How to Tell Truth from Propaganda

In light of the violence liberals and Social Justice Warriors have engaged in both at U.C. Berkeley earlier this week and last night at NYU, all because they are modern day Nazis and Fascists who think it's okay to silence others and physically attack them because they think differently, and due to the continued and long-standing threats to free speech at Georgetown, (see here and here and here and here and here and here and here), it's worth reviewing the following points on the nature of truth, propaganda, and the scourge of political correctness.

You can find the full essay, written by Stella Morabito, in The Intercollegiate Review, a publication of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), a conservative intellectual foundation which has sponsored TGA in the past, in addition to helping out our friends at Utraque Unum and the Tocqueville Forum.

We only present the first five (there are ten total), but encourage you to read the whole thing over at their website.

We talk more about ISI and other national organizations which seek to develop a new generation of libertarian and conservative intellectuals on our "Opportunities" page where you can learn about receiving free travel and free room & board to attend free conferences where you can freely discuss ideas with conservative intellectuals and students from other universities in an environment free from liberal intimidation and violence.  

In the video protesters, covered in masks, pepper sprayed what I believe could've been attendees to Milo's speech tonight. What happened was horrible - they were sprayed, pinned up against the metal barricades while leftist protesters struck them in the back and on their heads with wood sticks and metal poles.

Oh yeah, ISI and the other organizations we have listed also have internships, scholarships, and grants available.  If you're on the right and hope to influence politics and the culture either at Georgetown or society at large then you should visit to learn more.  

Now, onto the essay . . . 

With rare exceptions, college campuses have become propaganda-saturated environments. But even off-campus, there is little relief from the climate of political correctness that stunts independent thought. Hollywood, the media, and the Internet are all heavy movers of propaganda.
In response I’ve compiled a list to help you sort fact from fiction whenever you are stumped by a questionable assertion or an uneasy situation—whether in the classroom, on social media, in your neighborhood, or at a party. Stop and ask yourself the following. Any “yes” answer means you are being manipulated by propaganda.
#1 Is your natural curiosity being suppressed? Whether the debate is about global warming or gender-neutral bathrooms, or anything else, if you have a nagging question or concern that is being cut off or shouted down, this is a clear sign you are being force-fed propaganda.
#2 Are you being threatened with slurs or labels? Might you risk being called “bigot” or “hater” or “flat-earther” or worse if you simply express a personal preference? If so, you are in propaganda territory. Name-calling serves two purposes for propagandists: (1) it shuts down free inquiry and debate, and (2) it psychologically manipulates you through a fear of being “tarred-and-feathered.”
#3 Do you feel you will be ostracized if you ask a question or express a politically incorrect view? The threat of ostracism is probably the oldest manipulative trick in aid of mind control. We are hardwired from infancy to avoid social isolation, which is why peer pressure is such a powerful force. This is also why solitary confinement is among the most dreaded of punishments. Political correctness depends on inciting the primal human fear of loneliness.
#4 Do you notice a “herd effect” as people shift their opinions to adapt to a politically correct opinion? When others don’t feel comfortable having a real conversation with you, you’re living in a propaganda stew. Perhaps you see a classmate whom you were able to chat with earlier in the year but who has “evolved” with the program to the point that you can’t talk earnestly anymore. Maybe you notice how another classmate is excessively tentative in her speech and tone, a precautionary measure to avoid saying something “unacceptable.”
#5 Are you being pigeonholed as a result of your question or opinion? Today’s propaganda often deconstructs your humanity by way of a scorecard that rates your level of privilege or oppression, based on skin color, class, family make-up, sexuality, “gender identity,” and a whole host of “intersectionality” components. Sadly, officials who promote “diversity and equality” are trained to ignore your humanity as an integrated individual so they can view you as a composite of bits and pieces of identity politics.

Like we said, there are more, so don't forget to read the whole thing and check out ISI's other publications.  Sign up with them and they'll even send you some free books

Also check out this great op-ed by Alan Chen in The Hoya about inviting Milo to Georgetown.  Last year the Lecture Fund passed on the opportunity to host Milo even though people requested him and despite Milo saying he would come (and for free too!). They decided to bring instead Planned Parenthood's Cecile Richards, America's number one harvester and purveyor of used baby parts.  

Btw, did you know Planned Parenthood is a taxpayer-funded "non-profit" which was founded by Margaret Sanger, a Nazi sympathizer and KKK guest, (she once called the Klan "a good group").  And did you know Planned Parenthood which partners with H*yas for Abortion doubles as the country's foremost abortion mill, (they also locate nearly all of their abortion clinics communities of color), paid Richards nearly $600,000 last year? That's about half as much as John DeGioia, President of Georgetown, another "non-profit."  

Who knew universities and the abortion industry were such profitable businesses!

Punch Back Twice As Hard

At TGA we’re non-partisan, which is different than being non-ideological.  We don’t support either party or make endorsements for anything other than GUSA.

But like The Hoya and The Voice, we’re a publication with a viewpoint and seek to shape perceptions within and outside the Georgetown community about what is happening on the Hilltop.  We’re also keen on promoting the ideas and positions we care about.  The difference is The Hoya and The Voice are left-wing liberal Democrat publications while we’re libertarian, conservative, and non-partisan, and unlike them, we'll admit it.

