The US liberal establishment promoting left wing ideology yet again

[EnglishPete]

Here we have yet another example of the US establishment promoting leftist ideology. For decades the US establishment has promoted leftism directly through the government, through the establishment media and through the education and University system. Here is just the latest example.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/14/tancredo-report-reveals-massive-indoctrination-students-universities-transformative-civic-engagement/

[EnglishPete]

It's widespread in Australian education.

My son nearly got suspended from school when he told the English teacher he was glad Trump was building a wall to keep the Mexicans out.

It's absurd that a lot of people are selling Trump as morally illegal.

The funny thing is these leftists think they're being radical and fighting against the oppression of the system. Left wing ideology and activists are being supported in their cause by the School system, the University system, most of media, all of the government bureaucracy and most of the big corporations. If all of these institutions are promoting and/or encouraging leftist ideology and activism that's a pretty big sign that that ideology is the ideology of the establishment not the opposition to it.

[EnglishPete]

It's widespread in Australian education.

My son nearly got suspended from school when he told the English teacher he was glad Trump was building a wall to keep the Mexicans out.

It's absurd that a lot of people are selling Trump as morally illegal.

Of course, he shouldn't have nearly been suspended, there should have been a free debate therof, in where he should've been criticised on and questioned on his views, as part of a healthy debate.

Well from the sounds of it he wasn't suspended. The question arises what would happen if instead of expressing a right wing opinion he had expressed a left wing opinion. What if Hillary had won and he had said that he was glad Hillary had won because it would mean that America would become even more open to immigration? Would you have then said that "there should have been a free debate therof, in where he should've been criticised on and questioned on his views, as part of a healthy debate."? I wouldn't expect you would take such a stand.

More importantly no one would expect the school to take such a stand. Everyone would expect the school to see its role as challenging and opposing right wing views and not see its role as challenging and opposing left wing views. In other words everyone would expect the school to have a left wing slant in its way of thinking and acting. If government schools are promoting leftism doesn't that tell you that the establishment that controls the schools want leftism promoted.

[EnglishPete]

There's so much insane stuff going on here I'm not even sure where to begin.

I'll just go through your points one by one

1. You don't like news articles appearing in right wing news sites like Breitbart.com. You presumably prefer left wing sources like CNN, WaPo or NYT. I know that's your preference but that's not really an argument against the substance of the report.

2. Again I get it, you don't like Tom Tancredo. Again that's not an argument.

3. No the detail isn't in the article. The detail is in the report talked about and linked to in the article.  Link is here in case you missed it

https://www.nas.org/images/documents/NAS_makingCitizens_fullReport.pdf

4. NAS is a right wing group. Again you don't like right wing organisations and prefer left wing organisations like the Universities studied in the report. Again that's not an argument.

5. This is not about questioning how knowledgeable of those working in the university are about their institutions. Its about questioning their ideology and the ideology of the institutions they teach in.

6. So in point 5 you say that the argument that universities teach and promote left wing ideology and activism is wrong. In point 6 you say that they should teach left wing ideology and activism. I would suggest that there's plenty of evidence, not only in this recent report but in plenty of other places that  Universities are doing exactly what you think they should.

For your points about history all of these are taught from a left wing perspective. To deal with just a few of the points you raised

Slavery. Every major society in history until recently has both practised and been the victims of slavery. How many students learning about the middle passage will have heard anything about the Barbary pirates or the Barbary wars? Western countries, including the United States, were the ones who moved forward with abolishing and criminalising Slavery worldwide.

Forced relocation of other ethnic groups. Most countries have done this in their history. Native American tribes would do it to other Native American tribes before European rule. The country with the biggest record of ethnic forced relocations in the last 100 years was the Soviet Union. Again I doubt many students will hear that perspective?

Jim Crow and segregation. Again a terrible and oppressive system. Again many counties have practised oppressive systems of government. At the same time as Jim Crow law was being practised in America you had communist governments in Russia, China, Vietnam and elsewhere which were far more cruel and oppressive than Jim Crow ever was. Will students be taught that context? No, its more likely to be taught by professors who are themselves communists, in other words be taught by professors (rightly) denouncing Jim Crow whilst they support a system of government even more vicious and cruel.

As for the present if you're talking about things like 'white privilege' and 'the patriarchy' when you ask "are they not real" then the answer is no, they are not real, they don't exist. To assert that things like 'white privilege' and 'the patriarchy' exist and are real is most definitely a left wing perspective. A left wing view of Universities that you are simultaneously arguing doesn't happen and yet should happen. Well you'll be pleased to lean that Universities do teach the left wing view you so approve of.

