Category Archives: education

Red-baiting? No, realism

As spoilt a brat as ever broke bread.

Imagine, if you will, a youngish looking female, appearing on one of the many social media video networks to announce to all and sundry who had tuned in that she has just left her job as a first officer on a Boeing-747 Jumbo Jet.

Her announcement has a history: only a few months earlier, she appeared on that same network, to tell all who wished to watch and listen that she had just passed her final tests that would make her a first officer on a Boeing-747 Jumbo Jet.

She used to fly smaller aircraft for regional airlines, but, she said, she had always wanted to make it to the bigs.

You can hardly make it bigger these days.

The ambitious European Airbus-380, though bigger than its Boeing counterpart, was conceived on the ill-conceived and somewhat ill-concealed ambition to show the bloody Yanks that others can build huge planes, too. Except: the Boeing people looked further ahead. They realised that the era of huge passenger planes criss-crossing the world would end one day soon. They designed their Queens of the Sky to make them relatively easy to convert into cargo versions. The idea never crossed the Airbus crowd’s minds. They are now stuck with orders rejected by former customers, tearfully curtailing the entire project. Meanwhile, Jumbo has been experiencing a revival.

Still, to get into a Jumbo flying crew course, and pass it, and get a first officer’s stripes, none of it is a piece of cake.

List of headaches

What happened for the new 747 first officer to call it quits?

Inconvenience.

First of all, she blamed the schedule.

Crews on cargo aircraft don’t fly to a destination on the other side of the globe, enjoy a day or two of a layover, and fly back home, to another well-deserved rest. They bring a plane full of stuff to a city, hand the machine over to a crew that had brought a previous company machine in and now were waiting to fly onwards wherever the cargo manifest tells them.

The crew that had brought the plane into town heads for its designated (and usually quite luxurious) hotel, to spend a day or two. They can use the time any way they wish. Enjoying the sights, checking out the local entertainment venues, watching how the other half live, whatever.

When the time comes, they are driven back to the airport where they take over another plane that had just landed. While the loadmasters are busy filling the cargo hold with new goods, they read the cargo manifest to see where the heck they are landing next, put together a flight plan, and off they go.

Basically, they are away from home about 20 days a month on average, and if the 20-day monthly period happens to extend through the last day of one month and the first day of the next one, the days away from home can add up.

The former first officer didn’t like it either that she had to take her rest on a flight sleeping in a bunk.

A simple explanation: most of the flights take longer than the time permitted for pilots to be in the cockpit. That’s why companies assign more pilots than two (captain and first officer) to each trip. They take turns resting, and airliners have been built with bunks to accommodate them. Not good enough for the former B-747 first officer.

How she could not notice that this was the arrangement while taking her training sessions remains a sweet mystery.

The cargo aircraft flight crews are paid handsomely for their sacrifices.

They include most of the flying happening over nights, too: airports they frequent are busy 24 hours a day, and the idea is for the huge cargo birds not to crowd the taxi ways and runways during the peaks of passenger traffic. It is expected that the cargo crews are aware in advance that this is the flying routine.

In the case of the young lady, the expectation is even more obvious: she used to fly for an airline, after all, she must have seen the cargo crews now and then.

That’s why her statement announcing her abrupt departure from the dream job was so surprising: too long away from home, missing her family, and so on.

Now, missing one’s family, this is a serious matter. But when you hear that she has two dogs in mind, that is, not children, but dogs, the picture darkens somewhat.

Shocking? Not really

And here comes the most important and crucial question of them all: just how, for crying out loud, could it happen that a person could be as short-sighted (a polite substitute for another word) that she does not know what job she is getting into, and that her values put dogs before children?

The answer is as simple as it is NOT shocking: this is a result of decades-long developments in education, of changes in values, of deteriorating morality, of the me-first values that embrace it all.

China’s Great Helmsman, Mao Zedong himself, said famously almost three quarters of a century ago that he sees no need to fight the west, America in particular. These societies, he explained, are so decadent they will fall into his country system’s lap like over-ripened fruit.

His Soviet foe, Nikita Khrushchev, had been thinking along the same lines. Yes, his sentence that communists will bury America was the one that made the headlines, but it was what he had said earlier that mattered: America will wake up one day and see it has become communist. And he explained the same thing Mao Zedong had said, except in a language much less colourful.

The two mightiest communist leaders of the time three quarters of the century ago saw all of what we’re witnessing today. Those who would at the time try to explain all this to western politicians and western public, and those in America especially, would be called anti-Commie red-baiters and conspiracy theorists (the system repeats itself: raise doubts about the current pandemic hoax, and you will get called the same names).

Did it really have to end up like this?

History hasn’t much time for ifs and buts, but still: if, about three decades ago, parents threw out school boards that were trying to censor such classics like Mark Twain’s Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn books, the picture of today could have been much different. Yes, the teachers would have had to learn how to explain that offensive words are but words, and that it is the action that is important.

Of course, to be able to do that, they would have had to learn proper teaching methods, including the subjects they were about to teach, rather than critical theories about pedagogy.

Human brain? How perfectly old-fashioned!

The gullibility of western (North American in particular) populations was (and remains till this day) spectacular. It said so on TV, in the newspaper, on the radio, therefore it’s the Gospel truth.

All of that instead using their critical faculties.

Unfortunately, the sharp thinking that could have been expected of civilised societies has been dulled by shameless consumerism: this phone is way too old (say, six months), and I see that there’s a brand new one on the market, will they accept my old one for a trade-in, or will I have to buy the new one outright?

That’s whence the former Boeing-747 first officer is coming.

Not to worry, she told her social media audience, she has another job lined up: flying helicopters commercially.

Of course, if she works for a company that provides fast transportation for corporate clients, her time won’t belong to her. Again. If a client needs or wants to be flown somewhere, she will have to be ready to fly even if her beloved dogs had been thinking of an outing in a nearby park.

If it happens more than once, she will again announce she’s quitting.

And she will be living with the acquired certainty that this world embraces quitters.

Today’s society may. The world doesn’t.

She is as spoilt a brat as ever broke bread. Unfortunately, the problem we’re facing is that she’s not an exception. She’s the rule.

Idiocy, thy name is University of Victoria

Since many do not trust their governments, why not bring in anarchy, instead?

And since there seems to be no left-wing idiocy that Canada’s University of Victoria would not be a part of, this school jumped on the bandwagon both feet first.

According to Cambridge University, anarchy is best described as a situation in which there is no organisation and control, especially in society, because there is no effective government.