Oh yeah, and unlike us, The Hoya publishes fake news when it's not refusing to report on real news if it makes one of their radical left-wing friends look bad, or slanting the news to promote their liberal ideological agenda, or making the news when they endorse the suppression of speech they don't like and lie about what actually occurred at events.

So don’t mistake this article and the below excerpt as signifying political support for President Trump (PBUH).  The fact is it could have been written by someone from TGA in the last few years.  It discusses the new era we’re in and how to deal with Social Justice Warriors when they seek to attack people for having diverse thoughts.  

It's the exact opposite of what cuckservatives who bend over forward when confronted by their enemies would do.  Make sure you read it twice . . . 

We ought to take a page from the playbook of Trump, who has almost singularly provided us with a golden opportunity to redefine the terms of battle, no longer fighting on leftist ground. For Republicans and conservatives have been liberated from the PC thought police. We are free to fight back when vicious charges are leveled at us designed to instill fear and chill dissent.
As former speaker Newt Gingrich has perceptively noted, Trump has been a masterful media manipulator, getting media members to chase so-called “shiny objects” — “Can you believe Trump said X!?” ad nauseam.
Mr. Trump’s version of stray voltage has a number of effects beyond just causing chaos and distracting his opponents. When everything is an outrage, nothing is an outrage. And when everything is an outrage, you expose yourself as a purely partisan actor, turning off large swaths of the American public.
Trump’s lack of fear of touching politically incorrect third rails that millions of Americans felt, but which had not been articulated so bluntly by a national politician, served him well. Incidentally, it also allowed him to shift the Overton Window on critical issues like immigration and Islamic supremacism.
When attacked for taking these positions, unlike those who came before him, Trump did not avoid the fray. Rather, he jumped into it, counterpunching.
Lulled into a false sense of security by Republicans who fought with their hands tied behind their backs, constrained by suicidal rules of political engagement for decades, the Left did not know how to react when hit.
Leftists could not believe that a political opponent had the gall to actually fight tooth and nail.
Trump does not give an inch to his critics, and neither should any other Republican. He defines the rules of engagement, and so should all on the Right.
Watching the confirmation hearings to date, we see many on the Left jabbing as if we are in a pre-Trump world. Their questions all hew to the same old narrative that if you are not a racist, sexist, or bigot, then you are an out-of-touch plutocrat or a shill for some special interest or other.
Like Trump, Republicans should challenge these charges head on. They should take issue with the Left’s premises from the start, showing that it is the Left who is projecting when it tries to discredit those who believe in capitalism, the power of the individual, and the sanctity of the individual’s rights, the rule of law, national sovereignty, federalism, and the Judeo-Christian morality on which the country is based.
When leftists attack an attorney general designate because he is a white male from the South, they should be attacked for judging based on color of skin (rather than content of character) and for trying to bruise an appointee who will not stand for open borders, selective law enforcement, and politicized justice.
When leftists attack a secretary of education designate because her family is wealthy, they should be attacked for their anti-capitalism and hypocrisy, and their real desire to bloody an appointee because she believes that the Left’s own constituents — and indeed all Americans — should have the opportunity to send their kids to superior schools, rather than being doomed to a subpar education because it mollifies a teachers union.
These attacks are designed to put not only the appointees, but also all right-thinking people on the defensive — to fear reflexively a false premise because those premises have prevailed among the progressives who dominated media, academia, and government for decades.
We should no longer live in fear — for the Left thrives when we self-censor and accept its baseless premises.

For more info on how to fight and win against the left, read Social Justice Warriors Always Lie.  It's a primer on how to react when left-wing liberals progressives attack you.  

In Memoriam: William Peter Blatty

Earlier today William Friedkin, director of The Exorcistconfirmed that distinguished son of Georgetown William Peter Blatty died last night at a hospital in Maryland.  The cause of death was multiple myeloma, a type of blood cancer.  He was 89 years old.


Mr. Blatty was born and raised in Brooklyn.  When he was six his father abandoned the family.  To make ends meet Mr. Blatty's mother Mary performed odd jobs and sold homemade quince jelly on the street.  The family changed addresses twenty-eight times before Mr. Blatty left for Georgetown, mostly due to evictions, but occasionally to stay one step ahead of creditors.  Years later he would recall attempting to join the Central Intelligence Agency when first leaving the Hilltop, but being denied the opportunity once investigators realized his frequent moves made a background investigation impossible.

Mary was a Lebanese immigrant who spoke little English and never learned to read it, but devoted her life to her youngest child, finagling a scholarship for him to an all-boys Catholic prep school.  One night during senior year a Georgetown professor came for Thanksgiving dinner to the Blatty apartment, the surprise guest of a priest who was a family friend.  After the meal was over and everyone left Mary turned excitedly to her son and said, “Willie, you gonna go to Georgetown!”  Knowing the two of them had little money to spend on the expensive tuition he asked how they would pay for it.  She smiled and exclaimed, “You gonna win a scholarship!”

