Category Archives: racism

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.

Documented racism? No, just sheer demagoguery

A simple and pretty straightforward picture has been making the rounds of social media lately: it shows a strange abyss in human understanding of racism.

To be more precise: it lists activities where demanding that a person produce an identification document, complete with a photograph, has been viewed as non-racist, comparing it to a list of activities when a similar demand is racist beyond any available expression of outrage.

The author in the social media has preferred to remain anonymous, so, with apologies into the unknown, here it comes.

First, what is non-racist?

Demanding a photo ID when you:

  • Purchase alcohol.
  • Purchase cigarettes (and, hopefully, other tobacco products, too).
  • Open a bank account.
  • Apply for food stamps.
  • Apply for welfare.
  • Apply for Medicaid (judging by these entries, the list, obviously, comes from the Excited States, but the same rules hold true for the Maple Leaf country).
  • Apply for Social Security.
  • Apply for a job.
  • Apply for unemployment.
  • Rent a house.
  • Buy a house.
  • Apply for a mortgage.
  • Drive a car.
  • Rent a car.
  • Buy a car.
  • Get on an airplane.
  • Get married.
  • Purchase a gun.
  • Adopt a pet.
  • Rent a hotel room.
  • Apply for a hunting licence.
  • Apply for a fishing licence.
  • Buy a cell phone.
  • Visit a casino.

A pretty comprehensive list, isn’t it?

Will the list of activities that call racist the demand for photo identification be as comprehensive?

Indeed, it is:

  • Voting.

Anything else?


Any explanation?

A crazy number of them, none of them valid.

A valid driver’s licence lists the driver’s name and address. Granted, we all usually look like seasoned criminals in the photos attached to our driver’s licences. It takes only a bit of basic imagination to see whether the person using the licence is the same as the person recorded in the licence.

Most North Americans get around driving cars. If they have no driver’s licence, what’s the assumption?

Either they drive a stolen car, or they never got a licence (driving without one is illegal), or their licence has been suspended for any of the many legal reasons we lose our driving licences.

The question of proving who you are before you’re allowed to cast a ballot has become very serious in the aftermath of last year’s presidential elections in the U.S.

It took almost half a year before one state agreed it had tens of thousands of dead people on its voting rolls. It would remove them before next elections come around. Some call it victory of common sense. That those poor dead souls should have never been on those tolls to begin with has somehow escaped the attention of those who now praise Pennsylvania for her courage.

It took about the same time for other states to declare they would not be removing people who had moved. Here, officials left it so beautifully open an eighteen-wheeler would have no difficulty getting through: there’s a world of difference between people moving out of state and people moving from one apartment to another in the same building.

Forget the allegations of voting machines’ software manipulation. Getting an out-of-state person vote several times in different voting stations of that same voting jurisdiction is much easier and, we can presume, cheaper.

Just imagine the scene: hi, I’m Freddy (an apologetic nod towards all Freddies who happen to live just round the corner from here) So-and-so, I live just round the corner from here, and I’ve come to vote.

Can you show us an ID?

How dare you?

Ooops, sorry. Here’s your ballot, there’s your booth.

End of scene.

Democracy is defined as a set of obligations and rights. You can’t have rights before you’ve met your obligations.

We seem to have thrown the basic logic of democracy out of the window.

That’s going to cost us. In fact, it’s costing us now already.

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.

Gorby at 90: still a failure

Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty have noticed that Mikhail Sergeievich Gorbachev turned 90 this March.

So, they created a glorifying video. Not to be outdone, the BBC applauded the former Soviet communist leader, too.

So far as they all are concerned, Gorbachev was the statesman who ended the Cold War.

So far as most Russians are concerned, Gorbachev is the failed Communist who ruined their country.

The Western propagandists’ view is not supported by as many facts as the Russian public’s is.

Reality speaks louder than ideology

A few facts to show that Gorbachev’s role in everything that had happened was limited, to put it very mildly.

Lech Wałęsa, an electrician at Poland’s Lenin Shipyards in Gdańsk (Stocznia Lenina, now known as Gdańsk Shipyard), started organizing an Independent Self-Governing Trade Union Solidarity (Niezależny Samorządny Związek Zawodowy Solidarność) in August 1980.

Gorbachev was Soviet Communist party secretary responsible for agriculture at the time. Not that his stewardship did Soviet agriculture much good.

He approached then-chief of the KGB state security agency, Yuri Vladimirovich Andropov, asking him to suggest at the highest body, a.k.a. Politburo (political bureau) that the Soviet Army invade Poland and put a stop to such incendiary ideas as having independent trade unions once and for all.

