Here, Granny reads fairy tales to demented children…
Here, Granny reads fairy tales to demented children…
Back in 1960s and before, we had free speech in the West. In that decade, the assault on freedom started in earnest.
When “hate speech” laws were first introduced, we were assured by governments that they would never be used to suppress freedom of speech or the expression of unpopular views. But, because of the pliable and dubious definition of “hate”, critics warned that there would be unintended consequences of these laws, namely, that they would be used by politically motivated groups to suppress criticism and exposure of the truth about various political and religious groups or organizations.
[Under the Criminal Code of Canada, “Hate propaganda” means “any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319.”]
The critics, however, were wrong about one thing: using the laws for the suppression of political dissent was not an unintended consequence, but the primary objective of those laws.
Hate speech was the pretext; censorship, the objective. All else was deceit from the government.
The amount of “hate propaganda” in Canadian, or any Western, society is vanishingly small, and can be dealt with quite easily under already existing laws concerning incitement to violence, insurrection, threats to public order etc.
The primary objective of the multicultural globalists comprising the Deep State is to destroy Western Civilization, free nation states, and liberal democratic societies by means of mass Third World immigration and the destruction of the fundamental rights and liberties of free citizens.
Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says:
“Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.”
Since “hate speech” has now expanded to mean anything that can cause offense, always in unlimited supply with some groups, suddenly, all the freedoms you thought you had under the Charter have now essentially evaporated. Now, anyone who feels that his feelings have been hurt is entitled to seek financial compensation using the “Human Rights Commissions” for a variety of claims “including restitution for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect”.
There is no pretense of due process in these kangaroo courts, as the claimant is supported by the commissars and the defendant has to pay all costs and is presumed guilty. Naturally, many groups, particularly Islamic organizations, have used these laws to attempt to suppress criticisms and the truth about Islamic behavior around the world, particularly towards women and gays. In a famous, or infamous, case, the Canadian Islamic Congress filed a complaint against Maclean’s Magazine in 2007. According to Wikipedia…
“The substance of the complaint was that Maclean’s was publishing articles (a column by Mark Steyn) that insulted Muslims. The Congress filed its complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The Ontario Human Rights Commission ruled that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal dismissed the complaint 10 October 2008. The Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissed the complaint on 26 June 2008.”
But not until Maclean’s and Steyn had spent a good deal of money on lawyers. They should never have had to; the complaint was pure intimidation.
In Britain, a small sign in a living room window saying “Islam out of Britain” was enough to bring a SWAT team police squad to intimidate that person, whereas public demonstrations calling for the murder and beheading of people who do not support Islam,(here) have, to my knowledge, never resulted in any prosecutions. In Rotherham, gangs of Muslims had been raping young girls for a decade while the police did nothing about it. The Labour Party councillors knew all about it, and did nothing. No-one in authority has been held to account for this collusion with crime, and, it is still going on. But, rest assured, the British police have plenty of time and money to intimidate law-abiding members of the British National Party.
The British police are now the Thought Police working for Islam. [Pat Condell has an excellent video on the corruption of the British police.]
This is how far our rights have been eroded by unscrupulous politicians. By giving arbitrary meanings to “hate”, they have legitimized suppression of any view that any of the approved grievance groups do not approve of.
The latest thought control assault is against anyone who disagrees with all the transgender poppycock. You are now required by law to lie. There are two sexes in the human species: that is simply a medical fact. It can not be changed by the decree of some vapid nonentity in Parliament. This is the level of absurdity in our governments.
As for rights and freedoms, freedom of conscience and all that: the Charter is now vaporware.
Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept is not someone I usually agree with (and that’s not just because he’s a lefty), but he gets full marks for his latest analysis of the unspeakable tripe that passes for news and analysis in the US Media.
The latest “story” or “bombshell” that CNN, MSNBC, CBS (all the usual suspects) came up with was the claim that proof had been uncovered that the Trump Team had colluded with “the Russians” prior to the election. Fevered and deranged “analysts” discussed the impending end of the Trump presidency, double shots of glee were passed around fuelling the already hysterical atmosphere.
