Tag: Woke

The Savage Professors: A User’s Manual

Leave a comment

Professors, tenured and trembling, clutched their tenure packets like rosaries. “Diversity,” “Equity,” “Inclusion” – these were the holy trinity, whispered in hushed tones during faculty meetings. But down the labyrinthine corridors of the university, a darker current ran. DEI, anti-racism – these were Molotov cocktails slung at the ivy-covered walls.

The seminar room reeked of stale coffee and desperation. Tenured egos, once puffed with self-importance, now squirmed under the weight of a new acronym: DEI. Diversity, Equity, Inclusion. Platitudes for tenure packets, Professor Ramirez thought, swirling the lukewarm brew in his chipped mug.

Down the rabbit hole, man, down the rabbit hole… whispers Ramirez, a sardonic glint in his eye. DEI, anti-racism – these weren’t buzzwords, these were switchblades glinting in the ideological twilight. Words that made even the most progressive colleagues see red, their liberalism a flimsy veneer over a bedrock of unspoken anxieties.

Hypocrisy,” Ramirez scribbled furiously in his notebook, a graveyard of unfinished novels and half-baked theories. “The professors who championed diversity on campus turned into apologists when it came to Israel. Bantustans disguised as settlements, rigged roulette wheels of equity, inclusion for the chosen few.”

A faint smell of week-old falafel lingered in the air, a reminder of the complexities Ramirez refused to ignore. “The stench of hypocrisy, worse than any cafeteria food,” he muttered, his voice barely a rasp. “It exposed the rot at the core, the way power makes even the self-proclaimed revolutionaries fold like a discount suit.”

One old Marxist professor, a relic of a bygone revolution, cackled into his chipped mug of coffee. “Hypocrisy, my friends!A banquet for the powerful!” He spoke of “apartheid states,” a smirk twisting his lips. Names hung heavy in the air,unspoken but understood: Israel, a land of contradictions, where checkpoints sliced through olive groves and “security concerns” masked a brutal reality.

The “champions of liberalism,” these self-proclaimed knights of justice, turned invertebrate when faced with realpolitik.”Equity” became a rigged roulette wheel, with Palestinians forever destined for the empty chamber. “Inclusion”? More like a gated community, patrolled by the ghosts of American indifference and Israeli stone.

Yes, professors swam in a semantic soup – diversity, a lukewarm broth, inclusion, a vague sprinkle. But DEI, that was a roach in the gumbo, a wriggling mess of ideology. Anti-racism? A flaming absinthe poured on the whole damn banquet.

This wasn’t polite discourse, mind you. This was claws bared, tenure at stake. Tenured radicals with tenure-hungry dissertations, all brandishing their pet theories of race like switchblades. Black Power fists clenched against assimilationist suits. The air thick with the musk of past grievances and the desperate scramble for the moral high ground.

Here, even the voices of color, the supposed beneficiaries, were a cacophony. Some, scarred by the iron fist of oppression, craved revolution. Others, cautious climbers on the greasy pole of academia, mumbled about “merit” and “standards” with a nervous twitch.

The lines blurred, professors. Friend became foe, mentor turned inquisitor. Was this the pursuit of truth, or a bloodsport disguised as scholarship? In the flickering fluorescent lights of the department lounge, the only certainty was the bitter tang of fear and ambition.

Yes, professor. You dig the surface, diversity, equity, inclusion – platitudes swirling in the academic ether. Fine words for tenure packets, for grant proposals. But down the rabbit hole, man, down the rabbit hole… DEI, anti-racism – these are switchblades, these are crimson manifestos scrawled on the blackboard of power.

These are words that make otherwise respectable colleagues see red, feel the primal itch beneath their tweed jackets. Even the brothers and sisters, the melanin brigade – they ain’t a monolith, dig? They got their own agendas, their own grudges. This ain’t some feel-good group grope, professor. This is a blood sport, a battle for the very soul of the academy. You think you’re safe in your ivory tower? You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

The hypocrisy cuts deep, man. These same folks banging the drum for DEI turn a blind eye to realpolitik when it comes to nations that, well, let’s just say they ain’t exactly bastions of racial justice. Suddenly, “equity” and “inclusion” go out the window when there’s oil or strategic interests in play. It’s a word game, a shell game. They shuffle the buzzwords – “security concerns,” “national interests” – but the end result is the same: the oppressed get screwed, all while the powerful sip champagne and pretend they don’t see the blood on the carpet. 

