RSS
[Adapted from the latest Radio Derb, now available exclusively on VDARE.com]
Can I call ’em, or what? Yes, folks: You heard it here first.
On November 10th, seven weeks ago, I wrote:
Reading the news about our universities taking the side of Hamas after October 7th, I was a bit surprised to see that the President of Harvard University is a black woman.
I really shouldn’t have been. Black women zoomed to the top of the status ranks when I wasn’t paying attention. Educated black women are in terrific demand; every organization wants one. President of Harvard? Oh, definitely—got to be a black woman.
In February 2020, on the campaign trail, Joe Biden promised that if, as President, he got the opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court justice, he would nominate a black woman. He accordingly did so.
I don’t want to be a wet blanket, but … isn’t there an issue of supply and demand here? As the demand for black women in prestigious positions soars heavenwards, might the supply run out? I’m only asking.
The particular black woman I was referring to is Claudine Gay, [Email her] the President of Harvard University. Well, President Gay has been in the news again this past few days on account of some answers she gave when questioned at a December 5th congressional hearing held by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
President Gay was one of three university presidents being questioned about campus antisemitism. The other two, presidents of M.I.T. and the University of Pennsylvania, were also gyno-Americans, although both are white. The issue of campus antisemitism had come to the attention of Congress because of demonstrations against Israel following the October 7th Hamas attack.
The question that got President Gay in trouble was: Would calling for the genocide of Jews violate her university’s code of conduct? President Gay replied, “It is at odds with the values of Harvard.” [3 Contentious Exchanges at the College Antisemitism Hearing, New York Times, December 6, 2023]
When the congresscritter pressed her for a direct answer, President Gay just descended into waffle—”We embrace a commitment to free expression, and give a wide berth to free expression even of views that are objectionable, outrageous and offensive … blah di blah di blah di blah,”
That generated much mockery and some stern reproofs from the Respectable commentariat. It also got curious reporters digging around in Harvard Yard for details of President Gay’s background.
The first thing to be said here is that President Gay is full of it. “We embrace a commitment to free expression, and give a wide berth to free expression even of views that are objectionable, outrageous and offensive …” The hell you say, Madame President.
FIRE, that’s the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, publishes annual rankings of U.S. colleges for student free speech and open inquiry. You can look up the current rankings online.
There are 248 colleges in the list. Top ranked: Michigan Technological University with an overall score of 78. Three other schools are also ranked “Good.” Below them are 43 colleges ranked “Above average.” Then there are 91 ranked “Average” and 90 “Below average.” Below those are 19 ranked “Poor” or “Very poor.”
That’s a total of 247 colleges. Wait, though: I said there were 248 colleges in the list. What’s the missing institution?
It’s Harvard, ranked 248 for student free speech and open inquiry with an overall score of zero. (The score was actually negative; the compilers of the freedom rankings rounded it up to be polite.) Harvard is so unfree the compilers had to assign it a category all its own: “Abysmal.”
Hmm. Still, it’s Harvard. This President Claudine Gay must be quite a scholar to have been made president of the place, right?
Apparently not. Digging through her published research, reporters were surprised at how few of them there were—just eleven peer-reviewed articles. They also couldn’t help noticing big slabs of prose lifted from other scholars’ work without attribution.
This plagiarism was particularly noticeable in Ms. Gay’s 1997 dissertation, which contains solid blocks (sometimes with slight adjustments) from a paper published the previous year by two scholars she does not name in her citations[‘This is Definitely Plagiarism’: Harvard University President Claudine Gay Copied Entire Paragraphs From Others’ Academic Work and Claimed Them as Her Own, by Aaron Sibarium, Washington Free Beacon, December 11, 2023]
Gay’s 1993 essay, “Between Black and White: The Complexity of Brazilian Race Relations,” lifts sentences and historical details from two scholars, David Covin and George Reid Andrews, with just a few words dropped or modified. Covin is not cited anywhere in the essay. pic.twitter.com/lFofsT4yAO
— Aaron Sibarium (@aaronsibarium) December 11, 2023
OK, but perhaps Ms. Gay drew from that plagiarized material dazzling new conclusions that the plagiarized authors had not seen? If so—if she had, in her dissertation, made some brilliant conceptual breakthrough in her field—might we not forgive the transgression out of gratitude for these new insights?
And yes, I see that the dissertation did win a prize: The Robert N. Toppan Prize, awarded for “essays or dissertations of exceptional merit,” in her field.
What is her field, by the way? Comp-Sci? Physics? Anthropology? History? Did her dissertation give us a possible new way to get to quantum computing or cheap fusion energy? Did it uncover some startling truths about the prehistory of our species, or something we never knew before about Bronze Age trade routes in the Mediterranean?
