HOORAY! Edublither In Full Force In The UNITED KINGDUMB

[EndtheMadnessNow]

December 9, 2024 / Joseph P. Farrell

When I saw the email from V.T. and what it was about, I knew for a certainty that it had to be immediately filed in my "finals" folder for this week's scheduled blogs, because I knew I'd have to schedule a blog, or rather, a rant about it.  Not since C.S. Lewis penned those memorable lines about the blithering codswallop that quackademics would descend into in his novel That Hideous Strength have I ever read anything so nonsensical.  Get a load of this:

Why this Cambridge grad’s PhD thesis on smelly people is dividing the internet: ‘Olfactory oppression’

Pity the poor examiner who had to read hundreds of pages of this:

The thesis, titled “Olfactory Ethics: The Politics of Smell in Modern and Contemporary Prose” examined how scent facilitates “smell’s application in creating and subverting gender, class, sexual, racial and species power structures,” according to the abstract (summary). The thesis states that “olfactory disgust” can result in a person’s “rejection.”

Are you kidding me? This biological female unit wasted time and money to come up with "You stink, please go take a bath and put on a clean change of clothes" for a doctoral dissertation in English literature? And Cambridge put up with it? (I could, of course, say something cruel but honest about "That Place", and it would now be entirely deserved, but I shall refrain from doing so.)  It leaves one to wonder if the examiners had actually read the tome of twaddle, or if they were capable of doing so themselves.  One critic even "gets" the "thesis":

“Her thesis statement is basically: “If you say someone stinks, people like them less.”

Facing the gale of justified outrage and criticism over her opus magnum on malodor, the biological female unit's response was so typical of the contemporary quackademic: she merely defaults to her moral and intellectual superiority and the "commonness" and implied inability of us laymen:

She responded to outright threats and vile comments by saying she contacted the police about the posts.

Louks also sought to explain her choice of topic.

“To be clear, this abstract was written for experts within my discipline and field. It was not written for a lay audience and this is not how I would communicate my ideas to the average person,” she wrote.

And then we learn that the biological female unit said this:

Louks doesn’t appear to be giving the negative reactions a second sniff, with the Cambridge lecturer claiming that they’re primarily coming from a “minority of disgruntled folks.”

“The majority of those commenting and quote tweeting are doing so with generosity, intellectual curiosity, and kindness,” she wrote.

Well, sorry, ma'am, I don't need to open the cover of a comic book to discover that what's inside is a comic book. By the same token, I don't need to open a manhole cover to discover that what lies below is a vile sludge of malodorous and egregious sewage and flummery.

Frankly, however, I am not surprised. Virtually every faculty in the so-called "soft" disciplines - art, literature, history, political science, sociology and so on - in Western quackademia has been coopted by these wannabee cultural Marxists. I saw the process had begun to take root and grow at Oxford when I was there, and it repulsed me and made me sick to my stomach to think that the Oxford of Tolkien, or Lewis, or Wilde, or the Cambridge of Lewis, would sink so low. On one occasion in my personal experience, one of these biological female units was chairing a debate in the Union Society in which I was taking part. I was speaking at the dispatch box, only to have the female debate presiding unit interrupt me, and insist that I use the pronouns "he/she", and not to refer to her as "madam Chairman" or "madam chairwoman" but as "madam chairperson".  I sighed heavily, turned to her, and, refused, saying "Madam Chairman, if on every occasion of the three letters 'man' in a word is to be the occasion of the substitution of the word 'person' for those three letters, then the word 'immanent' shall have to be changed to the word 'impersonent', which rhymes with 'impertinent', which is what I find your whole scheme to be."

It was one of my few shining moments in the Union Society, and I'm happy to say that sanity had not so completely abandoned the university at that time that I even managed to crank out a little applause and a few "hear hears!" from the very thin gallery (it was in the wee hours of the morning and there were precious few in the chamber).  To me, the experience was a lesson that, left unchecked, the kookery that was being tolerated in and promoted by quackademia would grow to such an extent that the result would be tolerated nonsense, and the proud old academic institutions would deservedly lose their stature, and face a choice: either throw these frauds out of your faculties, or continue to tolerate their nonsense, and die, because the sane and rational will go elsewhere.

In the meantime, hold your nose, and remember what stirring words C.S. Lewis wrote about such nonsense (and I'm paraphrasing): "It would be shark, very shark, from anyone's debenture, to allow the  prostindiary initems to esemplate in a continual of porous variations," which he followed up with a rousing "The madrigore of verjuice must be talthibianised!" (Emphasis added)

In the meantime, three cheers for the United Kingdumb for having, once again, outdone the Amairikuhn quackademy for nonsense. We eagerly look forward to Kamalarkey Harris's appointment to the Cambridge English faculty as Crouton Professor of Lettuce and Literature.

May any possible metaphysical transcendent omniscient and omnipotent conscious being, substance, or entity, redeem and in all other respects superintend the reigning monarchial entity from experiencing or otherwise encountering adverse circumstances or conditions. (Translation: God save the King.)

See you on the flip side...

The Giza Death Star