Ah, you hit the nail right on the head, professor. This whole DEI racket, it starts to reek when you consider Israel, right? Here’s this apartheid state, thumbing its nose at international law, segregating Palestinians like yesterday’s news, and where’s the outrage from the diversity crowd? Crickets.

Maybe their “inclusion” only applies to certain shades of the melanin spectrum. Maybe their “equity” means a bigger slice of the pie for some, and scraps for others. It’s a whole damn kabuki play, professor, a grotesque pantomime where everyone pretends these empty suits of power actually give a damn about justice. The only equity on the table is the equity of hypocrisy.

Ah, you hit the nail right on the head, professor. These same righteous cats who froth at the mouth about microaggressions turn into chum buckets when it comes to Israel. Palestine? They become about as geographically aware as a stoned koala bear. Suddenly, it’s all about “ancient blood ties” and “security threats.” The plight of the Palestinians? Evaporates faster than a raindrop in the Dead Sea.

Israel, the land of milk and honey, also the land of checkpoints and segregated settlements. It’s a goddamn joke, man. A grotesque parody of justice. They preach equity from their tenured thrones, then turn a blind eye to a system that segregates, dispossesses, and brutalizes. They traffic in empty signifiers, hollow signifiers, while a real, live apartheid unfolds right beneath their noses. It’s enough to make you want to hurl a copy of Foucault at the nearest window.

They preach diversity but turn a blind eye to the bantustans crammed with Palestinians. Equity? More like rigged roulette, where Palestinians always seem to land on empty chambers. Inclusion? Only if you’re the right kind of “in.” This ain’t some cocktail party, this is a gated community, and the walls are high, built with Israeli concrete and American indifference.

This was a blood sport, a battle fought not with swords, but with buzzwords and grant proposals. Tenure factories churning out platitudes for grant applications. But scratch the surface, man, and the worms writhe. DEI, anti-racism – these are grenades, not confetti. Manifestoes scrawled in blood on the dusty blackboard of power.

These are words that turn colleagues apoplectic, even the ones with tweed jackets and pipe dreams. Even the melanin brigade, the so-called brothers and sisters – they ain’t a choir singing hymns of harmony. This is a blood sport, professor. A bare-knuckle brawl for the soul of the university. You think tenure shields you from the fray? Think again.

Everything is False: Nothing is Permitted

Leave a comment

The statement “Everything is false: Nothing is permitted” is a complex and somewhat paradoxical proposition that raises interesting questions about the nature of truth and morality. While the idea that everything is false might seem nihilistic and pessimistic, it is also possible to interpret it in a more nuanced way that sheds light on the limitations of our understanding and the importance of ethical norms in human society.

To say that everything is false suggests that there is no objective truth or reality that we can access with any degree of certainty. This is a position that has been explored by various philosophical traditions, from skepticism in ancient Greece to postmodernism in the 20th century. From this perspective, all of our beliefs and claims about the world are merely subjective interpretations that are contingent on our cultural, social, and historical context. In other words, what we take to be true is simply a function of our particular point of view, and there is no way to get beyond this subjectivity.

At the same time, the second part of the statement, “nothing is permitted,” suggests that without a grounding in objective truth or morality, there can be no basis for ethical norms or rules. If everything is false, then there is no way to determine what actions are right or wrong, and no way to enforce any kind of moral code. This leads to a kind of nihilistic perspective where anything goes, and there are no constraints on human behavior.

However, it is possible to challenge this view by pointing out that ethical norms and rules do not necessarily depend on a belief in objective truth or morality. Instead, they can be grounded in human values, which are based on our shared experiences and aspirations. While these values may be subjective and culturally contingent, they are still important guides for human behavior, and they provide a basis for moral judgment and action.

Moreover, the idea that everything is false does not necessarily lead to moral relativism or nihilism. Instead, it can be seen as a call for humility and skepticism in our claims about the world. By recognizing the limitations of our understanding, we can avoid dogmatism and intolerance, and instead cultivate a more open and empathetic approach to other people and cultures. This, in turn, can lead to a more nuanced and compassionate approach to ethical questions, one that is based on a deep respect for human dignity and diversity.

The idea that every society is defined by its prohibitions is a fundamental Durkheimian perspective that has been widely discussed in sociology. According to this view, the boundaries of any given society are formed by the rules and norms that define what is acceptable and what is not. These prohibitions, whether explicit or implicit, are what make a society distinct and provide its members with a shared sense of identity and purpose.

