By: Shane Radliff
November 18th, 2015
My journey within higher level indoctrination thus far has been nothing short of enlightening. And when I say “enlightening”, it would be incorrect to construe that to mean anything in regards to a quality and rewarding “education”. Rather, I have been a pragmatic witness to the pushing of a communist agenda, along with a fair amount of social engineering. I am coming up to the end of the semester, with 5 or so days of class left, and this series has already become a doozy; not to mention, I have another two years left of these reports.
The entire series, thus far, is as follows:
- Statist Speeches (5/5/15)
- My Sociologist Justice Warrior Teacher is a Commie (8/25/15)
- Bronies, Mindless Millennials, & Professor Statist (9/17/15)
- Race and Gender are Social Constructs (10/1/15)
- Can My Professors Stop Quoting Marx? (10/17/15)
- “Denial” PowerPoint Video (10/20/15)
From my firsthand experiences, I have grown to understand the social justice warrior movement significantly more than before and have even borne witness to an incorrect assumption propagated by the movement-at-large, which is the idea that government can “legislate equality.” That may not make a whole lot of sense yet, but allow me to elaborate.
When you look at the strategies utilized by the SJW’s, it begins to make sense. They are only “successful” when the government steps in; the most recent and well-known example being the Obergefell v. Hodges decision earlier this year that “legalized” gay marriage. Another example would be Anita Sarkeesian’s attempt at demanding that the United Nations censor the Internet to stop “cyber violence against women.”
To summarize, it begins with a fake grievance and ends with government intervention in one way or another.
There is one thing worth noting before continuing. The policies that are now being advocated for in regards to “equality”, were things initially outlawed by government. For example, government first got involved in marriage to prevent interracial marriage.
This leads us into another false assumption: that the end goal of the SJW movement is vaguely defined equality. One superficial glance at this movement could lead one to believe the contrary, but that is not the case. An honest examination into the agenda and its goals shows the use of government violence to achieve a higher status in society, while conveniently leaving out any semblance of freedom. If their goal was freedom, the last thing they would do is beg the government for permission, such as asking permission to get married.
To conclude, then, we can make a few determinations about the SJW movement as a whole:
- The objective is NOT freedom,
- The objective is NOT equality; rather, it is an elevated status in society; and,
- They use government violence to achieve said elevated status in society.
American Government & Politics
For the months of August and September, Professor Statist’s attendance had been quite terrible. I’m certainly not complaining, as that means that I only had the class once a week for the first two months, but some students were feeling “intellectually neglected”; one political science major in particular, who felt robbed of his entry-level course.
That being said, I arrived at class last Tuesday with a substitute teacher, who will furthermore be known as substitute Professor Statist (SPS). SPS informed us that Professor Statist has been sick all semester, and that, in the meantime, he would be filling in. SPS is also a political science professor at the college and owns his own consulting firm. He apparently has his own syndicated radio show and expressed multiple times that he “doesn’t need the money from teaching” which is why he “can be so ‘real’ with us.”
Before I move forward, I would like to give you my first impressions of SPS. He is an African-American whose voice is truly cringe-worthy. It’s not quite a lisp, but I’m unsure as to what it would be categorized as. How anyone would voluntarily listen to that on the radio, I’m not quite sure.
The first day of class was mostly frustrating, with a tinge of surprise. SPS first explained how the course syllabus is a contractual agreement between the teacher and the class, and Professor Statist’s absence is leaving the contract unfulfilled. He recommended that we go to some department head in the college and complain.
The frustration immediately followed, considering the events at the University of Missouri were all over the news cycle. From my time with him so far, I’m almost positive that he holds the same position as my sociologist teacher: “Race is a social construct.” As with the discussion in my sociology class, his narrative showed otherwise.
The class proceeded to discuss racism for a complete fucking hour, which comprises exactly 80% of the total class time. The ability to get SPS onto a million different tangents is so easy, that in three whole class periods, “we” made it through four whole PowerPoint slides.
In the remainder of that class, as well as Thursday’s, he proceeded to give the class “life lessons,” while digressing onto a million different pointless tangents.
I was actually able to find one archived copy of his radio show, so you can hear his voice for yourself. And come to find out, he’s only on for 15 minutes every Monday.
To conclude American Government and Politics, the remainder of the semester will be much easier academically, but not so much so for my sanity.
As has been the trend so far, I have no negative critiques of this class or the teacher. We finished our examination of ethics with readings from Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, and Aristotle. Typically, for each section, we are required to do a one page paper to further our understanding, but for this section, we also had a “long paper” due. “Our” task was to discuss the philosopher’s position, examine some critiques, and then evaluate their position. I chose the excerpt from Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics.
