Higher Education Indoctrination Easter Sunday Continues: “The Least Diverse Place On Earth”

“College is a place where everyone is supposed to look different, but think the same.”

Can anyone honestly rebut this video?

67 Comments

Filed under Education, U.S. Society

67 responses to “Higher Education Indoctrination Easter Sunday Continues: “The Least Diverse Place On Earth”

  1. “Shouldn’t bad ideas die on their own?”

    This video and the post-2016 election are proof they do not.

  2. philk57

    One of the items that causes me to continue to be optimistic about the future outcome of the current culture war is the number of views that Prager University videos continue to get.

  3. Patti Zentara

    Thank you , Jack! Exactly …diversity is an illusion but reality is another story, it’s totally pathetic, The students are parrots not individuals anymore. Those who attempt to be themselves are
    belittled, harassed, or worse, injured, And parents spend fortunes for this? Cannot think of a worse thing a parent can do to grown children. Spend fortunes on brainwashing??
    The parents are unaware, too! Even the most conservative ones! They think their child can overcome ignorant profs and peer pressure. I doubt that.

    I do hope there will be a shift in this madness..

  4. Wayne

    This is why Trump must nominate another conservative Supreme Court Justice who will take an interest in securing freedom of speech on and off campus: https://www.thefire.org/supreme-court-wont-review-flawed-damaging-ruling-on-grad-student-speech/

  5. Spartan

    As far as I know, reality has a well-known liberal bias. -Colbert

    • I suppose Mr. Colbert published a rigorous mathematical proof of that theorem, right?

      • Spartan

        It was a joke. And I don’t know how anyone can have “a rigorous mathematical proof” of reality anyway, since reality is subjective. Five minutes on this blog teaches you that!

        • It would be a joke if he didn’t mean it, if his satire and humor isn’t always based on that bias, if most of his audience didn’t agree with that proposition, and if that wasn’t the near universal attitude of the news media. But he does mean it. That perfectly expresses the delusion behind the Wellesley editorial, as well as the mainstream media’s refusal to cover it. The attitude is more tragic than funny. When Colbert starts using any of the abundant material there is to mock Democrats, I’ll believe it was a joke.

          Until then, I’ll see it as another clown-nose on, clown nose off deceit.

    • Sounds clever, is stupid. But comforting if one is so biased that one’s brain is melting.

    • This is remarkably accurate for all the reasons Colbert doesn’t intend….yet not as comforting as we might like.

      Most societies given enough time tend to forgo the rigors of individualism and liberty and surrender to a comfortable centrally run nanny state.

      Doesn’t make it good however.

    • Glenn Logan

      Well, I don’t know about the rest of them, but I chuckled, Spartan. Must’ve been those years in the navy on submarine duty; that’s been known to permanently warp a person’s sense of humor.

      • Spartan

        More power to you and thank you for your service. I am claustrophic, I can’t even tour a submarine without getting anxious.

  6. “If their ideas have so little merit, why bother protesting?”

    Exactly.

  7. Did anyone read the Youtube comments?

  8. Glenn Logan

    I enjoyed this video when I saw it on Instapundit and I’m glad you wound up putting it on here for comment. But I got to thinking — how did the left manage to gain such near-total control of academia?

    Honestly, I think it’s because there simply aren’t many right-leaning people in academia out there. Somewhere along the line, people on the right got it into their heads that there was more money to be made in the private sector, and that (formerly) altruistic professions like teaching simply wasn’t for them.

    So I wonder, even if every university were to agree that both political perspectives ought to be represented more or less equally, if there would be enough professors with a rightward lean to fill the need? I suspect there wouldn’t be, and by an astonishingly large number.

    The right has abandoned academia to the left. Do those of us who lean rightward really have a right to complain about the state of intellectual diversity if we have simply removed ourselves from the arena? I agree that it’s bad, but it also seems like the right side of the intellectual argument may have to shoulder at least some, and perhaps most of the blame.

    • Yes we have a right to complain. There should *not* be a right-leaning perspective in academia, therefore we shouldn’t complain that there isn’t one. Likewise, there should not be a Left-leaning perspective in academia. There should be NO lean at all education. Teachers should stifle their biases and teach the material and teach critical thinking and logic, not skew critical thinking via a world view or skew the material via a world view.

      But the Left has decided they can turn education into the Left wing indoctrination camps, nothing altruistic about it. And they do so by abusing academias long held appearance of neutrality and objectivity. Merely claim that Left wing world views represent a neutral base from which all other world views, that is to say American liberty based world views, are errant or abnormal. A phenomenally nefarious thing they accomplish.

      • Glenn Logan

        Yes we have a right to complain. There should not be a right-leaning perspective in academia, therefore we shouldn’t complain that there isn’t one. Likewise, there should not be a Left-leaning perspective in academia.

        I see. Academia should consist of ideological eunuchs.

        Who knew? Well, good luck with that.

        But the Left has decided they can turn education into the Left wing indoctrination camps, nothing altruistic about it.

        Hmm. Well, the reason they have succeeded is that the right abandoned the space to them, which was my point.

        • Conservative and right-leaning perspectives are deeply founded and linked with specific and very *hard* philosophical and religions definitions.