What else would you expect from Cambridge dons but civility?

Encyclopaedia Britannica hired Arthur M. Eckstein, Professor at the Department of History, University of Maryland, to write: Anarchy, in political science and the study of international relations, the absence of any authority superior to nation-states and capable of arbitrating their disputes and enforcing international law. The term anarchy is derived from the ancient Greek root anarchos (“without authority”), denoting the absence of the rule of law or of settled government.

Why he would concentrate on international relations and forget much of what’s going on at home remains Professor Eckstein’s own secret.

In sum: anarchy equals the full and complete absence of laws or government.

A new subject?

Should scientists study anarchy?

Absolutely. If for no other reason then in order to figure out what it does to civilised society, and why there are people who support it, and why they support it.

Should scientists join the anarchist propaganda, spread it, even?

A sensitive issue.

On one hand, who are we to ban anybody’s thoughts and feelings, either way?

On the other hand, given the way our education systems have been working the last few centuries, why should we let people in authority spread the cancer among the young and eager minds that don’t know any better?

Remember: if you want to pass an examination, you have to recite your teacher’s views on what is right (and wrong) verbatim. If you do quote your teacher and then have the gall to suggest there may exist other trains of thought, your future progress in school is in jeopardy. And if you’re dull enough not to quote your teacher at all, and start with the alternatives outright, you’re doomed.

Seen through this lens, the following communication from Allan Antliff, editor, Anarchist Developments in Cultural Studies at the Department of Art History and Visual Studies at University of Victoria, enlightens.

Dear Colleagues,

I am pleased to announce the publication of “The Politics of Indigeneity, Anarchist Praxis, and Decolonization,” edited by J. Kēhaulani Kauanui.

This is a special issue of Anarchist Developments in Cultural Studies (2021.1).

Table of contents:

(1) J. Kēhaulani Kauanui, “The Politics of Indigeneity, Anarchist Praxis, and Decolonization”

(2) Theresa Warburton, “Land and Liberty: Settler Acknowledgement in Anarchist Pedagogies of Place”

(3) Jeff Corntassel, “Life Beyond the State: Regenerating Indigenous International Relations and Everyday Challenges to Settler Colonialism”

(4) Gord Hill and Allan Antliff, “Indigeneity, Sovereignty, Anarchy: A Dialog With Many Voices”

(5) Macarena Gómez-Barris, “Anarchisms Otherwise: Pedagogies of Anarco-Indigenous Feminist Critique”

(6) Mary Tuti Baker, “Gardens of Political Transformation: Indigenism, Anarchism and Feminism Embodied”

Book Reviews

(7) Gabriel Kuhn (Ed.), “Liberating Sápmi: Indigenous Resistance in Europe’s Far North” by Kimberly Croswell

(8) Bas Umali, “Pangayaw and Decolonizing Resistance: Anarchism in the Philippines” (Gabriel Kuhn Ed.) by Claudia C. Lodia

Mr. Antliff links to his publication’s issue, and concludes by explaining he’s sitting on the unceded WSÁNEC & Lekwungen (Songhees & Esquimalt) Territories, a habit that has crept into most such pronouncements, be their academic or political.

Who she?

This from Wesleyan University’s own website (wow, don’t they seem to have tons of fun at 45 Wyllys Avenue, Middletown, CT 06459?):

J. Kēhaulani Kauanui is Professor of American Studies and an affiliate faculty member in Anthropology. She teaches courses related to Indigenous sovereignty, settler colonial studies, anarchist history and activism, and critical race and ethnic studies. Kauanui is also a radio producer, collaborating on an anarchist politics program, “Anarchy on Air,” which broadcasts on WESU, Middletown, CT (although the show is currently on hiatus due to the COVID-19 pandemic).

Kauanui is one of the six co-founders of the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association (NAISA). After serving on the founding steering committee from 2005-2008, from 2008-2009, she served as an acting council member. Then, from 2009-2012, she served as an elected member of the inaugural council. She has served as an elected member the national council of the American Studies Association (2013-2016), and was the 2008 President of the New England American Studies Association.

After transferring from community college (Irvine Valley College) in 1989, Kauanui earned her B.A. in Women’s Studies at the University of California, Berkeley in 1992. She took her Ph.D. in History of Consciousness at the University of California, Santa Cruz, in 2000.

Kauanui is the author of: Hawaiian Blood: Colonialism and the Politics of Sovereignty and Indigeneity (Duke University Press 2008); Paradoxes of Hawaiian Sovereignty: Land, Sex, and the Colonial Politics of State Nationalism (Duke University Press 2018); and Speaking of Indigenous Politics: Conversations with Activists, Scholars, and Tribal Leaders (University of Minnesota Press 2018), which features select interviews from her public affairs radio show “Indigenous Politics,” which aired from 2007-2013.

Herewith the context

One expression is important in this description: critical race and ethnic studies. This happens to be the buzzword the modern would-be scholars love the most. You can hide anything under the title of a critical theory. That you’re destroying humanity in the process, who cares?

Well, definitely not J. Kēhaulani Kauanui, and definitely not Allan Antliff, either.

Their critical theories are very openly based on the criminal teachings of one Karl Marx. Except, they added a bit of flexibility to Marxism’s strictness.

So far as Marx is concerned, anarchy (and anarchism) are not acceptable: his has been the view of a strictly organised society.

Times are changing, and Marxism got nowhere with its class struggle antagonistic contradictions. The time has come to invent something new. Why not keep antagonistic contradictions and amend them to race? No, it doesn’t mean dropping the class struggle altogether, it only means concentrating on something else.

Since most of the people these days have no sense of history, they don’t even know there’s been a switch. And since most of the students these days have no idea history has ever existed, they notice nothing.

And thus, Victoria, the capital of British Columbia that calls itself beautiful, Victoria, that jewel of good old times when an invitation to tea and crumpets still meant something, has become the capital of anarchy in Canada.

Sad.

Silence of the sheeple is what’s killing us

Shut up. If you can’t, don’t write. If you must put pen to paper, don’t sign. If you do sign, don’t be surprised.

Most of those who remember living under all kinds of socialist regimes, ranging from (in alphabetic order) communism, fascism, nazism, all the way to social democracy) will, hopefully, remember this saying, too.

And those who have never experienced an authoritarian system of government, that is, a dictatorship, ought to learn it as fast as possible.

Or they should stand up and say they won’t be silenced.

