How is UIC third-rate? Granted it isn’t well-ranked, but I wouldn’t necessarily call it “third-rate.”

I haven’t been into Huxley for almost eons. For some reason, my old shrink favored “Eyeless in Gaza.” Perhaps years later I mentioned this recommendation to her, and she had forgotten why she made that particular recommendation; germane to her status as an immigrant Italian (Jew) by way of Israel, perhaps? Or was she tracking the fear and threats that neo does too?

I don’t know.

Wikipedia tells us that “Brave New World” was conceived in the early ’30s by Huxley as a parody and riposte to socialist novelist H G Wells’ optimism. Interestingly, this was during the same years that Jonah Goldberg pulled Wells label for the future he welcomed, namely “Liberal Fascism” – the title to the formers’ essential revisionist history of the American Left’s envy for centralized control.

Points to our host, neo!

However – my problem with “Brave New World” is that it conceived of the ease of manipulating biological destiny through genetic engineering.

But nature has proved far more difficult to control and master. Genetic control of people is far more difficult to divine than Huxley imagined.

Thus, this counts against Huxley, I think; instead this counts towards Orwell’s emphasis on the political use of language, education and propaganda to control the masses.

Furthermore, Huxley was repelled by the rampant individualism he saw upon visiting the United States, which informs “Brave New World.”

By contrast, after the Great Depression hit the UK, he also conceived the primary threat coming from chaos and the public need for order. He thought that people would love those providing public order above their freedoms.

The latter two points suggest a European versus US division of perception of mass political motives which leaders can use.

Finally, too much can be made of “soma” – the hallucinogenic that pacifies an otherwise rebellious populace.

The obvious line is from anti-depressants and anti-antiety medications to legal marijuana. And the future, more and more like Brave New World?

But this neglects alcohol – the millennial long universal medicine, for physical pain as well as emotional ailments.

The argument becomes we’ve traded one bad drug for the lure of “better” one’s lacking in harmful consequences. And we wind up with an anti-technology argument too parallel with the Catholic rejection anesthesiology because it offends natural theology and God’s Will, requiring that we are meant to suffer here, for the sake of our “ennoblement” for the next world.

Truly, this is an intellectual divide worth revisiting and rethinking. Because eighty years later, this remains is a lively dispute.

The frustrating thing is, the vulnerability of the Left is exploitable. The Left is beatable in the activist game.

Yet the Right falls behind because they doggedly refuse to play the activist game even while recognizing and decrying the gains made by the Left in the activist game. For the exceptional few of the Right (or at least anti-Left) who do play and win, the progress isn’t comprehensive and sustained.

We may have discussed this before because it sounds familiar to me, but whether or not we have, I urge (again) that you make your recollections and lessons that you learned about the Left at Columbia – and most importantly, what you learned about effectively countering the Left at Columbia – a public record for practical instruction.

Successful examples and Why and How-To instruction are timely and needed. It’s been needed for a long time.

In the spring of 1972 me and a friend at Columbia organized successful campus-wide opposition to the leftist takeover of campus.

It was a fascinating, wonderful David/Goliath story which, naturally, has never been documented (lol …. other then my scrap book) because … you know why.

We truly defeated them by gathering and uniting folks of all different views. And we defeated them.

Although I already knew about the left and their tactics, this intense experience was eye-opening in a dramatic way. For one thing, the well-developed propaganda tactics were amazing on their part.

But I also learned firsthand they are bullies, cowards and haters. The leftist enterprise is very much a narcissist/ego driven one.

They are vulnerable on that score, but the non-left is no where near recognizing that fact, let alone exploiting it (although Ace of Spades is utterly brilliant in this respect).

Wish I was not so busy, there are several great neo recently posts and comment threads which need careful reading.

PS, I enjoyed the Other Chuck and wish OC would not stop commenting. If you see this, OC, please reconsider.

25% either cannot understand the argument, rhetoric, and points made or don’t want to.

There’s 3% at the top that figured it out on their own. There’s a statistical majority that will hop on the bandwagon after it gets “popular” to call X a tyrant or traitor. Before then, they were part of consensus agreeing about the crackpots.

Between those groups, there’s people who want to believe but don’t, there’s people who don’t want to believe and thus do not believe, and then there’s people sitting on the fence for awhile.

