The Globalist Agenda - -

[Gary Childress]

In my opinion, schools should teach skills and how to use the tools to create flourishing and prosperity out of those skills and tools.

There are categories of value and meaning that do exist and have existed and will always exist. You have missed the point of what I have been referring to.

It cannot register within your intellectual system.

This is why you, Gary, can be described as a “symptom”. You are the product of that bad education (starting at the level of the child).

You constantly insert yourself! as if a world revolves around you. You are emblematic of vast hordes.

You have pushed yourselves and been pushed onto the horizons of contemporary life and your (pernicious) influence determines events.

It is you who requires reeducation in proper categories. But your disorder won’t allow that reconfiguration.

Don’t confuse you-singular with you-plural. You-singular only has relevance to the degree it illustrates a larger phenomenon.

I disagree. In my opinion elementary school and early public schooling are for teaching people basic values. Universities are for handling the complex and difficult stuff where there aren't easy answers. Though, some guidance is often recommended in the form of counselors.

[Alexis Jacobi]

My view? You, Gary, I refer to as an emblem, an example, an outcome.

You do not have, especially at the granular level, any solid ideas and perhaps no solid foundation in values, upon which to construct both a man’s life and the larger construct of civilization.

I am interested in you because you are that emblem.

You see my idea is that we are all outcomes of these processes of degeneracy. And we struggle to redefine and recover real platforms in structured ideas.

What those are — that is what everything seems to circle around.

[Gary Childress]

My view? You, Gary, I refer to as an emblem, an example, an outcome.

You do not have, especially at the granular level, any solid ideas and perhaps no solid foundation in values, upon which to construct both a man’s life and the larger construct of civilization.

I am interested in you because you are that emblem.

You see my idea is that we are all outcomes of these processes of degeneracy. And we struggle to redefine and recover real platforms in structured ideas.

What those are — that is what everything seems to circle around.

Well, if we're all outcomes of those processes of "degeneracy" then how do you know you've been giving me sensible information all this time?

[Alexis Jacobi]

My argument, or defense, in any case my position, is by reference to those “categories of value” that I refer to.

Obviously, a first step is in identifying degeneracy; seeing and understanding what it is. That in itself is an intellectual/spiritual project.

[Alexiev]

My argument, or defense, in any case my position, is by reference to those “categories of value” that I refer to.

Obviously, a first step is in identifying degeneracy; seeing and understanding what it is. That in itself is an intellectual/spiritual project.

The religious and modernist world views will always differ. Religious world views presuppose degeneracy: a fall from Eden; a lack of personal and immediate contact with Jesus and His disciples; a removal (for the Greeks) from the era when the gods and demi-gods walked the earth.

Modernists see scientific, technological and moral growth. Just as science develops by standing on the shoulders of the past, so, perhaps, does moral development. Such staples of the past as slavery, witch burning, drawing and quartering, etc. are now universally reviled.

Of course modernism is itself under attack from post modernist Fair enough. But to obsess about "degeneracy" (I assume you refer to LBGT acceptance, abortion, etc.) is to ignore the more general trend of history.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Yes, you are right: it requires some grounding in metaphysics and metaphysical idealism — see The Crisis of the Modern World by René Guénon or Julius Evola’s Revolt Against the Modern World to understand that view.

It is a peculiar problem: the loss of relationship to those long-standing metaphysical realities…just as the entire world unfolds before one.

Still, and with that said, I have only focused on the corruption in education in these recent posts. Consider for example The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America: A Chronological Paper Trail by Charlotte Iserbyt.

Of course modernism is itself under attack from post modernist Fair enough. But to obsess about "degeneracy" (I assume you refer to LBGT acceptance, abortion, etc.) is to ignore the more general trend of history.

Obsession is your word, and expresses your view of a relationship to the question.

One could include those. But if degeneracy is taken as real, then the further definition of it would require careful and nuanced investigation.

[Alexiev]

One could include those. But if degeneracy is taken as real, then the further definition of it would require careful and nuanced investigation.

"Degeneracy" (whether moral or educational) implies a reverence for the past that conflicts with modernism.
Nobody calls a trend away from autocracy or slavery "degenerate", although the word might fit. I haven't read your references, but I doubt education in the West has "degenerated". Illiteracy has plummeted from 90% (world wide) 200 years ago to 12% today.

