oh boy, we are almost to the end, and I hope everyone has enjoyed this series, and more importantly, found it useful. Today is all about the name of the game, what every university experience should prepare you for, but does not harp on enough: the production of CONTENT! CONTENT, as I have said numerous times, is a way of life! You must take those chaotic ideas and shape them, mold them into a particular style that is looked for in academia. This is a challenge, but more importantly, it is how you present things, and how you arrive at particular conclusions from a well-ordered structure in an essay, these things are key. Before I talked about tangential things that can make or break you in universities, now, it is about debating ideas, and how to handle them properly in the almighty pursuit of the PERFECTION, OF, CONTENT! so here we go…..
- Try your best to avoid nuclear ideas.
This is quite a hard task for a lot of people on the dissident right, for it smacks of in- authenticity or more crudely “cucking out”. What i say to this is that even Heidegger recognized authenticity comes from realizing a social situation, and acting accordingly without slipping into an unconscious (NPC) mode of thinking and habituation towards internalizing these roles and norms. These social relations do not in a meaningful way define your inner subjectivity as a being, on a practical level however, that is a different story; In academia, there is no easy way to say this, and a lot of you are going to feel like this is grating to the ear (and i do not care in the slightest if I get in trouble for saying this, either in the academy, or outside by members of the online Right): certain ideas will never, at least in this environment, be acceptable in an academic setting. However, one can get away with quite a bit of wrong-think given the proper context and delivery. But other ideas, and yes, it is a sad reality that this list grows longer by the day, are simply untouchable to a lot of academics, administration officials and pro activists that are in and around the university environment.
To be perfect honest, A lot of trouble comes not from professors themselves (apart from the odd unhinged one that you can find in any department), but from the administration that is either filled with ideologues, or is simply too timid to defend someone in times of accusations and mob shaming campaigns. Remember this but, and learn to avoid the administration in any department. To be quite frank, a lot of hacks and people who couldn’t make it as academics infest the HR and other departments, those are the petty dictators who love to screw over anyone they perceive as apart of the grand enemy-other. Not all of them mind you, and not every department will be like this, but never take any chances, and know the personalities of people you are dealing with. Your best chance is as i stated in part 2, finding sympathetic profs and ginning up a friendship or friendly acquaintanceship with them, they might just go to bat and vouch for you if (as they say in the Goodfellas) the “bad times” hit.
A YouTuber known as Coach Red Pill has an excellent video on this very subject that I highly recommend (linked here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk3MW0XDXvI ). You must run many thought processes through your head first when approaching nuclear ideas. The list grows longer by the day it seems, so you must always be acutely aware of what is and is not acceptable to the gatekeepers of culture, education and politics around you.
The first determination of thought must be along the lines of point number six, picking your battles. Is this idea worth committing to? And if so, how much trouble could you potentially get in if you express such an idea in a positive light? How open-minded are the people around you? This is hard because sometimes the most vicious of campus radicals can be good at hiding their inner authoritarian thought-controller. Also ask yourself, along with the potential danger of supporting a nuclear idea, can you present these ideas in such a way that is objective and therefore non-threatening to your academic standing? This objectivity is growing harder still, as demonstrated by Lindsay Shepherd’s case, and the caliber of certain academics who defended her show-trial (case in point, the debate on The Agenda that happened recently, I recommend watching this too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kju_22ypx2s ).
You have to know how to frame ideas in the right way, all of this is difficult and requires severe doses of contemplation and self-exploration. Only you can be responsible for cultivating prudent judgment in academia, in terms of expressing certain ideas. Sometimes you simply must come to terms with the fact that in certain environments, that which is best left to mystery is the better option. You can’t just walk into a sociology or critical race theory class and expect to be treated fairly when you are, for example, a white nationalist who wants to expound upon ideas of human biodiversity. In certain universities and programs, that would be tantamount to academic suicide. For some, this is a jagged pill to swallow, but certain ideas will land you into a lot of trouble either way you look at it.
Even debating abortion can be dangerous, and ironically enough, it would even be helpful to frame it in terms of your religious beliefs, as Universities generally try to avoid discrimination lawsuits at all costs. However, this is if a professor is directly censoring you. Despite the horror stories you hear (or the way things are framed in really cringy evangelical movies like “GOD’S NOT DEAD”) most good professors will think twice about outright censoring you in a mainstay humanities department that does not have a “studies” at the end of the title. You of course have to tackle subtle forms of censorship like down-grading, but the danger of nuclear ideas can more realistically be a danger if they evoke the ire of fellow students. In this case there is not much you can do besides having good debating skills, and not just using sophist and rhetorical tricks.
If a fellow student “reports you” then do not be afraid, and state your case to the admins and professors. Again, it is a hard pill, but sometimes you must find out what will “trigger” a particularly nasty fellow SJW student, and try your best to be amicable to them, they just might think twice about trying to make things harder for you. I myself have had plenty of situations like that. One time, this kind of far left woman in the class i was in had a presentation on something about gender identity. Instead of trying to prove some futile point or making a show of it, I just sad down calmly, listened, and practically did not talk the whole class. This may seem like a passive-aggressive move, but this is infinity better than a potential screaming match with another student, and chances are you will be the one that comes off as the aggressive “right-wing bully”.
