They’re coming for you next: Though this story begins with an announced lawsuit by professor Daymon Johnson against Bakersfield College in California for repeatedly threatening him and his colleagues whenever they dared to write or say anything that dissents from the university’s decidedly Marxist and leftist ideology, this story really is about blacklisting and the desire of the academic left to silence all dissent, by any means necessary.

The left is made up of close-minded thugs and goons, and if you think I am overstating the case, then read the opening words from Johnson’s lawsuit [pdf], filed by the Institute for Free Speech and quoting John Corkins, one of the trustees of the Kern Community College Board of Trustees that controls Bakersfield:

“They’re in that five percent that we have to continue to cull. Got them in my livestock operation and that’s why we put a rope on some of them and take them to the slaughterhouse. That’s a fact of life with human nature and so forth, I don’t know how to say it any clearer.”

The five percent that Defendant John Corkins referred to are faculty of Bakersfield College. They must be slaughtered, so to speak, for transgressions including the writing of op-eds in the local newspaper, appearances on radio programs, and the failure to censor their colleagues’ Facebook posts, all in opposition to the school’s official ideology. The first “cullee,” Professor Matthew Garrett, has just been fired for these forms of pure political speech. [emphasis mine]

When Corkins made this ugly statement as board of trustees meeting, likening college professors with whom he disagrees to cattle that have to be taken to slaughter, one trustee, Nan Gomez-Heitzeberg, “chuckled heartily at the suggestion. Others smiled.” No one objected to this vicious suggestion. [Watch the video here.]

As I said, thugs and goons, quite eager to commit genocide if they don’t get their way in all things.

The lawsuit describes in painful detail the effort at Bakersfield College to harass and destroy any dissenters, including firing a different professor, Matthew Garrett, for simply expressing his opinion, while accusing him of being a racist without any evidence.

Since Johnson had taken over some of Garrett’s responsibilities and had also publicly agreed with his political views, he was himself subsequently harassed and investigated by college officials and the Kern Community College District for simply expressing his opinions. Garrett had been faculty lead for the Renegade Institute for Liberty (RIFL), an approved faculty organization

…dedicated to the pursuit of free speech, open inquiry and critical thinking. RIFL aims to promote and preserve freedom of thought and intellectual literacy through the open discourse of diverse political ideas with an emphasis on American ideals and western historical values.

Pushing such ideals at Bakersfield was apparently impermissible. First Garrett was forced out, and when Johnson took over as faculty lead for RIFL he was then investigated as well. Though he was found completely innocent of any misconduct, the district still threatened him with further discipline should he express any forbidden opinions in the future. For this reason he found it necessary to sue.

Considering his experience of being investigated by Defendants over his Facebook posts, Defendants’ adoption of an official political ideology that he rejects, Defendants’ treatment of
his colleague and predecessor in the position of Faculty Lead for RIFL, and indeed, his
responsibility for some of the speech for which Professor Garrett was fired, Professor Johnson
refrains from expressing his political views and from freely participating in the intellectual life of
the college for fear that Defendants would investigate, discipline, and ultimately terminate his
employment on the basis of his viewpoints.

The lawsuit demands the college and district cease any effort to silence Johnson, as well as abandon the official racist Diversity, Equity, and Inclusive ideology that favors some races over others and demands that no one protest such policy.

Even if Johnson wins, it will change little. The dominant culture at these California schools brooks no dissent, and even if those in charge lose in court they will still make life hell for Johnson and anyone else who dares disagree with them. In fact, their future behavior will likely be a textbook example of blacklisting, teaming up silently to destroy their opponents by shunning and a denial of promotion or work, with the eventual goal of making it impossible for dissenters to work there. They will be, as Corkins advocated, “culled out”, come hell or high water.

Welcome to the left’s America, land of blacklists, routine slandering, and power politics. Free speech is no longer allowed, and if you try to exercise it you will be destroyed.

Blacklists are back and academia loves ’em! According to a survey put together by the campus newspaper The Harvard Crimson, only 1.5% of Harvard’s faculty identified themselves as conservatives.

You can read the survey here. From the link above:

A total of 333 respondents completed the entire survey, while another 143 partially completed it. The paper distributed it to the Faculty of Arts and Sciences and School of Engineering and Applies Sciences professors.

According to the survey, only 16 percent of Harvard faculty characterized their views as moderate and 1.5 percent identified as conservative.

However, it isn’t this decidedly one-sided nature of Harvard’s faculty that is the real problem, but the enthusiasm this leftist community has for this blacklisting. From the survey itself:

When asked whether they would support increasing ideological diversity among faculty by hiring more conservative-leaning professors, only a quarter of respondents were in support. In contrast, 31 percent opposed hiring conservative professors to increase ideological diversity, while 44 percent of respondents said that they neither supported or opposed it.

Just over half of faculty respondents supported extra vetting for former Trump administration officials seeking appointments within the FAS, but a plurality opposed barring them entirely from these positions.

Around 56 percent of surveyed faculty indicated they strongly or somewhat support greater screening, while 19 percent of surveyed faculty are strongly or somewhat opposed to it. Nearly a quarter indicated they neither support nor oppose it.

More than 40 percent of surveyed faculty, however, disagreed that Trump administration officials should be barred from receiving appointments within the FAS altogether. On the other hand, 30 percent of respondents indicated they support barring former Trump officials from FAS positions, and 29 percent neither support nor oppose. [emphasis mine]

In other words, about a third to half of Harvard’s academics favor some form of blackballing of all conservatives, especially those linked in some way with Trump. The so-called intellectual class at Harvard is fully in support of intolerance of dissenting ideas, and is willing to work hard to maintain it. What a bunch of close-minded thugs.

The result is that only about 6% of Harvard’s graduates identify as conservatives. This university has essentially become a indoctrination factory for Democrats. And since graduates from Ivy League colleges are always considered the top candidates in almost any field, this means that our upper classes — in all fields — is now being seeded with only this point of view.

The survey also found a passion in Harvard’s academia for racial preferences, eager to favor minorities in hiring, merely because of their skin color, not their qualifications. These petty dictators not only wish to silence dissent, they wish to encourage racism and bigotry.

Nor is the situation getting better. When this survey is compared with one done the year before, we find that the lack of conservatives in Harvard’s faculty, as small as it is now, is half that in 2021, declining from 3% in 2021 to 1.5% in 2022.

It seems to me that corporations need to rethink their enthusiasm for hiring Ivy League graduates. Companies are not getting the best from such hires. If anything, it appears they are getting the worst.

Today’s blacklist story came and went so quickly that no one in the press really ever had a chance to cover it. I however want to highlight it today because it tells us a great deal about today’s bankrupt academic culture, and its paper tiger nature if challenged.

On February 10, 2022, Jamie Ball, the director for Equal Opportunity, Access and Title IX Coordination at Southern Illinois University in Edwardsville, sent notices to Maggie DeJong, a student in the school’s Art Therapy Counseling Program, telling DeJong that she was forthwith forbidden to interact in any way with three other students.

Because DeJong attended classes and also worked at the same facility as these three students, the orders essentially blacklisted her from school through the end of the ’22 semester.

Ball provided no facts or reasons for the “no-contact” orders, other than saying that any contact between DeJong and these three students “would not be welcome or appropriate at this time.” Ball’s order also admitted that no harassment or violation of school policy had occurred. Her order was simply “to prevent interactions that could be perceived by either party as unwelcome, retaliatory, intimidating, or harassing.”

In other words, Ball was punishing DeJong for something that might happen, likely based on secret accusations made by those three students.

On February 23rd, less than two weeks later, lawyers from the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) sent the school’s Chancellor, Randy Penbrook, a letter [pdf] outlining the illegality of this action, and demanding the no-contact orders be immediately rescinded.

Based on the above, we demand that you immediately rescind the three no-contact orders issued on February 10 and assure us in writing that the University will either (a) stop interpreting and enforcing its policies in this manner or (b) revise its policies to adequately safeguard students’ constitutional rights.

If you fail to comply with these demands by close of business on February 25, 2022, our client will have no option but to consider other avenues for vindicating her rights.

The university rescinded the no-contact orders immediately, but only ended a witch hunt investigation of DeJong when ADF lawyers demanded all correspondence and documents related to the investigation.

So, what does this quickly resolved story tell us?

First, this school’s “Equal Opportunity” director appears typical of too many such officials. She clear didn’t know the first thing about law, individual rights, or the first amendment. Instead, it appears she was running her department as a enforcement bureau for any gossip told her by leftist students, designed to squelch opposing opinions.

