No doubt there will be many who might say that I am unqualified to write about academia. My post-graduate qualifications, after all, are or were of a basically vocational nature (the Bar of England and Wales; the Bar of the State of New York). Further, I have never taught any subject at any level. However, it really is time that “time is called” on the dummy intellectuality being passed off as scholarship in the tertiary educational sector.
I do not intend to give specific examples, glaring though many are, of what I have called “dummy intellectuality” in academia. Anyone interested can find it easily for himself, by looking at the list of publications by university faculty members, or at their social media outpourings. I am of course confining my comment mainly to what are often termed the softer areas of study, such as sociology, literature and linguistics, “migration” (yes, this too is now an academic “discipline”!) and the like.
In the past, in the 19th century and most of the 20th, non-scientific academic works could usually be understood perfectly well by the ordinary educated person. That is no longer the case. A whole farrago of nonsense has been imported into academic life, involving narrow jargon, ever-narrower fields of study, cliques of “experts” in the foregoing and careers built on these insubstantial foundations.
I suppose that the pseudo-intellectual egg from which the above-noted chick was hatched was probably the area of the study of Marx, Lenin and Engels, firstly in the Soviet Union, then in the socialist world more generally, which then seeped out into the universities and other tertiary institutions of the Western world. Marxism was itself once called a result of “Jewish Talmudic theorizing and argument” and in the dummy intellectuality now rife in the universities of the UK and elsewhere, there is certainly a powerful Jewish element.
Read any papers by academics in fields such as sociology, “gender studies”, “migration studies” etc and you will see that the language employed is so specialized that it amounts to an exclusionary jargon.
One of the effects of the narrowing of language into jargon is that only those indoctrinated into the jargon can discuss the subjects concerned; others are not to be included in the discussion because they are not “educated” (in the narrow sense) enough to do so. Only the “specialists” (the Jewish or sometimes non-Jewish “experts”) can say anything, it is thought. This way of thinking has also contaminated areas such as economics, which are thought of as “harder” or more scientific than, say, sociology.
Thus it is that, before the financial crash usually dated as 2007-2008, the “experts” were mostly sure that such a crash would not happen. Afterwards, the “experts” split into at least two camps (pro”austerity” being the main one in the UK). These “experts” made predictions, got jobs paying hundreds of thousands of pounds in the Bank of England, the City of London financial district, in the BBC and elsewhere. The fact that most of them got their predictions wrong most of the time (and still do) means little, because they cannot be challenged by non-experts on their own terms. The average critic does not even have a common language with the average “expert”. The fact that some kind of Mystic Meg or the spin of a coin is as accurate as the “experts” is thought irrelevant.
Likewise, it is hard to challenge the idea, put forward (in nuanced form, so be it) by a few well-known academics and then trumpeted (in simplistic forms) by a horde of “me-too” politically-correct imbeciles and one-world plotters, that the Romans were non-European or even sometimes “blacks”. Who are you, ordinary educated citizen, to challenge “the experts”? Yes, all Roman art, currency, literature, shows a European (Aryan) heritage, but what of that? That has no weight, because Professor Somebody of SuchAndSuch University has suggested that a few non-Europeans served (perhaps) as legionaries for short periods in Britain. From that tentative suggestion by an academic, not only do the “me-too” politically-correct hordes draw sweeping and wrong conclusions as to Roman Britain, but (even more wrongly) go further, to say that modern British people have African or other non-European ancestry. This despite the scientific evidence that does exist:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0719_050719_britishgene.html
Returning to our main theme, it is clear that academia must be reclaimed from the “experts” in that narrow sense, from those who are only talking to each other and (((of course))) making a good living doing so.
Whole subjects may have to be either done away with or subjected to a purge. True academics must be able to exist again (they still do, in fact, alongside the jargonists) and thus be able to inform the non-academic population properly as to both their own subjects and public policy. Clarity is king.
Ian Robert Millard 
Actually on this one I disagree with you. While you are correct about the incompetence, stupidity and blatant disregard for reality in academia, it must be remembered that these intellectual morons, (exam passers with no common sense), are a product of the State sponsored dependency culture that has been the foundation of the destruction of our society.
