There is one aspect here I think that's missing, and that's the moral (morality).
The 1960s represents a moral revolution (even perhaps another Reformation), and this is especially true for campus liberals, where morality became centered on your position toward and deference to the Other, with xenophobia taking the place that atheism or blasphemy had in our prior Christian moral framework, and where all good, compassionate, enlightened people are egalitarian xenophiles who oppose nationalism and support/defend every group that bears the stigma of Othering (gays, blacks, etc)—basically Social Justice morality works off a secular, punitive interpretation of the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
If you look at the 2 examples given, first theories created by a gay woman and a black woman obviously founded on their "lived experience", you can see the new SJ morality works as both taboo and matter of basic etiquette: in "Left spaces" standing up to oppose a member of a Historically Marginalized Group™ is like farting in church, it's just not done, it puts the stink of bigot on you and marks you as a possible apostate.
The campus Left were able to hijack Civil Rights morality and position themselves as Official Defenders of the Oppressed, and after this it was quick and easy march to victory. Once you own morality, you own people and their thoughts and actions.
These ideas come up in conversation with me and my brother a fair amount as he is a tenured professor at a midwestern university, and I reside in a university town on the “left coast”.
He considers himself fortunate to be teaching at an academic institution that has apparently not been taken over by leftist activist ideology.
When I detail some of the concepts and happenings that are ubiquitous and considered gospel in the culture where I reside he sighs in relief that he doesn’t have to bump up against that BS in his daily academic existence.
Human nature gathers into 5 ~ 15 ~ 80. 5% of people have both the gifts and perseverance to drive change. Inventors, artists, writers. Think Archimedes, Leonardo, perhaps Musk. The 80% are prefer balanced lives; family, work, leisure activities.
In between are the 15%. Not as talented, but jealous of the 15. They crave the influence and acclaim. This middling creatures too often find their outlet in media, academia and worst of all, politics. Too many turn to the dark side. If they cannot rule, they’ll see it burn.
The 15% is more like the 45% since the massive expansion of higher education since the 1990s. If you have a degree, you expect to have an opinion listened to.
I think its really only 15%. Its only the people bright enough to understand the difference between themselves and someone great that can experience that level of jealousy. A degree can never change biology and intelligence/personality are extremely heritable.
Thank you for this article. It is the first one I have found that outlines the systematic nature of the ideogical capture process. One problem I have is that moderates I associate with don't believe this is real, i.e. if I claim these things are happening they dont believe it and are quick to claim that these are just inventions of e.g. Right wingers, MAGA nutheads, racists, white people trying to protect their white supremacy privilege, those opposed to any attempts to increase diversity, etc. Who/Where are credible sources that are clearly not any of the above list that I can claim or point them to to validate or support the allegations?
Edit needed: “The result is that politically motivated theories that have been developed in order to advance leftist politics are treated as though there the result of disinterested truth-seeking.”’
"John Searle once wrote “The most offensive trait of American academics as a class is their timidity. In many cases even those who have tenure are unwilling to take controversial stands (I guess for fear of being hated by their colleagues and students.”"
You have left out the take over of the administration by the activists, either by embedding themselves in the bureaucracy or intimidating the administration. Those that don’t comply do not advance to having tenure or their funding gets denied. Either way, dissenters are neutered academically.
Dr. Heather Cox Richardson is the most influential promoter of academic bs to my peer group, who idolize her. I fell out over the inanity of Defund the Police and lies about CRT not being taught in K-12 schools (it absolutely is). Steep social price for not going along with the crowd but some of us are built different, I guess.
Once certain ideas get the appearance of legitimacy, even from obscure journals, they start getting treated as settled truth in industries that should know better.
In architecture and real estate, we’ve watched planning boards and zoning groups adopt language and frameworks with no basis in engineering, economics, or how people actually use space. The professionals who could push back often stay quiet. Not because they agree, but because no one wants to be the next target of an online pile-on or a reputational hit wrapped in activist branding.
At some point, people who still care about facts have to be willing to say, clearly and calmly, this is not how any of this works. Thanks for laying it out so plainly.
There is one aspect here I think that's missing, and that's the moral (morality).
The 1960s represents a moral revolution (even perhaps another Reformation), and this is especially true for campus liberals, where morality became centered on your position toward and deference to the Other, with xenophobia taking the place that atheism or blasphemy had in our prior Christian moral framework, and where all good, compassionate, enlightened people are egalitarian xenophiles who oppose nationalism and support/defend every group that bears the stigma of Othering (gays, blacks, etc)—basically Social Justice morality works off a secular, punitive interpretation of the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
If you look at the 2 examples given, first theories created by a gay woman and a black woman obviously founded on their "lived experience", you can see the new SJ morality works as both taboo and matter of basic etiquette: in "Left spaces" standing up to oppose a member of a Historically Marginalized Group™ is like farting in church, it's just not done, it puts the stink of bigot on you and marks you as a possible apostate.