A relatively random check of internet reactions in 2008, would have a certain percentage of people who called Hussein a traitor or a tyrant. Almost 0.1%. As time goes by, it grows. And the middle majority suddenly hop on the bandwagon, even though they were silently disagreeing along with most other people, only a few years ago.

So in that sense, public reactions modify themselves. I don’t actually think people changed their thinking on the issues. They just obey whatever society tells them to think. Or they’re afraid of being labeled a paranoid minority, so they’ve kept their mouths shut until somebody else more reckless gets up and pokes the minefield.

People make all kinds of rationalizations as they did about Ft. Hood 1 being somebody else;s fault due to lack of diversity.

In summary, weaklings will rationalize their obedience to Propaganda A because they think “most other people think this way, so I might as well cause the nail that stands out gets hammered flat”. Those who are open more difficult concerns and challenges, may be able to figure it out themselves like the 3%, or they may merely hold their hards to their chest long enough to decide later when more information presents themselves. But they still contribute to the idea that the majority believes in propaganda A. After awhile, when the majority’s views are shifted into rejecting Propaganda A and adopting Propaganda Z, the majority will have a collective amnesia even and rationalize why it’s correct to believe in Z now. The detractors of A were crackpots and paranoids, back when A was popular. When Z becomes popular, the detractors of Z become the crackpots and paranoids.

People don’t use reason or logic. What they use are rationalizations designed to justify their emotional desires to believe in whatever they want to believe in.

Given the amount of text and links you’ve linked (few to none of them concerning your own “founder’s history” comments and work) about feminism and other source issues, you think we aren’t at war?

Are you sure you thought you were discussing feminism, or were you just lecturing people that they were at war with feminism?

While not everyone is in conflict with everyone… yet, you are definitely in conflict with the Left, or have you forgotten what feminists in academia did to you?

having strategic purposes shows your not genuine, but ingenuous, and that your points are not representative of anything you believe, but what you think is tactically or strategically purposeful

and why is that? who are you fighting? what is the point of making enemies by doing that?

What’s the point of putting into practice things I’ve read in books like Sun Tzu’s Art of War? Btw, I mention that title not to be pedantic but because it was the original disagreement between Art and me concerning whether one can become a master military warrior genius by reading somebody else’s book. So, the point of putting things into practice that I’ve read is that if I don’t, it is merely theoretical knowledge of which I am less than a jack in and thus can’t really say much about it good or bad. To criticize a warrior or general, one must have more than the mere requirement of abstract and theoretical knowledge. Some experience in practical applications is warranted. And as such, if I speak of conflict in the world, I demonstrate more than merely what I’ve read about the theory of Jihad or conflict.

Since you’re not convinced by logical arguments, probably cause Asberger’s makes your rationality too narrow, I prefer to demonstrate my arguments via a demonstration, rather than rhetoric arguments or debate.

live is not a video game and i have no desire to hurt my family by doing things that derive from zombie movies, video games, and not real life.

Violence comes in two flavors: physical and verbal. Just as the Left has used a combination and gotten away with it, it is still a potent source of power and tool use. And of course the Left isn’t bashing you in like a zombie. They’re the zombies after all. The Leftists pick on you because you’re weak, because you’re all talk and that talk isn’t even verbal violence. You have no force behind your spine, thus they think they can walk all over you. Of course, the West is also weak perhaps precisely because it prioritizes technocratic merits over violence. It’s nice to be a technocrat and use math and science to land some probe on Mars, but if the feminists can use violence to pound you into publicly apologizing while in tears on tv… well, we know who the real masters are.

People who refrain from exterminating the Leftists, even the ones that get in their face and give them an excuse to, have no right or authority to lecture others like Neo about what she should or shouldn’t be doing concerning the Left. A person that grew up with Asbergers and used that excuse as a crutch all his life, one that grew up around Leftists and feminists… won’t understand what masculine virtue or the foundations of Western strength. It’s something besides mere IQ or intellect. Having a spine is a good thing.

Real life is full of violence. The West will learn that soon enough. Whether they like it or not.

your wrong because your calling for a uncivil civil war, personal debasement into the amoral area of the opposition, and somehow think that after that, you could return to a life you wanted before you started that path.

You plan on ditching the boat if it gets bad. Who are you to lecture any of us that remain behind? This is like the general lecturing the vanguard about the duty and honor of maintaining the rules of engagement, while the general is hauling ass out of the front entirely and using the ROE to shield himself by expending allied corpses.