Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - This Week in Stupid (08⧸10⧸2017)

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 8, 2017 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

25:44

This Week in Stupid (08⧸10⧸2017)

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello everyone, welcome to this week in Stupid for the 8th of October 2017.
	You might be wondering why I haven't made a video on the Las Vegas shooting yet, and that's because honestly I'm still waiting for information to come in.
	I will do a video about it next week though, with all of the information I can find laid out and analysed as objectively as possible.
	In the meantime, professors brag of tricking students into social justice classes, because that's apparently the only way they can get people to get into this anymore.
	Two Canadian professors have developed an approach they call the Trojan horse pedagogy to peddle social justice to otherwise unassuming students.
	The professors argue that the ruse is justified because most students are not interested in learning about social justice.
	Weird that, isn't it?
	Most students aren't interested in neo-religious indoctrination when they're going to universities.
	Shock.
	Sal Renshaw and Rene Valliquet, both of whom teach at Nipi...
	These names, man.
	Nipissing University in Ontario.
	They detailed their extensive ruse in a recently published book boasting that their introduction to interdisciplinary analysis class is actually a social justice course in disguise.
	You can see there there's a related teachers use math as a Trojan horse social justice.
	That's from a few weeks back, but we'll look at that in a minute as well, just because.
	Each offering of the course is centered around a specific theme, dirt, sloth, water, genius, and secrets.
	Sounds a bit new agey, doesn't it?
	Doesn't really sound like an academic class, but okay.
	Who say the themes provide the creative cover for the interdisciplinary social justice curriculum they aim to offer?
	Our goal in this class is to move both hearts and minds, in parts by forcing an encounter with at least some knowledges that students have already decided they are not interested in.
	These classes are rooted in post-structural feminist theory.
	And there you have it.
	I mean, it's nice that they will finally just come out and say it rather than try and inject it into it without anyone being any the wiser.
	For example, the class focused on dirt has brought in guest lecturers on dirt and dirtiness, including a researcher on soil recovery and another on the cholera epidemic.
	Thus, while unassuming students think they're getting a lesson in dirt, they're actually getting an entire class founded upon social justice theory.
	Whereas gender equality in social justice courses evokes a range of assumptions about course content that prevents many from even considering enrolling, with good reason, because let's be fair, these classes are entirely based around Marxist ideology.
	There is no particular reason that you would need to do one of these courses.
	I mean, what do they actually teach you?
	What actual life skills are you learning?
	What actual knowledge are you gaining that you can put on your resume and say, hey, employer, look, I know these things, you should employ me.
	I mean, if anything, if I saw someone, if I was an employer and I saw someone with any kind of social justice course on the resume, I would look at that person as a potential troublemaker.
	I would think that person is going to come in and say, wow, look at all this white supremacy.
	Look at these microaggressions.
	Look at all of these gender imbalances.
	Something has to change around here.
	Whereas everyone else is just quietly getting on with their work, completely happy with their work environment.
	Of course, you're not going to want that on your resume.
	And I'm absolutely certain that there will be many employers who look at this and go, no, these are red flags.
	Get out.
	Though of course we worry that this approach surrenders too much to such politics, we have been sufficiently awed by the ways in which these courses permit a pathway to social justice education and a far greater number of students to believe the ruse is justified.
	And that is at least a sign of the times, isn't it?
	And what we've seen from places like Evergreen and Mizzou with the dropping enrolments is that yeah, people are avoiding this crap because it looks like the new Scientology.
	Why would you want to have this kind of pseudo-religious nonsense pushed into your university courses?
	There is no real world application for it, and therefore you don't need it.
	And this has forced these professors who want to push this agenda to become deceptive, which should tell you everything you need to know about these people.
	They are trying to trick you into believing what they believe, even though what they believe is absolutely ludicrous, as we will find out shortly in this video.
	And in fact, the lack of real world application for these courses is something they address here.
	They say they admit their approach shamelessly appeals precisely to a neoliberal subject, saying that they even appease the vocational anxiety, which is a very fancy way of saying practical use of, by emphasizing the utility of interdisciplinary skills in the workplace, to convince students that the subject matter can contribute more or less directly to a job.
	But what exactly can it contribute?
	It can contribute alienation, division, strife, and chaos to a workplace.