The campus Left were able to hijack Civil Rights morality and position themselves as Official Defenders of the Oppressed, and after this it was quick and easy march to victory. Once you own morality, you own people and their thoughts and actions.
The early morning read that I didn’t wake up knowing that I needed.
First cup of coffee and critical thinking…two of my favorite things to start the day.
These ideas come up in conversation with me and my brother a fair amount as he is a tenured professor at a midwestern university, and I reside in a university town on the “left coast”.
He considers himself fortunate to be teaching at an academic institution that has apparently not been taken over by leftist activist ideology.
When I detail some of the concepts and happenings that are ubiquitous and considered gospel in the culture where I reside he sighs in relief that he doesn’t have to bump up against that BS in his daily academic existence.
Well said.
It's not geography, so much as mind virus.
It’s more basic.
Human nature gathers into 5 ~ 15 ~ 80. 5% of people have both the gifts and perseverance to drive change. Inventors, artists, writers. Think Archimedes, Leonardo, perhaps Musk. The 80% are prefer balanced lives; family, work, leisure activities.
In between are the 15%. Not as talented, but jealous of the 15. They crave the influence and acclaim. This middling creatures too often find their outlet in media, academia and worst of all, politics. Too many turn to the dark side. If they cannot rule, they’ll see it burn.
It was always thus.
The 15% is more like the 45% since the massive expansion of higher education since the 1990s. If you have a degree, you expect to have an opinion listened to.
Totalitarians know that only a few become true believers.
Today most progressives know WHAT to say, but never WHY they say it.
First Stalin was friends with Adolph, then with FDR, and communists in America turned on a dime.
So let’s agree on rough percentages.
5 truly productive, apolitical because they are fully engaged.
15 truly weak and envious.
The balance do not care; most merely mouth the pieties.
https://www.dictionary.com/e/disinterested-vs-uninterested/
I think its really only 15%. Its only the people bright enough to understand the difference between themselves and someone great that can experience that level of jealousy. A degree can never change biology and intelligence/personality are extremely heritable.
The jealous types I've encountered are in no sense smarter than 80% of the population.
Not only political motivation. The gender industry is worth $$$$$$
There is an industry and it benefits from insurance coverage. I don't think the gender industry's financial incentives are the driving factor here.
Why is ‘Queer theory’ even a thing?
Thank you for this article. It is the first one I have found that outlines the systematic nature of the ideogical capture process. One problem I have is that moderates I associate with don't believe this is real, i.e. if I claim these things are happening they dont believe it and are quick to claim that these are just inventions of e.g. Right wingers, MAGA nutheads, racists, white people trying to protect their white supremacy privilege, those opposed to any attempts to increase diversity, etc. Who/Where are credible sources that are clearly not any of the above list that I can claim or point them to to validate or support the allegations?
Edit needed: “The result is that politically motivated theories that have been developed in order to advance leftist politics are treated as though there the result of disinterested truth-seeking.”’
Edit needed: “In spite of the fact that the article relies heavily on the use of Freud’s psychological theory to make it’s case…”
Excellent comments - a reasonable explanation for why batshit crazy academics with socially poisonous ideas have any influence at all.
"John Searle once wrote “The most offensive trait of American academics as a class is their timidity. In many cases even those who have tenure are unwilling to take controversial stands (I guess for fear of being hated by their colleagues and students.”"
There's the bottom-line answer: fear.
Spot the typos you pedants.
You have left out the take over of the administration by the activists, either by embedding themselves in the bureaucracy or intimidating the administration. Those that don’t comply do not advance to having tenure or their funding gets denied. Either way, dissenters are neutered academically.
Dr. Heather Cox Richardson is the most influential promoter of academic bs to my peer group, who idolize her. I fell out over the inanity of Defund the Police and lies about CRT not being taught in K-12 schools (it absolutely is). Steep social price for not going along with the crowd but some of us are built different, I guess.
"more interesting phenomenon" should be "more interesting phenomena"
Great piece! You have a typo. Good report should be good rapport.
Not the only typo in this piece, but it’s early in the morning :)
Wokal is pretty good at having typos. Comes from time writing up stuff like this on Twitter threads.
Once certain ideas get the appearance of legitimacy, even from obscure journals, they start getting treated as settled truth in industries that should know better.
In architecture and real estate, we’ve watched planning boards and zoning groups adopt language and frameworks with no basis in engineering, economics, or how people actually use space. The professionals who could push back often stay quiet. Not because they agree, but because no one wants to be the next target of an online pile-on or a reputational hit wrapped in activist branding.
At some point, people who still care about facts have to be willing to say, clearly and calmly, this is not how any of this works. Thanks for laying it out so plainly.