Beyond the Cusp

December 12, 2017

Investment in Higher Educations Hath Wrought

 

College and University faculty and administrators were dominated by conservative and largely religious members in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Starting in the late 1960’s a far more liberal and leftist influence was given the initial entry. The reasoning was that they added a diversity of thought and there was little desire to use intellectual viewpoints as an exclusionary criterion. These new faculty, and soon also administrators, initially showed some degree of openness but often they would make arguments that their positions were in the minority. This argument held sufficient weight that within a short period of time, these leftists and their petitioning established themselves as a slight majority. Once they had established majorities in a goodly number of universities and colleges, they began a purge of the conservatives, often offering early retirement with sizeable severance bonus as an incentive, one might say bribe, to depart early allowing for more of their own numbers. This quickly led to the situation these institutions are in today with rare exceptions. This was the beginning of the purging of the institutions which seek college and university graduates to fill their positions, particularly the upper management and high-skilled positions. They were able to infiltrate and then control the greater part of the media, educators of the public schools systems as well as many private systems, entertainment, information technology positions, the main internet corporations and virtually all the major metropolitan government and the deep state of the Federal Government. These are the sources of the recent upheavals in American and European societies where much of traditions have been turned on their heads. Today society has been fragmented into thousands of identity first groups which can be pitted one against the other.

 

The new normal is if you belong to any group which is perceived to have had any kind of advantage in the past, then you must pay for that history and be denigrated and denied a fair opportunity for positions, advancement or preference of any kind. For example, white males must pay for the entire history of the industrialized west and their positions of power within. Remarkably, the sole measure is who held the positions of power in the industrialized western world. For example, there are no impediments placed on Muslims who actually are considered to be disadvantaged despite their historic period of empire which remains today as the Arab Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and has shown signs of becoming resurgent. Somehow, Arabs have been determined to be a minority people of color needing assistance against the former dominant white males. Never mind that there have been numerous different groups who were the dominant culture all over the globe. The Mongols had one of the largest empires in all of history. The Chinese have had several periods of empire and may be on the verge of another period of greater influence and power. Thailand was formerly known as Siam when they held power over much of Southeast Asia. Russia has been referred to as Empire throughout history. The French, British, Spanish, Dutch, Portugal and others have all had periods of Empire. There were empires in the Americas such as the Toltec, Olmec, Maya and Aztec. There have been empires from early history such as the Egyptian, Hittite, Babylon, Assyrian, Carthaginian, Pandyan, Macedonian, Seleucid, Ptolemaic, Armenian and others before Rome, talking about empires. A rather comprehensive list of empires over the years and around the globe can be found here. The point is virtually every race and peoples held empire of some measure somewhere in history. Despite history showing that all peoples were at some time rulers of their area and the most advanced in their regions, only Caucasians, and mostly males, are being targeted by the new, leftist political establishment. Truthfully, the targeting seems to actually get even more specific, it attempts to target conservative and religious when possible.

 

University

University

 

This is the result of identity politics. The problem is once you claim you resent identity politics or even use the terminology identity politics, that makes you a target as anyone complaining about identity politics is obviously a racist individual who probably uses racial identity as part of your determination of who is to be trusted and who is a danger. The leftists who practice identity politics though, are serving to equalize past discrepancies which caused inequalities favoring one group over others. The other thing necessary to know is that there are a few rules which are the truths which have presumably given certain groups advantages over other groups and these have been true over all of history, according to the authorities of identity politics. One of these rules is that men have had advantages over women, whites over other races and these have been the two main standards. There is one set of rules which holds for nations and they have been defined as those who have been the industrialized militarily successful nations. That and have had White privilege. That restricts this to Europeans, the United States and the rest of the British Empire nation. There have been some exceptions such as Japan which was one of the nations which fits the description but misses one main contingent, white privilege. There is one nation and its people who, despite not having any empire for the last three-thousand years, being of many different racial makeups and having been the victim of one of the greatest acts of hatred in history who have still been placed as the one nation alongside the United States as the greatest example of privilege, Israel and the Jews. Evidence of this can be seen in the example pictured below. This image has been used by Black Lives Matter (BLM) as well as far right White Supremacist groups with both claiming that Jews were manipulating and stealing positions which should have been given to them. The Jews hold the unique position of being targeted as the cause of people’s problems by the extremes on the left and the right. The way the Jewish people are described one would not be blamed for believing there is no such thing as a Jew who is not wealthy, or at the very worst, not poor. This is not entirely true, which I can honestly attest to as a former day laborer who was often not the first chosen for jobs being of slight build when younger and will wish I could get back to that weight again. What is interesting is that in many instances it would be all but impossible to differentiate between Jews and Muslims in a line-up.