	There is nothing about this new religion that gives anyone any actual practical skills in their real lives.
	It trains them to view the world through lenses by which they find themselves in opposition to the world.
	They find themselves turned into radical activists, and often they don't even realize that this is what's happened to them.
	They don't realize that they're looking at the world through a racialized version of a Marxist lens, or a gendered version of a Marxist lens, in order to analyze power dynamics between hypothetical groups of people, because these are not groups.
	When they say, oh, white people are a group, brown people are a group, men and women are groups, no, they're not.
	They're demographics.
	These groups are not in any way working in tandem towards the same goals, with the same interests, or even using the same methods.
	So this is absolute nonsense.
	It just doesn't reflect reality.
	And I said we'd take a look at this article, even though it's back from May 2017, because these people are cunning.
	And they realize now that they have to use this cunning in order to trick students into taking these courses because otherwise they very sensibly won't.
	This summer, middle school math teachers can learn how to incorporate social justice issues like racism and privilege into their classrooms.
	Teaching social justice through secondary mathematics, at least that's not well hidden, at least it's quite on the sleeve, is a six-week online course designed by Teach for America and offered through EDX, which provides free online classes from top universities such as Harvard University, MIT and Columbia University.
	You know, the cathedrals of social justice.
	Unveiled earlier this month, the course aims to teach math instructors how to craft lesson plans that incorporate social justice in order to raise their students' awareness.
	Awareness of what precisely though.
	Do you ask students to think deeply about global and local social justice issues within your mathematics classroom?
	A course overview asks.
	Why would you?
	They're there to learn about maths, not your hypothetical systemic injustices.
	And I say hypothetical because that's what it is.
	They are looking at the results and presuming the methods by which to get there were in fact racist and sexist, even though at no point along the path of getting there would they be able to point to a single person or event that could be considered racist or sexist.
	This education and teacher training course will help you blend secondary math instruction with topics like inequality, poverty and privilege to transform students into global thinkers and mathematicians.
	To indoctrinate them.
	To brainwash them, if you will, to force them into using a lens that they will not be trained to be able to take off.
	This is a way for these teachers to turn your students into activists and to train them to think in the way that they want them to think.
	Not in a way that is beneficial to the students themselves, but in a way that they believe will be systemically beneficial, even though they won't be.
	But again, we'll get onto that shortly.
	According to the website, the course can even help students learn math.
	Wow, that'll be useful, won't it?
	Hey, this mathematics course, let me teach you about social justice.
	You might even learn some maths.
	The developers claim that setting the mathematics within a specially developed social justice framework can help students realize the power and meaning of both data and social justice concerns.
	Well, really, you could swap out social justice for literally any other cult you like, couldn't you?
	What about an Islamic math course?
	What about a Scientology maths course?
	Why not?
	Why social justice?
	Because it's your particular concern.
	It's not in any way an objective course anymore.
	Now it is entirely concerned with pushing an agenda.
	I told you we'd get to the interesting stuff, and here we begin.
	College professor, believing in hard work is white ideology.
	This is actually slightly older than this week, but it was so relevant and I missed it last week that I had to include it.
	College professor, believing in hard work is white ideology.
	How on earth can that sentence that can that title even exist?
	White ideology.
	I mean, what is white ideology?
	There is no racial ideology for white people.
	White people, like every other race, hold a multitude of different ideologies, most of them really incomplete.
	But this, the idea that working hard is something white people do and not something non-white people do is so fucking patronizing, I can barely believe I'm reading it.
	And of course, the person saying it is white.
	Oh, working hard is not for you, inferior brown people, says this professor.
	Insane.
	You can just imagine there are like just non-white people thinking, right?
	Okay, what I'm going to do is I'm going to bust my ass at school, I'm going to bust my ass at college, go to university, get my degree, get a master's, get a PhD, and then I will be a white person.
	But that's the thing with these racial subjectivists.
	They actually think that merit and excellence is for white people and it's not for brown people.
	I can hardly get over how awful this person is because ultimately what you're end up you're going to end up doing is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy with this.
	If you tell brown people on mass, by the way, success is for white people.
	Don't you think about that?
	You're not going to be able to do that.
	That's white people.
	You live in a system of institutionalized oppression based on white supremacy.