I'll grant that degrees (high school and college diplomas) may have a lower corelation to education than in the past. But so what? More people are getting degrees. If only 20% of Amercans got bachelor's degrees 70 years ago, they may have been better educated (on average) than the 60% who get them today. But are they better educated than the top 20%? I doubt it. (I'm guessing at the %, but the principle is sound )

[Alexis Jacobi]

"Degeneracy" (whether moral or educational) implies a reverence for the past that conflicts with modernism.

That could be the case, snd in some ways it is the case, but not necessarily in my case.

Guénon wrote extensively on the reign of quantity in this modernism you refer to. In obvious juxtaposition to its opposite which involves quality.

I’d also suggest examining The Revolt of the Masses by Ortega y Gassett. Same with Weaver’s Ideas Have Consequences. Each of the resources I mentioned develop the ideas relevant to degeneracy. But that is just one word. There are other related words that fill out the sense of what is being referred to.

As usual you vain comments, with little or no genuine interest in the issues, is a diversion. But I do understand what you are getting at.

[Harbal]

Guénon wrote extensively.........

I’d also suggest examining The Revolt of the Masses by Ortega y Gassett...

Good idea. Why think for ourselves when there are so many thoughts of others out there to stuff our heads with.

[Iwannaplato]

So what wouId this mean in a university environment? WouId professors disaIIow the expression of the ideas which Iead to the bad? WouId there be wider poIicies aimed to curb these things? Or wouId 'discourage' be a better verb? And what ideas wouId be discourage or removed or......? And then with chiIdren. However much those who go to coIIege haven't quite reached aduIthood, they are in many ways aduIts.

You are asking me to describe then what I think is the proper University program then?

In part, yes. What would be in the curriculum, which you answer in general terms below. But aIso what would be off-limits for discussion. What limits wouId there be, if any, on free speech, in the classrooms and then in pubIic on campus? What issues couId students not raise? Are there positions they would not be allowed to take on papers or in discussions? And for that matter, staff of the university also, including professors, in class, in their public lives outside of the university, etc.

I already have said that the entire educational program must turn around the classical liberal arts program: the Great Books so-called. My reference point is the education formerly offered in American and European schools, colleges and universities.

Depending on what is meant by Great Books this wouIdn't incIude recent science, anthropoIogy, sociology, recent math, and some other fieIds, at least if it was like St. John's Great books program - which I did mull over myself for a bit back in the day.

Within what I refer to as Occidental Categories of concern there are enough topics for a life-time — a dozen life-times.

Sure.

When you speak of a theoretical university — what is allowed and what isn’t — you are really referring to a corrupted environment, and corrupted people. And then you ask: Well what do you propose? Shall sexual deviancy be given a semester’s course? Or, would the conversation and focus revolve around “real” issues and concerns like dedication to strong family, the life with children, and all “sane categories”.

Well, sure. It seemed like there were subjects in those students experienced as taboo, silenced, shut out. I am wondering if there would be similar policies, but different taboo subjects.

When people are raised up “cleanly” and introduced to a sound paideia they will hold to those categories. Their commitments with carry through into their adult personal and social lives.

Well, the universities can't do anything about the pre-university raising.

See, you are asking me a question that revolves around the important issue of redefining and rediscovering and regrounding within categories of value.

Sure.

I have made it completely plain that one of the crucial elements that must be included are the very broad categories of Christian philosophical concern. I refer to The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought as a reference point. I do not say this for pious reasons but to show the depth of connection to real, valid, perennial and topical issues.

Well, let's raise some examples within that part of your ideal university. Would one be aIIowed to chaIIenge Christian ideas and beIiefs? Could one side with Greek and other classic writers who were not Christian and advocate for their phillosophicaI/theological positions? Could one be openly atheistic? Could one side with Lucretius or Nietschze or Hobbes or Hume?

Again, I refer to “our traditions”.

There is no such focus in American education on a state or national level — only perhaps in private schools. And I assume that European education (as it was in France) is also deteriorating.

Where do you see the role of challenging the ideas presented in the Great Books? Is the idea to take in the information, or critically analyze it, learn from it while also learning in contrast to it?