Second, the actions of those students suggests they too know nothing of basic American law. We don’t really know what happened between them and DeJong, but it doesn’t matter. DeJong has the right to her opinions, and more important, the right to express them publicly. If those opinions offend you then you better get a thicker skin, because freedom of speech allows people to offend you.

Taken together, points one and two tell us how bankrupt our public school system is. It is producing college teachers, administrators, and students who are not only ignorant, they are willingly intolerant and authoritarian.

Third, the quick surrender by the school demonstrates the importance of fighting back, hard. DeJong did not take her blacklisting lying down. She immediately sought counsel, and its actions quickly brought the school to heel. Had the university decided to fight, it knew it would have lost so badly that DeJong might have even won part ownership in it.

The same applies to many of my other blacklisting stories. The legal basis for the blacklisting is almost always indefensible. Fight it and you will win. Victory might happen quickly, as in this case, or take years, but inevitable win you will. In either case, the fact that you are willing to fight will strike terror into the hearts of these bullies.

Remember, freedom doesn’t exist without bravery. These petty dictators rely on your timidity. Show them you are brave, and they will run whimpering. More important, the proof that people are quite willing to fight them will act as a deterrent, preventing more such blacklisting.

Eating their own: Leftist protesters at Vassar College have forced Jeh Johnson, who was Secretary of Homeland Security during the Obama administration, to back out of giving the college’s May 22nd commencement speech.

Johnson was replaced by an actor, illustrating once again the growing vapidness of modern academia. The accusations against Johnson also illustrate this bankruptcy by their empty slogans and shallow cliches:

The switch in commencement speaker has sparked heated online debate among students and alumni, with one camp opposed to what one student called Johnson’s “violence on marginalized peoples” and the other camp complaining of runaway “woke” politics.

The controversy deepened after a story that had quoted students referring to Johnson as guilty of “war crimes” — and which warned of “protest and disruption” should he speak — was deleted from Vassar’s student newspaper website, the Miscellany News. [emphasis mine]

The deleted article appears to be available here. This quote in particular from it demonstrates the empty-headed and intolerant thinking in today’s academia, aided by the intellectual dishonesty of an agenda-driven reporter:

Some students of color feel especially impacted by Johnson’s policies. In regards to Johnson’s history with Homeland Security, Oona Maloney ’22 was not at all surprised by the announcement: “It’s not surprising that Vassar, a predominantly white institution, would invite someone who played a key role in the Obama administration by exacting violence on marginalized peoples in the Middle East and at the border in the name of protecting US imperial interests,” she said. [emphasis mine]

The word “some” is a typical journalistic lie. The reporter quotes one person, and implies that the quote represents the opinions of many. Meanwhile, Oona Maloney’s words reek of leftist cliches and empty catchwords. Worse, she is entirely focused on race hatred, not tolerance and good will to all. To her, whites are evil, and any action that she disagrees with must be “racist.”

As a Democrat who worked for Obama, Johnson however is no saint in this matter. His withdrawal statement illustrates his eager kow-towing to these leftist brownshirts:

I believe commencements should be joyous, tension-free events for graduates and their families. In my public life I managed many difficult and contentious issues. In my private life I do not seek to be the object of controversy or speak at a commencement where students will object to me.

…Immigration is a difficult and painful issue. In my three years as Secretary of Homeland Security, I visited our southern border numerous times. During those visits, I often took the time to enter Border Patrol holding stations and speak directly through a translator to the children in our care, to ensure their welfare. As a father, I wanted to take them all home with me; as the Cabinet official responsible for securing our border, I knew I could not. At the same time, on my watch, the number of deportations from our country went down, the percentage of those deported who were convicted of serious offenses went up, and the number of young people enrolled in DACA went up. Whether immigration, border security or national security, leaders with a sense of humanity are often faced with less than perfect choices, sometimes nothing but ugly choices, but we always try to do the right thing.

During Obama’s administration border security was horrible, but there at least was an effort to follow the law. That effort has mostly now vanished during the Biden administration, which has apparently been captured by people like Oona Maloney who view anything the U.S. does to protect its sovereignty to be an example of the “US’s imperial interests” and “violence against marginalized peoples.”

The result: Even Obama officials are now subject to blacklisting.

Welcome to the New America, a land of propaganda, slogans, blacklisting, and the abuse of power against anyone who does not agree.

The new dark age of silencing: Because the official seal of Marquette University, in use since 1881, showed the university’s namesake standing in a canoe being rowed by an American Indian, local Indian activists demanded the seal be revised, claiming the seal was “disrespectful to Indigenous people.”

Their campaign succeeded. On March 3, 2022 Marquette University announced that it had removed entirely any image of either Father Jacques Marquette, or the American Indian who helped him in his exploration of the Mississippi River. The image to the right shows the seal, before and after.

The original image was allegedly based on an 1869 painting by Wilhelm Lamprecht titled “Pere Marquette and the Indians,” which depicted Marquette consulting with Native Americans as he worked his way down the Mississippi River. Marquette is standing in his canoe and pointing at the river as he talks with another Native American man. His Native American guide is sitting in the canoe with his back to the viewer.

Activist groups, however, took issue with how the painting was cropped for the seal, as it appears Marquette is telling the guide where to go.

The university’s explanation for the seal’s change might seem rational, but in truth it is all a rationalization, a fear-based attempt to placate the most radical, ignorant, and race-focused members of its community. Rather than celebrate the courageous explorer whom the university is named, the university choose to wipe him out, along with the local people who helped him in his initial explorations.

This last point is the story’s biggest irony. The Indian activists cut off their nose to spite their face. While their public claims made it sound like they simply wished to shift the depiction so that it showed the Indians guiding Marquette instead of implying the other way around, what they really wanted was to get rid Marquette entirely, because he was white. They probably did not expect the university to also get rid of the Indian.

No matter. For a university to bow to this kind of stupid campaign, and thus dumb down its heritage, illustrates once again how we are rushing headlong into a dark age of ignorance and foolishness. No one was really insulted by the old seal. The demand to change it was simply a power play by some groups to gain control of the university’s culture, and in the process devalue it significantly. The university, which should stand for intellectual honesty instead of the race-based rewriting of history, bowed to this power play, and thus debased itself.

A footnote: I generally avoid the politically correct and woke term “native American” when referring to the American Indian. It is unclear, distorts the plain meaning of the words, and insulting to every other person not of American Indian descent, including myself, who was born in American. I am a native American, as were my parents, even though their parents fled Czarist Russia.

The term is also inherently wrong, as it somehow implies that today’s Indian tribes were the first natives, when in truth they had supplanted others who had supplanted others who had supplanted others, as has always been the case in the history of all human migration and tribal cultures. To claim that these tribes should be given a special place above all others is intellectually dishonest.

“Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!” Because of the threat by Indiana teachers to quit en masse, as well as teacher protests, the Indiana state legislature has gutted a bill that would have have attempted to ban the teaching of the Marxist and bigoted critical race theory (CRT) program in the schools.

The quotes from teachers are somewhat hilarious, in a terribly depressing way. From the first link:

“I will have to quit, or I will have to ignore it,” Lang said, the Indy Star reported. “I will not comply. I can’t. It’s that bad.”

From the second link:

“It’s the last nail in the coffin,” Suzanne Holcomb, an elementary school teacher in northern Indiana, told the Star. “I don’t know how we would move forward from this. It would just make teaching impossible.” Holcomb added that the bill “feels like an attack on education,” “an attack on our integrity,” and “Quite frankly, it’s insulting.”

“As long as I still enjoy the job, feel effective at the job, I see no reason to leave,” another teacher, Sandy James, said. “This bill could change that for me.”

The bill also has students training to be teachers rethinking their career paths. “Anyone I know, within the last semester, has said out loud ‘I’m not sure if I’m able to do this,'” said Abby Martin, a junior at Indiana University Bloomington studying to be a high school teacher. “It’s alarming.”

These complaints are all balder-dash. All these teachers really are saying is that they believe the kids belong to them, not the parents. Any advice or consultation from parents must be blocked.

Note too that the teachers’ union, Indiana State Teachers Association, organized the protests, which also suggests that a large number of the state’s public school teachers agree with these teachers. They support critical race theory, want to teach it, and will do whatever they can to keep parents from having any say in preventing them from doing so.

Thus, if the bill did pass and these teachers did quit, that would be the best possible thing that could possibly happen for Indiana’s school children.

Sadly, these teacher protests succeeded in scaring the politicians, who quickly gutted the bill so that it essentially accomplishes nothing.