A scholarship he won and Mr. Blatty arrived at Georgetown one late summer's day with a single footlocker containing the entirety of his life’s possessions.  His time on the Hilltop would be the longest he stayed at any location up to that point.  “Those years at Georgetown were probably the best years of my life,” he would tell a reporter for a 2015 profile with The Washingtonian.  “Until then, I’d never had a home.”

Mr. Blatty majored in English, wrote for The Georgetown Journal, a defunct literary magazine, acted in Mask & Bauble plays, and took part in campus hijinks.  He once borrowed the vestments of a Jesuit he knew and with friends traveled to Villanova University, where disguised as a priest he stole the school’s mascot, an untamed wildcat.

Mr. Blatty with the Villanova WIldCat He Stole while dressed as a Priest

Mr. Blatty with the Villanova WIldCat He Stole while dressed as a Priest

Before becoming famous for writing one of the world’s greatest horror novels, or "theological thriller," as he would later refer to it, Mr. Blatty, a 1950 graduate of the college, served in the Air Force, sold vacuum cleaners door-to-door, drove a beer truck, and won $10,000 as a contestant on Groucho Marx’s quiz show “You Bet Your Life” while impersonating a Saudi Arabian prince.  When asked by Marx what he intended to do with his winnings, Blatty said he would take time off to “work on a novel.” 

That book became The Exorcist.

In addition to writing The Exorcist, which he set at Georgetown and was inspired by a local news story he heard about in a theology class, (click here for the original 1949 Washington Post article), Mr. Blatty wrote fifteen other books, including several sequels, and a dozen screenplays.  He also produced and/or directed three movies and won an Academy Award plus three Golden Globes. 

His son Peter Vincent Galahad Blatty attended Georgetown, though died from a rare heart disorder in 2006 while still a student.  Mr. Blatty wrote about Peter in his final book: Finding Peter: A True Story of the Hand of Providence and Evidence of Life after Death.

More recently Mr. Blatty was known for sponsoring a Canon Law petition to the Vatican on behalf of the Father King Society asking Church authorities to bring Georgetown into compliance with Ex Corde Ecclesiae, a papal encyclical on Catholic higher education. 

Under President John DeGioia the University has been in continuous violation of Ex Corde, which lists the requirements Catholic colleges and universities must abide by in order to be considered authentically Catholic. 

Mr. Blatty argued that if Georgetown insisted on ignoring Ex Corde by doing such things as providing University funds for the pro-abortion advocacy group H*yas for Choice or maintaining official recognition of a club whose mission is to "train tomorrow's abortion providers," and which holds on-campus workshops for med school students on how to perform elective abortions, then the Church should either correct the situation or strip the University of its designation as a Catholic school.  

Archbishop Angelo Zani, Secretary of the Vatican’s Congregation for Catholic Education, responded to Mr. Blatty saying the petition constituted “a well-founded complaint" and added “[o]ur Congregation is taking the issue seriously, and is cooperating with the Society of Jesus in this regard.”

TGA published an exclusive 13,000-word excerpt of Mr. Blatty’s petition, which details a quarter century worth of examples of Georgetown’s hostility toward Catholic teaching and doubles as a history of The Georgetown Academy

Mr. Blatty also published in the most recent print edition of TGA an explanation for why he submitted his petition to the Vatican.  

A full bio of Mr. Blatty is available here.   We also link to today’s reporting from the Associated Press, The New York Times, and The Washington Post.

William Peter Blatty, 1928-2017, Requiescat in pace.

William Peter Blatty, 1928-2017, Requiescat in pace.

Our condolences to the Blatty family.  

Dear Georgetown Secularists

Late Friday night after announcing our pause in publishing due to the founding of The Georgetown Review we received the following essay from a sophomore and first-time contributor.  He chose to give it to us because TGA, in his words, “is not afraid to publish harsh, if controversial viewpoints—it respects freedom grounded in reason and wit.”

The author takes aim at those who deny there exists a divinely-inspired natural law and for whom ethics are situational.  They’re the sorts who think if something can be done or simply feels worth doing because it is convenient or gives them pleasure, then nothing should be prohibited. 

Examples include individuals like those in H*yas for Choice who say government shouldn’t legislate morality and regulate abortion so that a woman may for any reason end the pregnancy up until a second before the child would be naturally born, and should be able to snuff out the baby’s life via barbaric procedures like partial-birth abortion which involves delivering everything except the infant’s head and then cutting an opening into the back of the skull and vacuuming out the brain. 

These same two-faced people then turn around and say both the government and religious institutions like Georgetown have a moral responsibility to pay for abortions or sex changes, and that Catholic doctors must perform such procedures despite them being against Catholic doctrine or long-standing and deeply-held religious beliefs. 

Secularists claim to be against legislating morality, but only if the legislation in question is sponsored or supported by religious folks.  Such secular individuals are happy to legislate their own moral views for how others should live and have no qualms about imposing their secular vision on others or punishing through various legal means any who refuse to comply with their secular laws, which not being rooted in universal moral maxims transcending time and place, are forever subject to change whenever a big enough group has the power to change them.  Power, and the ability to enforce their will on others, is everything to these people.  Concepts such as liberty, freedom of religion or conscience, and universal human rights mean nothing to them.