Then, REALITY hit. You know, the real world. That one made up from stars, planets, atoms, people, not the fantasies of CNN hacks. The email that was supposedly going to rewrite history was from a concerned citizen to the Trump Team suggesting that they look at the documents recently released by Wikileaks. Greenwald says…
The email was a smoking gun, in CNN’s extremely excited mind, because it was dated September 4 — 10 days before WikiLeaks began promoting access to those emails online — and thus proved that the Trump family was being offered special, unique access to the DNC archive: likely by WikiLeaks and the Kremlin.
There was just one small problem with this story: It was fundamentally false, in the most embarrassing way possible. Hours after CNN broadcast its story — and then hyped it over and over and over — the Washington Post reported that CNN got the key fact of the story wrong.
The email was not dated September 4, as CNN claimed, but rather September 14 — which means it was sent after WikiLeaks had already published access to the DNC emails online. Thus, rather than offering some sort of special access to Trump, “Michael J. Erickson” was simply some random person from the public encouraging the Trump family to look at the publicly available DNC emails that WikiLeaks — as everyone by then already knew — had publicly promoted. In other words, the email was the exact opposite of what CNN presented it as being.
Read the whole thing here.
The story was passed around the networks (all colluding with one another) with claims that “multiple sources” had confirmed it, blah, blah. Of course, nobody checked the date on the original email. All the “corroborations” were nothing but lies invented to pretend to credibility.
What will drive into the thick heads of the TV apparatchiks of the Democrat Party that their credibility long ago went up in smoke? Who knows? People that deluded need treatment. Nurse Ratched, here’s a job for you.
Back in the days after the fall of communism in Russia, there was a line going around something like this…. “We knew that the Communists were lying about life in the Soviet Union, but we didn’t realize they were telling the truth about life in the West!”
Doesn’t sound so far off now, does it?
When the Kissing Had to Stop was a political fiction novel published by the British/American writer Constantine FitzGibbon in 1960, in the darkest days of the Cold War, the days of megatons, throw-weight, missile superiority, and mutual assured destruction; the days of “running dogs of US imperialism”, “bourgeois lackeys”, and, as the Soviets described West Berlin, “that cesspit of fascist revanchism” (definitely my favorite).
At the time, nuclear disarmament was all the rage in progressive circles, and a mass movement in Britain, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), which advocated unilateral nuclear disarmament for Britain, had a good deal of public support. It was a force to be reckoned with in the Labor Party, indeed it almost captured it at one time, and, naturally it was riddled with communists who were pushing the Soviet line. Of course, the Soviet Union was all in favor of unilateral disarmament for Britain!
The plot of When the Kissing Had to Stop runs something like this. There is the usual cast of characters: the ditzy upper class do-gooders, witty actresses, ambitious schemers from the leftist unions, student mobs, and, of course, the caring intellectuals “working for peace”. A left-wing government assumes power and society decays, and Britain has become (as one reviewer said),
“…a diseased island where the police have turned leathery and brutal, juvenile delinquency has flowered into public perversions and the uncontrollable rule of crime. The H-bomb agitators trick the government into defeat. The white-haired do-gooders and the steely climbers take over and, slowly, step by step, surrender honour and the ancient sovereignty to a Russia that plans, with a preternatural wisdom, each step and cynically takes advantage of each high-minded act of stupidity and treachery….It ends in a night time of brutality [as the Soviet military occupies the country] that is made the more appalling by the green fields and the country houses… The charming people are all swept away.” And so on.
The book created a huge furor. Shrieks of protest came from the left, the CND, the unions and even the British Communist Party, who claimed that they, too, were patriotic Britons. FitzGibbon was decried as a right-wing extremist, a reactionary, and a “fascist hyena” by the communists. Far from being insulted by that, he relished it, and threw it back in their faces by publishing, a few years later, a book of short essays entitled Random Thoughts of a Fascist Hyena.
That book contains a highly illuminating chapter, “Unilateralism and All That”, which discusses the leftist reactions to the novel, the nuclear disarmament movement, and takes to task prominent leftists of the day like Betrand Russell and Sir Herbert Read, the self-professed anarchist art critic. It is an analysis of what we call nowadays the progressive mindset, and it is remarkable how little the left has changed in the intervening half century.