[EnglishPete]

Continued

7. Teaching students to berate the government and establishment for 'failing to live up' to its leftist ideology (i.e. failure to impose its leftist ideology sufficiently strongly on reality) is precisely the way that left wing establishment is taught in Universities and is exactly the way the establishment want their ideology promoted.

[EnglishPete]

He has the privilege of being a white man.  One who doesn't have to fear being killed by the police when under arrest for even minor offences. 

Some facts that may enlighten you

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/7264/5-statistics-you-need-know-about-cops-killing-aaron-bandler

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Aha ha ha ha ha ha ha, nice one, LMOA

Oh, oh dear, you actually believe that.

[EnglishPete]

There's so much insane stuff going on here I'm not even sure where to begin.

I'll just go through your points one by one

1. You don't like news articles appearing in right wing news sites like Breitbart.com. You presumably prefer left wing sources like CNN, WaPo or NYT. I know that's your preference but that's not really an argument against the substance of the report.

If the source itself is untrustworthy, then the article presented by said source is also likely untrustworthy. Breitbart is a news site that publishes undeniably bigoted, prejudiced, and conspiratorial articles. Why should I, or any sane person, trust what comes from them?

Events and reporting of them over the last few weeks and months have shown that Breitbart is significantly more trustworthy and reliable than many 'respectable' left wing new outlets like the Washington Post

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Tancredo is an ignorant fool who has a long history of promoting xenophobic nonsense . Again, why should I, or anyone else, trust his judgement?[/quote]Which is your way of saying that you don't like him and you disagree strongly with his opinions. Again that's not really an argument.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I obviously didn't read it, nor did you, I presume, considering it's hundreds of pages long. So neither of us know exactly what's in the document's details. What we're left with is whether we trust the judgment of the source; you do, I do not.[/quote]Well having skimmed through it the report clearly documents in quite a lot of detail that this kind of teaching of left wing activism is happening at Universities all over the US. And it is all left wing activism that is being taught. There is no right wing activism that is being taught. No Universities are teaching how to best be a Tea party activist, or an anti immigration activist, or a Men's rights activist etc. No one is teaching how most effectively to advance right wing ideology, how to oppose the left, how best to deal with disruptive leftists, how to best deal with SJWs in the workplace etc. This is because the Universities view left wing ideology and activism as socially and morally worthy and to be encouraged and right wing activism as not being socially and morally worthy and to be encouraged. This is clearly also your view. However it is also clearly a left wing view. Right wingers would clearly view left wing activism as being less worthy and less to be encouraged than right wing activism.

I'm not sure what you'rearguing with me (and Breitbart and Tancredo and NAS) about. You're not disputing that this teaching of left wing ideology and activism is taking place. You're just disputing whether or not its a good thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What I said is that they teach and promote the truth, as best as it can be understood. If left wing politics happens to coincide with the truth, or is an outgrowth thereof, then how's that their fault or mine? It'd appear the problem then lies with those who object to the truth, as understood by the professionals. But again, you doubt even the foundations of their knowledge by alleging that they're stepped in left wing discourse. So, there's no common ground to affirm the truth; it merely becomes your truth and my truth.[/quote]Its not a question of 'your truth and my truth'. its the fact that academics, particularly those not in the hard sciences are so steeped in leftist ideology that they have all kinds of conclusions that are simply wrong e.g. that 'white privilege' and 'the patriarchy' are real in our society.

[EnglishPete]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course every major society in history has had slavery; it has served the purpose of maintaining hierarchical social systems and supported countless economies. However, the exceptional nature of modern, Western slavery has been its uniquely racial character.[/quote]So what? If someone is forced into a lifetime of involuntary servitude I don't suppose it would make them feel any better if they knew it was purely due to being in the wrong place at the wrong time rather than have anything to with having the wrong skin colour.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, I've learned about this in university as well. I'm not sure what your universities teach, but either you've never attended or they're missing a lot of material for whatever purposes. But again, those forced relocations, while abhorrent and deserving of extreme criticism, were not resulting from a socially constructed explanation of justified racial hierarchy. Whites, especially the British, constructed a racial identity of Native Americans as one group of people who're merely savages, occupying a land without rights to it because of a lack of private property, thereby justifying their forced removal and theft of land for White benefit. Although forced removal was practiced by the Native Americans among each other, it was not on this same racist basis. The same applies to what occurred in the Soviet Union. They were forcefully moved, not due to a racist social construction of their identities, but their relationship with the Soviet government.[/quote]Again so what. Forced removal among native Americans was based on tribal identity rather than race as such and the Soviets it was based primarily on their ideology. Again I'm not sure how this is supposed to make it better for people forcably relocated. Incidentally the Soviets did forcible relocation of specific ethnic groups e.g. The Chechens, the Prussian Germans etc

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, context matters. The justification within those systems of their abuses matters. They didn't socially construct races in those communist countries like they did in Western ones.  [/quote]Again so what? is it supposed to make people who are having their freedom restricted and their rights taken away that at least its not being done to them on the basis of race?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

White privilege exists insofar as White people of the same socioeconomic background as minorities experience better opportunities, freedom from harassment, and freedom from positive and negative prejudice. It's undeniable that's White people do benefit like that and are privileged over minority groups, institutionally and socially. [/quote]It most certainly is deniable, not least because its simply not true.