Unlike Gorbachev, Andropov was aware of the real situation in Poland. He also knew that then-American president, Ronald Reagan, wrote to then-Soviet chief, Leonid Iliych Brezhnev, telling him that the U.S. would view any Soviet attack against Poland as an attack against the United States.

Andropov, files de-classified since then show, told Gorbachev to mind his own business.

Meanwhile, Andropov’s service helped Polish communists in their subversive effort to install a general as the country’s new leader, hoping that the new head of state, Wojciech Witold Jaruzelski, will do the dirty deed for them.

Jaruzelski, in turn, declared martial law in Poland, thus helping Solidarity multiply its membership in protest.

Wałęsa won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1983, to honour his efforts.

And Poland walked away from communism, making Jaruzelski its last communist leader.

Jaruzelski’s arrival on the scene, by the way, showed the perfect ignorance of then-Prime Minister of Canada, one Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Martial law, he pronounced, was the best solution for the Poles. It quite obviously prevented a Soviet invasion, was his geopolitical explanation.

Clearly, Trudeau Sr. was out of the loop: the Soviets were aware that an invasion would doom them, and all their works, right then and there.

Gorbachev’s role in the downfall of communism was marginal.

Political wisdom at the time held that the Soviet Union would fall apart as soon as its population hears at least a part of the truth surrounding it.

Gorbachev started something known as glasnost and perestroika (гласность and перестройка, meaning openness and restructuring).

Once the people of the various Soviet republics began learning the truth about their countries’ history, they realized why they had enough of it.

Gorbachev wasn’t even smart enough to heed his friend and former foreign minister Eduard Ambrosiyevich Shevardnadze’s warnings about a potential coup d’état, organized by communist hardliners. Shevardnadze, a former KGB general, knew much better than Gorbachev what was going on.

It would take Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin to suppress the communist putsch, take over the leadership role and, eventually, sign off on the deal that would send the entire Soviet Union deal up in flames.

But, the pro-Gorbachev enthusiasts at RFE/RL and the BBC say, Mikhail Sergeievich Gorbachev did help finish the so-called Cold War, didn’t he?

If they did their basic homework, they would have known that this is a fallacy, too.

A Washington Post correspondent in Moscow at the time saw a huge miners’ strike going on in Siberia. He decided to go and have a closer look. And while he had the miners’ undivided attention, he asked who, in their minds, was the greatest leader who had helped change the world for the better.

Why, Mikhail Sergeievich Gorbachev, was the answer he expected to hear.

Ronald Reagan was the answer he heard.

What about Gorbachev? he asked.

Ah, yet another failed commie poohbah, most of the miners told him.

Obviously, they knew more and better than an American east coast egg-head.

Still: so what about the Cold War?

Gorbachev allowed the countries of the former Warsaw Pact and the so-called Council for Mutual Economic Co-operation leave the by then hugely artificial communist orbit because he couldn’t afford to even try to prevent it.

And the same goes for his dealings with the U.S.

Basically, he got his Nobel Peace Prize in 1990 for trying to become a realist.

Chief terrorist Yasser Arafat won that same prize in 1994, together with Israeli politicians Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin, for achieving peace in the Middle East that does not exist even today. Former U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama received it in 2009 after just a few weeks in office. He got it for perfectly nothing. Former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore got it in 2007 for a huge amount of hot air on behalf of climate change panic.

To sum up: since the mid-1980s, when the Nobel Peace Prize honoured Lech Wałęsa’s efforts to dismantle communism, the award has meant less and less with each passing year. It has become a tool for ideological games played by members of Norway’s parliament, a.k.a. Storting.

Need an example? How about the nomination for an openly racist group, Black Lives Matter, submitted for this year’s consideration?

Still: why the hoopla about Gorbachev?

Yes, reaching such a ripe age is cause for occasional remark. But for soliciting pearls of wisdom from a politician who had failed in everything he touched?

One of Gorbachev’s answers is a revelation: he calls for unfettered globalism, starting with Covid-19, and going on to embrace the feudalistic socialism of the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset, moving on to overpopulation with its alleged links to climate change (hey, Bill and Melinda Gates, are you listening?), culminating with questions about nations (a hint: jó napot kívánok, Soros György Úr and your Open Societies).

Mikhail Sergeievich Gorbachev used to be a communist who managed to climb all the way to the communist top.

Mikhail Sergeievich Gorbachev now denies ever being a communist: he’s always been a social democrat, he claims.

Either way, he’s always managed to choose the losing side.

