Google: What goes around, comes around


James Damore has filed suit against Google for discrimination against conservative white men.


Damore isn’t holding back any punches here. According to his filing, Google employs “illegal hiring quotas to fill its desired percentages of women and favored minority candidates, and openly shames managers of business units who fail to meet their quotas—in the process, openly denigrating male and Caucasian employees as less favored than others.”

The suit also claims that “numerical presence of women celebrated at Google” was based “solely due to their gender” while the “presence of Caucasians and males was mocked with ‘boos’ during companywide weekly meetings.”

Somewhat redundantly, it adds that Damore, Gudeman and “other class members” were “ostracized, belittled, and punished for their heterodox political views, and for the added sin of their birth circumstances of being Caucasians and/or males.”

The lawsuit is seeking monetary, non-monetary and punitive remedies.

From my real but limited experience in the Google matrix, what Damore alleges reflects the Silicon Valley Democratic consensus, and the company’s actual behaviours. Google preaches PC every day, in every way.

Further evidence for this proposition comes this morning from Breitbart:


The lawsuit further accuses Google of what amounts to racism stating, “Damore, Gudeman, and other class members were ostracized, belittled, and punished for their heterodox political views, and for the added sin of their birth circumstances of being Caucasians and/or males. This is the essence of discrimination — Google formed opinions about and then treated Plaintiffs not based on their individual merits, but rather on their membership in groups with assumed characteristics.” The lawsuit also alleges that Google operates in an “ideological echo chamber, a protected, distorted bubble of groupthink.”

The lawsuit claims that at one of Google’s weekly company-wide meetings the presence of white males at the company was openly booed by employees. “Not only was the numerical presence of women celebrated at Google solely due to their gender, but the presence of Caucasians and males was mocked with “boos” during company-wide weekly meetings. This unacceptable behavior occurred at the hands of high-level managers at Google who were responsible for hundreds, if not thousands, of hiring and firing decisions during the Class Periods.”

The full pleading is found here.

I have said before and will say again, Google is in the firm grip of a totalitarian cult. What interests me as a lawyer, is that a cursory look at the pleading evinces a clear, self-declared, unembarrassed, explicit anti-white male bias  on the part of Google and its management and many of its employees.

Deconstructing Jordan Peterson


Occasionally there is nothing to add to a perfect piece of analysis. I refer you to Mark Milke’s Deconstructing Jordan Peterson in the C2C Journal:


…his views are worth quoting at length, this from his C2C Journal interview one year ago, where he summarizes the attempts to argue genders and gender identities are mere social constructs. Peterson objects and argues that gender identity is biologically fixed:

“There are sex differences at every level of analysis. There are masculinity/femininity scales that have been derived; they’re basically secondary derivations of personality descriptors. There are huge personality differences between men and women. There’s literature looking at differences of men and women in personality in many, many societies throughout the world. I think the biggest paper examined 55 different societies. And they rank societies by sociological and political equality. The hypothesis was that if you equalize the environment between men and women, you eradicate the differences between them. In other words, if you treat boys and girls the same, the differences between them will disappear. But that’s not what the studies showed. In reality, they get bigger. Those are studies of tens of thousands of people. The social constructionist theory was tested. It failed. Gender identity is very much biologically determined.”

Thus, if Peterson’s characterization of the literature is correct, but for the infinitesimally small proportion of the human population that is anatomically hermaphroditic at birth or anatomically altered by chemicals and surgery, if you are born with male anatomy you are a man, and if you born with female anatomy you are a woman. Pretending gender is subjective and engaging in word games about identity – as if we, not nature, choose our gender – is thus an affront to biological reality, rudimentary empiricism and also honest language.

I want everyone to stop using the word “gender” for anything other than masculine and feminine nouns. I am male. I am of the male sex. I am not of the male gender.  You do not have choice in participating in your sexual  identity, contrary to all fashionable nonsense of the era. “Gender” is akin to the Marxist use of the word “exploitation”. It is ideologically loaded; it is nonsense on stilts. Biology is not a social construct.