          It is false to say that a university or a professor or anyone should not teach from an ideological position, and it is false to assume that someone — anyone — can or should just *present* information to their students and that somehow, magically perhaps, they will pull out of it what is right and true. If one thinks such a false thing, that indicates (IMV) that their thinking has been infected already.

          There has to be a defined and intelligible set of principles that one starts with, and that one has reasoned-through to the point that they are indeed *truths* and not mere speculations or *opinions*.

          I see this as where the problem resides: people cannot agree on their *first principles* and their relationships (intellectually, socially) become adversarial. They are not enough aware of the foundations of principles of their opponents and likely are not really conscious of their own!

          The nation called the United States, having abandoned long ago its core principles and become a vast empire, still sees itself in some former ‘righteous’ glow. It has become a nation that cannot reckon with itself, cannot really see itself. The disparity between what it is in reality (various criminal crime-groups that control the vast proportion of public space), and what it still imagines itself to be, is the space where this strange Leftist (Hyper-Progressive) lives and breathes. The surrounding machine is criminal and tainted, and in fact is quite evil, and I will go so far as to say demonic, and to compensate for that there arises this strange ideological breed who goes to the limit of extending the limits of ‘freedom’. It is of course not really freedom but permissiveness-gone-to-extremes, yet they really see it as freedom and as worth defending.

          The Conservative faction is in many ways itself compromised since they too defend certain opinions and conclusions as if they are established principles of Truth, but they are often not. And as it happens there are certain positions, normally held by the so-called Left which are worthy and necessary but which the Right will not allow. Therefor, it seems to me that one has to start all over from the beginning and define what a Conservative platform should be, starting from First Principles.

          In my view the person that is created by doing that, by living that, will be seen as a radical by all concerned.

          If you live with principles in our present, you are excluded from the present substantially. The present is contaminated, polluted, in error, is lying all the time and cannot be trusted. One must recoil away from it and — somehow — regroup around real principles.

          If there is some place where people are doing that, I wish to know about it.

        • Tex: “Yes we have a right to complain. There should not be a right-leaning perspective in academia, therefore we shouldn’t complain that there isn’t one. Likewise, there should not be a Left-leaning perspective in academia.

          Glen: “I see. Academia should consist of ideological eunuchs. Who knew? Well, good luck with that.”

          Tex: “But the Left has decided they can turn education into the Left wing indoctrination camps, nothing altruistic about it.”

          Glen: “Hmm. Well, the reason they have succeeded is that the right abandoned the space to them, which was my point.”
          ______________________________

          I find this exchange quite interesting since, and as it seems to me, a *real* conservative who is grounded in real conservative philosophical and religious values, would in no sense, and could in no sense, accept The Present nor support the status quo. Not the military foundation of the economy, not necessarily hyper-capitalism and the level of control of financial interests that have subsumed the public sphere and have so far inserted themself into government (and governing) that it is perverse to the point of the ridiculous.

          Where, I ask you, is this ‘conservative’ to be found? And if he or she existed, what exactly would be taught? That one must in fact reverse the course of things? That a revolution is counter-valuation must take place or the nation will go down into self-destruction? Who defines what needs to be done? Who explicates the program? Who has the moral authority?

          • Glenn Logan

            I find this exchange quite interesting since, and as it seems to me, a real conservative who is grounded in real conservative philosophical and religious values, would in no sense, and could in no sense, accept The Present nor support the status quo.

            So in other words, you have no earthly idea what a conservative is, only what you think one should be?

            The rest of your comment can’t be rationally answered because the basis of it is misapprehended. If you think conservatives can’t accept realpolitik and exist only as some kind of theoretical construct, then there is really nothing to say.

            • Oh, I do indeed have an idea of on what a conservative platform is based, and must be based. So far, on this Blog, I have yet to encounter a conservative who really seems to be one. Therefor, I tend to think that conservatism (in the American sense) is farily hopelessly derailed.

              Though perhaps you have some radical and peculiar definition of the word? Maybe you suppose that there is some Conservative Canon that you have all worked out?

              To me, at this point in my research, I have resolved that (perhaps) no one now has any idea in Hades what ‘conservatism’ should be (or is), and too that the term has become polluted to the point of being non-sense.

              To me — please tell me your thoughts — a conservative position is and must be linked with a religious/metaphysical doctrine. Do you think not?

              In my view, a conservative would make him or herself known by making statements about 1) what should not be and 2) what is necessary and desired.

              • Glenn Logan

                To me — please tell me your thoughts — a conservative position is and must be linked with a religious/metaphysical doctrine. Do you think not?

                Absolutely not, although for a fact most conservatives are religious to some degree, or at least generally not atheist.

                However, I have personally known several agnostic and/or atheist conservatives, although their conservatism tended more toward classical liberalism and libertarianism, but mainly on the issues of abortion, homosexuality, etc. which tend to be informed directly by religious faith. I have debated with numerous non-religious conservatives on line.

                So the answer to your question must be “Yes, I think not.” More accurately, I know otherwise. So this could explain why your perception is so skewed, and your starting point so fundamentally flawed.

                It is not axiomatic that conservatism=religious at any level. Correlation =/= causation, as you well know.

                In my view, a conservative would make him or herself known by making statements about 1) what should not be and 2) what is necessary and desired.

                Why? Is that what you do? I haven’t seen that in this particular conversation. Or is this something you require of others, but not of yourself? And even if you do, how is it that someone must meet your requirements? Seems overly formalistic, strict, and sclerotic to me.

