What is the correct way to handle propagandist material from a college professor?

SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 18:49:12 -0400

OK, so this is the information being spread by my Political Ideologies professor about conservatism. It gets much worse, but this covers the just of it.

One quote directly from her lecture:
"The newer generation of neoconservatives, including Irving Krisol’s son William Kristol who is the editor of The Weekly Standard, were influential in shaping the foreign and defense policy during the Bush administration. They were instrumental in framing the Arab world as the new enemy of the West in the wake of the Cold War. This strategy is supported by an underlying belief that democracies need enemies to keep them morally fit, otherwise they become weak and lazy, and sink into selfishness and licentiousness. At the domestic level this new generation has campaigned for use of the state as an agent of moral education by establishing discriminatory policies against people’s who don’t demonstrate the correct virtues."

The whole lesson focused on how conservatives had no universal values, other than protecting the status-quo from change, we apparently want a strong utilitarian government that can enforce discriminatory social control and on and on.

How would you respond to this?

Response by SMSgt Tony Barnes made Oct 9 at 2015 6:50 PM

SMSgt Tony Barnes — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 18:50:33 -0400

Many college professors are very liberal...at least you know where he stands. I voted.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Oct 9 at 2015 6:57 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 18:57:00 -0400

Find out where the material is cited from? If it's not cited from an approved source (textbook), go to the Dept Head, and then the Dean as needed.

Now remember, "our" definition of Conservative/Liberal and the "textbook" definition of Conservative/Liberal are not always the same.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Oct 9 at 2015 7:01 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 19:01:03 -0400

There's that missing option again: "Other". We can't deal with it. It is propaganda. And, setting the record straight isn't an option when the professor controls the medium (their classroom). This sort of thing is a societal cancer and it's metastasized because we ignored it, tried to deal with it, then tried to be respectful. None of it has worked. What can you and I do? Very little as individuals. Believe me. I've tried. I've written extensively in my blog and others. I've created stories to deliver stealth messages to the zombies of the left. I'm sad to say that I've been reviled for my efforts. Even members of my family won't tolerate the truth. First we have to educate ourselves. Find the roots of this "movement". Allow me to offer a starting point or two.

View the free classes on the Constitution and the Federalist Papers produced by Hillsdale College at
http://online.hillsdale.edu/dashboard/courses

Read The Devil's Pleasure Palace to learn where the usurption of our colleges and universities began and the strategy used to pervert the education of our children

http://www.amazon.com/Devils-Pleasure-Palace-Critical-Subversion-ebook/dp/B00PSSEIXE/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid= [login to see] &sr=1-1&keywords=the+devil%27s+pleasure+palace

Lastly, subscribe to PJTV. You'll discover that you're not alone in the battle to reclaim our children's minds...

Course List - Hillsdale College Online CoursesLogin Details

Winston Churchill was the greatest statesman of the 20th century, and one of the greatest in all of history. From a young age, Churchill understood the unique dangers of modern warfare, and he worked to respond to them. Though best known for his leadership during World War II, he was also a great defender of constitutionalism. A close study of Churchill’s words and deeds offers timeless lessons about the virtues, especially prudence, required...

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 9 at 2015 7:07 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 19:07:25 -0400

These are textbook definitions and while they may not square with how these words are commonly understood and used in your circle, they explain what those terms represent in context of the class you are currently taking. That said, I don't see why you believe those definitions are propaganda other than the fact that there are inherent problems in defining Liberalism and Conservatism without out also considering libertarian and authoritarian leanings. In these definitions Conservative takes on a more authoritarian note and Liberalism takes on a more libertarian perspective.

Response by SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 9 at 2015 7:20 PM

SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 19:20:21 -0400

To add a little more context, another section of the lecture stated referring again to neocons within the United States, stated that they believe the general population to be incapable of taking care of themselves, and formulating public policy, so it is accepted that they lie to the public to get support for things they believe the public is too stupid to understand... This isn't textbook, it is a flat out liberal misrepresentation of conservatism.

I am required to participate in a forum discussion on the lectures, and I am trying to decide if it is in my best interest to just go along, to get my decent grade... or if I need to use that opportunity to clear up the misrepresentation of conservatism. I've studied this stuff through other classes as well, and one of the individuals she uses as her basis for historical conservatism is widely known to be inspirational in philosophical advancements in liberal principles, on the verge of socialism, not conservatism.