	You're brown.
	You can't possibly do this.
	Let me, the white savior, carry you up that mountain.
	It'll be my burden.
	Pennsylvania State University brandy wine professor, Angela Putman, recently asserted in an academic paper that the notion if I work hard, I can be successful is merely a product of white ideology.
	Reports Campus Reform.
	Imagine that what she's saying there is white ideology is meritocracy.
	That's not white ideology, just so you know.
	You know, meritocracy exists anywhere.
	Anywhere people actually want to have real world success, and in fact it's not even.
	It's not even tied to any one particular ideology Either, which is why she has to just call it white.
	It's just something white people do.
	They think, en masse, they think, well, if we work hard, we'll get along.
	Yes, you will.
	And that's the funniest thing about this is that there is the only way you can say, if I work hard, I won't be successful, is if, A, you didn't really work hard or you're just not really capable of doing what you want.
	I mean, I could work as hard as I want trying to be a six foot seven basketball player, but that's never going to happen.
	So, you know, you've got to, I guess, I guess you've got to look within your own limits.
	But maybe, maybe she's saying that brown people just don't have what it takes to succeed.
	Again, these aren't my ideas.
	These are her ideas.
	But seriously, though, this is just a reflection of reality.
	If you work hard, you will be successful is it's just a maxim.
	It's just true.
	It's just a reflection of reality.
	People who are successful didn't become successful by not working hard.
	They had to work hard to get to where they are.
	There's no getting around it.
	No one else can hand you your success.
	You have to take it.
	And to take it requires hard work.
	Again, I can't believe I have to say these things because to me, this seems absolutely rudimentary.
	And I'm sure it does to literally everyone else regardless of their race, apart from university professors.
	Putman conducted a study to critique and examine ideologies within college students' discourse that are foundational to whiteness.
	I love this.
	Give me my white identity.
	Tell me what it's like to be white.
	Her resulting conclusion published on Thursday was that meritocracy, I told you, or the belief that people should rise based on the fruits of their own labor, is a white ideology.
	That's horrific, isn't it?
	That's literally to say that white people are of a higher class of person than non-white people.
	Non-white people are not capable of meritocracy.
	And the great irony of this is it's completely untrue.
	And we know by the numbers.
	You can just look at the success of Asian people in our societies.
	You can look at the success of, say, Chinese, Japanese, Indian.
	You can look at the success of Nigerians.
	And you can see that the white ideology that these non-white people follow, which happens to be meritocracy, and I love the fact that she actually uses the term because this is what I've been saying for a long time.
	They literally just think that meritocracy is for white people.
	No, it's not.
	It's for literally anyone who can demonstrate their merits.
	And usually that's done via hard work.
	In her mind, this white ideology, and again, this isn't an ideology.
	An ideology is a set of ideas, a set of maxims, a set of axioms.
	Meritocracy is but one axiom.
	If you work hard, you will succeed.
	So that in and of itself is not an ideology, which is why she doesn't have a name for it.
	Which is why she has to just ascribe it to a race.
	Putman believes that professors can change this ideology by teaching students how racism and whiteness function in various contexts, the powerful influence of systems and institutions, and the pervasiveness of white ideologies within the United States.
	Yes, the United States is a very meritocratic society, and these people are doing everything they can to pull that down.
	And I have to say, you have to do everything within your power to resist them.
	It is not acceptable for them to remove someone's ability to succeed based on merit.
	This is the problem with Marxists, frankly.
	All of Marxism is one great struggle against those people who decide to get off their asses and make something of themselves.
	And so you can see that if hard work is white ideology, then liberalism must be white supremacy, because the purpose of liberalism is to allow people to succeed without institutional barriers holding them down.
	So Black Lives Matter students, presumably inculcated into this social justice ideology by these professors, decided to shut down the American Civil Liberties Union's campus free speech event because liberalism is white supremacy.
	So BLM students crashed an event at the College of William and Mary, rushed the stage and prevented the invited guests from speaking.
	And she was due to speak on the subject of students and the First Amendment.
	Of course they're against the First Amendment.
	The disruption was live streamed on BLM and WNM's Facebook page.
	Students took to the stage just a few moments after she began her remarks.
	I'm not even trying to pronounce her name, I'm really sorry.
