View Full Version : PRAVDA: Obama 're-elected by illiterate society'...
Team Sergeant
11-26-2012, 10:20
This is funny as hell, even the hardcore commies are calling obama a commie and a socialist and the "Americans" that voted for him "illiterate"..... :D That made my day!
TS
Obama's Soviet Mistake
19.11.2012
By Xavier Lerma
Putin in 2009 outlined his strategy for economic success. Alas, poor Obama did the opposite but nevertheless was re-elected. Bye, bye Miss American Pie. The Communists have won in America with Obama but failed miserably in Russia with Zyuganov who only received 17% of the vote. Vladimir Putin was re-elected as President keeping the NWO order out of Russia while America continues to repeat the Soviet mistake.
After Obama was elected in his first term as president the then Prime Minister of Russia, Vladimir Putin gave a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January of 2009. Ignored by the West as usual, Putin gave insightful and helpful advice to help the world economy and saying the world should avoid the Soviet mistake.
Recently, Obama has been re-elected for a 2nd term by an illiterate society and he is ready to continue his lies of less taxes while he raises them. He gives speeches of peace and love in the world while he promotes wars as he did in Egypt, Libya and Syria. He plans his next war is with Iran as he fires or demotes his generals who get in the way.
Putin said regarding the military,
"...instead of solving the problem, militarization pushes it to a deeper level. It draws away from the economy immense financial and material resources, which could have been used much more efficiently elsewhere."
Well, any normal individual understands that as true but liberalism is a psychosis . O'bomber even keeps the war going along the Mexican border with projects like "fast and furious" and there is still no sign of ending it. He is a Communist without question promoting the Communist Manifesto without calling it so. How shrewd he is in America. His cult of personality mesmerizes those who cannot go beyond their ignorance. They will continue to follow him like those fools who still praise Lenin and Stalin in Russia. Obama's fools and Stalin's fools share the same drink of illusion.
Reading Putin's speech without knowing the author, one would think it was written by Reagan or another conservative in America. The speech promotes smaller government and less taxes. It comes as no surprise to those who know Putin as a conservative. Vladimir Putin went on to say:
"...we are reducing taxes on production, investing money in the economy. We are optimizing state expenses.
The second possible mistake would be excessive interference into the economic life of the country and the absolute faith into the all-mightiness of the state.
There are no grounds to suggest that by putting the responsibility over to the state, one can achieve better results.
Unreasonable expansion of the budget deficit, accumulation of the national debt - are as destructive as an adventurous stock market game.
During the time of the Soviet Union the role of the state in economy was made absolute, which eventually lead to the total non-competitiveness of the economy. That lesson cost us very dearly. I am sure no one would want history to repeat itself."
President Vladimir Putin could never have imagined anyone so ignorant or so willing to destroy their people like Obama much less seeing millions vote for someone like Obama. They read history in America don't they? Alas, the schools in the U.S. were conquered by the Communists long ago and history was revised thus paving the way for their Communist presidents. Obama has bailed out those businesses that voted for him and increased the debt to over 16 trillion with an ever increasing unemployment rate especially among blacks and other minorities. All the while promoting his agenda.
"We must seek support in the moral values that have ensured the progress of our civilization. Honesty and hard work, responsibility and faith in our strength are bound to bring us success."- Vladimir Putin
The red, white and blue still flies happily but only in Russia. Russia still has St George defeating the Dragon with the symbol of the cross on its' flag. The ACLU and other atheist groups in America would never allow the US flag with such religious symbols. Lawsuits a plenty against religious freedom and expression in the land of the free. Christianity in the U.S. is under attack as it was during the early period of the Soviet Union when religious symbols were against the law.
Let's give American voters the benefit of the doubt and say it was all voter fraud and not ignorance or stupidity in electing a man who does not even know what to do and refuses help from Russia when there was an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Instead we'll say it's true that the Communists usage of electronic voting was just a plan to manipulate the vote. Soros and his ownership of the company that counts the US votes in Spain helped put their puppet in power in the White House. According to the Huffington Post, residents in all 50 states have filed petitions to secede from the Unites States. We'll say that these Americans are hostages to the Communists in power. How long will their government reign tyranny upon them?
Russia lost its' civil war with the Reds and millions suffered torture and death for almost 75 years under the tyranny of the United Soviet Socialist Republic. Russians survived with a new and stronger faith in God and ever growing Christian Church. The question is how long will the once "Land of the Free" remain the United Socialist States of America? Their suffering has only begun. Bye bye Miss American Pie! You know the song you hippies. Sing it! Don't you remember? The 1971 hit song by American song writer Don McLean:
"And, as I watched him on the stage my hands were clenched in fists of rage.
No angel born in Hell could break that Satan's spell
And, as the flames climbed high into the night to light the sacrificial rite, I saw...
Satan laughing with delight the day the music died
He was singing, bye bye Miss American Pie
Drove my Chevy to the levee, but the levee was dry
Them good ol' boys were drinking whiskey and rye, singing...
This'll be the day that I die
This'll be the day that I die
So, the question remains:
How long will America suffer and to what depths?
Xavier Lerma
Contact Xavier Lerma at xlermanov@swissmail.org
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/19-11-2012/122849-obama_soviet_mistake-0/
Trapper John
11-26-2012, 10:34
OUCH :eek:
I think that was the American electorate collectively stepping on its dick!
