The End of Ed

Some people dislike ‘Latinx’ as a new word. But at some point in human history there were no words. Now there are words. Someone invented them. This process continues.

No, this idiotic quote isn’t from the collected works of Cardi B. It’s from Chronicles of Higher Ed. Somebody who, I assume, received some form of education wrote this. And the professional publication of people in higher ed thought it was valuable enough to publish.

9 thoughts on “The End of Ed”

    1. // Anglophones creating a Spanish word is what?

      Not merely a new word – a new identity for (formerly) Spanish people.

      Now everybody is ‘Latinx’ and woe to him who disagrees.


  1. Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

    2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

    3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light..

    Genesis 2:15 And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

    16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

    17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

    18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

    19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

    20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

    21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

    22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

    23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

    John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    2 The same was in the beginning with God.

    3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

    4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

    5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

    6 There was a man sent from God..

    John 21:24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

    25 And there are also many other things which [the Word] did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I just realized that the name Adam needed to be bracketed out, replaced with [Man]. I don’t know, but I think the name Adam is the same word as man in the ancient Hebrew text. Is it?

      Also, all (post)modern fools hate mythology, but we need it, and will have it. This latinx business is just a part of the transhumanist, a/transexual, gnostic Gramscian Marxist/Hegelian/Nietzchean postmodern erzatz mythology that people are pushing these days. It’s all Miltonian satanist “we shall be as gods” in the great Singularity, the utopian Matrix (the heaven of our own choice and creation) is ours to make and impose nonsense.

      The strong gods are going to have us as an apertif before breakfast.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. It’s funny sometimes, how the universe rhymes. I finished typing out my addled attempt at provocation here, and kept poking about the hivemind interwebs (matrix) as is my wont, and stumbled upon this, David Hawkes’ review of E Michael Jones’ Logos Rising:

        I think this review gets to the heart of things: it diagnoses the nominalism – the “iconoclasm,” “idolatry” and “will to power” – at the heart of bourgeois post modernity..

        (cf. William of Occam, the divine intellect and will precede divine being, what is true of God is true analogically of man, thus the human will and intellect are supreme and human being arbitrary.)

        It speaks of how we use words to deny – suppress, change – instead to describe and name reality.. How we use words as tools to impose fascist unity, rather than to create free communion in common acknowledgement of what is true and real. It’s hypnosis/incantation and propaganda vs. understanding and insight.

        Clara, you keep on saying that all this “intersectional” sturm and drang on academic and corporate campuses is about money, power and jobs, not equity and justice.

        Hawkes seems to agree. He gets at the point I was fumbling towards here earlier with vigor and force. Quote:

        As a fresh-faced, newly-minted Ph.D. I once found myself alone, in a corner, at a cocktail party, with the world-famous postmodernist philosopher, Jean-Francois Lyotard. In awe-struck panic and without the slightest preliminary, I broke the ice by asking him whether he believed in God. Turning to me with magnificent Gallic condescension he merely shrugged: “Bah, of course, like everybody.” My jaw must have dropped, for he leant in close. “Son, when you have an enemy,” he prodded me emphatically in the chest, “and for me, capital is the enemy,” a prod now emphasizing his every word, “it is best not to under-estimate him.” Silence ensued, and would likely still be ensuing, had the gracious hostess not observed my discomfiture and swooped to the rescue. At that time, Lyotard was possibly the most famous postmodernist in the world, he had practically invented the term “postmodernism,” and it was hard for me to imagine anyone less likely to say what he had just said. He was dead within two years, so the opportunity to ask him to expand never arose. But I pondered his meaning for many years, and eventually I reached a conclusion.

        What I now think he meant was this. Logos is what makes it possible for us to have any recognizably human experience. In this sense, logos creates the world “for us” (as Kant would put it). Financial capital, the power that rules the postmodern world, is the dialectical antithesis of logos, because it both depends upon and inculcates the illusion that representation is non-referential. The autonomous reproduction of financial signs, once known as “usury,” removes the guarantor that appearances are meaningful. It assumes that money is a sign that breeds independently, without any reference to the external, natural world. Although this assumption is certainly manifested in what we call the “economy,” it is by no means limited to that “sphere” of life. On the contrary, the assumption that representation does not represent—that it is in fact not representation at all but reality—is the guiding belief that dominates every aspect of postmodern experience. Lyotard, I now think, was telling me that belief was Satanic and that logos is its only possible antidote. I think E. Michael Jones is telling us the same thing.


        Western thought takes a tragic wrong turn when it identifies the enemies of logos with specific groups of people. Usury for example is often identified with “Jews,” sodomy with “homosexuals,” and idolatry with the “natives” of the colonized world—and with the Catholic Irish first and most of all. We must now consign such prejudices permanently to the past. We must proclaim the truth that all human beings are equally vulnerable to anti-logos. The critique of anti-logos should be aimed instead at abstract, conceptual forces that manifest themselves within the minds of all people.

        Sodomy and usury are both forms of idolatry, which is the dialectical antithesis of monotheism. The Decalogue announces idolatry as the sin from which all others flow. Incessant battle against idolatry is the literal topic of the Old Testament, and the figurative topic of the New Testament. Idolatry or shirk is Islam’s most heinous sin (closely followed by riba, or usury, and zina, or sodomy)..

        Idolatry is the error committed by the prisoners in Plato’s cave. In the rhetorical form of “sophistry” it is philosophy’s main opponent and commodification’s main abettor: it manipulates rhetorical images to performative effect in return for money. Verbal idolatry regards words as things, not as signs, and employs them for the purposes of connotation rather than for denotation.

        Over long quote there, sorry. The entire thing is dynamite (ist kien besprechung, aber dynamit) check it out..


          1. The quote definitely goes to the heart of the problem and this is why the woke revolution is so hard for people to understand. We are offered a completely different relationship between words and what they supposedly represent. We are trying to square the woke logic with what we perceive as the normal, real, obvious connection between the signifier and the signified but they recognize no such connection. We end up talking different languages that are not only from a different language family but from an entirely different world of meaning.


            1. Yeah. Lola by the Kinks used to be a satire. Now it’s our civilizational anthem. Girls will be boys and boys will be girls..
              It’s a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world, except for Lola.

              One of the most interesting assertions that Hawkes makes in that review is that “belief” is satanic.

              That’s what’s at stake here. Belief. That’s why we can’t joke or indulge in irony or satire anymore. That’s why comedy is on life support.

              Because the fascists know that if we were able to make fun of all the absurdities they are spewing, the spell would be broken. That’s why Fidel and Stalin always droned on for hours, and demanded endless applause. This is all about compelling belief as a form of submission.

              I think a key distinction has to be made here. Hawkes says “belief” is satanic. “The demons believe, but tremble.” The liars still use words and signs, they counterfeit them: them deceive and manipulate with them. You can be tricked, coerced, beguiled, forced into believing something, by way of effective propaganda and deceit, by sleight of hand and trickery, by way of “magic.”

              But you cannot be forced to have faith in or trust someone. Klara and N are not forced to love you. They do not “believe in you,” they trust you. That’s something more profound, based in profound experience, in relationship.

              That’s why all this nominalist “post modern” subversion is satanic: it’s getting us to believe absurdities, and simultaneously undermining trust, which is to say destroying relationships, relationship – spontaneous, organic, vibrant political association – across our society. The old capitalist, fascist and communist kick, their fundamental tactic and strategy. That’s the fundamental of getting people to believe all these lies, this propaganda.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.