Er, no. Her 1997 dissertation was titled “Taking Charge: Black Electoral Success and the Redefinition of American Politics.” Her most notable paper prior to that was a 1993 essay titled “Between Black and White: The Complexity of Brazilian Race Relations.”
Harvard apparently considers those topics to belong to the field of Political Science. I myself would categorize them as being in the field of Blackety-Black, along with Michelle Obama’s 1985 Princeton thesis.
(Remember that one? The title was “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community.” A seven-word title, two of the words being “black.” Michelle tried to squeeze out the “and” or the “the” to get another “black” in there, but an IQ of 91 will only get you so far).
President Gay is, in other words, just another Affirmative-Action mediocrity, wafted up into the academic stratosphere on thermals of white ethnomasochism. If not for this antisemitism fuss, we might never have known that…although plenty of us, at this stage of the race game, would have guessed it with a high level of confidence.
Harvard’s governing body, the Harvard Corporation, was coming under pressure to fire President Gay, with major donors pulling their support. After a long debate into Monday night, they issued a statement saying they would not fire her[Harvard’s Board Unites Behind Its President, but Its Campus Remains Splintered, NYT, December 12, 2023].
Perhaps they just couldn’t. To fire a black person—a black woman—from a prestigious last position in the Establishment: that needs an Act of Congress, doesn’t it?
To the main point here: Should calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard University’s code of conduct?
If that was what the student protestors were calling for, the answer has to be yes. “Genocide” means killing an entire race of people. If you want to do that, you are a homicidal psychopath. In a civilized society there should be no institution whose code of conduct validates homicidal psychopathology.
Is that what the Harvard protestors were calling for, though? Not that I could see. The commonest evidence that it was what they were calling for is offered with the slogan: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” and the single word “Intifada.”
The second item there, the word “Intifada,” just means “uprising,” so far as I can discover. There doesn’t seem to be any genocide in its etymology. I’m not an Arabist so I can’t be certain; I’ll take correction on this from someone better informed.
The first thing there, that slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” might be interpreted as calling for all Israeli Jews to be killed. Probably the fiercer kind of Hamas supporters mean it that way.
I doubt that’s much of an element among the Harvard protestors, though. These are American college kids, who wouldn’t know which end of a gun the bullet comes out of unless they could look it up first on their smartphones. These are pasty soy-fed feminized midwits who turn pale and swoon if you address them with the wrong pronoun.
Sure, you could say that by chanting Hamas slogans they are indirectly supporting genocide; but then you’re getting deep into motives and intentions, and things get lawyerly.
Apologists for the Palestinian Arabs tell us that the “river to the sea” slogan just means Jews and Arabs living happily together in a state not run by Jews. Probably a lot of them believe this themselves. Probably most of the college kids do. So, “calling for the genocide of Jews”? Not really.
I always smile at the second line in that slogan: “Palestine will be free.” Under Arab rule Palestine would of course not be free. It would be another corrupt trashcan gangster despotism like all Arab states, ruled by some thug like Gaddafy, Assad, or Saddam Hussein. My old colleague David Pryce-Jones wrote a good book about this twenty years ago, title: The Closed Circle: An Interpretation of the Arabs. I recommend it to your attention.
Might not the Arab despot in charge of Palestine from the river to the sea leave his Jewish subjects alone? I suppose he might if he were paid to; but it’s not something you’d want to bet your life on.
So where the Harvard student protestors are concerned, I’d give them a pass. There are among them likely some, surely a minority, who would like to see all Palestine Jews murdered. If that minority can be identified they should be expelled; but how do you identify them? Most of those protesting just believe in the fairy tale of a free Arab Palestine with some Jewish citizens and take the word “Intifada” to mean what I take it to mean.
As for antisemitism in all generality: should it be out of bounds as a topic for student speech and discussion? No, it shouldn’t. In a multiethnic society there will always be intergroup grudges and negativity. There should be places where those grudges and that negativity can be aired in an open, civilized way. Where better than a university?
Consider for example the idea, widely held among American Gentiles, that our national policies, both domestic and foreign, are too much influenced by Jews. Are they?
We had some exchanges about this here at VDARE.com. In 2004 Eric Kaufmann, a Professor of Politics at the University of London, published a book titled The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America.
Prof. Kaufmann tackled the question: How did the old White Anglo-Saxon Protestant America turn into the rootless multicultural mishmash of late-20th-century America? He traced the transformation to insurgents among the WASPs themselves, with only a small contribution from immigrant groups.