We invite you to read the essay twice and contribute your thoughts in the comments.



Dear Georgetown Secularists,

It’s all bull****. I suppose that statement shouldn’t shock you. That is what your philosophy entails. Thanks to you, the haunting shadow of tradition no longer glares over our shoulder. On the contrary, as Halloween comes upon us, the specter of yesterday is in the process of being laid to rest. Henry Ford couldn’t be more proud.

Why am I writing this now? I suppose I could appeal to the Kukla controversy. I could relate a sorrowful tale of hearing fellow students and professors disdain religion in an age of science and scorn those who have faith in something greater than themselves. But that would be blasé, rather par for the course, if I do say so myself. Besides, this letter was bound to be written sooner or later.

Let’s be honest: history is meaningless to you. For that matter, so are all the humanities. Sure, knowledge of the past is useful insofar as it informs our understanding of the natural world. But science is king. Science is god. Science, to paraphrase Mary Midgley, is salvation. We are free to look ahead, to pursue an orgy of pleasures once prohibited in the so-called "Dark Ages."  Perhaps one day we will find the means to everlasting life. (Who would have thought science would devolve full circle back into alchemy?) There is nothing to restrain us besides our residual inclination to look over our shoulder.

Of course, I’m being a bit dramatic. I don’t expect, in Huxley-an fashion, that we will soon devolve into rampant sexual licentiousness. Though I suppose this question comes to mind: why not? What is to stop us from doing whatever we please? Obviously, this is nothing more than the old trope: If God is dead, all is permitted. But its triteness does not diminish its truth.

Some might retort with appeals to utilitarianism. Some might retreat with Sisyphean appeals to doing the best we can with the time we have. (How heroic of you, fighting a long defeat…St. Stephen could not have made a better martyr). But let me put it in plain language: it’s all bull****. That is the prime implication of your secularism, the brutal principle hidden beneath your moralizing and philosophizing. There is ultimately nothing to justify your empty rhetoric and pleas for basic decency. There is no Reason (or Logos as Christian folk call It) underlying your moral indignation.

Let’s put aside abstractions for a moment. Why should I care about inner city poverty? Why should I care about treating someone with kindness? Because it is the right thing to do? Because poverty is suffering and suffering is bad? Because equality and whatnot?

What is this “right” you might speak of? Why does suffering create a moral obligation on my end? Why care about the other? Why not retreat into animalistic self-concern and live off instinctive drives? Why equality? Why justice? Why fairness?

These become mere words on a page, vacuous connections of symbols and syllables devoid of meaning. Unless you would like to trust in basic human goodness, a rather pitiful assumption, you have robbed morality of its teeth. In its place, you look to false idols, several hundred years of a philosophical and ethical waste-bin that could not replace the simple, timeless elegance of God.

(Yes, someone who is nonreligious can be a “good” person, but their “goodness” is built on a flimsy foundation.)

But the greater irony is the arrogance to think that you have somehow superseded the primitivism of yesteryear. In fact, you have merely adjusted the content of the debate. There is, in the higher spheres of skepticism, an almost gnostic element. Those who enter these prestigious ivory tower circles wallow in their special knowledge of reality above the dim masses below. The golden calf is now the hand of man, and this new mystery religion derives orgasmic joy from the pleasures derived from the hand’s creations.

There is, it seems, a prevailing notion that accepting the ultimate truth of bull**** makes someone brave, willing to swallow the red pill and embrace their ultimate meaninglessness. Yet it is too easy to give up God, especially in our age. Of course, it might take an emotional toll, but intellectually, it often takes so much effort to summon the reason and faith necessary for holding to God in modernity that giving Him up appears to be a simpler course of action. Besides, giving up God seems more fun: all that matters is my truth and there is nothing to prohibit my passions.

To further extend this analogy, allow me to rewrite the allegory of the Fall of Man in a modern form: the Matrix. At one time, we had no need of the red pill, for we knew God, and there was nothing to get in the way of that relationship, neither sin nor distraction. Progressively (perhaps I should put that word in quotes), we lost sight of God, for we desired to “be as gods.” Suddenly, our awareness of God was reborn at the hinge of history (note: I am not speaking about Christ alone). We were given the opportunity to leave the old, fatalistic, pagan reality for a new birth of freedom in the Reality of God. We had to risk reorienting ourselves to a new way of being. Over time, we have once again lost sight of Him, as is man’s custom, and so we seek to replace or forsake Him again.

Faith requires moral responsibility; it demands turning to God and surrendering the great god of modern liberalism: the self. It means we must face up to a Reality where actions ultimately matter, where we are free to act virtuously, and where there is Right and Wrong. It is not easy to give up the cheap allure of relativism and self-exaltation. But waking up from the soporific temptation of the shadow world for the burning Truth of a Higher Reality is not supposed to be easy or even intuitively desirable on the surface.