The art of dealing with the  world as it is consists of knowing what cannot be changed by talking about it differently.

For more on this, see Hjernevask, the entertaining documentary film in Norwegian and English on the subject of orthodox leftism’s pseudo-scientific rubbish.


Here is more of Mark Mielke:

So the notion that gender identity is fluid is redolent of old, discredited Marxist assumptions. It enables the construct of countless new realities, disconnected from empirical evidence that until now determined whether people were male or female. But if gender is malleable, why stop there? Why not insist – many of us would like this – age really is a state of mind? How about ethnicity a la carte? After all, if the biological reality of chromosome realities can be ignored in favour of a self-chosen label, why not do away with the pesky notion of ages and ethnic origins altogether? To paraphrase Descartes, today I feel like a 21-year-old, therefore I am.

The modern constructivists, pace the economic Marxists, ignore nature and believe people and outcomes are always and everywhere determined by power, imposed, and thus artificial. Human beings are thus subject to infinite deconstruction and reconstruction – whatever imaginary identity or society one wishes to impose and with zero regard for actual, on-the-ground realities.



The sexual terror is a massive change of subject

As you are all aware, a frenzy of revisionism and sexual hysteria is sweeping the United States. Crude behaviour of twenty and thirty years ago is now cause for firing. Garrison Keillor was fired for placing a hand on the middle of a woman’s back, the place on the body with the fewest nerves. Canned on a single complaint. The Democrats are eating their own. What gives? Here are several observations and conjectures.

  • This movement has been planned for at least a year, and it is a directed event. I got wind of this a year ago at least, when our Democratic inside the Beltway lawyer told us that the standards  were being reset; sexual harassment, he warned us, was going to become anything and everything. This guy is a deep insider, and he was speaking with a certainty that comes from knowledge, not just conjecture or bar talk.
  • It is not principally directed at Republicans or Trump. It may serve the interests of Democrats to further blacken Trump, but that, I believe, is not their goal. Republicans are not buying into the smear campaigns. Witness Roy Moore. So the Democrats are shooting their wounded, such as Al Franken, who is a capable representative of their positions. Why?

Why are the Democrats willing to accept own-goals, sacrifices of their talented? What are they gaining?

I would like to postulate what I think is a reasonable, though far-fetched, explanation.

Let us suppose that there are such people as sane Democrats. [Bear with me conservatives]. They are like most reasonable people. They are concerned for the working classes, for America’s position in the world, for moderate and sensible behaviour. They are not concerned with transgender bathrooms, identity politics, or Trayvon Martin, though they may be appalled at the rate at which blacks are killing each other in Chicago and Baltimore. They foresee a Democratic Party doomed to perpetual electoral losses unless they get the Party back on track. It is possible they fear that the Democratic Party might even win future elections in its current state. This may scare them even more.

How is the Democratic Party to be rescued from the irrelevance of identity politics? Just put yourself inside the shoes of business Democrats. They see Trump reshaping the world the way Bismarck reshaped Germany and Europe in the 19th century. They see prosperity returning to the United States. They see their country dominating the world from a position of energy independence, courtesy of shale oil. They see Trump reforming the middle east, laying the groundwork for dealing with the Islamic threat, facing down North Korea and Iran. Above all, they do not share a smug conviction that Trump will be out in 3 more years.

They turn to their own party and what do they see? A corrupt Hillary Clinton taking money for the Clinton foundation in exchange for shifts in US foreign policy. They see Bill Clinton hovering in the background, the albatross hanging about the neck of the Democratic Party. They see a progressive disengagement between the party activists and the core of the American people, who want jobs, not transgendered bathrooms. They see their allies in Hollywood are the problem, not the solution.

Accordingly, it is time for a purge. But it is also a time for a change of subject. It is time for a cultural reaction, for diminishing the power of women, for reversing the sexual freedom of the 1960s, for putting people back into their closets.

Could this be true? Yes, I believe it could be.

