Indoctrinate U
Filmmaker Evan Coyne Maloney was a guest Sunday night in primtime on the Fox News program, Hannity's America. Evan dicussed his new documentary Indoctrinate U and the state of the American university. Click HERE to watch the segment on YouTube.
Indoctrinate U is one of the most important documentaries of the year. But it might also be the most important documentary you aren't able to see this year. We know there is a vast audience for this film. But commercial distributors -- the executives who decide what films go into theaters -- don't. So unless we can prove to them that this audience exists -- that you want to see it, Indoctrinate U might not come to a theater near you. All you have to do is sign up to see the film if it comes to your area. There is no cost involved. You can sign up at the Indoctrinate U web site HERE.Once enough people make this pledge, we will have a mandate that commercial distributors can't ignore. In the meantime, we'll arrange for local screenings every time 500 people sign up in a particular area. In just the few days since the web site has been up, response has been overwhelming. The web site has an interactive map showing where people have signed up. The interactive feature became so bogged down by the number of sign-ups, that only towns with 2 or more sign-ups are now shown on the map.
Here is the trailer for the movie...
posted by Hawkeye® -- Tuesday, March 20, 2007
16 Comments
16 Comments:
I signed it...FWIW.
Gee Hawkeye,
It is customary to acknowledge one's sources when using thier text lest you are accused of plagiarism. Just ask Ms. Coulter!
But oooooooooh, that vast left-wing conspiracy ain't at it again are they? But I gotta ask – where are all the right-wing academics? Are they being actively kept out? Or are there just not so many of tthem?
And why, if the morals and convictions of conservatives are so strong, are y'all so scared of having them challenged? Ain't your Young Republicans resolute of spirit and resolve? Or they they liable to brainwashing from the VLWC?
Ah, well, I guess I'll have to wait for the movie that neither of us has seen yet. I'm looking forward to it.
Cheers
Elroy
PS Isnt it's failure to find a distributor merely a function of the free market? Or is it the VLWC again? Or maybe it's just no good. We shall wait and see.
E.
The term "indoctrinate" really describes both the attitude on our campuses today and the process by which colleges ensure that there are few conservative teachers and professors. These folks come through that indoctrination process, become teachers, write textbooks and become administrators and further indoctrinate students in a liberal, vicious circle. Campuses have always been hotbeds for radical thought, but in decades past it was mostly the students practicing this behavior. Now it's the faculty and the administration.
Oh, and I am not signing because, as Elroy-George Jetson's brightest son-wrote, I prefer to let the free market decide what gets distributed.
Camo,
Thanks!
(:D) Regards...
Elroy,
Well, actually I HAVE seen a big chunk of the movie. It was first introduced by Evan Coyne Maloney as a "short" called "Brainwashing 101". Evan talks about it HERE.
The film used to be posted at a web site called "academicbias.com" which has since been shut down. I suspect that this was done because they're pushing the new movie.
And indeed you are correct. The VLWC in U.S. academia is so prejudiced against conservative views that students are being harrassed, intimidated, and in some cases even threatened with physical violence by LLL students (which threats have been ignored of course by the faculty).
And the resolve of the Young Republicans is indeed strong... to the point of taking the universities to court.
Frankly, it's a crime. Going to school shouldn't be a hassle just because you're a conservative.
....Or, just maybe, "truth" has a slight left wing bias?
--purplehaze above
Puplehaze,
"Truth" is a set of "facts" which cannot be disputed under any circumstances. Unfortunately, those are few and far between. We come closest to the "Truth" in areas like mathematics, physics, and chemistry. We begin to approach the "Truth" when we develop scientific experiments which generate results that are quantitative and repeatable. "Truth" has no bias... either left or right.
Everything other than "Truth" is either hypothesis, theory, opinion, wishful thinking, belief, trust, faith, fantasy, delusion, bias, propaganda, distortion, outright lies, or consensus (and there are no doubt a few more that I have missed). None of the items I have just mentioned constitute "Truth". We assume quite naturally that fantasies, delusions, biases, propaganda, distortion and lies are not "Truth". But likewise... theories, hypotheses, opinions, faith, belief and consensus are not "Truth".
It may be in fact the case that what I happen to believe is indeed true, but unless I can prove it by undeniable, quantitative, repeatable and peer-accepted experimentation... I cannot claim that it is indeed "Truth". What I believe to be "Truth" may in reality be merely faith, delusion or consensus.