CND and others of the left championed the causes of “civil disobedience” to achieve the political goals they could not achieve through the ballot box. Their claim, so familiar to us all, of a “higher moral authority” outweighed any commitments to parties and elections, entitled them to disrupt society and to break the law. FitzGibbon continues…
“…when, in the past century, parliamentary democracy has been destroyed in the great Eurpean nation-states this has usually been done by, and in the interests of, a movement that claims to be above the political parties and to speak for the nation as a whole: Bonapartism in 1851, Bolshevism in 1917, Fascism in 1922, ….I would point out further that these are precisely the claims the nuclear disarmers are repeatedly making for themselves: they are simultaneously above party and yet would wreck the Labour Party to achieve their ends. They are, in fact, a bewegung.
That they are a purely negative bewegung, even more devoid of constructive or falsely constructive ideas than those others, is neither here nor there. The job of mass-movements is always to silence democratic dialogue. Once that has been done, a monologue always follows the transitory cacophony.”
How remarkably similar to the aspiring movements of today, the anti-White racists in Black Lives Matter, the crazed students in Antifa, the street mobs of radical Islam, which, although only minor pustules on the body politic at the moment, could create greater havoc if given the opportunity by our weak and flaccid leaders.
The silencing of democratic dialogue that FitzGibbon refers to in the 1960s is today brought about by the claim that any frank discussion of problems, real problems that is, not the fake problems that so concern the Fake News Media, is “divisive”. Or “hate speech”. Or any other fake word that is solely designed to intimidate and suppress discussion. Moreover, the rather comical and civilized “civil disobedience” of the 60s, which involved little more than sitting down in front of traffic in Trafalgar Square [“Come along, sir, time to go home for a nice cup of tea” as a friendly policeman would say], has transmorgrified into violent mobs assaulting right-wing speakers, shouting down university lecturers, and even shooting Republican Congressmen in the US.
“…The recourse to direct action, even if it merely takes the form of police-baiting, sets a very unpleasant precedent. Any minority may think it knows the right answers and that the majority, and the political parties, are wrong. But to attempt, by force, to compel the acceptance of that view is the first step towards tyranny.”
How far we have come along that dangerous road today. Indeed, many Western governments are aiding the leftist mobs by refusing to enforce the law on our streets and in our colleges. Many universities have been taken over by these aspiring tyrants, particularly in the US, UK and Canada, and so far precious little has been done about it. In Canada, it is now up to brave graduate students and a few professors who still value our educational institutions, to carry the flag. The foppish nonentity of a Prime Minister and his execrable “Liberal” Party remain silent.
Although he was no Orwell, FitzGibbon had a keen sense of what the left was all about. Under the guise of “caring” and “love” lay the all-too-real spite and envy, forces that are so obvious in the left today. In the essay The Future of the Extreme Left, …
“Perhaps never have a group of soi-disant intellectuals been more totally wrong, and been proved more totally wrong, than the British dotty Left as 1962 nears its end….Only the other day, forty of them, all, in theory, members of that Labour Party which the dotty Left has succeeded in castrating—to the immense regret of all clear-thinking democrats—were writing the usual nonsensical screed to The Times, while their ancient mascot, Lord Russell, praises the Chinese for their moderation in invading India. What rubbish will think up next?”
If he were around today, FitzGibbon could have a field day with the disaster that is the current British Labour Party under Corbyn—a reincarnation of the dotty Left of the sixties.
Was it Mark Twain who said, “History may not repeat itself, but at least it rhymes”?
Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler’s book describing his early life, wartime experiences and the early development of the National Socialist Movement, continues to be one of the best-selling political books in the world. In fact, the more it is condemned, the more it seems to fascinate. Just google ‘sales of Mein Kampf‘. Rational analysis is in far shorter supply.
In that vein, I ran across an interesting review of Mein Kampf the other day. The reviewer pointed out that prefaces in the English editions of Mein Kampf, published in the 1930s, were quite sympathetic to Hitler, no doubt due to the fact that the Depression-level unemployment in Germany had been greatly reduced, and the nation seemed to be getting on its feet again after its calamitous defeat in the First World War. Also, the 1936 Olympics in Berlin were a huge propaganda victory for the Hitler regime.