I think the people who started this sexual panic want to swing the Democrats around the rear of the Republicans. (The metaphor is military, not sexual, but please yourself). I think that what they want is a return to sexual certainties, to men and women, not 26 genders. I think they have launched a general assault on the culture, and the way to get this done is to make everyone unsure of how to behave with the opposite sex. I am not sure they have thought everything before hand; and some may be content with further demonizing Trump. But I do not think this would be thinking large enough. What is intended, I suspect, is a massive change of the subject. The immediate targets may be men, but the inevitable result will be an insistence by men that there need to be rules of engagement. This may mean that men do not meet with women alone, as VP Pence has done for years. Another important Senator, John Thune, will not meet a woman alone after 8pm. It may go as far as restrictions on women in the workforce, which could take many forms, including a disinclination to hire them, but more likely codes of conduct that amount to chaperoning.

I realize that these speculations are far fetched, but they seem to be exactly where we are going. The subject is being changed. This refashioning of the culture is more than a moral panic, it is being directed at refashioning what politics should be doing. Is it reactionary? Yes. And the reaction is not coming from the political right. Allow yourself to think about that for a moment.


On the difficulty of Democrats trying to be the party that protects women, by Maureen Dowd.

If you think there are such people as centrist Democrats, then the idea that the future of the Party lies with an unreformed Marxist like Sanders would appall you.

Cleaning up the Democratic National Committee, where they see Bernie Sanders as the future of the party

Bernie Sanders robbed of the Democratic nomination by Hillary Clinton


Jen Gerson expresses parallel ideas in the National Post about the implications of this scare.

Hypocrisy in the name of partisanship will no longer do. The culture is beginning to shift in ways that social conservatives should embrace.

There should be no expectation that everyone will be held to the new sexual standard that emerges from this mire; but with the current round of public prosecutions, there is, once more, a sexual standard to be held to.

Mark Steyn

At his funny and serious best. Since we are talking about freedom of speech this week at BS, here is the incomparable Mark Steyn, talking in Australia in 2015, about how the new world order has made jokes illegal, and where there are no more Cockneys in London. Where a man was arrested in England and held for eight hours of interrogation for calling his slow-to-close computer “Nelson Mandela”. That’s not funny.

Steyn: If you fight back as hard as the Left fights for its positions, you can prevail. Vow not to surrender the fruits of a liberated society. Everyone of us is made to feel isolated until you speak out, then you find your allies.

I think the offence we commit, in the eyes of the Left, is precisely that we authorize ourselves to act as if we were free. Sharia comes in various forms: climate warming sharia, racial sharia, sexual sharia. Steyn says: act as if you were free. Exercise your liberties. Offend against the various Leftist sharias of our time. Lord knows that should be easy enough to do.

Janet Albrechtsen on free speech

Janet Albrechtsen is a leading Australian commentator, lawyer and a mother of three. She offers a spirited defence of liberal values against the Left’s commitment to grievance, envy, and intolerance.

“It s no coincidence that the corruption of feminism has occurred at the same time that our commitment to free speech has faltered.”

“Forty years ago the left abandoned libertarian notions of human rights and embraced this new definition of egalitarian rights.” And it began with “the right to equal concern and respect”.

“Under this new framework, people are not seen as autonomous resilient and rational, under this new framework people are seen as masses of nerves that need protection”.

There is more. “The scandal is the strategic silence of modern feminism around freedom for women”.




Jonathan Haidt on the problems on campus

Haidt  speaks of “intersectionality” and our tribal nature. “Intersectionality is like NATO for social justice activists”.

You cannot get to a trans-tribal political construct – that is, liberal democratic society – by stirring up tribal feeling in youth.

He says that when he was given an education in the 1980s, he was given many lenses by which to analyze society. Now he says, the kids are given only one lens: power.

Could you invent a morality more at variance with the purposes of a university?




Why now?


This frenzy of denunciation is no accident. The current stream of denunciations of males for actions they have committed towards women, some of them thirty years or more ago, is not a sudden explosion of moral rectitude. It is a deliberate campaign, and has been in the works for some time, possibly predating the Trump election. Later in this article I will expose the flimsy evidence for why I think the purge has been planned for some time.