Every era is always so clever. It thinks it has figured everything out. It thinks it sees beyond the shadows. But all too often, we fail to look right in front us. Since the dawn of our spiritual consciousness, God has withstood the relentless tides of time. Throughout history, humans die, empires fall, and once impenetrable ideas and theories waste away. Yet God remains. Our generation will falter if it fails to return to God and tradition as the only rock-solid foundation on which our moral, intellectual, and spiritual future can rest.

I don’t expect my message to be popular. And I don’t consider myself a martyr for Truth either. In the end, I could be wrong. But at the very least, you must recognize “the plain antithesis between True and False.” The crisis of modernity is the question: God or man?

I leave you with words from the inimitable GK Chesterton:

“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around.”



TGA Welcomes TGR

The Georgetown Review, a new conservative publication, launched last week. 

Go visit.

What’s funny (or not) is with their very first post they were accused of sexism by a liberal commentator on Facebook for using the “blushing coyly as a schoolgirl” line The Hoya used when it was founded.


The commenter then gleefully squeals about TGR getting called racist, homophobic, etc., in the future, and receives the most likes than any other comment to date, mostly from people we personally know are extremely liberal. 

This happens because as we’ve said previously, the words racism, homophobia, sexism, and so on don’t mean anything substantive anymore and are simply trotted out whenever someone disagrees with a liberal and the liberal wants to disqualify and delegitimize the speaker without having to actually engage with the substance of the argument.  In other words, their preferred tactic is to take out the messenger, rather than address the message.  This is either because they are incapable of using facts and logic to combat the message, or they’re afraid people will agree with the substance of the message, so the strategy is to make it personal and do anything they can to avoid talking about the issues.  

At TGA we’ve received numerous such attacks, so we’re not surprised The Review received similar treatment its very first day.

Anyways, we’re happy to see TGR and offer our best wishes and support.  We also have a few words of advice.

But before we begin, a message to all our left-wing liberal Social Justice Warrior haters, (you know who you are), in reference to The Georgetown Review: we are not them and they are not us.    

That said, because The Georgetown Review is new and has the potential to do great things, we’re going to let Kevin and the gang take the lead for a while.  We would like to see what they can do.  So we’ll be taking a pause unless a) TGR stops publishing like Utraque Unum did, or b) something happens that TGR does not cover or which they do cover in a ham-fisted way.

So you liberals should avoid making false accusations of sexism or racism and all the other -ists and -ics and -obics.  Don’t even think of fomenting a shaming campaign against them like with what happened with Dylan Cutler or Christian Hoff Sommers last year, or ginning up some internet hate mob just because they wrote something you disagree with and happen to think differently.  Never forget, we are watching.  Never, ever, EVER, forget that.  And be grateful The Georgetown Review exists because they’re a lot more likely to pull-punches, “be nice,” and deliver the sort of “sober and dispassionate” writing both you and the Pat Mustgiveins and Ken Nunnencucks of the world desire. 

So you better be praying they succeed. 

Otherwise you’ll be dealing with us again.  We’ll punch back.  And we don’t bring guns to knife fights.  Instead we drop tactical nukes.  

Now we would be lying if we didn’t say we’re a little proud The Georgetown Review has sprouted up, similar to the way we felt when Utraque Unum revived last semester after a two-year dormancy.  We won’t say we’re responsible for either one, but considering how there was no strong right-of-center voice until TGA began and made a lot waves challenging left-wing ideas, not to mention exposing and pushing back against thuggish liberals and progressives who wish to suppress speech on the Hilltop, we like to think we’re somehow responsible, if only in terms of inspiration.  Btw, after the next GUSA election in February we’ll make a special return visit and tell the real story of the Chicken Madness campaign, the one the current CM team doesn’t want you to know.     

When TGA started last year one of our goals, aside from exposing liberal discrimination and bias in campus media, the faculty, and administration, was to inform, influence, and motivate any Hoya who leans to the right (in addition to those who lean left but have open minds and believe in things like fairness, truth, and intellectual diversity).  We wanted to stretch the Overton Window, meaning expand the parameters of debate which had been diminishing and will shrink again unless people remain vigilant and actually defend free speech, something we know GUSA and The Hoya will rarely do when the speech expressed goes against their philosophical and political beliefs. 

We’ve been shouldering the burden of providing a counterpoint with the goal of getting others to do it, so we’re happy to pass the torch on to TGR and the two other right-leaning pubs that have begun since February when we stopped publishing regularly (go here for the latest issue of the recently revived Utraque Unum, and here for the new Order and Liberty blog, which though not Georgetown-focused, was co-founded earlier this year by two Hoyas we know and like TGR publishes from a right-of-center perspective).  

So here’s the advice . . .

Stick to mainly campus issues. 

While everyone in the SFS and all the Government majors think they’re read up on the latest international firestorm or political hot topic, the fact is there are so many more people in D.C. and elsewhere who can provide smarter and more interesting takes.  So stay where you have the expertise, which is Georgetown.  Be more than just a souped-up version of The Right Way.  No one cares what a freshman thinks about China policy.  Nobody wants to read an essay you wrote about Obamacare for your politics class and see it get repurposed into a blog post.  As they say in the MSB, your value-added comes in when you comment on things you actually know about, which means the Hilltop, and not public policy or foreign affairs.

Don’t eat your own. 