 

White Privilege Starts with Jewish Privilege

White Privilege Starts with Jewish Privilege

 

The whole idea of pretending that racial or religious preferences exist or that discrimination is a huge problem and very probably the largest challenge society faces. What is sad is that the same people who are claiming that racial, religious, gender and other such qualifiers are still used as the main and decisive reasons for hiring personnel actually get audience in the United States or much of the developed world. Those battles were fought and pretty much settled in the last century and using it for political purposes and to infuriate and activate to the verge of violence or beyond is one of the saddest truths today. There are other sad truths which revolve around these purely political claims and forced divisiveness. Society in the United States was in many ways less divided forty and fifty years ago than it is today. This sad reality is very much being forced intentionally in order to divide society and wield an unbeatable political alliance. A large part of what makes the problems being faced by many in our society are not as much racial and financial. Those living in the heart of most large metropolises are stuck in broken schools where the atmosphere for learning is completely stifled by a combination of policies demanding that the public schools must take even the most disruptive students requiring much effort be invested in security along with the least experienced teachers being assigned makes these schools often substandard. Charter Schools often can make a difference, as they are not restrained by many of the worst inhibitions and limitations placed on the regular public schools. They choose their own teachers and are permitted to hire, fire, promote and demote without interference by teachers’ unions or school boards. These special schools also can choose to expel students who are disruptive while the public school has no such power any longer. The Charter Schools are opposed by the teachers’ unions and the politicians who support these unions. Were the entirety of schools were permitted to operate under the same rules the level of education in the inner cities would improve drastically, and the union would cease to have any power. That union power and the politics behind it has sentenced the poor, the financially disabled, to continue to have little hope of climbing out from the hole in which they were born. There was a time when all schools ran with similar rules as the Charter Schools and provided and superior product to the inner cities than they are now capable of providing, rules as they are.

 

There once were special schools for the most problematic student called Reform Schools. There once were asylums for the mentally challenged or disabled. Some social scientists decided that these institutions were counterproductive and that such individuals would be better served if they were integrated into the mainstream rather than treated separately. The theory was that by mixing these differently challenged individuals with the normative individuals they would be better off and would, in time, be normalized. There was no concern what effect such changes would have on the so-called normative individuals. For the mentally disadvantages this became numerous mentally ill individuals no longer making their appointments with supervising physicians, getting or taking their medicines or having their counselling sessions. Many of these individuals were not better for their experience and became fair numbers of the homeless. Without medical attention, they simply were incapable of functioning within society, and some believe those who decided this was a wise experiment knew this would be the result. Some believe that they actually hoped for this as it provided yet another political football to put in play at election time. For students in schools in what some refer to as troubled areas, others call inner cities, the level of education completely fell apart. This too was part of the plan so that more political power would come from the problem caused. They have decided that people are less important than political power and funds which brings more influence and thus more power. The entire game is being played with human capital and the society of the United States is losing the longer this game is played. The problem grows and very few ever desire to take on the battle because the deck is stacked, the game rigged and the field tilted against you. As soon as you begin to point to the problems, you run into the name-calling. When you claim that there is a problem with the inner city schools, you are labeled a racist. When you address the mental problems plaguing many of the homeless, you are labeled unfeeling. When you step onto this field, the leftist and liberal media will tear you to pieces, the left wing politicians will denounce you, teachers from the union will cast you as the devil incarnate, and every derogatory name in the book will become attached to your name, and very few are willing to take that risk. All we can say is we have nothing to lose in such a theater because if people are helped, then it was worth the risks.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Advertisements