To be blunt, however, the bill was always meaningless and unenforceable. The only way the bigoted but deeply entrenched critical race program can be removed from the public schools will be to cut funding, forcibly and without pity or fear. This would either force the schools to change, or result in the firing or voluntary departure of these teachers so that the school system can be rebuild from scratch, with different people.

It appears sadly that Indiana’s state politicians do not have the courage to do this. Instead, they propose feel-good legislation like this bill, and then chicken out when union-organized protests occur.

If there is any hopeful sign coming out of the last two years of Wuhan panic, it might be the long term reaction of the young to how the political community has treated them.

Let me explain. For decades it has been assumed, quite rightly, that the young would automatically gravitate to the Democratic Party. That party’s tendency to favor social programs based on helping everyone fit well with the young’s lack of experience, their natural instinct to think emotionally, and their personal lives so tightly bound to their school’s social community. The young lived in a type of emotional and socialist existence, so it was natural for them to instinctively favor the socialist ideas based on feel-good emotions put forth routinely by the Democratic Party.

Polls and voting patterns have consistently for decades proven this assumption to be true. For example, small college towns found the politics of their communities suddenly shift significantly leftward when the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18. The large but temporary college population in their towns, mostly leaning left, suddenly swamped out the more moderate voting patterns of the smaller general population.

This assumption has also been illustrated by many get-out-the-vote campaigns put forth by the Democratic Party. Rather than try to get voters of all stripes to vote, the Democrats would routinely focus these campaigns inside college campuses, a tactic that for decades has repeatedly brought them great success.

Above all — and most important — the Democratic Party never put forth policy proposals that would offend the young. Instead, the party would aim its policies at businesses, which the young did not own and would thus not be impacted by any negative consequences of any new leftist laws.

The Democrats love affair with “green” policies is a perfect example. A campaign to save the planet from global warming is something that sounds so good to the emotionally-driven young. For children under eighteen environmental issues would especially resonant. They would naturally like the high-minded idealistic sounding goals of environmentalism while feeling none of the negative effects of its sometimes draconian regulation. When these youngsters reached voting age they would thus instinctively pick the Democratic Party as their home, since it had portrayed itself as the true representative of their idealistic but very naive beliefs.

Environmentalism is just one of a whole slate of policy positions taken by the Democrats, from poverty to police abuse to civil rights, that have been designed to please the young without impacting them negatively in any way. The result has been a young population that routinely favored in great numbers the Democratic Party.

The Wuhan panic however has changed this situation radically. For what might be the first time ever, the Democratic Party for the past two years has imposed policies that have directly impacted the young in the most odious ways. It has closed schools, shut down sports and all after-school activities, prohibited children from gathering with their friends, imprisoned and isolated them in their homes, and forced them to wear stupid masks in the most absurd situations.

For the first time, the Democratic Party has taken actions that has broken its long-held ties to this large future voting block. Young people are suddenly experiencing the same types of painful oppression from leftist policies that businesses and land owners have experienced for decades. And they apparently don’t like it.

Don’t believe me? Below are some nice recent examples of a coming revolt against the Democratic Party’s leftist polices, all coming from very young people. All suggest that in the next decade the nation’s voting patterns are gong to change drastically, and those changes will not be good for the modern and very radical Marxist Democratic Party.

First we have this very intelligent and sarcastic take down of a school board by a young high school student. Watch it. You will be impressed.

In the past I would have expected a student like her to give speeches campaigning for global warming regulations, as advocated by her leftist teachers. Now she sees these teachers and their political superiors as her enemies, and is thus hostile to everything they propose.

Nor is this girl a rare example. Watch this young high school student rip apart a Virginia school board for its refusal to end mask mandates.

Her speech apparently had an effect. After the comment period and her speech, the board finally voted 4-1 to end mask mandates. Will she now consider that school board her ally? I doubt it. She has learned that they are not really on her side, and thus must be treated as enemies at all times and questioned hard and ruthlessly.

These speeches at school boards have become somewhat ubiquitous in the past two years. Do a search on YouTube, Rumble, or Twitter, and you will find numerous examples. Many young people, some mere children, have courageously spoken out opposing the insane COVID policies of schools and local governments, most of which are controlled by Democrats in urban areas.

Yet, do these speeches indicate a general trend? Other stories strongly suggest they do. For example, in Colorado two teen-age high school students (aged 15 and 16) did their own undercover journalism proving that school officials were eagerly giving COVID shots illegally to underage children, without their parents’ knowledge.

In two separate videos that were taken a short time apart by the teenagers – one who’s 15 and the other who’s 16 – employees of the mobile clinic can be seen signing them in and clearing them to get the jab – even though they showed up alone, which is something the school had assured parents would not happen under any circumstances.

…The employees of the clinic were so willing to jab these children full of experimental drugs that one of the underage students was able to slide past the staff’s initial pushback about not having a parent simply by claiming he was 18. The other underage student was able to secure his vaccine by providing a fake consent form that the employees happily accepted.

Both did not have their IDs checked, and both used fake names. It was that easy. [emphasis mine]

The smart phone videos from both students are at the link. Both suggest strongly that young students, below voting age, are no longer automatically the allies of government officials. Both suggest that young people are no longer accepting without question the policies being suggested by such officials.

Still, some might say these few examples I have cited are an exception to the rule. Another recent video from a school in the very liberal state of Washington suggests instead that these students are the rule.

I can’t embed the Twitter video, so go to the link to watch. A teacher is taking two students to his superior because they have refused to wear their masks. One student is filming the situation, and the teacher demands he stop filming. When he refuses, the teacher actually physically attacks him, trying but failing to get the phone from him. Meanwhile, they pass numerous other students who are also refusing to wear masks. It is clear that the teacher has been facing a wholesale rebellion at the school, and has become somewhat unhinged because of it.

Finally, the repeated examples of students organizing walk outs in protest of COVID policies — in Washington, in Texas, in Wisconsin for example — suggest that not only do they now question their leftist lords, they are using social media to organize against them.

All of these examples are of course anecdotal, and could be viewed as merely isolated outliers that do not signal a trend. The fact that similar student walk-outs occurred in New York and Chicago, protesting for more COVID restrictions, indicates that a sizable community of young people is still in favor of government control.

The trend I think however is in favor of freedom. In the past two years children have been treated as chattel by school officials — most of whom are routinely leftist or Democrats — at the elementary, high school, and college levels. That treatment can only breed hostility against those officials.

Thus, I expect the next few generations of voters to see the Democratic Party as their enemy, not their savior who will bring about a paradise of utopia by imposing its socialist and environmental policies.

In less than five years, the giant cohort of young people who have been masked, imprisoned, isolated, and treated like cattle by politicians and school boards in Democratic Party strongholds are going to reach voting age. And unlike the voting patterns assumed for the past century, it is very possible they will be voting against that party, in droves.

Today at the Daily Signal one of their writers, Douglas Blair, compiled a list of eight college professors whose lives were destroyed by the intolerant left and its effort to silence all opposition, by any means necessary. That list is as follows:

• Mike Adams: forced to retire early for being a conservative. He soon thereafter killed himself.
• Peter Boghossian: forced to resign for proving many social science journals publish utter garbage.
• Gregory Manco: fired for having an opinion.
• John Staddon: banned from academic email group for having an opinion.
• Bruce Gilley: forced to withdraw a peer-reviewed paper because others disliked his conclusions.
• Charles Negy: fired for expressing an opinion.
• Leslie Neal-Boylan: fired for expressing an opinion.
• Nathaniel Hiers: fired for cracking a joke.

Five of those eight individuals had previously been a subject of my daily column, “Today’s Blacklisted American,” proving that the number of such cases of oppression and blacklisting by the academic left has grown so large that a daily column can’t possibly cover every story.

What struck me about this list however was the petty, ugly, and absurd reasons given for destroying or silencing these individuals. In every single case, the only accusation against them was that each professor had offended someone (often unnamed) by something he or she had written or said. At no point did anyone ever challenge the accuracy of their statements or writing.

In one case the offending remark was simply a silly joke that no normal and rational person would be offended by. In another case the fired professor had simply noted that there are only two sexes. Four other cases the offending remarks were criticisms of Black Lives Matter and Critical Race Theory, noting the blatantly obvious fact that both are racist, demonizing whites (merely for their skin color) while lionizing all other minorities as pure, perfect, and oppressed. A fourth professor was pushed out of his teaching position simply because he criticized the vapid nature of all “Woman’s Studies” programs.

And then there were the professors (Boghossian and Gilley) who were condemned because they used the peer-review system to publish papers that offended others. Boghossian was part of project that got a number of obviously fake papers through peer review and published in several well-respected social science journals, demonstrating that the editors of those journals were incompetent and that the material they published should not be trusted.