I happen to believe that "God" and the "Bible" are "Truth". However, since I cannot prove it, I am forced to admit that for me it is a matter of faith. (Others may call it "delusion", but I gladly accept their derision).
There was once great consensus that the earth was flat and that the sun, planets and stars all revolved around the earth. That consensus was utterly wrong of course. Consensus does not establish "Truth".
There is great consensus today in academia regarding "PC" behavior and liberal thought. Consensus however, does not establish "Truth".
Academia in the U.S. today is dominated by liberals. The liberals are in a position of power. Power however, does not establish "Truth". I'm sure you would agree with me that "might does not make right".
The media in the U.S. today is dominated by liberals (think CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, New York Times, L.A. Times, Washington Post, and thousands of smaller newspapers around the country). These publications and networks are clearly biased AND powerful. Bias and Power however, do not establish "Truth", as I'm sure you would agree. In fact, it seems that you and Elroy and the entire VLLLWC are fond of accusing FoxNews and the Bush administration of the very same thing.
Therefore, "Truth" cannot and must not have any bias to the left or the right.
QED.
Actually, your explanation assumes that truth comes from a source that we control. When in reality, if assume, that truth is something that is a separate entity (perhaps reliant on a superior being, such as god, in your belief), then there is a possibility that Truth could have a bias, be it left or right.
My contention that truth was left leaning, is perhaps a hypothesis based on the fundamental tenets of leftist idealogy - ie to strive for equality amongst all human beings. where as right-leaning idealogy, begins with the notion that humans have somehow the need to compete amongst each other, in order to progress as a society. Now, even you may agree with me, that the concept of cooperation for greater good of the masses,starts on a better moral foundation than competition, to better the individual at the expense of the masses.
From this only, I wish to conlude that truth is indeed leftist!
Purplehaze,
You said... your explanation assumes that truth comes from a source that we control.
Not at all. My explanation assumes that "Truth" is universal and that we can "discover" it, but not control it. For example, you and I can discover certain truths about the metal silver. We can discover its atomic weight, its molecular structure, its electrical conductivity, its thermal conductivity, its melting point, its modulus of elasticity, its shear strength, etc. However, we cannot "control" those truths because we cannot change them.
As I said in my last comment, I personally happen to "believe" that God and the Bible are "Truth". However, it is only Truth for me since I cannot "prove" it to you or others. God cannot be quantified, measured or tested. It is only Truth for me (and perhaps not for you), because it is a matter of faith.
Is my God biased? Of course He is. But He is not biased towards the Left or the Right. He is biased against sinfulness and towards righteousness. He is biased against hate and towards love. He is biased against oppression and towards freedom. He is biased against recalcitrance and towards repentance. He is biased against death and towards life. He is biased against disease and towards healing. He is biased against rebellion and towards obedience. He is biased against arrogance and towards humility. He is biased against "the first" and towards "the last". He is biased against "the hills" and towards "the valleys". He is biased against "the crooked" and towards "the straight". He is biased against "the rich-in-spirit" and towards "the poor-in-spirit". He is biased against deception and towards honesty. He is biased against laziness and towards hard work. He is biased against "outward appearance" and towards "the inward man". He is biased against "the flesh" and towards "the spirit". He is biased against receiving and towards giving. There are many more, but I have no time here.
My contention that truth was left leaning, is perhaps a hypothesis based on the fundamental tenets of leftist idealogy - ie to strive for equality amongst all human beings
Well now... that's a subject that requires a separate answer. Let us assume for arguments sake that I disagree with the notion of making all human beings "equal".
I will get back to you on that one.
Good stuff, guys! I’m lovin’ your work!
I’m glad to see that Hawkeye® has moved onto a solid scientific footing, so let’s hope that he continues with it and leaves God, who some might quite reasonably argue is a fantasy and a delusion, out of discussions from now on. If truth really is only what can proved by undeniable, quantitative, repeatable and peer-accepted experimentation, then God is indeed a matter of faith.
However, when we get to bias, propaganda, distortion and lies, things get a little muddier. If everyone is biased to some degree then truth is relative; the media has always been biased to some extent, depending on the politics of the proprietor. This insistence that the press be neutral is really quite a modern phenomenon driven by the conservative pogrom on all things vaguely left – if the Right had their way no news the reflected badly upon them would ever get through.
But what is propaganda? Wikipedia defines it as:
‘a type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people. Often, instead of impartially providing information, propaganda can be deliberately misleading, using logical fallacies, which, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid.