The sound of silence

Except, as a society, we have been silenced way too long. We have allowed all kinds of censorship to invade us as a community of humans: shut up lest you offend somebody, shut up lest someone who is not aware of developments declares your information as false (fake is the accepted word these days), shut up lest you offend scientists who believe what they had been taught in school and that’s why they describe what you’re saying as false (or fake) news.

The cancer of censorship, self-censorship included, is nothing new. It has been with us since time immemorial.

No, you mustn’t say in full the name of whatever or whoever being is up there.

No, you mustn’t draw a picture of her or him, whichever applies, even if you’d seen her or him (and spent time in her or his garden).

No real reason, just a commandment.

It has been going on and growing and those who knew what’s good for them obeyed.

So it’s nothing as if we were to be shocked by the hi-tech moronic censorship, or by the mainstream media (MSM) habitual distortion of facts, or the abuse of higher education’s motto of whatever the truth in the name of political correctness.

Most North American universities, trying (vainly) to look learned and ancient, use the Latin language to convey the message, such as: Quaecumque Vera. Not that it helps much: we can trace the origins of political correctness straight to them.

The institutions of higher learning became the first direction the would-be scientists aimed at in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Having emerged from Adolf Hitler’s Germany, the members of the so-called Frankfurter Schule were accepted as victims of the Nazis, rather than as proponents of something even more devilish than that: Marxism.

Who are they?

A few words of explanation: the Institute of Social Research (Institut für Sozialforschung in German) would become part of the University of Frankfurt as the first-ever Marxist-oriented research centre affiliated with a major German university.

The Frankfurt School researchers applied Marxism to a radical interdisciplinary social theory. Using Marxism and Hegelian philosophy, members of the Frankfurt School tried to develop a theory of society that also used psychoanalysis, sociology, existential philosophy, and other such esoteric hypotheses.

Their approach would become known as critical theory (die kritische Theorie), and you can cover any field of knowledge or ignorance under its roof. You can start with such legitimate sciences as economics and go all the way into drivel such as gender studies. It doesn’t matter what others say: they can be fobbed off using political correctness, or they can be ignored, or they can be chased into courts and sent behind bars.

The latter option seems to be easier these days than what Italy’s Galileo Galilei had to endure just because he posited that the earth was orbiting the sun, and not the other way round.

Some of the scientific resistance to innovation is a plain quirk of human character.

Imagine, if you will, that you have gained a career, as well as an influential university Professorship, and won all kinds of awards, including the Nobel Prize, for developing a theory, and it was even named after you.

And now, all of a sudden, a young punk emerges from a lab to say your theory was pure hokum, hogwash and whatever other disrespectful words come to her or his mind.

Will you admit: oh (beep), I have been wrong all along, and my only solace may be that whatever I had created became a basis my successor could build her or his opposition on?

That’s why the German physicist Max Planck, he of the quantum physics fame, had a very valid point when he observed that science makes progress funeral by funeral: the old are never converted by the new doctrines, they simply are replaced by a new generation.

Here’s what he said in his Scientific Autobiography (Wissenschaftliche Selbstbiographie): This experience gave me also an opportunity to learn a fact-a remarkable one, in my opinion: A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

But if only it were this benevolent.

It isn’t.

Back to the future?

History, as taught through centuries, has been a product of the victors’ records, many agree, and they definitely have a valid point.

Yet, it is much more difficult to find the real story of who we are and whence we’re not only coming but, also, where we are going. The development of studies that include what has been known as pre-Biblical times reveals that most, if not all, of what we had been taking as read, was not even close to facts as they happened millennia ago.

This would lead to all kinds of hypotheses (theories, in some cases). They seem to indicate that most of what has happened since first humans appeared on this planet didn’t happen by sheer accident. This would lead to talk of all kinds of secret societies, from Free Masonry to the Illuminati, with tons of others in between, and the major issue here looks like that none of these theories is easy to deny, and it is tough to confirm, too.

The existing written records have been confirmed as genuine. They do indicate that the direction we’ve been going the last several centuries confirms that we’re either going to accept these developments as facts of life, or we’re going to stand up and say: no, these ideas are against all that humans have developed into humanity, and we won’t accept it, and this is the hill we’re going to die defending. One approach: we’ll just shrug and say, ah, I got vaccinated the other day, and now I’m free to travel wherever I please (no, you’re not, but that’s another problem), and now I can live again as I please (no, you can’t, but that’s another problem). Pure fatalism.

FDR and Il Duce

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt introduced his New Deal, Italy’s fascist dictator Benito Mussolini was delighted, and he kept praising the American president so loudly that FDR had to send a special envoy to Rome to tell the Duce to tone it down: his enthusiasm didn’t play well in Peoria.

The New Deal introduced what would become known as atmosphere of entitlement: your progress in life was no longer your responsibility, if you failed, government will provide.

Suicide? Suicide!

Soviet then-leader Nikita Khrushchev observed correctly that the Soviets won’t have to fight to introduce communism in the U.S., the Americans will wake up one day, with the ugly regime staring right into their faces. (The MSM obviously remember only Khrushchev’s headline-grabbing statement that the Soviets will bury the capitalists, they never quite grasped the other parts of it.)

And China’s then-Great Helmsman, Mao Ze-dong, also knew what he spoke of when he said that his country won’t be fighting the west: the capitalists, he said, will fall into our grasp like ripe fruit, thanks to their decadence.

Which is precisely what’s happening. China has won the Third World War without wasting a single bullet, confirming Nazi Germany’s second-in-command Hermann Göring’s words that scaring the population out of their wits suffices to force them into doing whatever their dictators want them to do.

Fear is a normal human characteristic, and nobody should be ashamed of being scared.

It’s what we do about it that matters. We can shut up. If we can’t, we shouldn’t write. If we must put pen to paper, we shouldn’t sign. If we do sign, we must not be surprised.

The writing’s on the wall: Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin.

Here’s what it means in contemporary English translation:

Mene: God has numbered the days of your reign and brought it to an end.

Tekel: You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting.

Peres: Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.

People explain it as a portent or warning of inevitable misfortune.

It’s only up to us: shall we heed it? Shall we ignore it? Will we allow the misfortune to become inevitable?

Nothing more and nothing less is at stake than our future as humans.

Dirty-single-track-minded profs get the cake

Oversexed professors are a danger to pedestrians and traffic: two faculty members at Montclair State University in New Jersey have announced that they demand that the LGBTQ sex education should be taught to children in elementary school.

For those who have lived on another planet since 1990 and have just returned: LGBTQ stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer or questioning.