Ah - memories of reading such articles in these magazines back when they were the 'Red Menace'...
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
I don't know about all that...I'm just waiting for the free ice cream Obama promised me.
Badger52
11-26-2012, 14:03
TS, thanks for that with its link.
Interesting perspective, dating from April 2009 (different .ru author) here:
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/27-04-2009/107459-american_capitalism-0/
First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.
...
The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.Sometimes you can see alot from the upper deck cheap seats.
:rolleyes:
I would love to see Mr. Lerma's article posted in our USA Today or NY Times. Give everyone something to ponder while Christmas shopping. The slope is even steeper than I thought now that the Soviets are laughing at us.:rolleyes:
ZonieDiver
11-26-2012, 16:36
I would love to see Mr. Lerma's article posted in our USA Today or NY Times. Give everyone something to ponder while Christmas shopping. The slope is even steeper than I thought now that the Soviets are laughing at us.:rolleyes:
They've always 'laughed' at us, haven't they? :D
I'll keep my "Cold War" perspective and still be suspicious of anything I read in Pravda. (I think Mitt was on to something with his supposed 'gaffe' as regards the former-Bolsheviks.
Badger52
11-26-2012, 17:26
I'll keep my "Cold War" perspective and still be suspicious of anything I read in Pravda.By all means, they (and certainly Putin) have tangled webs beyond belief. Am slogging through that book that QP Pete mentioned in the Area Studies Pillar of Cloud thread (alleged Politburo notes & interpretations of same etc.) and they always have several chess boards they're taking care of at any one time.
By contrasting with Obama, it's also serving as a PR piece for Putin.
By contrasting with Obama, it's also serving as a PR piece for Putin.
In my time, the term was "AgitProp" - still applies IMO.
Richard :munchin
Badger52
11-27-2012, 14:32
In my time, the term was "AgitProp" - still applies IMO.
Richard :munchinWinner, sir. Term very familiar; should've ditched my lame attempt at an alternative.
Nothin' gets by an old-school hand. :D
XngZeRubicon
11-29-2012, 18:37
This is funny as hell, even the hardcore commies are calling obama a commie and a socialist and the "Americans" that voted for him "illiterate"..... :D That made my day!
TS
Obama's Soviet Mistake
19.11.2012
By Xavier Lerma
Putin in 2009 outlined his strategy for economic success. Alas, poor Obama did the opposite but nevertheless was re-elected. Bye, bye Miss American Pie. The Communists have won in America with Obama but failed miserably in Russia with Zyuganov who only received 17% of the vote. Vladimir Putin was re-elected as President keeping the NWO order out of Russia while America continues to repeat the Soviet mistake.
After Obama was elected in his first term as president the then Prime Minister of Russia, Vladimir Putin gave a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January of 2009. Ignored by the West as usual, Putin gave insightful and helpful advice to help the world economy and saying the world should avoid the Soviet mistake.
Recently, Obama has been re-elected for a 2nd term by an illiterate society and he is ready to continue his lies of less taxes while he raises them. He gives speeches of peace and love in the world while he promotes wars as he did in Egypt, Libya and Syria. He plans his next war is with Iran as he fires or demotes his generals who get in the way.
Putin said regarding the military,
"...instead of solving the problem, militarization pushes it to a deeper level. It draws away from the economy immense financial and material resources, which could have been used much more efficiently elsewhere."
Well, any normal individual understands that as true but liberalism is a psychosis . O'bomber even keeps the war going along the Mexican border with projects like "fast and furious" and there is still no sign of ending it. He is a Communist without question promoting the Communist Manifesto without calling it so. How shrewd he is in America. ]His cult of personality mesmerizes those who cannot go beyond their ignorance. They will continue to follow him like those fools who still praise Lenin and Stalin in Russia. Obama's fools and Stalin's fools share the same drink of illusion.[/[/COLOR]B]
Reading Putin's speech without knowing the author, one would think it was written by Reagan or another conservative in America. The speech promotes smaller government and less taxes. It comes as no surprise to those who know Putin as a conservative. Vladimir Putin went on to say:
"...[B]we are reducing taxes on production, investing money in the economy. We are optimizing state expenses.
The second possible mistake would be excessive interference into the economic life of the country and the absolute faith into the all-mightiness of the state.
There are no grounds to suggest that by putting the responsibility over to the state, one can achieve better results.
Unreasonable expansion of the budget deficit, accumulation of the national debt - are as destructive as an adventurous stock market game.
During the time of the Soviet Union the role of the state in economy was made absolute, which eventually lead to the total non-competitiveness of the economy. That lesson cost us very dearly. I am sure no one would want history to repeat itself."
:mad::President Vladimir Putin could never have imagined anyone so ignorant or so willing to destroy their people like Obama much less seeing millions vote for someone like Obama. They read history in America don't they? Alas, the schools in the U.S. were conquered by the Communists long ago and history was revised thus paving the way for their Communist presidents. Obama has bailed out those businesses that voted for him and increased the debt to over 16 trillion with an ever increasing unemployment rate especially among blacks and other minorities. All the while promoting his agenda. :mad::mad:
"We must seek support in the moral values that have ensured the progress of our civilization. Honesty and hard work, responsibility and faith in our strength are bound to bring us success."- Vladimir Putin
The red, white and blue still flies happily but only in Russia. Russia still has St George defeating the Dragon with the symbol of the cross on its' flag. The ACLU and other atheist groups in America would never allow the US flag with such religious symbols. Lawsuits a plenty against religious freedom and expression in the land of the free. Christianity in the U.S. is under attack as it was during the early period of the Soviet Union when religious symbols were against the law.