Response by SrA Art Siatkowsky made Oct 9 at 2015 7:25 PM

SrA Art Siatkowsky — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 19:25:45 -0400

Its utter propaganda and its common amongst liberal communist. I would ask the professor how do liberals deal with being social darwinist but still claim that people matter? Explain that as a liberal humanist they claim people have rights but on the same hand natural law doesnt grant any life form any rights. As the end result of a purely random amoral evolutionary process how do they possibly claim that anyone or anything matters? Liberals are a ridiculous philosophically inconsistent breed of communist.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Oct 9 at 2015 7:28 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 19:28:38 -0400

While I find the Core Concepts of Liberalism and Conservatism displayed in the chart interesting I don't necessarily consider it to be propaganda SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member. I would hope the professor would be open to having a legitimate discussion about the views expressed in the chart. I would do my best to be respectful to the professor and my classmates and have access to supporting documents whicxh I could use to argue my position in a logical manner.

Response by SPC Nathan Freeman made Oct 9 at 2015 7:57 PM

SPC Nathan Freeman — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 19:57:12 -0400

Dealing with propoganda happens to be my job description as a Psy Op specialist.

Provide compelling evidence that proves your point. Beyond that, you also need to expose his motives so that the target audience (your classmates) know why he is spreading propoganda so that they expect more propoganda and see it for what it is.

Response by SPC Nathan Freeman made Oct 9 at 2015 7:59 PM

SPC Nathan Freeman — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 19:59:02 -0400

Watch "Gods not Dead". Based on a true story

Response by SGT Francis Wright made Oct 9 at 2015 8:10 PM

SGT Francis Wright — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 20:10:06 -0400

You can't set the record straight, just accept as additional information. Get the passing grade and move on. Because that is going to be the same person that will be looking around for who is going to save me.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Oct 9 at 2015 8:49 PM

SGT Richard H. — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 20:49:58 -0400

Its funny to read a description of conservatism when written by a liberal. It's hard to imagine where they even get such a skewed perspective, but boy do they preach on it!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 9 at 2015 8:56 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 20:56:35 -0400

"...protecting the status-quo from change..."

Well, to be honest, isn't that "conservative"? Conserving what is, and not opening long-standing traditions for editing because of "social trends"? That's the heart of "defending traditional marriage" and so on, right?

"... we apparently want a strong utilitarian government that can enforce discriminatory social control..."

Again, many conservatives talk about "small government" as an ideal, but at the same time embrace the idea of using government power to regulate the above-mentioned "traditional definitions". Donald Trump is currently popular among conservatives, because he wants to round up and deport immigrants en masse. That pretty much requires a strong government. And taking war to ISIS and Iran-- again, that will need a large government.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 9 at 2015 9:13 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 21:13:33 -0400

Understand that the professor is trying to instigate. You're already not on a level playing field as the professor has both authority and power. Be drawn in at peril of being made a fool of and potential impact to your grades.
Monolithic definitions of political alignment is a fool's errand. For example, in today's conservative movement you have Liberitarians (Socially liberal, fiscally conservative, isolationist), Evangelicals (Socially conservative, fiscally moderate), Neocons (Socially moderate, fiscally moderate, hawkish), to name a few. Anyone that thinks that Conservatives are of one mind need look no further than the House of Representatives trying to figure out the next Speaker, or the Presidential field.
Likewise Liberals are all over the map.

Response by SPC David S. made Oct 9 at 2015 11:52 PM

SPC David S. — Fri, 09 Oct 2015 23:52:34 -0400

I would suggest that the liberal and conservative doctrines are based on differing moral foundations. This is based on consistent data driving by research from psychologist examining the correlation between morality and liberal and conservative perspectives. The results of these experiments have shown liberals have a more narrow moral foundation as apposed to conservatives. Morality is derived from 5 different perspectives. These moral foundations are psychological preparations for detecting and reacting emotionally to issues related to harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. Political liberals have moral intuitions primarily based upon the first two foundations, and therefore misunderstand the moral motivations of political conservatives, who generally rely upon all five foundations. If indeed morality is based on these five areas it appears that the liberal view is inherently flawed as it is detached for the realities of the real world. Thus the liberal view is one that sees predominant and subordinate as equals yet distorted by the conservative doctrine. The conservative view sees it for what it is a predominant and a subordinate. If she counters this with some liberal psycho babble then you say well these are your peers in academia - are you suggesting that they are wrong or misguided. However she might give you an F as her liberal brain will see this as a failure to understand the liberal concept when if fact it is full understanding.

Response by Capt Mark Strobl made Oct 10 at 2015 12:31 AM

Capt Mark Strobl — Sat, 10 Oct 2015 00:31:46 -0400

Focus on what will be on your mid-term and final exams. If you're being tested on propaganda then, study the propaganda. The professor is telling you what s/he likes to hear.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 10 at 2015 10:26 AM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 10 Oct 2015 10:26:02 -0400

College (and most of our K-12 system) is no longer about education but indoctrination. Your choice is to pursue a fair exchange of ideas, while risking your GPA or nodding your head like Dangerfield in Sam Kinison's class in the movie 'Back to School.'

Conservatives believe in individual freedom and responsibility, smaller government, which results in lower taxes and more freedom. We believe government borrows power from people to perform specific, limited duties, including protecting individual rights.