To read my paper, click here.
Now that there is no time for my sociologist justice warrior teacher to praise Marx and Communism, class has gotten substantially better. Although, there are still some major issues that deserve discussion. The title for this edition of AIHE, is mainly based off of this class, although there are some derivations within American Government & Politics.
I’ve noticed an inconsistency in the application of property rights, along with the constant striving for “equality”. The students and the teacher claim that abortion is the mother’s right, as it is “her body”, yet when it comes to things such as taxation or divorce court, no one bats an eye.
To be more specific, today “we” were looking at laws in regards to marriage. The teacher named one disadvantage to women, which is the legality of men raping their wives. She stated that in most states it is still legal, and prosecution can only occur if the couple is legally separated. She never mentioned any specifics, and I can only imagine why.
In 42 states of the Union, such action has been deemed illegal and in Illinois specifically, marital rape is illegal and will be prosecuted as any ordinary case of rape. If you’ve read previous editions of this series, you can’t be surprised that misinformation is being propagated within the walls of higher level indoctrination campuses. (Author’s note: I’m going to try to obtain a copy of that PowerPoint presentation, so I can attempt to debunk the rest of the claims.)
Another example was brought up, and that was the case of abandonment. The teacher stated that, if a man were to get a job out of state, and the wife didn’t want to go, but he went anyways, the wife would be considered to have abandoned the husband; flip the roles around, and the wife would still be found guilty of abandonment.
Let’s examine the validity of that claim in regards to Illinois, shall we?
From what I’ve been able to find out, there’s no such thing as spousal abandonment in Illinois. Attorney and writer, John Roska, received a question on this subject in 2006 and his response was:
“…There’s no such thing as spouse abandonment, at least as a specific crime or, under any civil statute. It used to be that abandoning your wife or children “in destitute or necessitous circumstances” could get you a month in the county workhouse, but not anymore. That old law was apparently abolished around 1920. So you don’t need to worry about some kind of criminal case against you for “abandonment.“
Additionally, other sources verify that there is no civil or criminal punishment; it is merely grounds for divorce.
How “abandonment” classifies as some sort of “male privilege”, I have yet to understand.
After both of those inaccurate and misleading claims about the government’s laws were brought up, some girl had the audacity to literally scream “sexism”. If the aforementioned things were true, she would be correct; but they are not.
Let’s take a look at a couple examples that were propagated that would imply some sort of “female privilege.” The first one was the mother’s right to name the baby. After some time of research, I am unable to find any legal citation either confirming or debunking that statement. I have found forum posts, which lead to me to believe it is true, but I cannot personally vouch for the authenticity of the statement beyond that.
The other claim was that the mother could put whatever father’s name on the birth certificate that she desired, or none at all. As with the previous example, I am unable to find any legal citation proving otherwise. It does appear though, that whether the father is initially put on the birth certificate or not, they can pursue legal action, which leads me to believe that this is a moot point.
There is one final thing I would like to mention. In the PowerPoint she presented, there was one bullet point that said, “States define marriage laws.” She moved past the point quickly, and that was surely because of the Obergefell decision. Thanks to the Equal Protections Clause within the 14th amendment, any semblance of “state’s rights” disappeared in a cloud of smoke.
So, how does the title of this report relate to what you have just read? Well, it’s quite simple. In Sociology particularly, the expectation is for government to pass public policies to further the illogical and irrational goal of “equality.”
Additionally, from the examples she provided in class, it is quite easy to tell that there is no such thing as equality under the law; the main reason for that is because of selective enforcement, but there is another reason at hand, specifically regarding the aforementioned issues.
You can’t expect the State, which inherently violates property rights, even in its most limited form, to then uphold the property rights of its subjects.
My teachers and my fellow classmates would benefit greatly from an in-depth examination into Murray Rothbard’s, “The Ethics of Liberty.” It is impossible to understand the entire statist apparatus, and it is also impossible to consistently apply property rights, without an honest understanding of either.
Also, I think my professors would benefit greatly from an education in how to conduct basic legal research. There are numerous textbooks and tutorials that exist on how to use this invaluable skill, and the advantages they would receive from having increased credibility should be obvious to the most ardent statists. But no, they’d rather spew out whatever they read in The Washington Post or Salon instead of devoting an hour’s worth of effort into researching whether a specific activity is legal or illegal. This sort of laziness is just what I expected from the virtues of government employment. They should remember that he who is most committed to his cause, wins, and in stark contrast to them, my cause is liberty.
Two more years to go and I haven’t even stepped into a university—the worship of statism, the incorporation of leftist “progressive” tendencies, and my frustration will only increase. Are you excited? I know I am.