Let's give American voters the benefit of the doubt and say it was all voter fraud and not ignorance or stupidity in electing a man who does not even know what to do and refuses help from Russia when there was an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Instead we'll say it's true that the Communists usage of electronic voting was just a plan to manipulate the vote. Soros and his ownership of the company that counts the US votes in Spain helped put their puppet in power in the White House. According to the Huffington Post, residents in all 50 states have filed petitions to secede from the Unites States. We'll say that these Americans are hostages to the Communists in power. How long will their government reign tyranny upon them?
Russia lost its' civil war with the Reds and millions suffered torture and death for almost 75 years under the tyranny of the United Soviet Socialist Republic. Russians survived with a new and stronger faith in God and ever growing Christian Church. The question is how long will the once "Land of the Free" remain the United Socialist States of America? Their suffering has only begun. Bye bye Miss American Pie! You know the song you hippies. Sing it! Don't you remember? The 1971 hit song by American song writer Don McLean:
"
Contact Xavier Lerma at xlermanov@swissmail.org
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/19-11-2012/122849-obama_soviet_mistake-0/
I don't care who the hell wrote the parts I bolded - they're spot on. I personally don't think of President Obama as a communist. But at a minimum he is a Democratic Socialist in the European mold.
It's three weeks after the election an I'm still sickened.
I don't care who the hell wrote the parts I bolded - they're spot on. I personally don't think of President Obama as a communist. But at a minimum he is a Democratic Socialist in the European mold.
It's three weeks after the election an I'm still sickened.
The hallmark of socialism is government ownership of the means of production. Venezuela is the modern day prototype: taking over mines, factories, oil, and so on.
The hallmark of communism is destruction of the concept of private property: everything is owned by the community -- which is, in turn, controlled by a strong central government, "for their own good." Soviet Russia was the prototype.
Obama is neither of those.
The hallmark of fascism is government colluding with corporations and unions. Gov creates laws that favor one corp over another, or that send truckloads of taxpayer money their way, and in return they feed the public whatever propaganda gov wants. If they mess up, gov can claim they weren't responsible, and blame the corp, which then helps facilitate creation of more laws -- all of the "benefits" of socialism, without the risks.
I think many people would be surprised at (or simply wouldn't believe) the depth of Obama's corporate connections--not just Solyndra, but a whole laundry list of similar hand-outs. There's a book called Obamanomics that goes into considerable detail about them. How else could he have raised $1B for his campaign? Why else would the MSM be so strongly biased in his favor? Although ideology plays a big part, there's much more to it.
I would describe Obama as projecting an outwardly Progressive image, but using Fascist strategy and tactics.
Unfortunately, Repubs are just as guilty as the Dems on this front (although the Dems are certainly being more effective at the moment), which is one reason I think the Repub campaigns felt so flat and ineffective. To truly expose the Dems for what they are, the Repubs would be shooting themselves in the foot at the same time (or so they think).
ZonieDiver
11-29-2012, 22:29
I don't care who the hell wrote the parts I bolded - they're spot on. I personally don't think of President Obama as a communist. But at a minimum he is a Democratic Socialist in the European mold.
It's three weeks after the election an I'm still sickened.
Spot on... NOT (on)!
You really don't care WHO wrote them? I guess you are NOT a 'child of the Cold War'. I care deeply about who writes things... and WHY they write them. I delve into them, as it were, old bean.
I'm so thrilled that you don't view President Obama as a 'communist' (Should that be capitalized?). I'm sure he's thrilled, too. Just as he is probably relieved that you assess him to be (at minimum) a "Democratic Socialist in the European mold". (I battled some European mold once in a rental property. Nasty business...)
If you went beyond your minimum, how would you classify him? I mean, what are the 'steps' between "Democratic Socialist in the European mold" and "communist"? (I did well in micro, but poorly in macro...though I usually excelled at Marco... Polo, that is.) What I mean is... is there a "Democratic Socialist in a <insert geographic area> mold", or "Full-Blooded Socialist without any mold", or what?
Three weeks rest really charged you up, didn't it?
Also, I refer you to a question I posed in Post #26 in the "How Do You Raise Taxes" thread.
Thanks....
Dozer523
11-30-2012, 03:34
? . . . I would describe Obama as projecting an outwardly Progressive image, but using Fascist strategy). The communist-socialist thing didn't work out, so now the President is a Nazi...?
Well, at least we have him bracketed.
Drop 1,000...Left 1,000...fire for effect.
The communist-socialist thing didn't work out, so now the President is a Nazi...?
German Nazism as most Americans understand it today was an extreme endpoint. There was a long road between the early days and the end stage. What we have today is something new -- my point is that it has a number of philosophical similarities with both the German and the Italian flavors of Fascism.
Do any of the following points sound familiar?
We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood.
All citizens must possess equal rights and duties.
The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.
That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.
We demand profit-sharing in large industries.
We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.
We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class.
We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.
The State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people.
The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.
We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press.
We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense.
COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD
In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.