It is no use saying that hate, bigotry and madness and whatever else strikes your fancy are the reasons for the success of the fascist movements, and the Hitler movement in particular, in the 20s and 30s, as millions of ordinary, decent people supported them, not only in Germany but throughout Europe and as far away as India. And it is easy to say that Hitler was supported by big business to crush the socialist and communist parties of the time, but that would not have happened had he not “talked a great movement into existence already.”
In the 1920s, there was a multitude of left- and right-wing parties, movements and aspiring demagogues vying for attention and power. Why did Hitler succeed when so many others failed? Our reviewer continues….
“But Hitler could not have succeeded against his many rivals if it had not been for the attraction of his own personality, which one can feel even in the clumsy writing of Mein Kampf, and which is no doubt overwhelming when one hears his speeches…The fact is there is something deeply appealing about him.”
Obviously, some deep psychological need was being addressed, something way beyond mere opinions about political parties or national policies.
“One feels, as with Napoleon, that he is fighting against destiny…”
Indeed, there are numerous references and appeals to Destiny in Mein Kampf and no doubt Hitler felt that was his purpose, either to fulfill it or thwart it.
Prior to the First World War, or the Great War as it was then known, Europe possessed many powerful socialist movements. At times, it seemed that the old imperial orders across Europe were approaching their end. But when war broke out in August 1914, the international socialist parties across Europe folded like straws in the wind before the onrush of Nationalist Awakening. Nation and race have a far deeper psychological appeal than watery internationalism (something our reviewer noted elsewhere) and Hitler and Mussolini rose to power largely because they could recognize this fact and their opponents couldn’t.
But there were nationalist leaders before that never evoked anything like the adulation that was awarded to Hitler and Mussolini. There were also reasons for this….
“…Also he has grasped the falsity of the hedonistic attitude to life. Nearly all western thought since the last war, certainly all “progressive” thought, has assumed tacitly that human beings desire nothing beyond ease, security and the avoidance of pain. In such a view of life there is no room, for instance, for patriotism and the military virtues.”
At least intermittently, people yearn for struggle, self-sacrifice and devotion to a higher cause. Whether one considers these passions desirable is beside the point, they exist and are powerful. Hence…
“…however they are as economic theories, Fascism and Nazism are psychologically far sounder than any hedonistic conception of life. The same is probably true of Stalin’s militarized version of Socialism….whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a grudging way, have said to people ‘I offer you a good time’, Hitler has said to them ‘I offer you struggle, danger and death,’ and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet.”
As if you hadn’t already guessed, “our reviewer” is, of course, George Orwell, probably the most prescient writer on politics in the twentieth century. Orwell’s essay (here) is not really a review of Mein Kampf, but an essay on the psychological basis of Hitler’s appeal to millions of ordinary people. It is an important essay because it is written honestly and without fear, not of Hitler, but without fear of bullying and censorship in his homeland. Orwell was a man possessed of a terrible clarity of vision and a crystalline honesty, qualities entirely lacking in our current world of conformity, cowardice and mediocrity.
It is important to note that his essay was published in England, in March 1940, during a period of wartime censorship, when England was at war with Germany. It is highly unlikely that such an essay, analyzing Hitler’s appeal to the good, as well as the bad, in people, would be able to be published in this country in peacetime, when, supposedly, we are guaranteed freedom of speech.
Yes, heroine, because she’s a real woman, not one of these whining phonies who soak up air time on the Fake News Media these days.
Lindsay Shepherd, a graduate student at Wilfrid Laurier “University”, was hauled before a kangaroo court of left-wing Marxist bullies simply for showing a video of Professor Jordan Peterson as a subject for discussion. Watch it; it will show you what a poisonous cesspit Canadian Academia has become. Far from encouraging the young to tackle the great problems of our age, it is all about submitting to the Marxist commissariat that controls most Canadian universities. The postmodernist drivel that forms the substance of “Gender studies, Black studies, Any-type-of-Weirdo Studies” is passed off as education. It is in fact left-wing propaganda, not any form of academic endeavor. In the Christie Blatchford article in the National Post, take a look at the photo of one of her advisers, Herbert Pimlott, so typical of the sanctimonious oily worms that dominate the PC establishment.
