1,306 words
Among my favorite “radical centrists” is the British commentator Carl Benjamin, better known as Sargon of Akkad. He’s enjoyable to listen to, not merely for the easy sound of his voice and his superior accent, but for his uncompromising honesty, even when he is wrong.
Back in March of last year, he published a video about the Alt-Right, and his summary was that it was fundamentally an idea space, protected from the policing of progressive gate-keepers.
He had some other things to say as well, of course. Like most radical centrists, Benjamin made the usual comparisons between the far Right and the far Left. But the heart of the description — an idea space — was spot on.
This was a particularly important point for me. I had been attending a local community college after departing from the military with the goal of becoming an academic. I loved debates, as a participant or an observer, and I spent hundreds of hours in my early 20s sitting on my laptop, listening to Christopher Hitchens take on William Lane Craig on religion, or Douglas Murray going toe-to-toe with Tariq Ramadan on Islam, Europe, and immigration. As someone who loved exploring controversial and interesting ideas for their own sake, higher education seemed to be the perfect place to go.
Experience quickly dispelled that notion.
For those who haven’t been to an institute of higher learning in a decade or three, the transformation in purpose across universities is hard to pinpoint, as many of the superficial trappings of academia have remained steadfastly visible. The university architecture, the modern-art courtyard centerpieces, the tweed-clad professoriate, the young students milling about in the grass carrying sling-bags — all of that’s still there. Open up the hood and examine the engine, and much has been rearranged . . . or so I imagine, from the stories I hear of academia from years ago.
The price of universities has exploded. By itself, it’s a phenomenon worth exploring. Has everyone suddenly gotten smarter? Are Millennials Generation Z more curious than previous ones? Neither of these seem intuitively likely, and conversations with most college students makes the hypothesis sound even less plausible.
The truth is that the telos — the purpose — of the University has changed, in at least two different ways. First, it has become career-oriented. The university is not about learning. It is not about exploring ideas, debating, experimenting, and adding to the canon of Western thought. It still occasionally does that, but only as a secondary or tertiary goal, rather than as its summum bonum. It’s simply more lucrative to make campus into a job-preparation program, and it turns out that for most people, that’s more important. And it’s hard to fault them for it. The academic is a rare personality type, and most people aren’t it.
But an institution cannot serve two masters, and what is necessary for the intellectual’s development — things like debate, intensive research, questioning premises, and the like — are impediments for the prospective employee en route to a future career. They need their certification so they can get on with their lives, and unnecessary detours between them and that goal are not merely unwanted: they are expensive.
The intellectual rigor of the academy is now in opposition with the means of production for the academy: churning out degrees. The more the better, never mind what becomes of the name of a Bachelor’s degree, a Master’s degree, or — heaven forbid — a Doctorate.
That’s the first change. Economically, schools can make more money catering to careerists than to intellectuals. Their culture reflects this, in terms of the amount of time for controversy they’re willing to entertain. We’ve got a mission here.
Never mind if the mission of the University fades away for the benefit of future coders, engineers, business owners, and HR managers with degrees in unrelated majors.
The second change is an ideological one. Anyone who reads Counter-Currents is probably very familiar with the Left-wing bias of Universities, but it is even becoming obvious to radical centrists as well, even to other Leftists. The progressive politics of universities are not, however, adequately summarized merely as “Left-wing.” The sorts of people that end up in charge of things — often by force of will alone, and via the administrative bureaucracy, rather than the classroom — are the types who want to police other people’s language. These are Social Justice Warriors, propelled by a particular personality type that is incompatible with good-natured debate and serious ideological exploration. Their company, in fact, is downright dangerous in such pursuits. For them free speech itself is controversial, never mind traditionalism in opposition to rationalism as an epistemological starting place. And just forget about having an “honest conversation” about race.
So what is left for the genuine intellectual? Where can the would-be-academic turned autodidact go, if the institutions once built with them specifically in mind are no longer able nor interested in providing that service anymore?
We fellow travelers can do what students, pilgrims, and philosophers have always done. We can search out our own teachers, and choose them based upon their merits and their ability, rather than on the words and traditions of the academically disinclined and the intellectually disengaged.
For me, personally, Counter-Currents has been one of these teachers . . . or perhaps a whole building of my own private Academy. Most importantly, I have discovered two mentors and a friend (Greg Johnson, Jack Donovan, and Aedhan Cassiel, respectively), though the more I read, the more I suspect that short list may grow over time. Collin Cleary’s What is a Rune? Is on my bedside table, just beneath Cicero, Rawls, and Ernst Jünger.
