I’ve had a teacher hand out a list of hot topics/buzzwords that improve your chances of getting something into an academic publication. Every minority identity was there and class was rather noticeably absent. This is of course just one teacher’s perception… but it corresponds with the dominant modes of thinking I’ve seen in US universities.

Oh no, the citations are full of more of the same nonsense…

Have you ever considered how killing people with drones is just like being pregnant?

I expected nothing and yet somehow am still disappointed. Thank you for the link. Honestly I feel that not enough attention is drawn to the process, a systematised process it seems, at cartoonisation of capitalist atrocities.

Not to mention the deep ties many scholars have to the state department and MIC.

I know of multiple professors at my university that have worked for or with the state department (im thinking of at least 3 off the top of my head). I recognize that institutions like the state department have a lot going on, meaning having prior affiliation doesn’t make one a double agent or something. It’s possible some became jaded or were working for specific goals that are not obviously the US’s strategic goals.

But together with the sheer number of ties to the US government, the narratives and worldviews that are fostered, and the reminders to become an intern at the state department, it all paints a disturbing picture that gives context for why this kind of scholarship can thrive. I still have not fully compartmentalized how I should view US academia, but what I am confident of is that the best parts of the academy exist on its periphery and are largely unknown to its central organs.

Do they use word jargon to cover up their shit takes, or are the same people who use word jargon the same people who do “gender analysis” of war crimes?

This makes me so angry. Holy shit, it’s that Frankie Boyle bit about imperialist soldiers:

https://youtu.be/yZOLq82m2Ks

They will circle back to us

No doubt. It’s currently “not in style” to talk bad about “the browns” in the liberal mainstream (although instead it’s other types of belittling, not to mention actual violence that is hidden from view).

“Guys, this looks bad, but I will defend your right to do it, it must be for the correct reasons”

Yeah, I know. Crazy stuff

“My literature teacher is making me sit down and read some of the greatest novels in world literature, when I just want to play video games! These books are all Russia’s fault!”

Wait… that actually does check out…

well yeah, where do you think all these liberals come from?

🤣😂😆😃😀😕🙁😣😫😭😭😭

Wouldn’t be surprised tbh

He could have probably saved himself years of research by just stating that. Poor guy.

Based! You are based

In the United States, for over a hundred years, the ruling interests tirelessly propagated anticommunism among the populace, until it became more like a religious orthodoxy than a political analysis. During the Cold War, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.

– Michael Parenti, Blackshirts And Reds

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the admins of this instance if you have any questions or concerns.