Will Fascism Come to America through Its Colleges and Universities?

When I went through university, which wasn't all that long ago, I learned what the value of a university education is all about.

First off, there are two kinds of students:

Those who perceive higher education as going to college to earn a piece of paper that will achieve a means to an end for employment purposes.

And those with open minds who seek the knowledge, wisdom and enlightenment that will aid them in doing productive things for greater society. This is the point of university.

In my country, Canada, all universities are on the same level for providing an education. The difference between the Ivy League schools and the rest is that the Ivy League schools are facilities designed to pamper the elite youth of society, where networking is more important than academia. For example, Justin Trudeau went to McGill University because his father, Pierre Trudeau, was prime minister- therefore his children were part of the ruling class, and this went to a prep school for the ruling class to meet others from the ruling class.

I did not go to an Ivy League school. I went to a small university. My professors either all had doctorates or extensive experience in their fields. They made it very clear that because this was a backwater university, that they are more or less unrestricted in what they can teach us, compared to the standards of the elite schools.

The goal of the professors at this university was to instil within us academic discipline, because all of the professors were academics. Academic discipline is a very simple concept: learning the fundamentals to concepts so you can actually understand things, instead of just repeating what you are told (which is the gradeschool curriculum).

I had a political science professor who was notorious for assigning ten books per class. These books were mostly the original works of the classical political theorists. I took all of this professor's classes. This professor had zero tolerance for ignorance and made it his job to put students on the spot if they made comments that they could not back up with academic literature. It was fantastic.

Other professors introduced us to the cutting edge of contemporary theoretics regarding new ways of observing the global economy. In using these new modes of analysis, and understanding how they completely contradicted everything we used to believe regarding economic progress, it is obvious to me why academia is being targeted as dangerous these days. I even used these techniques to successfully predict future geopolitical scenarios, proving that this new paradigm is accurate compared to the old ways of thinking. But the problem is that it exposes all the BS that people refuse to let go of, because they refuse to accept that things are not as great as they think it is. In fact, these new metrics prove that the old metrics are still being used only because they prop up obsolete and increasingly dangerous perceptions of superiority, particularly in terms of national and global economies.

In accepting the new paradigm of thought, which will be necessary for developing a sustainable future for global society, it would completely demolish the structures currently in place that ensure extreme levels of economic disparity- the same disparity where the people in charge have most of the wealth and power while everyone else has next to nothing.

This is why academia, particularly in North America, is being denounced. I say North America instead of "the West" because at least the academics in Europe have a say within the technocratic political structures. In North America, science has become a selective process where science is only acceptable if it promotes GDP growth. But since the actual objective science is raising all kinds of red flags regarding such economic models, and academics are proposing a new metric to build a new and sustainable economic model that obviously requires significant political reforms, they are branded as dangerous and 'fascist'.

Long story short, the true fascists are those who refuse to accept change, all the while attacking anyone who even suggests it.

People point to globalism and say that this is the problem. But globalism is an inevitability considering global population growth and the general differentiation of economic realities. The truth is that society is always developing because it keeps expanding, and it must keep expanding to maintain its development. This expansion and development process forms a dynamic where various support structures lose their functionality and must therefore be replaced for the maintenance of society. We have only gotten this far because of academia, and it is the endeavour of a fool to believe that we are at such a pinnacle stage in our social development that we should denounce the academics now and try to maintain the status quo. If the dynamic is always progressive (which it is, whether you like it or not), then maintaining the status quo is an exercise of which the only result is economic stagnancy. And stagnancy is what kills a society.

EDIT: I should probably tie in this final point:

Those who denounce academia are living in a paradox. These people tend to be the ones who, probably subconsciously, understand the concept of the division of labour, because they probably went through some specialized training and have been financially successful at their specialized trade. The problem is that such people cannot seem to grasp that the people who should represent the authority on such important subjects as the environment, politics, economics should also have specialized training for those fields.

This ignorant mindset is bought into this idea that the democracy they have now is actual democracy, and therefore we shouldn't change anything about it. But this kind of democracy does not have relevant experts in top administrative positions. The political regimes of western democracy are structures design to accommodate what can only be described as a vast inefficient form of cronyism. As I said earlier, our leaders may have university degrees, but they go to prep schools where they are expected to meet other people from the same economic backgrounds. Their idea of leadership is getting together and forming a political regime. A true democracy would see the most capable person in the highest position of authority, for the role that they are capable of. But this doesn't exist.

There's this idea that we were made aware of back in university: that there are no national leaders with a background in political science. We see presidents/prime ministers/etc who are intelligence officials, rich celebrities, children of previous leaders, lawyers, economists, captains of industry... but never a political scientist. Now why is that?

