2,631 words

(Part 1 here)

Policy 4: Reimagining Higher Education

By “reimagine” I mean an extreme makeover with a wrecking ball, not token reforms. Higher education is a chief citadel of the left. In fact, academia working in tandem with the media is what constitutes Curtis Yarvin’s “Cathedral” of elite power.

Thus far, conservatives have lampooned leftist academia as underwater basket weaving without doing anything to reform it, thereby ceding cultural control to the left. Those intersectional basket weavers ended up being FBI thugs, credentialed idiots, woke prosecutors, faceless bureaucrats, and HR commissars — which is no laughing matter.

Aside from indoctrinating midwits, providing cushy jobs and bully pulpits to hostile non-whites, and providing a forum for leftist elites to network, academia also consumes vast sums of money from students and taxpayers. Everyone except academia and leftists wins by destroying academia. Scarcely anyone likes academia, not even academics, thus they are a perfect target.

Academia doesn’t just preach anti-white ideas, they practice anti-white discrimination in admissions. Furthermore, by charging exorbitant tuition, students who come from rich families or who are colored have an advantage since the supermajority of private scholarships are diversity-based. For decades, academia has shaped a hostile anti-white lumpen elite by controlling access to frivolous yet necessary credentials.

Trump’s idea of an American Academy is a major step in the right direction. Trump’s vision is an online university that is quick, free, and not woke.

But the best way to destroy academia is to legalize the use of standardized tests for employment. Under current case law, such tests are de facto illegal due to unacceptably high risks of civil rights litigation. For example, resentful blacks sued the Maryland State Police because they couldn’t do elementary school level math.

This speaks to an adjacent issue, which is the need to either abolish all civil rights legislation and case law, or have it apply to whites too. As Christopher Caldwell explained in The Age of Entitlement, the civil rights era effectively rewrote constitutional law.

Guess what? We can rewrite it too. And we must, because civil rights has devolved into pandering to the minority sense of entitlement. At least King Sigismund only thought he was above grammar; black people think they are above grammar and math.

Now is the perfect time to reverse civil rights in general. People are fatigued with black entitlement, and whether the rolling back of woke is a tactical retreat or the beginning of a total rout will depend on whether we seize the initiative.

Overturning the doctrine of “disparate impact” is key to this. Once we peel back the sanctimony, all disparate impact means is that blacks can cry “racism” whenever they have what gamers call a “skill issue.” By supporting disparate impact, leftists are implicitly admitting that blacks are all but retarded. It is time to turn the page, and this will be easier with a conservative Supreme Court which has been unusually willing to overturn established case law.

Outside of STEM, people mostly go to college because employers require a degree as a substitute for an IQ or other standardized test. This is grossly inefficient. College does not make one better qualified for most jobs. If people have sufficiently high IQ, they can learn anything. And if people spend less time in school, that will not only improve their personal economy, because they will have less debt from student loans, but also the national economy, because we will have more workers. By allowing employers to use tests, we cut out colleges as a parasitic and unpopular middle man.

What about exposure to the humanities? Every American should receive the equivalent of a four-year humanities degree while still in high school.

Women would be some of the biggest winners of academic reform. They are particularly prone to indoctrination which only serves to make them unhappy, are easily stressed out by college, and waste some of their most fertile years only to be saddled with debt for what is usually a meme degree. Apart from a few exceptions, most women should not waste their time at college. Women certainly should not be the majority of college graduates. Due to a natural reluctance of women to marry down, this would also help the white birth rate.

Pressure from the American Academy or employment tests might ironically save legacy academia from themselves. They would have to focus on students instead of publishing woke junk nobody reads. They would be forced to bolster STEM, provide a fun environment for networking which means not being hostile to whites, and most importantly, do so affordably.

Reimagining education will have a secondary impact on two other centers of gravity: the military, which I have already spoken of in Part 1, and law. Most people enlist so they can use the GI Bill to pay for college. There’s nothing wrong with this. It was my primary motivating factor. But other factors like patriotism, adventure, and an inherent interest in military intelligence were almost as important for me. Too many people enlist for purely economic reasons, which has turned the military into just another job. If people no longer need to enlist for college, that will simultaneously raise the quality of recruits while lowering the number of recruits, which will help pressure the military to enact sweeping reforms.

To stay that the legal system needs reform is an understatement. Part of the problem is that it is difficult even for very smart people to become attorneys because of the cost in time and money. Making undergraduate studies free and faster through the American Academy would help, but it is not enough. It would be better to eliminate the need for an undergraduate degree entirely. None of it transfers over to law. In fact, too many people go to law school because they graduate with a liberal arts degree and don’t know what to do next. The best law students tend to have unusual degrees and/or real life experience outside of the Kindergarten to JD pipeline. In fact, liberal arts writing with its fluffiness instills bad habits for legal writing, which is clear, concise, and analytical.

Law school itself should be limited to one or two years instead of three. If you can’t figure out how to think like a lawyer and read a case by then, you shouldn’t be in law. Even better, it could be self-taught online. Various 1L and BAR exam prep courses already almost do that. In fact, one could better prepare for the BAR exam by using the time in law school to casually learn on your own. Besides, very little in law school or the BAR exam has any usefulness in the daily practice of law. And with AI on the horizon, the legal industry must adapt or die. Whether we like it or not, people will probably begin to look towards AI rather than attorneys for simple cases and questions. People will not spend vast sums of time and money on attorney fees when Grok or another AI program can do the same or better for simple issues.