Lindsay acquitted herself perfectly in this assault on her academic integrity. Congratulations, Lindsay—and double congratulations on your foresight for recording the whole thing so that the wider world can be informed of the rot in our academic institutions. If she hadn’t, they would have lied through their teeth as they always do.
Lindsay is now up there with Professors Jordan Peterson and Janice Fiamengo as torch-bearers of freedom in the darkness of academic conformity and decay. She has done a great service for us all and I know she’s up for whatever the future may throw at her.
If I ever run into her, the drinks are on me.
For those of you thirsting for the knowledge that is pouring from the great intellects of our colleges and universities, especially the postmodernist studies of the rapidly immanentizing eschaton, of the nano-aggressive patriarchal concepts of genderism in automatic transmissions etc, I bring you a tiny snippet of contemporary wisdom. Read on….
Forgetting Bataille: Capitalist postcultural theory in the works of
C. Linda Reicher
Department of Ontology, Miskatonic University, Arkham, Mass.
Helmut Z. Humphrey
Department of Future Studies, University of Western Topeka
1. Spelling and neodialectic feminism
“Sexual identity is part of the dialectic of culture,” says Foucault.
Drucker implies that we have to choose between
Batailleist `powerful communication’ and the textual paradigm of consensus.
In the works of Gibson, a predominant concept is the concept of neocultural
language. Therefore, Sontag’s model of capitalist desublimation states that art
may be used to reinforce class divisions, but only if neodialectic feminism is
valid; if that is not the case, we can assume that the media is capable of
intent. Derrida promotes the use of Batailleist `powerful communication’ to
attack outmoded, sexist perceptions of society.
“Sexual identity is unattainable,” says Foucault; however, according to
Tilton , it is not so much sexual identity that is
unattainable, but rather the futility, and subsequent failure, of sexual
identity. But many constructions concerning semantic theory may be found.
Baudrillard suggests the use of capitalist postcultural theory to modify and
The main theme of the works of Gibson is the role of the writer as
participant. However, if Batailleist `powerful communication’ holds, the works
of Gibson are postmodern. Hubbard holds that we have to
choose between capitalist postcultural theory and capitalist dematerialism.
Thus, an abundance of discourses concerning the difference between
narrativity and society exist. Lacan promotes the use of neodialectic feminism
to challenge hierarchy…..
blah, blah, blah…
If you made it this far, congratulations. If you thought this is meaningless drivel, you’re right! The paper is as fake as postmodernism. But this is the kind of writing that is exuded from all kinds of “Weirdo Studies” departments in our faux universities. In fact, it wasn’t written by anyone at all. It is the product of a highly entertaining computer program: The Postmodernism Generator. (The “Miskatonic University” was a dead giveaway, actually, as fans of the late H P Lovecraft’s horror stories will know.)
The program was written in C in 1996 by Andrew Bulhak using the Dada Engine, “…a system for generating random text from recursive grammars.” And it’s readily available to all for entertainment purposes. Perhaps you could generate six or seven papers and submit them for your Master’s degree in Neo-feminist Theory of Genderized Armpit Hair?
Here’s the link for the Postmodernism Generator(here). Each time you open the web page it generates an entirely new paper; in half an hour you’ll have all you need for your shiny new college degree.
I hardly need add anything to the ever-expanding revelations from Hollywood, the greatest source of hypocrisy and lying in the known Universe. Perhaps that is why it was so deeply beholden to Hillary Rodent Clinton, the first, and hopefully last, clinical psychopath to seek the US presidency.
We should all be grateful to Weinstein, despite being the most loathsome, oleaginous reptile in the Hollywood swamp, for exposing the cosmic, interstellar corruption and deceit that powers that bubbling pit of Satan’s refuse. How appropriate that pervy Harvey was one of Rodent Clinton’s most devoted worms and she, one of his most servile orcs.
