All Episodes
Previous Next
April 27, 2018 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
25:11
Film Your Marxist Professors
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey folks, I'm recording this video like this because I'm in a hotel room in California and I had some time to kill before I go and get my flight and I discovered a Facebook page called Film Your Marxist Professors and there are a lot of good videos on there.
So I thought we'd take a look at a few and I'll leave a link in the description because I really do recommend that you check this page out.
So the first video we're going to check out is from Professor Alana Vehaba and she is going to tell us about race and gender and how they're social constructs.
On a very foundational level that what we understand about race and gender in terms of biological differences are completely false, right?
They're a social construct.
What kind of biological differences could she possibly be talking about?
I mean we're not suggesting that the color of our skin, our eyes and our hair are social constructs, are we?
So there are no biological differences, but we have created, we have given social meaning to biological conditions over time.
So how is it we end up with different appearances if there are no biological differences between the races?
And I noticed that she goes into entire races when talking about this.
It's not like there aren't biological differences between individuals.
What's the difference between me and you?
Why do we have different tones of skin, different kinds of hair, different colors of hair, different eye shades?
It must be our biological differences as individuals, surely.
Can there be average biological differences between the races?
Inevitably.
So what on earth is she doing?
For various reasons, primarily, you know, white supremacy.
Obviously.
And heteropatriarchy.
What else could it have been?
But that being said, that we might know objectively that there are no biological differences between the races or between the genders in terms of ability or intellect, things of that nature.
Oh, there we go.
At least we've finally got to some specifics.
There are no biological differences between the races or genders now in ability or intellect.
So women are just as strong as men and white people run just as fast as black people on average and so on and so on and so on, completely contrary to the observable reality that we live in.
There are these ideas of inferiority that absolutely come into play in our society and that have extraordinarily real and important consequences in our society.
And there we have it.
It's about inferiority.
Well I hate to point this out, but some people are more inferior in some respects than others and are superior in other respects.
This is just how nature has created us.
It's not a moral judgment.
It doesn't make them bad people.
It doesn't make them deserving of less rights or duties or privileges or anything of the sort.
But unfortunately for our Marxist professors, we have to stare reality in the face.
Not all people are the same, which means not all people are equal.
But that doesn't mean that people should be treated differently with regards to rights.
End of story.
So just to say that while there's no biological differences, there are the thoughts given, and this is called in sociology symbolic interactionalism.
And we're not going to really have a lot of time to get into it, but a symbolic interactionalist lens helps you understand that we take meaning from the meanings that are given to things, not necessarily the thing themselves, right?
We take meaning from the meanings that are given to things, but not necessarily from the things themselves.
Who gives meaning to the things in the first place for us to extract this meaning if it isn't from the thing itself to begin with?
Right, so while there is no truth that there are, um I mean, while there's truth that there's no biological difference between the races and, I mean, other than melatonin, things like that.
So there are biological differences between the races.
I'm glad we're finally starting to model reality more accurately than we started.
But either way, it's not a moral concern.
We know what happens when you grade entire groups of people based on arbitrary characteristics without regard to their individual abilities.
We know that this is immoral.
We're not going to go back to a time where we did this.
That doesn't mean we have to start denying reality.
There are DNA differences, but not ones that affect one's ability or intellect.
Oh, really?
So there are biological differences, but they're politically correct biological differences.
How convenient for you?
things like that there are so because there's no biological differences or substantial biological differences Oh, so now there are biological differences, but they're just not very substantial.
Wow, that's even more convenient.
We have, through osmosis in our culture, historically and contemporarily, our thought to that these are that these are substantial differences, right?
I don't really care whether they are or are not substantial differences.
I don't care if we're talking about pygmies versus the Dutch, the shortest and tallest people in the world.
It doesn't make them less human, and it doesn't make one group deserving of more rights than another.
Why would you even bring this up?
The category of human means they get human rights.
It's not very difficult to understand, and it doesn't require very much discrimination on the part of the state.
In fact, it's a distinct absence of this discrimination that makes it such a good system.
Why are you even talking about this?
Say crime is inherent in one community or another.
No objective truth to that.
We can see the crime statistics, love, okay?
You can say, oh, well, one community definitely doesn't have more crime than another, but we know that they do.
I don't think that's because of their race either, because I've seen the crime statistics over time.
It seems that when the breakup of the family occurred and the communities that will remain unnamed that you are talking about, that crime rates went through the fucking roof.
It seems that young men need their fathers to provide them with a good moral example, to keep them in line.
But of course, that would require some kind of biological essentialism regarding men and women, and we can't have that now, can we?
So instead, now you have to start making up pseudo-scientific theories about race in order to cover up for the fact that your ignorance of the biological reality of men and women is causing a deep problem in certain unnamed communities.