The above are select items from the Nazi Party's list of 25 demands:
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.htm
The modern US variant currently has a more Progressive / socialist / communist public front to it, but the behind-the-scenes corporatist ties are extremely deep and widespread. It sure as hell isn't Capitalism, a Free Market and personal choice / responsibility anymore.
The modern US variant...
Weeping electroencephalographically-challenged beejeezus on a tinfoil cross!
Richard :munchin
The communist-socialist thing didn't work out, so now the President is a Nazi...?
Well, at least we have him bracketed.
Drop 1,000...Left 1,000...fire for effect.
I was going to chide you for taking the Nazi leap - but it looks like Kai took the bait and has doubled down.
This past April when I was traveling NZ I found the people to be remarkably pleasant socially, but quite a bit like a watermelon politically (Enviro Green on the outside, Commie Red on the inside). I have brick-wall type discussions with Kiwis on other (non-political) sites and they insist on throwing out the most far left taking points as gospel. I just don't know what it is about these Kiwis that insist on telling Americans how to run their country.
As far as Fascism goes - the Nazis do not own the topic. For me, Fascism is simply forcing people to do what you want them to do and the people voting for it (at least initially). It is a philosophy that has been in continuous throughout time and evidenced today in Communist China, the European Union, and anyone of the basic training facilities in the US Military.
Again, MOO
As an aside, I expected my Alcoa stock to dip until the mid-terms, but it seems to be ever edging higher. Need to send a note of thanks to Glenn Beck.
Badger52
11-30-2012, 10:16
As an aside, I expected my Alcoa stock to dip until the mid-terms, but it seems to be ever edging higher. Need to send a note of thanks to Glenn Beck.Nice.
Baked potatoes all around!
:cool:
I was going to chide you for taking the Nazi leap - but it looks like Kai took the bait and has doubled down.
Sorry, couldn't resist. Philosophy is a passion of mine.
This past April when I was traveling NZ I found the people to be remarkably pleasant socially, but quite a bit like a watermelon politically (Enviro Green on the outside, Commie Red on the inside). I have brick-wall type discussions with Kiwis on other (non-political) sites and they insist on throwing out the most far left taking points as gospel. I just don't know what it is about these Kiwis that insist on telling Americans how to run their country.
Yeah, those damn Kiwis. FWIW, I'm an American. Just happen to be living/working in NZ at the moment. Haven't seen too many Commie Red on the inside types here myself. There's a definite lean to the left on social issues (socialized medicine and welfare), but the Kiwis I've met have a very strong respect for property rights.
As far as Fascism goes - the Nazis do not own the topic. For me, Fascism is simply forcing people to do what you want them to do and the people voting for it (at least initially).
For me, it's not just force, but the mechanisms (social, political, economic, corporate, military) by which that force is applied, and the philosophy that motivates it.
There's a difference between a government that confiscates profitable mining and oil companies and runs them itself (Venezuela) vs. one that bails out a failed auto manufacturer with public money and hands ownership over to its partner unions (GM) -- and between propaganda from state-owned media (Pravda) vs. media that's heavily influenced by back-door government funding (GE).
Team Sergeant
11-30-2012, 15:53
I'm trying to wrap my head around this...... I would like to have a sitdown chat with just ten of those professors....
TS
96 percent of Ivy League professors' donations went to Obama
Ivy League educators overwhelmingly supported President Obama with their campaign donations in the presidential election, reinforcing the suspicions of critics who say their bias also shows up in the classroom.
Some 96 percent of faculty and staffers at the eight universities who donated wrote their checks to Obama, and at Brown University, just one professor contributed to Mitt Romney's bid, according to a study by student political advocacy group Campus Reform. In all, the employees of the prestigious schools sent more than $1.2 million to President Obama and just $114,166 for Romney’s campaign -- a ratio of more than 10-to-1.
“These numbers represent more evidence that grand claims of diversity and tolerance on the American campus ring hollow," said Josiah Ryan, a spokesman for Campus Reform. "It is impossible to believe that professors did not protect their financial investment in President Obama through campaigning in the classroom.”
cont:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/28/ivy-leaguers-overwhelmingly-supported-obama-in-campaign-contributions/
Dozer523
11-30-2012, 16:13
I'm trying to wrap my head around this...... I would like to have a sitdown chat with just ten of those professors....
TS
[B]“These numbers represent more evidence that grand claims of diversity and tolerance on the American campus ring hollow," said Josiah Ryan, a spokesman for Campus Reform. "It is impossible to believe that professors did not protect their financial investment in President Obama through campaigning in the classroom.”
I doubt you nor they would find much to like in the conversation. For one thing, your questions would be pretty short and their answers way too long. (10:1 odds? Kinda sucks for them.)
Have to admire Fox for giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Badger52
11-30-2012, 16:48
96 percent of Ivy League professors' donations went to Obama...Given what the high church of Academia does in this state, and some other research into both union and education-oriented organizations, I'd say their DOWN a couple percent from some of their peers.
Team Sergeant, this stat surprises me not in the slightest and is likely present in many states' university systems.
(During the recall their spending for the challenger to Gov. Walker - who'd already lost once but, hey, everyone can be a winner, right? - was 20:1.)
Anyone who thinks that doesn't ultimately translate into the classroom skewed in some fashion has, in my view, been living in the desert with that one old geezer between Sierra Vista and Tombstone they tell everyone to stay away from.
