There is a fascinating article (https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/) that was recently published featuring three scholars who have been sending fake papers to various academic journals that specialize in what they call ‘grievance studies.’ It is a great term; grievance studies. The technical term is post-colonial studies. At the modern university, “postcolonial studies” and “postcolonial perspectives” involve analyses of what these scholars consider to be imperial discourse and institutions of power and domination. The postcolonial analysis reimagines culture as a binary of antithetical power distributions between a dominant colonialist power (which often labeled ‘white’ and ‘male’ and increasingly ‘Christian) that disenfranchises politically and socially minority cultures through sexist, racist, and classist exclusions. And so postcolonial scholars and activists seek to overcome what they consider to the apartheid-like policies of the past by promoting public policies inclusive of the historically disenfranchised; that is at least what they claim to be doing.
However, these three scholars think there is something much, much deeper going on here than just the attempt to rectify past injustices. They believe that there is a propensity among academics to accept moral and intellectual absurdities as politically fashionable, and thus these academics reimagine themselves as having the role of ascribing academic legitimacy to such immoral and absurd political fashions. In other words, these three scholars want to expose the new mission of many academics in the modern day university, which is to provide the academic cover and give academic integrity to the intellectual and moral absurdity of political correctness. The modern university has in fact become the home for ideologically driven scholarship and these three scholars want to expose that.
And so, they have submitted a number of fake papers to various academic journals to expose this propensity towards the morally and intellectually absurd within a thoroughly leftist cultural Marxist political agenda. Perhaps the most stunning development in all of this was the publication of a three-thousand word excerpt from Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, rewritten in the language of what is called Intersectionality theory, which studies the various ways in which power relationships intertwine to disenfranchise minority cultures and identities. Arguments from Hitler’s Mein Kampf, chapter 12 from Volume 1 to be exact, were republished as a legitimate scholarly paper in the Gender Studies journal Affilia. According to these three scholars, all they had to do was learn how to speak in this politically correct rhetoric, that is all they really needed to. They could quite literally repackage anything, again no matter how morally or intellectually absurd, in this politically correct, feminist grievance inspired language, with enough footnotes, and it would get at the very least seriously considered, perhaps sent back with the status: revise and resubmit. I have seen many of those in my day with papers I have submitted to academic journals.
This was just the tip of the iceberg; they have a paper that suggested that Artificial Intelligence was bad because it was patriarchal, the machines were being programmed with qualities indicative of toxic masculinity. This paper passed and was published. They actually did a paper on women who are overweight and claimed that a fat body is a legitimately built body and that there should a new sport category that they proposed as, if you can believe it, ‘fat bodybuilding’ which would be akin to the sport of professional bodybuilding. It was published in a serious academic journal entitled ‘Fat Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Body Weight and Society.’
Again, just the tip of the iceberg. They sent out proposed papers on such topics as queer studies, critical race theory, critical whiteness theory, educational philosophy, masculinities studies, sociology and the like. All of these papers featured featured radically feminist, postmodern, critical race theory foundations. And here is a very important point to all of this; it was not merely that they submitted radically leftist cultural Marxist ideas in their papers. They also argued for those ideas with DELIBERATELY shoddy and faulty methodologies including incredibly implausible statistics, claims without any data warrant whatsoever, terms that were deliberately ideologically laced and biased. I think this really says it all in terms of just how ideologically driven this so-called scholarship is.
Moreover, these papers advocated ethically outrageous acts of reparation to redress these grievances: they advocated things like deliberately training men like dogs, punishing white male college students for historical slavery by asking them to sit in silence on the floor in chains in class. They celebrated morbid obesity as a healthy lifestyle choice; actually perhaps the most subtle forms of ethical absurdity that they proposed.
These three scholars, who are doing God’s work in my opinion, they of course blew the roof off of these journals in particular and academia in general, and have effectively exposed them to the wider media. The Wall Street Journal has published a piece exposing the ideologically driven academics that have replaced the integrity of research with politically correct fashions and trends. This is precisely what these scholars wanted to do; it is so interesting here; they are not nationalist, populist, and traditionalist conservatives like we are. They see themselves as thoroughly in line with the liberal project that defines the modern day university; but they have the academic integrity to recognize when ideology is replacing scholarship, and they are very, very concerned about it! They are very concerned that terms like ‘racist’ and ‘sexist’ and ‘homophobe’ have been weaponized in our wider society; that such weaponization of language can actually be traced to the academy where an ideologue, not a scholar, who dresses up his or her political ideology with academic credibility. The problem here of course is that this propensity towards grievance and emancipatory politics shared by so many professors is in fact profoundly corrupting scholarship in the social sciences and humanities.
Now, if you are a regular reader of mine, you will be aware of how all of this fits into something that scholars (ironically, of all people), call ‘emancipatory politics.’ It is a globalist political philosophy that involves utilizing the power of the state to liberate people from traditional social structures and arrangements that are now deemed by a secular elite as ‘unjust’ and ‘unfair’ and ‘bigoted’ and ‘repressive.’ Make no mistake, emancipatory politics is widely recognized as a form of Marxism, particularly what we call cultural Marxism, and it is enforced through a speech code known as political correctness, where what we say and how we say it is measured against a standard of sensitivity for emancipatory concerns.
This of course has been on full display here in the States with the witch trial, the kangaroo court that have been the Senate confirmation process for Judge Brett Kavanaugh. He has been a Salem Witch trial victim of what emancipatory politics ultimately works itself out into. And what these three scholars have done here, the service, and I mean that genuinely, the service that they have performed is to expose that emancipatory politics and the culturally Marxist politically correctness that it engenders is an emperor that has no clothes. There is no academic integrity behind this. Indeed, as it turns out, emancipatory politics is itself radically racist, radically exclusionist. If you are belief system can republish Hitler’s Mein Kampf simply recast in politically correct language, you are an advocate of evil, plain and simple. We talked about this with the whole Judge Kavanaugh hearings. Modern day leftist liberalism has become nothing more than justified evil.
So I applaud these three scholars who at least have some semblance of academic integrity and decency, and I applaud the way they have effectively exposed so much of modern academia, particularly regarding the so-called grievance studies departments, to be little more than ideologically driven propaganda. I think this is the way forward in the future; the more we can expose the institutions that have been captured by leftist cultural Marxist liberalism and their blatantly immoral political agendas, the more we can undermine their credibility and marginalize their influence. I look forward to more exposures of the radical left yet to come.