Let’s hope Mikhail Sergeievich Gorbachev remains faithful to this habit and the things he is proposing today will fail again.

Adjust or else, the Danes tell the migrants

Denmark is stopping the growth of immigrant ghettoes with all its might. It has banned immigrant population within any given neighbourhood to 30 per cent and ruled that existing Danish laws prevail all over the place.

A lot has changed in the Kingdom (Queendom would be better: Her Majesty Queen Margrethe II is the country’s head) of Denmark since Prince Hamlet’s days.

William Shakespeare’s anti-hero used to say there was something rotten in the country, and he couldn’t decide what to do, either: to be or not to be?

Originally it looked as if the Danes would solve the troubling question of existing ghettoes by just renaming them into neighbourhoods. Except, that kind of move, linguistically brilliant as it could be, wouldn’t change a thing.

As it is, these neighbourhoods have a few characteristics in common: unemployment rate has climbed over 40 per cent, more than 60 per cent of 39- to 59-year-olds living there haven’t ever tried upper secondary education, crime rates are three times the national average, and poverty rules: gross incomes in those neighbourhoods hardly reach 45 per cent of what the rest of the region enjoys.

Since the new law banned the expression “ghetto” from official vocabulary, it seemed that the Danes would satisfy themselves with the typically politically correct approach.

But they wouldn’t. The Danish law sets out to limit the number of what it calls “non-Western” residents in these neighbourhoods to no more than 30 per cent of the population. The government will just stop building houses for them. That would cap the number of council homes in such neighbourhoods at 40 per cent.

According to most recent census results, there are about 5.8 million people living in Denmark. Some 370,000 residents are of “non-Western” origins.

While the “non-Western” description is as politically correct as an expression can get, the Danes seem to be trying to avoid using combinations such as “illegal immigrants.” If they allowed that expression to stand, they would have to send most of these people whence they had come.

Tough life

Life in what used to be known as ghetto in Denmark wasn’t easy to begin with: any misdemeanour carries double the legal penalty people would face anywhere else. Day care for children over one year of age is mandatory, and those who don’t obey will have their family allowances not only cut, but withdrawn altogether.

Those who object to Denmark’s recent moves are livid about the different treatment of ghetto inhabitants in the first place. This will make the poor souls feel excluded and persecuted. And, now comes the real politically correct nuclear bomb: it’s racist.

Not so, say the Danes. Anyone who doesn’t like the special harsh treatment can get out of it with ease: just get out of there, start supporting yourself by honest work rather than by creating new no-go zones.

Shock elsewhere

The British, who don’t know how to stop the growing streams of illegal immigrants trying to get through the choppy waters of the Channel, are frightfully unhappy.

Some would have loved to introduce the Danish model, but the new industry, a.k.a. immigrant support groups, would cost them billions in litigation. The expression known as “fair chance” has come from Britain, after all.

The French have seen an unusual change in newly born boys’ names: almost three quarters are Muhamads, or variations thereof. La République Française has come up with a new bill, known as “anti-separatist.” It’s all about online hate speech and foreign funding for religious groups on French soil. It’s supposed to “reinforce republican principles.”

Members of the French National Assembly lower chamber have approved it. Now it’s the senators’ turn. It seems it’s going to pass, much to the chagrin to sundry Muslim leaders. They say the bill is anti-Islam, a charge the government denies with vigour.

Still, many say it may be a good first step, but the Danes were much more practical about it.

And, of course, many others chastise these governments for trying to defend their own nations, thus, by the way, following President Donald J. Trump’s footsteps.

The Danes say the idea is to get rid of parallel societies. The fewer maladjusted (and asocial) members of one ethnic group in a neighbourhood, the more probable it is they will integrate with those from other backgrounds among whom they live. If they see that doing so would improve their lots, the probability can change into certainty.

It won’t happen overnight, but happen it will.

Political correctness be damned.

Hamlet had it all wrong.

Non-whites need not apply?

A patient at the Saint-Eustache Hospital in Montreal is a clinical moron who just can’t stand getting care from people whose skin is other than pure white.

The hospital, in perfect desperation, starts looking for nursing help that would meet that perfectly crazy requirement. Logically, they feel they’ve got to publish a “help wanted” ad, informing the world of their somewhat extraordinary need.

Editors at one of the city’s major (French-speaking) newspapers, La Presse, see the ad and find it interesting enough to assign the story to one of the paper’s reporters. Philippe Teisceira-Lessard somehow obtains copies of e-mails exchanged within the hospital’s human resources department. The story is explosive enough to warrant major headlines.