They too will be destroyed. They will destroy themselves through irrelevance, incompetence and abject stupidity just as certainly as the ruling Marxist-Capitalist hegemony will destroy itself.
Economics is the easy bit really, you are better off without university brainwashing, in understanding it. In this corrupt system based upon usuary, (which I refer to as ‘built on sand’ when I give talks on economics), the only viable option is withdrawal of finances and cutting back on facilities to create financial hardship for communities.
Either you have an excess of money out on loan at interest or a minimum out on loan at interest. Usuary does not permit equanimity by its very nature. State induced hardship as the result of bubbles, is what usuary requires and that is what we have in ‘austerity’. They have no other tool at the moment, there is nothing else in the usuary tool box.
It is the last throw of the dice because austerity is all that is left, apart from war. Austerity destroyed the ‘free world’ in the 1930s while Germany experienced only full employment and massive investment in infrastructure. After that, war in 1939 through to 1941, brought an end to austerity and introduced massive excesses of loans at interest to finance the war.
This is what our usurious dictators hope to do again, but this time using Russia as the enemy. Our dictator’s army is already at the start line of Operation Barbarosa, all they need is a Gulf of Tonkin incident to get the war underway!
But will the proles fight and die this time? That is the $64 question! With an out of control internet it seems unlikely. More likely the proles will just say ‘f**k that for a lark’. And then what?
So it is either National Socialism or Usuary. National Socialism which you call Social Nationalism offers freedom, justice and peace. Usuary offers economic slavery, abuse of the people by a fascist State and perpetual war! It is quite simple really!
LikeLike
The UK has had more so-called “austerity” than other, even other EU, states. Political choices do, at least to some extent, determine policy.
Any war in Europe is likely to involve professional armies (including reserves and already-trained volunteer contingents) rather than mass civilian armies of the Second World War type. The nuclear aspect dominates all, if only as a holding-the-ring limitation on the game.
As far as the UK is concerned, I see no resilience in the population. The multiracial, multicultural chaos of a citizenry is quite different from what existed in 1914 and 1939. What, also, is often forgotten is that not enough people volunteered even in 1914 (and 1915), which is why conscription was introduced. In 1939, conscription was introduced almost from the start. However, it is not even citizen reluctance to serve that will be the main factor in ?2020 ?2021 but the sheer speed of events, on a nuclear-capable chessboard.
As for what comes after, 2022 is the world-historic year, as were 1989, 1956 (co-incidentally, year of my birth) and 1923. A new Europe and a new world will arise or emerge, a world not only different from that of 1989-2022 (which itself has greatly differed from 1956-1989) but hugely different, far more different.
LikeLike
And the other thing was in 1914 the proles were so disillusioned there was a run on gold. Everyone and his dog drew their savings in gold sovereigns. The banks ran out of gold and had to be closed and the government was forced to issue State currency in the form of the Bradbury pound, for the first time since 1826.
After 88 years of Rothschilds Bank issuing the State’s currency the government was forced to do what it should have been doing all along, issue its own currency!
Personally I can’t see conscription working in a multicultural society, and I can’t see people willing to die for queers, transgenders, lesbian priestesses, and a paedophile Establishment that has more in common with cold blooded reptiles than the Lords of the Manor that used to be attuned and concerned with the landed serfdom or industrial proles.
The Establishment has shot itself in the foot, a bit like Google has…with sacking a bloke for daring to state the obvious that men and women are different.
In 1956 it was the Suez crisis. I remember that. Royal Marines parachuting in without any ammunition and shouting ‘bang bang’ at the Eggwhites who promptly ran away! Britain was ostracised for that! But 1989…you’ve got me there! No idea what you are referring to there!
2022…this must be astrology or something…you have got me on this one. The best thing could be the collapse of the USA (doesn’t matter how though a limited nuclear attack on Washington would do it nicely) and the incorporation of Europe in to Russia.
Every 33 years you think something major happens…can’t figure this. Please explain! And you cheated using italics, which I don’t have! Not fair…boo hoo! But the problem with being incorporated in to Russia is that they are part of the Marxist-Capitalist system and are as anti National Socialism as our dictators are!