To impress all and sundry who, out of sheer boredom, would read their report in full, the two Montclair State University professors (Eva Goldfarb and Lisa Lieberman) throw a Latin expression in: the idea is to teach kids who they are before “cisnormative values” become “more deeply ingrained.”

Cis – WHAT? A new word, again (in Latin: a neologism). It has been introduced into our communication systems by the community that is convinced that everybody cares about their private behaviour happening in their private bedrooms, and so should everybody be proud of them, as they are proud of themselves.

One definition explains cisgenderism as an assumption that all human beings are cisgender. Your typical Marxist critical theory definition: explain a word by repeating it.

What it means: they have a gender identity which matches their biological sex.

Sounds too academic? How about this attempt at translation into normal human language: if you were born with a penis, you think that you’re a boy, if you’ were born with a vagina, you automatically view yourself as a girl.

Clear enough?

Not to professors Eva Goldfarb and Lisa Lieberman.

Who are those people?

This, verbatim, from the school’s own website:

Eva S. Goldfarb, PhD, Professor of Public Health, works in the field of sexuality education. Over the past twenty five years, she has developed and led sexuality education and sexual health programs with youth, parents, educators, and other professionals and has trained current and future school teachers across the country. In addition to Human Sexuality, Dr. Goldfarb teaches a course in Gender and Health and works with MPH students conducting their internships and community projects.

End of verbatim quote.

MPH is another faddish abbreviation: Master of Public Health. It does NOT mean that you have to know any medicine. In fact, it almost guarantees that you will never meet a patient face-to-face.

In the accepted public relations lingo, MPH courses teach “current health and wellness trends,” so the practitioners learn the scientific methods and best practices to let them help change health behaviours in a wide range of arenas, whatever that is supposed to mean.

To muddle the matter even more, the description of MPH degrees adds it is “a highly interdisciplinary degree.”

It includes a bit of health sciences, and the bit differs from school to school. Other than that, the degree concentrates on what its practitioners describe as critical health leadership, management, and administration skills. That includes designing and implementing public health programs; managing outbreaks; monitoring disease across populations as well as developing marketing campaigns.

What that has to do with teaching LGBTQ principles in elementary schools (don’t worry, kindergarten will follow soon) remains shrouded in a cloud of stinking mystery.

The other author, Lisa Lieberman, chairs the Public Health department at the Montclair State University, but the university’s website doesn’t go into much more detail about what she knows and how she learnt it.

What’s up, Doc?

Two Professors of Public Health, one of whom specialises in human sexuality (caution: no longer about how the bees do it, rather with graphic aids such as porn films, with role-playing not far behind). The other, it would seem, is her boss.

They have studied a number of reports, they say, and these reports all support their contention. How, pray? For example: “young children are, in fact, quite capable of understanding and discussing issues related to gender diversity, including gender expectations, gender nonconformity, and gender-based oppression.”

Kidding, right?

Absolutely not, they report, adding that “4-year-olds expressed an inclusive understanding of marriage and a social justice stance on LGBTQ rights.”

Ben Zeisloft, Pennsylvania Senior Campus Correspondent with Campus Reform, reports that the Montclair State University duo have declared they believe that “substantial evidence supports sex education beginning in elementary school, that is scaffolded and of longer duration, as well as LGBTQ-inclusive education across the school curriculum and a social justice approach to healthy sexuality.”

The researchers claim, according to Zeisloft’s report, that one study of the many they had read indicates that “young children are, in fact, quite capable of understanding and discussing issues related to gender diversity, including gender expectations, gender nonconformity, and gender-based oppression.”

What’s wrong with this picture?

If the two Montclair State University clowns are not just a bit too exuberant in their statements (this is a huge if, unfortunately), then the next question becomes critically important: how much of this gender drivel have kids learnt at school, and how much at home?

One would be pressed really hard to believe it’s the parents who feed their wide-eyed children this aggressive genderism.

That it’s the teachers is becoming more and more obvious.

It’s the teachers who have been brought up on the wildest nonsense of Marxist critical theories.

In this case, all in the name of making sure children lose sight of the most important parts of companionships, including sexual relationships. Who needs friendship, mutual respect, trust and other such old-fashioned rot? To the contrary, the quack who reaches one hundred on her/his list of genders will be expecting a Nobel Prize, and will call the committee all kinds of cancel culture names if s/he gets overlooked.

We’ve been living in too much comfort too long. Otherwise, we would have never permitted that teachers in schools we’re paying for teach our children such criminally dehumanising ideas.

We must NOT ignore it. Not only our lives, but our children’s and grandchildren’s, are at stake here.

The time to stop this crime is NOW.

New fad? Same old Marxism again

A leftist crowd of lazy bums has hijacked modern mainstream journalism decades ago. Pretending to be busy beavers, they’re coming up with all kinds of innovations, in an attempt to make their failed efforts more palatable.

The latest fad, dreaming in the background since the latter years of the 19th century: movement journalism.

That’s what they teach naïve kids at the Missouri School of Journalism, with enthusiastic help of the David W. Reynolds Journalism Institute. These institutions share space and ideology at 120 Neff Hall in Columbia. Their two other teammates include: Jonathan B. Murray Center for Documentary Journalism and David Novak Leadership Institute.

A minor aside: all journalism should be documented. Why create a new outfit to teach it?

Beg your pardon?

A whatnot (journalist he definitely isn’t) named Gabe Schneider spread himself quite extensively, to the tune of over 1,600 words, to explain the strange phenomenon of movement journalism.

His point of departure: Ida B. Wells and her reporting for the Memphis Free Speech in 1892 on lynchings across U.S. South.

It couldn’t be easy. The times were what they were. Lynchings, this cruel display of outright racism, as performed by the Ku-Klux-Klan, with eager support and encouragement provided by the U.S. Democratic Party, isn’t anything the U.S. should put proudly on display and not be ashamed of.

None of this justifies the nonsense called Project South, an innovative idea young Gabe Schneider goes ga-ga about.

The Project published a document in 2017, telling the world that a lady named Anna Simonton was speaking for it, and explaining what it is all about.

Herewith a verbatim quote from the opening of the 62 pages worth of drivel: “Project South is a movement building organization founded in 1986 to strengthen community organizing, develop accessible political education, and build people-centered infrastructure in the U.S. South. Based in Atlanta, Project South cultivates productive space for social movement leaders, organizations, and collaborations to build people power from the bottom up. Our work is informed by historical legacy and root cause analysis of our social and economic conditions. Project South recognizes the powerful role of media and communication in educating and activating our communities to work for racial, economic, and social justice and remains committed to developing movement-driven communications infrastructure in the region. Anna Simonton is the Movement Communications Fellow at Project South. She has worked as a journalist for eight years, from co-founding an alternative student newspaper at The Evergreen State College, to interning at The Nation magazine, to establishing a career as an independent researcher and reporter. She currently serves on the editorial board of Scalawag, a magazine of Southern politics and culture that has received wide acclaim.”