                I think the issue here is intellectual diversity, which is to say, exposure to intellectual rigor that reaches conclusions other than the predominant left-liberal conclusion in the non-science areas. Presumably, liberals and conservatives alike would apply the scientific method with rigor in an academic setting, although there is surely reason to wonder about that considering the climate change debate, and the fact that so much money is tied up in having the correct “scientific” viewpoint in a few areas. But certainly not all.

                Philosophy, history, and the arts, however, are almost entirely without intellectual diversity these days, and the points made by Jack here and a few posts below indicate that at least some universities actively reject intellectual diversity in favor of politically popular identity affirmation.

                A few posts below he referred to just such a situation where the candidate was evidently selected for her identity rather than writing ability, which was significantly less competent that another less identity-perfect candidate. That demonstrates the conservative case in a nutshell — qualifications of performance should take precedence over qualifications of identity — most conservatives would say complete precedence.

                • I think you have actually conceded my point, insofar as conservatism has been, laregly, rooted in a religious perspective, more or less. I will concede that there are some conservatives who do not think things through, that is to say back, to the metaphysical source. But I am also of the opinion that losing the connection to the source (philosophical or religious) is the first step in the deterioration of the conservative platform. So, for me, I start with an absolute of sorts: One has to define a religious position, or a philosopical-religious position. I am largely convinced that this is true and I would defend the assertion anywhere and against anyone.

                  Now, as of yet I have no idea what you mean by the term ‘conservative’, but as far as this Blog goes — and I say this with no desire to offend or in any way to irk you or anyone — my principal observation is that it is not, and cannot be said to be, a conservative Blog, and that some, perhaps many, and at times I think most, who seem to be conservatives who write here, are not. They might now be ‘conservatively oriented’ but they are on a path that leads to hyper-liberalism. Perhaps I am wrong. Could be. But this is what I see and so I express it.

                  I disagree with you, and very much so: My perception is not necessarily skewed though I accept that I often get that label stuck on me. But more important is to bring to the foregoround the possibility of there exist skewed perspectives. It does tend to imply that by modification one can improve or correct one’s view, one’s understanding. And also that there is implied some source or object. And if that is true then it stands as a possibility that your orientation is ‘skewed’. The only way to know is to see how your ideas play out.

                  I say that a real conservative (sorry, I take up that usage just for the sake of effect!) must necessarily come to positions where what is desired as *good* is defined, known and defended, and that what operates against that is defined, known and explained. It is really pretty simple. And a conservative would, by nature and of necessity, resist all that works to undermine that as an operational truth.

                  Therefor, what I say is that it stands to reason that we can, and we also must, come to the point of making decisions, and that one of the first orders in a conservative ethics would be, must necessarily be, that decisiveness is paramount. You may call that sclerotic or what you wish except that it is a reasoned point.

                  The ‘intellectual diversity’ argument, dear one, falls to pieces almost immediately. If by that you mean an environment where overy lie or evil or deception should be offered the same platform, or to be seen int he same category as truth and what is correct and good, anyone can see that that is false. What you really mean to say is that in properly prepared minds, who also have some moral integrity and a profound link up with the higher truths, that there may be some certain differences of opinion or interpretation. And that view, up to a certain point, I would agree to.

                  But for me — though I do not ask that you agree — this extends back to my first assertion: there has to be a base in first principles in order for there to be a ‘conservative’. The stronger the relationship to first principles, as I have seen it, the stronger the link to a religious position. They are, as I see things, essentially non-different when examined through their highest exponents.

    • Steve-O-in-NJ

      Neal Boortz had an interesting theory as to why that is. That theory is that a lot of lefty folks opposed to the Vietnam War got around it by extending their student deferments seeking advanced degrees in (relatively) easy fields like English, history, philosophy, sociology, etc. At the end of that era, as the lefty professors who had led the opposition to that war got ready to retire or moved into leadership roles, there was a large pool of like-minded Ph.Ds from which to hire and stack the deck. As those new hires moved up, they were always the ones who got the plum chairs, the promotions, the important committee assignments, etc., and always the first to get tenure, and thereby be insulated from criticism. Those who leaned the other way (and weren’t science or math types) rarely got hired, and, if they did, were always the ones who got passed over for promotion, important committees, etc. Now, three generations later, the left is entrenched, tenured, and has full control over the hiring process and the grading process, thereby also controlling who gets into the graduate programs and even has a chance to become the next generation of professors.

      There’s also a theory that there’s a laziness element to it. College professors, especially in the humanities, teach a few hours a week, spend a few hours in their offices, publish the occasional article, and take the occasional semester or year off on the taxpayer or donor’s dime to pursue some vanity project. Once in a while some of them, whether they be the 50yo divorced guys on their second adolescence or the good looking 28-30 yo assistant professors in tweed jacket and open collar who really don’t see much difference between them and a 21yo junior, get some action with one or more of the perennial crop of sweet young things that pass through their halls. They are insulated from criticism by their institution by tenure, and from disagreement with their students by the asymmetrical nature of the relationship. How many times did you hear lines like “he’s the one with the degree,” “Her hat has the word professor on it. Yours doesn’t,” and “Just give the professors what they want and get your paper, that’s why you’re there?” They don’t have to give customers good or even reasonable service, leave alone make a profit for investors. After all, if the student gets a less than wonderful grade, or doesn’t come away with anything worthwhile from a course, that’s all on the student, because you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink, you only get out of it what you put into it, and all those other saws that boil down to it’s all on the student because the professor by nature of his job has nothing to prove.

