Forced Communist Indoctrination on College Campus

First, watch this: Video: Orwell at Delaware

Then realize where that indoctrination program comes from…

It is the same as the Program of the Communist Party USA, which mentions variations on the word “race” (racial, racism, racist) 124 times and variations on the word “oppress” (oppression, oppressed) 116 times and carries the same theme: that white male capitalists are racist oppressors and the system (capitalism) must be dismantled.

Communist Bill Ayers said, “education is the motor-force of revolution“.

It’s no surprise then that so many Communists are college educators, indoctrinating today’s youth.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Forced Communist Indoctrination on College Campus

  1. Ryan says:

    Mr. Pill, I watched the video, and I agree that the university in Delaware has gone way to far with their political correctness. I doubt it is as bad as the video shows, but if it is, I’m appalled as well. We agree about a lot of that. I think that race is often made more of an issue by those supposedly defending rights.

    But here’s the thing – where did they mention communism? Where did they even mention capitalism? You have to stop calling everything you don’t like communist.

    Are you against education because Bill Ayers is for it? Sorry, but education is not only the “motor force of revolution”, but the motor force of everything good.

    The irony is killing me here. A true communist would completely agree with you, as communism is largely about equality.

  2. Ryan,

    The Program of the Communist Party USA is obessive with its 124 mentions of race and 116 mentions of oppression. They are clear that their objective is to replace Capitalism with first Socialism, then Communism. One of the primary battlegrounds in this struggle is the college campus. Where do you think those young people wearing Che shirts learn about Che?

    The indoctrination program at the University of Delaware is as obessive about race, oppression, and dismantling the current system as the Communist Party USA is.

    It’s really not that difficult to see.

    Education is vitally important. I am not against education. I am against the current environment that stifles conservative voices and broadcasts socialist/communist voices.

    There is not true open scientific inquiry and debate in areas such as origins (discussion of Intelligent Design vs. evolution) or climate change(discussion of sun-driven climate change vs. human emissions-driven climate change). The leftists are in charge, and dissent is not allowed.

    Hillary Clinton likes to talk about a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, but that is projection… the truth is that there is a Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, and we see evidence of it in many areas, including the ones I’ve mentioned here.

  3. Ryan says:

    Mr. Pill,

    What does Climate change, or evolution have do do with politics? Is evolution “left wing” in your mind? Science has no politics. Universities will never include a serious discussion of intelligent design in the science faculty for one reason. It is not science.

  4. “What does Climate change have do do with politics?”

    Ever heard of “cap and trade”?

    “Science has no politics.”

    True science has no politics. Unfortunately, true science is not what we have today. Instead, we have fascist suppression of any lines of inquiry that contradict the ficticious “consensus”. True science is not about achieving “consensus”. “Consensus” is a political term. True science is about proving theories via experiments with repeatable results.

    You say intelligent design is not science. Neither is evolution. They are both theories about our origins, and neither theory is proven via experiments with repeatable results.

  5. Ryan says:

    I might be willing to admin that the issues of climate change have become somewhat political, since the outcome either way would have economic effects.

    As for evolution, you’ve shown that you don’t understand the theory, and have shown that you are not interested in learning about it, so there’s no point discussing it. Intelligent design is not a theory, since it cannot be tested, challenged, or proven wrong.

    Is there anything that you think IS science? What are some of your favorite theories? Do you not find some of the recent scientific discoveries fascinating? I imagine you don’t believe any science, since you have stated that scientists are fascists, and are lying about pretty much everything.

  6. Ryan,

    “Is there anything that you think IS science?”

    Try F = MA, or E=MC^2.

    Don’t tell me I don’t understand the theory. I aced Advanced Placement Biology, which included a significant section on the Theory of Evolution. I understand that gamma rays can cause genetic mutations (which are almost always negative, often to the point of being fatal). I have yet to see any scientific evidence for the creation of a totally new chromosome pair that didn’t exist previously. That would be a necessary part of going from amoeba to human being.

    Anyway, I have no desire to turn this post into a debate about origins. Save that for a more relevant thread.

    The point of this thread is that the forced indoctrination on college campuses around the country (in this case, University of Delaware) is practically synonymous with the program of the Communist Party USA.