A few facts

Let’s open with Ms. Simonton’s Alma Mater, the Evergreen State College. It is a self-described “public liberal arts and sciences college in Olympia, Washington. Founded in 1967, it offers a non-traditional undergraduate curriculum in which students have the option to design their own study towards a degree or follow a pre-determined path of study.”

Ms. Simonton’ first employer, The Nation, describes itself as the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in the United States, covering progressive political and cultural news, opinion, and analysis.

Did you notice the word: “progressive”?

The Nation took over from William Lloyd Garrison’s The Liberator, an abolitionist newspaper. The Liberator closed its doors in 1865, after ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

That particular amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. Congress passed it on January 31, 1865, and the required 27 of the then-36 states ratified it on December 6, 1865. It was solemnly proclaimed on December 18 of that same year.

Project South appeared 152 years after that not-insignificant event. Is that progress or what?

And just to touch upon the Scalawag: the Encyclopedia Britannica defines it thus: Scalawag, after the American Civil War, a pejorative term for a white Southerner who supported the federal plan of Reconstruction or who joined with black freedmen and the so-called carpetbaggers in support of Republican Party policies.

Classic roots

So, now that we have the basics together, what is this “movement journalism” all about?

It is another expression of Marxism. The classic class-based “antagonistic contradiction” wasn’t working. Why not come up with race-based, and gender-based “antagonistic contradictions” then?

The history is about a century old.

It started with a group that would become known as the Frankfurt School (Frankfurter Schule). It was a school of social theory and critical philosophy, part of the Institute for Social Research (German: Institut für Sozialforschung), at Goethe University in Frankfurt. Founded in Germany’s Weimar Republic, during the European interwar period, the Frankfurt School brought together far-left intellectuals, academics and political dissidents who saw Germany and the rest of the world crumbling. They were convinced that the only way to fix matters would be to establish communism everywhere.

In this sense they were closer to Leon Trotsky and his call for permanent revolution happening worldwide than to Josif Stalin. The Soviet dictator felt Trotsky was becoming too popular among Western salon-communists, as these people would be described with a certain degree of derision. So, he had him killed.

Meanwhile, Adolf Hitler and his National Socialists, who had similar objectives to those Frankfurt School had been dreaming of, saw in them not only dangerous competition, but also a gang of Jewish egg-heads.

He didn’t round them up. He simply let them leave.

And the Americans would accept them.

It would take years before the Frankfurt School Marxists managed to take America’s education system over, but once they did, they went to work with gusto. One critical theory would follow another, starting with teaching education, moving on to culture (entertainment, as it is known in North America).

These Marxists figured out America’s soft spot: don’t bore us with economics, give us song and dance.

This seems to be the extent of Gabe Schneider’s education, too.

Nobody told him yet that democracy with an adjective is not democracy, freedom with an adjective is not freedom, and journalism with an adjective is not journalism.

So he prattles merrily, blissfully unaware, to stay just with journalism, that this trade is about reporting, and that to do it right is a 24-hour job seven days a week, 365 days a year (and 366 in a leap year).

And the worst part is that way too many take him seriously. They don’t know any better, unfortunately: that’s how and what they’ve been taught in the most progressive schools in the world.

Racists overwhelm Oxford University

Getting education, any education whatsoever, is a hangover from distant past, several British reformers say. The worst part: the hallowed Oxford academe seems to be in full agreement.

Joseph II, the Emperor of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, was delighted on Tuesday, July 16, 1782. He attended the premiere of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart’s opera (Singspiel), named Abduction from Seraglio (original title: Die Entführung aus dem Serail). After all, the Emperor did commission it.

But His Majesty had this to remark, much to Mozart’s displeasure bordering on disgust: “That is too fine for my ears – there are too many notes, dear Mozart.” (Scholars steeped in the elegant intricacies of the German language use this form: Zu schön für unsere Ohren, und gewaltig viel Noten, lieber Mozart! That leaves space for different interpretations, but that’s another issue.)

But: today’s educational modernisers would applaud His Majesty with gusto, if only they knew of his existence. Well, perhaps they would stop clapping upon learning that he was a Royal, but let’s leave this question to conjecture.

Writing notation is too white

Lessons on writing notation and how to conduct orchestras stink of colonialism and white supremacy, a few undergraduate students and teachers at the most venerable Oxford University said, and the school seems to be in agreement.

They describe musical notation as a “colonialist representational system.”

Classical repertoire taught at Oxford includes works by Mozart and Ludwig van Beethoven. That, some professors said, focuses too much on what they described as white European music from the slave period.

And they meant it.

There are quite a few problems with this. One of them is facts of history.

The trade in African slaves, not by white men but by Muslim Arabs who had been ruling Africa at the time, had nothing to do with western classical music notation. It is based on medieval liturgical music and Georgian chants.

Yes, Johann Sebastian Bach, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Ludwig van Beethoven emerged in the 17th and 18th centuries. But they had nothing to do with any slave trade.

So, Black Lives Matter, a racist organisation if there ever was one, found another approach: the classical musical notation started at the height of colonialism.

Playing the keyboard or conducting orchestras ended up in the same boat. The reason is tragically idiotic: the repertoire used in the process “structurally centres white European music.” And that, the activists insist, causes “students of colour great distress.”

Throw Mozart and Beethoven out, give us a “decolonized’ curriculum.”

That means musical diversity, whatever that is.

Besides, why not introduce such topics like signature pop culture events, including Dua Lipa’s Record Breaking Livestream” and ”Artists Demanding Trump Stop Using Their Songs” instead?

This is what happens when you give an inch to the fundamentalists.

Oxford University bid a symbolic farewell to what Black Lives Matter and the school in unison described the university’s colonialist past. Gone is the statue of Cecil Rhodes from the Oriel College campus.

Black Lives Matter described the Victorian-era diamond magnate and prime minister of the Cape Colony as the “father of apartheid” in South Africa.

Not to be left behind, Oxford’s All Souls College’s library no longer bears the name of Christopher Codrington, a Barbados-born 17th century colonial governor and slave-owner.

Not that far!