Gilley wrote a paper demonstrating with facts that colonialism was not all bad, that in many cases it actually benefited the natives. He immediately found himself in a firestorm, the subject of a coordinated campaign to get him blacklisted and fired and the journal boycotted. Soon both he and the journal editor were receiving creditable death threats.

None of the critics of Gilley’s paper cited any errors. Instead they focused entirely on how its conclusions offended them and that it was racist to even state such facts.

From these stories you can only conclude that today’s academic community is utterly bankrupt, dominated and controlled by ignorant, close-minded, and spoiled individuals unwilling to discuss any subject rationally. Instead, if someone says something they dislike, they throw tantrums, and their administration immediately gives in to them. In such a culture free and intelligent thought is impossible. No one in these schools can get a good education. Instead, students are taught that intellectual debate is nothing more than silencing and oppressing those you disagree with.

For this country to survive these institutions must die, now. If it happened yesterday it would not be soon enough.

In an effort to push back against the effort by leftist students at Harvard to silence and blackball conservatives, a group of students have revived the publication of a conservative college newspaper, The Salient, that had folded sometime around 2010.

Harvard student Jacob Cremers, spokesperson for the Salient, said in an email to The College Fix on Nov. 30 that the revival of the paper is meant “to fill the vacuum and to encourage diversity of opinion on Harvard’s campus.”

“The Salient has traditionally served as a source and platform of independent and contrarian thought at Harvard; it seemed to us a shame that it had vanished without leaving another newspaper to take its place,” Cremers said.

About 5,000 copies of the new edition were distributed, he said, including under the doors of every student dorm and over 800 faculty offices on campus. The November 2021 edition was titled: “Revising America: The Deconstruction of the American Commonwealth and the Patriot’s Reply.” It featured eight articles written by students using pseudonyms.

“Pseudonyms are used in order to encourage freedom of expression and attract contributors who would otherwise be too shy of public exposure. The pseudonyms also allow readers to focus on the ideas communicated, rather than the writer behind them,” Cremers told The College Fix. [emphasis mine]

The highlighted quote should be translated: “We allow authors to publish anonymously because we know the intolerant left that dominates Harvard will immediately move to destroy anyone who writes for us, once they find out who they are.”

Significantly, it appears this effort is being funded by alumni and “others” who apparently want to encourage freedom of speech at Harvard while working to break up its monolithic and oppressive leftist culture. After years of sleepy disinterest, it looks like those dedicated to free thought have finally decided to fight.

Right now the plan is to publish The Salient two to three times per year. When the next issue is distributed throughout the college, do not be surprised if the leftist thugs who run Harvard to have organized a plan to steal and destroy all copies. It is the left’s playbook to silence all debate and opposition.

The publishers of The Salient had better be prepared for such thuggery, and arrange the distribution in order to defeat it.

Persecution is now cool! Bruce Monger, the director of undergraduate studies for Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Cornell University, has told his students in an email that he is failing two of them, not for bad classwork or poor test grades, but because they did not wear their masks properly in class.

His email was a request to all his students to help him identify these two students, or to put it more honestly, to snitch on them.

To the right is a screen capture of that email, cropped, reduced, and enhanced to post here.

Interestingly, Monger’s threat does not follow university policy, and is likely one that in a just world would get him in trouble, not the students.

Cornell University was one of the first colleges in the nation to implement a vaccine requirement for all students who return to on-campus living and learning. Students are still required to wear masks indoors “at all times,” unless in “private, non-shared spaces” or when eating.

Failing students who do not comply with the mask requirements is not a university policy, according to the Office of Dean’s guide. Faculty are encouraged to stop class and remind students to wear their masks or refer them to the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards. [emphasis mine]

Not only is Monger 100% wrong for threatening to fail these two students, one student was actually following the school’s idiotic policy precisely, since he was eating at the time — as Monger himself notes in the email — and thus was allowed to remove his mask.

Monger’s behavior here has nothing to do with promoting safe COVID practices or to prevent students from getting sick. Everyone (except college professors and administrators) knows now that COVID does not serious threaten college age students, and that masks have been found to be utterly worthless as a form of protection (which is why they have now been largely abandoned across most of the country).

No, Monger’s goal here was to simply be a petty dictator and a bully, to show these lowly students who is boss. He demands that you to wear a muzzle, and you better do it or else he will punish you severely.

The saddest part of this story is that college professors and universities are supposed to be teaching tolerance, not just of other people but of ideas. You can’t be a truly civilized intellectual if you can’t tolerate different opinions, or debate honestly.

Instead, Cornell and Monger are now propagandists, demanding conformity and blind obedience. For what these students are likely paying for this Ivy league degree, I would say they are not getting their money’s worth. If anything, they are throwing it down the drain, and will graduate having been educated in all the wrong things.

The new dark age of silencing: The news outlet The College Fix today released a new database it calls the Campus Cancel Culture Database, listing all the stories that it has covered in the past decade of blacklisting and censorship on college campuses.

To see the complete list, go here. They plan to update it regularly. As Jennifer Kabbany, editor of The College Fix writes,

At some point, I lost count of how many incidents [of blacklisting] we’ve documented. Earlier this year, however, we began to compile them systematically — and today The College Fix releases the Campus Cancel Culture Database. The detailed repository of information lists more than 650 successful cancellations. They include everything from statues hauled off campuses to renamed buildings to memory-holed mascots. The database also cites more than 750 attempted cancellations.

We define cancel culture as any effort by people or groups to identify someone or something as offensive or unacceptable and seek in some way to censor or punish the transgressor or item.

It includes professors who have been suspended or lost their jobs for saying or researching something unpopular, student groups attacked or barred for their conservative, pro-life or libertarian views, and guest speakers shouted down or disinvited.

Overall, the database documents the terrible state of academic thought in the United States. Across the country college administrators, teachers, and students have teamed up to silence any ideas or opinions they do not like, with the bulk of the attacks going against conservatives and the traditions and concepts of western civilization. Not only have people been fired and blackballed, even discussing openly the history of our nation has become verboten. You must either condemn the American dream as racist white supremacy, or you must shut up.

This list makes a much more complete supplement to the full list of my own blacklist columns. Though I have been covering the intolerance in all fields, I have only been doing it now regularly for about nine months. The College Fix database might focus only on academia, but the list covers a decade of oppression. The two are thus complementary, with one group of hate-mongers feeding the other.

On the database’s introductory page is a quote from George Orwell’s 1984 that best describes this intolerant cancel culture:

Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.

When Orwell wrote the book in the late 1940s it was meant as a warning against oppression. The goal of the power-hungry is to keep everyone ignorant, so that everyone becomes dependent on their edicts. Orwell wanted the public to understand this, so that it could counter that effort towards censorship and silencing.

In America today, academia and the left instead use Orwell’s 1984 as an instruction manual. They now agree with the dictators in that novel, and wish to destroy all knowledge, except the information they dole out. And sadly, Americans today seem accepting of this effort, and too often actually work to help it along.

And even if we wish to oppose it, we are trapped by incompetent and treacherous politicians on both the local and national levels, many of whom claim to want to defend freedom and the American heritage, but do nothing to cut the funding of the very universities they finance that are at the forefront of this anti-American blacklist culture.

The political class, especially on the right, has been entirely useless. What good have they done to stem this tide of oppression? Nothing. At best they are mere quislings, cowards too afraid to stand up for what they believe in. At worst, they are dishonest traitors working to stab ordinary free Americans in the back.

Either way, America is dying. It will take a brutal effort, with much pain, to get us back from the brink of totalitarianism. Whether today’s freedom-loving Americans are willing to accept the pain necessary to fix things however remains a very open question.

The new dark age of silencing: Peter Boghossian, one of three professors who revealed the incompetence and bad scholarship that now permeates academic culture by writing and getting published a fake paper in 2017 that claimed the penis was merely a “social construct,” has finally been forced to resign from his position at Portland State University in Oregon because of the never-ending harassment and slanders that he has been subjected to by both faculty and staff there.

“Administrators and faculty were so angered by the papers that they published an anonymous piece in the student paper and Portland State filed formal charges against me,” Boghossian wrote in his statement. ”Their accusation? ‘Research misconduct’ based on the absurd premise that the journal editors who accepted our intentionally deranged articles were ‘human subjects.’ I was found guilty of not receiving approval to experiment on human subjects.”

The school subsequently barred Boghossian from conducting research.

But according to Boghossian, he suffered far more abuse on campus than merely being sanctioned for his prank. “I’d find flyers around campus of me with a Pinocchio nose. I was spit on and threatened by passersby while walking to class,” he wrote. “I was informed by students that my colleagues were telling them to avoid my classes. And, of course, I was subjected to more investigation.”

