In this edition of “Wesleying linkblogs the Argus and provides minimal credit,” I just felt the need to direct your attention to two opinion peices in the last edition of the Argus, featuring the subject of the oft-maligned Mytheos Holt ’10. In his last Mytheology, he reveals that it was all a ruse in order to reflect and expose the sorry state of of political discourse of campus:
The Ampersand, in a rare moment of clarity, was correct: this column is, and always has been, intended to troll the rest of the campus. Contrary to their interpretation, that does not meant that I, the author, am not a conservative Republican (I am). What it means is that I am not a self-important, pretentious, intellectually vapid idiot. You see, when this column was first conceived, it was conceived as a sort of satire in the tradition of Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal.” That is, while the conclusions I ended up reaching in the column were largely reflective of my own views on issues, the reasoning used to arrive at them, with a few rare exceptions, was designed to be a mirror—an uncharitable mirror—that I had meant to hold up to the utter lack of intellectual seriousness that was exhibited by-and-large by the Left-activist wing of this campus.
For much of you, this is probably a Sixth Sense-esque “now it all makes sense” (it’s a twist!). Others will most likely see this as a cop-out to cover the logical shortcomings in Holt’s writings (these people are simply wrong). Others will no doubt question Holt’s methods, pointing to the “real” damage his column did to the reputation of government professor Melayne Price (the original copy is on the ACB, while the Argus website still has the retraction and the student responses). Still others will pretend they knew all along. But no response will be as good as that of Jon Zamboni ’10, who points out the dialectal purpose of Holt’s trolling:
How would a column draw such a response if the dominant ideology of this campus did not think that its statements required immediate correction? This is the action of a threatened ideology, one that feels its foundations shaking under it—a secure ontology knows its own permanence. Mytheology is meta-satire: it posits an anti-ontology to those who would see themselves as de-ontologized, elicits an ideological response from those who state that social good is more important than the concept. What else can we call this but a revelation of the absurd? The troll, through his mask, reveals the masks of others. But where the troll’s mask may be removed at whim, the mask of the Other is cursed, bound to the face of he who wears it because of his sheer ignorance of its existence. The troll is thus a savior—he holds up the inverse mirror to the face of invisible ontology, and the revelation of the mask brings it one step closer to its removal.
There you have it. One graduating senior who has spent his four years trolling this campus, and another who broke down the dialectic thereof.
2011, good luck being half as weird as 2010.