	At first she attempted to spin the demonstration as a welcome example of the kind of thing that she had come to the campus to discuss, commenting, good, I like this, as they lined up and raised their signs.
	I'm going to talk to you about knowing your rights and protests and demonstrations, which this illustrates very well.
	Then I'm going to respond to questions from moderators and then questions from the audience.
	I bet she would absolutely have loved to do this as well, because this is, again, this just couldn't have been a better example of what she's talking about.
	But of course, she was unable to do that.
	This is great.
	This was the last remark she was able to make before protesters drowned her out with cries of, ACLU, you protect Hitler too.
	Well, that's true.
	They would have done.
	They would actually have to have stood up for Hitler's civil rights.
	But the problem is, Hitler, if he lived in the United States, would have had civil rights, like you would too.
	Because if you can remove the civil rights from one person, then your civil rights can also be removed.
	And you will have absolutely no ground with which to argue that they shouldn't be.
	The only, the only question is whether you are powerful enough to take away someone else's civil rights, and then it justifies and validates anyone else being powerful enough to take away yours.
	They also chanted, the oppressed are not impressed.
	They aren't oppressed.
	They're at universities.
	People who are oppressed don't go to university.
	People who are oppressed can't either afford to or are physically prevented by whatever institutional mechanisms.
	They also chanted shame, shame, shame, shame.
	An ode to the faith militants' treatment of Cersei Lannister, which, and again, I know I've already said this, but this is a new religion.
	And blood on your hands, the revolution will not uphold the constitution, and liberalism is white supremacy.
	Now, the only way liberalism could be white supremacy is, and I'd quote Thomas Smith at the debate I had with him at MythCon, if we allow people to be free, then white people will control everything.
	And if you believe that that is the case, then you would believe that liberalism is white supremacy.
	But there are also other necessary beliefs you must hold.
	And those are that white people are inherently smarter and superior to non-white people.
	These people are white supremacists.
	They're just white supremacists who feel bad about it.
	They're white supremacists who don't like the fact that white people are, in their minds, superior to other people.
	And I stress this is not my opinion.
	But because this is the case, and Thomas Smith very similar, they feel the need to oppress white people to level the playing field.
	I do not want a level playing field, at least not when it comes to equality of outcome.
	They want an equality of outcome.
	They do not want equality of opportunity because in their mind, that is, as they say, white supremacy.
	These people are lunatics and they want to oppress you.
	And not just you.
	It's only a matter of time until anyone who enjoys a meritocratic framework is going to be oppressed by these people.
	In fact, it's inevitable.
	University of Wisconsin passes dangerous new policy that expels students for protesting?
	Well, I didn't think it was going to last forever.
	I did think that eventually something would have to be done.
	And unfortunately, that thing is, frankly, going to be another violation of someone else's rights.
	But I love this.
	This is on the root, which is a black supremacist identitarian site.
	They are literally filed to trampling the First Amendment.
	Get fucked.
	Like you give a shit about the First Amendment.
	Oh, the idea that suddenly, oh, oh, we care about the First Amendment.
	No, you fucking don't.
	Your Black Lives Matter protesters are literally saying you won't uphold your Constitution.
	You do not care about these things, you fucking hypocrites.
	It's good to know that the First Amendment is protected on college campuses not.
	Get fucked.
	You get just fuck yourselves.
	I'm sorry, this is giving me a case of Tourette's.
	Just no, you are against the idea of the First Amendment.
	And the reason that these protests are being banned is to prevent you from infringing on other people's rights.
	You fucking hypocrite.
	The University of Wisconsin recently approved a policy that will suspend or expel students who disrupt campus speeches and presentations because they are infringing on others' free speech, an ironic and dangerous threat to the right to protest everywhere.
	Well, I'm sorry.
	I really don't like that this is something they've had to do.
	I really don't like it.
	But this goes back to Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance, doesn't it?
	You've got to be intolerant to people who are intolerant, otherwise you will lose your tolerance.
	It's a horrible reality.
	But you have proven him right that you have to have action taken against you.
	There has to be action taken against you because you are busy infringing on people's rights.
	You can't be tolerant of someone who doesn't share the basic premise that everyone has the right to speak.
	Because eventually it will be only them with the right to speak.
