Academics a Self-Interested Class

How the ‘Stupid Party’ Created Donald Trump

By Max Boot, July 31, 2016 (LINK to article)

"Mr. Trump promotes a nativist, isolationist, anti-trade agenda that is supported by few if any serious scholars."

 "Serious scholars" haven't had their jobs outsourced to China, but belong to a global "community" (self-interest group) of academics; thus their dislike of "nativists".

The biggest threat to humanity is from academics pursuing their own personal self-interests, while pretending - not just to others, but to themselves as well - that they are serving humanity at large.

They are modern, secular counterparts of the medieval clergy, a priestly class, which, in coalition with a warrior class (the aristocracy) lorded it, as a dual elite, over society at large. The "nobility" provided the muscle and power of the sword, the priests the brains and power of the Word, i.e. moral authority.

Man is an inherently tribal AND moral animal, and between them these two elites knew how to manipulate and exploit both to their mutual advantage.

Academics are no more trustworthy than the Catholic clergy were (or are), which, however, doesn't mean they are not trustworthy at all.  Many mean well, I'm sure.

I'm not inclined to trust Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, but at least Trump speaks out against the betrayal of white Americans to the madness of mass immigration, which is reducing them to an ethnic minority in the country their European forebears founded, while the mainstream is beholden to an ideology of white racial self-denial and self-contempt - a self-destructive overreaction to the evils of Nazism and the Holocaust, which I elaborate on in this BLOG.

NYT Misses Point about Immigration

A Few Simple Truths on Immigration

By the Editorial Board, July 30 2016 (LINK to editorial)

As usual, the Editorial Board is missing the main point about immigration, which is the way in which it is changing America's ethnic composition from once overwhelmingly white to ever-increasingly non-white.

I can almost hear the moderator drawing in his or her breath as they read this, because it is an issue that is only supposed to be of importance to bigots, xenophobes and racists. What does it matter what colour, i.e. race or ethnicity, Americans are?

Does it not matter that the Chinese LOOK Chinese? Or that Europeans LOOK European? According to the NYT's logic, clearly not.

I'm reminded of a demonstration I once saw of post-hypnotic suggestion, where an individual was put into a hypnotic state and told that when awoken they would not be aware of something, and they weren't, until the suggestion implanted in their brain was removed.

A form of collective post-hypnotic suggestion, it seems to me, has occurred in the West in respect to race and ethnicity. In overreaction to Nazism and the Holocaust, which was blamed on "prejudice" towards a particular ethnic group, a taboo was made of attributing any social or political importance to them.

In an editorial response to the Islamist terror attacks in Paris last November, The Price of Fear, the Editorial Board warned its readers,

“In the reaction and overreaction to terrorism [evil] comes the risk that society will lose its way.”

This, I suggest, is what happened, resulting in a form of collective post-hypnotic suggestion, blinding some, very influential people, especially in academia, to the importance, even the very existence, of race, which was elevated to a moral imperative, academics being modern heirs and counterparts of the priesthood of earlier times.

"Colour-blindness" became a measure of moral authority, which politicians quickly latched on to as a way of promoting their own authority and POWER.

Race is real and important. Not in the way that racial supremacists, like the Nazis, believe it is, but because central to any deep and meaningful sense of both personal and group identity, and thus, socially and politically.

See BLOG in which I elaborate on these ideas.

Religion, Moral Authority & Power

How Politics Has Poisoned Islam

By Mustafa Akyol Feb. 3, 2016 (LINK to article)

Until modern times, religion, i.e. its priesthood, served the state as a source of knowledgeable and moral authority. William the Bastard of Normandy made sure he had the Pope's approval, before embarking on his invasion and subjugation of the English in 1066. In return, he massively supported the Church, so it was a good deal for both parties, but not so much for the English, who suffered under the Norman yoke for centuries, one might even argue, to this day.

The state has to legitimise itself and it was to the moral authority of religion that it turned. This is still the case, it seems, in the Muslim world, although brute force clearly also continues to play a big role.

In the West, brute force and the authority of priests are no longer considered acceptable. The state looks instead to a secular priesthood of academics, who base their authority not on sacred scripture, as in the past, but on their claim to possess objective facts, reason and rationality. Only, their facts, reason and rationality are not nearly as sound or objective as they would have us - and themselves, no doubt - believe they are.

This is because, largely in overreaction to Nazism, a previous generation of academics made a taboo of viewing their own species, society and civilisation from a human-evolutionary perspective, which is the only way to develop a realistic understanding of these things and of our own situation. See BLOG in which I elaborate.

Humans are Inherently Prejudiced - so Why Demonise it?

The ‘Benefits’ of Black Physics Students

By Jedidah C. Isler, Dec. 17, 2015 (LINK to article)

Why can't we simply accept human nature for what it is, i.e. inherently prejudiced about everyone and everything, especially race, which relates to our natural inclination to identify with and thus favour our own tribe or ethnic group, and learn to deal with it in as rational and civilised fashion as possible?

The answer is simple: society has always been dominated by an elite of "moral supremacists" (formally the priesthood, now academia), who demonise different aspects of human nature, which it is then able to use, by exploiting our natural propensity for guilt, as an instrument of socio-political intimidation, rewards, punishments, manipulation and control.

Post-racial multicultural ideology, with its demand for DIVERSITY, is, in effect, a secular replacement for the power-political role of medieval church ideology, whereby "original sin" (disobedience of divine, i.e. priestly/state authority) is replaced by "racial prejudice" (the natural human inclination - like original sin - to identity with members of one's own tribe, race or ethnic group, which was mistakenly made responsible for the Holocaust and equated with the evils of Nazi racism), and which only submission to priestly/academic/state ideology and authority can save us from eternal damnation for, not as heathens and heretics, as in the past, but as "bigots" and "racists".

I elaborate further on these ideas in this BLOG.

Woodrow Wilson, Racist or White Nationalist?

The Case Against Woodrow Wilson at Princeton

"[Woodrow Wilson] was an unapologetic racist"

Is it really racist, i.e. evil, to identify with one's own race - even when it is white?

We don't think that Native Americans or Aboriginal Australians are being racist when they seek to defend and preserve their own ethnic and racial identity and interests, although we perhaps would if they were in a position of power and likely to severely disadvantage other races or ethnic groups, as America's dominant white majority clearly is.

I'm not defending Woodrow Wilson's actions, which clearly disadvantaged blacks, but to call it racist, i.e. evil, is going too far, I suggest, showing a lack of understanding of human nature and our natural tendency to identify with our own tribe, race or ethnic group.

Woodrow Wilson is guilty of identifying with and seeking to promote the interests of his own race, for which he can be justly criticised, but shouldn't, I think, be demonised.

Ethnic minorities are not demonised for expressing their own, distinct sense of ethnic identity, so why are members of America's white ethnic minority demonised for doing the same? Is it just because whites are the ones in positions of power which they are likely to abuse, or is there more to it? I think there is more to it: see BLOG in which I elaborate.