    I imagine you don’t believe any science, since you have stated that scientists are fascists, and are lying about pretty much everything.

    That is idiotic and dishonest. I never said “scientists are fascists”. My point is that the people who now control the tenure process and grant money in academia are fascists. They do not support full and open scientific inquiry and debate. They only support those who support their “party line” “consensus”, and they try to silence the rest. Ben Stein showed this very well and very clearly in Expelled. That was in the area of origins, but the same is true in the area of “Global Warming” (now conveniently called “Climate Change”, since we are in a sunspot minimum and corresponding cooling).

    Our climate is driven by variations in the sun’s output. It is not driven by man-made Carbon Dioxide emissions. Anthropogenic Global Warming is a lie that is used to enslave us as a nation. The United States has more than three times the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia, but we are prevented from accessing it because the Democratic Socialist Communists want us to be dependent on hostile Arab and Communist countries.

  7. Ryan says:

    The funny thing is that F = MA is proven incorrect by E = MC^2, and the proof for E = MC^2, although very thorough, relies on evidence, that, if true, proves the universe to be incredibly old.

    So back to the point of the post. If “true science” is being suppressed, then these fascists in academia must be in control of every university in the world, and every science magazine, every science website, and all the science channels, podcasts, books, and articles. Who could organize such a conspiracy?

  8. Ryan, it’s not so much that F =MA is incorrect, as much as it is that there is more to the equation (aspects of relativity) such that as you approach the speed of light, the relativistic portions of the equation outweigh the others. But in our normal life, the relativistic portions are insignificant, and F = MA is close enough.

    Who could organize such a conspiracy?

    Hillary Clinton has often spoken of a “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy”.

    I believe that is projection. The truth being not a “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy”, but rather a “Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy“.

  9. And this brings me to my final point today. During my first press conference as president, in answer to a direct question, I pointed out that, as good Marxist-Leninists, the Soviet leaders have openly and publicly declared that the only morality they recognize is that which will further their cause, which is world revolution. I think I should point out I was only quoting Lenin, their guiding spirit, who said in 1920 that they repudiate all morality that proceeds from supernatural ideas — that’s their name for religion — or ideas that are outside class conceptions. Morality is entirely subordinate to the interests of class war. And everything is moral that is necessary for the annihilation of the old, exploiting social order and for uniting the proletariat.

    Well, I think the refusal of many influential people to accept this elementary fact of Soviet doctrine illustrates a historical reluctance to see totalitarian powers for what they are. We saw this phenomenon in the 1930s. We see it too often today.

    President Ronald Reagan
    March 8, 1983

  10. TakeAChillPill says:

    You say intelligent design is not science. Neither is evolution. They are both theories about our origins, and neither theory is proven via experiments with repeatable results.

    http://www.physorg.com/news160231764.html

    “As described in an article published this week in an advance, online edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), the work demonstrates some of the classic principles of evolution. For instance, research shows that when different species directly compete for the same finite resource, only the fittest will survive. The work also demonstrates how, when given a variety of resources, the different species will evolve to become increasingly specialized, each filling different niches within their common ecosystem.”

  11. Chill Pill,

    A few things to keep in mind…

    RNA is not DNA. While similar, there are significant differences, and behavior observed in RNA cannot be just assumed to be analogous to behavior in DNA.

    I have yet to see any evidence of a brand new chromosome being created. Since different species have different numbers of chromosomes, evolution requires that completely new chromosomes arise from nothing (rather than just mutations to existing chromosomes)

    “Survival of the fittest” is not questioned. It happens. But it is also not evidence of evolution. It is evidence of a Decrease in genetic information within a population, Not an Increase!

    There is tremendous variation within every species. Consider, for example, the wide variation within the species Canis Lupus Familiaris. You have everything from Chihuahuas to Saint Bernards. And the different breeds can all mate with one other. Now, put them in an environment where they have to fit through a small doggie door to reach their food, and the Saint Bernards will die off. Or, put them in an environment where they have to step on a plate with enough weight to get their food, and the Chihuahuas will die off. Survival of the fittest, yes. Evolution, no.

    Survival of the fittest only leads to a reduction in genetic information.

    Evolution requires an increase in genetic information.

