School Walkouts: An Irresponsible Tool of Mob Rule (Ochlocracy)

Photo: 1969 Harvard Walkout

There are many ways to demonstrate for policy change. We would expect places of learning for intelligent students led by mature and erudite teachers, to choose methods like debates, briefings, seminars, and councils. The school walkout is not new, nor is it clever, nor does it present its teachers and students in a respectable manner. It is nothing more than the schoolhouse version of the syndicalists’
general strike. Consequently, it should not shock anyone that the 2018 school walkouts are “astroturfed” by unions through their Women’s March influence operation.

Observant citizens will recall the marketing style, branding, sponsors, and partners of the One Nation Rally from the Obama years. The “Women’s March” is just a new face on the same organizations and ideological interests. The confluence of interests includes radical environmentalists, feminists, communists, democratic socialists, SEIU, AFL-CIO, syndicalists, social justice redistributionists, abortion advocates, racial activists, LGBT activists, felon activists, and public-school unions. Their goal? To elect democrats, and shepherd the democratic party towards their interests. To use a phrase from one of their most popular communist bands:

“Ain’t the new sound
just like the old sound
just like the noose wound
over the burning ground”

A school walkout is the childhood emulation of a general strike. The syndicalist general strike punishes consumers, business owners, the government, and the workers themselves. It’s an act of passive aggression writ large. The workers most likely were perpetrating level-one-and-two passive aggression in their workplace (temporary compliance, intentional inefficiency). In the general strike, they escalate to levels three, four, and five (problem instigation, hidden revenge, self-harm).

Acknowledging the behavioral and social manipulation of the general strike, it’s easy to understand the uncreative and irresponsible school walkout. The activist teachers and their student pawns seek to punish school administrators, school boards, parents, and the students and teachers themselves. Inspiring a minor to forego precious instruction time in order to parrot the democratic party activism of their teachers and parents is the height of irresponsibility.

Instigating school walkouts seeks to use the natural restlessness of youth, which would prefer to be whimsical and unproductive, and direct it towards rebellious mob activism. Would most students prefer to quietly and tediously solve math equations, or would they prefer to chit chat and fool around with friends in a circus atmosphere? What kind of political party would abuse the education of children for their own policy agendas? The democratic party should sanction the partners of the Women’s March and disavow this terrible influence operation.

Even worse, the school walkout can potentially turn students against their parents, their communities, and indoctrinates them with collectivism. They have not earned the moral justification for activism by first reviewing all of the evidence and opposing arguments. Like many foolish adults, they are consequently just parrots of whichever influencer they trust. The school teacher is gifted a near-monopoly of trust by the community and parents, and in that abused gift lies the betrayal of a teacher who instigates school walkouts.

If we agree that these acts of passive aggression are damaging to children, and that the teachers and parents who enlist child-pawns to do their political bidding are grossly abusing their power – then the question becomes, how do we confront this gaggle of lost souls? Our constitution affirms our natural rights to free association and assembly. That should apply to people within schools, businesses, and unions equally. In the workplace scenario, so long as right-to-work laws are advanced, the coercive aspects of union membership will be balanced by those of non-members.

Likewise, students should have the right-to-learn:

  1. A student should be free to walk out – and they should be subject to the same consequences for walking out as any other reason.
  2. A teacher should be free to incite her students towards her own ideological crusade and choose an unexcused absence from her job – and she should be subject to the same consequences for incitement and absenteeism as any other reason.
  3. The school administrators should be free to use their school as a tool of democratic party activism, by either permitting the walkouts without consequence, or by advocating them directly – and the school board and voters should then replace the administrators with ones who actually respect education.

A school under my management would never use education time for biased activism, even if we would encourage civic engagement in other ways. Nor would we harbor, protect, and apologize for deranged young killers who might someday come upon the tools of arson, shootings, or vehicular homicide.

Considering that this school walkout is a leftwing influence operation to scapegoat guns for failures of law enforcement, schools, and mental health professionals, it is egotistically self-serving in its whitewashing of teachers’ and school administrators’ responsibility to detect, isolate, correct, and neutralize predatory students – who could choose any weapon of mass killing. That is why the confluence of democratic party interests are astroturfing the event. Their sacred belief in the public education model is currently at risk, so they must deflect at all costs – in this case, towards their profane item of self-defense: guns.

While the actual policy goals are laughable and cannot stand against rigorous debate, the school walkout is a more insidious beast, using tax-funded education to inculcate a mob mentality in our youth. A healthy nation prefers academics to enlighten with reason, civility, and evidence, rather than to incite with propaganda, disobedience, and emotion. Perhaps the Women’s March and its affiliates use these methods because they know that their gun control agenda would never survive an honest, civil, and intellectual contest.

The front-persons of the Women’s March (Tamika Mallory, Carmen Perez, Linda Sarsour, Bob Bland)

The partners of the Women’s March:

The misguided influence operation of the Women’s March:


Pseudo-anonymous Superheroes

Bane vs. Batman in Batman: The Dark Knight Rises

Is a person who hides their true identity a cowardly menace or a noble hero? Why might a typical citizen consider hiding their true identity? History, movies, and literature provide us with endless examples. Those who saw Batman: The Dark Knight Rises were treated to a spectacular variation of Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities, with French Revolution kangaroo courts, Jacobin “liberators,” and the Reign of Terror captured through Information Age atmospheres. The villain, Bane, and the hero, Batman, both wore masks, but towards different ends. Bane wore a mask to terrorize, instill fear, and evade responsibility for his crimes. Batman wore his mask to protect the people he loved from reprisal, and as an ultimate act of humility – he wanted all of his achievements to be known by a symbol, so that Batman could be anybody, like a flag is to a Nation.

