Showing posts with label political philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label political philosophy. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 30, 2018

Leftist radicalization is a disease that incubates in school

330px-RGBL_I_1933_S_0175

This is a long post. If you’re not ready to spend about 20-40 minutes reading it, here’s the tl;dnr version for Facebookers and Twitterers: What’s happening in today’s universities is dangerous, it has happened before, and the Republicans are not the fascists you are looking for.

Get a cup of coffee, turn off the music.

Ready?

When the National Socialist German Workers' Party came to power in the 1932 elections, one of their first orders of business was the passage of the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service, which made sweeping changes to civilian public service for everything from federal bureaucrats in Berlin to town dog catcher in Vilseck. Everyone had to become a Nazi if they ever hoped to have a job in the new Reich, and they had to either toe the party line, or…

The entire educational system in the country was caught in that net, including some of the oldest and most classically liberal universities in the world. From these universities flowed influential literature, philosophy, theology and science that had shaped western civilization for centuries. The change was a monumental paradigm shift that contributed in part to the largest conflagration in history.

Peter F. Drucker was an influential Austrian economist and business management pioneer who developed many of the business management concepts that are—for now—still being taught in major western universities. He fled the Nazi regime in 1933 and became a naturalized US citizen in 1943.  From 1931 through 1933, he was an economics lecturer at his alma mater, the University of Frankfurt. Below, he describes the first faculty meeting held at the school after the civil service act went into effect:

Frankfurt was the first university the Nazis tackled, precisely because it was the most self-confidently liberal of major German universities, with a faculty that prided itself on its allegiance to scholarship, freedom of conscience, and democracy. The Nazis knew that control of Frankfurt University would mean control of German academia. And so did everyone at the university.

Above all, Frankfurt had a science faculty distinguished both by its scholarship and by its liberal convictions; and outstanding among the Frankfurt scientists was a biochemist-physiologist of Nobel-Prize caliber and impeccable liberal credentials. When the appointment of a Nazi commissar was announced . . .  every teacher and graduate assistant at the university was summoned to a faculty meeting to hear this new master, everybody knew that a trial of strength was at hand. I had never before attended a faculty meeting, but I did attend this one.

The new Nazi commissar wasted no time on the amenities. He immediately announced that Jews would be forbidden to enter university premises and would be dismissed without salary on March 15; this was something that no one had thought possible despite the Nazis’ loud antisemitism. Then he launched into a tirade of abuse, filth, and four-letter words such as had been heard rarely even in the barracks and never before in academia. . . . [He] pointed his finger at one department chairman after another and said, “You either do what I tell you or we’ll put you into a concentration camp.” There was silence when he finished; everybody waited for the distinguished biochemist-physiologist. The great liberal got up, cleared his throat, and said, “Very interesting, Mr. Commissar, and in some respects very illuminating: but one point I didn’t get too clearly. Will there be more money for research in physiology?"

The meeting broke up shortly thereafter with the commissar assuring the scholars that indeed there would be plenty of money for “racially pure science.” A few of the professors had the courage to walk out with their Jewish colleagues, but most kept a safe distance from these who only a few hours earlier had been their close friends. I went out sick unto death—and I knew that I was going to leave Germany within forty-eight hours.

What followed was a systematic purging of any notion of the free exchange of ideas. Matters once discussed in open, free debate were at once settled. There would be no rebuttal to Nazi ideology on any subject. A famously open university renowned for its cultural influence became a powerful part of the Nazi propaganda machine. “The science was settled.”

In his book, The Closing of the American Mind, University of Chicago professor Allan Bloom describes a process in the American university that began in the late 1950’s and accelerated through the 1960’s. Bloom argues that the changes in the American university have led to a snuffing of debate and critical thinking. Ideas that one may rightly or wrongly judge as abhorrent are no longer defeated by superior science or logic, but by force.

Today, no conservative speaker, lecturer or professor is allowed to step foot on a major university campus without facing angry and often violent protest. Student associations, led and egged on by leftist faculty, will go to almost any means necessary to prevent the sharing of ideas that do not comport to their ideology.

Bloom also draws compelling parallels between what occurred in 1930’s Nazi Germany to what’s occurring today. What may surprise many readers is that Bloom’s book was first published in 1987. What should not surprise anyone is that far left critics reacted to the book as a demon would react to holy water and a cross.

In 1930’s Germany, books by Jewish authors or books with classically liberal ideas were systematically burned by the Deutsche Studentenschaft (German Students' Association) in large ceremonies held in town squares. Today, exactly three copies of Bloom’s book are still available at Harvard University’s Library. Conversely, there are hundreds of copies of Karl Marx’s Das Kapital.

Some people argue that the rise of computer technology, the internet and electronic social media have fundamentally changed modern culture and that any parallel between Nazi Germany’s seizure of university thought and today’s university thought are invalid. This is false.

If anything, technology has only accelerated the propagation of politically correct propaganda. Indoctrination took years before radio and motion pictures. It took months before the advance of the net. It only takes minutes now.

A contemporary of Peter Drucker was Martin Heidegger, who was appointed rector and chancellor of Freiburg University in April 1933. He formally joined the Nazi Party one moth later. Heidegger espoused a policy that held that free expression, dialogue and open debate were selfish, irresponsible and counterproductive. Instead, faculty and students were expected to fulfill their obligation to promote Nazism in both “in both thought and deed.” 