Organizations such as the NRA have nothing on these people in terms of the ability to raise money in order to either prevent upsetting their apple cart or perpetuate their self-image. There are, of course, exceptions. Apparently all 4% of them.
:rolleyes:
has, in my view, been living in the desert with that one old geezer between Sierra Vista and Tombstone they tell everyone to stay away from.
Hey! I resemble that remark! :eek:
Pat
Pericles
11-30-2012, 17:43
The irony of finding truth published in Pravda ....
I'm trying to wrap my head around this...... I would like to have a sitdown chat with just ten of those professors....
TS
I know the feeling.
Modern academics are the intellectual parents of the modern Left -- so of course they support it (and they are organized enough to reject from their ranks those who don't agree).
Many are near opposites of people who have integrity, pride and self-esteem, who value honesty and productivity, who know in their hearts and minds that there is a concrete, real-world difference between right and wrong.
At their core, modern academics enshrine mediocrity (relativism). They believe that no opinion, statement or observation is more true than any other (subjectivism), and they believe in equal outcome, not equal opportunity (egalitarianism). They have pushed those beliefs onto their students, and from there into politics.
At their core, modern academics enshrine mediocrity (relativism). They believe that no opinion, statement or observation is more true than any other (subjectivism), and they believe in equal outcome, not equal opportunity (egalitarianism). They have pushed those beliefs onto their students, and from there into politics.What is the basis of this POV?
Trapper John
12-01-2012, 11:27
..... I have had conversations with Senators, Princes, Ambassadors and Grunts. My friends include physicians, lawyers, chefs, SF CSM's and SF officers.
TS
This reminds me of the line from Rudyard Kipling's "If" ...."If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue, Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch"...
{Salute}
Trapper John
12-01-2012, 12:21
I know the feeling.
Modern academics are the intellectual parents of the modern Left -- so of course they support it (and they are organized enough to reject from their ranks those who don't agree). For example see http://www.philly.com/philly/news/119475914.html?c=r as a case in point.
Many are near opposites of people who have integrity, pride and self-esteem, who value honesty and productivity, who know in their hearts and minds that there is a concrete, real-world difference between right and wrong. I have spent the bulk of my career interacting with academics in both public and private institutions of higher education. To a person these are individuals of great integrity, pride and self-esteem, who value honesty and productivity, who know in their hearts and minds that there is a concrete, real world difference between right and wrong.
At their core, modern academics enshrine mediocrity (relativism). They believe that no opinion, statement or observation is more true than any other (subjectivism), and they believe in equal outcome, not equal opportunity (egalitarianism). They have pushed those beliefs onto their students, and from there into politics. IMO the political philosophy of academics stems more from what I call the "silo problem" than some intrinsic philosophy that embraces mediocrity, subjectivism,or egalitarianism. The "silo problem" is the result of building institutions and the attraction of like minded "believers" to the exclusion of "non-believers". In academia this breeds a form of intellectual incest and promotion of ideas that may not reflect ground truth. Because those in the "silo" only have the viewpoint of other inhabitants of the "silo" the ideas are reinforced within the "silo community".
Just my humble opinion.
TrapLine
12-01-2012, 12:57
I do not work in academia; but I do take the time to speak at several colleges/universities on both subjects of course work and career seeking. I have noticed what many here have already pointed out regarding the left's grip on post secondary education. In my experience, the environment has gone from strictly left leaning to an echo chamber without a dissenting voice. It becomes more difficult each year to participate, but I feel it is the right thing to do. I can convey my point of view without concern of rejection from the educators I deal with which I doubt they hear much of from within. Eventually, I may not get invited back to the classroom or the advisory boards I sit on:D.
I am likely not as intelligent or as educated as those I participate with; forcing me to lean more on common sense and toil. Maybe there is value in that for the students, maybe not. I could be all wrong.
I believe that Trapper's "silo effect" effectively describes 'stacked thinking' not only in academia, but also the former profession once known as journalism, the military, politicians, Hollywierd, and the so-called 'elites' on both Left coasts.
I believe it effects ideas and thinking on both sides of the aisle...
Trapper John
12-01-2012, 14:31
I believe that Trapper's "silo effect" effectively describes 'stacked thinking' not only in academia, but also the former profession once known as journalism, the military, politicians, Hollywierd, and the so-called 'elites' on both Left coasts.
I believe it effects ideas and thinking on both sides of the aisle...
And an industry in which I believe we both have a vested interest - healthcare/pharmaceutical industry. This is a battle I am fighting every day.
{Salute}
I believe it effects ideas and thinking on both sides of the aisle...MOO, one of the effects is that it keeps those in a specific silo from seeing the diversity of thought and intensity of debate in other silos.
What is the basis of this POV?
I think most recent college grads would probably agree with me, although they would likely present their POV in rosier terms than me.
After all, "equality" sounds like an American value, right? And "fairness"? "Justice"? "Opportunity"? But those words have a much different meaning today than they did 200 yrs ago (largely thanks to academia).
Start with egalitarianism. Look at a few of the big movements on college campuses over the last few generations:
People must be equal in college training regardless of academic or financial preparation (open admissions and open financial aid).
People must be equal in jobs and promotions, regardless of qualifications (the quota system).
People must be equal in cultural prestige, regardless of talent (such as art subsidies for minority groups).
People must be equal in authority regardless of knowledge (such as Student Power).
People must be equal in moral respectability regardless of behavior.