Propaganda techniques include: patriotic flag-waving, glittering generalities, intentional vagueness, oversimplification of complex issues, rationalization, introducing unrelated red herring issues, using appealing, simple slogans, stereotyping, testimonials from authority figures or celebrities, unstated assumptions, and encouraging readers or viewers to "jump on the bandwagon" of a particular point of view.
The aim of propaganda is to influence people's opinions or behaviors actively, rather than merely to communicate the facts about something. For example, propaganda might be used to garner either support or disapproval of a certain position, rather than to simply present the position, or to try to convince people to buy something, rather than to simply let them know there is some thing on the market.’
Now, to me all that could be used as synonym for FOX News, particularly Bill and Sean. They employ these techniques with gay abandon, all the while claiming to be Fair and Balanced™, and I can prove it through undeniable, quantitative, repeatable and peer-accepted experimentation.
It must also be recognized that the term ‘propaganda’ has not always
been considered a pejorative term; up until the post-war era, all political and religious information, all advertising and PR material, was referred to as propaganda by the very people spreading it; indeed, in Spanish and Portuguese, advertising is still commonly referred to as propaganda. In Crystallizing Public Opinion, Edward L. Bernays describes propaganda as the purpose of communications.
‘Education is valuable, commendable, enlightening, instructive. Propaganda is insidious, dishonest, underhanded, misleading…each of these nouns carries with it social and moral implications. . . . the only difference between ‘propaganda’ and ‘education,’ really, is in the point of view. The advocacy of what we believe in is education. The advocacy of what we don’t believe in is propaganda.’
So truth, again, is relative, and even though I feel I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that FOX indulge in classic propaganda techniques as we now define them – certainly they are far more partisan than the mainstream media could ever hope to be; – the public discourse is not helped by merely dismissing contrary points of view as propaganda.
Everything is spun to some degree. The very notion of Bill O’Reilly’s No-Spin Zone is itself spin. And what is a distortion? If John Kerry says that US troop are going into Iraqis’ houses at night and terrifying the occupants, is he really saying that the US troops are terrorists? Of course not. What he is saying is that having heavily armed soldiers from another country come into your house at night, conduct a search and arrest your husband is pretty terrifying, which it is. Yet Hannity, for one, chooses to distort what Kerry said, and at other times he ignores information that directly disproves his assertions or just lies outright.
Does Keith Oberlmann do that? Let’s run a little test. You pick something that you think is an example of left-wing media propaganda, I’ll pick one from the right and we can both try to figure out as close as we can the absolute truth of the matters. I’ll try to prove what you propose to be a lie is really the truth and vice versa. Care to take the Elroy challenge?
It’s like the concept of race. It doesn’t exist biologically, but we believe it anyway. At the moment it is Hispanics getting it in the neck for being lazy, shiftless and prone to crime, but it’s always someone –the Irish, the blacks, the Chinese, whatever – and they have long been denied full citizenship status. Yet we know, provable by undeniable, quantitative, repeatable and peer-accepted experimentation, that race is a construct.
‘PC’ is not a truth. It is merely a tool. And I argue that academia is not dominated by liberals but by people who have, by dint of observation, reading, education, and experience, come to certain position that you may consider left of centre. The right like to explain this as a conspiracy as the thought that people have come to their conclusions independently does not fit their ideology, but I notice that even the Governator has come under fire lately for becoming too liberal – one knucklebrain suggested it was because he ‘went to bed each night with a Kennedy’ – and suggested that he had somehow been brainwashed by those accursed Californian Democrats. The idea that Arnie may have reached his conclusions by trying to apply the ideological hypothesis of the Right and found them to wanting will not be tolerated. Therefore, in holding that their theories are the truth, they merely prove the argument that their arguments are based on faith.
I am interested to know why you do not think that all men are crated equal (Grr! Stoopid constitution!) but anyhoo, Purplehaze’s contention that the fundamental tenet of leftist ideology is that a society progresses by striving for equality amongst all human beings, as opposed to right-leaning ideology which is predicated on the notion that this progression is achieved by forcing humans to compete amongst each other, is an acceptable premise, i.e., I would say that is true, but is doesn’t prove that truth is leftist per se; how we can prove that the truth is left or right is by defining what it is we want from a society and measuring how our differing philosophies achieve those goals.
For instance, do we want to lower the crime rate? I would say that is a desirable outcome for both our camps. The left would say that addressing the causes of crime would be the most viable solution and would therefore seek to eradicate, as much as is practically possible, the poverty and insecurity and other factors that drive it. The Right, on the other hand, state that the only way to lower the crime rate
Is to jail the people that commit it.