August 20, 2012

Partisan Divide Reaching Dangerous Levels

Saying that politics in the United States is reaching heightened levels of hostility between people on the opposing extremes is an understatement of unimaginable proportions. The animosity between supporters of one party for the supporters of the other has almost driven people to violence. It is as if polite discussion and disagreement is no longer an option and the best policy might be to simply avoid all discussions about the coming elections or, if such is unavoidable, simply agree and be happy to walk away intact. Politics have reached toxic levels and not only with the ardent followers of politics but has gotten to a point where anything is fair as long as it serves your candidate and nothing is forgivable if it is done by the other side or their supporters. There appears to be no room for forgiveness or even civil discourse which makes voicing a preference a potentially aggressive action which may be interpreted as an offense. The question is where will this viciousness lead us and our society?

The viciousness of some encounters has resulted in the breaking of friendships which had withstood previous election cycles. Some family relations have become strained and even broken off. It is as if many view this upcoming election as the ultimate political confrontation from which the losing side will be unable to recover. They view this election as being for all the marbles, not just until the next election. Where we may not have witnessed an election which took such hold of people’s emotions, this is not unprecedented. Those familiar with the history of Presidential election in the United States have likely studied elections throughout our history and can attest that the election between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams was another election which caught the attention of the population and was thought to be an election to determine the future of the young country. Where one candidate, Thomas Jefferson had one view of the role of government within the greater society, John Adams had a near opposite view and the debate between the men was something far short of civil. We like to believe that all previous elections were more civilized, honest, and respectful; a sanitized view of our history. Perhaps some particulars and examples would help define how contentious the campaign of 1800 really was.

One thing for sure, the mutual respect and friendship between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson made no appearances during their campaigning. Thomas Jefferson’s campaign accused John Adams of being a “hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.” John Adams campaign responded accusing Thomas Jefferson of being “a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father.” Before it was all over and the voting decided the elections, Adams was labeled a fool, a hypocrite, a criminal, and a tyrant, while Jefferson was branded a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward. Both candidates spent most of the campaign at home allowing hired spokesmen and character assassins to carry the name-calling in their stead throughout the States. It was during this campaign that the Thomas Jefferson affair with Sally Hemings was first made public complete with the claims of Thomas Jefferson fathering Ms. Hemings’ child. The one advantage our countrymen had in 1800 that we no longer have today was that they did not receive the final results of the election the night of the votes being cast. Where we will know who won the election before we go to sleep on Election Day in November, the Americans of 1800 would not even know the results of the voting in their own area until the next day or even for a week if they resided in a sufficiently large city. The final results of the election and who would be sworn in as the next President would not likely be known to the general public for weeks, likely months. They had all that time without hearing any more electioneering, any more claims and mudslinging before they would have to deal with the final results. We, on the other hand, will know by Wednesday at the latest, more than likely, who won and we will not be far removed from the emotional aspects of the campaign and everything will be a recent memory, a recent wound should our choice lose. This instant knowledge is a disservice as it does not allow for Americans in this immediate modern world to gain a little space and perspective with which to moderate our reactions.

The acrimony and sheer intensity of emotions being forged already in this Presidential campaign could lead the American people to a place we will forever rue. We may be witness to violence being caused by an election unseen since the middle of the nineteenth century with the onset of the Civil War. Emotions are running rampant and unchecked with both pundits and regular people who are reacting with a certainty of their convictions which does not leave room for compromise. The emotional levels being exhibited by both camps are truly frightening; at least I find them so. My fortune, or misfortune, is that I do not support either of the major Party candidates and have no animosity or preference which leaves me horrified by the fanaticism being exhibited by both sides. I already was not exactly looking forward to Election Day as when the winner is announced I know it will not be a candidate I support for the office of President. The only advantage I will have is that I will be equally unemotional about who lost as I am sure to be about who wins. Unfortunately, I will still be subject to whatever results which will come and have to live through the possible vindictive actions pursued by the most ardent supporters of the losing candidate. I pray that the reactions will be restrained, controlled and passive instead of what I have heard some predict will be their reaction should their candidate lose, and I have heard such claims from people from both sides. Perhaps all the claims are pure bluster, or so I hope as we cannot afford it to be otherwise.

Beyond the Cusp

Blog at WordPress.com.