“I don’t know how to say it any clearer.”
“Got them in my livestock operation and that’s why we put a rope on some of them and take them to the slaughterhouse. That’s a fact of life with human nature and so forth, I don’t know how to say it any clearer.”
At the invitation of SS-Obergruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich, fifteen men convened at a palatial villa at a small lake called Wannsee in the western part of Berlin on January 20, 1942.
They were to discuss the “Final Solution” of the so-called Jewish question. SS-Obersturmbannführer Adolf Eichmann took official notes at the secret conference. That Jews should be taken to the slaughterhouse was already an article of action in Nazi Germany by the time of the Wannsee Conference.
We know what happened at the meeting, because we have Eichmann’s written notes—the conference minutes.
But as these representatives of Nazi royalty preened and swirled their cognac, what was their banter like? Were they joshing each other about boxcars and slaughterhouses and “culling” the population?
To find out, you could watch a dramatization of the conference, such as this one from Germany in 1984—which is generally considered the finest filmic portrayal of that infamous day—wherein the brutes chortle over the macabre topic of systematized murder.
You could do that, yes.
Or you could simply tune in to a California Community Colleges Board of Trustees meeting, particularly in the Kern district.
A Rare Moment of Murderous Honesty
For instance, see the district’s December 13 meeting to discover what repartee might have been heard at the Wannsee Conference. You can watch the video yourself—I recommend beginning at the 1:40 mark.
Pay close attention to one Mr. John Corkins, whose quote begins this piece. Corkins elaborated on his solution to the problem of faculty who don’t hew his party’s line: “They’re in that five percent that we have to continue to cull.”
One of his fellow trustees, Nan Gomez-Heitzeberg, chuckled heartily at the suggestion. Another smiled.
Yes, John Corkins was speaking of human beings—college professors and staff at Bakersfield College, to be exact. But who is this Corkins?
Corkins is an entrepreneur and a real-estate developer with a master’s degree in agriculture. It’s not difficult to picture him in a tailored SS uniform, joshing with the fellows about solving the “problem” of faculty, those who understand Enlightenment principles, scholarship, and intellectual inquiry far better than Corkins ever will.
Those faculty who nettle him so naughtily include tenured professors of history Matthew Garrett and Erin Miller. They’re part of a group called the Renegade Institute for Liberty, which is:
Dedicated to the free speech, open inquiry, critical thinking to advance American ideals within the broader Western tradition of meritocracy, individual agency, civic virtue, liberty of conscience and free markets. These ideologies underpin the American Experiment, long serving as the nation’s primary bulwark against the political and ideological tyranny of both individuals and of the masses. As an advocate for intellectual literacy and diversity, the Renegade Institute for Liberty reaffirms civil, religious, and economic freedom upon which academe and the nation must stand or fall. Through intellectual exploration and reason, the Institute works to preserve each of the above virtues as necessary for a free people and to advance the cause of liberty in America.
Poor John Corkins has no clue as to the foundations of the university and the principles of a free society, nor does he appear to care. He sounds like a Nazi party hack calling for the elimination, or “culling,” of the “five percent.”
[Related: “The Conspiracist Fantasy of University Bureaucracies”]
Corkins wants to remove these faculty from Bakersfield College because a motley collection of students and a professor showed up at the trustees meeting to express their fear of the aforementioned principles and the professors who support them. Corkins obliged; here is his statement:
Bakersfield College student Jordyn Davis, BC professor Dr. Paula Parks, and several statewide representatives from the Umoja program, which is dedicated to improving educational outcomes for African-American students, bravely shared their feelings of fear based on the actions of a small group of faculty members and their feelings of disappointment in the district for allowing these actions to continue.
Corkins waxed eloquent about the bravery of the professor and students who felt “unsafe” because of—well, we really don’t know what “actions” make them feel “unsafe.” This is characteristic of “safety rhetoric,” what Lukianoff and Haidt have called campus “safetyism.”
The “Safe Space” Marker of Paranoid Ideology
“Safety” rhetoric—safety, safe spaces, and “microaggressions”—is the current lingo of paranoia and conspiracy. It’s a product of an elaborate performative ritual whose goal is to prevent an examination of what, exactly, constitutes the so-called “threat” to safety.