But we have it in our heads, and these, because we have these ideas, they are there are consequent real-life consequences to those ideas.
Damn right they are, and unfortunately they're really, really negative for certain ethnic minority communities, and people like you are not helping.
So I just wanted to establish that right from the beginning.
And if you want me to talk more about that or you want more information about that, I would be really happy to delve more into it with you.
To be fair, we should probably thank this professor for letting us know that the fundamental premise of her entire teaching career is based on pseudoscientific lies.
So the next clip is Professor Leslie Bichelder from Portland University explaining that they do have racial preferences in their hiring.
If you get two candidates and they're pretty similar, you know, safe-setting skills, you must pick the person of colour.
Why would you need to do that if there's no biological difference in race?
Why?
Because we don't have a world of planning field, right?
And PSU is really committed to that, right?
Right.
So we have like the Office of Diversity looking over what we're doing while we're doing our hiring, right?
Right.
Why wouldn't you have the Office of Diversity overseeing everything you do like an Inquisition?
Because there's no difference in race.
The next clip is Joanelle Robinson from Syracuse University's Department of Geography talking about how maps are racist.
I'm not joking.
Critical cartographers have studied maps for years and years and they find they are socially constructed, right?
Right.
Why wouldn't maps be socially constructed?
What is the social construct of a map?
Is it not meant to be an accurate representation of a geographical feature?
Where's the racism in this?
And you know that this is definitely going to be racist.
And expressions of power.
That historically maps have been used to colonize and conquer and are primarily created by white men.
The primary purpose of maps is not to colonize and conquer.
It is incidental that colonizers and conquerors used maps to navigate around the world.
Surely by this logic, almost any tool that a human being uses is a tool of colonization and conquest.
You absolute lunatic.
Those who engage in critical cartography are interested to use maps for different purposes.
Well, I'm certainly glad you're not using your maps for colonization and conquest.
To show the alternative viewpoints.
What alternative viewpoints are maps going to give you?
Counter-cartographers seek to use maps to tell these different stories of the oppressed.
Focusing on topics such as social deprivation, poverty, and hunger, community geography is influenced by radical geographers such as Bill Bungie.
And Bill Bungie is one of my heroes.
Maybe I'm not fully informed as to the purpose of a map, but I thought it was to give you as objective information as possible of an area of the terrain.
I mean, what is a map actually going to tell you about oppression?
He was a geographer who worked primarily in the 1960s and 70s in the Detroit area with members of the community, mostly youth in the inner city, to produce maps that sought to expose social and racial injustices.
Your interpretation of what is on a map is what's important, not what the map itself is saying.
The map itself surely has to be objective.
But of course, we're dealing with postmodern critical theorists and there is no such thing as objectivity.
This is one of the maps that students working with Bill Bungie created in the 1970s.
And if you can't see the label, it says, where commuters run over black children on the points downtown track.
So it's not so much a map as it is a data set, is what you mean.
And we could pull out data sets for almost anything and then represent them on a map for people to be able to see occurrences that have happened.
And I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're not saying that commuters are accidentally running down black children on purpose because of their bias.
Are you?
So he used maps to shock and to tell different stories, to tell the story of those who have been oppressed and marginalized in society.
You would think you would have maps for all of these kinds of things, wouldn't you?
Where's your maps for Chinese children or Native American children or Indian children or any other kinds of children?
You don't have them because you have a particular bias of your own and that's what you're expressing.
This isn't about being critical.
This isn't about objectivity.
This is about activism.
Just come out and say it.
The next clip is of a land whale professor from Fresno who has tenure.
And because she has tenure, she can say some pretty radical things.
A lot of the agriculture, a lot of the food, you know, that Americans eat is grown there and or around there.
And even though a lot of the farmers now are Trump supporters and just fucking stupid.
And I'm inspired by several things.
Usually, my hatred for the man.
I don't actually know what she means by her hatred for the man.
Presumably she's not talking about the institution in which she works, where they have tenured her and privileged her above other people who are not tenured.
And presumably she's not just talking about men, otherwise she would have said it.
But that's the most charitable reading I can give of this.
At times I just say that I can't fucking stand the white heteropatriarchy.
And then sometimes I'm sucking a white dick.
White dicks are the tools of the white heteropatriarchy.
And sometimes she just can't help herself.
That's how they get you.
I don't give a fuck.
I don't give a fuck.
I'm buying guns.
Like, I'm an American.
I'm buying guns.
You know, the other side is like doing some stupid shit.
I'm going to do some stupid shit.
I'm tired of like being the bigger person.
Literally am usually.