That got a response from Kevin MacDonald, Professor of psychology at California State University-Long Beach. MacDonald had written three books about the Jews from the point of view of evolutionary psychology. The Jews have, he’d argued, for centuries practiced a group evolutionary strategy against the host cultures they found themselves in.
In July 2009 here at VDARE.com MacDonald posted a critical review of Kaufmann’s book. The death of WASP culture, MacDonald wrote, was not a case of suicide, as Kaufmann had argued: it was murder. WASP-ism was vanquished by the Jews’ group evolutionary strategy.
Two weeks later we posted a rebuttal by Kaufmann of MacDonald’s review. It was suicide, Kaufmann insisted, not murder. We followed that with a posting by MacDonald rebutting Kaufmann’s rebuttal of MacDonald’s review.
Those Kaufmann-MacDonald exchanges were very cordial and academic. Good, lucid arguments were put forward by both professors. They wrote at length. MacDonald’s original review was almost four thousand words. Kaufmann’s rebuttal was twelve hundred. MacDonald’s counter-rebuttal was nineteen hundred.
So was the death of WASP America a murder or a suicide? Read their books; or at least, read those 2009 exchanges here at VDARE.com, and make up your own mind. That’s how civilized people seek the truth.
As I said, and as we surely all know, where a society includes self-consciously different ethnies, there are bound to be grudges and resentments. A wise society will minimize the problems by maintaining an ethnic super-majority, as we argue for here on VDARE. It will also allow tensions to be aired openly, in thoughtful discussion, as we did back in 2009.
It will not take every chanted slogan to be a call to mass murder. Nor will it try to eliminate intergroup negativity by censorship and the suppression of peaceful demonstrations.
That’s not wisdom, that’s hysteria.
John Derbyshire [email him] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him.) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books. He has had two books published by VDARE.com com: FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT (also available in Kindle) and FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT II: ESSAYS 2013.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Maybe some other portion of the Code of Conduct, but not the section on free speech. That is, it wouldn’t be an incitement to violence of some sort if America’s NeoCons, with institutions like Harvard Univ. playing a big part, weren’t getting us involved in continual warfare in that part of the world.
Were that not the case, a bunch of students yelling some mean slogans about places and people 5,500 miles away would mean nothing.
Anyway, Miss Gay should have been asked whether chanting “send blacks back to Africa” violates Harvard University’s Code of Conduct. Her answer would have been abysmal.
“To the main point here: Should calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard University’s code of conduct?
If that was what the student protestors were calling for, the answer has to be yes. “Genocide” means killing an entire race of people. If you want to do that, you are a homicidal psychopath. In a civilized society there should be no institution whose code of conduct validates homicidal psychopathology.”
But of course Harvard did in fact openly validate genocidal psychopathology: they not only hired, but *granted tenure to* the comically odious racist psychopathic Jew Noel Ignatiev, he of “abolish the white race” infamy (or celebrity, depending on your sanity index). His villainy was so compleat, he came off like a standup shock comic, or maybe a Batman villain.
I am also quite certain that the Talmud is read and studied in many places on the Harvard campus: guess what it is filled with. Not a peep about that, either.
And all these swine are perfectly happy to dine out at Harvard, a college founded and nurtured by whites, and whose reputation was created by whites, by studying white accomplishments and achievements and furthering same. Oh wait, I forgot: Chief Black Elk was the author of Maxwell’s equations. As I’m sure Miss Gay — she deserves neither the title of president nor professor, and probably not even Mrs. — would be quick to remind us. She probably thinks Black Elk was black, because, you know… Black.
Like they say: all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
This chump is a phony, ignorant, propagandizing mook. Kaddafy was a great leader. And Saddam and Assad, not bad at all, when compared to American or British “leaders.” When I got to him badmouthing Kaddafy, I quit reading. This fool is so full of shit he sucks.
Christopher Hitchens saw it coming – –
If Harvard is the lowest-ranked college for free speech, then President Gay was right when she said they “give a wide berth to free expression.” To give a wide berth to something means to avoid it.
A reliably Exceptional! lickspittle for his adopted Uncle Sam.
Not a word about why or by whom each “thug” — along with millions of innocents in Libya, Syria, Iraq — was targeted for destruction. Or whether a different flavor of “trashcan gangster despotism” is being suffered by “Arabs” in Palestine.
Check my archive for “ululating” to see how Mr. Derbyshire valiantly mongered war on Afghanistan in 2002, and then in 2021 tried to wipe the blood off his hands via the purportedly collective guilt of all Americans. Yet he remains proud of his “paratrooper” son.
This is surely the heart of the matter. Why didn’t the women who were being interrogated make that very point?