People must be equal in credit for achievement regardless of achievement (such as the movements against grades and sports scores, and "weighted" grades (giving someone with a perfect score a "B" and someone who would have failed a "C+" because "they tried")).
IOW, values properly belong to those who have reached the eminence of not having achieved them.
And of course, there are now entire divisions at some universities dedicated to egalitarianism, such as the Division of Equity, Inclusion and Diversity at UC Berkeley.
I think most recent college grads would probably agree with me, although they would likely present their POV in rosier terms than me.
After all, "equality" sounds like an American value, right? And "fairness"? "Justice"? "Opportunity"? But those words have a much different meaning today than they did 200 yrs ago (largely thanks to academia).
Start with egalitarianism. Look at a few of the big movements on college campuses over the last few generations:
People must be equal in college training regardless of academic or financial preparation (open admissions and open financial aid).
People must be equal in jobs and promotions, regardless of qualifications (the quota system).
People must be equal in cultural prestige, regardless of talent (such as art subsidies for minority groups).
People must be equal in authority regardless of knowledge (such as Student Power).
People must be equal in moral respectability regardless of behavior.
People must be equal in credit for achievement regardless of achievement (such as the movements against grades and sports scores, and "weighted" grades (giving someone with a perfect score a "B" and someone who would have failed a "C+" because "they tried")).
IOW, values properly belong to those who have reached the eminence of not having achieved them.
And of course, there are now entire divisions at some universities dedicated to egalitarianism, such as the Division of Equity, Inclusion and Diversity at UC Berkeley.The question was straightforward but I'll rephrase it.
Rather than making up what people you've never met think, please do elaborate on the direct experience working in the Ivory Tower or working with eggheads. Or have you simply researched the issue with the same vigor you've investigated European and American history?
I have spent the bulk of my career interacting with academics in both public and private institutions of higher education. To a person these are individuals of great integrity, pride and self-esteem, who value honesty and productivity, who know in their hearts and minds that there is a concrete, real world difference between right and wrong.
My experience with academic administrators (mostly in California, some in New England) has been that they sincerely think they have integrity, honesty, and so on, in the way they treat and interact with their staff and students. They also work hard at trying convince others that they do. One reason for their ongoing success is that they are often quite effective in those efforts--in part, over the long term, by actually redefining what those words mean to most people. But if you look closely, I don't believe most of them have those things, at least in the age-old sense of what they are.
A few questions can sometimes be very revealing, provided the questioner knows what they're looking for. For example:
Would you deny admission to a high-achiever if it meant you could help a "deserving" under-achiever?
Should an under-achiever who "tried" be told they succeeded when they didn't? Would doing so diminish the value and meaning of success for those who did?
Are you always honest with your students, regardless of their cultural background?
Are there morally correct reasons to fight and kill? To go to war? What are they?
Are there any cultures or beliefs you would reject as being fundamentally flawed and evil?
If someone's cultural heritage includes abuse of women, does that make it OK for them to continue the "tradition"? Is their "good" different from yours?
Are songs or art about despair, death and killing just as good as ones about living and the joy of life?
How free should people really be? Should society impose strict limits, controls and redistribution of wealth "for the greater good"?
Is it OK for society to allow people and organizations to fail?
Of course, I wouldn't expect straight answers or absolutes. I would expect qualifications galore: "it depends" ... "compared to this" ... and so on.
IMO the political philosophy of academics stems more from what I call the "silo problem" than some intrinsic philosophy that embraces mediocrity, subjectivism,or egalitarianism. The "silo problem" is the result of building institutions and the attraction of like minded "believers" to the exclusion of "non-believers". In academia this breeds a form of intellectual incest and promotion of ideas that may not reflect ground truth. Because those in the "silo" only have the viewpoint of other inhabitants of the "silo" the ideas are reinforced within the "silo community".
I agree there is a silo problem.
You mention "the attraction of like minded 'believers'". My question is this: believers in what?
A few questions can sometimes be very revealing, provided the questioner knows what they're looking for.This is an interesting-- even, as you put it, "very revealing"--approach to open discourse: ask leading questions so one can confirm existing notions and validate expectations of how others think.
The question was straightforward but I'll rephrase it.
Rather than making up what people you've never met think, please do elaborate on the direct experience working in the Ivory Tower or working with eggheads. Or have you simply researched the issue with the same vigor you've investigated European and American history?
I worked with "eggheads" in "Ivory Towers" for the better part of three decades. I spent much of that time in the land between governments and both universities and corporations--some on the defense research side, and some on the private/commercial side. Most of my experience was in California, with a heavy dose of DC.
ZonieDiver
12-01-2012, 20:07
I worked with "eggheads" in "Ivory Towers" for the better part of three decades. I spent much of that time in the land between governments and both universities and corporations--some on the defense research side, and some on the private/commercial side. Most of my experience was in California, with a heavy dose of DC.
I'd say that California (UC-B in particular) and DC are not representative of ANYthing for the rest of the USofA, even academia. Making such sweeping generalizations about an entire 'industry' on those two experiences would seem to me to cast doubt on your assumptions.
Throw in Arizona State, U of Nebraska, Oklahoma State U... and others and you might have something.
I'd say that California (UC-B in particular) and DC are not representative of ANYthing for the rest of the USofA, even academia. Making such sweeping generalizations about an entire 'industry' on those two experiences would seem to me to cast doubt on your assumptions.
