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
Got a Tip?
256 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
You must be logged in to post a comment.