Such is the case here. Let’s look, because it’s instructive.
What were the specific complaints of the students and the professor? They recounted that they had earlier attended a meeting and did not like some of the professors’ facial expressions. They also accused the professors of “racism,” but either would not or could not express what, exactly, constituted the “racism.”
This has become the modus operandi of paranoid critical racialists—to display angst, to issue vague charges of “racism,” and to count on not answering the most basic of questions.
This hostility toward facts, evidence, proof, examples, and simple questions is a key marker for critical racialist conspiracy. It has been extant for as long as the pseudo-scholarship of “lived experience”—that is to say, anecdote—has been tolerated.
Take this instance from a 1970 article in the Berkeley Journal of Sociology, “The Furious Passage of the Black Graduate Student,” by Douglas Davidson:
The author had intended a few examples of unintentional racism but soon realized that it would be little better than useless to argue to a largely white audience that seemingly innocuous things that they do and say are racist. It is not our task to attempt to prove your racism to you. Our task is to sense that racism and thereby continue to survive.
True to this form, a self-described “clinical psychologist” by the name of Ravel Nichols spoke at length about his own experiences at the University of Nevada, Reno, but he contributed nothing about Bakersfield College. He falsely accused the Bakersfield professors of violence and called for their termination. He provided no evidence of threats of violence nor of actual “racism.”
Because no evidence exists.
Conspiracism Rampant on Campus
Consistent with conspiracy theories and their proponents, the complaining students and the professor provided no examples of “racist” incidents, harrowing or otherwise. Their contentions were evidence-free, and you can see this for yourself. Viewing the video is highly instructive in this regard. You await something that is shocking and terrifying, or at least real and substantial, that might justify a call for termination of many faculty members from the college, and then—
But what about those pesky “microaggressions” that are seemingly ubiquitous? The word sounds ominous. What is it?
This tired trope was invented in the 1970s by psychiatrist Chester Pierce and is the key to understanding the fakery of the paranoid project called antiracism. The “microaggression” is the codification of paranoiac theorizing about race that artificially inflates the myth of “rampant racism” on campus through pseudo-incidents that encompass “actions that are ambiguous in intent to harm, difficult to detect, low in intensity, and often unintentional.”
In other words, “contrived.”
[Related: “Welcome to Bedlam College”]
Columbia Teachers College social psychologist and “certified hypnotherapist” Derald Wing Sue is the chief proponent of this ingenious tool. He publishes virtually the same article repeatedly, usually with different batches of his graduate students, based on smoke and mirrors and “lived experience.” His career appears to have suffered not at all from his long-time collaboration with the notorious plagiarist and noose hoaxer Madonna Constantine.
Another person who earns a good living from this contrivance is Ruchika Tulshyan, who pens a column for the Harvard Business Review called “Marginalized Groups.” It appears as a regular feature to cultivate her readers’ hypervigilance and to affirm their narcissism, grandiosity, and paranoid delusions.
Evidence-Free Tropes of Paranoia
These contrivances have become so pervasive that the students and professors who presented at the Kern Board of Trustees meeting expect their viewpoints, narratives, anecdotes, and ideology to be accepted unconditionally. When that doesn’t happen, their response is that of the paranoid conspiracy theorist, who reflexively attacks anyone who dares question the conspiracy.
What to do about all of this?
My own view is that the board should have recommended that the complaining students and professor be evaluated for paranoia and adherence to conspiracy theory, but that’s another article altogether. The chief worry here is this member of the board and his cavalier attitude that, if we are to believe the meeting video, is shared by at least several of his colleagues.
He probably wishes that he had kept intemperate comments for the “executive session,” where boards of trustees can presumably speak freely about “roping,” “culling,” and the “slaughterhouse.”
Corkins clearly doesn’t know that the persons complaining to the board are either paranoiacs or displaying performative behavior that they have learned on their campus as part of the “antiracism” project. He himself is participating in the performance by accepting the baseless accusations of these persons to create their very own paranoid pseudocommunity of persecutors.
Since he has nothing to lose, Corkins plays along. And his chums on the board chuckle with him as he cracks wise about ropes and slaughterhouses and “that 5 percent that we have to continue to cull.”