Yes. How could she not know that? These people really are mediocre in their intellectual abilities.
As has been noted on this site and elsewhere, a very powerful Jewish billionaire alumnus has a personal grudge against Gay, so what we read about her in the media, mainstream and otherwise, ought to be taken with a large grain of salt.
I am beginning to detect the first strains of the counter-reaction to woke emerging in academia and elsewhere. I expect them to grow, because woke is based in fantasy, an experiment in controlled opposition at most, and because each new generation delights in reviling the ideals of the one that came before it.
When I see black women all I can see is someone who should be in a kitchen frying some shrimp.
I see someone who should be in africa digging for tubers with a stick.
First of all, as you note, these women are sub-par, intellectually speaking. Secondly, even they can figure out that noticing anything about jews is considered tantamount to promoting genocide, and batting an eyelash in the same jurisdiction as a jew constitutes a pogrom.
The Chosenites figure they have us quaking in our boots and that’s right where they want us. Even these dimwit college presidents can figure out which way the wind blows.
I’m not. I don’t detect any of it in this story either, Observator. The ctlr-left does not generally support Israel and Jews anymore. That’s their business, and these university types are just catering to the ctrl-left as they have been for half a century. (Actually, it’s been closer to 6 decades.)
However, this current kerfuffle is not changing any of these people’s (like Mrs. Gay’s) anti-White stances, with a major in anti-White-MEN. Even the Jewish big donors and pols aren’t pushing for the end of Wokeness. They just want it to not apply to themselves. That wasn’t supposed to be the deal when these intellectuals starting in on this business. Somebody screwed the pooch!
It’s Cultural Rev. 2.0, and it’s the precursor to worse, if WE don’t strongly resist. I’m not depending on those Congressbroads or big Harvard donors.
What if they were playing that part?
It’s possible that they were set up like willing skittles to be knocked around.
My conclusion about the decline of Wasps in America was that the Wasps so feared the Papists, that they brought in the Jews to slow the Catholic rise, figuring their daughters would never marry a Jew and they didn’t want to worry about their grandkids paying Peter’s pence. What they didn’t figure on, was that the Jews would find a way to take over. Now their grandkids are getting Bar Mitzvahed and joining blm protests. Oops.
Derbyshire must be able to notice that Jewish interests will not desist from attacking whites in America and Europe just because some conservative whites decided to try to calm down nervous and afrighted Jews by this show of solidarity with Israel. Jews will not change patterns of donations and votes because some cuckservative like Speaker Johnson sided with them over a massacre in Gaza. Indeed, siding with Israel as conservatives will embolden the Jews to speed up the destruction of whites in the US UK France and Germany.
Derbyshire tries to appease the Jews behind Woke and Great Replacement. Compromise never made them slow down. It simply accelerated the desire the Jews have for replacing whites even more quickly.
So sorry to hear of your accident Derb, especially since you’re so active, I pray you make a quick and painless recovery.
Of the three, Hussein, Assad and Kadaffi, Hussein, installed by the CIA, was a true dictator and criminal though he must have had some good points to acquire the enmity of the US. America would be doubly blessed to be led by either of the other two who have done so much for their populace. All were used as pawns by the US and were violently discarded when they were seen as no longer useful.
One aspect of facial expression is that Japanese have fewer facial muscles. As an example, most Westerners can wink their left eye and then right eye in quick succession over and over again. My Japanese friend, and just about every other Japanese I’ve ever asked, fails at this every time. Some Japanese can do it but most can’t.
Now their president’s daughters and sons are marrying Jews and their grandchildren make Aliyah and hold Israeli passports.
I can’t prove it, but I think that without those heavy black eyeglass frames, she would not be given a wide berth, oops, I mean so much deference. Same was true for Kissinger. (I wonder who’s Kissinger now, ha ha.)
As for the campus demonstrators, many or maybe most are participating to try to get laid, or otherwise assist their biological imperative. I assume this because I managed to be a student at a super-“elite” New England University during the protest-laden Vietnam era, and I saw the aforesaid at work then, and human nature does not change. (Yes, I still carry a grudge.)
Not just Biden, Trump, too. And not just them, a whole lot of ruling class Wasps have intermarried and have even converted and are raising their kids as Jews. Whether there will be a group of Christians who are able to supplant this new elite is something we’ll have to wait and see. White Christians have to come together to save their people and create a homeland for their children. Regardless of sect.
There will be a counter reaction to woke, but it will be spearheaded by people like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterscum.