It needs to be clear that the likes of Harvey Weinstein are odious. But people have observed that Weinstein got away with bad behaviour for decades. Why now? Some have speculated that, with the failure of the Clinton campaign, the cover of the Clintons has been withdrawn. The Enabler in Chief and her oversexed husband are no longer able to help Weinstein or anyone else. Their pay-for-play foreign policy gig is now over. The details are coming out, and will not stop, about how US foreign policy was simply bought by donations to the Clinton Foundation. 90% of the $2 billion raised by the Foundation has not been spent on charitable objects.

Even so, despite the rich targets the Clintons present, I do not see this sudden sexual Inquisition, this wave of denunciations of nearly every male celebrity, as being part of a Deep State plot or something concocted by Trump to get even with the Clintons. I have no doubt that the Clintons’ collective record present any journalist with a target-rich environment.
As always, the material has been evident to any reasonably diligent investigator. But it is my contention that though the Clintons may at last be caught in public odium, this frenzy of exposure of male misbehaviour has other motives.

Is this a sudden moral awakening? Is this like Harriet Beecher Stowe and her anti-slavery Uncle Tom’s Cabin? Abraham Lincoln, when introduced to Stowe, said to her: “So here’s the little lady who started the civil war”. Maybe. Moral awakenings cannot ever be ruled out.

I am suspicious of this explanation, and not for the usual cynicism of age and experience. A couple of years ago, a Washington insider lawyer was advising a board of directors I used to sit on that there would soon be a stepping up of vigilance in relation to male-female behaviour. He said, in effect, that touching of any kind, fraternization, compliments, even gentlemanly behaviour as it has been understood, would come under suspicion. At the time I wondered where he was getting this message, because he was talking as if he knew something that we did not. It turns out that he did.

At the risk of adding two and two and getting five, I have had enough experience with this particular lawyer and with life in general to trust my inference that this purge was premeditated. If it was aimed at Trump, it is clearly failing. If it was aimed at the Clintons, possibly by dissident Democrats who feel that they must be removed from influence, it will probably result in their disgrace. (About time!)

If occult powers were aiming to put men even more on their guard than they have been, this campaign will succeed for a while. I do not doubt that proper behaviour between men and women is desirable, and that sex should be consensual. All well and true, but we seem to have abandoned the social arrangements that were used to constrain sex to marriage and courtship. The social arrangements that prevailed before the Pill are not coming back without conversions to illiberal patriarchal religions, or changes of that magnitude. Male relatives will have to be recognized as having an interest in the reproductive activities of their daughters and sisters for this to come about. The feminists and most women would oppose this reversion.

Here is another truth we do not tell the kids: the inescapable fact is that sexual activity, by nature and definition, is improper, messy, biological, and lust-driven, and that consent is nuanced and situational. Men get stiff and women get wet; women desire sex in the right circumstances, and men try to persuade women that the circumstances are right.

I feel that some forces in society seem to think sex itself is a problem that can be solved with more militant social policing and shaming. I will be accused of an obtuse misunderstanding of the issue, of conflating sexual harassment with normal courtship and wooing. Yet, given the current propensity to carry everything to extremes (ref. the campaign against Jordan Peterson) this is the direction we will go in.

Who stands to gain from making sexual relations between people even more fraught and neurotic than they are?


This is Nathan Rambukkana: Obey him!


Meet your new overlord. This is Nathan Rambukkana.  As an Assistant Professor at Wilfrid Laurier University, he came to public attention this weekend by confirming in the most clear manner that Jordan Peterson is right. In an article that Christie Blatchford can do so well, it appears that he was part of a board of three that grilled a teaching assistant under his supervision for daring to show a youtube clip of Jordan Peterson, who was debating Nicholas Matte on whether  Bill C-16 would compel speech, that is, cause people to use the pronouns that a transgendered person requires his/her/zir’s interlocutor to use.


