Whether we are a tree, a cockroach, a horse or a human being, we
exist because we are made of DNA molecules inside of which is written a set of
instructions on how to reproduce.
Another set of instructions prompts us to grow and learn as
individuals. And when grown, the same set tells us how to teach our offspring
the realities of life so that they too can grow and reproduce. And so it goes
generation after generation.
This is what maintains and perpetuates life on Planet Earth,
allowing us to evolve as individuals, whomever we are; and evolve as species,
whatever we are. You can suppress the normal activities of individuals or kill
them. You can even achieve some success at exterminating a species such as a
strain of deadly organisms, but you cannot kill the instinct to learn or
reproduce in any of us.
It is important to keep this in mind when confronted by people who
want us to ignore what our eyes show us, and our ears confirm to us. These
people want us to pretend that what's there isn't there, an attitude that goes
against what DNA has instilled into us. In fact, these people want us to
instantly unlearn what our senses allow us to absorb as food for thought. They
also want us to retain nothing but the dogmas they feed us by some kind of
cultural intravenous concoction.
You can see and study an example of these notions, and how they
are made to work on human individuals, when you go over an article that came
under the title: “PC insanity may mean the end of American universities,”
written by Roger Kimball and published on May 31, 2019 in The New York Post.
The author, Roger Kimball, quotes four people: Sir Roger Scruton,
Allen Farrington, Bret Weinstein and Herb Stein––the last two being Jews––to
make the point that something has gone wrong with academia. Of the choices that
can be made to correct the situation, he prefers the one that would get rid of
the faculties which deal with the humanities, while keeping those that deal
with Science and Engineering. He explains that this is a better choice than the
alternatives –– suggested by other litigants –– such as “start competing
institutions, outside the academic establishment” or “get rid of the
universities altogether”.
A question: What's phony about Roger Kimball's presentation? It is
that he ignored the Jewish factor which, in the past, has contributed 100
percent of the troubles he is complaining about. What's more, it continues to
contribute as much as 99 percent of the troubles even today. And then, to
suggest a solution, Kimball turned around and highlighted the opinions of four
people, half of them Jews, on what to do. This is like asking a couple of
rapists how to protect victims of rape from their assailants.
Roger Kimball agrees with Sir Roger Scruton that the major problem
facing higher education today is that, “The humanities have devolved into
cesspools of identity politics and grievance studies at most colleges and
universities.” Well, if before they open their mouths again, the two Rogers
would take the trouble to research the subject they are fond of talking about,
they'll find that identity politics started half a century ago when the Jews
threatened to sue anyone who would stand in the way of them “educating the public”
on the sensitivities of Jews.
The Jews won that battle at the time, and had things done their
way. They were allowed to “educate” the public, and the education has continued
to this day. However, the way that things happen now, is that the Jewish students
noisily barge-in on non-Jewish students who quietly study for the exam, in a
corner of the university campus. The Jews scream, saying things like: “We are
Jews, we have a Holocaust story to tell, and we're here to tell it to you. Drop
what you're doing and listen to what we have to say.” That's how and when
trouble begins, and the Jews blame the ugly outcomes that ensue on the
non-Jews.
And when it is recess time, and the non-Jewish students go home
for a few days, they discover that Jewish agents of the propaganda machine were
out in force, trying to convince the government and their parents, that they
should let the Jewish organizations take charge of the system of education from
kindergarten to college. The Jewish goal is to indoctrinate their little
brothers and sisters on subjects that relate to the Holocaust, and how these
subjects, factor into the sensitivities of Jews. It is that these people never
stop playing identity politics.
Roger Kimball fantasizes that “in the coming decade, we'll see
liberal-arts colleges close, and see the rise of alternatives to traditional
colleges,” having convinced himself it will happen. Maybe it will. But Kimball
also thinks of himself as an expert in the historical development of cultures.
If true, he must be seeing a great deal of resemblance between the
grotesqueness of the 16th- and 17th-century Baroque era, and what's happening
today.
Given that Baroque has fed on the cultural profuseness of the
Renaissance that preceded it, and then served as food for thought to the
Classical era that followed it, Kimball should have no trouble seeing that if
we're going through a new Baroque era, we should expect that thanks to the
“ugly” cultural fat that's being produced today, the upcoming classical era
will have more than enough food for thought on which to feed and prevail.