0:03 Hello and welcome to this episode of
0:05 Frankie's Cultural Observations. Today
0:07 we're going to be analyzing left-wing academics.
0:10 academics.
0:12 Left-wing academics don't need the gym.
0:14 They build their strength by pulling the
0:16 ladder up on poor people. The same
0:18 people who will never be invited to
0:19 their think tank about wealth
0:21 redistribution. Because talking about
0:23 income inequality means they don't have
0:26 to take a pay cut. So, they speak up and
0:27 talk down from their podium-shaped
0:30 soapbox to an audience of people who
0:31 already agree with them and just came
0:33 for the free champagne reception and
0:35 smoked salmon caviar on little tiny
0:38 savory biscuits.
0:40 The university industrial complex
0:42 absorbs all forms of radicalism and
0:45 makes it civilized, turning dissent into
0:47 a consumer choice, protest into product,
0:49 and the yellow jacket into a shiny pink
0:52 bow. Speaking truth to power in double
0:54 space times new roman means they can
0:56 critique the very system that they
0:58 actively benefit from. Doing the work
1:00 consists of publishing a paper behind
1:02 the payw wall that no one outside their
1:05 university can read using language no
1:07 one outside their university can
1:09 understand about people who will never
1:11 set foot inside one. But they have used
1:13 unpaid student labor to conduct research
1:15 about worker exploitation and that
1:18 somehow got ethical approval.
1:20 Congratulations. Your oppression now has
1:22 inclusion criteria.
1:24 When academics got recruited, they got
1:26 given a lanyard and a dictionary of
1:29 liberation with about 10 to 15 buzzwords
1:30 that are so vague they could literally
1:33 mean anything. But at least they can
1:34 wear their doctorate martins to the
1:36 lecture hall and drink free coffee and
1:39 conferences they had to pay to speak at
1:41 and attend diversity workshops where
1:42 white people talk about
1:44 intersectionality like they understand
1:46 it firsthand. They say borders are
1:48 man-made and we need more third spaces,
1:50 but they can't break free from their
1:52 echo chamber. And with no plan to reach
1:54 people who aren't already in the fold,
1:56 their defense strategy is to look down
1:58 their nose at idiots who don't have a
2:00 college degree, so they must be stupid.
2:02 Because moral superiority is the back
2:04 door for class hatred, a smug
2:06 satisfaction in not having an answer for
2:08 the people you're meant to be helping.
2:10 So for academics, the revolution will be
2:13 sterilized and peer-reviewed in obscure
2:14 journal articles that you don't have
2:17 access to.
2:19 Left-wing academics are in battle, a
2:22 posturing war or an arms race to become
2:24 more and more unreadable, as if true
2:26 wisdom stems from reading and writing in
2:28 ways that only people with a doctorate
2:30 can understand. This peer-to-peer
2:32 pressure makes them so unrelatable and
2:34 esoteric that they become structurally
2:37 ineffective, so deep in theory they
2:38 forgot to keep their boots on the
2:40 ground. The rise of the far right is
2:42 largely unexamined in left-wing
2:44 academia. They think it's beneath their
2:47 pay grade and beyond analysis. But when
2:49 marginalized communities are told they
2:51 should care about politics, but all they
2:52 get is morality without material
2:55 solutions or a plan to improve their
2:57 life in simple English, you create the
3:00 very conditions for fascism to flourish.
3:02 The academic left stopped knocking on
3:04 doors and handing out flyers, retreating
3:06 from the street to find their seat in a
3:07 seminar. While the right were
3:09 fear-mongering and turning scared people
3:11 against foreigners, the academy were
3:13 workshopping titles for a conference
3:15 about ontologies of revolution. Why is
3:18 there a baby there?
3:20 Dear academics, this isn't a question.
3:22 It's more of a comment. When you try to
3:25 build a fairer society, but just use
3:27 language that excludes people, you
3:29 silently reproduce the power structures
3:32 you claim to stand against. Using words
3:35 like accessibility, inclusivity, and
3:37 empowerment, but never mentioning who
3:40 grants access, who gets included, and
3:42 where the power comes from means you
3:43 just preach inequality and signal
3:46 elitism. Because deep down you don't
3:48 want to change the world. You just want
3:50 to theorize its decline and get cited