There are a lot of people who will want you to sell out others on the right.  These will mostly be liberals, but will also include people who consider themselves conservatives yet for some reason care more about being liked by liberals than defending or promoting libertarian or conservative principles.  If your pattern recognition capabilities are strong you’ll see the conservatives who seem to pay more attention to punching right and ingratiating themselves with the left usually come from privilege backgrounds and never actually do anything to combat the left.  And if you pay closer attention, you’ll see liberals never call out their own no matter how bad they act, even though they constantly demand those on the right disavow one another for the exact same behavior.  The reason is because liberals are lying when they say they’re concerned with tone or are shocked and offended about something that’s been said or done. The fact is getting People of the Right to turn on each other is good strategy and a useful tool to attack and divide conservatives.  Liberals are better off when we are engaged in in-fighting and tearing down each other than going after the left, and they love it when media attention is focused on internecine struggles than debating actual issues. 

A great example is with the current election.  Plenty of College Dems and cuckservative types have been calling for the CRs to disavow Trump.  Yet even though Hillary Clinton has a long documented history of enabling the sexually predatory behavior of her husband (to include rape), intimidating and bullying victims of sexual assault, engaging in corruption while in government, and many examples of bad judgement, all of which are far worse than anything Trump has done or said, not a single person on the left will call upon anyone else on the left to disavow or critique her.   

Now it’s understandable to want to hold yourself and your team to a higher standard, but don’t fall into the trap of doing the left’s work for them or allowing your own team’s imperfections to cause you to constantly give up and lose the fight.  Think of it in terms of a family.  A parent may certainly hold themselves to a higher standard and be harder on his or her own children’s behavior than some neighbor’s kid down the street.  But the parent shouldn’t publicly complain about his own child’s behavior to non-family members while at the same time suggesting the other kid down the street whose behavior is objectively worse is somehow a better kid. That’s just dumb parenting. 

Know Georgetown history. 

One of the sadder things about the whole 272 campaign is they’ve gotten everyone to actually think Georgetown owned the slaves.  Not only did Georgetown NOT own the slaves, the descendants of whom are now getting reparations (and also demanding a billion-dollar payout), but Georgetown employees didn’t even sell the slaves.  It was all done by Jesuits up in Maryland, a couple of whom previously worked at Georgetown because they were directed to do so by their organizational (Jesuit) superiors.  But because Georgetown received a small part of the proceeds 175 years ago, we’re all of a sudden responsible now and must pay reparations. 

Another bit of info: the whole thing was started solely to undermine Catholicism.  It wasn’t even begun by the race hustlers you would expect, though these people did latch on to the issue once they saw its potential to make them a buck and gain some power and attention.  It was none other than Angry Gay Man and “Hoya Historian” columnist Matthew Quallen who started the whole thing, as revealed in an exclusive TGA interview.  Per Matt, his sole purpose writing multiple columns about Jesuit slaves was to demonize Catholics and delegitimize the Church’s moral teaching because he’s upset with the Catholic position on homosexuality.  He didn’t even do original research, the work had already been done, and his innovation was just repackaging the content to take advantage of today’s victim and grievance industry culture.   (Nota BeneThe Catholic Church had previously outlawed slavery among Catholics, but the Jesuits, as Jesuits often do, ignored Church rules at the time, kind of like they do now by ignoring Church teaching on abortion),

Or you might check out the history of Jesuit education and John Carroll’s purpose in starting Georgetown, which was for it to serve as the “main sheet anchor” of the Catholic Church in the new republic, as opposed to what it is today, which is a hostile actor when it comes to authentic Catholicism in America.  Bottom line is Georgetown’s founder clearly wanted the University to be a strong Catholic educational institution, not a home for Cafeteria Catholics who care more about being liked by secular elites and non-Catholics than defending or promoting the faith.

Here’s something else: did you know H*yas for Choice was once a recognized club which received University funding back when it was called “GU Choice.”  That was until the Vatican stepped in and told the then Jesuit president of Georgetown to strip it of University recognition and no longer provide funding because killing babies is against Catholic Church teaching.  Yet now, despite the University having been reprimanded for funding a pro-abortion club in the past, we again have the pro-abortion club H*yas for Choice receiving University funding via the mandatory student activities fee the University collects from all students and controls in a University bank account.  

Last point on this: in addition to knowing the past, catalog it.  Catalog it, catalog it, catalog it.  By writing articles and posting online examples of speech suppression, SJW hate campaigns, liberal bias, administrative hypocrisy, etc., a record is created for future Hoyas to see, in perpetuity.  Never let an instance go unreported or uncommented on.  Show how some instances are not isolated, but rather, indicative of a pattern of hostility, bias, and discrimination towards non-liberals at Georgetown.  Show all the evidence that exists about how the suppression of speech on the Hilltop always seems to be the result of liberals.  The fact is neither The Hoya nor The Voice will report on these issues, so someone needs to do it.  Doing so also keeps the pressure up.  Without something to counterbalance the rhetoric of the left, they will become more and more extreme and more and more dominant and more and more fascist.  

Recognize as People of the Right attempts will be made to punish you for your views and you will always be held to higher standard than People of the Left.