“She was told that after she showed the five-minute video clip, “one student/many students” — the group refused to say how many students were unhappy because that information is deemed confidential — complained that she had created “a toxic climate.”

Spunkily, she asked if she was supposed to shelter students from controversial ideas. “Am I supposed to comfort them?” she asked at one point, bewildered, and said it was antithetical to the spirit of a university.

Rambukkana then informed her that since Bill C-16 was passed, even making such “arguments run(s) counter” to the law.

I will leave that provocation aside for a moment in order to let Prof.Rambukkana identify his work:

Specifically, my research addresses topics such as digital intimacies, the relationship of intimacy and privilege, hybridity and mixed-race identities, the social and cultural aspects new media forms, and non/monogamy in the public sphere. It is situated disciplinarily at the nexus of communication and cultural studies; methodologically within discourse analysis; and draws theoretical energy from a wide range of sources such as feminist, queer, postcolonial, and critical race theories; semiotics, affect theory, event theory and psychoanalysis.

I invite the curious to pursue Prof. Rambukkana’s utterances further on his professional website. His personal musings are found at

The issue I dwell upon is not the outrageous nature of the affront to free speech and liberal values that is constituted by the behaviour by Rambukkana and his two colleagues.

The question is: is he right? Have entire lines of thought been criminalized in Canada by C-16?  The answer is no, not yet, but the practical effect of Bill C-16, which deals with gender identity and gender expression is already seen in the assertions of Professor Rambukkana.


Does the effect of Bill C-16 criminalize the use of a pronoun a person does not favour? According to Brenda Cossman, of  the Mark S. Bonham Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies, it does not. What this argument appears to rest on is an ambiguity in the use of “criminal”. Something may not attract criminal procedures and penalties (think about the Alberta Human Rights  Commission, Ezra Levant and the Islamic speech issue)  and yet involve years of punishing process and compulsion though not be, in strict terms, a “criminal” prosecution.

Says Brenda Cossman:

“Non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression may very well be interpreted by the courts in the future to include the right to be identified by a person’s self identified pronoun. The Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example, in their Policy on Preventing Discrimination Because of Gender Identity and Expression states that gender harassment should include “ Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun”. In other words, pronoun misuse may become actionable, though the Human Rights Tribunals and courts. And the remedies? Monetary damages, non-financial remedies (for example, ceasing the discriminatory practice or reinstatement to job) and public interest remedies (for example, changing hiring practices or developing non-discriminatory policies and procedures). Jail time is not one of them.

The second thing that the Bill does is add the words “gender identity or expression” to two sections of the Criminal Code….

It will add the words “gender identity and expression” to section 318(4) of the Code, which defines an identifiable group for the purposes of “advocating genocide” and “the public incitement hatred” It joins colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation or mental or physical disability.

Finally, Bill C-16 also adds “gender identity and expression” to section 718.2(a)(i) of the Criminal Code dealing with sentencing for hate crimes. The provision provides that evidence that an offence is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate can be taken into account by courts in sentencing. The list already includes race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or any other similar factor.”

At this point I need to point out that, although Cossman carefully describes the effect of C-16 on freedom of expression, the Act is already taken to mean, by the like of Prof. Rambukkana,  that a point shall not be argued – not just the use of a pronoun, but an entire train of thought on how students need to be exposed to debate about whether transgendered rights might result in compelled speech.

Those who argue in recondite legal articles about the limits of free speech need to carefully consider what happens to laws when they are interpreted in daily life by faculty committees and other sources of authority, especially those who have an interest in suppressing discussion.

Jared Brown, in another interpretation of C-16, from a point of view more favourable to the principle of free speech, takes a different view.  The text of the federal act on this matter was copied from earlier Ontario legislation to the same effect. Hence what Ontario’s Human Rights Commission says about the wording is relevant.

Thereafter, the [Ontario Human Rights Commission] OHRC clarified its policy by creating a Question and Answer on gender identity and gender expression which seeks to define these terms, and to set out that the refusal of a person to use the chosen/personal/preferred pronoun, or deliberately misgendering, will likely be discrimination.