Throw in Arizona State, U of Nebraska, Oklahoma State U... and others and you might have something.
I'm the first to admit that CA schools are extreme examples. However, many of the ideas that started there have spread.
Also, you don't have to work at or attend schools all over the country to be able to see a nationwide trend. Do you think the schools you mentioned don't have programs like the ones I described?
For example, ASU has a very active diversity program. The university president said, "Arizona State University's commitment to inclusivity is central to its mission as a New American University and is evident throughout its diverse and talented community." Parse that carefully: central to its mission.
http://diversity.asu.edu/home
What they don't say is that "inclusivity" really means including some while excluding others--and the others are more qualified.
They also say, "#1 for doctorates earned by Hispanic students in mathematics and statistics." Why not something about what their graduates have produced? Or the quality or superiority of their skills? I suggest it's because those aren't the goals. In fact, they've stated what seems to be the key goal: lots-a-doctorates for many who wouldn't have been able to qualify without the school's diversity program.
they sincerely think they have integrity, honesty, and so on,
Kind of validates the concept of people don't know what they don't know.
I'm the first to admit that CA schools are extreme examples. However, many of the ideas that started there have spread.
Also, you don't have to work at or attend schools all over the country to be able to see a nationwide trend. Do you think the schools you mentioned don't have programs like the ones I described?
For example, ASU has a very active diversity program. The university president said, "Arizona State University's commitment to inclusivity is central to its mission as a New American University and is evident throughout its diverse and talented community." Parse that carefully: central to its mission.
http://diversity.asu.edu/home
What they don't say is that "inclusivity" really means including some while excluding others--and the others are more qualified.
They also say, "#1 for doctorates earned by Hispanic students in mathematics and statistics." Why not something about what their graduates have produced? Or the quality or superiority of their skills? I suggest it's because those aren't the goals. In fact, they've stated what seems to be the key goal: lots-a-doctorates for many who wouldn't have been able to qualify without the school's diversity program.IMO, your attribution so much of the recent intellectual currents to the UC system ("many of the ideas that started there have spread") as opposed to placing correctly many of those ideas at other academic institutions in America, Great Britain, and Europe, calls into question your assumption that you can assess what is happening on a national level based upon your own experiences.
(IIRC, the Frankfurt School wasn't known as such because its members hobnobbed on Sproul Plaza. Nor did the British Marxists earn that collective descriptor because they shot the breeze in front of Sather Gate. And while Foucault did do some stomping around at Cal, it wasn't until well after he'd made his reputation in France. Also, many of the jump off points of the bitter historiographical debates of the past sixty plus years were at places that included Wisconsin-Madison, the University of Texas at Austin, Columbia, Yale, and the University of Rochester.)
And as long as I'm speaking parenthetically, your grasp of American history is equally controversial. Take for example your comment:
After all, "equality" sounds like an American value, right? And "fairness"? "Justice"? "Opportunity"? But those words have a much different meaning today than they did 200 yrs ago (largely thanks to academia).Here's something you may not have considered. The leg work for the changing meanings of many of those terms was not done by academics but by normal, every day people who sought to expand the promise of American freedom to cohorts that had been excluded previously.
Kind of validates the concept of people don't know what they don't know.
Or further validates the Dunning-Kruger Effect...
Or further validates the Dunning-Kruger Effect...
Exactly, thank you.
ZonieDiver
12-02-2012, 07:48
..."inclusivity" really means including some while excluding others...
You obviously haven't driven by any of ASU's campuses (Is it - or should it be - "campii"?) of late. I don't think the university excludes ANYbody. :D:D
... programs like the ones I described...
I'll leave discussion of those horrible programs that scare you so much to others. I was concentrating on the main idea of the OP as to whether all the Commies On Campuses (once again... 'Campii"?) were brainwashing our youth in vast numbers.
I just did not, and do not, see it happening in large numbers at ASU (UofA is another kettle of fish altogether :D), and don't think it happens in great numbers at UN-L, or many other places.
YMMaODV (Your Mileage May, and Obviously Does, Vary)
Brainwashing... I suppose it depends on what your definition is and to what degree one considers what is actual brainwashing.
I'm a little rusty in the child psych and child development department, but it seems to me that brainwashing, to a degree, begins at (or even before) birth.
But for the purpose of responding to some of the more recent posts, I would put forth that brainwashing is and has occurred by the state starting in kindergarten. It continues throughout the middle and high schooling. I believe that by the time one reaches college, the brainwashing process is mostly complete and what is occurring there is the validation of said brainwashing...
It seems to me that our schooling (brainwashing) has changed (evolved).
The issue at hand is not that brainwashing occurs, it is rather whether or not that we like the results of the current process...
See The Lamest Generation Thread.
Trapper John
12-02-2012, 09:28
My experience with academic administrators (mostly in California, some in New England) has been that they sincerely think they have integrity, honesty, and so on, in the way they treat and interact with their staff and students. They also work hard at trying convince others that they do. One reason for their ongoing success is that they are often quite effective in those efforts--in part, over the long term, by actually redefining what those words mean to most people. But if you look closely, I don't believe most of them have those things, at least in the age-old sense of what they are. I can only say that your experience is different than mine. Therefore, our opinions will differ ;)
A few questions can sometimes be very revealing, provided the questioner knows what they're looking for. For example: I am confused as to who is the "questioner" and to whom the questions are being asked. If you are asking me, I will answer in a separate reply to this post. Please advise.