In an unexpected show of courage, the school refused to remove Codrington’s statue. He used to be an All Souls fellow and generous donor. It was his money that helped build the library in the first place.

In another scandal, Black Lives Matter stated, and Oxford faculty agreed, that “vast bulk of tutors for techniques are white men.”

And, while they are at it, the school is looking at a student’s proposal that no tutors should speak disparagingly to students about any element of the curriculum.

Meaning: how dare you criticize? Not only are the tutors banned from criticizing anything students love, they are not allowed to criticize anything other than white privilege.

Including hip hop and jazz on Oxford’s curriculum will provide “non-Eurocentric” topics of study.

In a scary case of self-flagellation, professors started asking whether the “structure of our curriculum supports white supremacy.” There should be a law about this, they suggested, adding another concern: an “almost all-white faculty” gives (how natural) “privilege to white musics.”

Here’s what they want to do: introduce “special topics” such as “Introduction to Sociocultural and Historical Studies.”

Who gives a hoot about Guillaume de Machaut, a French poet and composer of late medieval music, or Franz Peter Schubert, an Austrian composer of the late classical and early romantic eras?

Give us “African and African Diasporic Musics”, “Global Musics”, and “Popular Musics!”

Truth to be told, several faculty members had the gall to beg to differ. One, according to a British Telegraph newspaper story, went so far as to suggest that her/his (not identified) colleagues focussed on music from before 1900 “are often implicitly accused of being concerned exclusively with music that is ‘Western’ and ‘white’.”

No word yet on those particular teachers’ fates.

But if they are allowed to teach yet another hour, it would be a shock.

Race wars will do America in

It doesn’t pay to be poor if you’re white in Oakland, California. The city has announced its low-income families would be getting a what it calls “unconditional” $500 a month for a year and a half. Still, city parents did impose one condition: white families need not apply.

The official announcement is explicit about that: the project is only open to black, indigenous, and people of colour (BIPOC).

Mayor Libby Schaaf said the idea is to fight “systemic” racism.

Oakland authorities used what they describe as the city’s Equity Index. It showed that white households earn more than any other, on average. In comparison to the black community, white earnings are almost three times as much, the officials said.

Nobody checked those figures, and nobody bothered to ask whether this discrepancy can have other causes rather than racism.

Not to be outdone, the city of Evanston, Illinois decided to use community donations and revenue from a three-per-cent tax on recreational marijuana to offer reparations to black residents to compensate for past discrimination.

In numbers: Evanston, a city of about 73,000 people, just north of Chicago, will spend $10 million during the next decade to achieve a murkily defined racial equity. The first $400,000 will go towards helping black residents with housing.

The lone city alderman who voted against the plan, didn’t do so because she didn’t like the idea of reparations. According to Cicely Fleming, the program was too paternalistic. It assumed black people are unable to support themselves financially.

Considering President Joe Biden has no issues with spending billions the country does not have to repair an artificial issue, Evanston must have endeared itself to the old guy.

What the hell is the deal?

Elementary, my dear Watsons. Marxists found out (what took them so long?) that the original idea of so-called antagonistic contradiction based on classes does not work. Yet, the concept was one of the cornerstones of their ideology.

The other cornerstone has been known as the absolute and relative impoverishment of the proletariat. It turned out that it didn’t work, either.

A number of complex reasons for both failures. The main reason, though, was the simplest of them all. Concepts made up in the insupportably peaceful and dull air of the British Museum, where Karl Marx wrote most of his seminal work, Das Kapital, just don’t match what’s going on outside, in the fresh air of reality.

But Marxism is based on hatred. That is its major cornerstone. It can’t proceed without it. Conditio sine qua non, to put it scientifically.

The easiest hatred to replace Marx’s original concepts is based on race.

Races are indisputable. Your skin is either white, or black, or red, or brown, or whatever else. As former pop star Michael Jackson’s attempts to bleach his skin showed, science hadn’t got far enough yet to succeed.

The easiest next step: distort history. Marx got away with it. Why not today’s ideologues?

Except, facts seem to interfere with the ideologues’ new maxims.

Centuries ago, Muslim Arabs in Africa enslaved the original black population in countries they ruled.

Next thing they did, they sold many of them to merchants who would take them all the way across the Big Pond.

In a historically unusually brief time, America would abolish slavery. It would cost her a major war, but end it she did.

Then came the scandal of Liberia, something today’s Marxists prefer to remain silent about.

The American Colonization Society bought the West African area for freed U.S. slaves in 1821. About 10,000 freed slaves used the opportunity to return to their native continent. And, once they did, they declared the locals their slaves.

It would take the locals till 1989 to realize something was wrong, and express their disagreement in a violent manner, thus ending the master-slave arrangement the former new arrivals had imposed on them.

Yes, expressions of racism continued in the U.S. even after slavery had been abolished, but the country’s modern history shows that its society would develop into one that would make racism and segregation dirty words.

But here comes the irony to end all ironies. In the beginning, the struggle against racism was about all races being equal. Now, people from those same circles declare that no, races do differ. And, on top of it all, white skin means that people thus afflicted enjoy what is now known as white privilege.

Perfect nonsense, of course. Just look at the so-called affirmative action that would, starting officially in the early 1960s under the guise of fighting racism, introduce another form of it. Black people would be getting all kinds of advantages in getting into halls of higher learning, without much consideration given to the question whether they qualify academically. That same approach would hold for hiring practices in the federal governments, both in the U.S. and in Canada. And any company doing business with the respective governments had to adhere to these regulations, too.

Some called it reversed racism. Wrong: it is racism, pure and simple.

Great divide

Admitting that there exist different races is tantamount to racism. This denial of basic truth is one part of the idiocy that has been dividing the world.

Claiming that one race is better than all of the other races combined is racism.

But claiming that one race is better off than all of the others just because of its skin colour is yet another sign of moronism.

It is reaching insurmountable levels of outright stupidity.

University graduation ceremonies split into groups by race. White people directing black stories as well as Asian or Latinx) equals systemic whitewashing.

One such example: American HBO network produced a documentary on famous golfer Tiger Woods. Several segments covering Mr. Woods’s personal life bordered on uncomplimentary. The battle cry of the enraged black racists: two men who didn’t know “what it is like to live life in a black man’s skin” directed it.

Shockingly, a number of white-skinned would-be intellectuals formed a self-flagellation chorus. Whether they hope that this would make their homes safe when hordes of thugs start demolishing white neighbourhoods is not known.

History teaches us that revolutions eat their own children with shocking alacrity.

