Academedia and their power - Academia and media harmful influence and how to fix it

[NEVER LURK]

This is hopefully a thread to discuss how academia and media's current structure and influence and their constant push for globalist ideologies (whether it's communism, Neoliberalism or Islamism).

Specifically on their capability to effectively determine how much our lives are worth.
For a recent example

The hospital bombings in Raqqa (by the US) and in Aleppo (by Russia) have garnered less attention than an alleged hospital bombing in Gaza.
The media paid more attention to wetback kids' deportation conditions than the actual disgusting industry that imprisons and harms American children.

Regardless of your ideological beliefs, the media have shown that they can effectively influence how much people will care about your life.
And the failure of social media to destroy traditional media is apparent.

Academia, on the other hand, influences things in a significantly more insidious way.

Having an Ivy League degree holds significant influence on a person's social standing and power in Asia and to a lesser but still a formidable degree in the West.
Ivy League is on a jihad to redistribute power from whites, Jews and Asians to lower communities through DEI.
And at the same time taking power from the West and redistributing it to the rest of the world through having a significant degree of the student body be foreign (40% of grads are foreign in Harvard).


Both are controlled by faggot self hating whites and jews in places like new york.

Idk bout ya but i don't think these people kno whats good for humanity.

 

[TheArtilleryman]

Sheltered upper middle class (and above) people go to college right after school. They're the ones who have experienced nothing except what academia has told them (whites = bad, browns = good, maybe some poetry), and so create bubbles around these warped luxury views that only people of their status can hold. What the fuck does a 20 year old student know about having your job outsourced to migrants? Well, they know what academia has told them, and they know that presenting stats means you must be right (unless they're bad stats). "Heck, all the wealthy second generation immigrants I go to college with are good people!" Yeah, sure, Stacey Rodriguez over there is still Mexican despite being an exact replica of you, personality and all, just recoloured. They all think that all foreigners can be just like them if they go to the right classes and get therapy.

Edit: And they're right. It's called brainwashing. They destroy the immigrant's culture in favour of replacing it with their own upper class cosmopolitan academic culture. That's how they compromise mentally with the fact that different cultures and nationalities will always clash in a way that can only be described as "racism", which is something they can NEVER EVER EVER allow to happen.

These people are the problem, especially the ones who then go in to working for academia right after college. (Also the Jews)

 

[Jason_Cruiser]

Sheltered upper middle class (and above) people go to college right after school. They're the ones who have experienced nothing except what academia has told them (whites = bad, browns = good, maybe some poetry), and so create bubbles around these warped luxury views that only people of their status can hold. What the fuck does a 20 year old student know about having your job outsourced to migrants? Well, they know what academia has told them, and they know that presenting stats means you must be right (unless they're bad stats). "Heck, all the wealthy second generation immigrants I go to college with are good people!" Yeah, sure, Stacey Rodriguez over there is still Mexican despite being an exact replica of you, personality and all, just recoloured. They all think that all foreigners can be just like them if they go to the right classes and get therapy.

Edit: And they're right. It's called brainwashing. They destroy the immigrant's culture in favour of replacing it with their own upper class cosmopolitan academic culture. That's how they compromise mentally with the fact that different cultures and nationalities will always clash in a way that can only be described as "racism", which is something they can NEVER EVER EVER allow to happen.

These people are the problem, especially the ones who then go in to working for academia right after college. (Also the Jews)

I very much agree with your take. I hate the use of "Empathy" and "Suicidal empathy". These people don't have empathy. They think in terms feels and utopian morals. They can't imagine the suffering that Native Whites suffer because they cannot picture being in their position, either out of lacking theory of mind, or being so indoctrinated, that ideological programming overrides everything else. I hate when leftists scoff and go "dumb right-wingers these stats say we're more educated", when it ignores universities take advantage of young idealistic demographic their to learn, only to poison them while before they have the chance to think for themselves. Uni's are complete radicalization mills, The only reason I'm still right-wing is that I actually grew up in among the working class, and saw these things happen to family, and I was already right-wing by the time I entered Uni.

Both are controlled by faggot self hating whites and jews in places like new york.

You're post is basically what the NRx(neo reactionary, dark enlightenment) called out/noticed. They call it the cathedral though, but the idea is the same, that academia and the media, opperate a informal ideological cabal, that deliberately skews the narratives to favour the left.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

The way I see it, academia and the media don't directly decide "how much a life is worth", even though it may appear that way. What they actually do is control what gets seen, how that is framed, and what it gets compared to. Which happens to be upstream of people's judgment. If you make one event visible and repeated and give it context, and at the same time downplay or strip context from another event, then you don't even need to tell people what to think, it will happen all by itself.
Just saying that these institutions are filled with xyz type of people does not yet explain why the outputs converge in the same direction the way they do. To figure out why it happens, a mechanism is needed.
For instance, the mechanism that decides what gets selected, rewarded, and reproduced inside these institutions.
There's some things you can say with certainty. People who translate issues into the institution's preferred language get taken seriously. People who don't rock the boat when it comes to dominant norms move forward more easily. Having certain moral framings can open doors, having others can give you a hard time getting published or promoted.
These facts alone are sufficient to yield consistent results, without a need for a single coordinated ideology. All you need is a system where going against the grain is expensive and aligning with the grain is rewarded. Not only does that explain the convergence, but it also explains why different ideologies can still point in a similar direction.

Like, if you want to really understand the phenomenon, look at the mechanisms. Look at who gets in and who stays in. Look at what moves a career forward. Look at what counts as a "serious" way to frame something.

 

[NEVER LURK]

I hate the use of "Empathy" and "Suicidal empathy". These people don't have empathy. They think in terms feels and utopian morals. They can't imagine the suffering that Native Whites suffer because they cannot picture being in their position, either out of lacking theory of mind, or being so indoctrinated, that ideological programming overrides everything else.

They are similar to shias in Ashura
They use expressions of emotion and sympathy as a way to show loyalty.

They more you cry about Hussein bin ali(the shia god) the more moral you are.
And of course anybody who doesn't is worst than satan(literally the expression use to describe non shias)

Just saying that these institutions are filled with xyz type of people does not yet explain why the outputs converge in the same direction the way they do. To figure out why it happens, a mechanism is needed.

It actually does.

You can't be a nationalist institution when a big chunk of your students are international.

You have to make the environment friendly or ching chong son of the Chinese billionaire xi bong might not wanna be in your school.

The inclusive ideology by nature excludes people who are naturally on the right (or at least makes colleges a less attractive option)

Jd vance talked about how people from his hometown thought he pretended to be liberal to get into yale.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Getting closer to a mechanism, but still skipping a step

You have to make the environment friendly or ching chong son of the Chinese billionaire xi bong might not wanna be in your school.

That's pressure, but it does not yet explain why that pressure consistently resolves into the same kind of ideological output
For example, attracting international students does not logically require a specific political framing. There are plenty of environments with mixed or international populations that don't converge on the same set of norms like what happens in academia. That means something else has to be doing the filtering, and that's why I'm emphasizing internal mechanics
If certain ways of framing issues are treated as legitimate and get published and promoted, while others create friction or derail a career, then people adapt to that. And over time, the institution selects for those who already fit that pattern and filters out those who don't. That's how you eventually get convergence.