We can see Mickey slipping persona in this awkward non-segue of styles:
To be fair to the students, they’re not the only ones who have redefined the purpose of a university education in a way that, for the sake of politeness, we’ll call “quirky.” Radical faculty members, who encourage this reenactment of their vanished youth as a political equivalent of Münchausen syndrome by proxy, are doing much the same thing. Then, of course, you’ve got corporations who think that universities are places where prospective employees go to pay for their own job training, university bureaucrats who bubble marketing-firm sewage about offering students the “university experience,” and so on through an entire galaxy of self-regarding and self-important cant. The one thing that finds no place among all these competing redefinitions is, predictably enough, learning.
I’ve mentioned before on this blog the need to devise new opportunities for learning, and in particular a new structure for adult education that isn’t subservient to the increasingly blatant political and financial interests of the academic industry. More broadly, the concept of learning has been a core theme of this blog since it began—partly because modern industrial society’s stunning inability to learn the lessons of repeated failure looms so large in public life today, partly because learning ways to make sense of the world and practical skills for dealing with the converging crises of our time ranks high on the to-do list for anyone who takes the future seriously. I think, therefore, that it’s time to move that discussion to center stage, and talk about learning and education in the context of the Long Descent.
Two entirely different writers, two completely different styles, but you think it's the same thing because "John MICHAEL Greer" has taken credit for what "Mike Flugennock" wrote in the first of the above two paragraphs.**
If Mr Greer actually had visitors, they would notice the swing between Jughead in the 1st paragraph and Archie in the 2d, and would notice the more glaring point of actual heat behind the words in 1st paragraph where Archie never, ever, ever uses heat and always uses obfuscating references back in time to some obscure Oswald Spengler or Baron von Munchausen paraphrase or made-up quote.
But there are no commenters at Archie's Treehouse. They're all Mickey, Mike, J. Mike, Mike J., Miguel, Michel -- meshuggenahs to a name.
Also, once again requiring close reading, but inside Archie's newest there's very strange copycatting of the "Platty" (as Chuck called him earlier) essay that Chuck discussed.
It's almost like the Mickeys are being as brazen as Harvard Law Prof Mark Tushnet.
-- Karl Franz Ochstradt, whose refusal to submit to Team Mikey-Wikey's Mandates some five years back might be said to explain all of this. KFO NB: Never tell a leftist he's ignorant, but worse, never demonstrate that ignorance for all to see at the leftist's own Garage du Gauche.
** For the uninitiated, this blog has in the past discussed how "Mike Flugennock" and "Michael J. Smith" are the same person. If we use the Simulated Beavers blog legend, "Nice Mike" is Dmitry Orlov, "Nasty Mike" is Michael J. Smith, and "Wicked Leftist not-quite-satire-ist Mike" is Mike Flugennock. Continuing the legend, "Archie-on-the-mic, Mike" is John Michael Greer, "Fruity, Fluffy, Self-Deluded Expert of Nothing Who Wishes His First Name was Michel" is Tarzie (also BDR/Chalupa), and "Miguel, the Migrant Farm Worker who Organizes for the Union" is Michael Yates the travelog economeister.