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Which religious institutions are you talking about? Protestant Christianity has these things called 'denominations' which split apart specifically because they don't accept a singular worldview/dogma.

Christian institutions, specifically, those that promote the Dominionist's agenda, like those of Ted Cruz and Mike Pence.

Dominion Theology

Dominion Theology (also known as Dominionism) is a group of Christian political ideologies that seek to institute a nation governed by Christians based on Christian understandings of biblical law.

a reply to: windword

Careful! Talk like that might mean ATS will have to pay more for bandwidth in the near future!

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Nice try but each denomination has a monolithic world view of its own and although what they do share may not be the same it is similar.

Also applies to other religious institutions. Just so you don't feel picked on.

You keep using this word 'monolithic'... I do not think it means what you think it means.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Which religious institutions are you talking about? Protestant Christianity has these things called 'denominations' which split apart specifically because they don't accept a singular worldview/dogma.

Christian institutions, specifically, those that promote the Dominionist's agenda, like those of Ted Cruz and Mike Pence.

Dominion Theology

Dominion Theology (also known as Dominionism) is a group of Christian political ideologies that seek to institute a nation governed by Christians based on Christian understandings of biblical law.

And your premise is that these dominionists have infiltrated all levels of every Christian institution in order to sway influence over the federal government?

Sure thing, this is a conspiracy forum afterall.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Which religious institutions are you talking about? Protestant Christianity has these things called 'denominations' which split apart specifically because they don't accept a singular worldview/dogma.

Christian institutions, specifically, those that promote the Dominionist's agenda, like those of Ted Cruz and Mike Pence.

Dominion Theology
Are you this retarded? Tbis site is about conspiracy theory. And the Dominion Theology has been proven.

Dominion Theology (also known as Dominionism) is a group of Christian political ideologies that seek to institute a nation governed by Christians based on Christian understandings of biblical law.

And your premise is that these dominionists have infiltrated all levels of every Christian institution in order to sway influence over the federal government?

Sure thing, this is a conspiracy forum afterall.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Which religious institutions are you talking about? Protestant Christianity has these things called 'denominations' which split apart specifically because they don't accept a singular worldview/dogma.

Christian institutions, specifically, those that promote the Dominionist's agenda, like those of Ted Cruz and Mike Pence.

Dominion Theology

Dominion Theology (also known as Dominionism) is a group of Christian political ideologies that seek to institute a nation governed by Christians based on Christian understandings of biblical law.

And your premise is that these dominionists have infiltrated all levels of every Christian institution in order to sway influence over the federal government?

Sure thing, this is a conspiracy forum afterall.

I wasn't being nice to you the last post. Google Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Moral Majority, etc.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Think a little harder. What you quoted points out that although things are not "monolithic" they are similar.

The point is that although nothing is really monolithic it is close enough. Protestants did wander far enough from the church to not share the core dogma.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Which religious institutions are you talking about? Protestant Christianity has these things called 'denominations' which split apart specifically because they don't accept a singular worldview/dogma.

Christian institutions, specifically, those that promote the Dominionist's agenda, like those of Ted Cruz and Mike Pence.

Dominion Theology

Dominion Theology (also known as Dominionism) is a group of Christian political ideologies that seek to institute a nation governed by Christians based on Christian understandings of biblical law.

And your premise is that these dominionists have infiltrated all levels of every Christian institution in order to sway influence over the federal government?

Sure thing, this is a conspiracy forum afterall.

I wasn't being nice to you the last post. Google Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Moral Majority, etc.

No need to google them, I grew up with them on my parent's TV. Funny thing, I don't see them running the planet.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Think a little harder. What you quoted points out that although things are not "monolithic" they are similar.

So it means whatever you want it to mean for your own schema.

The point is that although nothing is really monolithic it is close enough. Protestants did wander far enough from the church to not share the core dogma.

The core dogma of Christianity is the one thing that binds all the denominations (well, most of them) together, and that dogma is not one of superiority and control.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
So it means whatever you want it to mean for your own schema.

No, it means the same thing you think it means. That is how I used it. Don't know why you are taking something else away from what I wrote.

The core dogma of Christianity is the one thing that binds all the denominations (well, most of them) together, and that dogma is not one of superiority and control.

At least you agree in part. There is more than just believing Jesus is the savior to the core dogma. Control is part of that.

a reply to: Teikiatsu


Looks like it's working too, better than ever!

You have Trump speaking at Liberty University, promising religious freedom as long as he's president. You can do the "drinking game" every time Trump cavalierly calls Rev Jerry Farwell, "Jerry". And, Trump's abortion "Gag Order" supersedes the restriction laid down by every other president that executed it, affecting women's reproductive rights on a global scale.