Liberals believe rights come from government and this requires a big government to grant and regulate rights. The believe in social justice, equality and that government is built to provide these through taxation, wealth re-distribution and providing for those unwilling and sometimes unable to provide for themselves. They believe Darwin was wrong and seek to promote the survival of the 'least fittest'.

But that is just my point of view. Good luck.

Response by SPC Nathan Freeman made Oct 10 at 2015 10:26 AM

SPC Nathan Freeman — Sat, 10 Oct 2015 10:26:44 -0400

That is straight out of the Communist Manifesto. Read up on it. @SPC Isaac Jensen

Response by SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 10 at 2015 11:35 PM

SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 10 Oct 2015 23:35:33 -0400

1SG Private RallyPoint Member I'm interested in your feedback (as well as that of others) in my post for this lesson, before I go ahead and submit it. Feel free to tear it apart, I am considering this a sort of peer-review per se.

This lesson really seems to present conservative ideology through a liberal conceptual lens. This lesson has brought about a lot of confusion for me. In several other classes Thomas Hobbes has been referred to as a prominent Liberal philosopher, so I do not understand how his statement about humans being animalistic in nature and needing a strong utilitarian government to control them, is representative of conservatism. As a self-prescribed conservative and member of the Republican Party, I don’t seem to find myself aligning with many of the descriptions of conservatism as is described in this lesson. I ask these things to spur discussion, not to disagree, but for starters, is the conservative ideology really against progression, or just against liberal progression? I ask this because as a conservative, I don’t favor the status-quo; in fact, there are multitudes of things that I would love to alter in conservative ways. To list a few

1. I would like to reconstruct the tax structure to spur economic growth that would benefit not only individuals, but also society as a whole.

2. I don’t favor a strong centralized utilitarian government; in fact, I would like to return the country to a state of federalism, keeping the federal government as was intended, — to keep the nation unified in the international world, and to provide a strong military defense. By removing power from the federal government and returning that power to the states, allowing them to self-govern. I want to see everything governed at the most local-level possible. I would however agree with the notion of wanting a strong foreign policy (though it has nothing to do with a belief that war is necessary to society).

3. I would love to restructure the social welfare system, to provide a hand-up instead of a handout. Having been on the system, I understand the difficulties in getting off the system with upwards of an 80% marginal tax rate. I would like to see safety net programs designed to focus on fostering education and employment with encouragement to get off the system.

I do not support discriminatory social policy, and I do not want the government involved in religion, whether in support or infringement of the free expression of it. An example of what I mean by this is that the government should be no more involved in performing a traditional marriage, than a homosexual one.

I do agree that it is a role of government to provide minimal restraints in the form of morality, but I highly doubt that any ideology would disagree with that statement, just the extent to which it is their responsibility. For example, if it were not the role of government to provide moral standards, rape and murder would both be legal. I don’t think many would disagree that the government should be involved in limiting this sort of behavior, the question is what level of morality is to be regulated and I don’t think you could ask two people this question and get the same answer, much less link it to an ideology.

I understand that historically including in the ages of the French Revolution that conservatism was linked to people who were against the destruction of the aristocracy, the progression of democracy, and the revolution, but I find it hard to accept that they shared many values with modern day conservatism, especially that found within America. I also wonder if one of the only similarities that can be found in the conservative ideology, is that it does not favor liberal progression perhaps it really isn’t ideological, but rather, a train of thought that applies itself to the situation with which it is presented. I am interested to hear feedback, I just really felt mischaracterized as a conservative with this lesson.

Response by PO3 Sherry Thornburg made Oct 11 at 2015 2:13 AM

PO3 Sherry Thornburg — Sun, 11 Oct 2015 02:13:36 -0400

As a writing major, I see a difference in the way each side is written. the liberal side is in more academic terminology, but the conservative is written more plainly. High brow terms vs. low brow. Hehehee. And Liberals call Conservatives elitists. There really isn't any point in calling him on it, he won't admit to a bias, but watching how the messages are couched will be instructive and you could use some of it in a term paper to demonstrate political ideology. Or not.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Oct 11 at 2015 9:49 AM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Sun, 11 Oct 2015 09:49:01 -0400

Refute it with facts. Don't bring emotion into the discussion SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Oct 11 at 2015 10:45 AM

LTC Bink Romanick — Sun, 11 Oct 2015 10:45:31 -0400

SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member The purpose of education is to make you think about material that you are presented. It seems that you haven't opened your mind to other than your preconceived notions and opinions. Explore what your prof says and think about it!

