How did conservatives lose academia

We all know liberals have a stranglehold on academia, and professors have the luxury of being openly Marxist. How did it get like this, was it once conservative dominated? Do liberals self select for academic teaching professions? Do conservatives have a higher likelihood of going into the private sector? Why is there minimal pushback in academia against cultural Marxist line of thought?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=IbGS6jb4WfI
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony
youtube.com/watch?v=qlpODYhnPEo
youtube.com/watch?v=CxFcprUy9C0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

because people are retarded and got themselves fooled by kikes simple as that

in the end thats all there is to global kikening; people are fucking retarded and they let them be kikes

>Right-Wing
>Assholes

pick one

Not gonna lie, former rural and suburban retard here. This is fucking hilarious watching rural and suburban retards crash and burn. But in all seriousness we can't let rural and suburban retards get jobs in academia.

We need to investigate the real root causes here, possibly a root aspect of Christian enlightenment thought which evolved towards total tolerance. Perhaps conservative viewpoints lose their most potent truths when avoiding the racial question for fear of thoughtstop attacks and being labeled racist.

>How did conservatives lose academia

because lefties like to spend all day juggling with useless mindgame
more presence means they dominate the field

true, conservatives abandon almost all of their core beliefs because they have been branded "outdated" and "bigoted"

I mean really, if the only strong thing you have is that you should be rewarded according to the accomplishment you have done, it's not much more than the former dream of liberals

>Conservatives more likely to understand the value of hard work and physical fitness, science confirms

Is it possible then, for conservative thought to gain traction in academia while avoiding the racial questions? Is post enlightenment egalitarian thought likely to lead to an inevitable decline in conservation of tradition and an objective order for which people's are expected to follow?

Neo conservatives are all about making money for themselves and theres not money in academia.

The long march through the institutions.

Kek

how did it get to this stage though, how did conservative and right wing academics allow the free reign of cultural Marxist thought, was it total apathy or due to Vietnam era cultural zeitgeist?

Entryism

Was a study even needed for this? Any guy who doesn't lift is likely a weak faggot boi. And the opposite if you do.

>science confirms

>how did it get like this?

(You) know (((how)))

The professional structure of modern academia requires constant pressing interventions, which is much harder to do from a conservative perspective. Meanwhile anyone could shit out an article on a queer reading of Jane Austen's Emma in a semester.

Add in the fact that it's a self-fulfilling cycle. Conservatives think academia is for faggy leftists, leftists think it's a great place to explore their ideas, existing leftist professors naturally respond more animatedly to the ideas that match their own, etc.

This.

Threat of violence

Read up on Nietzsche's Master-Slave morality.

O'Sullivan's Law

I think that many right wingers must know the role academia plays, and how it's cultural Marxism trains generations of crypto communists to infiltrate all echelons of society. I question why it had gone without significant retaliation until relatively recently, perhaps the overuse and subsequent ineffectiveness of the thoughtstop attack word racist has emboldened the current generation of right wing academics.

I don't know how it happened there, but here the leftists were taking weapons and killing random people for "revolution". Then the millitary took the power and btfo the armed commies. Then the commies changed the strategy and they used a fabian socialism tactic to take all universities and institutuions. As you can see they won the game here...

Instead of fighting in college, many just kept their heads down and did their work. Now we're fucked

FUCKING THIS.
Leftists work together & they had (((Communist))) backing + material support from the USSR during the 60's & 70's. If we ever want to turn this around (other than thru a full-on Civil War) we will need to do the same thing back to them by re-capturing the institutions of influence. We need ACTUAL right-wing intellectuals / groups / materials to start forming and getting to work. He who owns the Youth gains the future.

>MANDATORY reading material related
>inb4 tl;dr
>it's fucking worth your time, take a break from the 50 slide threads and read it

youtube.com/watch?v=IbGS6jb4WfI

Jews always hire jews before goyim.

Where are the liberals in academia? I just see radical conservatives who lack the self awareness to know that they are ultraconservative.

>want to police language and behavior
>want to forcibly impose cultural norms under implied threat of violence
>censor certain words and wrongthink
>openly seek to conquer and subjugate perceived enemies

even these global warming crusaders are conservative, in that they want to impose limits on human behavior to preserve what they believe is important.

if you talk to the average ideologue, almost every one of them will tell you in some way or another that they are motivated by fear of the future. human beings are naturally conservative, they simply have very different ideas about what should be conserved.

we don't have a dichotomous liberal-conservative problem. what we have is a poisoned dialectic that dominates academic discussion and favors whoever screams the loudest. coupled with the fact that university positions are not democratic and have no term limits, and that cronyism encourages the proliferation of a singular accepted viewpoint, and we end up with a very stultified academic environment that produces thinkers utterly incapable with dealing with the problems we now face

>tfw this article was one of the articles that inspired me to get /fit/ when i first saw it and i just got back from the gym, saw this and realised im bigger than this guy now
feels good

Because the right went on the defensive.
When you go on the defensive you lose.

Because the left achieved cultural hegemony en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony

>Do liberals self select for academic teaching professions?
In short, yes.