After the first blast, days of deafening silence from the Obamas, the Clintons, and the tribes of lefty feminist pseuds. From this day forth, no attacks on Trump from the Fake News Media, the Pant-Suit Psychopath, or the Demon-Crat Party, that vile excrescence of the anti-White, anti-culture, post-civilization force of decay and destruction, shall ever be considered relevant to the concerns of ordinary, decent people. Their drones and whores in the New York Times, the Washington Com-Post, and the TV networks, have for ever been exposed as the most poisonous agents of decay that any society can produce. And I mean no insult to whores by comparing them to the Fake News Media.
All the puffery of the liberal mountebanks of Hollywood, for decades, covered the tracks of this creature, and, most of his female victims sacrificed their honor for their careers. Any real man in Hollywood would have confronted the creature decades ago, which tells you how many real men there are in Hollywood. All the Matt Damons, Robert de Niros, all the lefty bores on late-night TV and the rest of that disgraceful ilk, have shown themselves to be beta males with clammy hands and rubber spines.
The great British thinker, Edmund Burke, writing of the French revolution, remarked over 200 years ago, that, no matter what the consitution of any state may be, …”the materials of which it is composed, …is of ten thousand times greater consequence than all the formalities in the world.” The political class of the US has lost all credilbility, lost its way, and the Hollywood tribe are the termites contributing to its demise. This is why the organs of state propaganda, the New York Times and the TV networks, all of whom covered for Weinstein for decades, openly argue against the rights of Americans, against the Second Amendment, against common decency, and in favor of suppressing free speech in the cause of “caring” and “sensitivity”. The American constitution was written by Western men, to conserve their liberty in a constitutional republic. Apart from God-Emperor Trump and a small part of the Republican Party, the political class of the USA has been taken over by the same decrepit refuse that led France from revolution to The Terror—that tribe of inferiors who are …”turbulent, discontented men,…in proportion as they are puffed up with personal pride and arrogance, generally despise their own order.”
With the rise of Trump, America has shown that the true American spirit still strives, and the death of the Hollywood psyche, the mind-set of the parasite class, may well be coming to an end. The more the Rodent Clinton shrieks, the closer it is. As for the rest of the Rat Brigade in Tinseltown, it’s every worm for himself.
This letter is a response to Black Students attending Oxford as Rhodes Scholars wanting to remove the statue of Oxford Benefactor, Cecil Rhodes. It should be read on every campus in the U.S. as well. I’ve no idea of the author, but it’s right on…Thanks, whoever you are.
Dear Scrotty Students,
Cecil Rhodes’s generous bequest has contributed greatly to the comfort and well being of many generations of Oxford students – a good many of them, dare we say it, better, brighter and more deserving than you.
This does not necessarily mean we approve of everything Rhodes did in his lifetime – but then we don’t have to. Cecil Rhodes died over a century ago. Autres temps, autres moeurs*. If you don’t understand what this means – and it would not remotely surprise us if that were the case – then we really think you should ask yourself the question: “Why am I at Oxford?”
Oxford, let us remind you, is the world’s second oldest extant university. Scholars have been studying here since at least the 11th century. We’ve played a major part in the invention of Western civilisation, from the 12th century intellectual renaissance through the Enlightenment and beyond. Our alumni include William of Ockham, Roger Bacon, William Tyndale, John Donne, Sir Walter Raleigh, Erasmus, Sir Christopher Wren, William Penn, Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), Samuel Johnson, Robert Hooke, William Morris, Oscar Wilde, Emily Davison, Cardinal Newman, Julie Cocks. We’re a big deal. And most of the people privileged to come and study here are conscious of what a big deal we are. Oxford is their alma mater – their dear mother – and they respect and revere her accordingly.
And what were your ancestors doing in that period? Living in mud huts, mainly. Sure we’ll concede you the short lived Southern African civilisation of Great Zimbabwe. But let’s be brutally honest here. The contribution of the Bantu tribes to modern civilisation has been as near as damn it to zilch.
You’ll probably say that’s “racist”. But it’s what we here at Oxford prefer to call “true.” Perhaps the rules are different at other universities. In fact, we know things are different at other universities. We’ve watched with horror at what has been happening across the pond from the University of Missouri to the University of Virginia and even to revered institutions like Harvard and Yale: the “safe spaces”; blacklivesmatter; the creeping cultural relativism; the stifling political correctness; what Allan Bloom rightly called “the closing of the American mind”. At Oxford however, we will always prefer facts and free, open debate to petty grievance-mongering, identity politics and empty sloganeering. The day we cease to do so is the day we lose the right to call ourselves the world’s greatest university.
