This is an extremely important article. Probably one of the most important I’ve ever written. Haughty as this may sound, I would like to impress upon readers the logicality behind behaving symbolically: saying you will do one thing when, in reality, you will do the complete opposite and expect others to believe that you are doing what you said you are going to do but aren’t actually doing. Confused? Read the description again and then continue reading the rest of the article for the explanation.
A few days ago it was disseminated that certain aggrieved Yale students decided to engage in a hunger strike to protest the fact that they don’t receive more than $30,000 in stipend money each year, complimentary health care and a $40,000-a-year tuition paid in full. (Epitome of entitlement? You decide.) Yet, these pupils further clarified that they were not going to literally desist from eating, only figuratively or “symbolically”.
In others words, the hunger strike is not actually happening but the students desire everyone to know that they’ll hold their bodies hostage to fake hunger in order to scare the university into submitting to their preposterously smug demands. Kapish? No?
I’ll simplify the explanation for the sake of the retards who can’t seem to understand or accept how things work in this era of relativism.
Here it is: You are expected to accept that what isn’t occurring actually is. Hence, these highly intelligent and sophisticated universitarians understand that under the rules of secular modernity – meaning, truth is whatever each person says it is – they are, in effect, resisting the urge to eat while they eat. Get it now?! No?! Boy, you’re dense. Maybe using some “real-life” examples will help you understand the concept which only modern university schooling can inculcate.
Here’s a few other choice illustrations: When a criminal says he’s holding hostages in order to evade being arrested and gain concessions from the police but says he’s doing so “symbolically” (meaning he’s holding no one hostage), the police are supposed to treat the threat as if it is credible. Also, when a thief intends to rob an individual and forms an imaginary gun with his hand, the victim is supposed to fear for his life and hand over his wallet for fear of being shot with that gun. I’ll ask again; Understand?
Humor aside, what the reader is seeing occur here is the result of years of post-modernist, lab-rat training. These young adults have been so indoctrinated in the cult of Critical Theory (no absolute truth) that they expect no one to see past their ruse. (However, I am inclined to think that some are that stupid, where they are incapable of sensing the contradiction within their baseless threat and expect others to accept it as reality.)
Part of what troubles me and many others is the fact that the professors, school administrators and others who have participated in the conditioning of these feeble minds either act as if they are surprised by the pupil’s behavior or deflect the blame for it. Any clear thinking person who has come in contact with Marxist dogma knows that such irrationality is a direct and natural result of Marxist thinking. The ideology is self-contradictory and based on falacies. Therefore, anyone that submits to its doctrines will suffer from intellectual incongruity and won’t be able to detect the contradictions.
Of more importance, this nonconformity to common sense and logic is more directly attributable to departing from and not submitting to Biblical truth. Since, as a society, we have seen fit to no longer submit to the divine dictum of differentiating between right and wrong and assenting to God’s definition of both, this is the result. Because truth is no longer truth but “whatever I desire it to be”, an objective standard disappears and suddenly everyone expects their “own truth” to be accepted by those who see right through the smokescreen.
Another consideration; If this incident, part of a grander scale of evidence, isn’t proof that the modern “educational system”, in its totality, is corrupted and, because of this, parents should avoid submitting their children to it in order to protect them, I don’t know what else could convince those that continue to give the system the benefit of the doubt of the system’s inherent evil.
Beloved reader, here’s the lesson: distrust the system and avoid it if at all possible (meaning, only if your child desires to become a doctor, lawyer, engineer or rabid Marxist disciple, should they go to college), otherwise, the possibilities that your offspring will turn out to be a bumbling idiot are exponentially multiplied.
I know some will employ the, what I call, Child Infallibility Defense, to rejoin what I state here. The reader may recognize a version of it: “Such a thing will never happen to my child.” The problem is that the numbers overwhelmingly do not favor that argument. Also, no child (or adult for that matter) is immune from deception. (1 Cor. 10:12) Thinking otherwise is the height of arrogance.
Lastly, it wouldn’t be the first time that parents have ignorantly assumed that their children are perfectly capable of resisting deception, only to lament their offspring’s eventual corruption at the hands of a system they blindly trusted, a system which was designed from the onset to ruin its members.
Could it be that such a flimsy defense is only a cover for the real reason many parents refuse to heed the warning signs? Could it be that many parents in this generation prioritize maintaining a certain economic level over doing all they can to protect their divinely bestowed authority and responsibility over their children’s lives as well as their hearts and minds?
I wonder what the parents of these protesting pupils at Yale are thinking now. No doubt, they were extremely proud of the fact that their children would be allowed to attend the historic academic institution. Now that they’ve been in the system for some time and considering this incident, one wonders if they aren’t rethinking their previous excitement.