Part II: The Dark Age of the Mind
Today, President Trump announced plans to reform American universities, focusing on restructuring their dependence on student loans and addressing tuition costs. He also intends to address the accrediting agencies that have failed in their responsibilities. These universities have consumed hundreds of billions of American taxpayer dollars, yet what have they produced? Meaningful change requires, as Trump puts it, the removal of the “Marxists, maniacs, and lunatics” and their replacement with accreditors and professors who understand what is good and can teach students true wisdom.
Marxists
It will surprise no one to find out that American university professors are Marxists. The only person you will find to be shocked by this are the professors themselves. Enough of them have told me, “I’m not a Marxist,” that I’ve had to ask myself about their relationship to truth. Are they lying? Are they mincing words, and they mean, “I’m not a Marxist, I’m a Feminist Marxist.” Or do they genuinely believe they aren’t Marxists? Can they really fail so badly to know themselves?
The answer is a mixture, depending on the individual. Many of them are liars. Here, I’m thinking about the Humanities particularly. They have been lying for their whole careers about teaching students wisdom and the human condition. They actually spend their time pressuring social justice problems like cultural appropriation, the benefits of polyamory, and witchcraft for feminists. You can’t be honest with unsuspecting parents about those things.
However, a defining characteristic of a darkened mind is its inability to see itself clearly. What is obvious to everyone else is that their teachings are nothing more than recycled, sophomoric Marxism. Yet, they remain unaware. “How am I a Marxist?” they ask. Well, for starters, you teach that all of history is defined by economic conflict between classes, races, and genders. You also claim that people with wealth obtain it through capitalistic exploitation of oppressed minorities. Your proposed solution? Either a powerful centralized state that redistributes wealth based on perceived oppression or, if you’re especially disgruntled and attending a protest, the call for revolution. It’s intoxicating, isn’t it? It gives the illusion of significance and making a difference.
No, the reality is that empty dreams and broken promises are the only outcomes being produced. Aging social justice warriors live in isolation, trying to mold the next generation in their image. Their lack of wisdom is evident. How so? A wise person understands what is genuinely good for humanity. When you ask these professors, they can’t offer anything beyond a Marxist economic response. “Capitalism and consumerism are bad!” they declare. So, what is good? “Redistribution of money by the state,” they respond.
Their blinders are their version of “empathy.” The strength of their feelings is what matters. They genuinely believe they are championing the “marginalized and oppressed,” and this belief serves as a shield against any self-reflection or consideration of conservative or Christian perspectives. Their worldview resembles a simplistic, two-dimensional cartoon plot: the villain is easy to spot—wealthy, white, and heteronormative. The hero, by contrast, is “they/them,” offering free gender-transition surgeries to minors.
They have never truly engaged with the depth of the literature they teach to your children and grandchildren. In their eyes, good literature must center on themes of oppression and sexual minorities. They can reduce even the greatest works of art to a simplistic “find the sexual minority” version of “Where’s Waldo.” I still recall a freshman student approaching me after a philosophy lecture. She had received an excellent classical education in high school and was eager to major in English Literature at university. However, she was disappointed to find that her entire Chaucer class focused solely on discussions about his sexuality. Disheartened, she sought an alternative, and I was able to guide her to a program that genuinely teaches students to interpret works of art with the pursuit of wisdom in mind.
How can professors with Ph.D.s maintain such a simplistic view of the world? How can they fail to recognize the issues right in front of them? This is how a darkened mind operates—it embraces evil and encourages others to do the same. No level of even the finest university education, let alone the current state of academia, can resolve this problem, which is further exacerbated by the issues discussed in the following sections.
Maniacs
I am being stalked, though I find it somewhat flattering. Among my “audience” is a member of ASU’s Provost Office monitoring my social media, a History faculty member who promotes teaching witchcraft to women and sends hostile emails to me at work, and a colleague from my School who uses anonymous accounts to harass me on social media. This inspired me to create my own version of the 95 Theses on my Substack. To these followers, I extend an invitation: let’s debate what you teach your students about Marxism and the Kinsey Sex Philosophy. But they will never accept. Why? That’s what the next section will cover.
In my experience, the typical Humanities professor tends to avoid direct conflict but is comfortable engaging in passive-aggressive behavior when out of sight. They often use anonymous accounts and engage in backroom gossip. This behavior reflects deep insecurity and fear. While the tenure process might contribute to this neurotic tendency, many exhibited these traits long before arriving.
To be a maniac means to display wild and uncontrolled behavior—the complete opposite of wisdom. Yet, as I illustrate on my Substack (Dr Owen Anderson), Humanities professors often have uncontrolled outbursts. I have attended ASU faculty meetings meant for discussing faculty business, but instead, they often turn into political rallies, with the approval of the administrators. During one such meeting, a professor shouted, “Let’s all go down to the Republican office and protest.” In another meeting, this same professor claimed that Evangelicals cannot be true professors.
What is the relationship between being a Marxist and a Maniac? The person whose entire worldview is so simplistic as to think rich/white = bad and poor/not white = good can’t be expected to be a deep thinker. Their world is that two-dimensional cartoon narrative. However, the real world isn’t like that. Perception is not reality. Whatever your perceptions, reality continues to press in on you and assert its being. The purpose of such interruption by reality is to get us to examine ourselves and change where needed. But for the darkened mind, it causes annoyance that soon turns into existential angst. The maniac uses self-deception to avoid introspection.