…He also noted he was once the subject of a baseless investigation that tarred him as someone who commits violence against women. “My accuser, a white male, made a slew of baseless accusations against me, which university confidentiality rules unfortunately prohibit me from discussing further,” Boghossian wrote. “What I can share is that students of mine who were interviewed during the process told me the Title IX investigator asked them if they knew anything about me beating my wife and children. This horrifying accusation soon became a widespread rumor.”

Boghossian apparently had had enough. However, he is not running away, but instead leaving to form a new organization to specifically fight the close-minded and oppressive culture that now dominates most universities like Portland State.

Boghossian is already on to his next project as executive director of the National Progress Alliance, whose mission is promoting “cognitive liberty.” The website was registered in March.

He founded the alliance to “punch the beast in the face,” Boghossian said. Its board includes journalist Melissa Chen, whose group Ideas Beyond Borders translates controversial English works into Arabic; Michael Trollan, chairman of Atheists for Liberty; and Matt Thornton, a mixed-martial arts pioneer who helped train Conor McGregor.

Boghossian is planning to post a series of short videos later this month on woke definitions of common words such as “equity.” Other video series in the works are by fellow Portlanders Lyell Asher, a professor at Lewis & Clark College, and journalist Nancy Rommelmann, as well as Smith College whistleblower Jodi Shaw.

From this description, it appears that the National Progress Alliance will be a variation of Dennis Prager’s Prager University, which regularly publishes educational and very factual videos debunking the bankrupt agenda’s of the left. If so, expect an effort soon by the left to silence this project as well.

Meanwhile, let me ask the same questions about Portland State University (PSU) that I raised in 2019: Is this the kind of place you want to send your kids? Is this the kind of place you’d want to attend, if you were a high school student?

It seems that a lot of parents and students have been asking these questions, and deciding that Portland is not the place they want to get a college education.

Enrollment at PSU has been steadily declining over the past decade, according to data from the university’s Finance & Administration Committee.

This past fall, PSU saw almost the largest decrease among Oregon public universities, at 7.8% — second only to Southern Oregon University, where enrollment plunged more than 15%, according to Oregon’s Higher Education Coordinating Commission. “We continue on our trend of falling enrollment, and this has actually accelerated this year, and [is] worrisome for next year,” Irving Levin, Chair of PSU’s F&A Committee, said.

In Jan. 2019, PSU had more than 20,200 full-time students, according to data from the F&A committee. A year later, that number had fallen by about 1,000 students. This year, it is expected to drop by another 1,000 students. According to the F&A Committee, as of earlier this month, applications for freshmen were down by nearly 30% compared to last year.

As far as I am concerned, these are the most encouraging numbers I have read in years. The only problem I see is that it appears that there are still about 18,000 students at Portland, all getting what appears to be a very bad education.

Persecution is now cool! The administration at Berea College, a Christian university in Kentucky, fired tenured professor Dave Porter because one student complained about a research survey he was conducting.

Porter’s offense was to have done a survey of attitudes on campus. One student claimed that the survey was a retaliation against her for having filed a Title IX complaint. Writes Porter, “The campus was quickly polarized, and the administration saw a crisis looming. Apparently, the dean had received information from a former student that current students were fearful of attending my classes. There was no investigation and suggestions of mediation or compromise were squelched by the dean’s claim that I was ‘unrepentant and unapologetic.’” [emphasis mine]

More details in this essay Porter himself wrote:

Even before this evidence was collected, several faculty members expressed their fears to the dean that I would come to their homes and “get in their face.” On that basis, he concluded I was “dangerous.” I was banished from campus and prohibited from communicating with students.

After a 10-week suspension based on fears expressed by unidentified grievants and unrelenting defamatory attacks on social media, my professional competence was questioned under the Faculty Manual’s Professional Competence and Dismissal for Cause section. Specifically, a faculty panel agreed with the dean that my “personal conduct” had interfered with my “professional responsibilities,” and this was sufficient cause to terminate my tenure and dismiss me.

Porter also noted he offered a three page apology, which was rejected out of hand because of the dean’s claim he was “unrepentant and unapologetic.”

The survey, which is described in this video [which you can run at 1:75 speed because Porter is such a slow speaker], was designed to document the conflict between freedom of speech and the modern academic effort to protect students from all language that offends them. Apparently these protections as proposed initially had claimed they would enhance academic freedom because students would be less fearful.

The survey found the opposite, that the more students and teachers ascribed to the belief that they must be protected from offensive speech, the more they abandoned the first amendment and the consept of freedom of speech.

Ironically, Porter immediately discovered how true his survey was, in the worst possible way. A single student complaint was immediately accepted without due process and used as a justification for stoning him off the campus, by students, teachers, and the administration. How dare he ask some pointed questions about the leftist orthodoxy that runs American campuses.

Porter is suing of course. His essay at the link above documents the numerous ways the college broke its contract with him by not following its own policies in terminating him. Thus, I suspect his chances of winning in court are high. Unfortunately, I doubt he will return to the campus. They will settle, paying him off so he goes away, thereby allowing them to maintain their close-minded bubble of intolerance to other viewpoints.

This story once again illustrates that the source of today’s blacklisting culture in academia comes not from a handful of evil petty dictators at the top, but from the overall larger community of students and teachers. The only way to truly defeat these storm troopers will to bankrupt them, to shut such corrupt institutions down. As long as they have their jobs and their college as a base of operations, their effort to silence dissent will go on, and will do so quite effectively.

Parents and high school students must stop attending such places. The students will not be well educated, and if anything they will be taught badly, to hate and fear and to promote intolerance. Better to go and get a job right after high school, as you will probably get a better education that will serve you better in life, and you will no longer be financing the oppressive blacklisting power culture that is destroying freedom and liberty in America.

They’re coming for you next: Forced to attend a bigoted critical race education class at Boise State University where a white student was apparently treated like scum, it appears other students there taped the session and forwarded it to the Idaho state legislature.

The results were somewhat gratifying.

[A]dministrators have abruptly suspended all of the school’s general education classes called “University Foundations 200: Foundations of Ethics and Diversity.”

“We have been made aware of a series of concerns, culminating in allegations that a student or students have been humiliated and degraded in class on our campus for their beliefs and values,” states a March 16 memo from President Marlene Tromp to the campus community. “This is never acceptable; it is not what Boise State stands for; and we will not tolerate this behavior,” Tromp stated. “…Given the weight of cumulative concerns, we have determined that, effective immediately, we must suspend UF 200.” She goes on to note that academic leadership will determine next steps “to ensure that everyone is still able to complete the course.”

Tromp’s decision came around the same time as Idaho lawmakers passed a state education budget that takes away about $409,000 from Boise State University because of its social justice curriculum, Idaho Ed News reports. [emphasis mine]

The highlighted words provide us the real reason Boise administrators suspended these race lectures. They feared losing more budget money. Note however that they haven’t canceled the program, only suspended it. As is always the case with these Marxist academics, they are only taking the minimum action they think necessary to forestall a negative consequence, and plan to immediately resume their bigoted agenda of demonizing whites while glorifying minorities as soon as the controversy dies down.

At the moment the video in question has not been released. It needs to be, as soon as possible, so as to bring the light of truth to this story.

Meanwhile, a report about that racist agenda at Boise from December 2020 outlined in detail the bigoted plans by Boise’s administrators:

“Our report on social justice ideology shows that Boise State is building a social justice university. This ideology asserts that all whites and especially males as oppressors, and that racial minorities are permanent victims,” Miller wrote. “Social Justice institutions like Boise State then construct an environment that seeks to shame and vent hatred on the oppressors and elevate and insulate the oppressed from any kind of criticism.”

This is a public university, and is expressly forbidden by law to treat people differently based on their race, color, or creed. Therefore the action of the legislature to cut Boise State’s budget slightly is quite insufficient. These fake teachers and administrators at Boise need to be fired. A house-cleaning is necessary.

As for the parents and students in Idaho, both in and out of Boise State, they need to reconsider whether they wish to attend such a place. At a minimum they should be hounding their state legislators to make sure this racist program is stopped now, immediately.

They’re coming for you next: The University of South Alabama this month suspended three professors for wearing Halloween costumes back in 2014, seven years ago.

The photos show “then-Mitchell College of Business dean Bob Wood dressed as a Confederate general and professors Alex Sharland and Teresa Weldy posing with a whip and a noose,” WKRG5 reports.

