Intercollegiate Review

{{media}}
The '''Intercollegiate Review''' is a website and journal that represents the views of the [[paleoconservative]] '''Intercollegiate Studies Institute''' (ISI), and as such is a hotbed of [[wingnut]] [[pseudoscience]], [[Christian evangelism]], and [[paranoia]]. The ISI was founded to combat a perceived [[liberal bias]] on colleges by encouraging [[right-wing]] students to avoid classes that go against the [[Bible]] or that challenge ultraconservative beliefs more generally.<ref>[http://www.intercollegiatereview.com/index.php/2013/05/13/engaging-gay-activists-on-campus-101-2/ Such as here]</ref> It [[Wingnut welfare|receives funding from]] the [[Richard Mellon Scaife|Sarah Scaife Foundation]], John M. Olin Foundation, and other wingnut donors.<ref>http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/intercollegiate-studies</ref>

=="Science"==
The Review, not surprisingly, denies [[global warming]], seeing it as nothing more than an excuse for big government (their favorite [[snarl word]]).<ref>http://www.intercollegiatereview.com/index.php/2013/10/08/truth-and-government/</ref> 

The ISI also advocates the teaching of [[intelligent design]] alongside [[evolution]] and promotes [[homeschooling]] as a means to combat "[[liberalism]]" in [[public education]].<ref>http://www.intercollegiatereview.com/index.php/2013/08/22/whose-pseudoscience/</ref> ISI has also released some pro-intelligent design books as well.

They play the [[Persecution complex|persecution card]] against 
[[secularist]]s
 [[Militant atheism|"militant" atheists]] when called out for their [[Bullshit|nonsense]].

Despite their idiocy they have slightly toned down their rhetoric slightly since 1999, when they released a list of the worst and best books of the century. The worst included the first studies of human [[sexuality]] from an objective and scientific point of view (such as the writings of [[Alfred Kinsey]]) and [[John Maynard Keynes]]' ''The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money'' for being pro-"big government", and the release of ''The Pentagon Papers'' for ruining [[Richard Nixon]]'s "statesmanlike efforts" to resolve the [[Vietnam War]].<ref>[http://www.mmisi.org/ir/35_01/50worst.pdf The complete list.]</ref> The list also played fast-and-loose with the truth, notably calling [[George Orwell]]'s ''Homage to Catalonina'' a reflection of his disillusionment with the "bloody inhumanity of the Left", despite Orwell being a lifelong [[socialist]].

==General hackery==
The journal seems to have something of an obsession with [[political correctness]], which can be taken to hilarious degrees. For instance, one columnist listed "Seven Must-See Politically Incorrect Films" that would supposedly make liberals uncomfortable. Curiously, said films included ''Starship Troopers'' (which was [[Poe's Law|intended as a satire]] of gung-ho militarism),{{efn|Perhaps they meant the original book by [[Robert A. Heinlein]], which presented those same themes completely seriously. Paul Verhoeven's whole intent with the film adaptation, in fact, was to mock and attack the message of its source material; having grown up in the [[Netherlands]] under [[Nazism|Nazi]] occupation, he had some idea of what he was talking about.}} ''Unbreakable'', ''The Exorcist'' (politically incorrect because the family calls on [[priest]]s to battle a [[demon]], and he also ignores the fact that they ''do'' go to a doctor first and it's a last resort), ''Gran Torino'' (intentionally politically incorrect, but the protagonist is supposed to be a flawed anti-hero who eventually overcomes his [[racism]]), and ''[[Blazing Saddles]]'' (directed and co-written by Mel Brooks, a liberal [[Democrat]] who is mocking [[stereotypes]] and racial prejudice, but apparently it's "the perfect film for anyone who thinks the [[First Amendment]] is a conservative plot"). Oh, and he also mentions ''I'm All Right, Jack'', because it presents a crazy [[communist]] who doesn't want his [[union]] to work, [[Red-baiting|which would apparently piss off occupiers]].

Perhaps their funniest pet peeve is [[porn]], which they absolutely loathe. One columnist writes "Don't indulge in pornography of any kind, and if you do, repent and turn away. DO tell your pastor/priest what you have done so that you can have some helpful accountability."<ref>http://www.intercollegiatereview.com/index.php/2013/05/13/engaging-gay-activists-on-campus-101-2/</ref> Another warns of its "addictive qualities" and another writes that its "deceptive sexual ideals… propagate an addictive cycle of destructive, unsatiated desire. While users seek happiness and fulfillment, they instead foster the very force that oppresses and constrains their ability to flourish as human beings". The same columnist also [[Not even wrong|compares the ideals set by porn to the racism towards blacks during the Jim Crow Era]].<ref>[http://www.intercollegiatereview.com/index.php/2013/12/06/symposium-false-archetypes-real-consequences/ No, really.]</ref>

Other time fillers seem to be ravings against [[feminism]] and [[gay marriage]], and some [[homophobia]] for good measure, with a columnist comparing [[gay]] activists to [[Muslim]] radicals who murder [[Christian]]s.<ref>http://www.intercollegiatereview.com/index.php/2013/05/17/the-gay-jihad-the-brain-and-brawn-of-anti-christianity/</ref>

==External link==
*[https://home.isi.org/intercollegiate-review Intercollegiate Review]

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

[[Category:Media]]
[[Category:Clogosphere]]
[[Category:Conservatism]]
[[Category:Homophobes]]
[[Category:Paleoconservatism]]
[[Category:Propaganda]]
[[Category:Pseudoscience promoting organizations]]
[[Category:Purity culture]]
[[Category:Webshites]]

Categories: Media, Clogosphere, Conservatism, Homophobes, Paleoconservatism, Propaganda, Pseudoscience promoting organizations, Purity culture, Webshites