What this means is that if you encounter a person in a sphere of human activity covered by the Code, and you address that person by a pronoun that is not the chosen/personal/or preferred pronoun of that person, that your action can constitute discrimination.

Further, in the event that your personal or religious beliefs do not recognize genders beyond simply male and female (ie. does not recognize non-binary, gender neutral, or other identities), you must still utilize the non-binary, gender neutral, or other pronouns required by non-binary or gender neutral persons, lest you be found to be discriminatory.

It is the OHRC policy requirement that persons must use the pronouns required by the portion of transgendered individuals making that demand that constitutes compelled speech.

Brown also points out that failure to comply with a finding of the Ontario Human Rights Commission could entail

– requirements to communicate or publish an apology or a publication of the facts of the case and the resulting order;

-non-defamation or gag orders (to refrain from making further offending statements);

-non-defamation publication bans (to refrain from printing further offending statements);

– orders to undertake sensitivity or anti-bias training.

As Brown points out, you can go to jail for contempt of one of these orders, indefinitely.

Rule 60.11(5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure (Ontario) confirms that where the court finds a person in contempt, they can order imprisonment for an indefinite period, in addition to fines and other remedies.  Further a judge can issue a warrant for the arrest of any person against whom a contempt order is sought.


Thus while C-16 does not deal with criminal law as its central point, its provisions affect the interpretation of hate crimes, which are criminal in nature. Moreover, if the offence is tried under provincial Human Rights laws, going to jail for refusal to use some person’s desired pronouns for their particular sexual status, and facing years of litigation, a fines, constitutes compulsion.

The Bill also creates the atmosphere of ideas wherein the not too clever can assert that entire avenues of discourse are now illegal. As has Professor Rambukkana.


The incipient totalitarian nature of the views being propagated at our universities ought to concern those who endorse a liberal education. You may seek to convey your views to Professor Rambukkana. Be polite.

T: 519.884.0710 x4346

The iron mask is coming down. This debate is not, as the left asserts, about respect, dignity and equality. This is about causing masses of people not to speak what is on their minds, and that is the iron mask. It is the hallmark of the totalitarian regime, and it is here now.

McGill Students, Marxism, Jews and BDS


What a perfect trifecta of provocations this morning! I must apologize in advance for this blog because my thoughts are ungenerous. Extremely un-PC. They have been prompted by a report of the expulsion of a Jewish student from a student governing board. The Post article explains:

Students at the bi-annual General Assembly of the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) voted to remove a Jewish student, Noah Lew, from the society’s board of directors. Lew later wrote on Facebook that he had been targeted for his Jewish identity. Before the vote, Lew and two other directors were publicly accused of corruption by a student political group for their affiliation with Jewish political organizations such as the Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee (CJPAC).

The actions of the students are discriminatory in the worst sense of the word, anti-Jewish, and wrongly motivated, to say the least. Entirely typical of left-wing thought and behaviour. How did we get to this? I offer some observations as an eye witness to events long ago .

When I went to McGill some 45 years ago, almost the entirety of the student Left was Jewish, and for various reasons not clear to me the Faculty of Arts was about 80% Jewish. I attended classes where the three, four or five goyim would sit together among the 25-35 Jews. That was just the way it was then. It did me no harm, and in a large measure being in an ethnic and religious minority constituted an important education in itself.

What blew my mind – if a I may use a term from that time – was that the political coloration of about a quarter of those Jews (maybe as much as a half)  was some flavour of Marxism. Marxist, Marxizing, Marxian, Marxoid thought was esteemed as historically correct. Franz Fanon was then all the rage. RD Laing. Herbert Marcuse. Norman O. Brown. The intellectual atmosphere was soaked in Leftist assumptions, methods, and political fashions. That toxic stew has since evolved into the anti-Israeli movement called Boycott, Divest and Sanctions (BDS) which roils the student politics of McGill, York and many other Canadian centres of higher education.

I am making claims that may need to be teased out.