In addition to preventing student debt, reimagining education is an opportunity to beat the left at one of their own issues, student debt relief. The notion that taxpayers should have to pay for intersectional degrees is silly. This would be transferring wealth from people who tend to be conservative to people who tend to be liberal. Instead, we can force malicious leftists to pay for the poor life decisions of clueless leftists.

Trump already plans to pay for the American Academy by taxing the massive endowments of universities who are all varying degrees of woke.

Additionally, we can cease giving direct financial aid or indirect aid via grants to universities that engage in anti-white hate and discrimination, along with suing them via the DOJ for civil rights violations. We can also sue the colleges and predatory lenders for inducing students into taking out massive loans for silly degrees. It’s a target rich environment, and despite leftist hysteria there is a segment of reasonable Democrats who will remember in 2028 that Trump didn’t enact A Handmaid’s Tale but that he did lower the price of eggs while paying off their student loans.

Reimagining education would be an effective and electorally popular way of destroying the Left’s power.

Policy 5: End Social Media Censorship

As reflected by Elon Musk repeatedly posting “you are the media now,” social media and alt media have knocked legacy media off its pedestal. For example, the Food Channel has surpassed CNN in ratings. This is a major victory because the mainstream media was the second pillar of Yarvin’s Cathedral.

But more is needed. While Musk touts X as a free speech platform, the truth is that it is still far short of truly free. People who have never posted anything obscene, violent, or even hateful remain permanently banned, including Jared Taylor, Greg Johnson, and Kevin MacDonald. Apparently, there is a secret ban list and/or a left behind force from the old Twitter regime.

Reforming X does not require political manoeuvering or clashing with entrenched government interests. Elon Musk can immediately cut the Gordian knot by fiat, as he is fond of doing. While I am hesitant to criticize the business structure of the man who invented reusable rockets, X cannot be run as a rocket or car company with Elon’s “hard core” style. X needs a right-wing HR department with commissars who zealously believe in free speech. Otherwise, ethnic mafias (particularly Jews and Indians) and ideological cliques will run amok and apply the rules capriciously or not at all.

It appears that much of X’s moderation has been automated by AI. But just as automation didn’t prove to be as efficient as was hoped in Tesla factories, AI moderation at X is sloppy and prone to false positives. Mass fraudulent reporting campaigns that exploit the AI only further exacerbate this problem.

Yes, hiring more people will cost money. But Elon already seems to have accepted that X may not turn a profit because free speech is essential for his goal of preserving and expanding human consciousness. If he is worried about advertising revenue, I don’t see how the ADL’s boycott could get much worse. And with liberals leaving for their Blue Sky echo chamber, he can’t afford to lose even more users.

Voluntary X reform would work best in tandem with a law that that forbids social media companies from banning users permanently or for more than a certain time, perhaps a week or a month, for non-criminal activity (absent a few niche reasons such as false impersonation, botting, etc.) In other words, if an employee permanently bans a user for the content of his speech, they had better file a police report or face criminal and civil penalties themselves. And for any ban for more than a specified amount of time, a specific reason must be given. Temporary bans, asking users to delete posts and allowing them to appeal if they disagree, are all better options than permanent bans. And companies should understand that freedom to outsource moderation to AI which is prone to error doesn’t mean freedom from litigation.

This is legally sound because social media companies, and especially X, have usurped the traditional public square. In Marsh v. Alabama 326 U.S. 501 (1946), a company town argued that it could forbid citizens from distributing religious literature on the town’s sidewalks because it was their private property. The Supreme Court rejected that argument on the grounds that the company had usurped the public space and that “The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it [citations omitted].” Likewise, X and other social media companies have usurped the traditional public square by overshadowing it, and more importantly, their entire business model is based on opening up digital property to the general public. In fact, Elon’s vision of making X the “everything app” is the ultimate example of opening private property to the general public.

The First Amendment must become X’s “terms of service.”

Many people are coming to suspect that Elon is propping up “alt lite” accounts while hypocritically throttling or banning our accounts. I am sympathetic to Elon and still think this is more a matter of a lack of supervision than malice, due to his tendency to spread himself thin, but, at some point, he becomes responsible for his employees’ behavior if he allows it to continue. If Elon is playing a disingenuous game of free speech for me but not for thee, the longer he plays it the more likely it is to blow up spectacularly in his face. It is almost impossible to keep secrets in the current year. All it takes is one whistleblower.

Free speech on social media through legislation and voluntary reform would benefit everyone involved, except hysterical leftists.

It would benefit the tech companies because if their hands are tied by law, they no longer need to expend money on censorship to appease fragile snowflakes or navigate a political minefield. It also wouldn’t make them look disingenuous and hypocritical.

It would benefit the GOP, even if it meant that they would have to compete against White Nationalists, firstly because we would serve as a useful buffer between conservatives and censorship. Secondly, because the GOP needs pressure from their right to prevent them from being dragged to the left, which has been a perennial problem.

It would also benefit the citizenry who would not just be able to speak freely but also hear a variety of viewpoints.

There is currently a mass exodus of liberals from X to BlueSky to boycott Elon and to shelter in a safe space free from right-wing thought. Destroying this and other safe spaces with would further demoralize them. It would also help prevent the “woke mind virus” from infecting new recruits if people see liberal ideas challenged and dismantled anywhere they pop up. In fact, there’s a good chance that many liberals would quit social media altogether, thereby undermining their ability to organize, gaslight, and recruit.