The three teach in the university’s Mitchell College of Business. Wood and Sharland, who have tenure, have apologized, while Weldy, who is not tenured, “chose not to apologize,” the news station reports.

University brass is reportedly taking heat from the campus community for being aware of the photos since 2020 but not doing more about it. With that, [university President Tony] Waldrop upped his efforts on the nearly 7-year-old matter, calling the costumes and poses “offensive” and “contrary to our core principles of diversity and inclusion.” He pledged in his statement that the university will “address this situation in a manner that demonstrates our unwavering commitment to diversity, inclusion, and a safe and welcoming environment for every member of our community.” [emphasis mine]

The highlighted words illustrate the intellectual dishonesty of this idiotic university president. How can his policy be an “unwavering commitment” to creating “a safe and welcoming environment” if he suspends people and demands their abject apology for wearing harmless costumes at Halloween, meant merely in fun and silliness?

The faculty and students of the University of South Alabama today

And even if these costumes were worn in seriousness, these professors had that right under the first amendment. Waldrop doesn’t have the faintest concept of what it means to live in an intellectually open and free society. No, to him the only thing that matters is that no one dare say or do anything that the petty leftist despots on his campus might not like.

Diversity? Hah! His campus is now nothing more than a bunch of mindless drones, forbidden to think and banned from doing anything but what they are told.

Meanwhile, what is the Alabama legislature doing about this? Don’t they finance this public university? Maybe my Alabama readers might call them and ask.

They’re coming for you next: Lora Burnett, a leftist professor who demanded that conservative teachers be fired or punished for expressing their conservative opinions, in February lost her university job due to the virulence of her own leftist opinions, expressed in a number of very ugly tweets.

The Collin [College] administration has now confirmed it won’t renew the untenured scholar’s contract, which ends in May, for not conducting herself “in a professional manner.”

Burnett shared images from the human resources letter she received, which allege she violated “delineated standards of conduct” through her “insubordination, making private personnel issues public that impair the college’s operations, and personal criticisms of co-workers, supervisors, and/or those who merely disagree with you.”

She characterized the firing as retaliation for “mean tweets.”

No, those tweets were not merely “mean,” they were part of a long tract record of demanding the punishment or firing of anyone whose politics disagreed with Burnett’s. For example,

In 2018, Burnett publicly demanded that several econ faculty at [George Mason University] be stripped of tenure, sanctioned, & possibly fired for no other reason than that they had received grant money from the Koch foundation.

She also demanded that the work of these individuals be censored, removed, or retracted, not because it was invalid but because the writers had a political viewpoint she disagreed with.

She has now been let go by her university, and is considering legal action.

From my perspective her intolerance of others disqualifies her as a college teacher, so her firing seems appropriate. Others on the left will disagree and say she should have the right to express these opinions, and that her firing was an example of the indiscriminate and intolerant nature of our blacklisting culture, which goes after everyone for anything they may say that offends anyone.

I can see the validity in that argument. If you are going to have free speech you must permit people to say things that are offensive, no matter who they offend. In a perfect world I think I would not care what she said, and would defend her fully, even though I find her position odious and oppressive.

At the same time, the right is under siege from people like her, who have become quite successful at squelching conservative thought as well as anyone who dares express it. Her firing is an exception to the bulk of today’s blacklisting, almost all of which is by the left, against the right.

Thus, her firing could also be considered a defensive reaction that in the long run might force the left to rethink the intolerance that now dominates its culture, as epitomized by Burnett.

That being said, I suspect some of my readers will feel some joy over this ironic story. I don’t. I see this story, including the delight that some readers might feel, as a further sign of the growing intolerance of our society.

In a tolerant and just society you never derive pleasure from the unjust suffering of anyone, including your opponents. If you do, then you are as intolerant as the bigots and petty despots who wish to squelch freedom of thought and liberty and sadly now control the reins of political and cultural power. Your targets for intolerance are merely different, that’s all.

Unfortunately too many people have forgotten this fundamental reality. I hope that maybe this story can help make people from both sides recognize it, and change their ways. Our watchword should not be how much schadenfreude we can gain from our enemies’ discomfort. Instead it should be, as historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall said once in paraphrasing Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

It is our only hope for the future and our best chance of re-establishing the civilization we have lost.

“After review of all available materials, I find that, based on your continued public stance and social media presence, you do not consistently demonstrate behaviors required by the Conceptual Framework of the School of Education,” the Dean of the School of Education wrote in an email to Stevens.

The university claims that Stevens violated the school’s inclusivity doctrine, which requires teachers to foster “a diverse campus community marked by mutual respect for the unique talents and contributions of each individual.”

The Dean also insinuated that future teachers are required to support all aspects of homosexuality and gender identity. … The Dean told Stevens that his scientific stance on biology is “in conflict” with the state’s Dignity for All Students Act. “You continue to maintain, ‘I do not recognize the gender that they claim to be if they are not biologically that gender,’” the Dean said. “This public position is in conflict with the Dignity for All Students Act requiring teachers to maintain a classroom environment protecting the mental and emotional well-being of all students.”

In other words, no student in this university education program is allowed to publicly state some common basic facts about life, humanity, and biology. We must make believe we believe in falsehoods simply because others demand we do so. If what you say contradicts the beliefs of these bullies you must be blacklisted, blackballed, canceled, and destroyed.

Worse, can you imagine the incompetent educators that are going to come out of this program? Do you want these people teaching your children?

Not only has the student received threats of violence from others because of his stance, the university’s president, Denise Battles, also blasted him in a university-wide email. She claimed,

“There are clear legal limitations to what a public university can do in response to objectionable speech,” the president wrote. “As a result, there are few tools at our disposal to reduce the pain that such speech may cause.”

It is not there job to “reduce the pain” some speech might cause in others. That’s what freedom of speech is all about, protecting offensive speech so that society can absorb all sides of a debate.

Battles’ position also shows that she is taking sides. Her goal is entirely focused on protecting leftists and sexual deviants from hearing anything they might not agree with and which thus might offend their delicate self-images. She cares not at all about the pain inflicted on this student. He doesn’t rate a safe space ever.

Finally, Battles and the university have clearly decided to violate the legal limitations placed on them by the first amendment, despite what she claims. Their actions to punish this student for his legally-protected speech make them very vulnerable to a major lawsuit, one that they are likely to lose.

More important, why is anyone going to such a school? You not only won’t learn anything useful, you will be taught many things that are false and harmful.

They’re coming for you next: A local community college in Oklahoma has removed a monument that commemorated the pioneers who settled the state in the 1800s because some people complained it was “not inclusive.”

The monument depicted the Oklahoma land run of 1889, which occurred on the day the U.S. government opened Oklahoma up to homesteaders for settlement. Apparently, there were complaints about this depiction on social media (which usually translates as a Twitter mob) as well as threats of violence. The college’s response to these mob threats?

According to … Executive Vice President Danita Rose, removing the monument was a top priority for school leadership, calling the move a “no-brainer.”

“If our goal is to create a community that is inclusive and welcoming to everyone, a monument that depicts cruelty and oppression can’t be on display here,” Rose told The Oklahoman. According to interim President Jeremy Thomas, the administration has “always agreed” with those who felt the monument was “offensive” and had “no place on our campus.”

“It does not accurately represent history, and it does not accurately reflect the respect, empathy and admiration we have for the true pioneers of this land: the indigenous people of this country,” Thomas told The Oklahoman. “As soon as we were in a position to take it down, we did.” [emphasis mine]

The problem is that Thomas is wrong. The monument did depict history accurately. It just depicted only one part of that history, the part that today’s racist, anti-American mobs want wiped from our memory.

All the college’s officials were eager to express their desire to be inclusive and welcoming, except that based on this action they have no interest in including or welcoming into their education the American pioneers who built modern Oklahoma and also established law and western civilization in the American west.

American homesteaders, wiped from history.

No, modern inclusion means applying white-out to history so that only the story of minorities gets told. And only those minorities that for the moment serve the purpose of slandering the roots of American history.

These so-called educators sicken me. They above all should be defending this monument, if only to challenge their students into finding out about all parts of that past history. Instead, they willingly participate in an effort to censor that history, so that only one story gets told.

Note too that this is a public college. Where our Oklahoma’s legislators who fund this college? Have they no opinion about this slander to their state’s history? Nah, they are too busy cashing campaign checks and bribes and making believe they represent all the people of their state. No time to do their job and make sure the colleges they fund are actually educating their students rather than indoctrinating them.

They’re coming for you next: Both students and professors at a number of Ivy league colleges are petitioning their schools to revoke the degrees of numerous high-ranking Republican politicians, merely because they dared request an investigation into the many creditable allegations of voter fraud and election tampering during the November 3rd election.