[EnglishPete]

There's so much insane stuff going on here I'm not even sure where to begin.

I'll just go through your points one by one

1. You don't like news articles appearing in right wing news sites like Breitbart.com. You presumably prefer left wing sources like CNN, WaPo or NYT. I know that's your preference but that's not really an argument against the substance of the report.

If the source itself is untrustworthy, then the article presented by said source is also likely untrustworthy. Breitbart is a news site that publishes undeniably bigoted, prejudiced, and conspiratorial articles. Why should I, or any sane person, trust what comes from them?

Events and reporting of them over the last few weeks and months have shown that Breitbart is significantly more trustworthy and reliable than many 'respectable' left wing new outlets like the Washington Post

Yeah, you really need to get out more.  That propaganda will rot your brain.  You still might have some time to correct it.

Seriously? After all the fake news they've been producing lately you're seriously going to suggest that the Washington Post isn't less reliable and trustworthy than Breitbart

[EnglishPete]

There's so much insane stuff going on here I'm not even sure where to begin.

I'll just go through your points one by one

1. You don't like news articles appearing in right wing news sites like Breitbart.com. You presumably prefer left wing sources like CNN, WaPo or NYT. I know that's your preference but that's not really an argument against the substance of the report.

If the source itself is untrustworthy, then the article presented by said source is also likely untrustworthy. Breitbart is a news site that publishes undeniably bigoted, prejudiced, and conspiratorial articles. Why should I, or any sane person, trust what comes from them?

Events and reporting of them over the last few weeks and months have shown that Breitbart is significantly more trustworthy and reliable than many 'respectable' left wing new outlets like the Washington Post

Yeah, you really need to get out more.  That propaganda will rot your brain.  You still might have some time to correct it.

Seriously? After all the fake news they've been producing lately you're seriously going to suggest that the Washington Post isn't less reliable and trustworthy than Breitbart

Lol

[EnglishPete]

It's widespread in Australian education.

My son nearly got suspended from school when he told the English teacher he was glad Trump was building a wall to keep the Mexicans out.

It's absurd that a lot of people are selling Trump as morally illegal.

Sounds like you're teaching him and yourself to be special snowflakes.

I don't think that Meclazine is failing about the school failing to protect his son from criticism of right wing views. The demands of 'special snowflakes' are always that institutions should take active measures to oppose opinions that offend their left wing views.

What is being talked about here is schools and universities taking active measures to oppose and even seek to punish right wing views and to promote left wing views. Now you might think thats a good thing or a bad thing but what is undeniable is that schools and universities throughout the western Europe, the US and Australia have institutional policies to oppose right wing ideology and to promote leftism. These policies clearly would not be allowed unless they were actively supported by the leftist political classes in those places.

[EnglishPete]

It's widespread in Australian education.

My son nearly got suspended from school when he told the English teacher he was glad Trump was building a wall to keep the Mexicans out.

It's absurd that a lot of people are selling Trump as morally illegal.

Sounds like you're teaching him and yourself to be special snowflakes.

I don't think that Meclazine is failing about the school failing to protect his son from criticism of right wing views. The demands of 'special snowflakes' are always that institutions should take active measures to oppose opinions that offend their left wing views.

What is being talked about here is schools and universities taking active measures to oppose and even seek to punish right wing views and to promote left wing views. Now you might think thats a good thing or a bad thing but what is undeniable is that schools and universities throughout the western Europe, the US and Australia have institutional policies to oppose right wing ideology and to promote leftism. These policies clearly would not be allowed unless they were actively supported by the leftist political classes in those places.

So that's why the commie semitic filth, Fox News was always on in my High School cafeteria?

They did a lot of teaching in the cafeteria did they?

[EnglishPete]

This sort of whining is becoming incredibly tiresome. Liberal this, left wing that. Give it a rest.

If you're not interested in the subject of ideological hegemony as it exists in modern Western societies then fine. I'm interested in the topic and will continue posting about it.

[EnglishPete]

if there is an ideology dominant in the western hemisphere atm it's pro-russian/pro-autocratic sentiment against all small-l liberal institutions and values.

I can't think of a single western country in which this is the case. Sure, the zeitgeist of the age appears to be turning against liberal institutions and values, but liberalism (if defined broadly) continues to dominate the political programs of most mainstream western political parties, media organisations and institutions.