We all know this, but it’s occasionally forgotten.  That doesn’t mean there are topics you should not cover.  Just remember that by doing so, regardless of what your tone is or what you actually say, you will be attacked in a variety of ways, as you’ve already seen by being called sexists your first day of existence.  In many cases your accusers won’t even bother addressing your argument, but will just try and delegitimize it by calling you whatever -ist or -ic or -obic they can come up with in order to frighten you and others from publishing in the future and/or to punish you for the crime of thinking differently.  They’ll demonize and ridicule you and try to isolate you from your friends by calling on them to condemn you.  They’ll get the administration to threaten you.  They'll go beyond simple discourse and will do their best to make your life difficult and unpleasant.  You just have to accept life's unfair and carry on the best you can.  

Meanwhile, if you’re a liberal and violate University policy by bullying colleagues and students or making rape jokes and telling religious people in a sexually abusive and demeaning way to perform sex acts on you because you don’t like the fact they believe in Catholic teaching, then the Administration will do absolutely nothing, and neither The Hoya nor The Voice will report the story.

Understand Rhetoric vs. Dialectic. 

You’ll want to use both.  Dialectic is the essence of dialogue and is what you want to use when trying to inform and influence people with open minds and who make decisions based on facts and logic.  It’s what one wishes was the dominant method of discourse in a University dedicated to the search for truth and the advancement of knowledge.  But let’s face it, many professors, administrators, and students don’t care about the truth or free and open dialogue in which all manner of ideas may be discussed.  They would rather suppress the speech and thoughts of those with whom they disagree in order to indoctrinate them with their own beliefs.  And they will use all manner of lies and emotional arguments to demonize those who think differently or who are unwilling to be politically correct. 

That’s when rhetoric is your friend. 

Rhetoric doesn’t limit itself to the techniques of the dialectic, but rather, also appeals to emotion by using satire, ridicule and other means to win the argument or delegitimize and demoralize an opponent.  An example would be the following quiz GU Right to Life recently used . . . “Who Said It: Margaret Sanger or Adolf Hitler?”  Margaret Sanger was a fan of eugenics and had ideas akin to actual Nazis.  She openly spoke about reducing America’s black population via birth control, sterilization, and abortion, because she believed blacks were genetically inferior to whites.  And yet, she’s a hero to the feminist grrrls at H*yas for Abortion, the Womyn's Center, and the Women's (Feminist) Studies program.  Sanger is also the founder of Planned Parenthood, America’s foremost abortion mill, an organization which works in concert with H*yas for Choice and situates most of its abortion clinics in predominately black neighborhoods.  Planned Parenthood each year gives an annual award named after Margaret Sanger.  Receiving it is considered to be the highest honor Planned Parenthood can bestow on a person and is meant to "recognize leadership and excellence" in promoting abortion.  Connecting Planned Parenthood, Nazis, and H*yas for Abortion using the statements of the first two's founders is effective rhetoric.

Now you’ll constantly be told to “take the high-road” and only engage in the dialectic with “the best of the opposition” and to ignore left-wing extremists and avoid satire.  The people telling you this will be those on the left who don’t want you using against them the exact same rhetorical techniques they will be using against you.  In other words, they're liars who prefer you to be stuck playing checkers while they’re all playing chess.  They’ll be going low while pretending and imploring you to go high.  Ignore them.

Hold controversial speaking events.  

Invite Trump and Ann Coulter.  Schedule Camille Paglia or Eve Tushnet for the next OUTober.  Have Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams speak during Black History month.  Use Georgetown money to do it.  The University is paying for all sorts of left-wing ideological and political activities using tuition dollars, from the various identity group mafia centers, (CMEA, Womyn’s Center, LGBTQ Resource Center, Casa Latina, the Black House, and many more), to the grievance industry courses which having nothing to do with the search for truth and advancement of knowledge, (i.e., the Philosophy Department, Justice and Peace Program, English Department, Women’s Studies, American Studies, Sociology, and African-American Studies).  o our side needs to grab as much of that cash as possible.  Have one big superstar lecture each semester.  

Finally, ask questions.   (See here, here, here, and here).

That’s it.  We wish TGR well.  And like we said, do more than just be an outlet for class essays.  Post original and exclusive content.  Do your best to spark actual debate and effect real change unlike some flaccid Benedict Option pseudo-intellectuals who care more about sitting in a circle talking to each other about the Great Books than doing anything tangible like fighting or speaking out against the illiberal left. 

Don’t worry about being liked by any other publication on campus, having liberal administrators pat you on the head like you’re Jack the Bulldog, and getting special invites to events in Riggs or some tent set-up outside Healy.  Leave that to the GUSAnos, the brown-nosers, and the identity group mafia zombies.  Tell the hard truths and not the pretty lies about reality the left wants you to parrot for them.  Present “outside the box” and diverse thinking everyone claims to want but which neither The Hoya nor The Voice seems willing to publish and which the administration and SJWs will stomp on if given the chance.  Don’t be corporate.  Don’t be cucks.  Avoid being the safe, neutered publication the left desperately wishes you to be, which is to say, an ineffective tool giving the appearance of diversity of thought but which is really nothing more than a front for only the sort of approved ideas and speech the left is willing to allow you to publish.   