      I’d add that there is something of a god complex to the job. After 20 years of hearing yourself talk and hearing every student give try to give you your words back exactly, you are likely to start to believe you have a lock on the truth.

      It should therefore come as no surprise that academia has become very rigid, very self-referential, and very convinced of its own righteousness. There is, after all, no one in a position to really tell it otherwise.

  9. Spartan

    I have an anecdote to share. So I am liberal (although I feel that I am more moderate than most of my friends). I was raised in a deeply conservative family and was raised in a conservative community. I felt like an alien. By the time I got to high school (it was large high school that served much of the county), I was placed in the honors classes. I noticed, for the first time, that the majority of the honors/AP kids also had leftist leanings like me (even though we were a small percentage of the overall student body.) And then, when I finally went to college, I felt like I was normal for the first time. It wasn’t the teachers that made me liberal, it was more that I self-selected a more liberal environment — and suddenly most of my peers were like me. Huzzah!

    So, here’s my theory. Book-smart people might lean liberal. Obviously book smart people are not the only smart people — for e.g., my brother was a horrible student but he has a good job and is doing fine. (He’s also Republican.)

    My father used to say (ad nauseum) that perception is reality. Well, for the most part, for book smart people, our perception is that liberal policies are the answers to most of society’s ills. We also are the ones who go to college, so our colleges are mostly liberal. Smart conservatives make up a smaller portion of college campuses or they have skipped college altogether and have take a different path. Their perception/reality is different than liberals. I get that.

    All of this is to say that this has nothing to do with college/professors at all. I just believe that conservatives and liberals are wired differently, just like atheists and religious people are wired differently. We then self-select ourselves into like-minded communities as adults.

    • Glenn Logan

      So I am liberal (although I feel that I am more moderate than most of my friends). I was raised in a deeply conservative family and was raised in a conservative community. I felt like an alien.

      Interesting. I have lived among liberals at times, even to the point of being the only conservative in the room. I have never felt like an alien. I guess I have never really thought that political disagreements really defined me, or others, to the extent I would feel excluded.

      I am not averse to living among/with people who disagree with me politically, as long as we can disagree without being disagreeable. Maybe I have just been lucky that way.

      All of this is to say that this has nothing to do with college/professors at all. I just believe that conservatives and liberals are wired differently, just like atheists and religious people are wired differently. We then self-select ourselves into like-minded communities as adults.

      Perhaps this is so, but it’s the “self-selection” part that worries me. That speaks to a definition of self that is exclusionary, and that’s part of the problem — when we “self-select,” we exclude other ideas on purpose. That leads to sclerotic thinking and calcification of worldview. I remember when I was considering buying the house I live in, the Realtor warned me it was a “mixed” neighborhood. I just ignored that comment as if it had never been made — I didn’t care. Still don’t, and I have been living there for 29 years.

      When we care who we live among, we segregate ourselves — by race, ideology, etc. Speaking only for myself, I’d rather not do that. If I never hear anything other than my worldview regurgitated, I think I wind up poorer for it.

      • Spartan

        Well, if you want to get a college degree, then you have to go to college. 🙂

        • Glenn Logan

          Heh. Indeed.

        • Patti Zentara

          Can’t one get a degree online these days!? Who wants to be part of
          a place where you are harassed by others. And as someone
          posted, Conservatives have no place in realpolitik. Only liberals
          and CNN junkies and their half witted journalists are gods.
          Mother Jones and the NYT are their Biblical sources, so to speak.
          Many universities are clueless as to giving any invited speaker
          the right to speak. There are protests ahead of time or speakers
          have to be rushed off campus.
          The disdain for civility is long gone. Hurting your fellow students is
          par for the course. Spraying them with pepper spray, if they
          disagree with you is insane.
          Dressing like homeless people does not help, either.
          Obscene language is on their holy protest signs. AND…
          So many with degrees these days, so what? They are 34 and
          living at home. Mommy takes care of these PhD kiddies..
          I just wish,,in plain English, students were free to say what
          they want. There is too much persecution unless one is a card
          carrying liberal. Students do not learn logic, Aristotle, etc.
          They learn to Not Think…unless the thought involves no
          thinking.
          A sad state of affairs for all.
          A non civil society is unacceptable. But one must be politically correct
          even if iincludes no respect for the Constituion.?
          Observe city mayors and governers of states giving the finger to DC!
          They set a disgusting examp,e that law breaking is good. And gee, Guess
          what party they cling to.?
          No Party is perfect. But all parties on a campus deserve equal
          treatment. To be heard, to express themselves without fear of
          retaliation…in the end, we are all Americans. Unless you are a
          globalist, in which case, you will not need to follow any laws.
          Just think the UN is the White House. And secede from the Union
          to keep liberal values without question.

          • Spartan

            I am old enough to admit that online degrees didn’t exist yet when I was in college.

            I also had a lot of conservative professors. But it doesn’t matter — my point is simply that I think people are wired one way or the other.