In the real world, spies, activists, authors, public figures, and celebrities must consider using pseudonyms (fake names). Pseudonyms include pen names (noms de plume), stage names, screen names, ring names, nick names, aliases, superhero identities, or regnal names of monarchs or popes. In the digital age, a false screen name can be useful for anyone to protect against identity theft, corporate, foreign, and domestic government surveillance.

The difference between heroic and villainous usage of aliases is not just notable in epic films. In the real world, examples of villainous uses of pseudonyms include jilted lovers’ vengeance, voter fraud, petty theft, bullying children, terrorism, illegal alien smuggling, human trafficking, prostitution, black market transacting, and other gang-related activities. Heroic or innocuous uses of pseudonyms include marketing, branding, sales, exercising principled privacy, avoiding business identification collisions, paparazzi avoidance, humbly emphasizing the message while relegating the person behind the message, and protecting friends, family, and career from malicious intimidation and character assassination from political, business, and ideological opponents.

Some of the most celebrated or hated people in our history have used pseudonyms: C.S. Lewis, George Orwell, Mark Twain, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky, and Malcolm X. Almost every entertainer chooses a pseudonym.

In American history, there have been those who have tried to crush anonymous speech. The Supreme Court ultimately defended it. In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (514 U.S. 334), the court held that prohibition of anonymous political or campaign speech is unconstitutional. They affirmed the value of anonymous speech with three main points:

  1. It discourages ad hominem attacks: “Anonymity thereby provides a way for a writer who may be personally unpopular to ensure that readers will not prejudge her message simply because they do not like its proponent.”
  2. It encourages open discussion: “The interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry.”
  3. It offers safety from reprisal: “The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one’s privacy as possible.”

Considering the arguments of the Supreme Court for anonymous speech, how much more American can the concept of anonymous speech, superheroes, and pseudonyms get? We have long ago determined that the benefits of anonymous speech outweigh the risks. So why is there a trend led by educators and progressive politicians to destroy this spirit of free and anonymous speech? Do they not have access to history books, court records, or the movie theaters? Have they not considered that this topic has been thoroughly adjudicated for centuries?

Animosity towards pseudonyms is thus un-American, but attacks on free speech itself are completely anathema. The oppressors of free speech cannot tolerate pseudonyms. A person hiding their identity and deemed to be violating the laws and rules, would require authorities to demand the mask come off for justice.

The Wisdom of Pseudonyms

If the Supreme Court arguments were not compelling enough to understand the value of anonymous speech, then attempts to destroy free speech should be. Ultimately a person who is trying to unmask a superhero wishes to destroy him. It is tacit admission by the censor that they are wrong, and the only way they can affect their willpower is to destroy the messenger. They cannot defeat the superhero in discourse, with facts and reason, so they will use every form of ridicule and social aggression to destroy the people who oppose them. If they have the real identities of the superheroes, then they can even charge them with perception crimes, and blacklist them from jobs. Is it any wonder why the most legendary thinkers and authors in history have used pseudonyms? These situations do not change much through the centuries, even if we tend to forget what’s true.

How to Use a Pseudonym

If you are considering the use of a pseudonym, you may find these helpful:

  1. Choose your correct gender and culture. Unless you’re an expert actor and want to invest time into living up to a false gender or culture, you’re going to be uncovered eventually. Your persona won’t “feel right” to observers. You won’t fake it well.
  2. Never share Personally Identifiable Information (PII) such as date and place of birth, biometric records, medical, educational, financial or employment information. New computer algorithms can identify you from clear photos of your face. So use fake photos or cover your face.
  3. Decide the purpose of your alias. What are you trying to achieve? Are you influencing some policy? Are you speaking dissent in a hostile forum? Are you collecting information from opposition? Are you spying on the spies who are spying on you? Pick an agenda for your superhero identity and stick to it. Remember, when you use a pseudonym, you are a symbol, you are not fully yourself.
  4. Seed the persona with false information to throw off spies and antagonists. Use fake locations, PII, and even say things you don’t believe but don’t necessarily violate the agenda of your symbol. Play devil’s advocate. Make it so that even the most determined snoop either thinks you’re crazy, or can’t figure you out because of so much conflicting information. Enact organized chaos. Your snoops mean you harm. They are deceiving you. You must beat them at their own game of deception, or they will surely succeed in harming you.
  5. Keep people who don’t belong away from your alias. You do not want to engage people who do not service the purpose of your alias – whether on your side and spreading the value you contribute, or in opposition to you. Minimize your threat surface.
  6. Seed your speech with unique phrases. When you invent phrases that nobody else has used, you can trace your message all the way up to national exposure. People will steal your message, call it their own, and you will discover that you have succeeded in influencing the entire nation!

Be Satisfied

If the last suggestion is depressing and you feel like you want credit for your hard work, then pseudo-anonymity might not be for you. You will have to humble yourself, watch others steal your anonymous ideas, and be satisfied that you made a difference. It’s a price you must pay for anonymity. Pseudonyms are tools. Just as a knife can be used to save a human being in surgery, or kill them in a crime, aliases can be heroic or villainous. Never let opponents intimidate your right to anonymity and free speech. Choose to be Batman, and not Bane. With your noble mask on, you will do a great service for your neighbors, and for the integrity of discourse that maintains a civil and liberated society.