As far as I know, being a Harvard grad, no one called for the genocide of “the jews”…They called for Israel and it’s supporters to stop genociding Palestinians, which they have been doing for 75 years…
As to the Arabs (which the Palestinians are not) living under unelected sovereigns, Bibi has only 4% support in Israel, yet is still PM and waging a war to prevent being tried for corruption..In the US, we have an un-elected President supporting the Israeli dictatorship…But in any event, why should America be telling other countries how to rule themselves? It’s arrogant and stupid…..
It’s not news that the new diverse President is an academic fraud….virtually all token blacks writing award winning about their race steal from other writers…MLK and Alex Haley are two of the most famous…It takes brains and hard work to write original stuff, and they don’t have either…The Harvard Board should have known that, and probably did, but they installed her to get maximum leftist Pokemon points…As to the Jews yanking their donations, Harvard is absurdly wealthy, and could easily replace Jewish money with Chinese money, just by taking more kids from the Chinese elites…
From my experience of Iraq, the Arabs always need a strongman to get things working. I could immediately tell I was in a Moslem neighbourhood or I was in an Assyrian neighbourhood. In case you don’t know, the Assyrians are pre Arab population and Christian. Dictators often steal the public money because it is safer in their hands. Once these dictators were overthrown, power devolved to not just one despotic family but to a population of despotic families.
To include that principle? Or the law of non-contradiction?…law of identity?… Can the scientific method prove the scientific method?
Hitchens’ philosophy tutor at Balliol College, Oxford, was Sir Anthony Kenny. Kenny got his main philosophical training at the Gregorianum in Rome (Wikipedia incorrectly says it was the Venerable English College but I read his autobiography— in addition to all of his other books 😉— and it was at “The Greg” just like all Jebbies). Kenny got a second doctorate in analytical philosophy from Oxford. Kenny would no doubt be horrified by Hitchens’ sophistry but also realize that Hitchens was always trying to be Chestertonian*.
*His surviving wife Carol Blue said that Hitchens was reading Chesterton on his deathbed in his final hours.
I have joked with my wife when she wears reading glasses that she “seems a bit smarter lately”.
When it comes to Mrs. Gay, I do think the glasses help. They make her look like a woman that would be digging for tubers with a stick, with me being in awe of this “Brilliant idea!”
When I see Claudine Gay, I think that the author of ” homo erectus walks amongst us ” Was right
I think you missed my point. I don’t care what they are saying. Whatever it is, they should have a right to, unless it’s direct incitement of violent action. With this Potomac Regime having its hand all in it over there, statements by the
rightwrong people (maybe a big shot Prof at Harvard) may very well cause Regime violence against a group.Separate out the Gov’t from the people, Pyrrhus. Our Gov’t shouldn’t be … Americans can* say whatever arrogant and stupid things they want. That’s part of free speech.
.
* Make that “…. should be able to …”
I stopped reading after you said you were a Harvard grad.
Anglos let Jews ram them in the arse one inch, but Jews rammed the whole yard.
Derby must enjoy the Zionic thing up his arse as he’s still signaling to them to be good doggy.
Blacks who are not criminals and have the surname Gay must really have it made in today’s society.
Christians coming together regardless of the sect? Not much to work with these days, Jew worshiping Evangelicals or Catholics ruled by an LGBT obsessed Pope. The American Christians you’re looking for are long gone. They had created a homeland for their children but were slaughtered by the Northern states between 1861-65.
You need to be forthright. When Woodrow Wilson promulgated the Fourteen Points, he defined the metaphysic under which American world policy would thereafter labor – this being that idea Western liberal democracy could be brought to the world and that bringing it to the world would make all of the world’s people into modern, pacifistic, cosmopolitan Westerners.
You want to dispute this (and I do just as you seem to do), you need to go one and say, forthrightly and honestly, that not only is it not the business of America, along with our ally the UK, to tell other countries how to rule themselves but that the people who live in these countries are themselves not suited to Western style democracy as envisioned by Wilson and by the American democratic universalists of today both liberal and conservative.
I just recently (before Kissinger’s death) saw David Gewen’s book on Henry Kissinger. I say “saw” because I never read these big books in page order from cover to cover. One of the issues with Kissinger is why he considered to have been so amoral and evil. My answer to this question is that he refused to simply say that the people outside of the orbit of the North Atlantic and Oceania are not suited to democracy.
I, by the way, include Eastern Europe, or call it the Slavic world, in the equation. Some of the Slavic countries are gleefully struggling to overthrow the existing European order. They seem once again to believe that they can foment big power warfare and end up unscathed in the war they are fomenting because they are not big powers. I suppose most adults with some knowledge of world history and geopolitics have heard of the concept of the cordon sanitaire. But what those with little understanding of the concept think it means is that the nations of Eastern Europe are to be reduced to buffer states. No, that was not the entire idea although it was sometimes part of it. The idea, rather, was to confine the nations of Eastern Europe so that they could not instigate war between the great powers.