>radical conservatives
>poisoned dialectic
No, they are the red-square (((communists))) that you green square useful idiots never fucking pay attention to. In 70 years when they say the USSA "wasn't REAL communism" I want all of you to remember what happened here.

youtube.com/watch?v=qlpODYhnPEo

False premise. Conservatives never had academia.

>How did it get like this
My Theory: Throughout the 1980s in America the media, both TV and newspapers, created a huge fear by constantly reporting how all over the USA Fundamentalist Christians were taken over local school boards and thus were going to change education and take out all science courses. These "news" reports especially gained traction during voting time. And they always referred very negatively to Fundamentalist Christians (and they always used the word "Fundamentalist") and warned how all science classes would be ended and only Bible stories would be taught..

I think this was the distraction, or ruse, (((they))) used to get people to vote for anyone NOT Christian and thus that is how (((they))) took over our education system.

Amen

Commies saw an opening and they took it. You can organize all you want to counter them, good on you. That still won't address the fundamental problems plaguing academia that allowed communists to take root in the first place.

A conservative wave isn't going to magically fix the fact that universities are vulnerable to corruption when they shouldn't be. Not to mention that conservatism is a loose confederation of ideals. I have no doubt that you have strong ideas about what should and should not be conserved, but good luck forming a nationwide alliance that will completely echo your ideals.

Conservatives didn't lose academia, they were just never really involved with the more vocal liberal arts side of it. They are scientists and engineers, who publish scientific papers, not articles in Huffington Post about cutting your dick off.

you're wrong on two counts
conservatism isn't about policing others
liberals never said that their ideology isn't about policing others

liberalism isn't about enabling people to do as they like general, it's about enabling a certain set of liberties that they think are more important than others

As far as I am aware, it is only within the past decade that people really started to push back against the increasing sense that college is almost necessary for any decent employment. This comes from a situation where almost everyone feels forced to at least briefly attempt college, which means almost everyone suddenly being exposed to shitty gen ed courses.

At the same time, you have increased dependency on adjunct labor, especially for those general classes everyone has to take. This means that where in the past, someone who took the class might have had a professor who is Marxist or whatever, they were mature, well-experienced, and knew how to actually instruct students with valuable knowledge and skills. Now those classes are often taught by young, immature people who simple have above-average knowledge of the material and often little to no training in pedagogy. They are driven by early career passion, often politically-motivated, and have probably over the course of their life read more random blog shit about their subject than formal writing.

Tenure, unions, also theres an infinite number of "soft science" and bullshit topics meaning that the real intellectuals are outnumbered.

>conservatism isn't about policing others
Oh, so you're cool with trannies, gays, and muslims running around doing as they please? Conservatism is about setting limits to preserve, as you say, a certain set of liberties.

I get that functionally you have a lot of liberals who say they are about peace and love and acceptance of all. But in reality they have a specific set of undesirables that they would rather not associate with. Most liberals are frankly quite conservative

"science"

School boards =/= university control
Your theory accurately explains how some school boards were flipped, but Conservatives actually preserved a fair amount of them too. The universities are completely overrun with FAR leftists however, and they are a much bigger problem.
>more money
>control over "research"
>virtually uncontested access to the brightest of our young adults

youtube.com/watch?v=CxFcprUy9C0

all i'm saying is that conservatism =/= we want to police everyone and everything and liberalism =/= we want to let everyone do everything.
neither is more restrictive or tolerant than the other, the difference is between their sets of values

>neither is more restrictive or tolerant than the other


You're fucking nuts if you believe that.

>School boards =/= university control
True, but the fear these articles and news reports put out for years about Fundamentalists Christians taking over schools and the havoc they would wreck, I am sure that fear permeated into Universities when they did their hiring.

My point is that when you have 10 years of constant bashing of Fundamentals Christians and fear-mongering of how they will destroy education if they are allowed in, then of course that would effect both voting and hiring of people into educational institutions. I am not saying my theory explains the takeover, but I think it was a big player in helping the takeover.

And also, when Personnel Departments were changed to Human Resources Departments in the late 1980s, they went from being the employee advocacy department to being the gate keepers of who was hired. They pick the resumes of who will be considered. So once (((they))) filled the HR positions, they then picked who would be hired. That is why we see so few White Men being hired today. HR won't pick their resumes.

>conservatism is about setting limits to preserve
This is true, but you are incorrectly conflating them with far-left authoritarians who want to CHANGE the rules and enforce new ones. They are radicals, not conservatives.

>liberals who would rather not associate with X
This doesn't make them "conservative" either, lolbergz heavily stress freedom of association.

"He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches."

in a pragmatic sense I agree, in that those who label themselves conservative and liberal do not accurately reflect their own behavior, and that "conservative" and "liberal" can be broadly used to describe a certain kind of person, rather than a singular ideology. The ability of either term to accurately describe an individual has been strained far past the point of breaking, which is why I propose moving away from the conservative-liberal trap and focusing on specific problems. Such as commies, corruption, and academes who siphon federal funding into their pockets under the guise of academic inquiry. It's not that "liberals" have destroyed academia, the academic system itself needs some major reforms, specifically to protect unpopular perspectives from being stifled by the system itself.