At the moment, the Right’s theories are in the ascendancy but the evidence of their success is hard to find. The prison population is increasing, which in itself either points to the success or failure of the policy depending on your point of view, but when other evidence is considered the picture changes. In areas where the population is reasonably comfortable there is less crime, mainly because there is less need. Outsiders may come and commit crime because they DO have a need, so if we eradicate THEIR need we can eradicate more crime. We will never get rid of crime completely, but this could help.
On the other hand, the conservative approach robs people of their skills in coping with everyday life, it intuitionalists them and makes them unable to function in society. Furthermore it stigmatizes them to such a degree and trains them in accepting their status as a way of life, guaranteeing that they re-offend,
The cost of the left’s approach may be expensive, but the cost of a large and ever-expanding prison population to a society is incalculable.
Quite simply, if you just gave the $80,000 it takes to keep a prisoner to that prisoner he would not need to commit crime.
Another way that one could reduce crime is simply reduce the number of things that count as crime. Crime is a construct, and there are offences that attract a jail term in the USA that would be laughed at in some other parts of the world. If you legalized recreational drugs for example, you would get rid of the whole crime subculture relating to dealing, smuggling and all the rest. Contain and control, and reduce the crime rate. However, by instituting harsher and harsher penalties for lesser and lesser crimes, guaranteeing a rising crime rate, the conservative way is keep expanding prisoner numbers and exacerbate the problem.
Therefore, I contend that as the leftist approach is more likely to reduce crime, the leftist theory is more ‘true’ than the Right’s.
Now, for my last trick I would like, using Purplehaze’s formula and Hawkeye®’s statements, to prove that God is more a leftie than not.
‘He is biased against sinfulness and towards righteousness.’
One for the right, I would say.
‘He is biased against hate and towards love.’
I’m going to claim this for the left. ‘Society progresses by striving for equality amongst all human beings’ sounds pretty lovey-dovey to me, while ‘progression is achieved by forcing humans to compete amongst each other’ is divisive and thereby creating hate.
He is biased against oppression and towards freedom.
Another for the left. ‘Oppression’ can take many forms, but at the moment the worst kind is economic oppression, and the forces that keep that oppression in place are those of the Right.
‘He is biased against recalcitrance and towards repentance.’
‘He is biased against death and towards life. ‘
More leftie babble. How many millions die in Africa each year due to the aforementioned economic oppression?
‘He is biased against disease and towards healing.’
Golly. I’m just going to say ‘Big Pharma’ and ‘Africa’. How many millions die from a lack of medicine in order to protect corporate profits? A leftie position. No doubt.
‘He is biased against rebellion and towards obedience.’
What was all that kicking the moneylenders out of the temple about then? Another for the left.
‘He is biased against arrogance and towards humility.’
Wow. Dick Cheney. George Bush. All the rest. Arrogant? ‘Off the charts!’
‘He is biased against "the first" and towards "the last".
Hmmm. I’m really not sure what this means.
‘He is biased against "the hills" and towards "the valleys".’
Nor this.
‘He is biased against "the crooked" and towards "the straight".’
In that case he is showing his leftie credentials again. When it comes to corruption, the Right are the masters.
‘He is biased against "the rich-in-spirit" and towards "the poor-in-spirit’
Hmm. Not quite sure what this means either.
‘He is biased against deception and towards honesty.’
I really don’t think he would approve of the current WH occupants then.
‘He is biased against laziness and towards hard work. ‘
The poor work very hard. Just being poor is very hard work. Being rich, however, does allow one to, lets say, relax a little. They don’t call them the idle rich for nothing. Another one for us.
He is biased against "outward appearance" and towards "the inward man".
I’m taking this to mean less bling. Less showing off with material possessions. A leftie for sure.
‘He is biased against "the flesh" and towards "the spirit".’
As above.
‘He is biased against receiving and towards giving.’
Giving. A leftie trait for sure. Receiving. A capitalist characteristic.
So there you go. A leftie for sure. Sorry.
Cheers
Elroy
Elroy,
I am not surprised to hear that you want me to "leave God". I know someone else who wants me to do the same thing. I believe he is your "father". Hopefully I'm not getting too personal. But then again, I suspect you won't understand my somewhat cryptic comment.
You said, "then God is indeed a matter of faith". Well, D'UH! I said that in my previous comment... or weren't you paying attention? "HELLLOOOOH! Wake up McFly!"