From this point of view, the Helsinki Accord, which now are almost 50 years old, established a new cordon sanitaire. All of the present governments of Eastern Europe are the legal successors to governments that signed the Helsinki Accords and therefore legally bound by them. Helsinki represents the post-World War II strategic settlement in Europe. Saliently, it established what the boundaries of every country were up to borders of the former Soviet Union.
What are we (the United States and our European clients) doing trying to overthrow the order the Helsinki Accords created. When I talk about Helsinki with people they giggle and treat it like it was some minor event in Cold War history which is no longer relevant rather than what it was, one of the foundational events in world history.
Then there is the strange case of Ukraine. How many people know that Ukraine was a charter member of the United Nations? I would start the settlement process by look at what the boundaries of Ukraine were in 1945 and work from there. What the West seems to want to do is treat the dissolution of the Soviet Union as a decolonization process akin to decolonization in Africa, where the terms of decolonization and the boundaries of the nations were dictated to the Africans by the colonial powers in disregard for the historical tribal, ethinic, linguistic and religious boundaries known to the people who live there themselves.
One of the things the Ukraine war is making clear to the world is that almost every nation in the world is at least multiethnic and multilingual to a degree, if not outright multiracial. Anyway you cut the eventually settlement of the war, and all wars have to end eventually, the Ukraine left behind still will be a multiethnic and multilingual country and the right wing Ukrainian nationalist will still have to accommodate themselves to that fact.
The question for us though is, what are doing supporting the Ukrainian nationalists and all of the other people in Eastern Europe who want to overthrow a European order which has subdued numerous historic conflicts and produced, by now, nearly a lifetime of peace?
And why are we expanding NATO? When NATO began it also represented a cultural community of compatible Western democracies ringing the North Atlantic, along with a couple of adjuncts. Do we believe that we can make the Eastern Europeans into Western Europeans, people like the Danes and the Dutch, by incorporating them into NATO? It won’t work, and we may die trying. Not metaphorically, but literally.
In the interest of transparency and full disclosure, I did not go to any selective university. I grew up under poverty conditions in Chicago, did not graduate from high school, went to junior college, and then to an unendowed Tier III private college as a financial aid student. My undergraduate coursework subsequent to my B.A. was taken in community colleges and state college in California and my graduate degree also comes from a state college deemed Tier III. My salient question is, if I can think of this stuff, why can’t all of the people in our policy establishment who were educated in the Ivy League and its adjuncts and comparables do the same?
Or is it that they have done the same and reject the conclusion because of ambition, greed and twisted values? I can tell you one more thing too. Give these people a choice between listening to someone like me or me, literally, and nuclear war, and they’ll pick nuclear war. They’re that insistent on maintaining their petty caste system.
It was very naive to expect Harvard Board to sack its Haitian plagiarist president, expert in Black suffering, for misunderstanding what she was being asked. Ugly and stupid and all that, she is a veritable treasure. A shining symbol that they are good people (that is, not racists).
Slightly OT, but a summary to bear in mind….
Great American white authors:
MOBY-DICK: A complicated description of the sea-faring whale-hunting industry, combined with a complex multi-layered spiritual allegory.
THE GREAT GATSBY: A man tries to transform himself into another type of man, just to win the love of a woman who will never love him.
AS I LAY DYING: A poor share-cropper family goes on an epic journey in order to bury their matriarch, along the way encountering fear, betrayal, and insanity.
GRAVITY’S RAINBOW: The history of the development of the V-2 Rocket during the Second World War, and the historical and metaphysical ripple effects this had, leading to the crisis of the ICBM.
Now let’s do great American !Black! authors….
ALL OF THEM: Blackety-blackety-blackety black!! Black black black!!! BLACK!
You see where your patience, which of necessity must be limited, must take you.
Women and non muz had many more rights under Saddam the “criminal “. His Minister of Defense, Tariq Aziz was Christian. The real criminals hung him in 2006.
That is not the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is that Derb teased us with calling Mooch 91 IQ, then referred us to a piece in which he said she was of “above average” intelligence. Jeez.
Racism forgets that the great crimes of the past were carried out by white racists. And by killing to steal and not with work, the wealth of the Western white race has been achieved. No southern nation has invaded a northern nation, killing its people to rob it.
Making history, white Europeans, due to being incapable of working, spread ancient Viking banditry throughout the world, a criminal activity that is nothing worthy of praise or a display of superiority or intelligence.