Mania becomes inevitable when it is the only path available. Emotional outbursts and assertions of the will replace reason when the mind fails to engage with reality. These maniacs attract like-minded individuals, banding together to protest and rally for their Marxist causes, attempting to pass this ideology on to the next generation—a mission in which they have been largely successful since the 1960s. This explains why my offers for public debate remain unanswered; maniacs do not rely on reason, but instead resort to temper tantrums. For evidence of this in education, simply consider the job titles they proudly adopt: activists.
Lunatics
American universities are reporting the highest rates of mental illness among students in history. After Trump’s victory, my School even sent an email reminding students of available counseling services, focusing primarily on concerns for LGBTQ+ students. This past fall, at an ASU event, two professors warned students that if Trump were to win, they would face imprisonment and forced breeding. How can professors hold such beliefs and pass them on to students who, by their own admission, already face significant mental health challenges? Needless to say, ASU Honors Professors who protested Charlie Kirk’s speaking on campus said nothing about these professors disturbing ASU students with such dystopian illusions.
The inability of Marxist ideology to grasp actual reality, along with the resulting mania among its followers, often manifests in this type of irrational behavior. Here, “lunacy” is not intended as an insult but rather as a descriptor for individuals who cannot connect ideas coherently, leading to erratic and inexplicable actions.
Consider a few examples from this election. The term “women’s reproductive healthcare” is often used as a euphemism for elective abortion. Misinformation was spread, claiming that women would die due to a lack of access to elective abortions. Why would anyone believe this and allow it to incite such hysteria? Because it aligns with Marxist ideology.
Such a person uses their classrooms as the site for activism. Their students are either privileged and need to be decentered, or they are oppressed and need to be empowered. Their only argument is from economic outcomes. If two groups have different outcomes, then this must be due to oppression. And who causes oppression? Cis-gendered, white, male, conservative Christians. ASU has required employee training about just this topic.
From this Marxism and Mania, such darkened minds are susceptible to all kinds of conspiracies about their world. They are convinced that the universities are run by conservatives and by administrators who are unfair to the radical left. They believe that if elective abortion is not protected, then miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies will not be treated by doctors. And the greatest of all, they believe that gender dysphoria can be successfully treated by unalterable surgery.
This, above all, stands out to the wider world. A student suffering from gender dysphoria and undergoing a John Money-inspired surgery exemplifies the “oppressed” individual that these professors believe must be protected. I have never heard a Humanities professor at ASU question whether John Money’s theories on gender might be flawed, empirically disproven, or if the surgeries he advocated caused significant harm to patients. Instead, they cling to a mindset akin to the meme of Principal Skinner: “Am I wrong? No, it’s Moses/Jesus/Paul who are wrong.” If this doesn’t qualify as lunacy, then the word has lost all meaning.
Conclusion
Lunacy is both dangerous and foolish—the complete opposite of wisdom. No parent ever says, “I will spend $80,000 so professors can turn my child into a fool.” Yet, here we are. Just look at the class content and events hosted by ASU’s Humanities Institute; it is similar at other state universities. These professors cannot articulate the fundamentals of reality, have not demonstrated wisdom in their own lives, and yet they presume to teach your children.
The fact that the majority of our “intellectuals” are in the state of a darkened mind is a painful truth Americans must come to terms with if there is to be change. These humanities professors, who should be teaching us about the meaning of life and wisdom, are instead deeply confused about the most basic features of reality. Yet, by naming the problem, we are able to see the solution. A true intellectual is one who knows what is foundational and can then teach this to his students. We must demand that the American intellectuals do this or look for work elsewhere.
For parents troubled by this situation, Trump’s promise to remove Marxists, maniacs, and lunatics is seen as a hopeful solution. However, we must also consider who will replace them. After 60 years under the influence of misguided ideologies, America has experienced a decline in wisdom. True change requires that we begin valuing wisdom ourselves so that we can exemplify it for our children. Now is the time to act. Do not send your children to these university humanities programs. Look for professors who can actually teach your children about wisdom and our highest good.
Image Credit: Unsplash
And so the President gets to declare who’s right and who’s wrong end of story. And so we are all accountable to the President and his minions while they are accountable to no one? Who will be judging who is a Marxist? Do Marxists have the right to define what Marxism is or is Trump going by some pejorative definition? But more importantly, where in The Constitution does Trump have the right to ban Marxists from teaching in our colleges and universities?
Martin Luther King Jr agreed with Marx on some things, was he a Marxist? And if he was a Marxist, should Trump’s government erase his words and actions from American history?
And what is a Marxist government? Are all centralized governments Marxists? Or are there other criteria to meet? Can a non-centralized government also be Marxist
What the above article is celebrating is the end of free speech and freedom itself. It celebrates Fascist head of state and that should surprise no Marxist or anyone with Marxist leanings. Fascism and Marxism have always been diametrically opposed.
See, the above article celebrates a certain sect of conservatives having the right to define and declare reality for the rest of the nation without having the duty to prove to what degree they are right. I’ve said all along that the driving force for the articles written here is authoritarianism, not the Scriptures. The above article provides evidence testifying to my analysis.
BTW, when one only needs to declare what they believe is right and to act on it in ways that violates the rights of others, then one meets the criteria for a maniac as described in the above article.
And one other thing should be said. One of the current jokes going around Germany goes like this:
‘What borders on stupidity?
Mexico and Canada‘
If you hate America, please just leave.
Is this satire?