But like, I'm also just tired of the left being fucking stupid and being like, no, we have to be, we have to like be gentle.
We have to, no, don't be fucking gentle.
Okay, Kat.
At least you can admit that she is the bigger person, but you're being gentle for your own self-preservation, love, because I don't know whether you've noticed, but when it comes down to the civil war, you're not going to be storming any trenches.
You're going to be getting popped.
Gentle, okay?
Cat.
You know, resistance fighters in the 60s and 70s, they didn't kill anyone, but they scared the shit out of people.
You know, they would hijack a plane and be like, we're not going to hurt anyone on this plane, but we are going to fucking hijack this plane, you know?
Well, don't worry, love.
You're doing a really great job of scaring the shit out of everyone.
If you're what the future looks like, a tenured professor, and you're teaching young minds, then the future of the West looks absolutely terrifying and this next century is going to be rough.
Like, why is Spencer's house still standing?
I don't understand.
Like, it needs to be fucking broken into.
People need to fucking throw grenades into it.
I don't give a fuck.
Why don't we throw grenades into Richard Spencer's house?
Why wouldn't we?
Does he have a family?
Do they matter?
Does it matter that you don't have the right to destroy someone else's property just because you dislike their opinions?
And this is coming from someone who is not a defender of Richard Spencer's ideas.
But on the plus side, at least we can apply the same logic to the Marxists.
Why are any of these Marxist houses still standing?
Why haven't they had grenades chucked through them?
Why not?
Oh, because you're right and he's wrong.
That's weird.
Because that's exactly what he says about you.
Who am I to believe?
A person hones their writer's voice.
I don't give a fuck.
A person hones their writer's voice is by telling people to shut the fuck up when they annoy them.
It's too easy.
I'm not doing it.
You know, call them out for their inappropriate and spilling out masculinity.
What about your inappropriate and spilling out femininity?
Well, that was too easy too.
I shouldn't have done that one either.
Make fun of them in public around a bunch of other people that were at an event.
Hello, Rhonda.
It's done though.
I got two questions.
i hope you're fine with that um first of all i want to acknowledge the fact that you're dude no other no woman asks two questions Look at this shit.
Maybe he doesn't measure himself by the standards of women, and maybe you shouldn't measure yourself by the standards of men.
So maybe you should shut up.
Stop interrupting him because the man has two questions.
This dude's like, I got two.
You are a vile creature, and when the heart attack finally claims you, very few people will weep.
Uh, type of recommendations or I'll tell you what, the civil war can't come quick enough, can it?
Slurry, guys!
Your kids masturbate!
Yes!
I'm so proud when people walk out on my tops.
I'm just like, so President Whack, not Coolidge, President Wackledge, as far as I'm concerned.
Edgy.
So, yeah, haha, fuck you.
Like, we're here.
Like, we're going to keep coming here.
Empire is basically, I mean, you know, like, it counts on brown and black bodies, right, to keep going.
And, you know, this is actually my shit.
The reason you have nice stuff is because you stole my stuff.
You stole my resources.
You stole my land.
You, you know, raped me.
You took.
That's at the same time absolutely vile and unbelievably entitled.
You never had any of these things.
You never earned any of these things.
Nobody stole anything from you.
And nobody's going to rape you.
And so the final one is Professor Albert Ponce, who is not happy about the Trump presidency or America in general.
And there were people here, an indigenous people, who were part, who paid the price, the very heavy price, for this project that's unfolding of white supremacy.
So we're beginning with the fact that we exist in a white supremacist, patriarchal, heteronormative capitalist system.
In which the previous president was a brown man.
Thomas Jefferson, all men are created equal, yet I own I hold 200 slaves and I've raped many of them.
Yes, and 300 years later, there is no slavery and you can have black presidents.
Do you see how the people who may well have conceived of these principles and ideas may not have themselves been fully implementing them in practice, but with the passage of time, we have done so.
Just because someone that you do not agree with from the inferior past was what we would consider to be now a bad person does not mean that the ideas themselves are bad.
In fact, the end of slavery is the fulfillment of what Thomas Jefferson is saying there, whether he lived up to those standards or fucking not.
And that's the beauty of the law.
If you can write it, you can convince all others to follow it, just like all of us do today, when we shouldn't.
But I really want to punch you, and the law says that I shouldn't.
So should I ignore that law?
Or is that a law that you're okay with all of a sudden?
Many of the laws existing, we should be violating those laws.
Which laws exactly?
I mean, I could name some from my country.
I agree that things like hate speech laws are definitely laws that are unjust and should be violated.
But what laws in the United States are actually utterly unjust and need to be violated?
Are you going to give me examples from 100 years ago?
We're taught to get up and pledge allegiance to the flag every single day.