And the worst thing, currently they have no idea how to live as normal human beings and they have to continue killing and stealing to survive. And that is a shame and not an honor.
Diamond Jake Sullivan is a Rhodes Scholar with some connection to Magdalen College. He works for Nicky Oppenheimer, the richest man in Africa. He’s cool with the caste system.
1. Why all the fuss? We have a wholesale plagiarist in the White House. So, some diversity hire was faking it? Surprised?
2. One thing I learned long ago–never hire someone you can’t fire. Harvard may have learned the lesson, but I doubt it.
Well, along with Ms. Gay, I would say, “That depends.”
In a civilized society SHOULD THERE BE an institution whose code of conduct validates homicidal psychopathology? Well, no, of course not, any more than there should be a movie theater which would tolerate someone shouting, “Fire!” during a very crowded session. However, this misses the point of free speech. It is called FREE speech, after all.
In a civilized society where free speech is encouraged and allowed, there should be no limits placed on what is said. Anyone should be able to speak his mind about anything. Any institution should be able to support and allow any speech it wishes, even if it is detrimental (and it would be) to the institution itself. Offense taken because of words spoken is a personal issue and should be addressed as such. However, in today’s society, the emphasis is placed on the “offense taken” and the only remedy which is prescribed for it is to outlaw and prohibit, not the offense nor the reaction, but the words which caused it.
“You cannot say that. Someone might be hurt.”
All of society, civilized or not, is geared around one thing–conformity to the established norm. Anything or anyone who deviates from that automatically becomes uncivilized, a pariah, one of the hairy, unwashed, deplorables who deserves to be eradicated or thrown out of the group. It does not matter what the issue is or how flagrant the violation is–any violation is cause for alarm and voices which speak freely generate the greatest concern and response.
It is not the speakers themselves who are the real threat, rather the response by others who hear the words and are motivated to action because of them. Jim Jones and Adolf Hitler would have been nothing more than abrasive loudmouths IF the people who heard them refused to act on what they heard. Those who scream, “Kill all the Jews!”, would make no progress at all if everyone within earshot simply ignored them and went about living as if they had not heard them. No one would ever be trampled to death in a crowed theater if everyone would simply sit still for two or three seconds and rationally assess the situation before stampeding.
The problem is, they don’t. People react, from emotion, according to what they hear and listen to–whether it is right and true or not. Therefore we have laws prohibiting the FREE exercise of speech and substituting some truncated version of it–a limited form, somewhat less than free speech, and all of it conditioned on and by the level of “civilization” we have reached.
If we are ever to be free, truly free, then the right to say anything, anything at all, must become sacred within the society. Otherwise, we labor under the shackles of someone else’s opinion, feelings, and immaturity, all of which are meant to “protect” from “harm”. Until we learn, as individuals and as a cohesive group of individuals, that we are NOT harmed by the words and, therefore, have no need to react, we will never be free. We will always be under the control of someone else who will decide for us how we MUST respond. In other words, there oughta’ be a law against that sort of stuff.
“I may not agree with what you are saying, but I will defend your right to say it.” ought to be our operating mantra, but it is not. Instead, we have arrived at the conclusion that, because I disagree with and do not like what you are saying, you cannot say it. End of story. Sit down, shut up, and do as you are told.
“Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.” This old nursery rhyme has now been transformed into one which might read, “If you call me a name, I will pick up a stick and attempt to break your bones.” It will only hurt and destroy us in the end.
Drive by the Churches in your town on Sunday. They’re full of good, family people who want their kids to grow up in a good place. 90% are White. They’re allies in the movement to save America. Or at least a portion of it. And their opinion of a little country in the Middle East isn’t that important when it compares to saving America.
C’mon man, Unz is also a Harvard grad and is probably the greatest warrior for truth in our modern era. A couple of centuries from now, when civilization has left the West, Chinese and Russian universities will make his American Pravda series required reading.
Drive By The Churches…
They are full of bewildered people living in a certain amount of terror.
I expect certain people to be “cool” with the American caste system. The rest have no duty to roll over for someone who has been awarded a Rhodes Scholarship.
Who was Cecil Rhodes anyway? He was a empire builder who played a principal role in paving the road to World War I. Europe should have learned from the American experience and approached the issue of dealing with Black Africa with a sense of caution. Maybe in that moment in time, the Europeans had to move into Africa to provide administration and bring the Black African into the world ecumene. Turning the regions of Africa into commodities and having the European powers compete for control of these was never a good idea.
