Embattled, controversial, divisive, reclusive, provocative, struggling, right-wing, eccentric, self-styled, far-left, recovering, disgraces, self-promoting, free-thinking, volatile… These adjectives are reserved for those people that the mainstream media consider to have stepped outside of the accepted narrative. Truly controversial professors such as Paul Krugman have never been referred to in such a manner, but for somebody out of step with the message, like Jordan Peterson, “controversial” is effectively his accepted prefix. This is a programming of the audience, our 1984 newspeak - the “Adjective-Profession-Target” formula.
The aforementioned targets consist of those who are extremely disagreeable as defined by the Big Five psychometric. From these people society has enjoyed its greatest minds and heroes, but now they are deemed heretics to be silenced.
Institutions have deemed the mavericks to be too dangerous to their existence, as they discovered during Charles Lindbergh’s attempt to keep the US out of WWII. Suddenly there are now too many of these disagreeable individual voices and the institutions are struggling to silence them all, becoming all the more transparent as they attempt to do so.
So What Happens Next?
There are a few possibilities;
The spell of this Gated Institutional Narrative breaks and society receives its self-minted heroes.
All the disagreeables like Sam Harris, Eric Weinstein, Douglas Murray, Maajid Nawaz, Claire Lehman, etc. are successfully taken out.
The institutions accept some disagreeables, ignoring others, with an aim to control them.
Here’s to the failure of the GIN and the seating of our mavericks within these institutions where their energies no longer need be diffused by fighting upstream.