A flag that's not really representative of everybody who's standing up in that room.
Actually, it is.
Maybe 200 years ago it wasn't, but now it is.
Everyone in the United States is an American and they do have the same rights and the flag does represent them all, whether you hate the history of the U.S. or not.
Maybe that's the way it should be taught.
All those who this flag represents stand up.
And all, and maybe 50% of this room, you stay sitting down because this is not for you.
Well, I guess it's going to make it easy to discover who the traitors are when the Civil War comes.
And I'm not the one who wants the Civil War anywhere, but these people are definitely agitating for one.
We do it through the Constitution, which should be called a white man's constitution.
A white man's constitution that applies to non-white people, whether they like it or not, because that's fair.
And fairness is white supremacy.
A white man's constitution.
And we still get up before every ballgame, and we're supposed to.
These folks here are supposed to respect that flag.
When Colin Kaplan stands up, he literally takes a knee, but stands up for justice for what is right.
What happens to him?
He's vilified.
Karl Marx.
Yeah, I agree with you that Colin Kaepernick should have the right to protest.
But the thing is, that flag stands for a set of values and principles that was the direct cause of the end of slavery.
Without the belief that all men are created equal, there is no real intellectual justification to end slavery.
If you can enslave someone, why wouldn't you?
Which is why slavery was such a prolific institution in human affairs before the establishment of the set of principles that we call enlightenment values.
We call it the Enlightenment for a reason.
Vilified.
Karl Marx.
Obviously.
This one.
One of the most profound thinkers in the history of Western philosophy.
It is quite a profound thing how one man can be so well regarded and yet be so wrong so consistently with such catastrophic results and still have professors saying that he's one of the most profound thinkers of all of human history.
So it is fitting that a white supremacist of old with white supremacists of today exist and sit there smiling in the White House.
Abolition.
What does abolition mean?
Abolition means we must destroy it, not reform it.
No voting is going to help.
No right of your congressperson.
We need to smash white supremacy.
So I guess the revolution's on, comrade.
Smash white supremacy.
And we try to use legal means.
But are legal means enough?
In fact, we'll have to, when we do abolish this white democracy, that it will have to be in conflict, that it would have to be something where we have to bear arms.
So we're going to smash the white democracy now.
I don't think anyone could object to the statement that these professors are communists who are radicalizing their students to become violent insurrectionists, much in the same way that ISIS does.
Where we'd have to go against and do what is illegal.
Well, what is illegal in the eyes of the state?
Of course it's illegal in the eyes of the state.
The state is the arbiter of the laws.
I thought that was going to be the last one, but I found another quick video that I'm going to tack on the end.
Come on.
I think we should have to say, Marxism is also sexy, camarades?
We have to clarify, Marxism is also sexy.
Oh, yeah, Marxism is just hot.
Hey, I'm a victim.
Come and be a victim with me.
I'm being victimized by the capitalist because I'm a fucking loser.
Wow, that's dead sexy.
I can't get over how Marxists aren't getting laid.
So, in a lot of ways, Bakunin's ideas resemble the ideas of utopian socialism.
He imagined this perfect society.
Et donc, on envisage à quoi ça va ressembler, mais on ne regarde pas la situation maintenant, puis essayer de faire des ponts, de faire des liens.
So yeah, it envisions a future perfect society, but it doesn't look at society nowadays, and it doesn't build a bridge between today and that perfect society.
Wow, that's really weird, isn't it?
He's out there imagining perfect societies.
Wouldn't this be amazing?
But you can't figure out how to get there.
It's almost like there is no road to utopia, and every attempt always ends in catastrophic failure.
So that's why we have to continue to read our books, to study history, and to understand how capitalism works, how the bourgeois state works.
And this is why we have to keep doing what we're doing by reading books, studying history, understanding how capitalism works.
To envision how we can concretely transform the system.
To see how we can concretely change the system.
That's a nice system you have there that's producing wealth and creating happy, prosperous first world societies.
Wouldn't it be a shame if someone came along and started whining about inequality?
Overthrow the system.
Because that's what they're doing, folks.
They are literally planning to overthrow the system.
This is what our universities are currently incubating and inculcating into the students that they are teaching.
This is not a sensible proposition for anyone who wants to continue existing in a liberal democracy.
Jordan Peterson is absolutely right when he says it is insane for us to be funding revolution.
It is completely justified for anyone who cares about the liberal democracies in which we live to defund this Marxist nonsense.
Taxpayers do not have to be subsidizing revolution.
These bourgeois idiots can't do this on their own and there's no reason that we should help them.
But as I said, there's a link to Film Your Marxist Professors in the description and please do film your Marxist professors and send them anything that you've got.
▲
Export Selection