In fact, it is explosive enough to warrant heated debates within Québéc’s parliament, a.k.a. National Assembly (the Québécois view themselves as a separate nation from the rest of Canada).

Québéc National Assembly Member Jennifer Maccarone, representing the electoral district of Westmount-Saint-Louis as a member of the Québéc Liberal Party, was very indignant: The posting, she said, is “openly racist.”

“We need more than an investigation – we need action,” she added. “We would never see a posting for a black person or an indigenous person. This is openly racist.”

Benoit Charette wouldn’t go that far. In any case, Charette, has stopped somewhat short of calling the action racist.

“What we suspect now is that it is clearly a lack of training at the human resources level,” Charette said.

Charette represents Deux-Montagnes, originally for the Parti Québécois, but now serves the Coalition Avenir Québéc, and is La Belle Province’s Minister of Sustainable Development and Environment. He is also responsible for fighting racism.

Of course, local administrators are trying to remove the egg plastered all over their faces.

Rosemonde Landry, head of the Laurentians public health agency, told La Presse that “This situation is totally unacceptable in our eyes. That is evident. We have immediately opened an internal investigation.”

The patient has what Landry described as cognitive issues. That is why s/he becomes agitated in the presence of people of colour. The La Presse story does not hint in any detail at the patient’s gender, perhaps as there exist so many of them these days.

This, Landry said, this does not excuse the job posting.

But, an official news release assured all and sundry that an investigation by the regional health authority into the job listing is currently underway, proceeding full speed. Whose heads will roll is hard to predict. Yet.

Could this be the cause?

In only a seemingly unrelated item, an Anti-Defamation League (ADL) newest report says that there has been a major increase in white supremacist and anti-LGBTQ propaganda last year, hitting a record level.

Last year, ADL registered what it called a record number of such incidents: 5,125. That, ADL said, was twice as many as in 2019.

The only state where nothing of the kind happened, ADL said, was Hawaii.

According to ADL, this propaganda features veiled white supremacist language with a patriotic slant. It targets minority groups such as Jews, blacks, Muslims, non-white immigrants, and the LGBTQ community.

ADL focused most of its anger upon messages like “Antifa is a Jewish communist militia,” “Black Crimes Matter” and “Reject White Guilt.”

The ADL, of course, must have forgotten what was happening in the U.S. throughout most of last year.

And, to get back full circle to Montreal’s Saint-Eustache Hospital: what were the poor human resources employees supposed to do? Refuse normal treatment to someone just because s/he is mentally sick?

After the Second World War, many Jewish physicians were seen tending to their former Nazi SS torturers, doing their best to bring them back to health. Granted, quite often those SS thugs, once recuperated, would be sentenced to hang by their necks until they died, but still: those physicians did not forget their Hippocratic Oath.

While the politically correct crowd in Québéc (and elsewhere, too, all over the world) is trying to outscore their opposition with would-be political points, one thing has been missing in all of this.

Common sense.

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.

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.

First, they burnt books. Then, they burnt people. Are we coming back full circle?

How dare you use your own head to think? Out with you (a number of labels follows).

That’s called “cancel culture,” and it has been spreading all over the world like the worst form of cancer. Yes, cancer: it’s going to kill us all. It has become norm at our establishments of higher learning. Graduates, trained not to know the meaning of the word “tolerance” will gradually fill all kinds of positions of authority.

Can you imagine any of them having time to listen to (and hear) opinions that differ from theirs? Can you imagine them tolerating difference?

Gone are the centuries of universities guided by the motto “whatsoever is true” (quaecumque sunt vera in Latin), or students asking their teachers to “teach them whatsoever is true” (still in good old academic Latin: quaecumque vera doce me).

Intolerance toward dissent is only just beginning all over the place in general, and in academic circles in particular.

Eric Kaufmann, Professor of Politics at Birkbeck College, University of London; Research Fellow, Centre for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology, has just published a study named Academic Freedom in Crisis: Punishment, Political Discrimination, and Self-Censorship. Its executive summary consists of 16 pages of shocking points, its full text includes 195 pages of shocking facts.

People of what is now known as conservative points of view have been complaining that they and their political viewpoints face disproportionate levels of ideologically-motivated censorship.

Professor Kaufmann’s paper proves with undisputable facts that this is precisely what’s been going on the last few decades. And, reality shows that it has culminated in the most recent couple of years so as to become unbearable, bordering on the criminal.