In you original introduction to me the issue was the university in Canada had a political bias. Does this mean that your ideal university would not have political bias? (and, to be clear, as described in that video, what that Canadian university was doing is abhorrent. I've just experienced education, long before woke came along, where conservative ideas, in general, reigned. Questioning in nearly every subject could be about facts and understanding what one was being told was the truth. Anything that seemed in any way to challenge what was being passed on as the truth, was quashed and sometimes with great vigor. It was simply not alright to challenge received ideas. So, I am often skeptical, not about the current universities being dogmatic, biased and actively propagandist, but that most conservatives actually are interested in students freedom to challenge, critique, explore and take seriously the 'wrong' positions)

[Alexis Jacobi]

Good idea. Why think for ourselves when there are so many thoughts of others out there to stuff our heads with.

In a real sense you illustrate what Ortega y Gassett worked to communicate: the mass-man is not aware of authoritative sources; is not aware of the ideas with which his civilization was built; is in no position therefore to know what to protect; and stages a revolt against the life work of generations. When hundreds of millions of such men attain influential platforms it is that which alarmed him.

That phrase “stuffing our heads” expresses in essence, and dramatically, what Mass Man thinks of the domain of knowledge.

Harbal, this is something we have already discussed. School’s out forever, etc.

[Harbal]

Good idea. Why think for ourselves when there are so many thoughts of others out there to stuff our heads with.

In a real sense you illustrate what Ortega y Gassett worked to communicate: the mass-man is not aware of authoritative sources; is not aware of the ideas with which his civilization was built; is in no position therefore to know what to protect; and stages a revolt against the life work of generations. When hundreds of millions of such men attain influential platforms it is that which alarmed him.

The chances of my attaining an influential platform are remote, so señor Gusset need not be alarmed on my account.

Harbal, this is something we have already discussed. School’s out forever, etc.

[Alexiev]

Guénon wrote extensively on the reign of quantity in this modernism you refer to. In obvious juxtaposition to its opposite which involves quality.

I’d also suggest examining The Revolt of the Masses by Ortega y Gassett. Same with Weaver’s Ideas Have Consequences. Each of the resources I mentioned develop the ideas relevant to degeneracy. But that is just one word. There are other related words that fill out the sense of what is being referred to.

As usual you vain comments, with little or no genuine interest in the issues, is a diversion. But I do understand what you are getting at.

I admit I'm a dilettante. That doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Since when is quantity the opposite of quality? That makes no sense and is clearly illogical. The opposite of quantity is scarcity.

As usual, you refuse to commit to any position. You hint at your own erudition without actually saying anything. You hint at a "globalist agenda", but are coy as to what
It involves. You hint at educational deficiencies, without stating what they are. This is the realm described by Wordsworth as, "Where passions have the privilege to work, and never hear the sound of their own name "

[Alexis Jacobi]

But aIso what would be off-limits for discussion.

There are two levels of consideration that have to be addressed, I think.

A cultural canon, the structural ideas that inform our civilization, open us (in my view) to a wide pluralism of thought. My reference would be my own time at university (under a great books program). Could we have discussed bestiality (as an example of one of a number of deviancies), could someone have steered the conversation to such a topic during seminar? Yes, I suppose. Did someone? No, they didn’t.

What that Canadian fellow pointed out is the degree to which deviancy and perversion have infected a realm of idea-exchange. Perhaps I should only say that some topics must be left out of all consideration. However, if I did do that I would be accused of knowledge-control or some sort of authoritarianism. In our present culture, and for various reasons, no topic is forbidden. And everyone is exposed to everything.

What is of genuine concern though is when or if serious and important topics are forbidden in certain restrictive intellectual environments.

What limits wouId there be, if any, on free speech, in the classrooms and then in pubIic on campus? What issues couId students not raise? Are there positions they would not be allowed to take on papers or in discussions? And for that matter, staff of the university also, including professors, in class, in their public lives outside of the university, etc.

In a proper intellectual culture, and in my opinion, no legitimate topic is off-limits. But obviously there do arise junctures in society, perhaps in civilization, where people’s views diverge too much. They arrive at a point where they cannot forge agreement and their political relationship begins to sever.

Now, what happens in that space called The University is then up in the air, don’t you see?

[Alexis Jacobi]

The chances of my attaining an influential platform are remote, so señor Gusset need not be alarmed on my account.

I get your point. But “all speech is sermonic”. Your communication here, and mine, though limited, has influence.