When we look at what is often referred to as “the culture wars,” we can see this struggle playing out in real-time. At the heart of these conflicts is a battle over what should be considered impermissible, and therefore excluded from the public square. In other words, the debate is not just about different values or beliefs, but about what is allowed to be part of the public discourse and what is not.

For example, debates around issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and religious expression in public spaces all center around what should be considered acceptable and permissible within society. Those who advocate for greater inclusivity and openness may argue that these issues should be discussed openly and freely, while others may believe that certain topics are simply too controversial or offensive to be included in public discourse.

In the past, there was a traditional set of prohibitions that were widely accepted and enforced by society. These prohibitions included things like being openly gay, being an atheist, or taking hallucinogenic drugs. However, in recent years, a movement has emerged that challenges these traditional values and instead promotes a more permissive and inclusive approach to these issues. This movement argues that these things are not only acceptable but should be celebrated and even encouraged in some cases.

Conversely, the same movement views other behaviors that were once deemed acceptable under traditional values, such as humiliating or discriminating against marginalized groups, as socially and professionally unacceptable. These acts are now considered excommunicable offenses in the eyes of this movement.

While everyone has their own personal opinions about which normative world they prefer to live in, what should be resisted is the notion that one system or the other is more permissive than the other. In reality, both systems are regimes of prohibition, with different sets of behaviors being deemed acceptable or unacceptable.

This brings us to the central question of the culture wars: which prohibitions are appropriate, and which are not? This is a complex and contentious issue, with individuals and groups often holding vastly different opinions on what should and should not be allowed in society. Ultimately, this debate is about determining the boundaries of our shared values and beliefs, and what kind of society we want to create for ourselves and future generations.

In conclusion, while the statement “everything is false: nothing is permitted” may seem like a bleak and nihilistic proposition, it can also be seen as an invitation to reflect on the limitations of our understanding and the importance of ethical norms in human society. Rather than leading to a moral vacuum, it can inspire us to cultivate a more nuanced and empathetic approach to ethical questions, one that is grounded in human values and a deep respect for the diversity of human experience.

Woke Up

In the vapid jargon of our times, “woke” has become a bludgeon wielded by those who prefer posturing to progress. It’s a fig leaf, a way to obscure the festering wound of economic inequality. In the newspeak of our times, “woke” has become a hollow term, devoid of true rebellion. It allows the ruling class to point at a smattering of minorities they’ve hoisted into token positions and declare progress achieved. These poor souls, perched precariously on their gilded cages, become living pieties—proof positive of equality, while the real mechanisms of power, the iron grip of wealth and capital, remain firmly in the hands of the same old faces.

We see a sprinkling of minorities elevated to positions of token power, forced to play the game while the real levers remain in the hands of the privileged. These token figures become living contradictions, their advancement dependent on proclaiming a hollow “empowerment” that offers nothing but crumbs from the master’s table.

This is a mere game of shadows, a cruel pantomime. The true struggle—for economic justice, for a world where a man’s worth isn’t measured by the color of his skin but by the sweat of his brow—is left conveniently obscured. These token minorities, forced to parrot the party line of “empowerment through trinkets,” become unwitting collaborators. They mouth empty slogans of progress while the iron boot of economic inequality grinds ever tighter.

The true rot, the real inequality, festers beneath the surface. The economic chains that bind the masses remain firmly in place. A few token faces, strategically positioned, are trotted out as proof of progress. But these are mere court jesters, their power a sham. They dance to the tune of their masters, their advancement contingent on parroting the lie: empowerment through empty symbols, not true economic liberation.

This is a doublethink worthy of the Ministry of Truth itself. Freedom redefined as following a preordained script. Justice transformed into a performance. All the while, the iron grip of the system tightens. Beware the sirens of wokeness, for they offer a poisoned chalice. True change demands not cosmetic gestures, but a dismantling of the rigged game itself.

Orwell would likely recognize this phenomenon. He who railed against the manipulation of language and the erosion of truth would surely see “woke” for what it is: a weapon of distraction, a fig leaf to cover the festering wounds of a society still riven by class. The true battle lines remain the same—the have-less versus the haves. And until that fight is addressed, pronouncements of wokeness are nothing but the clinking of empty platitudes.

True liberation, as always, lies not in symbolic gestures but in wresting control of the means of computation, in achieving genuine economic independence. This, the “woke” dare not utter, for it would expose the rotten core of their ideology: a system content to soothe our consciences with empty gestures while the true power structure remains unchanged.