The establishment media are scrambling these days. Not only are they floundering financially as the internet destroys their business model, they are also losing their century-long control over the narratives that people use to interpret the world. This is the true power of media – to frame the perceptions that the people of a nation use to determine reality. It is the power to direct the herd, to write the history of the future beforehand and determine the boundaries of the Overton Window of socially acceptable speech, and therefore thought.
In democratic political systems, this might be the greatest power of all. Why be a king when you can be a kingmaker, or indeed breaker?
In Australia, the commercial networks have had control over the worldview of the general public. The inner urban elites, however, take their workplace talking points from the ABC. The nexus between the ABC, politicians and academics is thus much tighter. The ideological control is always tighter for the Inner Party, and as the ABC is immune to market signals it doesn’t matter if the great unwashed like the content or not. Just throw them some Bananas in Pyjamas to keep them happy.
As part of their propaganda responsibility, the ABC then has had to explain the worldwide anti-establishment movement to the Australian establishment. This is no mean feat, and requires dextrous use of intellectual fallacies, fake news and clever language to accomplish. This is where the academics come in.
Recently one of the court magicians from the ivory tower paid The Drum a visit. Dr Lindy Edwards, a Senior Lecturer at UNSW in the field of International and Political Studies, joined the panel. Here’s the promo video from social media.
Here’s the full quote:
‘When we look across the last 200-300 years of Western political history, we find that about every 50-100 years we have a big political realignment. Political elites haven’t been offering any solutions. We’ve had major party consensus saying globalisation is here, you’ve all got to get used to working harder and longer and more productively. What we’re seeing with the rise of the far right is a bit of an existential howl of rage, where your Trump’s don’t have the answers, your far-rights don’t have the answers, but they are providing an outlet for an anger.’
This is a warmed-over retelling of the standard template cultural Marxists use when white men start to assert some rights: we’re just angry, low-IQ white men left behind by their postmodern utopian society. We’ve got no ideas, no thoughts. We can barely tie our shoelaces. Our wives would leave us for other women if we didn’t dominate them so. We’re troglodytes howling at the moon in frustration because we couldn’t keep up with the paradise of diversity our society has become. The implication is that we’re on our way to extinction.
Not so fast, Lindy. Can I call you Lindy? I know you academics like your titular prefixes, but let’s speak as equals, shall we? Let’s see if we can make sense of what you’re saying, or in your vernacular unpack the underlying subtexts embedded within your discourse. We should probably have a look at how you punctuate as well, but let’s be polite and leave that for the moment.
‘Every 50-100 years’? You’re giving yourself a lot of wriggle-room there, Lindy. Not a very large sample, either. What are you basing your anacyclotic theory of political change upon? Is there a thinker in particular who has brought you to such a conclusion? Polybius? Spengler? Strauss and Howe? Kondratieff? Armstrong? Or are you just making an unfounded conjecture because it feels right and sounds kind of intellectualish?
From what did this political ‘consensus’ about globalisation emerge, Lindy? I thought we have a representative democracy, right? (We don’t, but you no doubt think we do despite your long years in ‘Political Studies’). How could a ‘consensus’ emerge which was not at all connected to the people’s wishes? Are you suggesting that our politics is not an expression of the popular will, and if not, whose will then does it express? And why are you so incurious about this line of investigation, when it seems to me it would be particularly pertinent to the field of ‘International and Political Studies’, no? Your lack of curiosity I find very curious indeed.
As your fellow socialist Upton Sinclair wrote, ‘It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!’ Or hers.
Trump has lots and lots of answers, Lindy. You just don’t like them, so you pretend they don’t exist. That’s rather infantile, wouldn’t you agree? If you, as a representative of the omniscient meritocratic intellectual elite, cannot respond to Trump’s arguments then perhaps he is more than just an expression of an ‘existential howl of rage’, wouldn’t you agree?
No, you wouldn’t agree, because people like you are fundamentally intellectually dishonest. You don’t care about what is real, or true, or right. You are a representative of a cult, an elitist groupthink culture that believes that credentialism and conformity to establishment norms make you solely qualified to determine reality for the peasantry. People like you are control freaks who have dedicated your lives at the altar of careerism. You use philosophies of moral and intellectual relativism to justify your unscrupulous and narcissistic scramble for status and power. You are a parasite that believes itself an alpha predator of humanity.
Academics like Lindy are the high priests of an establishment religion that operates as a neo-pagan mystery cult. They are the enlightened, the initiated. They understand the sacred things. You are unenlightened and will remain uninitiated if you do not gain a higher postgraduate degree. Your world is profane and you can never understand or criticise the inner operations of the establishment. Your grubby feet are unfit for the temple.
Lindy here resembles a primary school teacher recommending to parents that they put their boy on Ritalin for ADHD because he’s too challenging, too strong and too smart for her to handle. The condescension, the arrogance and the smug assurance of superiority is breathtaking.
Her hatred of males is consistently evident in her forays into public debate. She wrote a fairly boilerplate piece for The Age in which she stated that the reason we Aussie blokes keep constantly bashing up our sheilas is because of the high standards that are set for little boys to ‘not be like girls’. Does Lindy provide any evidence for this misandrist argument? Of course not. Maybe that’s why she writes so much about ideology. It’s all she’s got.
The problem for people like Lindy is that we peasants don’t believe her anymore. The shrinking inner-urban Inner Party socialists who still watch The Drum might pretend to, but the great unwashed have lost all respect for the priests of postmodernity like Lindy. We know they’re just making it up as they go along, and using word-wizardry to make what they’re saying seem authoritative. It’s not.
Academic training is not training in wisdom, insight or even superior understanding of the problems of the human condition. It may have once been, but that was long ago. Academic disciplines today are training in the use of language as a weapon, as a means of social control. In ancient Greece, such fake intellectuals were called sophists. They are practiced at making the big seem small and the long seem short, but they know nothing. They are empty vessels.
They’re also not very smart. They are good with words to an extent, but even then the cronyism and careerism in academe these days selects for the most sycophantic, conformist and ruthless rather than the dedicated and brilliant. Many of them are rather dim. The only smart academics you’ll find in universities either come from outside the world of academe and have made careers in their fields first, or else are working in fields like medicine which require proven performance as a professional in the domain. Anything with ‘Studies’ after it is basically just cultural Marxist bulls—t.
You may be able to wow impressionable young adults who need the marks with your empty rhetorical devices and stale philosophical phrases, Lindy, but not us. We live in the real world. Next time you get invited on to the propaganda to explain people like us, don’t. You’ll only make a fool of yourself.
[amazon template=iframe image2&asin=B06XDJB26K]