            • Patti Zentara

              There was not even an Internet when I went to university. Gee!
              And people are wired. But as the saying goes…
              Some peoples minds are like cement. All miixed up and permanently set.
              However, I have never clung to one party, one religion or one city,
              As if they owned me and there was no way out.
              If one has great mentors, clinging to old ideas is just like being 80
              when you are 20.. Good mentors open doors to new horizons..One
              can keep growing and learning and expanding ideas…not keeping
              stuck in old ones! Horribly boring.
              One can listen to others without beating them to death on a
              campus because one has the mind of an ant. No growth, intellectually.
              BTW…some comment was made that Conservatism is connected
              with faith. Really? Try the many liberal Catholics and other faiths.
              I realize people want to bury any religion. It’s great to be an atheist,
              Just leave theists alone. There is plenty of room for us all on this
              planet. Just give one another space to be!!
              Labeling people is unproductive.
              E,G….”alt-right” there is also “alt-left.” I find both of these totally
              meaningless. Just a way to insult those who do not think as we do.
              I heard that term a lot in this last election. It was no term to use
              to win the Presidency. Dividing the country is a no win game..
              Not only for the candidate, but for us all.

              • Spartan

                I didn’t say conservatism was connected with faith, although that is often the case. I do think faith, or lack of faith, is hard wired as well.

                • Patti Zentare.

                  Appreciate your clarification! Many thanks.
                  And I do also appreciate all other posters as well.
                  Very thoughtful and insightful.

                  Patti

                • Really? Why do so many people lose their faith, then? I’d say rationality is hard wired, and faith is artificial.

                  • Jack Marshall wrote, “I’d say rationality is hard wired, and faith is artificial.”

                    That could imply that you think all humans know how to reason as in use some logic; I think humanity has proven that one to be false over and over again.

                    I don’t think that rationality is hard wired, I think it is learned.

                    Jack Marshall wrote, “faith is artificial.”

                    Personally I think faith, as used in a more general sense, is hard wired into absolutely everyone; what an individual chooses to direct that faith towards is their choice(s). You don’t necessarily “loose” your faith you just redirect it.

                    If you consider faith as only applying to those that are “believers” of some religious doctrine I think you are off base.

                    • Spartan

                      People rarely lose faith. They tend to have never really have it in the first place but followed it out of family practice or the comfort that comes from rituals. But, I think the capacity to have faith is very much hard wired. I remember sitting in Church as a 6 year-old thinking that everyone around me was crazy. And I really, really wanted to have faith like the rest of my friends and family. It was a struggle on my part for years.

                    • Steve-O-in-NJ

                      Believing is something you either do or you don’t. Rationality is a lot less common than you think, or history wouldn’t be so chock full of folks doing stuff against their own best interests, if not in the name of God then in the name of some ideology that took the place of God, and there wouldn’t be stereotypes like the thick Mick who makes up his mind and won’t change it or the Calabrese with “testa dura.”

                    • Steve-O-in-NJ,
                      To whom was your comment directed?

                    • Spartan,
                      Stop thinking about faith as only pertaining to religion; simply put, faith can also be a complete trust in someone or something. I think faith, in its more general application, is literally hardwired into each of us; we choose what we direct that faith towards.

                      Think outside the limited box of religious faith; how about do you have faith in your spouse, faith that your car will protect you in a crash, faith that when you turn on your light switch that there will be electricity to make it light illuminate, faith in love, faith that the elevator won’t fall, faith that the airplane pilot is sufficiently trained to get your to your destination, faith that Zoltar Speaks will be straight with people, faith in yourself, faith in your children, faith in your phone, faith in the medications you put in your body, etc, etc. Heck even a hermit that removes themself from society because they have no faith in people or things has some level of faith that by removing themself from society that it will somehow make their life better. We are hardwired to have faith in some way or another, whether it is logical or illogical, we are hard wired towards belief; individual experiences have a tendency to redirect some of those faiths.

                    • Steve-O-in-NJ

                      Mostly to Spartan, quickly trying to make the point you made at more length.

                    • Spartan

                      To Zoltar, I am simply not wired to have faith in anything that cannot be proven. Most of the items you posted I believe in because I have evidence that it is so.

      • Spartan wrote: “All of this is to say that this has nothing to do with college/professors at all. I just believe that conservatives and liberals are wired differently, just like atheists and religious people are wired differently. We then self-select ourselves into like-minded communities as adults.”

        On one level certainly I understand this. But then when I look at the statement more closely I find that it does not really make sense. It only leads to a greater puzzlement.

        It seems to me that one thing about the University of today (though I know nothing of yesterday!) is that the student selects the professor, more or less. For example, if the professor is ideologically strict, or has an orientation that does not *reflect* the desires or understanding of the student, how long will such a professor remain? In this way the surrounding intellectual culture will determine what teachers are there to teach.

        For example today, you could hardly imagine it as even possible that a teacher could argue against certain things today in the classroom, maybe things related to gender or orientation and then also related to racial or cultural questions. Yet, those positions can be argued. Except that they are not allowed.

        But is this because of some mysterious ‘wiring’? I would say it has to do with how zealousness functions. For example, our present seems dominated by a peculiar post-Christian zealot, but a zealot nonetheless, and not completely non-Christian. Just someone now unmoored from a previous tether.

        Usually, the ‘conservative’ still has a notable link to a religious platform. Or in any case I can think of no hard conservative who is also a declared atheist.

        What stands behind ‘the revolutionary spirit’ is a question that has been on my mind. Where does this zealous person comes from that feels right and good getting behind revolutionary projects? Be it in economics, sexuality, in social relations, etc.

    • Eternal Optometrist

      Spartan, thanks for sharing, that is an interesting perspective.

      I am conservative and grew up in a conservative community (we’re both Michiganders, I grew up on the West Coast, which tells you everything you need to know). I went to a college in my area that was mostly conservative although frankly I was too busy working to delve into most people’s political leanings. I did have one professor who I sparred with, but he enjoyed the back and forth.

      Then I went to probably one of the most liberal law schools – my first real immersion in that culture. I loved it – it really challenged most of my ideas. One of my friends would ask me if I wanted to go hear such and such liberal speaker. I didn’t throw rocks or protect – i went. What did I have to be afraid of – it’s ideas. Either I’m right and the speaker’s wrong, or I learned something. You know what? 90% of my conservative leanings I was convinced were correct, after thorough and intense challenge, and 10% I was out to lunch on.

      All this is to say, as I’ve pointed out before, I got my money’s worth and then some out of my education. What kind of person (not you, but just in general) would want to go somewhere where they have all their views validated and rubber stamped? Anybody who has ever played sports will tell you that the best way to improve is to play against someone better than you. Isn’t the best way to sharpen your mind to hear opinions different from yours.

      • Spartan

        Oddly, at my law school, many of my friends were (and are) libertarians and I went to a lot of their meetings. I didn’t agree with them, but I too like to be challenged. I also have my family who tell me on a daily basis how misguided I am so I am by no means a special snowflake.

        I don’t need rubber-stamping in my life, but sometimes it is comforting to not be the only alien in the room.

        The background was more to explain my theory about brain chemistry. We all get refined around the edges, but I think we are either born conservative or liberal.

        • Spartan wrote, “The background was more to explain my theory about brain chemistry. “

          Speaking of brain chemistry…

          Thought you might like this “funny” just don’t take it too seriously!!!!!

          Tea Party supporters use primarily the medulla oblongata portion of the brain. This part of the brain controls basic motor functions like: cardiac, respiratory, vomiting and vasomotor centers and deals with autonomic, involuntary functions, such as breathing, heart rate and blood pressure; all else is irrelevant to them. The general population that falls into this category are red-necks; because they just want to be left alone to exist in their own way. They like the Tea Party because it has the word “Party” in the name. Their favorite phrase is, “Where’s the beer?” This population rarely uses any other part of the brain.

          Pompous Intellectual Democrats are supported by those that use primarily the right side of the brain. This side of the brain controls the main parts of creative thought/thinking, imagination, artistry, socializing, and completely ignores things like analytical thought and facts. The general population that falls into this category are the ones that like to manipulate the “system” to their advantage to gain what they want while doing little to nothing such as Lawyers and those on welfare. They like democrats because they are “obviously” intellectually superior to them. Their favorite phrase is, “Woe is me”. This population rarely uses any other part of the brain except the medulla oblongata; they do have to keep the heart pumping to collect the next check.

          Ignorant Republicans are supported by those that use primarily the left side of the brain. The left side controls the main parts of analytical thought/thinking, math, distinguishing things, technical skills, facts, and completely ignores things like creativity and imagination. The general population that falls into this category are the ones that like to do things themselves without outside interference. Their favorite phrase is, “I can do it, get out of my face”. They like Republicans because they don’t want anyone in office that might be smarter than they are. This population rarely uses any other part of the brain except the medulla oblongata, they do have to be able to fart.

          Unlike the blind ideologies of the pompous Democrats (who only use the right side of the brain), ignorant Republicans (who only use the left side of the brain), and drunken Tea Partiers (who only use the medulla oblongata portion of the brain); Independents center their use of the entire brain around the cerebral cortex and the corpus collosum. The cerebral cortex plays a key role in memory, attention, perceptual awareness, thought, language, and consciousness and the corpus collosum integrates the left brain and the right brain which allows communication to flow freely throughout the entire brain. Some of the most intelligent and talented people have very healthy “corpus collosum” because it’s the integration of the left and right brain skills that results in wondrous achievements. This cross function of the entire brain gives the independents the ability to distinguish between fact and bull sh!t. Their favorite phrase is, “Please engage your brain before opening your mouth to change socks!” This population is rarely caught not using their entire brain including the medulla oblongata; after all they need the motor functions to keep the pompous Democrats, ignorant Republicans and drunken Tea Partiers out of elected government positions.

          Then there are people that simply do not fit into any of the above honorably mentioned categories at all because they actually don’t use any portion of their brains – or what’s left of it after the self-destruction of hateful thoughts generated by all the tainted illegal drugs they take. They have no useful positions on any subject. Their motor functions are extremely limited; their keepers only change them when they are paid to do so, which just makes them angrier at the world so they anonymously lash out at others on the internet in extremely childish and hateful ways which makes them feel like they are finally worth more than the full depends they are sitting in. These individuals are properly labeled TROLLS which we all know to be someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. Complete sentences are not their forte because that would require complete coherent thoughts and the ability to string multiple intelligent words in a string that would relay that thought. Trolls are spineless panzies that hide behind their computer monitors.

          The above is used with full permission from the author under condition that the anonymity of the author remain anonymous.

          🙂

  10. We as a society cannot fix a perceived problem until we recognize the source of the problem. It no longer takes keen observation skills to see that our society has been undergoing “deliberate” social engineering for many decades.

    Blindly ideologically driven and extremely narrow-minded Liberals/Progressives have been preparing well for the future and Conservatives need recognize this fact and catch up fast. These narrow minded people have been using the well known indoctrination of the youth strategy that some other world leaders have used, or wanted to use, to control future generations. They have been indoctrinating and manufacturing coddled snowflakes at our K-12, Junior Colleges, Baccalaureate Colleges and Universities, they have been producing some truly idiotic snowflake sheep that will blindly follow the political left over the cliff into complete absurdity!

    It’s becoming more and more obvious that many things Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt predicted years ago are coming true.

    • Zoltar wrote: “We as a society cannot fix a perceived problem until we recognize the source of the problem. It no longer takes keen observation skills to see that our society has been undergoing “deliberate” social engineering for many decades.”
      __________________

      Alright, I can see that. But how far are you willing to go in your analysis of this ‘social engineering’?

      • Alizia Tyler,
        I will not go down your usual chosen path of discussing social engineering in regards to race.

        • Then you will be very happy in understanding that E Michael Jones, though he often speaks to Alt-Right type groups (and Christian groups) rejects the racial argument.

          He is a Catholic scholar and his focus is on the conflicts between three religious factions in America. ‘The Slaughter of Cities’ has to do with the deliberate break-up of the ethnic and religious neighborhoods and the creation of the suburban class.

          But he talks a great deal about social engineering, and for this reason his view is very interesting.

          E Michael Jones is an example of a conservative thinker who, because of his focus in First Principles, arrives at a view point which spans both poles or extremes. He also represents a level of coherent thinking which is excluded from the general conversation but which is there. All to be considered.

          There are many people working in different areas.

        • After some thought here, it occurs to me that one must be willing to address and think about social engineering (by ‘elites’ or by oligarchic interests or by the plutocratic and also the academic class) quite specifically in relation to race and race-questions. That is not all of it, but it would necessarily be a part.

          Why would you not be able to think in those terms?

          Take for example the case that Jones mentions: bringing hundreds and thousands of Black workers out of the rural South to work in the factories making munitions to use in WW2. Taken out of the South and then placed into ethnic (German, Lithuanian, Irish) neighborhoods in the North and thereby displacing the residents, it seems to me that one has no choice but to consider such issues when one considers social engineering.

          What is discomfiting in Jones’ analysis is his insitance that the CIA and other agencies, in collusion with buniness and industry, more or less designed and implimented the engineering which has led to our present.

          I assume, based on what I have observed so far, that such ideas might not be able to be entertained by you? I never NOT EVER hear of conservatives talking about rhe machinations of elite groups, for elite purposes. But in my way of seeing, it is essential that conservatives return to conservatism by rejecting those currents in culture and economics which are, in fact, anything BUT conservative!

          • Alizia Tyler asked, “Why would you not be able to think in those terms?”

            You are making a claim that you simply cannot support. I did not say or imply that I am not “able” to think in those terms; I said I’m not willing to “go down your usual chosen path of discussing social engineering in regards to race”. If you want to know why it’s because social engineering as it relates to race is not the source of the problem; I referenced Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt for a reason, see if you can take that reference in context with this particular blog post and figure out why.

            Every time a topic or discussion even remotely touches on social engineering you always try to take it down the path of race in a very racist manner, I choose not to got there with you; but feel free to babble on endlessly about your racial social engineering theories. I’m tuning you out now.

            • Well, the original error was yours insofar as I had no particular interest in speaking about race when I mentioned ‘social engineering’. I wonder, and I still wonder, just how far you or anyone — especially those who define themselves as conservatives — can go in determining and distinguishing the level and intensity of social engineering that has gone on and goes on.

              For me coming to understand these things has been quite a revelation.

              No effect or element of social engineering would, by definition, be the ‘source of the problem’. If a neighborhood were decimated it would be an effect, If a nation were led into a war or many wars, that would still be an effect.

              My views about race and culture are by necessity in motion; that is, not absolutely fixed. But that is a stance I take in respect to all or most questions and issues.

              It is impossible that you tune me out. Myself and people like me are up-and-coming in your world. Better learn to deal with it and with us!

              Wiki page on Charlotte T. Iserbyt

              “She is known for writing the book The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America. The book reveals that changes gradually brought into the American public education system work to eliminate the influences of a child’s parents (religion, morals, national patriotism), and mold the child into a member of the proletariat in preparation for a socialist-collectivist world of the future. She says that these changes originated from plans formulated primarily by the Andrew Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Education and Rockefeller General Education Board, and details the psychological methods used to implement and effect the changes.”

              Consider that statement in the context of this blog-post is right indeed!

              What is described in that paragraph is largely what interests me. But more important: how to rebuilt the connection to what has been lost.

              • Alizia Tyler wrote, “Well, the original error was yours insofar as I had no particular interest in speaking about race when I mentioned ‘social engineering’.”

                No Alizia it was not an error on my part, it was a statement of intent from me based on observations that you seem to drag race into any conversation that touches on social engineering. If that’s not your intent, fine; however, when you state things like…

                “it occurs to me that one must be willing to address and think about social engineering (by ‘elites’ or by oligarchic interests or by the plutocratic and also the academic class) quite specifically in relation to race and race-questions”

                …you give credence to the observation in my statement of intent.

                • Ultimately, one must be able to consider all things, all elements of a problem, and to see the whole, and of course to be able to talk about it — and anything necessary — free of coercion and the pressure of PC. That is my Rule Number One. It is an idealism, a goal.

                  Talking with the majority of Americans — though I regret to say this and fear the repercussions, insults, attacks, false labels, biter attitudes and such — I quickly see that 99.99% of them are dominated by one form or another of the PC interposition. Therefor, I arrive at an axiom of sorts: America and Americans have been subject to, and are subject to, extremely potent forms of PR coercion. It distorts their capacity to see themselves, their country, and indeed the problems of dissolution and collapse that seem eminent.

                  I arrive at a second Axiom: No one (speaking of Americans specifically) has any clear idea what is going on. This is an interesting one because it involved mystification as a concept. Because no one can see what is going on, they cannot articulate any solution. You are an example of this and from you, inadvertently, I have learned a certain amount. You see certain things ‘but through a grass darkly’. To me you represent awakening conscience (and consciousness).

                  For this reason I once again return to the only statement that I think can be honestly made: “Ultimately, one must be able to consider all things, all elements of a problem, and to see the whole, and of course to be able to talk about it — and anything necessary to be talked about — free of coercion and the pressure of PC. That is my Rule Number One. It is an idealism, a goal.”

                  If this is true, then this statement can be seen in a different light: “…it occurs to me that one must be willing to address and think about social engineering (by ‘elites’ or by oligarchic interests or by the plutocratic and also the academic class) quite specifically in relation to race and race-questions”.

                  You do not have to do this obviously, and you do not have to do anything at all. But I suggest that this has no bearing on what must be done or what is required to be done to achieve understanding and clarity.

                  True indeed, this cannot happen in a mental environment which is limited and constrained by PC idea and attitudes. And for this reason this *conversation* obviously cannot occur in any forum or in any space, anywhere, until the constraint and the censorship is dealt with.

                  I am making comments that reflect on the thrust of this blog-post you see.

                  Your limitation is not, thank Heavens, my limitation.

                  I had, when I made my first comment, no intention at all of discussing the important questions(s) of race and culture. But when I noted your self-imposed limitations to a full conversation of what social engineering is and who and what stands behind it, I simply could not and I cannot fail to take it to the extreme.

                  Hence these present comments, inspired by your fine self!

  11. Mrs. Q

    Love the video. Obviously all the campus insanity we’re seeing today didn’t happen overnight or in a vacuum. Some commenters have pointed out that certain levels of social engineering may be what’s caused/contributed to the current college state. The Leipzig Connection by Lioni & Crimes of the Educators by Blumenfeld shed some historical light.

    I’m one of those people that got a degree ending in Studies. How I got there was like this:
    Went to an “open school” from 2nd to 8th grade complete w/ AP classes. I learned the Peace Corps was a great way to attempt to save the world & that Shakespeare was simply a good businessman. Grades 9-12 I belonged to an arts focused program where I learned Piss Christ was art & that we should vote for a female presidential candidate even if her policies are corrupt. In college was where things really took off after switching from theater to women’s studies & finally social studies. There I learned because of my race, gender, and tendency to get crushes on other girls that I was an oppressed person & should “call out” those who appeared to be racist, sexist, & homophobic.

    My real education wasn’t until I was surrounded by books with varying opinions on a myriad of topics. From these books I learned about Communism/Socialism from perspectives never taught to me all those years in school. I learned about Wundt, Gorbachev’s earth worship, and that some straight white dead men were actually more on my side so to speak than most liberals who basically though the years used folks like me to further their objectives via “education.”

    I wasn’t hardwired to be liberal as a commenter opined. I was made one. When I started reading & thinking beyond the narratives of the poor down trodden whose wounds of oppression can only be healed by socialist educators, I found out that regardless of identity politics, thinking for myself is one of the greatest of freedoms & such freedom comes from being well read. This means reading books from authors I don’t always agree with too. Now that’s an education!

    • philk57

      Catholic schools try to make students better Catholics.
      Jewish schools try to make students better Jews.
      Islamic schools try to make students better Muslims.
      What do you suppose State schools try to make students.

      • Patricia

        State schools. at this point in time, are really Government Schools run by
        the winners in DC. They cannot run the country, let alone schools. (See
        Common Core ). I refer to elementary schools only,
        They teach a world with no mention of God allowed, ever,. Not even in a
        Christmas song. Rudolph ….now, that is OK

        The children are over vaccinated and grown to believe that goodness rests
        in DC, from whom all blessings must come. Or else! They will burn and
        pillage cities later… And protest till they get all things free from Mother Government !
        They learn polical correctness, heaven forbid logical thought. Or that any
        person is dangerous who questions anything,
        And worse, a disdain for the flag and our government,
        And so, Phil57, I see elementary Government schools, as the perfect
        training ground for the colleges some might attend one day. Where
        everyone looks different, but all must think the same way.
        When Catholic Schools started using Common Core I was stunned.
        I don’t pretend to know everything,. This is what I have experienced.
        And it’s a sad state of affairs. Hopefully, others see things in a
        better light than I do.

        Thanks, Phil57

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s