Corkins is no outlier. He simply revealed himself unwittingly. Corkins’ problem was that he grew a bit too comfortable and voiced his real thoughts into a microphone rather than wait for the executive session. His problem redounds to our benefit.
Corkins’s non-apology is risible. He should be removed immediately from the board of trustees of the Kern Community College District. At minimum. He represents the minds of radical fellow travelers who populate campuses nationwide.
His board cronies should be vetted thoroughly for their silence in the face of Corkins’ brutish display, particularly Nan Gomez-Heitzeberg, whose eerie chuckles are almost as chilling as Corkins’ honest expression of a violent threat.
Let’s sum up the situation: Students and a professor are given a forum to falsely accuse faculty of threats of “violence” and “racism” without a shred of proof, a member of the board of trustees accepts the twaddle, and then he actually threatens faculty and staff with killing. That the college must deal with this clueless and apparently murderous bureaucrat, as well as others who are more circumspect and close-lipped, is the real issue here.
Culling is needed, for certain.
Let’s begin the culling with pugnacious government-appointed bureaucrats like Corkins, who would likely feel right at home guffawing alongside Heydrich and Eichmann between sips of cognac.
Roll those trains to the slaughterhouse, eh, Gruppenführer Corkins?
Image: Adobe Stock
23 thoughts on “To the Slaughterhouse with You”
I DID watch the opening third of the German movie on the Wannsee Conference whose anniversary is fast approaching. Eichmann did NOT take the notes; some secretary did–and Heydrich so was impressed by her he hired her away. From her notes we know what everyone said almost word for word. There was sizable resistance from some attendees to extermination and once extermination was settled on some of them requested transfer to the Wehrmacht for duty of The Front. For the Record, Himmler and his assistant Karl Wolff (who weren’t there) were of the resettlement faction. When word reached them of der Endloesung der juedischen Frage the two men stared at each other speechless for half an hour Wolff records—then they went along with it.
Back to the matter at hand, this Climate Change/Wokeism stuff reminds me too much of the Nuremburg Laws Chart which you can find on-line (I’m top line 2nd in from the left: my father’s father’ father was raised in a Jewish community; thus I am less of a Jew than Hitler’s personal editor for Mein Kampf whose father’s mother’s father was a Jew. Hitler personally made the decision to keep him on.) I can’t look at anything about Anthropogenic Climate Change without thinking of the Nuremburg Laws! And I’m NOT contributing to my alma mater Boston University!
Thank you for your post. The German television film took liberties with the facts, including the presence and role of the secretary (discussions about the film acknowledge this).
Eichmann took notes and was responsible for the Wannsee Protocols. See: https://ghdi.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=1532
What I find amusing is that the majority of the so-called racism found is discovered at left-wing universities, and the further left it is, the more racism that is claimed. And I would agree with that finding.
After all, didn’t a study find that liberals and leftists tended to lower their vocabularies when talking to blacks, while conservatives didn’t? Isn’t that a sub-conscious act of racism? No wonder the left-wing universities are rampant with micro-aggressive racism!
The echoes of past racial hatred are strong in today’s “woke” Red Guards.
The Nazis sought to keep Europe safe from Jews – to make Europe a “safe space”
Black men in the south were killed when someone did not like their facial expressions.
I normally don’t mind blood-curdling metaphors. After all, they are metaphors. However, this “culling the herd” metaphor is, even as a metaphor, still blood-curdling. This arrogant trustee is calling for the destruction of the careers of people simply for upsetting some students who disagree. Not only is he an abject coward for not explaining to the students that getting upset about ideas contrary to theirs is the PURPOSE of a liberal education. (It is the most effective way to get them to think.) He is also a vicious man for reaching imaginatively for the most punitive means he could think of to illustrate his bigoted purpose. So, I think it’s reasonable to imagine that if he did have a slaughterhouse set up to deal with dissenters, he would in fact resort to it.
My first reaction to this comment about the slaughterhouse was Mr. John Corkins is giving permission for some to kill “them”. I heard this comment the day after it was made. I fear for the thought about “culling”. Aren’t most of current shootings happening because someone has done something the shooter doesn’t like?