Would you deny admission to a high-achiever if it meant you could help a "deserving" under-achiever?
Should an under-achiever who "tried" be told they succeeded when they didn't? Would doing so diminish the value and meaning of success for those who did?
Are you always honest with your students, regardless of their cultural background?
Are there morally correct reasons to fight and kill? To go to war? What are they?
Are there any cultures or beliefs you would reject as being fundamentally flawed and evil?
If someone's cultural heritage includes abuse of women, does that make it OK for them to continue the "tradition"? Is their "good" different from yours?
Are songs or art about despair, death and killing just as good as ones about living and the joy of life?
How free should people really be? Should society impose strict limits, controls and redistribution of wealth "for the greater good"?
Is it OK for society to allow people and organizations to fail?
Of course, I wouldn't expect straight answers or absolutes. I would expect qualifications galore: "it depends" ... "compared to this" ... and so on. From this line I presume that the foregoing questions are asked of a "hypothetical composite" academic. If I am correct in this assumption, I reply by saying that, IMHO, the questions posed are relativistic and not designed to invoke an absolute answer and therefore are not instructive of the responders personal values (honesty, integrity, etc.). Rather, the answers to your questions that you are posing are revealing of the responders thought process. These are two very different things. As a youth I was strongly influenced by the writing of Bishop Joseph Fletcher "Situational Ethics". To illustrate my point. Question: "Is murder immoral?" Answer: "Yes" Question: "Is killing immoral" Answer: "It depends". Question 1 is revealing of the responders moral values. Question 2 is revealing of the responders thought process.
I agree there is a silo problem.
You mention "the attraction of like minded 'believers'". My question is this: believers in what? I should have said "thinkers" instead of "believers". Is that clarifying?
IMO, your attribution so much of the recent intellectual currents to the UC system ("many of the ideas that started there have spread") as opposed to placing correctly many of those ideas at other academic institutions in America, Great Britain, and Europe, calls into question your assumption that you can assess what is happening on a national level based upon your own experiences.
(IIRC, the Frankfurt School wasn't known as such because its members hobnobbed on Sproul Plaza. Nor did the British Marxists earn that collective descriptor because they shot the breeze in front of Sather Gate. And while Foucault did do some stomping around at Cal, it wasn't until well after he'd made his reputation in France. Also, many of the jump off points of the bitter historiographical debates of the past sixty plus years were at places that included Wisconsin-Madison, the University of Texas at Austin, Columbia, Yale, and the University of Rochester.)
I was thinking of UC in the context of things like the Student Power movement. However, which schools contributed exactly what is immaterial to the point I'm trying to make.
If you want to trace the full history of the ideas of the modern Left, you would need to go much further back, including philosophers like Hegel, Kant and Plato.
And as long as I'm speaking parenthetically, your grasp of American history is equally controversial. Take for example your comment:Here's something you may not have considered. The leg work for the changing meanings of many of those terms was not done by academics but by normal, every day people who sought to expand the promise of American freedom to cohorts that had been excluded previously.
My view (based on both personal experience and history) is that while "normal, every day people" have a general sense of what they think is right -- such as "expanding the promise of American freedom to cohorts that had been excluded previously," it's the intellectuals in the country who flesh out those ideas: Who are our cohorts? What does it mean to be excluded previously? What is the promise of freedom? How do you expand it? Why is it a good idea? The answers to these questions are not obvious, and in fact require a substantial philosophical foundation.
In the US, where is the primary home of intellectuals? I would argue it's in academia.
Compare Of course, I wouldn't expect straight answers or absolutes. I would expect qualifications galore: "it depends" ... "compared to this" ... and so on.to:
I was thinking of UC in the context of things like the Student Power movement. However, which schools contributed exactly what is immaterial to the point I'm trying to make.
If you want to trace the full history of the ideas of the modern Left, you would need to go much further back, including philosophers like Hegel, Kant and Plato.IMO, you're trying to have it both ways. You want to nail those who don't give what you think are "straight answers" but when you are held to a similar standard, you offer qualifications.
Initially, you did not say the student power movement and associated initiatives, you said "many of the ideas that started there have spread." Then, when it is brought to your attention that many of those ideas started elsewhere, you say it is "immaterial."
Yet, at the same time, you seek to preserve your intellectual authority by referring to "Hegel, Kant and Plato." So the past doesn't matter...unless you say it matters. But somehow, it is the liberal academics who are the problem.
(In my view, you saying it is "immaterial" makes your view of history even more controversial, especially after your diatribe against what you call "relativism.")
My view (based on both personal experience and history) is that while "normal, every day people" have a general sense of what they think is right -- such as "expanding the promise of American freedom to cohorts that had been excluded previously," it's the intellectuals in the country who flesh out those ideas: Who are our cohorts? What does it mean to be excluded previously? What is the promise of freedom? How do you expand it? Why is it a good idea? The answers to these questions are not obvious, and in fact require a substantial philosophical foundation.
In the US, where is the primary home of intellectuals? I would argue it's in academia.Specifically what "history" do you have in mind? That is, what are your sources and which historians are your influences?
I'll leave the history to Sigaba, but I have a concern about this as well.
What aspects of Plato and Kant are you referring to, when you say that they're foundational thinkers for modern liberalism?