Monday, July 18, 2011 30 Comments

A century of academic sovereignty

Frederick T. Gates, chairman, General Education Board, "Occasional Letter No. 1", 1906:
In the state of Wisconsin, now perhaps the best governed of all our states, the University writes the laws that go on the statute books, University professors guide and control the main departments of state administration and inquiry; there is no limit to the financial resources which a grateful people are placing at the disposal of learning, thus consecrated to the service of the commonwealth.

Our more ancient seats of learning pride themselves justly on their antiquity, on their dignity, on the reverence in which they are held, on the great names that have been and are associated with them. But it is yet theirs to reign over empires now undreamed; to inherit a kingdom that has awaited them from the foundation of the world; to write the laws of obedient states; to know the love of a reverent, grateful, and generous people; to
"Scatter plenty o'er a smiling land
And read their history in a nation's eyes."
No shit, n--a. Could a n--a make this shit up?

No limit to the financial resources? Write the laws of obedient states? F--n' A, n--a! You can sign this n--a up for that. N--a shakes with Rockafella makes history like Nelson Mandela.

Taken out of context? Au contraire, mon frere. There is no context. The "Letter" ends here. The entire piece is delightfully freckled with cowpies in this vein - many with a thick frost of early hippie-Jesus. Read it and grimace with sheer bruxist mirth. Oh, and if you think these n--az didn't matter? Yo, n--a, you wrong.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Possibly it's just Google being fucked up, but I can't seem to verify the content.
Searching the Occasional Papers link returns, for instance:
"governed" appears only once, on page vi, (and the displayed excerpt doesn't contain the word,) while "inquiry" appears thrice, on pages ii, 9 and 15.

Which of these pages is the letter on?

July 19, 2011 at 12:51 AM  
Anonymous Diver said...

Gates does make one good point, that the whole vast apparatus of compulsory public schools serves mainly to vacuum up high-IQ children out of their communities into the ranks of the intelligentsia.

July 19, 2011 at 2:56 AM  
Anonymous Leonard said...

Nony: the quote Moldbug posted is on page 15.

July 19, 2011 at 6:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Moldbug, have you ever considered a post on your research method? It would be worthwhile to know how you uncover these gems of "slow history."

July 19, 2011 at 11:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Um. Your meter might actually work if it were this:

"N---a shakes with Rockafella/
makes hist'ry like Mandela."

Otherwise fine. Of course, the causal mechanisms by which these n---az matter, or have mattered in the century after this writing, is completely unspecified.

But otherwise--oh, otherwise--this is a rigorous and highly illuminating piece.

July 19, 2011 at 11:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In 1906 The Education Board put out a statement that read in part, “We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, educators, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians, nor lawyers doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have ample supply. The task we set before ourselves is simple...We will organize children...and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way.”


July 19, 2011 at 1:20 PM  
Anonymous rjp said...

In it's defense, it was written a very long time ago and children at that time were still actually being educated in primary, secondary, and post-secondary educational institutions. There were no "student atheletes" either. Hell, I don't even think Wisconsin was socialist back then. And maybe even professors weren't a bunch of near communists at that time even.

Ah who am I kidding.

July 19, 2011 at 2:24 PM  
Blogger Zimri said...

Rip, Wisconsin is Greater New England, and has remained so up to Governor Walker (and we've yet to see how long he lasts). Read the 1856 election map again.

I second the query about where Moldbug gets this stuff. I feel like I'm scurrying after his scraps.

July 19, 2011 at 7:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Read Gatto, y'all, I ran across the "Occasional Letter" there years before I'd ever heard of either mold or bug.

July 20, 2011 at 6:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"[T]o inherit a kingdom that has awaited them from the foundation of the world".

Heh. One detects a hint of that old-time religion.

July 21, 2011 at 12:39 PM  
Anonymous josh said...

read this, its short and it contains much of the whole plot:

July 21, 2011 at 1:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why American men should boycott American women

I am an American man, and I have decided to boycott American women. In a nutshell, American women are the most likely to cheat on you, to divorce you, to get fat, to steal half of your money in the divorce courts, don’t know how to cook or clean, don’t want to have children, etc. Therefore, what intelligent man would want to get involved with American women?

American women are generally immature, selfish, extremely arrogant and self-centered, mentally unstable, irresponsible, and highly unchaste. The behavior of most American women is utterly disgusting, to say the least.

This blog is my attempt to explain why I feel American women are inferior to foreign women (non-American women), and why American men should boycott American women, and date/marry only foreign (non-American) women.


Are you a man who is interested in marrying indian women? Please visit, India's 1st International Marriage Mail Order Bride Site:

July 21, 2011 at 11:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's y'alls first cause objection to leftism / universalism / Brahmins, it whatever you wanna call it?

Here is mine: dysgenics. Specifically, the progressive replacement if people why generate beautiful women with people who generate ugly women.