The modern university may be better connected than ever before, but the university is still the place where young minds are taught how to think. If you’re going to appropriate and control how society thinks, school is the place you start.

Friday, October 19, 2018

What happens if Mueller’s Russia probe finds nothing?

Related imageAnd… from this Politico report, it sounds like Robert Mueller is likely to hand anti-Trumpers a big fat nothingburger. This highly likely outcome is not at all what the left had hoped for when the probe was launched. The left was so convinced that Hillary Clinton would ascend the throne that 2016’s outcome just had to be the result of a grand scheme. Should the special counsel’s report not indict someone, anyone that implicates the President in an impeachable offense, oh my.

And should that report not be made public by Deputy Attorney General Rob Rosenstein, the outcry is going to be epic.

For starters, Mueller isn’t operating under the same ground rules as past high-profile government probes, including the Reagan-era investigation into Iranian arms sale and whether President Bill Clinton lied during a deposition about his extramarital affair with a White House intern. Those examinations worked under the guidelines of a post-Watergate law that expired in 1999 that required investigators to submit findings to Congress if they found impeachable offenses, a mandate that led to Starr’s salacious report that upended Clinton’s second term.

Mueller’s reporting mandate is much different. He must notify his Justice Department supervisor — currently Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein — on his budgeting needs and all “significant events” made by his office, including indictments, guilty pleas and subpoenas.

When Mueller is finished, he must turn in a “confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions” — essentially why he chose to bring charges against some people but not others. His reasoning, according to veterans of such investigations, could be as simple as “there wasn’t enough evidence” to support a winning court case.

Then, it will be up to DOJ leaders to make the politically turbo-charged decision of whether to make Mueller’s report public.


Oh, the temper tantrums.

There’s another link I’d like you to follow, but it’s a tad longer of a read than most Tweeters and Facebookers might be willing to concentrate on. The author describes a category of Democrats and Democrat-leaning folks that I have been calling WHELPs—White, Highly Educated Liberal People.

WHELPs are liberals that don’t like playing by any rules other than their own. They make the rules, and they apply the rules however and whenever they want to (or find them useful) and ignore them whenever they want to (or find them unhelpful). This is anathema to people who subscribe to the rule of law concept.

triggered-feministWHELPs set the rules for the 2016 election. To their shock and horror, Donald Trump broke every single one of those rules and was still sworn in as our 45th President. But they had a mulligan, they thought. They thought that surely, the election was a sham and Mueller would prove it.

Unless he doesn’t. And he won’t. 

So, we can expect a pandemonium of protest when Mueller’s report finds no evidence of an impeachable offense. When the WHELPs learn that there will be no Senate Trial presided by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; that President Trump will remain in office until at least January 2020, they will be in the streets. It’s gonna be a hot mess.

I believe that if Mueller had found evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors, he would have followed his mandate and reported them to his superiors already. The left will not get what it wants.

I also believe that the national embarrassment of the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation will be made to look like a kindergarten donnybrook.

These are people who like to make their own rules.  They refuse to live life on terms that are set by someone else and are the same for left and right alike before the game begins. They regard any outcome short of total victory under such terms to be illegitimate.

Fortunately, elections and courts of law are conducted by rules set by mature, (usually) rational adults. While impeachment is a political process, it is one that already has a set of rules prescribed by the Constitution. It even has precedents. This game is not played by WHELP rules.

WHELPs are fortunately a minority of a minority. They nonetheless make the most noise and cause the most trouble and they are their noisiest and most troublesome when the game doesn’t go their way. This one probably won’t, just like 2016. Just like Kavanaugh.

Thursday, July 8, 2010

TeeJaw Blog--The Machinery of Freedom

Check this out at TeeJaw Blog

Any book with that title is bound to be of interest to this blog, based as it is on Truth, Justice and the American Way (i.e., TeeJaw). The one available now is the second edition from 1989, the first edition was published in 1971. I say the second edition is available, and it is but only as a used book since it is out of print. Hardback copies can be found at Amazon for about $75 and paperback for around $25. In recent times a hardback copy in good condition has been offered for as much as $100.

A third edition is in the works. In the meantime the second edition is posted on the internet here where you can read the whole thing for free.

The book is invaluable for its distrust of intellectual orthodoxy in formulating a prescription for a society organized by private property, individual rights, and voluntary co-operation. Its author, David Friedman, is known as an “anarcho-captialist,” which would make him a whack job if he were serious or if it were not possible for us to read around any of his “every man should be allowed to make his own rules” offerings. It turns out that he is not seriously an anarchist, at least for the most part. Those parts of his argument that tend too far in that direction can be safely ignored and one may still gain the benefit of the rest, which is excellent stuff.

I was given the second edition of this book by a former college professor, who also described himself as an "anarcho-capitalist."  He was more of an economist and political philosopher than anarcho-anything.  He also gave me a copy of Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind, which chronicled the demise of the modern university's political independence.  I really don't think these two books can be read separately from one another, but unfortunately, since Dr. Bloom's passing, CoAM has gone out of print.

It's good to see The Machinery of Freedom in its third printing, and I'm sure there's a library near you somewhere with a copy of CoAM lying around.


Gimme some feedback in the comments.