LikeLike
I do not see the UK or Western Europe being “incorporated into” Russia or its direct rule until another thousand years has passed, but there will be a growing closeness. NATO and the EU must go first
The 33-year cycle is discussed by both Rudolf Steiner and (I think) Valentin Tomberg. It is not exactly 33 years. There’s the rub. Connected with the life of Jesus Christ. The neoliberal “New World Order” was proclaimed openly by Bush snr in 1989. Berlin Wall came down then. All forms of socialism died out as ruling ideologies, barring the most retrograde places (North Korea mainly). Even China and Cuba kept only a few names and slogans, while moving over to full finance-capitalism.
2022 will see another and even more major shift in ideology across the world.
LikeLike
Personally I don’t see North Korea as retrograde at all. They are a free nation and just like Syria do not have a State bank controlled by Rothschilds. But you clearly seem to be brainwashed by the lugenpresse on this one. Just how many countries has North Korea invaded in the last 50 years?
You definitely need to reassess yourself on this one. On top of this you should be aware that about 20,000 North Koreans visit Russia each summer to pick fruit and vegetables on Russian farms, courtesy of an agreement between Putin and the old man…the father of the current leader.
Putin is a decent man and this overt support for North Korea never seems to be mentioned by the lugenpresse. Thus clearly the whole North Korea matter is a sham. The suggestion in the alt US media is that Trump is using it as a smoke screen to hide his economic attack on China. And China has practically no say on North Korea compared to Russia, but you don’t get this in the lugenpresse either.
Rudolf Steiner is not my cup of tea and 33 year cycles strikes me as very suspicious. I think Saturn circles the Sun every 33 years actually. I’ll have a look in my ephemeris to check this out. And JC was 48 when he was crucified…this is the general belief now, not 33.
I used to have friends who were keen on Rudolf Steiner schooling, but the end result was that the kids were very screwed up. Like many sects, I think they are unsuitable for children. I suffered for being brought up in a sect. They always talk about ‘love’ but always end up abusing the children in their care.
Steiner is ok for adults to adopt I believe, but I think it is wicked that children are sent to or schooled in such ideas. I wouldn’t want to live in a country run by such people. Sorry, I know you are keen on Steiner, but I believe from my own experience that these ideologies based on the views of odd people, are not a valid or justifiable structure for children to grow up in.
So this could be the parting of the ways for us. Hope your plans pan out ok. Good luck.
LikeLike
Rudolf Steiner places such as their (independent) schools are not part of a “cult”. The characteristics of cults in the modern sense include pressure, coercion and regimentation. All absent from anthroposophical institutions. Children are not indoctrinated in such schools, but allowed to develop fairly freely compared to Eton, Harrow or the average comprehensive. Some children sent to them do experience problems (my first wife went to one for a couple of years, Upper East Side Manhattan), but those children usually have problems already, especially because some (those from Southern England) have affluent but dysfunctional family backgrounds.
LikeLike
I think most universities need to be destroyed (literally bulldozed) or re-converted to polytechnics, with a handful of elite institutions remaining (i.e. Oxbridge, Durham, the redbricks and a few of the better ‘new’ universities like York), which should be reserved for the top academic performers only who have the capacity to undertake rigorous study. If I were in charge, the top 10% of A-level performers would receive state scholarships, and the next 10-15% would be eligible for student loans. I would extend the length of a standard degree to 4 years for most subjects, emulating the Scottish and American systems slightly, with a common foundation year that covers science, the liberal arts and the classics. Students would be allowed to decide on their ‘major’ or specialism during that year or they could decide to study a more general degree. I think this is a better system and avoids the pressure on students to specialise too early or at all. I would abolish GCSEs and make O-levels the qualification of choice again, and in order to promote rigour, I would insist that only one examining body is permitted per subject for school-level examinations. Those measures alone would depoliticise the secondary and tertiary education system and resolve the problem, or at least provide the basis for resolution.