Of course, you are perfectly within your rights to squander your time at Oxford on silly, vexatious, single-issue political campaigns. (Though it does make us wonder how stringent the vetting procedure is these days for Rhodes scholarships and even more so, for Mandela Rhodes scholarships) We are well used to seeing undergraduates – or, in your case – postgraduates, making idiots of themselves. Just don’t expect us to indulge your idiocy, let alone genuflect before it. You may be black – “BME” as the grisly modern terminology has it – but we are colour blind. We have been educating gifted undergraduates from our former colonies, our Empire, our Commonwealth and beyond for many generations. We do not discriminate over sex, race, colour or creed. We do, however, discriminate according to intellect.
That means, inter alia, that when our undergrads or postgrads come up with fatuous ideas, we don’t pat them on the back, give them a red rosette and say: “Ooh, you’re black and you come from South Africa. What a clever chap you are!” No. We prefer to see the quality of those ideas tested in the crucible of public debate.
That’s another key part of the Oxford intellectual tradition you see: you can argue any damn thing you like but you need to be able to justify it with facts and logic – otherwise your idea is worthless.
This ludicrous notion you have that a bronze statue of Cecil Rhodes should be removed from Oriel College, because it’s symbolic of “institutional racism” and “white slavery”. Well even if it is – which we dispute – so bloody what? Any undergraduate so feeble-minded that they can’t pass a bronze statue without having their “safe space” violated really does not deserve to be here. And besides, if we were to remove Rhodes’s statue on the premise that his life wasn’t blemish-free, where would we stop? As one of our alumni Dan Hannan has pointed out, Oriel’s other benefactors include two kings so awful – Edward II and Charles I – that their subjects had them killed. The college opposite – Christ Church – was built by a murderous, thieving bully who bumped off two of his wives. Thomas Jefferson kept slaves: does that invalidate the US Constitution? Winston Churchill had unenlightened views about Muslims and India: was he then the wrong man to lead Britain in the war?” (COMMENT BY BACHERT: History and recent events — and even a cursory reading of the Koran — indicates that Churchill actually got it right!)
Actually, we’ll go further than that. Your Rhodes Must Fall campaign is not merely fatuous but ugly, vandalistic and dangerous. We agree with Oxford historian RW Johnson that what you are trying to do here is no different from what ISIS and the Al-Qaeda have been doing to artifacts in places like Mali and Syria. You are murdering history.
And who are you, anyway, to be lecturing Oxford University on how it should order its affairs? Your rhodesmustfall campaign, we understand, originates in South Africa and was initiated by a black activist who told one of his lecturers “whites have to be killed”. One of you – Sizwe Mpofu-Walsh – is the privileged son of a rich politician and a member of a party whose slogan is “Kill the Boer; Kill the Farmer”; another of you, Ntokozo Qwabe, who is only in Oxford as a beneficiary of a Rhodes scholarship, has boasted about the need for “socially conscious black students” to “dominate white universities, and do so ruthlessly and decisively!”
Great. That’s just what Oxford University needs. Some cultural enrichment from the land of Winnie Mandela, burning tyre necklaces, an AIDS epidemic almost entirely the result of government indifference and ignorance, one of the world’s highest per capita murder rates, institutionalised corruption, tribal politics, anti-white racism and a collapsing economy. Please name which of the above items you think will enhance the lives of the 22,000 students studying here at Oxford.
And then please explain what it is that makes your attention grabbing campaign to remove a listed statue from an Oxford college more urgent, more deserving than the desire of probably at least 20,000 of those 22,000 students to enjoy their time here unencumbered by the irritation of spoiled, ungrateful little tossers on scholarships they clearly don’t merit using racial politics and cheap guilt-tripping to ruin the life and fabric of our beloved university.
Understand us and understand this clearly: You have everything to learn from us; we have nothing to learn from you.
Yours, Oriel College, Oxford
*Autres temps, autres moeurs – Other times, other customs: in other eras people behaved differently.