The article outlines campaigns to blackball Republicans at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, among others. The Harvard campaign is typical, demanding that these Republicans be banned merely because they exercised not only their first amendment rights of free speech, but their duly elected responsibilities as elected officials.

Students and alumni of Harvard University are signing a letter, titled, “Revoke Their Degrees,” which asks Harvard’s leadership to take action against Sen. Ted Cruz, Rep. Dan Crenshaw, and former White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany by banning them from campus and stripping them of their degrees.

The Harvard petition argues that, by contesting Congress’ certification of the 2020 election results, these Republican officials “incited a violent attempt to overthrow the U.S. government.” Harvard University dropped Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) from her role on the university’s Kennedy School advisory committee because she contested the 2020 election results.

The article also notes that no such similar petitions have been instigated against any Democrats for challenging previous election results in 2000, 2004, and 2016. Nor have any petitions been put forth against the many Democrats who during the entire Trump adminstration were calling for a violent uprising against the government and Republicans.

The goal of these college brownshirts is therefore not to protect the election process or the Constitution. No, their goal is to dehumanize all Republicans and any positions they take on any subject. Make them appear evil so that no one will pay any attention to them. Then ban them so they have no power at all.

What I gather from this story however is the utter intellectual bankruptcy of these Ivy League schools. For any reasonable parent it would be insane to send your children there. Not only would these schools indoctrinate your child into leftist politics, it would also teach them to hate anyone who disagreed with them. Such an education is not something any parent should wish upon their children.

They’re coming for you next: When a conservative student at the Illinois Institute of Technology proposed starting a chapter of the national conservative organization Turning Point USA (TPUSA) at the school, a slander campaign was immediately started by other students against both TPUSA and the student, forcing him to back down.

[After his proposal was put forth], classmates began to message his fraternity brothers, asking whether he was attempting to lead a “hate group” on campus. The conservative student said that this occurred on three separate occasions.

On January 27, the conservative student again presented to the student government — this time, to withdraw his proposal. The conservative student emphasized that he had no malicious intent in proposing a TPUSA chapter, but merely aimed to start a political discourse on campus. The conservative student apologized for proposing a TPUSA club and stated that he would consider forming a group under another national conservative organization.

Derek Rhea, the executive vice president of the Student Government Association commented that the “entire campus had been completely mobilized,” leading to a “huge movement on the opposing side” against the prospect of a TPUSA group at Illinois Tech. He applauded the conservative student for withdrawing his request to start a TPUSA chapter.

Senator Hannah-Lauren Moreno asked whether the conservative student was pressured into rescinding his request. The conservative student informed the student government that classmates began to wonder if he, his peers, and his fraternity brothers were “terrible people” for trying to start the club.

Following the January 27 student government meeting, the conservative student provided Campus Reform with screenshots, one of which appears to show a student rejoicing in an online message that “we managed to successfully cyber bully a student org to death.” [emphasis mine]

There is only one reason these partisan leftists (and that’s what they are) wanted to block a new TPUSA chapter. Unlike the moribund and largely uninteresting and dull Republican Party clubs, TPUSA has been very effective on campuses nationwide at countering leftwing hate and censorship while drawing to it large numbers of new students, teaching them that conservative values are about freedom and justice and equal treatment before the law, not the left’s slanderous lies of “white supremacy” and “hate.”

I highlighted the words of Rhea above because if he is telling the truth and a “huge movement” of students formed to blacklist this organization we are in very big trouble. This indicates that the next generation is truly all in with censorship and blacklisting, and will likely soon consider imprisoning anyone who disagrees as perfectly reasonable.

It is also possible that this guy is lying, and that the so-called “huge movement” was a handful of loudmouthed bullies, who have successfully learned how to use social media to intimidate everyone else. In this case Rhea is one of those bullies, and he is using his position as VP of the student government for that depraved purpose.

Either way, I guarantee that should this student return to propose a club linked to a different conservative organization, these same bullies will appear, making the same slanderous claims. They lie when they say they would accept other conservative organizations. They want them all banned, and play this game to make sure none ever appear.

In November 2019, music theorist Philip Ewell delivered a plenary address to the Society of Music Theory positing “a white racial frame in music theory that is structural and institutionalized.” Ewell took particular aim at 19th century music theorist Heinrich Schenker, whose influence on music theory is “hard to overstate,” arguing that Schenker was a “virulent racist” and that Schenker’s “racist views infected his music theoretical arguments.”

Timothy Jackson has devoted his career to the study of Heinrich Schenker. He is the director of the Center for Schenkerian Studies at UNT and a co-founder of the Journal of Schenkerian Studies, an academic journal published at UNT. Ewell’s widely-heard address related so directly to Schenker’s work that Jackson and the editorial staff of the journal decided to publish a symposium issue featuring a number of responses, both pro and con, to Ewell’s address. The journal issued a call for papers to all members of the Society of Music Theory, including Philip Ewell, who did not respond. Timothy Jackson himself published a response in the symposium that was highly critical of Ewell’s analysis.

The symposium issue was published in July 2020, and the calls for Jackson’s punishment began immediately. Rather than defend academic freedom against this obvious attempt to suppress unpopular opinions, UNT launched an investigation, creating an “ad hoc” panel to look into the process that allowed the symposium issue of the journal to be published. On November 30, 2020, this ad hoc panel published a report criticizing the journal’s structure and the editorial and review process used for the symposium.

In response to the ad hoc panel’s report, department chair Benjamin Brand “informed Professor Jackson that he would be removed from the Journal and that the university would eliminate resources previously provided to the Journal and Center for Schenkerian Studies,”

One important detail about the Heinrich Schenker whom Ewell calls a “virulent racist.” He was also a Jew who was a victim of German anti-Semitism and lost many relatives in the Holocaust, facts that Ewell somehow did not think important to mention.

This what academia has been like now for nigh on two decades. Only one political perspective is allowed, which for decades was merely liberal and Democrat. More recently this has transitioned into outright bigotry against whites. If you happen to be one of the continually shrinking tiny minority that disagrees publicly you will find yourself quickly squashed like a bug, as the University of North Texas is now attempting to do to Jackson.

Jackson however is not willing to get squashed without a fight. He has filed a defamation lawsuit (available here [pdf]) in response, noting that he was punished merely because he exercised his First Amendment rights of free speech. Jackson’s lawsuit not only names the University of North Texas, it also names many of the individuals who attacked him and participated in the witchhunt against him.

I hope he wins, and wins big, causing real pain to every single one of the bigots and tyrants who have tried to silence him, merely because he disagrees with them.

After proposing Biden give a speech on the subject, Lemon says this, “The rioting has got to stop. … It’s showing up in the polls. It’s showing up in the focus groups. It is the only thing right now that is sticking.”

In other words, the riots and looting were great, as long as they helped the Democrats in the polls. According to Lemon, who is a very typical Democratic apparatchik, only if rioting should hurt Democrats in the polls should Democrats oppose them.

This fact is far more important than Lemon’s obvious partisan bias. In this one clip he demonstrates, with the nodding approval of his fellow CNN anchor Chris Cuomo, that the political leadership of the Democratic Party and their lapdogs in the press care only about polls and winning, and will tolerate anything — riots, lynchings, looting, murder, oppression — if it will get them re-elected and in power.

This ugly and tolerant view of the recent violence and looting has been typical of Democrats. Prior to recent polling Democratic politicians not only enthused about the riots — calling them justified “protests” and downplaying the violence — some Democrats actually made believe the looting and violence wasn’t happening, were a “myth,” to quote Congressman Jerry Nadler (R-New York).

But the rioting and violence were happening, in increasingly ugly and vicious ways, destroying the livelihoods of ordinary people who had done nothing wrong, except maybe own a business in a place where these protesters happened to congregate. As soon as the polling and focus groups revealed that the public knew this, and was horrified by it and the Democrat’s nonchalance to it, the Democrats did an about-face. Suddenly looting and riots are bad!

What is really important about this revelation is that it is nothing new. Except for a short period in the mid-twentieth century, and even then only in northern cities, the Democratic Party has always been the party of lynching, of slavery, of oppression, of riots, of looting. In the 1860s, they wanted to continue to enslave blacks, and the election of Lincoln threatened that power. Thus, because they didn’t like the result of his election and would not accept it, they started a Civil War.