Here, I can learn about history, philosophy, psychology, sociology, literature, poetry, music, and contemporary culture, at levels matching or exceeding every college course I ever attended. Even compared to other Alt Right sources (Vox Populi, Chateau Heartiste, LessWrong, /pol/, etc), which all in their own ways seek to preserve this learning space, Counter-Currents represents the peak in content quality. Only TakiMag and the Occidental Observer come close.
Even with the fluidity of the internet, time is a critical factor in the success of institutions. Ceteris paribus, a university with 500 years of ingrained experience, worn into the stones and pathways of its workings, will provide more and withstand more than an institution of only 5 months.
Counter-Currents is just over seven years old. That’s enough time for it to have established itself, acquired some extraordinary talent, and put out some excellent content, both on the website and at meetup events. It is not enough time, however, to develop the resilience of Harvard, Yale, Oxford, or even most existing, formerly-academic institutions. That is going to take more time, and more resources.
The idea spaces that we once had have been taken over, and we probably won’t get them back.
Perhaps the best way to help cultivate and preserve the new intellectual idea space is simply to use it. For me, participating in the discussion is something I simply can’t not do; saying I “must” do it doesn’t quite capture my inability not to explore the ideas and arguments now taboo in academia. Naturally, this culminated in contributing a few articles, despite being vastly underqualified relative to most of the other writers here. But simply using it — reading, sourcing, or just occasional browsing — is helpful.
But another way to help is to give money. A college degree may cost tens of thousands of dollars in tuition alone. A few dollars a month towards the one of the best new guardians of the intellectual traditions of the West is, to put it mildly, a worthwhile investment. A culture without an idea space to explore the most prescient and important subjects will stagnate and die . . . and maybe even worse, it will simply become a boring and a dull place.
Related
-
Rolf Peter Sieferle a skandál kolem jeho osoby
-
The (So-Called) New York “Thought Criminals” & the “Intellectual Dark Web”
-
The Psychology of the Politically Correct
-
Librarians are Bad for Children
-
The Union Jackal, April 2023
-
The State of the Nation for White Advocates
-
The Roald Dahl Controversy
-
Michael Gibson’s Paper Belt on Fire
7 comments
Occidental observer, and TakiMag are the only other two that come close. Exactly, same here! But I would add vdare and John Derbyshire. And the defunct VOR radio show, what ever happened to that?
VOR archives are available as a torrent if you search for them. I think given the number of podcasts out now, there are a number that go well beyond what even the best shows on VOR were doing. In addition, a number of the people on the VOR network have their own shows know or appear semi-regularly on other podcasts.
Well list me some examples if you would.
Sargon is a dull as dishwater civic nationalist, regardless. “Just don’t call me racist!”
The decline of University education is another example where Capitalism/liberalism & Marxism/the far left work hand in hand with each other to destroy our society.
Cheap non-white labourers, women in the workforce and college educated drones unable to think for themselves. Great for both sides!
That magician Greg Johnson hooked me on his Plato and other philosophers’ podcasts six years ago.
I thought ‘this is a frigging school and I like it’. A whole new world opened up and the comment I most used to myself was ‘why was I not taught this stuff before this?’ How I got here is a longer story, but nevertheless, counter-currents is now a habit. A wonderful challenging site.
“Economically, schools can make more money catering to careerists than to intellectuals.”
Careerists have thinned out intellectuals such as to make the university an anti-intellectual, anti debate environment. You know in corporations consensus is the goal–not debate. That’s what modern universities are preparing students for.
Plus a good number of students in universities have below average intelligence since 60% of youth attend and a sixth of them would have IQs below average. Only about a sixth have an IQ above 120. Even though only 30% graduate, more than 2/3 of them have IQ below 120. Unless you’re going to a school with an average SAT above 1200 where at least half of students will have an IQ above 120 then it will be a shitshow. Most kids won’t even be capable of intellectual discussion let alone inclined to it.
But even in places like the ivy league where intelligence is the norm, the politically correct sort of Hillary Clinton-esque ethic prevails. It really is a bourgeois ethic of everyone getting along, regardless of race, color, creed, etc, for the sake of corporate harmony. There, inclination to be intellectual is the problem because it’s not lack of brains. Many women in universities are more concerned with pragmatic ways of helping people than abstract intellectual conceptions of things.
Sciences not relating to humans are doing fine, but social science is dead. 23andme is doing more sociobiological research than universities. Philosophy is losing its intellectual vigor. Political thought involves mostly pragmatic positioning techniques and the Overton window is so narrow that little if any ideas can be debated. Literature is pozzed. Pop culture has replaced high culture. Civil Rights is the only religion. Careerist conformism or leftist ideology are the only options.
People need the Internet for an alternative.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment