Stupidity, Schooling, and the Take-Over of America’s Culture
by Evan SayetHalf-a-century ago, a band of Leftist thugs violently took over the administration building at Columbia University and hijacked the American education system. From that moment on, they used this system to indoctrinate – in fact brainwash – generation after generation into their cult of Leftism.
For the next five decades (pseudo)-intellectuals, hiding behind tenure and “Academic Freedom,” have been spewing greater and greater nonsense designed for one purpose and one purpose only: sabotaging and eventually destroying all of Western Civilization.

Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers
Don’t think so? Simply consider the fact that one of the most oft-repeated chants of the Modern Liberal movement is “Hey, hey, ho, ho. Western Civilization has got to go.”
With control of the “education” system, the Leftists turned what had been a place of scholarship into a Leftism factory with a curriculum and modus operandi designed to facilitate their Utopian dreams which first required the demolition of the great (but imperfect) Western World.
With America’s children in their hands, from the moment they enter kindergarten barely able to read or write, until the moment they graduate from Ward Churchill’s “Ethnic Studies” class (still barely able to read or write), the Leftists were able to instill their agenda into the minds of those too young to be able to stand up to these moral and intellectual bullies and fight back with the facts.
Further, in the era of unprecedented prosperity (thanks to the efforts and the values of those who came before them), when suddenly virtually everyone went to college, the indoctrination process stretched on (and therefore, so too did childhood) often well into one’s mid-twenties and even into their thirties. Think about that! If a person retires at the age of sixty, having first left the unreal and perverted world of post-coup schooling at thirty, that means they will have spent half their lives – their most formative years – in an indoctrination process of misinformation and lies. Many Right-Thinkers are stunned at how immune Leftists are to facts and reason but, in reality, they are no more so than members of any other cult and, in fact, their response to factual and moral challenges are exactly those of the cultists, seeing the other as the enemy and attacking with vitriol and violence.
Lefties love to tout their superior intellect, often pointing to the number of years they spent tramping the bucolic campuses of major universities. But staying longer in the school system only makes one smarter if what they’re being taught is true. If what they’re being taught are lies, then the longer they stay in the schools the stupider they become which is, in fact, exactly what we see. This is why Dennis Prager will (paraphrasing George Orwell, I believe) end a conversation with a particularly stupid caller by saying, “Sir, that is so dumb you must have gone to graduate school.” It is why those who have never known any life other than school – the professors – are stunningly stupid and so morally inverted that, in order to be made head of the “Ethnic Studies” department, one must believe that the Islamic fascists are the good guys (for killing Americans) and that the victims of 9/11 were nothing less than “Little Eichmanns” (for nothing more than being Americans.)
In fact, let’s call these adult students the “long-schoolers,” and the long-schooler is doubly denied real education, first by the misinformation campaign that masquerades as intellectualism these days, and then by the years of real world experience lost in their cartoonish world of binge drinking, projectile vomiting, girls going “wild” for the cameras, with whatever attempts at scholarship being little more than regurgitating the anti-Americanism that pleases their teachers but bears no resemblance to the truth.
And it’s getting worse (this is why Americans believe we’re on the wrong track no matter which party is in power.) This is because the first several generations to enter the schools after the coup at Columbia, had the opportunity for what I call “residual intelligence,” things learned from being in contact with members of The Greatest Generation and those who came before them. As we moved into the late seventies and early eighties – as those who held true American values began to retire and therefore move out of positions of influence – moronity became both wider and deeper so that by 1987 Professor Allan Bloom could write The Closing of the American Mind - his masterpiece detailing the abject stupidity of the students then first entering the universities.
It is far from a coincidence that Bloom’s book was published in 1987 for that would be almost the very second when the first children of the children of the Sixties – the first generation wholly raised by people who came of age in the post-coup era – were beginning to matriculate.
And since then, as the Greatest Generation began to die off, things have only gotten worse still.
Meanwhile, as those with real American values (and real accomplishments) began to leave the stage, their jobs were taken by those reared in the schools and universities of the post-coup 1960s. Suddenly, those indoctrinated into a cult of mindless hatred for Western Civilization in general (a bunch of dead, white men all) and America in particular as the perfection of that civilization, began making movies and reporting the news and taking up other positions of cultural influence and power.
Here again, we see the destructive nature of post-coup education and the unprecedented long-schooling of Americans. In days of old, journalists worked their way up the ladder by doing real work in the real world. They likely started as a stringer, or a reporter covering the night courts in some small town. With good work perhaps they got a promotion and after many decades of learning their craft and testing their childhood (and childish) theories against real world realities, they might, if they learned their lessons well, finally find themselves in positions of power and influence as an editor or a White House correspondent or an anchorman.
Sadly – and devastatingly – this paradigm has been replaced in the Modern Liberal era by decades of schooling (indoctrination in an unreal setting where childish theories remain forever untested by the real world) followed by high profile positions at prestigious media outlets. After all, with that much “education” and with that neat-looking diploma from the Columbia School of Journalism, you don’t think this thirty-year-old is going to accept an entry-level position, do you? If you’ve ever wondered why it is that the Leftist news media cares so little about the truth, it’s because they have never spent even a second of their lives where the real world butted up against their infantile fantasies.
This same pattern is clear in the new and old Hollywood. Prior to the Modern Liberal era those with power and influence in the entertainment world came to their positions with a lifetime of real world experiences. Many were immigrants, all were risk-takers and pioneers and each and every one of them worked their way to the top. Suddenly, in the early post-coup years – with the advent of “film schools” — “wunderkinds” like Steven Spielberg were handed the keys to the studio without having spent even a single second in the real world. They went from mommy’s house, to the cloistered world of the university, to the gated communities of their Hollywood mansions without having ever experienced the real world for themselves.
So, then, by what measure does a Spielberg pick the material he seeks to turn into a movie? It can be on no other basis than the lies he’s been taught by radical Leftists in the world of academia – and remember, the word “academic” is a well-known synonym for the word meaningless as in “It’s all academic, anyway, let’s go do something important” — who, themselves, have never lived in the real world.
The result is Spielberg’s Munich a morally and factually retarded effort (retarded at the level of the five-year-old, the time in their lives when they first entered the indoctrination process on a full-time basis in kindergarten). Since truth is of no import, then, Spielberg is comfortable making a movie that upholds the orthodoxies of the cult despite having to employ one half-truth or outright lie after another. Making clear Spielberg’s agenda is that each of these half-truths and lies served the agenda of the cult by either denigrating the more Western culture, the Jews of Israel or acting as an apologist for the non-Western culture of the Arab/Muslim terrorists.
If you doubt that this is the mentality that permeates all of Leftist Hollywood, simply consider that, despite being at times laughable in its depictions, Munich received an Academy Award nomination for “best picture,” along with four other movies that had but two things in common, they were all box offices bombs and they all promoted anti-Americanism and anti-Western values.
More recently, the Hollywood Leftists showed their allegiance to the cult by making close to a dozen anti-American movies about the Iraq war all either in utter contradiction to the facts or, like the story about Haditha, before the facts were even known. On the Left there is no reason to know the facts because their agenda isn’t truth, it is the undermining of Western Civilization.
Tellingly, within the groups that we most associate with Modern Liberalism – celebrity and academia – there are subgroups to whom facts are cherished and essential and, by no coincidence, they are the ones who reject the brain-dead ideology of Modern Liberalism and tend to support the mature and thoughtful (if not always right) policies of the Republican Party.
In the world of celebrity there is one group, then – just as beautiful as Hollywood stars, just as rich as Hollywood directors, just as adored as Hollywood rock stars, their posters up on the walls of youngsters just as often as any Hollywood starlet in a bikini – who tend to reject the morally and intellectually retarded world-view of the Democrats and that group is comprised of professional athletes.
Similarly, in the world of academia there is one group that does not follow the lemmings in the world of education and therefore rejects the stupidity of Modern Liberalism and these are the professors who teach about the hard sciences like chemistry and physics.
What do athletes and professors of physics and chemistry have in common – and what is it about them that makes them different than the others in the world of celebrity and academia? Unlike their professional colleagues, the athlete and the chemist live in a world where truth both matters and cannot be fudged by rhetoric. In sports, the player either catches the ball or drops the ball and no amount of pseudo-intellectual prattle changes the facts or makes a bad athlete good. So, too, with chemistry where either the titanium and the einsteinium react to each other or they don’t. There, too, no amount of fevered rhetoric about how the Einsteinium is part of a neo-conservative conspiracy to control the world, sees the failed chemist elevated to the level of chairman of the department.
America is on the wrong track because, over the past fifty years, no matter who was in the White House, the Leftists have held the reigns in the culture-creating industries of education, news and entertainment and they have used their powers not to advance truth, beauty, justice, morality, decency or anything else that is good. In fact, good is the enemy of the Left because Western Civilization is not only good, it is the last best hope for man on earth.
For decades, these people have been using our children to wage war against America and the majority has remained mostly silent. I suspect this is out of both a certain sense of complacency that comes with unprecedented comforts and also, ironically, a deep and abiding tradition of true liberalism (lower case “l”) that makes good Americans extremely tolerant even of their enemies. But we have reached a tipping point, a time where either we will enter the battle and fight for America against our internal enemies (both witting and unwitting) or we will end up in the dustbin of history with a return to the dark ages that Western Civilization pushed into only the darkest corners of the world.
The bad news is that the hate-America-always crowd is deeply entrenched and have decades of battle-hardened soldiers who feel no allegiance to truth, justice, beauty or anything other than the orthodoxies of the cult. The good news is that we have the majority and, most importantly, we have the truth. If we enter the battle and fight back we will win.
I do believe I am witnessing that rousing of the sleeping giant. I think, in some ways, the disaster of having an enemy-of-the-state as President of the United States has gone a long way in making clear to the good guys that Modern Liberalism isn’t just a fringe cult located on college campuses and at Hollywood pot orgies, and that enough is enough. To them I say “Welcome to the fight.”







Subscribe via RSS
214 Comments
You may well be corrrect that modern liberalism and the Obama administration is, in fact, waking a sleeoing giant. Welcome to the fight, indeed!
One slight correction: Spielberg is considered a member of the "film school generation" but actually attended Cal State Long Beach (he couldn't get into USC or UCLA because of his grades). He dropped out after being hired to direct television at Universal (based on nothing more than his talent displayed behind the camera on short films).
And while it may not be the case today, Raiders of the Lost Ark and Jaws aren't exactly material based on "lies he’s been taught by radical Leftists in the world of academia."
One small note: Spielberg is considered a member of the "film school generation" but actually attended Cal State Long Beach (he couldn't get into USC or UCLA because of his grades). He dropped out after being hired to direct television at Universal (based on nothing more than his talent displayed behind the camera on short films).
And while it may not be the case today, Raiders of the Lost Ark and Jaws aren't exactly material based on "lies he’s been taught by radical Leftists in the world of academia."
One small note: Spielberg is considered a member of the "film school generation" but actually attended Cal State Long Beach (he couldn't get into USC or UCLA because of his grades). He dropped out after being hired to direct television at Universal (based on nothing more than his talent displayed behind the camera on short films… you can't get more conservative than that).
And while it may not be the case today, Raiders of the Lost Ark and Jaws aren't exactly material based on "lies he’s been taught by radical Leftists in the world of academia."
Evan, great article…..Modern Liberalism started with the MESSIAH getting sworn in….. they never had a man out front really pushing there agenda and now the likes of Ayers, Rezko, and Rev. Wright…… the list continues I just wanted to give you a small sample of the LOONS this MEESIAH has surrounded himself with, IMHO this is just the beginning and we have another 3.5 years of this isht!!!
While I agree with almost everything stated in this article, as a professor of American history and a department chair at a small college in Oklahoma, I take issue with the "broad brush" job and labelling as leftists on those of us who are not in the so-called hard sciences. I am a Christian libertarian conservative who is also unapologetically pro-life, or as one of my colleagues puts it, a fascist! My point is there is a lot more conservatism among those academics my age and younger (I am 41) than in the boomer generation. While the leftists still rule the roost, we are NOT all a part of that herd…and neither are my students. Again, excellent article. I just think the generalizations of those of us in academe were a bit broad.
Look no further than the White House and the policies issuing from it to see what forty years of moral relativism, anti-capitalism, and identity politics hath wrought.
With what Spielberg and Barr just did you would say he is conservative? cmon, he MAY have been conservative, but I would think that he is more progressive then anything… he was even at the CORONATION ummm, I mean the messiah being sworn in…
true…
But Spielberg has been co-opted by the Hollywood left because of his success- modest man at heart he too feels the guilt- and as such his films have become tiresome political tracts lately.
Albeit well made…
Yeah !
And Bush is the devil don't forget !
I blame Bush for giving us Obama !
/sarc
Ok, I understand that. I agree with what your saying there….. great point!
Those pictures will give me a nigjtmare tonight. Thanks!
Something in the back of my mind keeps telling that this could be the evil conservative's doing, the whole Obama deal. Giving the Lefties a chance at control before they're ready, so they can implode and set the Progressive movement back a few decades. It would certainly make for a good conspiracy theory for the Lefties for the next few decades… Should I see a doctor? Should I write a fiction novel?
Well, we've seen Breitbart and Pajamas Media springing up.
When do we start touting Universities That Don't Suck?
After Obama won in November, I couldn't believe how my Facebook front page exploded with cheers from college friends that otherwise never talked politics (I myself wrote "the lunatics are running the asylum"). I couldn't believe how many Marxists/Socialist/term-du-jour I knew! Then I thought about our U of Illinois education – they all majored humanities or architecture or liberal arts, and I majored in engineering. I guess classes like math and physics didn't lend many opportunities for indoctrination.
the only problem with your theory is that the Left is really never ready to lead- they need total control because they're always right- so this messy 'democracy' stuff gets in the way of Obama's 'rule'… a Doctor? no. But the novel is a different cat altogether…
Great stuff, Evan. Please quit holding out on us and get your book done already.
University of Tennessee does not totally suck given the context of your comment
While it's true that they 're never really ready, they haven't had a chance since Carter (Clinton dabbled, but backed off), but not ready in theory doesn't have a live audience and witnesses.
As for the novel, and writers here want to help?
While it's true that they 're never really ready, they haven't had a chance since Carter (Clinton dabbled, but backed off), but not ready in theory doesn't have a live audience and witnesses.
As for the novel, and any writers here want to help?
Hi Scott,
Thanks for your comments. Not sure what film school spielberg having attended would change the point I make about Spielberg and his ilk having never worked in the real world…
As for Spielberg's early films, Leftists are very good about becoming active AFTER they've amassed their fortunes. So it is that, to get rich Susan Sarandon was willing to run around in her panties being chased by a naive monster (sort of a foreshadowing of her common law marriage to Tim Robbins) in "The Rocky Horror Picture Show," and making soft-core pornography with an underaged Brooke Shilds ("Pretty Baby,") And the great Sean Penn was happy to make the childish "Ridgmont HIght…" before suddenly discovering that he really didn't care about money and all the world (except him) should be socialist or communist.
My point is that when Spielberg DID begin to attempt serious political matter he had no grown up take from which to work. He had only his leftist professor's Jew-hatred under the guise of "Intellectualism" and Spielberg followed their script to a tee.
I was once told by the chairman of the physics department at a large university, that the main purpose of the state run universities was to employ large numbers of Democrat voting state workers. That and keep a percentage of potential workers out of the workforce for 4 years, thereby impacting unemployment statistics. The notion that it was to educate students for a career was mainly a protective camouflage to keep the taxpayers happy.
I think he over simplifies, but to a large extent you can make a case that spending 4 years in a liberal arts major doesn't prepare you for anything except getting a certificate for consideration to some administrative job.
The only thing I really blame President Bush for was not speaking out more forcefully in the face of the enemy's Leftist lies. President Bush chose to be a statesman in the face of political thugs, he believed that, as a Christian, he would do the right things and time would bear this out. He let the leftist media spread lies such as the notion that Bush stole the election when, in reality, the Democrats attempted to steal the election (as they have now done with a Governorship in Washington, a Senatorial seat from Minnesota and perhaps, via ACORN the presidency. We surely know Obama is already working to steal the 2012 election by illegally taking over the census and handing it to the criminal thugs at ACORN.
I've been reading Bloom's book lately. It could have been written yesterday. I see all that stuff all the time at my college.
It's called "The Manchurian Candidate" and that is what Obama is. He was created by a cadre of radical, hate-America-always leftists, groomed to be acceptable to the American people by verbal trickery and other political acts of chicanery outlined to the letter in "Rules for Radicals" with words put in his mouth (why do you think he needs a teleprompter everywhere he goes?) by the likes of Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, etc.
Simply consider the fact that one of the most oft-repeated chants of the Modern Liberal movement is “Hey, hey, ho, ho. Western Civilization has got to go.”
-seriously, you can just make crap up and call it "blogging"? Maybe you should have become a university professor and fixed the system? Or perhaps you simply didn't meet the qualifications because you weren't liberal (read: intelligent) enough? Sore loser.
We're getting there. One of the great things is that we're seeing Leftist universities in big financial trouble because donors don't want to be funding their anti-American lies and hate. We need to encourage businesses to give preference to applicants who can demonstrate their intelligence without having to show a diploma. A diploma from a Leftist university should be strike one aganist any applicant for any job.
I would love to see a counter-coup, the take over of the administration buildings and the insistence that truth be a part of education, that tenure be done away with and that "Academic Freedom" can no longer be used as a shiled for the knowing and wonton lies of the Left.
Part II
As we watch the increase in materialism (even the false spirituality of the left is an ideology obsessed with material well-being and worldly existence – just on the left's own terms) in the West, we see the transformation of the political manifestation of Western culture into what we have today. We still tend to appeal to the watered-down ethics of Christianity, but have done our damnedest to divorce those ethics from Christianity (rendering them worthless; without the anchor of those ethics in morality – which presupposes absolutes and source for those absolutes that exists beyond man and man's control – these ethics are little more than legal manifestations of cultural mores). That is why we often rely on the "everybody knows" pool of "morality" when making various arguments for what both politicians and individuals should or should not do.
This method of argumentation rings hollow. In the end, then, on both sides of the argument, there is nothing to provide what Lindbom called the vertical authority to a position if both sides simply rely on human "wisdom." People like Ayn Rand and Marx are simply two sides of the same coin. Both see man as "god," and the sole source of reality. That the feel-good humanism of the Marxist schools (both fascism and socialism) is winning shouldn't be a surprise. That ideology feeds into the natural human capacity for empathy as well as laziness and, due to Marx's construction of a pseudo-religious construct for his theories, the natural human need for absolutes.
What these "academics" have done is nothing more than a logical extension of the pre-existing trends of Western culture. They elevate the human intellect to the role of "god," and those that don't follow along are usually ostracized and mocked (the non-socialist Marxism) or are shot (as in the USSR). Whittaker Chambers, in his introduction to "Witness," clearly illustrates that those who thought the executions in the former USSR were somehow "not Marxist" were fools. If man is "god," and "god" declares it necessary to eliminate some resistors, then who is to question "god?"
I know this post was long and rather rambling. I apologize. But I think that, often, we don't talk about the real roots of this trend. We skip forward to blame those with whom we disagree politically (again, separating the "real world" from the religious nature of culture in an epistemological dualism) without noticing that the real roots run much more deeply. I beg everyone's forgiveness and patience with my lack of efficiency in attempting to make these points. After all, lacking any wisdom myself, I am only attempting to share from other, much wiser, men who have come before me.
the sinner,
Patrick
I can personally attest to the fact that my college education didn't prepare me for the real world at all. If I had it to do over again, and who knows– I might, I'd get a hard science degree. It's a hell of a lot more useful than the degree I have. I can be (and was) a teacher but working within the educational system right now is beyond frustrating. I did meet a lot of conservative teachers. Unfortunately, most of the ones I met were on their way out of the profession due to the same frustrations I had.
ThinkRight, I have to completely disagree with your "tag line" – "We are all born liberals."
Quite the contrary. Even a child understands that "wealth distribution" is evil and that truth isn't relative.
BTW, I hate that arrogant S.O.B. ayers.
Patrick Henry & Hillsdale. That's about it.
Why yes, yes you are.
The author is absolutely correct. I've seen it myself with my nieces. My daughter has never stepped foot in room guided by a public school educator. We've been fortunate enough to pay for parochial school. When we went to the school for her first play, painted in huge letters on the gym wall "Respect," "Discipline," and "Self Control." I was in heaven!
I'm enthralled by her global studies teacher, he's the real deal. She knows about what communism really is, she said the only people he allows them to call worse than Hitler are Mao and Stalin. Love that teacher!
Personally I think the number 1 issue facing the right, at present, is academia. They are miss-educating children on the English language. Tyranny becomes freedom, confiscatory taxes become government revenue. By corrupting the definition of plain words, it means the right has to fight over the definitions, while the left is busy doing mischief.
This is a battle that must be fought, and it must be won.
Wow, your name fits you well you tool. You can't even recognize when someone's being facetious. Go back to HuffPo, where having an IQ is optional.
I never understood why liberals so detest Western civilization. I mean, what do they want to replace it with? Tolerant Middle East civilization (Islam)? Eastern civilization?
Don't they understand that Western civilization allows them to have their wacky beliefs without the fear of being beheaded and their body organs sold for spare parts? It reminds me of the time Rosie O'Donnell said Christian extremists were just as bad as Muslim extremists (to thunderous applause from the idiot audience). She didn't realize that any Muslim extremist wouldn't think twice about ending her life.
Turning around Cher's comment, how can liberals believe what they believe? It's beyond me.
Mr. Sayet, you put into words what I've been (perhaps paranoically) thinking for the past 20 years. I could not have put my finger on this now-so-obvious-to-me truth any better than you did. Your article has oxygenated my brain and brought back memories of the Leftist Goosestep I witnessed during my college days in the 1970s. But it was still somewhat sane back then, as there were a few "old school" traditionalist professors suffering to get the truth out to us. The most inane moment in my undergraduate drunken college career, came, unfortunately, at the expense of seeing my revered, distinguished gray-haired English lit professor wearing a white armband, gasping and gagging from being tear-gassed during a 1970s protest at George Washington University. In my estimation, he looked like someon who'd been tarred-and-feathered and was just waiting to be ridden out on a rail.
Trouble is, Vince- this is a center-right country; always has been. So, when the left does achieve a Perfect Storm (Carter post Watergate, Clinton had Ross Perot, and Obama had, well you know) and achieve power they can't help but show themselves in all their glory for everyone to see- and the reults, for them, are never good. As far as the novel just flesh out your core story, make the characters leap off the page (use folk you know) make it topical and you might just have a winner here…
How nightmarish is that image of Ward Churchill. The chick photographer who took those picture of John McCain last year couldn't do a better job.
Mr. Sayet, have you heard of the National Association of Scholars? Sounds like you would make a great member! http://www.nas.org
NAS, founded in 1987 (soon after Allan Bloom published The Closing of the American Mind), is a membership organization that fights political correctness in higher education.
most of your points are salient…
We disagree about Ayn Rand; she just intellectualized Christianity's Brotherhood and it's Templar Knight foundations of community and buisness for those not of the faith- and achieved a great service by uniting people philosophically as opposed to theologically.
However your take on Marxism is dead on, as is the 'Gaia Worship' of the secular left. As Bob Dylan once sang, 'You gotta serve somebody- it may be the Devil, it may be the Lord but you gotta serve somebody…'
Oh wow! I just spent yesterday at You Tube listening to a speech you gave a couple of years ago. Your clarity is brilliant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c
It is my fervent prayer that truth tellers will be roused and weigh into the fight.
Oh wow! I just spent yesterday at You Tube listening to a speech you gave a couple of years ago. Your clarity is brilliant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c
It is my fervent prayer that truth tellers will be roused and weigh into the fight.
I refuse to call the other side Liberal anymore. They're far from it.
They're leftists, Evan. Period.
"Suddenly, in the early post-coup years – with the advent of “film schools” — “wunderkinds” like Steven Spielberg were handed the keys to the studio without having spent even a single second in the real world. They went from mommy’s house, to the cloistered world of the university, to the gated communities of their Hollywood mansions without having ever experienced the real world for themselves."
Very interestint point!!
Great read Evan! We are being challenged from within, we either fight or succumb. I think that we are beginning to witness an awakening of real conservatism. We must engage the enemy at every level, and truth will prevail. In your recurring theme on BH with Scott Graves, Michael McGruther and now you Evan are a good rallying cry to take back America from ‘60s radicals on all levels, once and for all. Give’em hell America.
I live in San Francisco and I've heard protesters at City College chanting "Hey, hey, ho, ho, Western Civ has got to go." So that's true. However, I think they meant the department, not the phenomenon.
Hello. You are right, Reagan knew this and went to war with the Fed. Dept. of Education, he and we lost that fight. I hope one day we win it. Read the interviews with him before he took office – the pinko commie liberal democrats were having kittens worrying about Reagan shutting their indoctrination centers down.
A short time ago I went to a local public high school – a big sign pointed out the benefit of using a prophylactic.
"Half-a-century ago, a band of Leftist thugs violently took over the administration building at Columbia University and hijacked the American education system."
It came long before that. Why do you think they were so easy to accept the little terrorists' demands? Because they were predisposed to do so, because they agreed with them.
Where do you think Woodrow Wilson or the men who ran and staffed the New Deal came from? American education has long been screwy.
"If we enter the battle and fight back we will win."
Calls to action are the key to going up against the hate America organizations.
We need to get specific. If we can identify a public entity that the Left has control of, we need to target it and regain control. More and more we need to tell folks to retake their PTAs, school boards, Miss USA contests, churches, Congressonal districts, local film schools, and high finance – especially the Fed.
my father saw the writing on the wall and between the years 1968 and 1979, my sisters and i attended trade schools rather than classic college. this is what he was willing to invest in…not a four year ride in a college which looked for a captured audience. sure i missed out on the drugs, sex and ethnic studies but today, we have a family of plumbers, electricians, carpenters and auto mechanics.
welcomed indeed. we could use a hand.
my father was a journalist from the 60s-80s. his mantra to any who would listen was: consider the source and their agenda. that helped shaped my world view more than almost anything (don't need grad school for that). it's the reason why from day one, post election, i set my course to expose barry's source to all who will listen.
It would seem to me that Spielberg is a pretty brilliant man, and fundamentally a decent person.
We all know that he is an Obama/Clinton supporter, but I see a strain of restraint in his public statements for the most part, and he "supports the troops (I hate that empty phrase) and loves his country. He exists in a left-wing cocoon of uppercrust Jewish intellectualism, and the paradigms which box him in are pretty evident. If we learn anything from leftist myopia, it should be that we should not fall victim to it on the right._
An open mind should be able to entertain a thought or concept with which it does differs. __
This is a terrible article. The amount of truth perversion, ad hominem attacks, and attempts to draw correlative parallels between unrelated people and ideas is nauseating.
Ward Churchill suddenly represents all Liberal thought? Steven Spielberg's film, "Munich" is anti-Western?…and
this is because he was indoctrinated by U.S. hating Liberals? …was "Saving Private Ryan" anti-Western as well?
A major difference between "Liberals" and "Conservatives" is that Liberals can tolerate the ambiguity of reality… Conservatives seem to need everything to be cut and dry, black and white. So when a Liberal questions history
or the government out of pure desire to find the truth, the Conservative cries fowl, because the Conservative already believes his own version of the truth, and doesn't want his world view to be challenged.
Perhaps the author of this blog should attend one of these "Liberal" universities and learn how to make a fair, coherent argument! THIS BLOG IS WEAK!
Observe above the Moron, a true 57th stater. Word has he was injured in the great fence fall in Nitwitville, more than a thousand village idiots were on the fence swinging their feet and chewing on a piece of straw when the fence collapsed. Moron’s injuries were not to serious however, …he simply bumped his head again. All’s well and the surviving idiots are perched on a new fence chewing their straw and blissfully swinging their feet.
"The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." – F. Scott Fitzgerald
Brian DePalma on the other hand…
Actually, I'd say Spielberg, like Hanks, were brought up long enough ago to have more conservative impulses. Why make "Band of Brothers" or other films that don't fit nicely into leftist tropes? Often, though, I get the sneaking feeling that they feel "compelled" to engage in liberal film making to justify those other films that may be seen as too "conservative" or not anti-American enough by their colleagues.
the sinner,
Patrick
[...] Big Hollywood: “Stupidity, Schooling, and the Take-Over of America’s Culture by Evan Sayet Half-a-century ago, a band of Leftist thugs violently took over the administration building at [...]
I wish my Part I appeared. It was supposed to be approved, and I fear that it may have vanished down the memory hole. I'm sure the mods are busy, and that's understandable.
However, Rand, herself, said that the human ego was the fountainhead of all human endeavors (or something to that effect. I'm sure she pointed to the human ego as the fountainhead of all of something good). In that respect, she's just like Marx – man as "god." They may have come to different conclusions regarding how the human ego *should* manifest itself, but the source, the "godhead," so to speak, was the same. If the source is the same, it shouldn't be too shocking if the result ends up the same – the dictatorship of man.
the sinner,
Patrick
The difference, generally speaking, is that liberals *assume* the ambiguity of reality (which, of course, is a riot, because to assume there is such a thing is to assume objective reality which, in turn, requires absolutes, which, of course, negates the concept of reality being ambiguous).
The problem with liberal films on history is not that they "question" history, but that they have a preconceived notion regarding how we should view history and since, often, history doesn't match up with that (or those) preconceived notion(s), they end up rewriting history. Marx is an excellent example of this.
In fact, that is exactly what is happening, on a frightening scale, with history books in schools. They are constantly re-written to emphasize something that was minor (and sometimes and outright fabrication or, at least, of dubious authenticity) for the sake of political/ideological goals.
Truth doesn't matter, the political/ideological goal does and accuracy is willingly sacrificed. THAT is the liberal methodology. Of course, since liberals tend to reject the notion of absolutes (though appealing to the concept at the same time), it is no real feat to re-write history in "one's own image," in a manner of speaking.
the sinner,
Patrick
we agree on the secularist Rand's flawed genius…
However she posited that Free Will was absolute. In God's plan that too, is an absolute. So she just
came to the same conclusion by different means. The Objectivists we know (quite a few) are very comfortable with Christianity, more so than some other beliefs. Ultimately she was opposed- completely- to tyranny.
And we're really good with that…
and you'll be happy to know that an employee (for security reasons we cannot say more) has their concealed carry and is armed on campus… there will be no Viginia Tech there…
Question the curriculum.
One of the earlier posters talked about how leftists question the government. He actually makes a good point. When the Left was bashing Bush, I felt both annoyed and relieved — annoyed that they were bashing him, but relieved that yes, someone was questioning the government and not getting beaten up, jailed, or killed for it.
Now it's our turn. I sincerely believe that dissent is good — indeed, it is our natural right.
The Objectivists you know may be comfortable with theistic beliefs, but Ayn Rand was not. She once postulated, in a letter, that any omnipotent being would be totalitarian by default. I wish I could find the exact quote, but she said something to the effect that even if God, in the name of human free will, refuses to exercise his omnipotence, the problem is that He still has it. If God exists, she says, we are all His puppets; it makes no difference if He prefers to let us pull our own strings.
The Objectivists you know may be comfortable with theistic beliefs, but Ayn Rand was not. She once postulated, in a letter, that any omnipotent being would be totalitarian by default. I wish I could find the exact quote, but she said something to the effect that even if God, in the name of human free will, refuses to exercise his omnipotence, the problem is that He still has it. If God exists, she says, we all are His puppets; it makes no difference if He prefers to let us pull our own strings.
Thank you Mr. Sayet. I chose not to go to college and chose not to conform to the ideals that the sheep in LA regurgitate.
Self-education has not been an easy road. And many fine opportunities were lost because I chose to walk uphill. Someday – I postulated – the road taken would lead me to the promised land….a land of truth and honor.
WE ARE at the crossroads. America has one last chance to get it right. This is the day of reckoning I've been expecting for 20 years now. And what you write feels like a vindication of sorts. And if those in power think I've been walking uphill since high school only to throw in the proverbial towel now then they are every bit the delusional bunch we think they are.
Give me liberty or give me death? It's not just a slogan. It really means what it meant when this country was founded.
GAME ON KIDDIES! I'm walking uphill until we reach the top again.
Conservatism biggest failure was its surrender of the academy and the public education system to the Left…And we surrendered it without a fight.
There is one thing I do fear about this idea of "taking back the universities": that we will do the same thing as the Leftists — shout down dissent in order to turn out indoctrinated automatons who can't find the truth.
We don't need conservatives to crowd academia — that's affirmative-action thinking. What we need is professors who teach their students to find the truth by studying the evidence, which "is neither asked nor given," to quote Thomas Sowell.
I remember a conversation I had with a 21 year old college student just prior to the election, right around the time of the Joe the Plumber/"spread the wealth around" incident. This student didn't see any problem with Obama's statement, and when I asked him "do you really want socialism in America?" his reply was, "Well, what's so wrong with socialism?" When I answered that, first and foremost, it was the antithesis of what our Founding Fathers intended for this nation, he shrugged his shoulders and said, "Yeah, well it works in England." Then he asked, "Hey, why are you laughing?"
Washington & Lee is still pretty stinkin' good.
the sinner,
Patrick
Excellent analysis. I am encouraged to see more and more usually silent conservatives speaking up and shouting out. You will see in the coming days more and more working people (really, those with jobs and making a living who are usually too busy making a living and practicing "pursuit of happiness" to have time for political maneuverings) attending rallies and local town halls and LOUDLY voicing their displeasure with the crap and drivel that is coming out of sewer that is Washington.
Exactly. Again, Rand saw the human ego as the ultimate source of all reality. This is completely incompatible with any theistic belief system (traditionally speaking). And functional tolerance is different than ideological tolerance. However, both have very serious real-world consequences as they do manifest politically.
the sinner,
Patrick
Couldn't agree more.
once again, it is a philosophical, not a theistic agreement. It's seeing the beauty, the balance of the Brotherhood from a purely selfish point of view; it is in your own selfish self interest to form a collective, so be it. If not, walk away. Keep the fruits of your own labors.
Understand? Rand was a hugely conflicted human being whose work transcended her own life…
Bush passed the TARP. He left a $400 billion dollar deficit and $350 Billion in tarp money for YoMama to spend. That got the ball rolling. It is that genius Karl Rove who led Rahm down the primrose path. I have beenn laughing my ass off; the worse it gets the more I hope Bush is that smart! (He is pretty damn smart you know!)
I would also hasten to add that tyranny of a group of individuals believing they're acting as individuals is no different than that of a group of individuals that believe they are acting as a group. Ultimately, reality is dictated – it's just a matter of who the dictator is. God or man. If it's man, then there is no hope – we will end up in a tyrannical situation (as we've been slowly sliding toward for centuries). In the example of Christianity, traditionally speaking, there is always hope. In fact, the Fathers tell us that despair, the loss of hope, is a grievous sin for it is only possible in the loss of faith in God.
Yes, Christianity has at its core the belief that man was given free will at the very beginning (and, in fact, salvation is impossible without the exercise, constant, of that free will). However, reality is not determined, nor morality, by the individual ego. Truth is Truth in Christianity, and it lies beyond the determination of any individual.
That's not true with Rand. She finds all "truth" as a product of the individual human ego. This is functionally no different than Marx.
the sinner,
Patrick
Ironic that Spielberg and the other boyz in Hollywood only lost non-profit money in the Madoff scheme. What better way to get the money where they really wanted it to go….Israel.
Double standards, hypocrisy and distortion of the truth (or flat out lies) is the essence of Hollywood. I do suspect that deep down he is conflicted by this. But he is fully insulated.
And Jaws? My mother is still terrified by that pathetic misrepresentation of nature. Sharks are a wonderful necessity in nature. If humans belonged in the ocean then we'd have webbed feet. The decimation of shark populations is more fatal than global warming. What's even more appalling is how people believe what Hollywood produces. AND THAT my friend is dangerous.
And after all the time and money we spent to get cigarette companies to stop peddling addictive reformulated nicotine to minors Sean Penn goes to Cannes to promote of all things….smoking cigarettes. Cigarettes killed more people than both wars in Iraq. Will that di*khead produce a movie without someone choking on a smoke?
Typical leftist/statist response to an argument. Personal attacks, nothing on substance. More and more people have gotten wise to this tactic and so it will work less and less. You'll either have to step up and defend your position with facts or be thought your screen name.
Ayn did not think that man was the source of reality. Reality exists and man has the rational mind as a tool with which to mould reality into what he thinks is best.
"That's not true with Rand. She finds all "truth" as a product of the individual human ego."
No. It is not a product of the ego, it is found by logic and ration starting with the law of identity and understanding there are both physical and metaphysical Truth in this universe.
Ayn did not think that man was the source of reality. Reality exists and man has the rational mind as a tool with which to mould reality into what he thinks is best.
"That's not true with Rand. She finds all "truth" as a product of the individual human ego."
No. It is not a product of the ego, it is found by logic and ration starting with the law of identity and understanding there are both physical and metaphysical Truths in this universe.
Enlighten us as to what you do for a living? You can't be a "professional moron" because all those job openings where filled by Obama and his administration.
Moron
Enlighten us as to what you do for a living? You can't be a "professional moron" because all those job openings where filled by Obama and his administration.
exactly.
He cool intellect pushed the envelope as far as logic and reason can go- to the point where Objectivism is the only compatible non-theistic belief system with Christianity. She did not posit false Idols or infer that Man had achieved perfection. Nicely done SG4…
exactly.
Her cool intellect pushed the envelope as far as logic and reason can go- to the point where Objectivism is the only compatible non-theistic belief system with Christianity. She did not posit false Idols or infer that Man had achieved perfection. Nicely done SG4…
A lot of peoples' work has transcended their lives. Doesn't mean that that transcendence was a *good* thing. Don't get me wrong – in her attacks on some things, I believe Rand spoke Truth. Truth isn't a matter of one person or group's ownership. It is what it is, because it exists beyond human control.
But Rand attempted to find Truth through a belief system that *necessarily* rejected it, functionally speaking. Placing man at the pinnacle of existence denies the possibility of Truth. If Man is "god," there is no such thing as Truth, for Truth would be subject to Man, and no one man's "truth" could be considered more true than any other man's. Without a power that exists outside of man to establish Truth, Truth (and morality that depends on the existence of Truth) cannot exist – all is relative to who you are, where you are and, importantly, *when* you are.
I understand Rand and her positions. I just think the source of "truth" that she relies on is the same source as Marx and, in the end, fails in the same way. Ideologically it cannot prevent the dictatorship of man without appealing to external moral controls that require, again, the existence of Truth beyond the control of man. This flaw isn't small – it goes to the very heart of Ms. Rand's philosophies.
the sinner,
Patrick
May I also say that this is my problem with libertarianism in general. I think D'Souza said it best when he said that he couldn't be libertarian because libertarians had to be immoral in order to be ideologically consistent. Of course, this presupposes the existence of something called morality, but since I ascribe to that presumption, this isn't a problem for me.
the sinner,
Patrick
"…desire to find the truth"? Liberals can't handle the truth. That's why they need to rewrite history to fit their ambiguous view of reality. Just like it was Winston Smith's job in the novel 1984 to rewrite history for Big Brother.
The problem is Primer, Morons mother is well …lets just say, the mother of Moron. You must remember this is a state where their stae motto is a three letter word “jobs,” and the official head gear is a straw hat, they only wear helmets when they sleep.
The problem is Primer, Morons mother is well …lets just say, the mother of Moron. You must remember this is a state where their state motto is a three letter word “jobs,” and the official head gear is a straw hat, they only wear helmets when they sleep.
I wish Part I would appear (mods? Please?). I do address this concept of "rationality" and "reason." They way they are used are fallacious. Reason and rationality are tools, not ends in and of themselves. Depending on your starting assumptions, you can use reason and rationality to come to any number of conclusions.
For example: if start with the assumption that the races are not equal, you can rationally propose the elimination (through any number of means) of the lesser races. That is perfectly reasonable IF you assume the beginning principle. Logic and reason are often used as shortcut terms to appeal to watered-down Christian morality that is often infected with various modernist philosophies about utility or any other number of personal philosophical choices. However, at the very root, both reason and logic MUST rely on starting assumptions.
Rand stated, outright, that the human ego is the source of these assumptions (of all creativity, I think was the term used). In denying God, all that is left is man. Even if she didn't write out "man is god," her other dogmatic (not a bad term, in my opinion) statements left her no choice but to elevate the human intellect to the role of "god."
As for your first post, let me clarify, for your position is correct, in a sense. She didn't see man as a "creator" of reality in the sense of Christians speak of God as the Creator. Instead, reality was defined by the individual ego. Thank you for pointing out the obscurity of my statement.
the sinner,
Patrick
So,
"Or perhaps you simply didn't meet the qualifications because you weren't liberal (read: intelligent) enough?"
You equate intelligence with liberalism?
Really?..
My God that's an ignorant statement, as well, as an admission,.. "you simply didn't meet the qualifications because you weren't liberal". Nice of you to admit his article was correct in it's main point, that liberals have engaged in their own Jim Crowe, excluding non leftists in an unspoken black list. Your back handed admission is also an indication of something else.
Your side is doing a rabidly unintellectual thing, squelching debate, smothering dissent,.. and you not only off handedly admit it.
You like it,.. laugh about it.
Glad you would have made such a good Stalinist or Nazi,.. at least in your eyes as long as the correct people get trampled.. hey, it's all good right?
Would you aplaud this tactic so much if it were your views abolished and banned from campuses?
Would you think it funny then my well named friend?
we see you point and in a very narrow point cede it as well. In a purely Christian construct God is Truth. So, what mere man does is an exercise in humanistic ego. Granted.
Still, the journey is to learn and experience- not just project fealty. Logic, reason, and free will are gifts to make this a richer experience.
Rand understood this in her flawed human interpretation. It is still the antithesis of Marx, however. Just from a secular viewpoint.
Clear?
[...] Ironically, It migh be a bit harsh but this guy has just done a piece on this very subject. Stupidity Schooling and the Take Over of America’s Culture/ And besides…how many times does one get to see two different references to the word stupidity in [...]
I don't get the statement " People like Ayn Rand and Marx are simply two sides of the same coin." There is a world of difference between Marx and Rand. Marxism does not have "man" the individual as god, it has the masses as god and the individual nothing, except perhaps a cog in the great machine. I'd say the only thing they have in common is their atheism but for very different reasons. Not that Rand did not have her flaws, foibles and aberrations to be sure but these two philosophies are not only not two sides of the same coin, they are not even in the same universe.
Great insight to what has happened to our country and our culture, not only killing western civilization but dumming down everything.The only ting left out is namingnames.
on this we agree completely…
Love our libertarian brothers and sisters but you cannot cede all decisions of morality to the people. a wise and moral government framework is necessary. When we express our concerns about unfettered libertarianism- namely the state condoning libertine lifestyles and the requisite unintended consequences (drug addiction, STD's, etc.) they pause and take notice… most libertarians are really conservatives 'in disguise'…
I'm with you on this. I really do not understand why a person born and educated in a system that allows them such comfort and success, can openly hate it so much. These aren't the sons and daughters of factory workers and cops, store clerks and farmers. They are from the well comfortable upper middle class, with all the luxuries that entails. They are the rich kids.. the spoiled brats of the well off.
Why do they hate what allows them to exist?
I have no answers to that,.. but do notice, revolutionaries are always from the rich kids, never from poor or working families.
Is it a type of phobia, or mental disorder? Self loathing,. or rather a loathing of their own society, exempting themselves from blame in it's supposed evils by excluding themselves from it? Like the lunatic fringe, defining themselves as better than the "sheeple" by not sharing the same values? I wish someone could point me to an explanation of what causes this insanity.
before spouting out false generalizations that form well to your benign arguments, why don't you do yourself a favour and at least learn from the basic wiki of the philosophy you're defiling
From : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Ran...
Metaphysics: objective reality
Rand's philosophy begins with three axioms: existence, identity, and consciousness.[7] Rand defined an axiom as "a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily contained in all others whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it or not. An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it."[8] As Leonard Peikoff noted, Rand's argument "is not a proof that the axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity are true. It is proof that they are axioms, that they are at the base of knowledge and thus inescapable."[9]
Objectivism states that "Existence exists" and "Existence is Identity." To be is to be "an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes." That which has no attributes does not and cannot exist. Hence, the axiom of identity: a thing is what it is. Whereas "existence exists" pertains to existence itself (whether something exists or not), the law of identity pertains to the nature of an object as being necessarily distinct from other objects (whether something exists as this or that). As Rand wrote, "A leaf … cannot be all red and green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A."[10]
Rand held that since one is able to perceive something that exists, one's consciousness must exist, "consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists."[11] Objectivism maintains that what exists does not exist because one thinks it exists; it simply exists, regardless of anyone's awareness, knowledge or opinion. For Rand, consciousness is an inherently relational phenomenon, as she puts it, "to be conscious is to be conscious of something," so that an objective reality independent of consciousness must exist first for consciousness to become possible, and there is no possibility of a consciousness that is conscious of nothing outside itself. Thus consciousness cannot be the only thing that exists. "It cannot be aware only of itself — there is no 'itself' until it is aware of something."[12] Objectivism holds that the mind cannot create reality, but rather, it is a means of discovering reality.[13]
Objectivist philosophy derives its explanations of action and causation from the axiom of identity, calling causation "the law of identity applied to action."[14] According to Rand, it is entities that act, and every action is the action of an entity. The way entities act is caused by the specific nature (or "identity") of those entities; if they were different they would act differently.[15]
On this basis of its metaphysical principles, Objectivism rejects belief in God, the supernatural, and "every 'spiritual' dimension, force, Form, Idea, entity, power, or whatnot alleged to transcend existence."[16]
cry "fowl" and loose the dogs of war???
Liberals are totally intolerant of anything that challenges their cult of belief. I know, I used to be one.
No,..
"So when a Liberal questions history
or the government out of pure desire to find the truth,"
isn't that the point of this article? To question the established liberal version of history?
"the Conservative cries fowl, because the Conservative already believes his own version of the truth, and doesn't want his world view to be challenged. "
and you just spit out four paragraphs in heated denial, because you, "already believes his own version of the truth, and doesn't want his world view to be challenged. "
indeed,.
sucks when your fantasy of history falls under assault doesn't it Bobby?
mustn't shake those liberal icons and skewer their scared cows,.. after all, if Spielburg put it in a movie, it MUST be true right? The fact is Bobby, it's your world view challenged here, and you are the close minded one who cannot handle it. You describe yourself to a T.
Your point is clear, I simply disagree. Marx saw experience as the source of "truth," but that he had "discovered" a broader trend that illustrated absolutes (though he, as an atheist, necessarily had to abandon the idea of absolutes). His construct was religious, really. It attempted to explain all of reality (which is why it is so radically different than capitalism – it is NOT merely an economic theory, it is a belief system about all of reality). However: it was "scientific," it was "logical," it was "reasonable."
Rand, as I pointed out in a post below, reason and logic are tools, not ends in and of themselves. And experience can infuse a vast array of assumptions that become the starting assumptions that can lead one to use logic and reason to come to another vast array of conclusions.
Rand was, at heart, pointing to a commonality, to absolutes that, if the individual would only see reality her way, would lead to similar conclusion as those she came to. What she failed to recognize (or manifest in her writings and speeches, anyway) was that she had a series of starting assumptions that acted as the base from which she maneuvered using logic and reason to come to certain conclusions. Without examining those starting assumptions, the use of reason and logic are pointless.
And what does one learn? Looking at history, we see people learn a lot of different things they interpret differently and which lead them to different conclusions. Fealty to Truth is the point. Otherwise, everything is relative.
the sinner,
Patrick
True but as kids and early teens we are more compassionate if your parents raised you right .
I am living proof ,I used to be McCain like when I was 18-20,now I am like Cheney and Rove at 43
(I may even lean farther right than them)
Masses are only collections of individuals. Either way, man is "god" in both instances. The source of authority is the same – the "transcendent principle" that gives authority to each ideology/philosophy is the same: man as "god." That is why radical individualism leads, inevitably, to the same place as Marxism. Whether it is the humanistic tyranny of an individual or a group makes no difference. It is man as "god." That is why they are different sides of the same coin.
If, at the base of both Rand and Marx, is the rejection of any source of authority greater than man, either collectively or individually, then man is "god" and all is allowed. Ironically, both Rand and Marx assumed limits and absolutes, all the while rejecting any possible source for absolutes.
That is, without a god of some kind, or something beyond the control of man that has revealed to man, in some fashion, the absolutes, everything is relative. Both philosophies have this fundamental flaw and, at the same time, attempted to weave absolutes made in their own images into their philosophies to provide the necessary absolutes the absence of which would necessarily lead to the collapse of each philosophy, respectively.
Oh man, that was awful. Give me a few minutes and I'll try to explain somewhat more coherently. Hey, I have a newborn, I'm not getting much sleep . . .
the sinner,
Patrick
Some people in this country seemt to have been educated beyond their capacity-Jerry Clower
All children are born with a bullshit detector most people have it surgically removed in college-unknown
Working to subvert from within as a conservative teacher with a biology/chemistry Masters Degree
Great article, but as someone who began college in the Fall of 1989 (first at Boston U and then at Rutgers U), I have to say that my experience did not include any anti-American sentiment that I can recall. And I was a Political Science major and an English Lit minor. Yeah, yeah, I know, real useful. That's why I went to Law School.
Anyway, many of the things I learned in college really strengthened my burdgeoning conservatism. My parents were apolitical. They were devout Catholics and usually voted pro-life or didn't vote at all. My dad was a hunter but thought that sometimes the NRA was a little nutty. My mom was raised in Europe (Great Britain) of Polish parents who were refugees after the War. That's all I need to say about that. Although, she's hardly anti-American. Watching burning flags during the Vietnam Era, especially after having visited Poland under Communism, made her very angry and she didn't even live in America yet.
Not really. Christianity is the denial of the ego, the rejection of self-esteem, and the cultivation of absolute selfless humility. This is not an abandonment of individuality, for to do so would be to deny God's creation in ourselves. However, the human ego, the elevation of the self in any form, is un-Christian (again, traditionally speaking. Western Christianity has adopted the individual ego as the source of truth, for the most part).
I did miss a little on SG4's post, at the end, that I'd like to address: that is the very point I'm trying to make. She begins with a starting assumption made in her own image. Acting as "god," she has chosen a "law" as a starting point. What is it based on? Her own determination? Her very process is tautological and, of course, requires a beginning step of faith in that one has to believe that she is correct in her starting assumptions.
But why is *that* the starting assumption or law? Because she said so? My starting assumptions are radically different – neither one can be proved or disproved. Both require personal faith in the absolute Truth of the starting assumption(s). This, of course, invalidates her rejection of God . . . or, more accurately, her rejection of God invalidates any claim to absolute Truths, including her starting assumption. That is because to claim that there is a beginning principle, a first principle, is to appeal to an absolute that cannot exist but for some kind of god. Her claim otherwise is simply a projection from her own ego, a manifestation of her inevitable belief that man is "god" that allows her to simply declare that X is a beginning "law" or principle and from that all else flows.
the sinner,
Patrick
My point basically is this – I'm not saying that none of this happens, but it is almost a surprise how virulent it appears to be since I really never saw it. There was some PC claptrap from time to time, but otherwise I felt that I got a decent education and I never lost my critical thinking skills. I had attended Catholic school through 12th grade.
Anyway, I do agree that we have a fight ahead of us and the problem is, the other side fights dirty. So what can we do? Fight dirty? Some would say yes, but I think that would only harm us. But fight we must. And I think "truth will out" eventually if we just keep plugging away in a rational, reasonable and truthful way. Let the Left expose themselves for what they are (and I think they are starting to) – Statists, Marxists, Socialists, Fascists, and Progressives.
Americans were born of freedom and there is still that spark within each of us that I think is starting to burn brighter and brighter.
Sorry Evan. I work in computer science research. Although the "hard sciences" are hard to bend to the agenda, it has nevertheless been accomplished. Unfortunately, "scientists" are trained at universities and pick up the mindset. These people are leftoids to a man. It is showing up in their work, it is weak, biased and unintelligible. Global warming fanaticism is only the popular manifestation of this corruption. The internet is the only product of science that remains uncorrupted (at least as a technology per se), and that only from pure luck and the existence of an anarchistic disposition among engineers.
'That is, without a god of some kind, or something beyond the control of man that has revealed to man, in some fashion, the absolutes, everything is relative.'
please refer to the paragraphs I posted above
'without a god of some kind'
what objectivism provides is not a god as an external source of truth, but objective reality and existence itself
objectivism differentiates between the man made and metaphysically given; it may say that A is A is a manmade concept using symbols of letters, but the concept itself is a metaphysical absolute as shown below:
Objectivism states that "Existence exists" and "Existence is Identity." To be is to be "an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes." That which has no attributes does not and cannot exist. Hence, the axiom of identity: a thing is what it is. Whereas "existence exists" pertains to existence itself (whether something exists or not), the law of identity pertains to the nature of an object as being necessarily distinct from other objects (whether something exists as this or that). As Rand wrote, "A leaf … cannot be all red and green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A."[10]
please, I implore you, use your insight and reason to understand the three axioms pertaining to objective knowledge; existence (an objective, external reality), identity (a self that can experience reality directly through its senses), consciousness (the ability of volition and understanding that allows for the use of reason to differentiate between truth and falsehoods, to understand that A is A rather than A is B
I know it seemed harmless enough at first…….and perhaps it was harmless when schools were locally controlled…….but this business of handing your kid over to the State to be educated is a colossal mistake. No free people should have ever allowed this. Caesar's schools teach you to look to Caesar for salvation. They teach the worship of Power (ideology) rather than the pursuit of Truth (philosophy)?
At least, not on Game Day. Can you picture that? Open season on anyone not wearing Vol Orange…
But that is a conundrum: as Lindbom explains in "The Myth of Democracy," Rousseau's introduction (formally) of "vox populi" as the transcendent source of authority in governmental systems creates this very problem. What if the people vote in a certain way? As in, to allow all sorts of "immoral" behavior as legal. The source of authority is still the people, even if the government is the method through which that will is manifested. As Fr. Seraphim would say, there is no compromise with the revolution. (Again, I'm sad Part I hasn't shown up. I address a lot of this in that post).
Simply put: Lindbom theorizes that governments have horizontal principles or structures (the actual governmental structures) and vertical principles or structures (the transcendent principles from which the authority of the government derives). In the West, the "people" or the "will of the people" became the transcendent, vertical principle, replacing God. This was another manifestation of the slow ascendancy of the human intellect into the role of God (in Part I, I went into greater detail regarding my view of history and how it plays into my positions. It was rather long, hence my difficulty in replicating it. I apologize for this shotgun method of attempting to rewrite it in order to address everyone's excellent points).
As man becomes "god" in the West, the will of the people is the will of "god." As I addressed SG4, whether by groups or by individuals, the will of man acting as "god" will eventually have the same effect.
And we've been watching that happen in the US for quite some time. Goldberg, in "Liberal Fascism," does a great job of documenting this (though I disagree with his final thoughts on how to combat it, since I posit that the very source of our agreed upon problems is the source he'd return to to correct them). Fr. Seraphim Rose's prediction was right, and so was Lindbom: the dictatorship of "the people," in any horizontal construct, ends the same: man as "god" dictating what's best for everyone else.
Instead of an external source of morality to limit man's actions at the top, however, the government of the "man as 'god'" is only limited by man's own capricious will.
the sinner,
Patrick
Except, he has his chin lifted up and slightly extended to hide the folds of jowly fat.
In spite of the stoic, ethereal posing, he doesn't exactly live on a diet of tree bark.
Great to see Evan Sayet on this site. I saw his speech at the Heritage Foundation and it blew me away.
He said so many of the things I felt and he did it in a powerful way.
Naturally he's a great communicator. He goes to the root of the left-right divide in this country.
The situation we see today is indeed a result of the 4 decade assault on Western & American values by these pseudo-intellectuals. And it starts in the classroom/ They indoctrinate your children. We are in a battle for the minds of our children and unfortunately, we subsidize our enemies during the process. So everyone must get involved and fight back against the usurping of Western civilization by these self-loathing hypocrites.
We must all break out of our complacency, nothing less than the future of civilization is at stake.
I would disagree with the statement "no amount of pseudo-intellectual prattle changes the facts or makes a bad athlete good". That has not been the case in basketball, sometimes. One need look no further than Allen Iverson.
But that's the problem: it is an assumption based on the individual ego. It is a projection of the self that relies on starting assumptions that are a matter of faith, but faith in beliefs that have only the individual's own ego as a source. Your own quotes prove my point: she is declaring what existence is based on her own perception, on her own ego. Because she refuses to find anything beyond her own ego as any source of definition for reality, her ideology suffers from the issues that I have been outlining.
Please, also be a little more careful when reading my posts, as I have made the following statement: I don't disagree with everything Rand said and believed. For instance, I agree that there is an objective, external reality. I agree that there is a self that experiences this reality, and I believe in consciousness. But these beliefs are all dependent upon God, I believe, NOT upon Rand's declaration that they are so. And just because you, as an individual, agree with her, that doesn't mean that she was right or that what she spoke was absolute Truth. Not only that, these principles provide nothing in the way of morality or ethics, and cannot be a source of morality or ethics.
Differentiation between Truth and Falsehoods requires more than simple consciousness or existence. It requires, I posit, revelation. It requires a source of Truth outside of man.
Everything you've quoted regarding Rand's philosophy STILL relies on the individual ego. By even stating this three axioms, as you quote, she is acting as "god:" she is declaring reality, she is defining it (even if in her definition she claims that it simply is and is beyond her control). There is no external source of Truth – only her own perceptions.
Thus, my previous posts still hold: she has created this "truths" in her own image, according to her own perceptions and determinations . . . as "god." She does not receive or acknowledge Truths, she is determining them and making positive statements about their existence. Thus, she is acting as "god" in making this three axioms absolutes.
The whole system collapses in on itself because it *still* relies on her determination that those three axioms are absolutes. Remember: just because you, or any number of other people, agree does not make them true.
And, I beg of you, let us dispense with petty insults. I greatly appreciate your infusion of these quotes (as questionable as Wikipedia can be) and any corrective effects they may have had on my understanding (primarily culled from her own writings, not those of her apologists (again, NOT a bad word for me)), but there is no need attempt to demean my understanding in an attempt to bolster your own point. I truly appreciate your points, and welcome the corrective reproving, but let us argue the points, not your emotional reaction to the faults you see in my characterization of Ms. Rand's philosophy.
the sinner,
Patrick
Don't forget this connection, which I'm stunned so few people seem to have so little curiosity about it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EcC0QAd0Ug
There has been a fight going on since the early eighties. It's called "Homeschooling". This is an "in the trenches battle" being waged by courageous, dedicated parents for the hearts and souls of their children. This also makes a difference in the bigger battle for the soul of our nation. Each one doing what they are able to do within their given means.
Sorry, forgot to add: The three axioms also beg follow up questions – what is that reality that is external? What is self? How are these things defined?
Also, as I posted about earlier, reason is NOT an end in and of itself. It always depends on starting assumptions.
the sinner,
Patrick
A friend worked in the President's office at Rutgers and was told by someone in security that during a sit-in, the father of a Columbian student found out that his son was part of the protest. The father flew to New Jersey, found his son, and proceeded to kick his ass in front of everyone, telling him that he wasn't spending his money to send his son to college to sit around protesting.
If more parents payed attention to what their kids were doing and studying and just cut them off if they were going off into leftist la-la land and made them pay their own way, that would stop a lot of this nonsense. Working to pay their way through college is a great way to wean them away from the Santa Claus mentality of getting something for nothing.
Ask your children what they are taking in college. If they choose a major that ends in "studies" or start talking like Joy Behar or Michael Moore, just cut them off. No money, no indoctrination.
Hey, y'all. This has been such a great debate. I want to thank everyone, but I may have to split for a while. My parents are in town to see their first grandson, and I'm a wreck from lack of sleep! I need to finish out a few things here at work and then I have to run. I want to thank everyone for all of the information and spirited debate. I'll try to check in again later, but please don't think I've just run away – it may be a few hours. I beg your patience and forgiveness, and appreciate all of the information and, again, wonderful debate. This, I believe, is the difference between what good internet debate can be and simple name calling. God bless.
the sinner,
Patrick
"The basic problem [...] seems to me to lie in Rand's desire to avoid making the human mind answer to anything else. It is crucial to her view of 'man as a heroic being' that we be in some way self-creating, and that our faculties of cognition not be beholden to any reality greater than ourselves.
"[...] In the final analysis she is trying, and trying very hard, to do two things that are in some ways at cross purposes with one another. [...] On the one hand, she wants to invest (her) philosophy with something like the authority of religion, and (non-mental) reality with something like the authority of God. 'Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed,' she insists with Bacon. Our concepts and our values answer to the absolute — but mindless — authority of 'the facts of reality', to 'evade' which is in effect to deny that 'A is A'.
"On the other hand, she wants to leave human beings in the driver's seat, as it were; she wants both our 'concepts' and our 'values' to depend fundamentally on human volition. For her, there are to be no real universals apart from our own 'chosen' conceptual classifications; nor are our values really values to us until and unless we have 'chosen' them.
"In effect, she is having a hard time deciding whether to replace 'God' with 'reality' or with 'man'. And so she tries to do both at once."
–Scott Ryan
A semi-informed rant intended for a semi-educated audience living in a captive echo-chamber that cynical people like Andrew Breitbart exploit for money. This piece is so poorly argued that it wouldn't qualify for the syllabus of an undergraduate critical analysis seminar at even the most mind-shrinking religious university in the deep south. Just look at the quality and depth of thought of the comments here and you'll understand what's really wrong with the state of education and thought in America.
"By corrupting the definition of plain words, it means the right has to fight over the definitions, while the left is busy doing mischief."
This is dead on. I can't even talk about the issues with my liberal friends, because all we do is go around and around on the definition of words (like socialism, rich, greedy, profit, etc). I swear they're teaching a new language in the schools these days – which my daughters will not be learning.
We're happy homeschoolers here. We're just starting out and I'm hoping homeschoolers have started making a dent in college educations by the time we get there.
Robert C. the phrases are "cut and dried" not "cut and dry". . Not a towel, a reference to leather production which metaphor applies to an irretrievable moment. You can't undo the leather and make it a cow again.
And "cry foul "not cry fowl". Not a bird, a misstep, such as in sports. Another transplanted metaphor. But this person's feel-good education encouraged such creative spelling, I am sure.
Every statistic I see shows home schooled children usually enter college a year or two before their publicly schooled peers. One of my daughter's friends would be in 11th grade in a public school, instead she's a freshman at the same community college I graduated twice from. (Electrical Engineering Technology & Telecommunications Technology.)
My guess is once you get rid of the PC, multi-culti, and anger management stuff, its surprising how much time you have for "readin', writin' and 'rithmatic."
Go for it!
Well, Christian teachers are hitting the NEA where it hurts, the pocket book.
These teachers are leaving for conservative unions that won't support dumb and often dangerous Leftist causes as the NEA does. Read more here:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?...
Also, check out this site for the conservative teachers union, Christian Educators Association International:
http://www.ceai.org/
So, the public fighting back.
Excellent point about the Left controlling education. Its hard to say what the biggest lie is, but I'll go with the canard that was the New Deal.
It was the New Deal policies (which was Fascism) that prolonged the Depression. WW2 got us out of the Depression, not through spending but because it forced the government to abandon it's regressive, utopian economic policies and the economy was allowed to function freely again.
Now we have Obama envoking that lie at repeating it.
Well, Christian teachers are hitting the NEA where it hurts, the pocket book.
These teachers are leaving for conservative unions that won't support dumb and often dangerous Leftist causes as the NEA does. Read more here:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?...
(cont.)
Also, check out this site for the conservative teachers union, Christian Educators Association International:
http://www.ceai.org/
So, the public is fighting back.
Right, by that logic, if we were meant to fly, we'd have wings. If we were meant to travel at 70 mph, then we would be able to run that fast. If we were meant to live indoors, we'd have a shell, etc.
Thank you so much for this!
Just one question:
"The good news is that we have the majority and, most importantly, we have the truth."
We do have the truth. But… do we really have the majority? After all, look who is sitting in the White House. The support for this man was OVERWHELMING. And despite the disaster his presidency has been so far, they are STILL supporting him.
I'd like to believe we are in the majority. But I am not sure that I do.
I'm actually reading Thomas Sowell's Inside American Education, and he echoes the same sentiment as you, Evan.
Colleges are no longer a free-market of ideas. They're expensive indoctrination, and even force students into becoming guinea pigs for insidious, umproved social experiments.
And yes, I am currently in college. Not a public or an Ivy, thank God.
I'm actually reading Thomas Sowell's Inside American Education, and he echoes the same sentiment as you, Evan.
Colleges are no longer a free-market of ideas. They're expensive indoctrination at most, and even force students into becoming guinea pigs for insidious, umproved social experiments.
And yes, I am currently in college. Not a public or an Ivy, thank God.
I'm not saying he's a conservative (and as a Jew, I found Roseanne's photos completely distasteful so on that we totally agree)… however, I was simply registering my disagreement with that particular part of Mr. Sayet's article: implying that Spielberg is X, therefore Y (X = liberal; Y = he's influenced by nothing more than "radical Leftists in the world of academia") when the truth might be a little grayer than that.
Write a novel! I'm kinda middle of the road with politics but it's a very interesting idea. One side sowing the seeds of the other side's destruction. Food for thought, I must say.
University of Tennessee does not totally suck given the context of your comment (actually am responding to smitty, but forgot to hit reply.)
Spot on! I've been saying this for a long time..Once they have control of the children then it's all down hill from there. If you don't want your children to be brain washed into accepting socialist views then either home school them or send them to private schools.
Why do you think the kids of today, especially in the cities, are so apathetic? They could care less about anything or anyone around them, they are not being taught to care. It's a slow brainwashing procedure and the marxists don't even have to be patient for it to happen because now it's a trickle down domino effect.
Thanks for again proving the point of this article. You want us all to be more like….you. And not argue with the leftist status quo. Sure thing, spanky.
While I have no problem with any professor's ideology most colleges are purposefully staffed with leftists. It would be a good to put out US News and World Report type College Guide to non-biased colleges. Somebody make one…me no type so good.
Seriously, his books taking longer to write than Genesis.
Evan is awesome…..incredible mind..sharp, insightful, comprehensive, astounding analysis.
I am a right leaning professor of ethics. I know and teach the difference between right and wrong. I teach my students that relativism is intellectually lazy and the claptrap of a perpetual adolescent. I fund my own research because no funding agency will touch someone whose work defends classical virtues or the writings of "old dead Greeks" from the vagaries of a po-mo crowd.
I work hard, teach overloads, supervise more undergraduates and graduate students than most of my colleagues, and YET I cannot get a job in the US. Because my politics are all wrong. So, I teach in Asia. I will continue to (have to) teach in Asia until the parents of children taking "ethnic studies" or "postmodern philosophy" courses do the right thing and show up, unannounced, to the lectures (read: film screenings) their children are sitting through, and start asking questions. Parents and citizens in the US are not off the hook. You pay for the classes (parents, taxpayers) so if you want them to change, start showing up to lectures and start asking questions. If the prof calls the police or the dean and asks you to leave, consider that an invitation to start some serious trouble.
This is a great article.
The only thing I would add to it, is the idea of monopoly control. The left has centralized the funding of education, in order to control it. The Entertainment industry is an oligopoly of giant media compaines with lateral arrangemets with subsidiaries to control Tickets/Theatres/Production/Distrubtion. We all know that the news industry was for many years a closed oligopoly. But attempts are under way to try to monopolize content (Net Neutraligy) on the interent. Thereby, the big players will try to control everything.
One tenet of the Republican party used to be anti-trust legislation. Roosevelt and Taft understood it's importance.
Breaking up the Monopolies on Education, Entertainment and News would be an enormous step towards freedom.
Thank you, Mr. Sayet, for a beautiful and moving article. Why is it "beautiful" and "moving" to me? Because I think I played out my life in the course of reading it.
I come from a lower middle-class background, and since my father was in the Navy, I moved around. A lot.
At a very young age I figured out that the education system was lying to me. I lived in South Carolina, in a mansion that my grandfather married into, and went to school in a bus where the "black" to "white" ratio was nine-to-one. Instead of treating me like the snotty "rich" kid (which I was not anyway), they welcomed me with open arms and joked around with me playfully. I didn't learn contempt for blacks on those fun bus rides, I learned how to free style rap.
A funny thing happened when I reached fifth grade. The black guys and gals who had been my pals on the playground were starting to take to their own little groups instead of hanging out with me and the other white kids. My black market candy resale business took a nosedive (a harmless habit, I assure you). There was something that had changed. The change was the teachers' narrative about race.
All of a sudden, these black people were not my friends. Because of the color of skin I was born into I was guilty of having previously enslaved their relatives. The resentment between blacks and white intensified throughout that long, joyless year.
Decades later I found myself graduated from a big ten university with one of those worthless liberal degrees. I was an open-minded and intellectually curious person who gave people the benefit of the doubt.
I found work at a liberal arts college at a "non-profit" organization. The organization had the term "liberal" in its title, but it wasn't about liberation or the old school classical liberalism. It was leftist. Brainwashed, strident, doctrinaire leftist.
I made the mistake at a cocktail party of giving my view of race, rehashing the story I provided above to what I thought would be a receptive group. This was a fatal mistake. These enlightened of the most enlightened looked at me as I had a lobster crawling out of my ear for daring to suggest that America should have Americans first, and that are ethics should be colorblind. My position was "eliminated" within weeks.
I then decided to pursue a dream of mine – to become a political science professor. I was accepted into a PhD. program and was excited to finally be in the position to fulfill my potential. Not so fast. If anything, the school I was accepted into was further left than the non-profit I worked for. One professor even had the audacity to write (not just state) that all conservatives should be "taken out and shot." This comment was greeted to a chorus of laughs by my seemingly reasonable comrades.
In my final term before quitting with an M.A., having been completely disabused of the notion that Academia was in any way related to "truth," a professor of mine read a letter from a student who had quit the university. She claimed that she could not be a student in a department that was filled with "fascists." This was the second such letter in a year. The reaction by the professor and the students? More laughter. I happen to agree with the student who quit. I still hold out dreams of finishing my PhD., but only when Academe returns to a semblance of normalcy.
Currently I am in the awkward position of holding a degree that only qualifies me for leftist jobs. So now I have a choice between lying to earn a paycheck or putting my family at financial risk. I have decided to seek a non-political job and take up a profession in writing political fiction. I am striving to finish my book before the leftists' take that away from me too.
Edit (ironically, a "hooked on phonics error"):
I made the mistake at a cocktail party of giving my view of race, rehashing the story I provided above to what I thought would be a receptive group. This was a fatal mistake. These enlightened of the most enlightened looked at me as I had a lobster crawling out of my ear for daring to suggest that America should have Americans first, and that OUR ethics should be colorblind. My position was "eliminated" within weeks.
Conservatives seem to need everything to be cut and dry, black and white.
In other words, we should stop trying to be right all the time. It creates conflict, and conflict must be avoided at all costs.
So when a Liberal questions history or the government out of pure desire to find the truth, the Conservative cries fowl, because the Conservative already believes his own version of the truth, and doesn't want his world view to be challenged.
"Truth"? You can't get more black-and-white than that. It's either true or it's not.
Anyway, leftists are hardly tolerant. Why else do they favor political correctness, believe wealth is zero-sum (the poor are poor because the rich are rich), and want equality of outcome in all the employment statistics (Not enough women/minorities in [insert field here]. Racism! Sexism! Homophobia!)?
As for "ambiguity" vis-a-vis Conservatives' "black-and-white" thinking, that is false; leftists simply reject Judeo-Christian morality (or anything comparable to it) in favor of equality in all things or avoiding conflict by any means necessary.
And maybe they'll get it right someday, by not tipping their hands so soon. If Obama didn't rush all the policy, he could certainly fool moderates and democrats much longer and keep his high approval ratings longer too. And perhaps 2nd, or even 3rd term?
Heh. Camarone serves up a string of unsupported assertions, ad hominems and innunendo, and thinks he is demonstrating his superior intellect. Free clue, Don: you've just offered yourself as a prime example of a person so infected by liberal "reasoning" that he doesn't even know what "making an argument" IS. And of course, "critical analysis" is one of the Left's primary means of fuzzying up young minds, with its bogus talk of "narratives" and "privilieged" discourse.
Great article! And do you know who is AT FAULT for this sorry state of affairs? CONSERVATIVES are! We handed the left the keys to the culture on a silver platter.
For decades, individual leftists dedicated their time, their energy, their career, and their MONEY toward doing what needed to be done to conquer the culture. They've won, and they've earned it.. Meanwhile, what have conservatives been doing? Running businesses and making money for their families.
To this day, conservatives refuse to give money or influences to help their breathren in the arts and media. They do not "believe" that it should be necessary for them to help anyone. They want to grow their wealth through sound investments, and pass it on to their children. Weathly leftists help other leftists, but wealthy conservatives believe that would be a handout, and as such immoral. You should "compete in the marketplace of ideas" they will tell you, a rationalization to avoid giving money toward something they simply do not believe should be necessary. Until that changes, the left will continue to dominate.
Barry could very well be. His path was certainly paved for him.
The whole thing just felt a little rushed to me though. It took the Clinton machine by surprise; then McCain was the only Repuclican left, coming back from the dead. Perfect Strom as dcase put it, or a setup.
not sure I see it Spielberg as a "Leftist". a bit simple on your part. think about how dysfunctional the single mother family was in E.T.. was it glamorized? I don't think so. in this case there was a social critique. speaking as a Zionist who voted proudly for McCain I'm not sure you are in touch with cultural streams. Steven and his generation of film makers are considered great because they weren't "Leftists". They were dynamic and complicated.
Do you see Martin Scorsese as a leftist? I'm not sure the film taxi driver condemned Robert Dinero's character as much as empathized with his needs to carry a gun.
some of these movies seem like they are glamorizing society decay… but there is hidden critique.
take "I shot Andy Warhol" for example.
certainly most of Hollywood is gushing candy full of easy morals that point the blame at the easy explanation… of the evil rich, but when you point the finger at the better directors you might find complexity.
Nice post. I grew up a white boy in mostly black East Orange NJ during the 60's. Today I'm a conservative writer in LA, putting together several projects, including one about race. Drop me a line at gdamato@fefilmsonline.com.
i would have left a comment, but the site administrators won't let me for some reason.
It was to the effect that, as Scott Ryan says, one of the motivating factors behind Objectivism is the refusal to make the human mind answerable to anything else. Our cognition cannot be held to any standard higher than itself.
That's pretty good…………….Moron's mother really needs to remember to put his helmet on before he leaves the house or use's the computer………..
"Truth perversion"? I thought liberals/leftists don't believe that there is such a thing as truth?
Guess what? Something is true or it's false. Simple as that. (Even you seem to know that, since you've accused this article of perverting the truth, LOL! Of course, you don't give any examples of where he's done that.)
Evan, again your arrow hits directly in the heart of liberalism. You break it all down and the truth will set them all free. I admire your talent as writer, humorist, speaker, a true warrior for the conservative cause but your friendship and loyalty towards all of us that you have help is above and beyond what you find here in Hollywood. Keep up this great writing your pen is Excalibur.
[...] bighollywood.breitbart.com/esayet/2009/08/03/stupidity-schooling-and-the-take-over-of-americas-cultu… [...]
[...] bighollywood.breitbart.com/esayet/2009/08/03/stupidity-schooling-and-the-take-over-of-americas-cultu… [...]
The LEFT: All your child are belong to us. Now that the left owns the education system and are indoctrinating our young, we have to take the education system back. The only problem is, who's going to hold their noses and try to break into their closed society? Since the system is so controlled by the left, it will be extremely difficult to even get an entry-level job in a leftist-controlled university. It will take years, if not decades to bring balance back to the education system.
I remember my life in much the same way in the South, I had black friends in the start of the ‘60s and black enemies at the end of the ‘60s. The Balkanization of a society is as dangerous as it is stupid and I hope at some point clearer heads prevail. Best of luck RJ you would be an asset to any university, unfortunately it would seem, don’t like Kool-Aid.
Every time I hear a hate-America rant I can only think back to "LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT".
If these Billionaires and Millionaires, who got rich on Capitalism, hate America so much — why don't they take their private jets and leave America. But no, they whine and rant to destroy the American dream of making millions just like they did.
I must agree with the sentiments of your post. There is however a flip side to this argument that rarely gets discussed. That is, a parents responsibility for raising their child. Having helped my wife raise our two sons I can say with some authority that how you address the teaching they receive in school has a big impact on your kid's critical thinking. One son is now a certified welder/pipe-fitter and is well on the way to earning way more than his old man and the other is just entering college on a 4 year ROTC scholarship. In both cases, they are paying for their education. It's not that I can't pay for it but, rather, a case of you own what you earn. I can safely say, woe to the left leaning fools who cross their path. You see, my wife and I have made it a habit to discuss politics in our home. Often challenging them to find the answers to the some garbage they were handed by one of their teachers. It's amazing to see some of the crap assignments young kids bring home from school. I'll tell you what, if you want an education, just mention global warming in my eldest's hearing. Make sure you're holding on to something though! The point is, the parents are supposed to raise their children. If the parents take the time to clearly refute a left-wing wackenut teacher, guess who's going to win the heart and mind of the child. And, guess what happens in a couple of generations to our warped higher education system. Frankly, the changes are already evident. There are many fine universities available that are embracing a more traditional view of learning. Trust me, there's lots of kids around that aren't willing to just accept some leftwing windbags point of view and will stand up to refute it. I know two of them personally!
Hi Scott,
Just wondering, what was the message of Raiders of the Lost Arc? I know that the message of ET is that the government is evil…
When several Jewish groups questioned his dishonest anti-Jewish propaganda film Munich, pointing fact after fact after fact that Spielberg had gotten wrong — and remember, the Islamists terror attack against innnocent Jewish athletes is a matter of historical fact — Spielberg railed against the Right Wing for daring to question him.
Patrick, you've got it exactly right and the perfect example is Eastwood who made one of the rare pro-American movies and then felt compelled to immediately release another movie pointing out how the Japanese were really nice people during World War II, also.
It's about a man who regains his faith. (Faith is good. Good triumphs over evil, etc.) As for ET, I wouldn't say that's the message, more of a plot point.
I've enjoyed this but I admit you have me at a disadvantage, sir. I'm not a political person and my politics tend to be more middle of the road with leanings in both directions. I know sooner or later I won't be able to continue this dialogue and we'll have to simply agree to disagree.
Having said that, while I don't doubt your sincerity, I simply find some of this is a case of seeing what you want to see. If a film has a message contrary to your values, then it must be leftist; it it's leftist, then the filmmakers are leftists who've been brainwashed by their leftist professors. A leads to B which leads to C, etc. when all I'm saying is it might be a tad more complicated than that. You make it sound like it's some sort of Dr. No/Spectre plot with sleeper agents and timetables, etc. I'm not saying there aren't people like that but I wouldn't give them that much credit either.
it's hard to get something 'right' that's inherently wrong- this is a constitutional republic with limited suffrage, not a pure democracy. As such it is weighted as heavily towards small less populous states as it is high poulation centers. This perturbs the left, for they want to be able to achieve total control- it's the only way unpalatable systems can be implemented. Every two years the people speak, as they will next November. and, like 1994 it could- and most likely will- be very unfortunate for the Democrats.
Short of a 'major' crisis… and one never knows, do they?
if one lives in the realm of theory your points would all be spot on- however, we are here to learn, and experience- and that way become closer to God. Ergo, free will. And that, we posit, is the single overriding concern that unites people who believe in individual destinies, not a collective dirt nap.
So, while we agree withyour theoretical and even theological points- you Othodox types are tough- we will still (gladly) accept the presence, and contibutions of our libertarian/Objectivist brethren.
Because they are far more right than wrong…
one supposes Game Day to be the single most dangerous day for a would be assassin, dontcha think?
No argument intended. When I said get it "right", I meant exactly whae you're referring to; crisis after crisis that pave their way to make necessary changes for them to gain complete control.
there is a distinct difference in Ayn Rand the human/commentator and on her works… far more eloquent in idea and theory than in form, structure, or- as you point out- commentary. Much of what she is quoted as saying runs contrary to her ideas; she was an extremely unhappy, even bitter person with huge anger issues. But her ideas, her revolutionary take on Christian concepts brought millions into the realm of individual self awareness- the arch enemy of Marxism. We could go on with this, but it's just about run it's course. We completely understand, and are sympathetic to- your position.
We just agreeably disagree…
One cannot have fealty to the truth without the will to contest. Obedient sheep was not what The Creator envisioned- at least in our flawed human perspective. To find the truth one must see the lies that mask it…
you, pleasant chap that you are, haven't argued yet- just engaged in honest and forthright debate.
However, there seemed an ellipsis in the last point- ergo the civics lesson that you most likely didn't need… our humble apologies…
I remember my life in much the same way in the South, I had black friends in the start of the ‘60s and black enemies at the end of the ‘60s. The Balkanization of a society is as dangerous as it is stupid and I hope at some point clearer heads prevail. Best of luck RJ you would be an asset to any university, unfortunately it would seem, you don’t like Kool-Aid.
TY, I bookmarked both sites.
The Israeli assasin who Speilberg portrayed in Munich stated loudly and clearly that he had no second thoughts nor soul searching about hunting and killing the PLO terrorists.
There is no ambiguity here. Speilberg lied his ass off. This issue is black and white.
His sissy prescription for his audience to worry deeply about avenging mad-dog killers is obviously anti-West. The only question is who is he really working for?
It's about a man who regains his faith. (Faith is good. Good triumphs over evil, etc.) As for ET, I wouldn't say that's the message, more of a plot point. (Some have said E.T. is a Christ allegory of all things. I suppose like all films, people see different things.)
I've enjoyed this but I admit you have me at a disadvantage, sir. I'm not a political person and my politics tend to be more middle of the road with leanings in both directions. I know sooner or later I won't be able to continue this dialogue and we'll have to simply agree to disagree.
Having said that, while I don't doubt your sincerity, I simply find some of this is a case of seeing what you want to see. If a film has a message contrary to your values, then it must be leftist; it it's leftist, then the filmmakers are leftists; if the filmmakers are leftists, then they've been brainwashed by their leftist professors. A leads to B which leads to C, etc. when all I'm saying is it might be a tad more complicated and nuanced than that. You make it sound like it's some sort of Dr. No/Spectre plot with sleeper agents and timetables, etc. I'm not saying there aren't people like that but I wouldn't give them that much credit either.
It doesn't seem worth it in this space to attempt to dissect the film, or defend Stephen Speilberg, the maker of Schindler's List and a major financial supporter of Holocaust related institutions from such a charge…
But describing Munich as "dishonest anti-Jewish propaganda" woudl seem to reflect the type of myopia that I caution against.
Tuble, deciding what to call the Modern Liberal era — what years, when it started, etc — was one of the more dificult decisions I had when working out my plan for explaining what I knew. You can go back to Rousseau if you like, but what made anyone listen to Rousseau? I chose the 1960s because it seems to be the true tipping point, a clear break between real American values of the Greatest Generation and those who came before them, and, to borrow Dennis Prager's phrase, "The Age of Stupidity" in which we now live.
Well Lady K. One of the things you mention is that you parents grew up in Europe to Polish parents…in other words, they had real world experiences and know that when the hate-America-always crowd says things like Reagan is HITLER…they actually knew Hitler, unlike the spoiled children of the age of stupidity.
Yes, you are right, the Leftism has even entrered the realm of the hard sciences — in no small part because Leftist administrators hire them. Nonetless, while your experiences are what they are, there are polls taken every year or so about the political leanings of professors and every year the hard sciences have signicantly more Republicans or conservatives.
It's all lies becaue their purpose is to always argue against truth so that, when there is no truth (or beauty or justice) you'll be compliant as they take control of the world and create their "utopia."
The Vietnam War was not a racist war, Joseph McCarthy was right, Yes, America used the atomic bomb but that's only half the story as the other option was worse. Just listen to the likes of Obama's mentor who declares what the Liberals want, for their god to "Damn" America and then he runs off a litiny of out right lies (the government invented AIDS to kill people of color) to the hooting idiots that make up the most guaranteed block of votes for the people who keep them stupid.
First, keep in mind that Obama was running against a man not even we liked. McCain refused to run a campaign, in fact repeatedly allowed the thugs on the left to make a fool of him — such as when they lied about the mood at McCain palin rallies and McCain turned on his own people. Further, it had been a long time since anyone had seen the evils of the Left in power in this country…look how quickly we've come to recognize we've made a mistake and that this monster must be stopped.
Sara, please write me your particulars at evan@evansayet.com. I have no idea who I know but I do know people…
Evan
Blah, blah, blah, name calling and insults. Not one substantive thought being expressed here.
Thanks for pretty much proving the point of this article!
Things do seem to be turning a bit, so that does give me hope. (Real hope, not Obama's version!)
Thank you, and keep fighting that good fight!
Great post and great points!
Cheers to you and your wife for raising two young men who know how to think for themselves instead of schleping along with the garbage we see in the culture. God knows the world is in great need of men (and women!) like that.
This is why The Culture Alliance (http://theculturealliance.org) exists. Our mission is to foster a culture of liberty, i.e., a culture that values and builds respect for liberty and personal responsibility. We are the only organization building a think tank that targets the cultural influence professions in the Arts, Entertainment, Education and Journalism. We are also creating chapters on college campuses in order to recruit politically minded young people who understand what Mr. Sayet is saying. Politics follows culture. Culture does not follow politics. Politics may be a system of power, but entertainment, education and journals, the cultural influence professions, are systems of influence, and that influence got 51% of American voters to pull the lever for then Senator, now President, Barack H. Obama, the most radically left-wing president America has ever had. Trying to correct this by focusing on politics and throwing stones at the cultural influence professions is a waste of time.
This is why The Culture Alliance (http://theculturealliance.org) exists. Our mission is to foster a culture of liberty, i.e., a culture that values and builds respect for liberty and personal responsibility. We are the only organization building a think tank that targets the cultural influence professions in the Arts, Entertainment, Education and Journalism. We are also creating chapters on college campuses in order to recruit politically minded young people who understand what Mr. Sayet is saying. Politics follows culture. Culture does not follow politics. Politics may be a system of power, but entertainment, education and journals, the cultural influence professions, are systems of influence, and that influence got 51% of American voters to pull the lever for then Senator, now President, Barack H. Obama, the most radically left-wing president America has ever had. Trying to correct this by focusing on politics and throwing stones at the cultural influence professions is a waste of time.
This is why The Culture Alliance (http://theculturealliance.org) exists. Our mission is to foster a culture of liberty, i.e., a culture that values and builds respect for liberty and personal responsibility. We are the only organization building a think tank that targets the cultural influence professions in the Arts, Entertainment, Education and Journalism. We are also creating chapters on college campuses in order to recruit politically minded young people who understand what Mr. Sayet is saying. Politics follows culture. Culture does not follow politics. Politics may be a system of power, but entertainment, education and journals, the cultural influence professions, are systems of influence, and that influence got 51% of American voters to pull the lever for then Senator, now President, Barack H. Obama, the most radically left-wing president America has ever had. Trying to correct this by focusing on politics and throwing stones at the cultural influence professions is a waste of time.
terrific post- where to start?…
In the sake of brevity let's play a favourite parlour game- Psychoanalyst.
Since everything this privileged lot does seems counter-intuititve it appaers that it is the self-loathing of the cultuarl Left for their (undeserved?) material success. When Chevy Chase looks Castro staight in the eye and says, enthusiastically, "socialism works!" and then returns to his estate in the Hamptons with 4 cars in the driveway and feels no striking contrast one gets the picture. Ergo Spielberg's 'most important eight hours of my life' comment about the corrupt thug.
They think they are elite, smarter and more talented than anyone else, and deserve the riches they didn't really earn through any hard work…
Make sense?
[...] Evan Sayet: The Take Over of American Culture [...]
I'm no psychologist, but I think these "brats" (and Bill Ayers is a perfect example) have somehow been deprived of something they need. Whether they were neglected or ridiculed or abused in some way by their parents, I don't know. But I think they feel society and West Civ has somehow let them down and they have suffered in some way. Certainly not materially, but psychologically.
On top of that they feel guilty for being resentful as they probably are constantly told they should be grateful for all their material benefits and feel sorry for people who don't have such a "good life."
This results in wanting to totally change the society that let them down and made them suffer and at the same time claim to want to help those less fortunate to assuage their guilt.
How does that sound to everyone? Make sense?
I'm going to post this same theory in the general comments, but wanted to specifically reply to this comment.
Evan, great article.
Several commenters have asked how wealthy leftists can hate a civilization that provides them with a great lifestyle and allows them amazing freedoms.
I'm no psychologist, but I think these "brats" (and Bill Ayers is a perfect example) have somehow been deprived of something they need. Whether they were neglected or ridiculed or abused in some way by their parents, I don't know. But I think they feel society and West Civ has somehow let them down and they have suffered in some way. Certainly not materially, but psychologically.
On top of that they feel guilty for being resentful as they probably are constantly told they should be grateful for all their material benefits and feel sorry for people who don't have such a "good life."
This results in wanting to totally change the society that let them down and made them suffer and at the same time claim to want to help those less fortunate to assuage their guilt. How does that sound?
The way Tennessee has been playing the past few years, maybe all of their players should carry on the field.
War Eagle!
yeah- M4 carbines…
Obedience to Truth is not being a sheep. And God revealed the Truth to us. That's the whole point to Christianity – revelation. The Truth has been made known. It's not a matter of "discovering" it. Such a concept ignores God's revelation and places the onus (and, consequently, worldly "glory") on the "discoverer:" man. Obedience is a choice, a self-sacrifice, and a life-long struggle that is never undertaken by a sheep. But obedience is key. The denial of the fallen aspects of the self, the rejection of the ego, and absolute selfless humility.
These are ALL contradictory points to Western philosophies and Western Christianity, which have elevated the individual to the height of importance. That is my underlying point, really, and my criticism of both Ms. Rand and Marx.
the sinner,
Patrick
Very well put. Amazing – there is *always* someone smarter than yourself who can put things more succinctly and more accurately than you. Or, in this case, me. Much appreciated, sir.
the sinner,
Patrick
Not really true. Simple experience does not bring us closer to God. God makes it possible for us to be closer to him – and that is NOT done through any ol' experience. Without the proper knowledge of God, we can experience any number of deceptions and be misled.
For the Christian, service to God is the single, overriding concern. The abandonment of self (NOT free will, as it is only through the explicit exercise of free will that one becomes obedient to God and can experience theosis – the spiritual AND physical indwelling of the Holy Spirit) rejects the notion that the very exercise of free will is a good in and of itself.
We have free will, which means the choice to do good or evil (or even do good for evil reasons, negating the action itself. The Fathers teach us that the Antichrist will do "good works," but for evil reasons. Without the proper motivation – to worship God – any act is inherently worthless).
The problem is that in the West we have elevated the idea of simply exercising free will as the ultimate "good." This is where I disagree with Libertarianism – because THAT *is*, in fact, its central thesis. That is, that the greatest good and ultimate goal of all human endeavors is just the mere exercise of free will. Morality is necessarily excluded, since the choice to believe in morality is simply another manifestation of the exercise of free will and is no more "true" than any other exercise of free will. Hence, D'Souza's comment about libertarians maintaining immoral positions in order to remain ideologically consistent.
Thus Truth is sacrificed for the ego, manifested in the exercise of free will, and morality is abandoned. That the surface results of libertarianism may be along the lines of the kind of materialistic, worldly freedom that the West cherishes doesn't mean that I can ignore the source for the sake of results.
the sinner,
Patrick
I'd recommend Ryan's book on Objectivism to you, but I'm afraid he gets into pretty esoteric philosophical territory in the first half of it, pointing out logical inconsistencies; it's not until the second half, where he addresses the results of these inconsistencies, that the book really gets interesting.
such is the life of the absolutist…
Perhasps the coporeal world we live in has jaded us unduly, but we seek alliances against evil. Sometimes those alliances are, well, a bit dodgy…anyway we appreciate your passion and intellect…
your criticism is noted. Closer My God to Thee is more than just a song…
Hi Ashley,
I have, in fact, heard of NAS and I know they do good work. I'm involved in a number of efforts to return scholarship to our schools.
Keep up the good fight!
Evan
Maybe have a guy with superhuman knowledge sources, and tech skills. He'd help the 'progressives' out, but he'd always be making sarcastic comments to them about what they were doing, even when he was helping them do it. One of the more perceptive dems would say 'don't take his help' but the help is so very helpful that even tho' not wholly trusted, and his smart aleck comments are endured (with maybe a likable Dem character quitting the Movement in response), that they follow him.
At the end, he reveals he's a time traveller from a Dem controlled future where the guy he just got elected is President for Life. The Dems chortle. He grins….'but the equations indicate that won't happen now. If he had waited four more years, it would have been too late for America, but now there is still some strength left in the rotted oak to resist the Tyrant.'
interesting response…
it almost makes us not hate time travel plotlines so much anymore!
Exactly right, Evan. Bush's greatest failure was that he refused to fight America's domestic enemies, thinking he was rising above the fray.
Sadly, by refusing to fight back against the Democrats and the media, he and other RINOs like Dennis Hastert, Bill Frist and John McCain sat around while the Republican brand was destroyed.
I notice you don't provide any examples of poor arguments or semi-informed rant points.
Also remember that Obama ran as a moderate. Rush Limbaugh has long correctly stated that Liberals can't tell you who they really are or what they really think, because the American people would never stand for it.
And the media refused to let any of the truth about Obama get out. Even Bill O'Reilly fawned over him.
"right leaning professor of ethics"
Doesn't that go without saying? We all know that left-leaners have no understanding of ethics.
Watch Evan's two talks on either YouTube or PopModal, and it will go a long way toward helping you understand why. I can't explain it as well as Evan, but here are the basics:
1. They believe that discrimination is evil.
2. Because discrimination is evil, they can never discriminate, even between such simple concepts as right and wrong. [Rational human beings disciminate in everything that we do, such as choosing to eat fresh bread instead of molody bread, but they view this as improper behavior.]
3. Because all of the attempts to be right have never brought about Utopia, i.e., Heaven on Earth, then the problem is that people attempt to do what is right.
4. Therefore, they must always choose the behaviors that lead to failure.
I have listened to these talks over and over again, in attempt to understand these concepts, and I have to say that coming to understand this was on the level of epiphany when I started listening to Rush Limbaugh 17 years ago. Evan has a brilliant intellectual mind and a great way of helping explain these concepts. He has clearly studied some of the greatest Conservative writers, such as Thomas Sowell and Allan Bloom.
Evan is a tremendously valuable asset to the Conservative cause.
Want to know exactly what is going on? Ideological Subversion. It is very clearly explained in this series of interviews with an ex-KGB guy in 1985.
Don't believe me? Think I'm a kook??
Go ahead and watch the first video and see if anything sounds familiar. (I know it's Friday and I know it's a holiday weekend, but try to watch them all if you have time.) If you don't get a really bad sinking feeling in your stomach as you listen, then you need to seek medical help immediately.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlkPkJInUmU&fe...
Want to read a very recent article about it first to see if it's legit? Here ya go: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/from_russi...
I think that trying to put Speilberg into a hard left stance is a bit of a stretch although I agree wholeheartedly with the premise that left wing extremism is the ruling force in the American Educational System. The question now is how do we take it back? Do we get involved and start making some real noise, or do we sit back and do forum posts over steaming cups of java in our living rooms and just let the socialist steamroller maul us? I say – get united.
"Random Blabber" @ http://blushootr.blogspot.com/
While I agree this is a problem, I am not sure I fully agree with the characterization that Speilberg picks his material based on what a liberal professor taught him. I am also not sure that the "real world" helps you see the errors of liberalism.
I recall 35 years ago the indoctrination I went through. Vietnam was for oil! I was required in literature to read "Soul On Ice" the ravings of a murderer whose book was required because the author was black.
It was difficult but I left the left (like that?) when the liberals turned on the military inthe 70's and insulted them, accused them of war crimes and called them war criminals for simply doing their patriotic duty.
It also took Jimmah Carter I, to move me right and finally Reagan to close the deal.
The problem is that no republicans we could elect would have the balls to take on tenure in colleges, non politics in other classrooms, and even impartiality and fairness in the main stream media. They continued to fund totally far left Public Radio and PBS.
We can only hope the left now having full control and totally arogant, will now be exposed in full sunlight
You must be logged in to post a comment.