.S. Department of Defense, and its Board of Trustees. Overlaying these organizations is a more complicated web or network that includes major corporations, other foundations, and the political class. This network inherently suspends the University from an independent society of learning, and turns it into a corporation of special interest research, social and scientific experimentation, and programmatic dissemination.
The modern university also hosts, organizes and perpetuates ideology. Among the central ideological constructs that are contained within its cultural routines, are those involving highly abstract models of normative values. They include beliefs and formed ideologies concerning intellectualizations of justice, fairness, and constrained choice. Embedded within these categories are belief structures involving population, settlement, environment, and equity. The new “iron square” of campus ideology is terror, race, covid and warming. And this new solidified enframement serves as the delivery channels for a centralized behavioral, emotional and cognitive architecture that targets the single most important, vital component of social engineering: young adults. They are the crop; the herd; and the seed for total social, biological and political control, mutation and political harvesting.
But this hardly sounds American. Or Western. It isn’t of course. It is not Occidental, it is Oriental. In the twenty-first century, it is the central organizing ideology of the Orient’s central state: China. Alone, it could never penetrate the United States: someone has to unlock the gates, and let the invaders in; more, someone has to first infiltrate its institutions, understand its vulnerabilities, and provide a map for its successful navigation. A Trojan Horse must be built. That is the purpose of the university today. Critical to this goal, moreover, is the cooperation of internal, facilitating organizations with a long, trusted identity, and most of all, with financial capital to control the institutes of learning. This is not difficult to establish, as higher education is in a perpetual state of financial desire; often, financial desperation. As Harvard has amply shown, for example, it will take any money from any source, and use it for any purpose.
In the University of Chicago’s case, who pulls the proverbial strings? Above all others, the Rockefeller Foundation, from its namesake, John D. Rockefeller, who financed the University.
Like war-time relocation to “protective” new living, the profoundly abnormal Covid policy of social re-ordering, quickly became socially normal, psychologically routine, behaviorally acceptable, and especially, politically identitarian; that is, the believers and the doubters were decisively separated and ideologically segregated. Such mass behavioral change in a society like the United States, must be implemented in a format that springs from a combination of hierarchical authority and symbolism (college presidents, political leaders, actors, media, and even the military), and rapid assimilation among a leading peer group that self-enforces behavior through group consensus, psychological shaming, social isolation, or perceived risks to social, professional and economic status from alienation and reputational compromise linked by overt group segmentation into a classification system of normal and abnormal behavior, and therefore acceptance, rejection or contingency among a social network or colony.
The University of Chicago provides a perfect case example of how the entirety of its institutional capabilities, network, and program management from its College that corrals and indoctrinates the most vulnerable young adults, to its graduate schools in business, law, medicine and public policy, that form a monolithic ideological block that permeates and monetizes the Covid program, and further defines and consolidates the biosecurity construct through the illusory routines of a combined “expertocracy.” It is brought to bear on a single special interest that has converted education into a mobilization of “total war,” which means “total politics.”
Students at the University of Chicago lament the radical changes in policy compared to the institution’s historic reputation for “free speech principles” and the “Chicago School” of inquiry. They still want to identify with those traditions and appeal to them as somehow, somewhere, still alive, and merely overlooked or temporarily forgotten. But that childish illusion is over: the University has been sold; it has been acquired by new owners, and its post-acquisition integration is underway. There is no more “University of Chicago,” and there are no more Harvard or Yale colleges (Yale and Harvard were charged with failing to comply with regulatory financial reporting and foreign disclosure obligations, from their share of over $6 Billion in foreign donations including from China: “the Department of Education accused Yale and other universities of “soliciting donations” from nations who are “hostile” to the U.S. and who are potentially interested in stealing research from American universities and “[spreading] propaganda benefitting foreign governments.”). This has led to a not surprising faculty organized objection.
The Chinese are no longer visiting students; they are visiting owners, and overseers.
The U.S. higher education complex, with a merged finance, technology and political apparatus, has combined to sell to the Chinese, with a welcome invitation, our core domestic economic infrastructure, and most importantly, access to and control over its human capital and culture. American university leaders have surrendered to the enemy.
That enemy isn’t so much cultural or “American Marxism,” but what has been an insidious rise of American Maoism.
It can be defeated, but it first must be recognized with eyes wide open for what it seeks to do: transform a free humanity into a managed, pruned and cultivated crop.
As young adults all across our nation’s college campuses, ask themselves what kind of “brave new world” they suddenly find themselves in; as they try to reconcile the many contradictions they are witnessing, and as they struggle with the cognitive dissonance it creates in the presence of such irrationalism that is in the very institutions that purport to stand for reason—they may have to ask themselves if there really is that ideal world of enlightenment that they seek in the modern university. There is no doubt that a young man or woman’s “college years” can be among the best of their lives: they master new knowledge; they make new friends; they develop stronger skills; they even may meet their future wife or husband. But this kind of life is dependent, among all else, on one central reality: personal sovereignty over your life, and over the life journey that you freely choose. The freedom can cut both ways of course, and if abused or wasted, college can be a step backwards into deeper immaturity. For most men and women of America, that has traditionally been the exception.
But there is a new reality on our college campuses that never existed there before in such ubiquity, and which has radically altered the entire culture and fundamental nature of the university: the faculty themselves are the source of cultural decay; of weakened intellectual discipline and standards; of soft, pliable and contingent morality that exists by coercion but not by principle. The modern university is the modern corporation, but unlike the corporation, the college or university lives in a constant state of conflict and dissonance as it seeks to maintain the illusion of an intellectual academy, with the awkward desperation of a social shelter that cannot feed itself. It is a desperation, and a vanity, that has created a new kind of bureaucrat—one that will say or do anything for money; it will lie, deceive, pretend, even endanger, by the intellectual and scientific tools of its own making, for the rewards of protection. It will readily sacrifice its students as fodder for social experiment, if anyone pays them sufficiently, and especially, if in their devotion to authority, someone gives them a directive. In the world of Covidianism, the administrator is the Judas Goat, and the campus is the stockyard.
Students find themselves in a new society of adult regressive adolescence: the source of adulthood is actually in them if they can summon it; it is not among their advisors, the academy, their teachers, and surely not consolidated in their administration. There is nothing any longer within the walls of the medieval university that students cannot find, engage and learn outside it. Indeed, the walls are now designed to imprison, not to liberate. Faculty are not their friends; administration is not their protector: both have sold out to special interests, and the “student” merely a new utility in an entirely new game. Universities have finally become fully configured and consolidated corporations through the fusion of technology and finance, and penetration by the state. Society’s “backwater” as Saul Bellow asserted in his introduction to “The Closing of the American Mind,” has otherwise fully saturated the education complex. But more, it is a social contamination that is not of our Western traditions, or centered in our strengths of individual American mind. That mind must be summoned individually; it cannot be joined; it is not of the group. It is not a reward for obedience; it is sovereignty in confrontation. Let the battle begin.”
Comments