The Europeans failed to learn from the America experience in another way. The failed to see in the American Civil War what the future of warfare was. They thought the next war would be a larger version of the Franco-Prussian War of 1871. It would be a war of movement with light casualties and a war which would produce a quick result and leave the parties involved with a certain knowledge of who was who at a relatively small price.
If Americans can tear down the statues of Robert E. Lee, the legacy of Cecil Rhodes should be demolished too. Lee at least was a tragic figure. Rhodes was an opportunistic creep. How many people know that he was once the prime minister of South Africa? Why are our snowflakes and woke children worshipping the legacy of this arch-imperialist?
So – he didn’t care much about his atheism.
Nice.
I ended up here after finding nothing recent on his “most recent 20 columns” page. I was concerned and now more so. I met him a couple of times and he’s a good, smart, fun chap. I don’t know what accident you are referring to but I hope he is well and makes a full recovery.
Here: Derb’s Disastrous December—A Sick Note For The Missing Podcast
https://vdare.com/posts/derb-s-disastrous-december-continues
“Can the scientific method prove the scientific method?”
Kurt Gödel would say “nein.”
The zeitgeist rules!
He was right and an excellent book…
aber, hat “Gravity’s Rainbow” der Schwarzgerät (the black device).
So, not entirely pure… 🙂
Rat own. That’s what I grew up with, and it seems to have served me well. Never dignify a bully by responding to his/her overtures. All bullies are cowards, and will get their comeuppance in the long run. Karma is a bitch.
Worse than that. One of Rhodes’ stated goals was that the U.S. should rejoin the British Empire, and to that end he established his infamous scholarships for bright young Americans to study in Mother England, in hope that they would thereby come to share his view.
In my view, properly informed young Americans who are offered a “Rhodes scholarship” should tell the Brits to take a hike. No offense intended, but we Americans are not going to rejoin the British Empire. End of story. Best to repurpose Rhodes’ ill gotten gains for the benefit of sons and daughters of the British Commonwealth.
Someone of my own mind. Don’t throw aways things that don’t work out. Repurpose them. Trim their purpose. The belief in American society is that the Rhodes Scholar is ultimate superior human being.
Too many are potentially qualified as the qualification are now drawn, and not too many are qualified as they were originally drawn. In the original concept, a Rhodes Scholar was supposed to be someone who had some athletic accomplishment. By these standards, the only Rhodes Scholar I ever knew (from the neighborhood, not from a college) would not have qualified. His athletic resume was third string on the swim team, and I think he joined the team just to have athletic participation on his vitae. Nothing wrong with the guy, mind you, and after he came back from Oxford, he refused to play the Rhodes Scholar game and set himself up as a superior being. He had a very nice career though.
The two Rhodes Scholar I know of who qualified by the original standards are Pat Haden and Bill Bradley. People I can think of who qualified by the original conception of the award might be David Robinson, Roger Staubach, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (then Lew Alcindor), Andrew Luck and Bob Mathias. These are people whose resumes are well known. There are many whose collegiate careers are not heralded who would have qualified,
I don’t exactly what athletic endeavor Bill Clinton was involved in. Unless the requirement, which I know was in effect at the time, was waived, it is a big secret. Maybe he was involved in something so inherently trivial and contrived, it would have been embarrassing to admit it and would have put his character in a bad light by exposing him as a schemer or as someone who under the control of handlers even at that early an age. I have no doubt in my mind that the Fulbright machine in Arkansas played an early role in developing Clinton. I’ll give that they tried to “learn” him, but I never saw any signs of any real intellectuality in him. He was more of the sales manager type and I don’t think he was as smart as people think he was. His SAT composite was reported as 1032. That’s not very high although I think his intelligence was at least higher than his SAT score indicates. Some people just are not good at certain types of tests.
https://vdare.com/radio-derb/harvard-kerfuffle-president-blackety-black-and-opposing-plagiarism-is-racist-plus-2024-etc
https://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/RadioDerb/2023-12-15.html
Yep, it was a disappointing article in large part, which shows his ignorance.
Given that civilisation is leaving the West primarily because of dysgenic breeding (within-race outbreeding and the worst people having the most descendants) which almost no-one even knows about and which China and Russia and everywhere else are not immune to, in a couple of centuries from now civilisation will be leaving China and Russia too, or it will have left!
Hope you see this, and someone else will anyway. We have thrt Fulbright program and we have some other great we can name fellowship programs after either to our college graduate abroad or bring foreign students here. A more polite approach would be to get the Rhodes Trust to sunset the program in the United States. The existence of the program exacerbated university caste in the United States. What the British Commonwealth chooses to do is their business. I suppose you cannot stop American college graduates from accepting foreign awards, but there is something sociopathic about the Rhodes program.