That’s it.  Follow our advice and you'll not just succeed, but you'll have lots of fun too.

Hoya Saxa!

Questions for Intelligent Hoyas (4/4)

Asking questions is a rhetorical device to get people thinking.  They are an easy way to make a point with having to actually make the point. 

Here are some for your consideration. 

We doubt anyone on the left will bother to answer them either in The VoiceThe Hoya, much less our comments section, though we won’t be surprised if they accuse those asking or discussing these questions of being all the -ists and -ics and -obics they can muster.

Feel free to ask more questions in the comments.

University Finances

  1. The two most recent publicly available tax returns for Georgetown show President DeGioia made a combined income of $2.2 million for the 2012 and 2013 filing periods.  John Thompson III made a combined income of almost $6 million during the same time.  The returns are here and here.  The 2014-2016 returns have not been made public.  This past summer everyone was surprised to learn with no advance warning that this year’s tuition bill increased 4% and afterwards the University announced tuition would increase 4% every year for the next four, despite having already increased 18% over the last four years.  The cost of a Georgetown education is now $300K.  The combined total income for Georgetown’s top ten employees was over $18 million for 2012 and 2013.  We suspect based on annual raises in salary it is between $20-25 million for the years 2016 and 2017.  Again, for only the top ten highest-paid employees at Georgetown.  Now, is it fair for ten employees at a non-profit religious educational institution to be paid so many millions of dollars while a large number of students and their families struggle to pay $300,000 for a degree while simultaneously assuming tens of thousands of dollars of debt just to graduate?
  2. Georgetown is a Catholic university.  The Catholic Church is against abortion.  Yet Georgetown currently funds a pro-abortion club via the mandatory activities fee which pro-life students are unable to opt out of paying without punishment or having their diplomas withheld.  The money the University collects is stored in a University bank account controlled and disbursed by University administrators.  Is it appropriate for a Catholic institution like Georgetown to be funding pro-abortion groups like H*yas for Choice which works with America’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, in order to subsidize Planned Parenthood’s outreach efforts and abortion activities?
  3. Speaking of Catholic identity, last year the Cardinal Newman Society reported that despite October being Respect for Life month and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops calling on all Catholic institutions to celebrate it, Georgetown totally ignored the bishops and instead spent significant sums on “OUTober” and LGBTQ history month with a focus on celebrating and endorsing transgenderism.  A total of 31 different campus offices, academic departments, and clubs signed on, including Campus Ministry, the Theology Department, and the Office of the President.  As a religious educational institution that is Catholic, doesn’t Georgetown have a responsibility to its Catholic donors (both present and historical) to remain faithful to and respectful of Church teaching and ensure the money isn’t spent in a manner hostile to Catholicism or which degrades Georgetown’s Catholic identity?
  4. The aforementioned mandatory student activity fee collected by the University and distributed by GUSA and the funding boards belongs to the studentry.  So shouldn’t students decide where their money goes and not GUSA, which can’t even get more than 1/3 of students to vote in elections?  We have the technology so why not allow the funds to be distributed via direct democracy so everyone can allocate their portion of the funds to the clubs they choose?  Here’s a detailed plan.  For those against the proposal, is it that you do not trust the competency of your fellow Hoyas to determine where their own activities fee money should go?  Or is it you believe students shouldn't have a right to determine where their own money goes and instead should be allocated by a club in which satirical tickets, clueless friends, and chicken sandwiches get elected to office?
  5. Consider the following facts: 1) Georgetown now funds a pro-abortion club; 2) Georgetown spends hundreds of thousands each year on a LGBTQ Resource Center and programming celebrating transgenderism but ignores Respect of Life month; 3) Georgetown had an administrator in CSE threaten the College Republicans to suppress a video of a public speech on campus; 4) Georgetown remained silent over a Philosophy Professor taking part in a joke about raping Catholics and other religious people, in addition to verbally abusing them with sexually derogatory comments such as telling them to “. . . suck my giant queer cock!” all because said religious believe in Catholic teaching on the subject of homosexuality; 5) Georgetown’s top ten employees collectively pull $10-12.5 million in salary each year, while at the same time tuition increased 18% over the last four years, just increased 4% this year, and according to the University will increase 4% each for the next four; and 6) the cost of a Georgetown education is now $300,000 dollars.  In light of this information, why should anyone donate money to Georgetown ever again?  It seems clear that if you’re a libertarian or conservative or religious person, Georgetown is hostile to you and doesn’t have a problem with suppressing you or your ideas while promoting those that are liberal, meaning your money does the same.  And regardless of your political or philosophical leanings, it seems clear Georgetown is allowing administrative fat cats get rich off tuition dollars and alumni donations while saddling with tens of thousands of dollars worth of debt the people it is supposed to help the most: students.  So seriously, why should anyone give money to Georgetown ever again?

This concludes our set of questions, but like we say up top, there are more we could ask and we encourage you to do so in the comments. 

Feel free to let us know if you have any more.

And tomorrow, a special announcement.