1) Forty years ago, student Leftism was very largely a Jewish phenomenon. That is provocative but accurate description of the SDS and its allied organizations. Jews so preponderated in left-wing politics that when non-Jews wanted their own party (quite contrary to scientific materialist doctrines) they formed a “Maoist” group. The Maoists were composed principally of rich kids from Third-World countries: India, Argentina, and the like, plus a few police infiltrators from Saskatchewan. Thus, the Marxist orthodox and the Maoists splitters could shout slogans at each other, decry the others’ heresies, apparently oblivious to the fact that a group composed entirely of Jews and another group entirely non-Jewish (atheists from Sikh, Roman Catholic and other backgrounds), had formed different political clubs. Their political religion had split on lines of religion and ethnicity, forces whose reality and legitimacy were inadmissable to them.

2) Forty years ago, the Marxists were siding with the working class of Quebec, so that its targets were the WASP administration and the English minority in Quebec, and its supposed allies were the French-Canadian working class. The BDS movement of its time dealt with South Africa, not Israel.

3) Today, Jews are victims of that same leftism. After the fall of the Soviet Union, leftism did not die, on the contrary it went from strength to strength. Once Leftism dissociated itself from any sort of intellectual discipline – and Marxism was an intellectual discipline even though its doctrines were murderous in consequence and fatuous in content – Leftism was free to become  what it now is: anti-white, anti-male, anti-Christian, anti-civilization, anti-economic progress, antinomian. And especially anti-Jewish. When in doubt, blame the Jews. When not in doubt, blame the Jews.

I have had very cautious conversations with people who were at McGill back in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The politically correct denied absolutely that the Left at McGill was, at the time, a largely Jewish phenomenon, the Maoists excepted. With those honest enough to recall what was then evident to their eyes, the conversations have been more productive, in the sense that much of what made McGill such a drag in those days was the joyless tone favoured by the spoiled-kid Marxist rabble from middle class Jewish homes, where clearly the apples had not fallen far from parental trees. Dinner tables where a civil conversation had never occurred, where ideas were not for play or exploration, but for bludgeoning, where absolutism was the prevailing mental style: these  Marxists had come from parents who had taught them how to feel and think; they had not sprung like Athena from the brow of Zeus.

Did they get their Marxism from their grandparents in eastern Europe? Were we getting the blow-back from Tsarist repression three or four generations later? Because, for a certainty, the Jewish Marxists I encountered seemed still to be living in a shtetl of their own mind, expecting any day the Cossacks to come and suppress them with whips, and they seemed oblivious to the liberal political culture of Anglo-Montreal and North America in which they then lived. When you cannot tell a liberal state from a fascist one, you are ideologically blind. And they could not discern the difference between freedom and repression. Too much Marcuse, with his ideas of “repressive tolerance”.

There is an ignoble part of me that says to the Marxist Jews of that time: you brought this on yourselves. You spent years and years creating and fostering a culture of leftist opposition to the true, the beautiful and the good, to British constitutional thought and civilized political discourse, to a reasonable, sane and balanced appreciation of politics, to a non-hysterical approach to political division, to an adaptive accommodation to social change, to a spirit of inquiry and compromise, to the possibility of reasoned political discourse that admits the legitimacy of other points of view.  The Marxist Jews of my time were the instigators of Marxist phenomena like political correctness – the notion that politic thought is capable of being right or wrong like an arithmetical sum. They instigated thought crime trials, repressions, schisms,  self-repressions, and mounting hysteria about political divisions. Now that the Left has abandoned Marxism, but retained its oppositional spirit, the Jews find themselves the targets of forces that their Leftist co-religionists abetted and exemplified back in the Soviet era.

You have sowed the wind, and are reaping the whirlwind. I am bold enough to think that some of the Marxists still alive might grudgingly admit the truth of this.

How does it feel to be on your own, with no direction from home, like a rolling stone?

As I said, my thoughts this morning are neither noble nor forgiving. I hold those Jewish Marxists in that time responsible for much evil that has come, is here now, and is yet to come. That the evil is happening now to Jews, however undeserving, provides the unseemly frisson of schadenfreude.