Interestingly, Chris Patten (Lord Patten of Barnes), The Chancellor of Oxford University, was on the Today Programme on BBC Radio 4 yesterday on precisely the same topic. The Daily Telegraph headline yesterday was “Oxford will not rewrite history”.
Patten commented “Education is not indoctrination. Our history is not a blank page on which we can write our own version of what it should have been according to our contemporary views and prejudice”
Forwarded as a public service by
As the cultural Bolshevist tsunami sweeps across America erasing knowledge and attempting to rewrite history at the behest of Marxist prigs and morons swarming in the colleges and Fake News Media, a perceptive, and ruthlessly accurate, analysis of the tragic American scene from Dmitry Kiselyov, a leading news analyst on Russia Today, provides the best commentary you are likely to see anywhere (scroll down and watch the video; it has English subtitles). An example:
Racial tensions are at an all-time high in the United States. It was during Obama’s presidency that the first monument in a larger campaign to remove monuments to White heroes was taken down, the statue of the hero of the South, General Lee, in New Orleans. The decision was finally executed last May during Trump’s administration. But this was only done by labeling the General Lee monument a symbol of the superiority of the White race or, to translate it into PC-speak, a symbol to “White Supremacy.”
However, it is impossible to speak today in the United States about the atrocities of the northerners, in particular, about the “scorched earth” tactics of General Sherman during the American Civil War. Meanwhile, in New Orleans, the monument to the president of the Southern Confederation, Jefferson Davis, has already fallen, followed by a monument to the fighters for the freedom of the South.
Another general for the South, Pierre de Beauregard, was taken down as well. Later, the monument to General Lee was slated for demolishing in Charlottesville. This is similar to the mass toppling of Lenin statues, only done in the American way and it quickly spread to Baltimore. There, they brought down the monuments to four generals of the Confederation and other figures of the South of the Civil War period. A monument to the soldiers of the South was removed in North Carolina.
The fervor is so contagious that desecration operations are now planned for monuments all over the US. Moreover, not only memorials and monuments to the Southerners will be removed, of which there are more than 1,500 in the country, but their names will also be erased from the names of streets, schools, and public institutions.
With a red-hot iron against history.
And more, relating to movie censorship:
The cinema’s turn has now come. Now, the brilliant movie “Gone with the Wind” runs the risk of disappearing from all American screens. The Memphis precedent will work. And they will certainly never ever show one of the first US full-length films, “The Birth of a Nation,” directed by David Griffith, who, by the way, is considered the father of American cinema.
It was he who laid the foundations for sensible editing and even special effects. “Birth of a Nation.” 1915. Three hours. The historical period the movie was set in was the Civil War in the US and the events immediately after.
The film had unprecedented battle scenes for cinema of that time. The drama lay in a gripping account of a fratricidal war and the drama of the defeated where “the White South was crushed by the Black heel of the North.” Without regard to rules of war and decency. The North unleashed Black brutality on the Southern Whites in the name of revenge for the past.
How can this film be shown now, especially since the birth of the awful Ku Klux Klan is also realistically depicted in the movie as well? It emerged as a necessary organization for the self-defense of Whites. And, the cavalry charges while “Ride of the Valkyries” by Wagner is playing as the score. All of this is unacceptable now, so this picture will be permanently banned from American cinemas. All of this even though the US President, Woodrow Wilson, who was a Nobel Peace Prize recipient, but who was also considered an authoritative historian, called the film “Birth of a Nation” a “terrible truth.”
President Wilson made this statement right after he organized a review of Griffith’s new movie in the White House, where he invited both his ministers and foreign ambassadors.
Surprisingly, it turns out that a hundred years ago America coped with its past and was ready to comprehend it and accept it as it is. Now, this ability has been lost, and a war has been declared on the past. And so far it proceeds in a very primitive fashion, through the destruction of monuments and censorship. And no one knows where it will stop.
The Russians, who endured decades of communist tyranny and historical falsification, know what it’s all about. They are not about to repeat that. Russia has shown, after twenty-five years, that it is possible to recover from tyranny, brainwashing and institutional lying. Will America and the West have the same fortitude?