History teaches us, too, that we can’t beat stupidity, but we mustn’t stop trying.

Liberté, égalité, fraternité? You’re kidding, right? RIGHT?

Nobody knows whether it’s hypocrisy or idiocy or both: Columbia University has offered its students six graduation ceremonies based on identity politics.

The announcement says, with an easily discernible tinge of pride, that its ceremonies this year (and forever more) will be based on race “and other aspects of how they (meaning: the graduating students) identify.” That approach, the university adds, will celebrate a variety of attributes, such as low-income/first-generation collegiate students or sexual orientation.

To make sure all understand what they mean, Columbia University poohbahs added what they call a “Lavender” event, too. That, they said, is to help the “LGBTIAQ+ community” (whatever THAT is supposed to mean) enjoy the celebrations to the fullest extent.

Those of what Columbia University describes as “first generation and/or low income community” will have their own celebrations (abbreviated as FLI Graduation), too.

You will have your own graduation if you’re a native (again, whatever THAT means), or an Asian, black or, even, Latinx.

Latinx? Huh? Quite a few Americans of Latin (meaning: South American) descent look askance at the description, not knowing that the morons who rule today’s politically correct world have heard that, in Spanish (or Portuguese) you can recognize the gender of the persons you’re mentioning by the ending of their names. A Latino is a guy, a Latina is a girl. But what if you don’t want to reveal who you are? Or, heavens or whatever else is acceptable forbid, what if you have decided to belong to any of the other genders now available?

Other expressions for the same thing met with similar fate: no longer Chicanos or Chicanas. Chicanx it will be.

These changes include all of Columbia University schools, such as Columbia College, Columbia Engineering, the School of General Studies, and Barnard College.

Why study hard? Be active!

The project extends further: the major list of awards consists of so-called Multicultural Affairs Graduation Cords. They will go to students, in verbatim quotation, “who have demonstrated an outstanding commitment to inclusion, global diversity, social justice and multiculturalism.”

The usual awards for academic achievement are listed, too. In all modesty, however, so they are quite easy to overlook.

And Columbia University has gone so far as to make sure individual ceremonies do not overlap. One student can still attend all of the individual ceremonies.

Clairvoyant as the Columbia University happens to be, they anticipate that Covid with all its restrictions will be with us still by the end of April. So, all ceremonies will happen online, but the school will provide students, their families, and their guests with options how to get together. Of course, again, strictly divided into groups along their ceremonial lines.

Virginia Tech went a few steps further a couple of years ago, offering their students ten (TEN!) different graduations (such as recovering addicts, veterans, members of the LGBTQ+ community, indigenous Americans, Muslims, or a few other identity options). How it happened, nobody knows, but Virginia Tech’s scheduling was off the rails somewhat and several of the graduations did, in fact, overlap.

Columbia University is a private school, it can do whatever it pleases. One minor issue of major proportions, though: it’s one of those famed Ivy League schools. Meaning that a Columbia University degree is considered more valuable than most similar degrees. For a school like that to show such a cavalier and arrogant attitude towards the legendary motto of Liberté, égalité, fraternité (liberty, equality and brotherhood) is a sign of frightful moral decay and professional ineptitude.

The Virginia Tech case is even worse: that school is a public land-grant research university. Why should taxpayers be paying for this outright denial of what the wise rules of our era are all about?

Humanity sentenced to rot

This is a trend that threatens humanity all over the world. It is about dividing societies into small segments that hate one another to such a degree they won’t even notice that their common community is being destroyed beyond repair.

Civilisations before us knew this rule well. Historians claim that Philip II of Macedon coined it first. In Ancient Greek it read diaírei kài basíleue, meaning “divide and rule.”

Ancient Romans were acquainted with the concept quite thoroughly, also. They called it (in Latin) divide et impera. The meaning was the same as in Ancient Greek.

Will we ever learn?

Judging by what our so-called most-advanced institutions of higher learning offer their students, and what our basic educational curricula omit because someone might feel offended, we won’t.

Is it an accident?

Absolutely not.

A rocket man’s tale

The German military during the Nazi times, Wehrmacht, used to call it Stalin’s organ (Stalinorgel). The Soviet Army called it Guards Mortar (гвардейские миномёты). These weapons would become popular under their nickname Katyusha (Russian diminutive for Catherine).

And yet, its inventor would be executed by Soviet dictator Josif Stalin’s secret police even before the war began. His name was Georgy Erikhovich Langemak (Russian: Георгий Эрихович Лангемак).

It was Langemak, a Russian of Swiss-German origin, who would invent the jet mortars. They were first used at the Orsha junction station on July 14, 1941, wreaking havoc and causing panic within the German units that had got there.

Orsha is a city in Belarus in the Vitebsk Region, on the fork of the Dnieper and Arshytsa rivers.

According to the Wehrmacht survivors of the attack, a real firestorm fell on the railway junction. The battery of jet mortars struck not with simple shells, but with munition filled with incendiary mixture. German soldiers and officers felt the explosions burnt the ground beneath their feet.

The Katyushas would become a mystery wrapped in an enigma for the Nazis. They never knew when or where these weapons would strike: the Katyusha units’ main mode of operation (a.k.a. MOD) was to move to combat positions in full secrecy, getting there only in cloudy weather or at night.

Not only that: to maintain this secrecy, every machine was mined. Whenever there was any danger of the Wehrmacht even seeing it, it had to be blown up.

This tragic rule caused the death of the first operational unit’s crew, including its commander.

A snitch’s claim to fame

What happened was this: an Andrei Grigorievich Kostikov wrote a letter to then Commissar (boss) of Soviet state security Nikolai Ivanovich Yezhov, charging that Langemak, as well as his colleagues, Valentin Petrovich Glushko, Sergei Pavlovich Korolev and Ivan Terentievich Kleymyonov, have been involved in wrecking, willful sabotage and, perhaps, high treason, too.

All of these people would be sentenced as enemies of the people. Korolev and Glushko would survive, while Kleymyonov would be shot on Monday, Jan. 10, 1938, and Langemak one day later.

The snitch would replace Langemak as the head of the department creating the killing machines. By the time he got there, the Katyushas had their field tests behind them, and the only step was to start their mass production.

The snitch Kostikov would raise in the military ranks all the way to Major-General, and in the ranks of science he would become a corresponding member of the Soviet Academy of Sciences.

Kostikov would die in his bed, aged 61, with a record of at least a dozen deaths reliably attributable to his correspondence with the ever-changing Soviet state security bosses. His name would be linked to the inventions of others until former Soviet archives opened their gates to researches.