I had hoped folks might be a bit more discerning, namely that this piece compares nothing to the Shoah. Rather, it compares the offhand butchery talk at this meeting with the kind of banter we might expect to hear from people 10-20 steps removed from the ovens, the kind of banter one might have heard at the Wannsee conference. Watch the German film linked, it’s absolutely mesmerizing, and Hannah Arendt’s “banality of evil” is on full display. Not a person was killed at the Wannsee conference, just mundane talk of how to engineer a slaughter, with lots of sanitized language. And yet we have people indisposed to look at this barbarism in the face when it raises its ugly head.
LOL They really don’t like people disagreeing with their articles here.
What a f*cking idiot
Comparing the situation at this community college to the Final Solution is in very poor taste, and shows very poor judgment on the part of the author, and the keepers of this website.
The “slaughterhouse” rhetoric is figurative…until it isn’t.
Oh yes, certainly so.
No, this is an actual threat of violence. John Corkins has a Master’s degree in Agriculture, he clearly knows what “culling” involves. In that context, words like “roping,” “culling,” and the “slaughterhouse” have specific meaning.
This is every bit as outrageous as a Trustee talking about a need for “lynchings” and advocated the use of “strange fruit” to decorate the trees on campus.
If that were said in a meeting — well the only question I have is if ED or Justice would get out there first, and my money would be on the Dept of Justice only because their vehicles have blue lights.
Another analogy comes to rape, and threats to rape someone are not viewed as figurative….
Your comment on This article is in very poor taste Jonathan and shows very poor judgment on your part to comment. Corkins is absolutely a despicable individual and should be evaluated and held accountable for him comments. That’s what’s in poor taste. I’m sorry. If your only response to his comments is to say the article is written is in poor taste you are part of the problem.
Yeah, it’s revolting.
One would have expected more from “one of the country’s top Business School Presentation coaches.” https://twitter.com/stanleyridgley
Yes, it is revolting.
Mark, I think you get it.
very poor taste and very poor judgement is about as mildly as it can be put.
Did you somehow miss this?
“Since he has nothing to lose, Corkins plays along. And his chums on the board chuckle with him as he cracks wise about ropes and slaughterhouses and “that 5 percent that we have to continue to cull.”
This is being said in the United States and in the year 2023 and if you can’t compare this to the Final Solution, exactly what *would* you compare it to?!?!?
It is YOU who is showing the very poor judgement.
What I find more interesting is: 1) you take the time to read the piece; 2) you don’t care at all about the heart of the matter; 3) you take issue instead with the figure of speech the author uses, even knowing that exaggerated comparison is used all the time in human communication just to drive home the point. You should be a perfect applauder for Corkin.
Except this board is stocked with people who are discussing coming after a set of people they think have no place in American institutions. For thinking differently, being different.
If you don’t agree with any comparisons to the Final Solution because of its appalling destruction, I understand, but look too at the precursors of the Final Solution and the inattention and incomprehension of those who in some way saw it coming. Your response is to ignore what Kern is doing! The Kern Board is not talking about actual literal murder, but they are focused on killing off American society as we have known it, and a society where we show a people changing for the better over time because in large part there is freedom of speech and a tolerant open ground for disagreements. We’ve often shown intolerance but here – these people are talking about going after others, taking their livelihoods, making them second class. They won’t have to wear yellow stars but in every other way would be effectively removed from society.
Let me just say that my critics show very poor comprehension, as well as wretched moral judgment.
I say this as someone who in the past and currently has been at some risk of cancellation, and also as someone who lost a number of relatives to the real Final Solution. They are simply not commensurate. To say otherwise is simply hysterical. It looks more and more like the mirror image of the paranoid claims of “systemic racism” as being parallel to Hitler. Both sides are simply becoming insane.
Perhaps the comparison of “the situation at this community college to the Final Solution is in very poor taste.” To some on the left, no doubt, that is certainly true; for they are not used to having their behavior likened to that of Nazis. Consequently they find it untasteful.
But you should know that folks on the left are typically quite fond of branding everything said, done, or proposed by someone on the right as fascist or racist, while shouting “Nazi” at the person on the right who does these things. I suppose a person as squeamish as you must constantly be at war with those on the left who make such tasteless, inapt, and disgusting comparisons.
You must be exhausted!