Response by Cpl Chris Rice made Oct 11 at 2015 10:52 AM

Cpl Chris Rice — Sun, 11 Oct 2015 10:52:12 -0400

A large number of college professors are liberals, this is not a conspiracy it is just the type of people who tend to be attracted to that line of work. I’ve often disagreed with my college professors, this is actually where you get your participation grade, in fact if you want to get the best participation grade disagree with the entire class and the professor. It actually gives you a lot more to say when the class is opened up for discussion, because all of the main points of the subject that are on the other side have been said by the professor during the lecture portion of the subject.

As far as the handout I’m not really sure what is offensive about it, seems like pretty standard definitions of conservative versus liberal. Neither one is painted in particularly flowery language, and neither one is trashed. Even if it is biased, for what you explained is a fairly liberal college professor it was a really good attempt at being unbiased.

My answer was to be respectful but set the record straight, but if you are so sure that you are the one with the correct information how can you be assured that you are not the propagandist? I mean if you look at the answers you provided you did not provide an option of listening respectfully, stating your opinion, and considering new conclusions. I’m not saying that she is right, I’m not saying that you’re wrong, all I’m suggesting is that you keep an open mind.

Response by MAJ Keira Brennan made Oct 11 at 2015 1:33 PM

MAJ Keira Brennan — Sun, 11 Oct 2015 13:33:18 -0400

Honestly, I don't see a LOT to argue with either the sheet you posted and the quote. Yes, I am a liberal, but I was serving during the late 1990s to 2009 and have a
fair take. I think the neo-con def is pretty spot on. I'd say that as someone outside the conservative camp. it echos what the late socialist Christopher Hitchens, who agreed with the neo-con def, had to say about the middle east, OIF, and Islamization as a whole.

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Oct 11 at 2015 7:12 PM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Sun, 11 Oct 2015 19:12:39 -0400

Sorry I could not read it or make it bigger. How do you argue with an idiot? They always think they are right.

Response by SrA Art Siatkowsky made Oct 11 at 2015 10:11 PM

SrA Art Siatkowsky — Sun, 11 Oct 2015 22:11:24 -0400

The real motivation behind a liberal professor is propaganda and it works well on the simple minded liberal who looks at these professors as demi-gods. Objective education can be had in math and science but that doesnt mean the professor isnt still trying to change your way of thinking… look at common core. Since liberal philosophy cannot provide a world view that any rational and reasonable person could agree with or would want to live in liberal professors attempt to change what is considered rational and reasonable… look at 'white privilege '
Its propaganda to an intelligent rational person able to reason things through on their own…. To a card carrying liberal communist the crap comming out of these professors mouths is pure mana from heavan.
Its propaganda and thank God in america we are not yet 'required' to believe it….not yet anyway but the NEA is the voice of liberal propaganda and they are working on the next generation already starting with kindergarten.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 12 at 2015 7:38 AM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 12 Oct 2015 07:38:42 -0400

Find a school that is not teaching that! You do know there are some really good school out there also have online program too?

Response by SSG Richard Reilly made Oct 12 at 2015 10:44 AM

SSG Richard Reilly — Mon, 12 Oct 2015 10:44:09 -0400

none of these answers. If the professor is one sided and you want to explain yours to him then do so. Prove it with evidence and take that opinion. They can't fail you for an opinion well argued with facts. I mean I have written papers before totally agains what was being taught in class. But I supported my thesis with evidence.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Oct 13 at 2015 3:09 AM

PO1 John Miller — Tue, 13 Oct 2015 03:09:57 -0400

I would definitely offer a counter argument on why your professor is wrong!
This is actually partially the reason why I haven't finished my degree (when and if I do it will be at an online for-profit university) is because of the political indoctrination most college professors seem to want to push on their students.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 21 at 2017 2:44 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Jul 2017 14:44:13 -0400

With twelve years of college, I have had my share of all types of professors. As an educator myself, it truly is as simple as paraphrased by Milton Friedman, there is no better way to tell what people think about something than how they vote with their feet.

Response by CPO Robert (Mac) McGovern made Jul 21 at 2017 5:59 PM

CPO Robert (Mac) McGovern — Fri, 21 Jul 2017 17:59:12 -0400

I would wait until after class or ask to see the Professor in their office. I would then explain my views of what is being presented and further inform the Professor I do not agree with unsolicited material being provided that has nothing to do with the class. Thank him/her and leave.

Response by PVT Mark Brown made Jul 21 at 2017 8:02 PM

PVT Mark Brown — Fri, 21 Jul 2017 20:02:12 -0400

A poke in the with an extended index finger might help some.

Response by SGT Mary G. made Jul 31 at 2017 1:59 AM

SGT Mary G. — Mon, 31 Jul 2017 01:59:36 -0400

Take math and science courses! Avoid classes that label and categorize people because the way in which it is done is so often subjective and flawed . . . but then it more or less means avoiding the humanities. If the class is required and you don't have enough time to invest emotional energy in refuting characterizations you think leaves something to be desired, then parrot back what the prof is selling and get good credit for it. No one said you have to buy what is being sold.