Those not bright enough for university, around 75-80% of young people, should be required to find work or undertake vocational training. There would be no room for bogus academic courses. Furthermore, I think that for most young people, work and training should start at 14. In a country without immigration (I would bar it entirely, save for natural migration from other north-western European countries based on interpersonal relations), there would be no reason why most young people couldn’t very easily find a job or enter into an apprenticeship at 14 years old. The standard school-leaving age at secondary moderns used to be 15 anyway. Those who want to take the academic route before joining the workforce can take their O-levels and, if qualified to do so, A-levels too, but must leave at 18. I expect they would then enter articled training in the professions or trainee management positions, or other skilled jobs or business careers; and to assist them.
But a state-funded or subsidised university education should be reserved to an elite. Those who develop academic interests later in life can make use of the Open University and extension courses.
I think these measures would also boost social mobility, provided they are combined with a complete halt to immigration (and ideally, deportation of non-native born ethnic minorities). We don’t need any more people, skilled or unskilled, coming into the country.
LikeLike
I agree with all that, with minor deviations. In fact I have tweeted to similar effect: tuition and maintenance grants for (however assessed) the top 10% or possibly 20% of would-be university students, partial grants for another tranche (perhaps the next 20-30%). The others would have to take out loans from the State (or privately), state loans being repayable by extra income tax being levied on the borrowers.
14 seems early as a school-leaving age even if those leaving were to be diverted to vocational programmes.
Yes, integrity of degrees and school exams must be re-attained. I dropped out of school (fee paying school [http://www.rbcs.org.uk/] (I was in Sydney before that) at 16, only to have to study alone from library books at age 26 to get A levels in order to attend university. I had previous A Level exam papers as a guide. I found that the further back one went, to 1970, then 1960, the harder were the exams! That dumbing-down has continued and must be reversed.
A high-tech high-qualification and high-pay society (achieving high culture and power) can only be built on high-grade people at all levels. The UK has imported trash, very often and has bred and brought up trash, too. Must be reversed.
LikeLike
Yes, I think the mistake on the part of policy-makers [if we assume good faith for a moment] was in concluding that “high-tech” and “information economy” (not entirely just buzzwords) require “highly-educated” and, worse, “high-credentialed”. Quality has been sacrificed for quantity. It used to be that just attaining O-levels, never mind A-levels, was seen as a considerable achievement, as they were hard; and a degree was seen as something for actual clever people. I think we need to go back to that (or something like it).
Although it has become something of a boorish golf club cliché , I have to say that I agree with you that academic qualifications have been considerably dumbed-down. It is not politic to say it because parents can vote and they don’t want their child being “denied opportunities” – and therein lies the problem. It’s these “opportunities”. I wonder to myself: since when has ordinary work become a series of “opportunities” that some people somewhere can be “denied”. It’s most bizarre.
Somewhere along the line, people went mad and aspiration became a ‘thing’ along modern American lines. Rather than an intimate private process in which you align your future plans with your abilities and interests, everybody now is pressured to “better themselves”, which is not always a very good idea. It’s often wisest to accept yourself.
A whole culture change is needed, and for that reason I doubt these problems can be assailed other than by an aggressive reactionary or Nationalist government that [literally] burns the system to the ground overnight and throws whole swathes of people in education and the academy out on the streets. It won’t be pretty.
LikeLike
As you say, there has been imported into the UK from the USA this “equality of opportunity” idea, much of which (not all) is nonsense. The “if life gives you lemons, make lemonade” Pollyanna stuff. Today’s, if you like, “middle class” sharp-elbowed parents want their offspring to get A-grades at A-level (26% did, just today) and so (they fondly imagine) have the chance to enter university and if possible Oxbridge, followed by a high-status job though it is clear that most will settle for lesser places and, more importantly, not be much better off when they graduate, because half the population will soon have some sort of supposed “degree”.
I suppose that the rot set in the 1980s, when all sorts of jobs were added to the list of “professions”, so that the Bar and medicine were joined by estate agents and almost anyone required to wear a tie to work.
As you imply, a mental restructuring is required. The whole idea of a degree grew out of the mediaeval mindset: apprentice, journeyman, master; undergraduate, graduate (with degree), post-grad (with “master’s” degree) and topped then by “doctor” of whatever subject.
LikeLike
So it is either National Socialism or Usuary.
LikeLike
Although it has become something of a boorish golf club cliché , I have to say that I agree with you that academic qualifications have been considerably dumbed-down.
LikeLike