	And that will be a privilege at the expense of other people.
	I'm sorry, but this is reality.
	And the idea that you're something going on, but what about the First Amendment?
	Get fucked.
	So the Board of Regents adopted the language in a vote on Friday.
	The policy states that students have been found to have twice engaged in violence or other disorderly conduct would be suspended.
	Three times and you're out, expelled.
	The new Wisconsin policy is similar to the Republican legislation that the State Assembly passed in June, though it has not been ratified by the State Senate.
	It comes on the hills of several schools, including the University of California, Berkeley, that have cancelled conservative speakers due to protests that have sometimes gotten violent.
	And again, this was a highly ironic thing that I saw that you can see in the Free Speech Week documentary I did, where you would have anti-far and violent revolutionary communists complaining that there was a huge police presence on the campus.
	Look at what's happened.
	This is the state repressing us.
	No, this is you.
	You've done this to yourselves.
	You have made it necessary for there to be a militarized police presence because you're a bunch of violent revolutionaries who are oppressing other people's rights.
	There is no other option.
	We can't just allow you to continue as you are and therefore you have to be suppressed for everyone else to be able To say what they want to say and do what they want to do.
	This is not something that people want.
	This is something that's been made necessary by your actions.
	State Public Schools Superintendent Tony Evers, on the board by virtue of his position and Democratic candidate running against Walker in next year's gubernatorial election, cast the only dissenting vote.
	This policy will chill and suppress free speech on campus and all campuses ever said.
	Really, Evers, really.
	Are you actually going to sit here and pretend that free speech hasn't been actively attacked on these campuses?
	Are you going to pretend that this isn't a response to an organized group of racialized identitarians who wish to censor people because they believe that free speech is part of the meritocracy, meritocracy is part of white supremacy, and white supremacy is a bad thing, even though literally anyone can participate?
	Are you literally going to pretend none of that's true?
	Because if you are, you can get fucked too.
	I love how they're playing the victim though.
	Oh, but we're our right to protest.
	No, fuck you.
	You've been abusing your rights to protest by infringing on other people's rights with it.
	I'm sorry, but if you're going to infringe on someone's rights, you have to be stopped, even if that is an infringement of your own rights.
	This is a legitimate thing to do.
	And like I said, I don't like it.
	I don't like that this has to exist.
	Yes, there is in future the possibility for the exploitation of this.
	You should have thought about that before you and your gang of black supremacists were busy shouting down and intimidating, for example, in the last story, a woman who wanted to talk about students in the First Amendment.
	Another regent said, I don't consider drowning out another speaker as freedom of speech.
	That doesn't qualify.
	You're absolutely right.
	The Heckler's veto is not a legitimate use of freedom of speech.
	It is in fact a form of censorship.
	But this is the problem with these racial identitarian movements, especially the ones that have been generated within college campuses and manifest themselves as various wings of Black Lives Matter.
	They are dangerous.
	Suppressing your free speech is just the first and the most easily suppressed of your rights.
	It should come as no surprise that the FBI terrorism unit says that black identity extremists pose a violent threat.
	And that's only because they've killed multiple people already.
	But again, the left doesn't want to talk about this because, my goodness, we can't expect the poor brown people to abide by the same rules as the rest of us.
	That would be white supremacy, I imagine.
	The US government has declared black identity extremists a violent threat, according to a leaked report from the FBI's counterterrorism division.
	How does it feel to be considered a bunch of fucking terrorists?
	How does it feel to know that your professors have been indoctrinating black people on these campuses by telling them, look, you are actually inferior to white people and you need to stand around and be black, worry about being black.
	You need to think about yourself as being separate and inferior to the white people.
	And again, when I was on Berkeley campus, there are a group of black people chanting things like, I love being black, I love the skin of men, I love the colour of my hair, and stuff like this.
	And I'm just thinking, Christ, if that were a group of white people chanting that, I would just be openly laughing in their faces.
	I would consider it the most pathetic thing I had ever seen.
	But it's a sad state of affairs, a sad indictment of the current situation that there are people who feel that they actually need that.
	And I really think it's not because of the white supremacy.
	I think it's because the white supremacy, if there was one, is in far-left extremist white professors teaching these brown people that they are inferior to the white man.
	They aren't.

▲