    To go from amoebas to humans, new chromosomes had to “evolve” from scratch.

    Again, I have yet to see any scientific evidence of a brand new chromosome being created.

  12. Ryan says:

    Mr. Pill,

    Mutations do not uniformly result in reductions in information. They rarely cause even a change in the amount of information. The simple proof for this is that anything that can happen via a mutation, could be reversed by a subsequent mutation, resulting in an identical string of DNA.

    Gene duplication is one mechanism that can cause an organism’s DNA to become more complex. An example for this is the following:

    RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)

    New chromosomes do not evolve from scratch, you are correct. They evolve from errors in duplication of chromosomes. Occasionally mutated chromosomes will get added to the genome of an organism along with the original chromosome, creating a new version of the genome. Most of these mutations are catastrophic to the organism, but not all of them. Such mutations that have resulted in benefits to organisms are well documented.

    There are numerous examples of chromosomal aberrations, where the number of chromosomes changes. In some cases the number of chromosomes doubles form a duplication of the entire genome. Chromosomal aberrations happen in humans regularly. Downs syndrome is an example of a mutation that adds a chromosome, and Turner’s syndrome is an example where a mutation subtracts a chromosome.

    As for all the different breeds of dogs being able to mate with one another… Yes, that is true, but that’s why we call them dogs. Dogs are an interesting case, given that humans have guided much of their evolution of the last few hundred years. There are many breeds that would not survive on their own in any environment.

  13. Mutations do not uniformly result in reductions in information.

    I didn’t say they do. I said natural selection results in reductions in genetic information.

    The theory of evolution requires that mutations result in increases in information (from amoeba to human is a huge increase in genetic information), and you have admitted that mutations rarely cause even a change in the amount of information.

    You have faith that chromosomal aberrations explain evolution from amoeba to human. And that is what it is… faith. It is not “science” by the definition of science. You cannot do repeatable experiments and observe amoeba to human evolution. You take it by faith that it happened.

    And how do you explain the formation of the very first life form?

    Can you, in a laboratory, create even the simplest life form?

    If yes, that is science. If not, it is something you take on faith.

  14. Ryan says:

    Survival of the fittest IS about mutation. How do you suppose an organism becomes “more fit” for an environment? A giraffe may have a mutation that allows it’s neck to be two inches longer. A fish may have mutation that weakens it’s bones, and allows it to squeeze into smaller spaces. These things make animals more, or less fit for their environment, and more, or less likely to produce offspring that will carry the traits.

    I cannot demonstrate the formation of the first life form, since that is something that still eludes science. But the fact is life does exist on Earth, and at one point, life did not exist on Earth, so logic tells us that life began at some point. Scientists are trying to find out why, and there are some fascinating ideas about how that happened.

    I don’t have “faith” that life formed. I know that life formed. I just don’t know how. I have heard your hypothesis about the matter, but it doesn’t convince me, so I’ll reserve judgment until a theory comes about.

    The theory of evolution does not even attempt to explain the formation of life. It’s simply not concerned with that. That will be the job of a new theory, when one is found.

    The large majority of mutations have unfavorable results. That has been shown. But most of those unfavorable results prevent an organism from reaching maturity. Of those organisms that reach maturity, the mutations are often favorable.

    I don’t have “faith” that chromosomal aberrations aided amoeba to evolve into higher life forms. I don’t need faith for that. I’ve seen the evidence for it, and it is overwhelmingly convincing. Having faith in this theory would suggest that I’m not willing to change my mind. If something else is found that refutes the current theory, I’ll change my mind, and so will millions of scientists.

  15. Anyone familiar with the reeducation camps of China’s Cultural Revolution will recognize the modus operandi…

    The task group recommends, for example, that prospective teachers be required to prepare an “autoethnography” report. They must describe their own prejudices and stereotypes, question their “cultural” motives for wishing to become teachers, and take a “cultural intelligence” assessment designed to ferret out their latent racism, classism and other “isms.” They “earn points” for “demonstrating the ability to be self-critical.”

    It sounds as though they “earn points” for obsequiously affirming the political biases of the university’s education professors. What’s the point of all these confessions? …

  16. Pingback: Who Said “A war is coming” and “the U.S. is going to end soon”? « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s