The twists

Langemak and Kleymyonov were nominated for highest government awards shortly before Kostikov reported them as wreckers and enemies of the people in 1937. They were arrested almost immediately after the snitch’s report reached the Commissar’s desk.

By the following January, they were both dead.

Their colleagues, Glushko and Korolev, were sent to the GULAG concentration camps. Sitting at special labs and workshops (a.k.a. шарка, see The Gulag Archipelago, or Архипелаг ГУЛАГ in Russian, by Alexander Isayevich Solzhenitsyn, for more details), they continued to work on their inventions.

Glushko would end up developing engines for Soviet missiles, while Korolev was the author of the huge ballistic missiles themselves. The vehicles that would deliver the first satellite (Sputnik, Спутник in Russian) into orbit in 1957, and the first human being into space (Yuri Alexeievich Gagarin) in 1961, were built by Korolev and ran on Glushko’s engines.

A rocket-building linguist

Langemak himself never thought of creating weapons. He was into linguistics big time: an expert in ancient Greek and Latin, he would also master the Japanese language.

Except, revolutionary times being what they were (and are), Langemak was drafted into what then used to be Red Army, sent to its technical school and, upon successful graduation, ordered to join the research institute that concerned itself with what would become rocketry.

He was sentenced to die based on one (ONE!) interrogation record and one (ONE!) report by a snitch.

Langemak’s papers and books have been removed from distribution, and scientists have learnt only now where their research could have been today had Langemak lived.

As one of them put it, trips to the Moon could have been a matter of travel bureau packages, and Jupiter could have been the main natural gas supplier to earthlings, by now.

Why this story now and here?

Simple: with all the cancel culture and woke drivel that is permeating our awareness these days, instead of real knowledge that is still available to us, we are quickly getting to where the former Soviet Union used to be.

Or do you think that people proudly snitching on their next-door neighbours because their grandparents visited for Christmas are any different from Major-General Andrei Grigorievich Kostikov causing the deaths of so many inventors, most of them more talented than he could ever dream of being?

If you do, you have wasted your time reading this.

Scary lawyers or what?

A number of Harvard University Law School students, teachers and some alumni are demanding that this august body of an Ivy League school never again hire or admit anyone whose views coincide with the opinions held or shared by American President Donald J. Trump. And should anyone of such horrible views be found anywhere on campus, they should be fired instantly.

Have they all gone crazy or is it a logical outcome of a series of events that have happened a few decades ago?

The latter answer is correct. And so is the former one.

Affirmative action gave us a former college student who had first successfully posed as a foreigner so long as it meant he would be receiving financial and other benefits. That same affirmative action would get this student into Harvard University Law School. He would become American President a few years later.

His name: Barrack Hussein Obama.

If that wasn’t scary enough then, the aftermath is even scarier.

Affirmative action has been officially defined as a set of policies and practices within a government or organization seeking to increase the representation of particular groups based on their gender, race, sexuality, creed or nationality in areas in which they are underrepresented such as education and employment.

Most frequently, it has meant that people were advancing in their lives and careers because of the colour of their skin.

Some used to call it reverse racism. It’s nothing of the kind. This is pure systemic (and systematic) racism.

The explanation that those poor blacks would have no other chance to get into better schools without affirmative action doesn’t hold water. The examples of brilliant scientists of black skin colour who have made it all the way to the top of academic achievement are way too numerous to mention.

How it started

The ideas of equality have been prevalent in America way longer than today’s activists would be willing to admit. And the concept of affirmative action has existed in America since the 19th century. It would take then-President John F. Kennedy’s Executive Order 10925 to formalize it in 1961. Later, such orders developed the system of implementation, expanding it into the sphere of education, as well.

As the policies progressed, some people would object, saying that even if those groups selected for preferential treatment had been treated shabbily earlier, there can be no quick fixes. People admitted to institutions of higher learning should know the basics before getting into academic ranks, and it takes time to change elementary education so that the university entrants can learn their chosen sciences thoroughly.

Of course, those who had introduced affirmative action would hear none of that. Those who object were subjected to all kinds of labelling. It would later develop into all sorts of official politically correct policies, and all that combined would culminate, for the time being, at least, in all kinds of cancel culture and wokeness (another illiterate idiocy, this one defined as perceived awareness of issues that concern social and racial justice).

With the lower levels of new entrants’ abilities came a logical consequence: their educational level upon university graduation would often equal (or fall behind) the demands for high school finals. The number of stories of universities forced to teach their students the art of writing simple, basic papers, and never mind such basic grammar as the knowledge of spelling, have been rampant the last few decades.

So, no wonder that these people are not only unable to understand some pretty basic issues of standard science of economics, but they also hate anyone who has the gall not only to know these issues but to implement them, as well.

Since their ability to grasp complex issues is limited beyond any comprehension, the only way they know how to debate those who know more is to label them. They use all kinds of derogatory descriptions, often not even knowing what those words really mean.

And, once they’ve labelled them, comes the action: rid us of them all.

Right? Wrong?

Some call these new inquisitors’ actions a return to McCarthyism.

Well, returning one sort labelling using another sort of labelling doesn’t solve anything.

And, besides, to use McCarthyism as a swear word is perfectly wrong.

Yes, Sen. Joseph McCarthy did attack a number of people within the American establishment. But no, his attacks were not indiscriminate.

The U.S. counter-intelligence managed to get into Soviet espionage communications traffic. The so-called Venona Decrypt used to be a closely-guarded secret, but the names Sen. McCarthy scrutinised did come as result of this breach.

Of course, those who would attack Sen. McCarthy had no idea. And many of their successors still can’t accept that he was right, even after the former Soviet intelligence archives (both KGB and GRU) opened their doors, confirming that Sen. McCarthy’s probes were correct.

Still, such deep (and naïve) thinkers as Ed Murrow of the CBS, and, later on, Walter Cronkite of that same CBS, or Daniel Schorr of the PBS, could and should have known that the Soviet Union was an implacable enemy of all things free and democratic.

We are experiencing the results of their ignorance now. People with academic degrees whose knowledge is sadly lacking, but whose devotion to anti-human ideology is overwhelming. People who got into prestigious schools because of the overwhelming lack of respect for real human values. People who demand respect for themselves and have no respect for others.

Bluntly: people keen on dismantling the system that got them all the privileges they have been enjoying, not realising that all revolutions eat their children, and their turn will come next.

Too sad.