Academics, especially in the humanities, have a responsibility to present a broad and rich academic environment, not one so narrow that students only know how to think in one way. Right now they are shirking that responsibility because they know they can get away with it, and they are being actively encouraged to do so by their peers.

Perhaps that had an effect, it just seems like an extra step to me though honestly.

From what i've seen; most new professorships are heavily dependent on panel-interviews & the subversives went into this with the pre-determined plan to fill up the schools. Once they weaseled a few members into any department, they could effectively bar the right and add HARD-Leftists from that point onward.

It happened after WW2 when most of the kikes were kicked out of Europe and came to the US. By the 60's they were a significant force in the Universities and that's when everything went downhill. Everyone on Sup Forums needs to read Culture of Critique to fully understand what these kikes are doing.

self improvement is right wing

>People dying of diseases such as cancer and muscular dystrophy and strokes
>Starving to death globally
>Planet falling to bits
Its great to know that science has its priorites in order.

if i lived in a society that outlaws trannies, faggotry, weed, religions other Christianity, took away citizenship from darkies and put NEETs into work camps I could still feel as free as a bird because those thing do not concern me

on the other hand, no matter how permissive a society is on liberal talking points, if it limits gun rights, the right to enterprise, if it has hate speech laws, if it tries to to ban local customs or certain commonly used household appliances, if it wants me to pay for Gypsies' welfare, then it'd consider it a tyrannical hellhole

>Right wing and an asshole
The whore who wrote this, must be dripping wet with Hypergamy.

>Where are the liberals in academia?
It was their long therm plan since early XX century, which they slowly but surely realized. It didin't happen over night. We just underestimated them.

in my , experience of university standards it is usually the arts based courses in which liberalism has its field day, as lets face it and idiot can get into one of these, but in the higher echelons their seems to be a general ambivalence to campus politics and radicalisation, with most identifying as a centrist and some identifying as right wing, especially those on top, law student for clarity

Affirmative action and lower academic standards. When you pile in droves of low IQ retards and feed them marxist bullshit which possesses no valuable skill in the workforce, the only option they have left is to stay in academia and spread like cancer. Engineers go out into the workforce and engineer. IT professionals get careers, MBA's, medical workers etc. What do you do with a sociology degree besides work in some invented department like "diversity management" or stay within academia?

>old way
what? It's 16 any way. First - brackets, then in order. Wtf? You can't get 1 out of that. The whole 5(2*2) would have to be under line. Or is that the joke?

desu not sure what most of these are evidence for the entire right hand side takes the piss basically the two in the top left are trag but most of them are either joking or say go away...

>moving away from the conservative-liberal trap and focusing on specific problems
The problem with that i think is that people rarely consider issues on a case by case basis, they're much more likely to accept a political programme as a package.
Not because they're dumb, but because the conservative-liberal battle has become so polarized that by not agreeing with every view their favourite party / candidate holds, they risk looking like opposition to their allies, and it might make them feel like they're weakening their own side from within.

When our conservative (therefore anti-commie) PM started getting cozy with Putin, conservative voters who up until that point hated Russia's guts started saying they're just on of two evils, possibly the lesser one.
On the contrary, the traditionally russophile left won't shut up now about how big a threat Russia is to us.

TO GET A PAPER THROUGH IT NEEDS TO GO THROUGH MYRIADS OF PEERS OF YOUR CALIBER TO GET IT THROUGH.

Some valid points in this thread but don't forget that, STEM aside, the majority of subjects people undertake in academia relate to the study of people + society in a broad sense, i.e. the way people think, why they think the way they think, and how their experiences of the social world influence their behaviour. Social sciences, history, anthropology, literature, gender queer theory etc etc. If you spend decades of your life studying people, in a highly critical yet isolated environment, it's going to make you very left-wing and empathic to an arrogant degree. The system then becomes a self-perpetuating, cyclical echo chamber as others have pointed out.

Political circumstances outside of the university bubble are hugely influential as well. 7 years of the UK conservative party fucking up our education system has led to a huge surge in political awareness amongst students, bolstering left-wing views in UK academia further than ever before. ~50% of British 18 year olds go to university now - it's not just the upper classes, you have 100s of 1000s of working class kids who had their student support grants slashed by Cameron's govt, mixing with the kids of champagne socialists and middle-class lefties. It's literally a recipe for revolution. I would expect that a similar effect is happening in the US with Trump making millions of students very very angry.

Until the right makes itself more palatable to young people, the left's "stranglehold" on academia will continue to tighten

kek ok neckbeard

>Is it possible then, for conservative thought to gain traction in academia while avoiding the racial questions?

Not likely. The longer we ignore the (literal and figurative) 400lb gorilla in the room, the worse this shit is going to get.


Is post enlightenment egalitarian thought likely to lead to an inevitable decline in conservation of tradition and an objective order for which people's are expected to follow?

Probably. I may be too blackpilled to answer objectively, but barring a major catastrophe, a new plague, Ayy lmao's dropping by to visit, or global nuclear war, I predict a long, slow, painful decent into lawlessness and anarchy as those who seek to preserve the civil society become further marginalized.