Another helpful tip is to try your best at picking thinkers with nuclear ideas or thinkers who have been marginalized in academia. Determine if they are worthy of defending. You would be surprised how much wrong-think you can get away with if you have the backing of a proper scholarly thinker, even the controversial ones. Put it this way, a right-wing idea sounds more legitimate and pleasant to the ear coming from a Heidegger, a Spengler or even a Scruton, then it does coming from a Talk Radio personality or podcaster.
- Pick a university and a major wisely.
It is a tough time determining what you are interested in, and what program in which university you should pursue. Location constraints, loans and finance, job prospects and more will determine where you will end up in the academic system. The most practical advice I could ever give is a hard truth: you should stay away from university in general IF you are not willing to commit to a specific field and you do not have a plan from first year onward. If you make a sober determination about changing majors, this is fine at the outset. However, you should never become one of those people who cannot make up their minds as to what they are doing in university. Do not be a slack artist, there are far too many people who just coast along and do nothing with their degrees. Being a dinosaur in my thinking I may get into trouble for saying this, but I believe as the old approach to higher learning did, that only the most exceptional should be scholars. If you especially wish to take on the humanities, you must be driven as a thinker who approaches it as a vocation, that is with creativity, and a sense of calling akin to that of a holy-person. Do not put on your academic hat in school and take it off at home; this should be your life. Being a good and creative scholar should consume your every waking moment like a bad case of sciatica!
Besides this practical advice meant for everyone, the political dissident faces even more challenges. It is hard determining which university is worth the risk and effort, and those exceptional cases of outrage you see in the alternative media can sometimes cloud your judgment. Research various resources and even talk to people who have been to the places you are looking at, along with looking at the scores of the various professors in the departments you wish to major in (Rate My Professor is an infinitely valuable website). Try to focus on the classic humanities, these are places that will at least tacitly support greater tolerance for right-leaning opinions. Try political science, history, philosophy etc. and avoid those departments which have notorious reputations for pumping out far-left political activists – you can look these up, but I will avoid naming names. Keep in mind that even the classic fields of the humanities, depending on the university, may present you with significant challenges from certain professors. Nowhere is particularly “safe” in the humanities, and now even the STEM fields are feeling the waves of left-leaning social critique as well.
However, do not make the mistake of certain YouTubers and contrarian ideologues on your side, thinking that just because a department is biased means an instant academic death sentence for you. The fact is most professors are statistically going to be left-wing. This is the reality in academia for a plethora of reasons, but most will probably not mind if you are to the right of them, or will passively tolerate you so long as you do not try to push their buttons in an overt manner. And try your best to find professors to whom you can relate, and those that are somewhat sympathetic to what you believe in – even if it is under the table and off the record for the time being.
- Accept and release.
Being a person who is used to confrontation and belittling of your ideas, there is a tendency for young right-wingers and dissidents to be despondent and jaded. Do not despair at this, but rather use such an environment to build up a strong sense of mental clarity and contemplation. Your mind must grow to be pristine, and your mental abilities will be solidified by the repeated trials of constant debate and confrontation, along with coming up with clever ways to stay covert in your red-pilling efforts.
Do not always take what your professors say at face value, and know when and how to challenge them. As Aristotle said, find the mean in all things. You must avoid these two extremes: 1. Avoid being as confrontational, petty, and bitter as possible. Do not make things hard on yourself by constantly arguing and grating with your professors and those around you. 2. Do not go the other way and totally accept the ideas being presented by your professors. Do not rely on passively breezing by without any resistance to what is being said. If you speak up, you might find fellow students who are sympathetic to your ideas. I can remember having a few classes that had sensitive subjects where I shut down for fear of totally aliening myself and others. Sometimes this is the best tactic if you are in a completely hostile situation.
Instead of these extremes, go with the mean; accept the ideas being presented to you and contemplate them fairly, but learn to release those ideas you find to be lacking or downright moronic. To quote Aristotle once again, “it is the mark of an educated man to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it”. Realize that you will encounter ideas that are very contrary to your own. Give them serious thought nevertheless, and do not be immediately angry and resentful towards the fact that you are being taught these ideas. Don’t even get angry over little comments and quips here and there (micro-aggressions one could say…) made by your leftist professors. Find spaces to challenge them, but do not wholly accept any way of thinking, even if it is coming from someone with more authority than you. Again, leaving things to mystery is not deception. What do I mean by this? Sometimes it is best in a certain situation, to play along to an extent and entertain the ideas of a course or subject. But inside, discard what you intuitively find to be ridiculous. Do not make a show of your rejection of these ideas, but do not let them color your being to such a point where you are not faithful to who you are. Bad faith will not make you a good scholar, but unfortunately too many scholars nowadays exist in bad faith.