July 22, 2011 at 4:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's y'alls first cause objection to leftism / universalism / Brahminism, it whatever you wanna call it?

Here is mine: dysgenics. Specifically, it's the progressive replacement of people who generate beautiful women with people who generate ugly women.

July 22, 2011 at 4:15 AM  
Anonymous josh said...


It's not only ugly women but ugly art, ugly culture, ugly religion, ugly architecture, etc.

BTW, Lenin on the American origins of Bolshevism, specifically referencing DeLeon (who was a Bellamyite nationalist):

I'm sure nobody remembers but I once posted about a very obscure historical figure who was once the running mate of DeLeon, accompanied the Red Cross Mission to Russia, and would up working as a personal secratary for Lenin. Small World.

July 22, 2011 at 5:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Google books is also great for searching out stuff like: protestant missionaries + country/region.

Interesting countries to add to the search string of country/region: south africa, korea, china, rhodesia, and middle east.

July 22, 2011 at 6:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Or even try Protestants + country/region.

Here's the world council of churches involved in anti-colonialist movements:

July 22, 2011 at 6:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have to say, I dearly love running across men who whine about their complete and utter incompetence with women. If you all weren't such miserable assholes, I might be able to muster some pity, but as it is, it's so obviously your own fuckin' fault that I just can't restrain my contempt.

July 22, 2011 at 9:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Funny how you're all posting anonymously, too. It's almost as though, along with being miserable assholes, you're also pusillanimous cowards. But then I suppose that shouldn't be a surprise.

July 22, 2011 at 9:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Aaron, sweetheart, we're trying to have a philosophical discussion here, hush please.

- the "first causes" question Anonymous.

July 22, 2011 at 9:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, honey, is that what you call it? Bless your heart.

July 22, 2011 at 11:18 AM  
Anonymous Love Doctor said...

Aaron tells us that obviously anyone who points out the hedonic idiocy of a certain class of women, must be "bitter" or "incompetent with women", for if the miserable coward were properly masculine, then he would be loved so much that he could not possibly hate them, whatever their character.

But isn't it our noble feminine duty to help the meek and disabled?

Isn't our first principle, Help the Weak, and our second principle, Free Love?

So, Aaron, the next time you find someone incompetent with women, help him out, be charitable and loving.

July 22, 2011 at 8:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I dearly love running across men who whine about their complete and utter incompetence with women"

This is coming from a guy that has a website with a large section devoted to Dwarf Fortress.

I believe you have the wrong forum here, goony neckbeard. SomethingAwful might be more to your taste.

July 22, 2011 at 9:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Holy shit, googling your name, you are a troper as well.

Aaron you should head over to Udolpho/MyPostingCareer, they would love you.

July 22, 2011 at 9:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyway, apart from the crappy digression into the PUA stuff, which I'll have to admit sometimes I agree with Aaron's point of view ... PUA-types come across as raging jackasses, and are their own worse enemies.

Anyway, tet's talk about the Oslo bombings, where that douchebag murdered a bunch of kids for his insane ideology. It's clear now that they were done by a right wing extremist.


July 22, 2011 at 9:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The killer's Twitter account said "One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100,000 who have only interests."

Post-modern structuralists will call this deranged.

July 23, 2011 at 5:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Post-modern structuralists will call this deranged"


July 23, 2011 at 5:40 AM  
Blogger Alrenous said...

I'll bite.

Oslo bombings=>Muslims aren't that dangerous.

So shoe bomber. Condom bomber. Underwear bomber. Total damaged planes: zero.

The Oslo bombing was about Muslims, but an actual devout Muslim would be too incompetent to carry it off.

(Reminds me of the Tucson shooter that everyone assumed was a right-wing tea partier, and ended up being a fanatical progressive.)

At a more geopolitical level, the West has the capacity to wipe Islam off the map. Simply glassify the entire desert.

According to Muslim alarmists, if the Muslims had the reverse capacity, they would have done it already.

Quite literally, they exist at our mercy.

And apparently have a lot of trouble blowing our stuff up even when we let them carry explosives around.

(I understand many Muslims are skeptical of causation outside of "Allah did it," so this makes sense.)

July 23, 2011 at 6:37 AM  
Anonymous bbartlog said...

The relative competence of Breivik in comparison to guys like Richard Reid certainly gives pause. Quite impressive to kill over eighty people with hand arms. A bit of planning, preparation, and some competent choices (target an island, impersonate a police officer, train with your weapons) result in a lot more damage than your typical Islamist can do. Of course it helps that his victims seem not to have been able to even conceive of resistance.

July 23, 2011 at 7:06 AM  
Blogger Mitchell said...

An advocate of "academic sovereignty". But they mean, keeping the Right out of the academy, not keeping the Left in power.

July 24, 2011 at 2:15 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home