No, "Truth" is NOT relative. You completely missed my point that "Truth" is universal and immutable, but discoverable. People's biases have absolutely no effect upon "Truth". The "Truth" is what it is. And my bias or yours cannot change that truth. You and I can persuade ourselves to believe in a fiction and call it "Truth", but then... we are not really talking about ABSOLUTE "Truth", are we?
And when it comes to the media and neutrality, "Fuggeddabout It!" (as they say in New York). ALL media outlets have a bias. NONE are neutral. Most of the media in America is liberal, left-leaning, and people have known about it for years. I've seen how the media has been left-leaning since 1977... because that's when I started paying attention.
Yeah, the media even had ME convinced. In the late sixties I would have been considered an anti-war "hippie". You probably know what I'm talking about. Long hair, drug-dabbling, rock concert attendee. I was one of those 600,000 idiots at the Watkins Glen Summer Jam in 1973 which is still considered to be the single largest rock festival according to the Guinness Book of World Records (see more HERE... Featured were The Grateful Dead, The Band, & The Allman Brothers.
I also saw the following groups in concert back then: The Byrds, Pink Floyd, Moody Blues, Procol Harum, Jethro Tull, Loggins and Messina, The J. Geils Band, Seals & Crofts, John Denver ("Rocky Mountain High"), Harry Chapin ("Taxi"), Ten Years After, Joe Cocker, Alabama, Stephen Stills, Bob Dylan...
Now you've done it. You've gotten me wandering. So, where was I? Well anyway, I was as left-wing as they come. But I finally woke up and came to my senses. (It's still good music mind you, but it's really bad politics.) Must get back to you later on the rest of your drivel.
For those who doubt there is discrimination against conservative academics should examine their own sentiments if the roles were reversed. Liberals would be screaming bloody murder if they were treated the way liberal wacademia often treats their conservative colleagues. It's not a myth and there are many conservative academics who report such things such as here.
And the fact universities are indeed liberally biased completely out of proportion to the general population cannot be excused away with ignorant bigotry that conservative academics are intellectually inferior to liberal academics or are not as motivated. There is a dynamic going on which in one way or another suppresses the number of counter-balancing conservatives in academia.
And compelling interview which attempts to explain how leftism is totalitarian and confrontational by nature and whenever an institution becomes more left-wing it tends to drive away more conservative/traditional academics who aren't by nature ideologically driven or radical.
Of course Elroy can obfuscate and bloviate all he/she/it want in order not to deal with a very real problem which is radicalizing our universities in a very dangerous direction, but what do you expect from someone who is blind to his own ignorance and bigotry?
Sorry for the grammatical faux pi, Hawkeye. I was typing in the comment box on the fly because I need to be somewhere shortly. But you get the gist. The links are the most important thing anyway.
And as to the unspoken contention that "oppression" is foreign to leftist thought, it is precisely leftist collectivist thought which had led to the most eggregious oppressions in modern history. And even putting the 46 million unborn American slaughtered in the abortion holocaust aside for the moment, the inarguable fact is socialist/collectivist ideology (National Socialist German Worker's Party - NAZI, Soviet Socialism, Chinese Communism, Kymer Rouge and other minor left-wing secular collectivist systems of government have slaughtered nearly 200 million innocent civilians in the 20th Century alone.
Most rational people would agree that the worst kind of "oppression" is that which takes people's lives. I for one would never, never, never trust a left-wing collectivist "democratic" government with my God-given rights. That's why I will always oppose those seculars who mock the very existence of God because it is from our Creator that our inalienable rights flow. This concept, which is fundamental to our entire understanding of the American experiment, was not only affirmed in the Declaration of Independence but also by no less of a founder than Thomas Jefferson: "Can the Liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that their liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever." Jefferson's Query XVIII from his "Notes on Virginia", 1781 regarding the issue of slavery.
I can cite any number of mainstream American founders like James Madison, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, George Mason, and Patrick Henry who made similar statements, but the most striking example of this linchpin of American liberty comes from no less a person than Alexander Hamilton as the Farmer in the Federalist Papers: "The Sacred Rights of Mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments of musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the Hand of the Divinity himself, and can never be erased or obscured by (political) power."
Even the young American founder Noah Webster later wrote on page 300 of his landmark History of the United States: "The religion which has introduced civil liberty, is the religion of Christ and his apostles, which enjoins humility, piety and benevolence; which acknowledges in every person a brother, or a sister, and a citizen with equal rights. This is genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free constitutions of government."
Sic Semper Liberalis Tyrannis
Hankmeister,
Thanks for your GREAT comments and links! Take that Elroy!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home