The so-called “hard authoritarianism” includes such relatively new expressions as no-platforming, social media brigading, ‘open’ letters, dismissal campaigns, and formal complaints. These developments have been comparatively rare so far. But, Professor Kaufmann’s paper shows, there hasn’t been much of a push-back. This shows that the militant cancel-culture activists have been getting their way too often.

The other method, a.k.a. “soft authoritarianism,” includes punishing non-conformists by limiting their ability to publish, win grants for their work, be promoted or retain current positions. That, Professor Kaufmann’s paper proves with numbers, provides an added burden (and incentive to keep quiet about their beliefs) to conservative academics.

This one has been baring its teeth way too often in recent years. That it brings the vaunted academic impartiality, absence of bias, disinterestedness and detachment into blatant disrepute matters not to the “soft authoritarianism” practitioners. They are promoting loftier goals than just simple and boring knowledge. They are promoting what American economist Martin Armstrong calls feudalistic socialism. Who cares that feudalism is based on serfdom, and who cares that serfdom is just one step above slavery?

Definitely not the cancel-culture promoters in academia. That is, if they even know about it.

Different matters

It’s one thing when a physician at a teaching hospital has built her or his reputation on curing disease A using medication (or approach) B, and all students must accept it as gospel, lest they don’t qualify. Granted, this can turn out to be an extremely dangerous situation, as Scottish physician Dr. Malcolm Kendrick described is his brilliant page-turner of a book, Doctoring Data.

Such an expert will have terrible time accepting (and admitting) that times have changed and that either her/his theory has been wrong all along, or that times have changed and new research reveals new treatments. And if that expert’s opinion comes with vast support provided by, for example, pharmaceutical industry, and said expert still has a mortgage to pay off, her/his resistance will become somewhat understandable. Not acceptable, but understandable.

It becomes an altogether another matter when about 40 per cent academics in the U.S., Canada and Great Britain openly admit that they wouldn’t hire a former President Donald J. Trump supporter, even if her/his academic credentials were impeccable.

The British have one more criterion: support your country’s departure from the European Union (a.k.a. Brexit), and in one-third of hiring decisions the ruling will go against you.

And, should you hold a biological-based view of sex, that is, should you be viewed as a so-called gender-critical feminist, your academic future is gone.

The fear is overwhelming: only 28 per cent of American and Canadian academics agreed they would not mind sharing a lunch table with someone who believed trans-women should not have access to women’s shelters.

And the number of math teachers who don’t dare question the newest fad, namely, that math is a racist science because it demands precise answers instead of wild guesses, isn’t overwhelming, either.

Most want just to live with it

Professor Kaufmann also found out that most Professors do not like the authoritarian cancel culture. But, and that is really a shock (while not really much of a surprise), most wouldn’t lift a finger to oppose it, either.

A bare one-tenth of those who answered Professor Kaufmann’s questions, would agree that so-called “controversial professors” should lose their jobs.

If that is so, then this fact shows that a relatively tiny minority gets to exercise its powers far disproportionately to its numbers.

Here’s another problem: younger academics, Kaufmann writes in his study, “were more favourably inclined toward kicking ‘controversial’ scholars out of their posts.” This factor, he adds, “appears to be self-perpetuating, as conservative graduate students claimed that a hostile academic climate ‘plays a part’ in stopping them from pursuing academic careers.”

Another set of scary numbers: more than a third of right-wing academics had been threatened with some form of discipline for their views, Kaufmann writes, adding: “Fully 70 per cent cited a ‘hostile departmental climate for their beliefs,’ even if they had not personally been threatened, suggesting at least some on the right camouflage their beliefs to avoid punishment.”

It must be awful for the vast majority of academics in social sciences or humanities (90 per cent of Trump supporters and 80 per cent of Brexit supporters) who admit that they would not feel comfortable sharing their views with colleagues. More than half of them also said they have imposed self-censorship on themselves even in their research and/or teaching, in order to avoid repercussions. “Academics in the social sciences – particularly those involved in studying race, gender and sexuality – were particularly required to walk on eggshells,” Kaufmann writes.

Here’s one of the scariest results: the younger the academic, the more likely s/he would support at least one of the hypothetical research findings.

The numbers: a 30-year-old leftist academic has a 50-50 chance of supporting one of the hypothetical cancel-culture campaigns while his 70-year-old ideological equivalent had just a 35 per cent chance of doing so.

Most of the academics, though, seemed not to give a damn about their colleagues’ fates.

Some 76 per cent of academics in the social sciences and humanities believe the “protective benefits of political correctness outweigh its threat to free speech” – something that should make us think again before answering the question whether these people are of any use to society.