For more than a century following the Civil War that same party, dominant in the South, worked to continue the oppression of blacks, preventing them from voting, imposing segregation, while routinely subverting the law to kill any blacks uppity enough to challenge their rule. Then, in the 1960s they returned to riots and protests and violence as a means for getting their way, while bribing a whole generation of blacks with government hand-outs in order to make them loyal Democratic voters, even as that same party caused the destruction of the inner cities where they ruled. And it was in those same cities that blacks had migrated in post-World-War-II era, in a desperate attempt to escape Democratic southern rule. Now they were under that rule again, with the same odious results.

Today the Democrats have finally returned to their pre-Civil War policy of refusing to accept the legal results of elections, and are making it clear that should Trump win in November, no matter how big his victory, they will take whatever action necessary to nullify that victory, even to the point of creating fake mail-in votes to change the actual results.

And if that voter fraud isn’t sufficient it also appears that in Democratic strongholds like California, Oregon, Washington, and New York, there will be a forceful effort to secede from this country, to defy federal rule because that rule no longer meets with their approval.

Americans of all stripes, from all states, must rise up in November to oppose this Democrat Party’s effort to corrupt and destroy our nation. People must vote in large numbers, in person, for Republicans and for Trump. The victory must be a landslide of epic proportions, including even victories against Democratic rule in those Democratic strongholds, a victory so large that no matter of fraud will be capable of overturning it. Only then might these power-hungry corrupt Democrats realize that the country rejects them, that Americans believe in freedom and peaceful elections and the rule of law, not riots, looting, and stolen elections.

If Americans don’t do this, however, and thus give these corrupt, power-hungry Democrats an opening to void a legal election, sewing chaos and violence in their wake, then the coming years will be far more terrible than many can imagine. You can get a hint, however, by looking at the hellhole of Venezuela, or even at the collapsed bankruptcy in Democratically-ruled cities like New York, Detroit, and Chicago.

Do we really want this failure to come to the entire United States?

This is what the future holds. Note that it isn’t the teachers or college administrators calling for this student’s silencing (though I am sure they applaud it), but the students themselves. The modern generation requires oppression and intolerance of dissenting opinions. It does not believe in free speech. It believes instead in tyranny.

This quote from the article sums up the situation, at least at Georgetown University:

Jacob Adams, secretary of Georgetown Republicans, also told Campus Reform that “students are routinely harassed online by their peers for contrarian opinions at Georgetown. It is not a good college environment for conservatives or simply people who disagree with whatever is the prevailing political push. As it stands right now, I would not recommend Georgetown to any prospective student, and I would strongly discourage alumni from donating to the university until they clearly demonstrate Republicans and conservatives are welcome on campus.”

There is one ray of hope, though one that is incredibly depressing in many ways. Too many American colleges have become havens for this kind of intolerance. They are also finding survival difficult if not impossible under the oppressive rules imposed due to the Wuhan virus panic. The result might be that these havens of intolerance might go out of business.

It couldn’t happen fast enough. The problem is that it will be a trade of one form of oppression for another.

The heart of the apology says it all:

The professor, a faculty member in History, read from a historical document that used the “N-word” repeatedly. While she could have made the point without reciting the actual word, she chose otherwise. Her issuance of a “trigger warning” before her recitation does not lessen the pain caused by the use of the word. For students in the class, as well as members of our community, this was another painful experience. It is common sense to avoid uttering the most offensive word in the English language, especially in an environment where the speaker holds the power.

This apology is downright hostile to the pursuit of knowledge, and coming from the head of a university is especially appalling.

My regular readers know that I forbid the use of obscenities by commenters, as I oppose the recent cultural trend to make their use ubiquitous and casual. I think it debases everyone, and prevents thoughtful debate. However, if you want to get an accurate sense of history you must have the open-mindedness to tolerate hearing such things in order to understand that history.

Moreover, this administrator assumes that his students are so pathetically weak and delicate that hearing this word would destroy them. Poppy-cock! What is really happening is that he is bowing to the race-mongers and political bullies who have been using their demands on what language to speak to force everyone to endorse their political rule.

The future is grim if it will become impossible to learn anything that might offend you. In fact, in that culture you really will not be able to learn anything at all.

Just last week for example a couple was arrested for trying to run down two teenage boys with their car because the boys were riding bicycles with Trump flags.

According to an affidavit from Lake County, Indiana, Cailyn Smith, 18, and Kyren Jones, 23, were each charged on Thursday with two felony counts of intimidation and criminal recklessness over the incident involving the teens, who are brothers.

The brothers told police that they were riding their bikes at around 8:30 p.m. when a blue Chevy Malibu “swerved as if the driver wanted to hit them” and they had to ride their bikes into the grass, the affidavit stated.

A woman later identified as Smith then yelled “y’all scared just like your president” and “America is not great [expletive].” The couple reportedly sped off after the boys threatened to call the police.

As I say, this behavior has becoming horribly typical. The American left has become the most intolerant, close-minded, and vicious community I have ever seen in the U.S. in my entire life.

And with each passing day it is becoming even more violent and intolerant, its behavior rising to such levels of blind emotional hatred that we can almost guarantee it will soon lead to murder.

Don’t believe me? Then watch the video below.

A young woman somewhat well known on social media as a defender of the second amendment comes to Ohio University in Athens to make a President’s Day video where she would ask students a variety of trivia questions about the presidency to see how much they know. Watch how the slowly building crowd of hostile students — obviously organized quickly by using smart phones and texting each other — steadily evolves into a violent lynch mob, throwing things and threatening her with violence. And watch also as the campus police stand by, allowing the unruliness to grow while refusing the woman any protection or aid. If she had not brought with her a very large bodyguard, I am personally very doubtful she would exited the campus uninjured.

And what did she do to merit this response? She smiled and asked questions, and then tried to debate people about politics. Then she tried to defend herself against loud and unfounded slanders accusing her of being “racist.” No one would listen however. Instead, the students around her became louder and angrier and more vicious. As she says to one of the women screaming at her, “I thought you guys were tolerant?”

Think of this video when you go next to the polls. This same mob is almost certainly all going to vote for the Democratic candidate, educated as they are by an academic community that is as equally partisan and as hateful to conservatives. And should that candidate be Bernie Sanders and should Sanders win in November, his own campaign people have been repeatedly recorded lauding the wonders of the Soviet gulags. Do you think this mob will have any problem with such a thing?

Note that am not defending this woman’s political beliefs. In fact, other than her strong support of the second amendment, I really don’t know much about them. And in fact, I don’t care. She could be a flaming liberal all in favor of universal healthcare and I would be equally horrified. This is the United States. She has the right to walk on a public street and express her opinion without fear. Or at least, she should have that right. It appears however that in too many places in today’s America, such ideas of freedom of speech are no longer honored, replaced by mob rule and a mindless, emotional, and soviet-style despotism.

Nor should it matter any longer whether you are a Democrat or a Republican. This violence and hate that now dominates the power structure and culture within the left and the Democratic Party has become a direct attack on the principles of freedom and justice epitomized by our Constitution and our culture. These people no longer support these values, only the acquisition of power over everyone else, by any means necessary. You only need to watch this video to understand this.

The left and its minions in the Democratic Party need to be smacked down hard, at the polls. Their funding should be zeroed out, their universities shut down, and they themselves must be removed from every political office or government job. Let them find different work, work that won’t allow them to use power to hurt and attack others.

Only then will it be possible for decent Americans from both sides of the political spectrum to intelligently and rationally debate the issues of our time, of government funding and of healthcare and of social welfare and of aid to the poor. To try to do this debate now, with people like this, consumed as they are by an unreasoning anger and hate, is simply impossible.

One last thing: If you are the parent of any of these students and recognize your daughter or son behaving this way and you don’t do something about it, you are as bad as they are. You have raised a thug, and are willing to look the other way as they act no different than the brownshirts in Germany on Kristallnacht.

First we have the horrible events last week at the State University of New York-Binghamton.

• Aggressive, frenzied mob attacks conservative students, destroys their display
• Unruly campus activists shut down speech by ‘father of supply-side economics’ Arthur Laffer

To understand how disgusting and despicable the first story above is, it is necessary for you to watch the video below. Pay special attention to the taller girl in the fur-lined parka who at about four minutes keeps looking at the camera-person (whom I think is also a girl) and aggressively and repeatedly asking, “Why are you shaking so? Why are you shaking so?” The reason is obvious. The girl filming is one the conservative students, and she is justifiably frightened. The taller girl, hostile and irrationally angry because a conservative dared to advocate opinions she doesn’t like, is clearly being physically threatening. As are all of her leftist compatriots.

The response of the college administration to this atrocious behavior was even more vile, essentially endorsing the actions of the mob:

On Monday, November 18, Vice President for Student Affairs Brian Rose released a statement. He said the College Republicans and Turning Point USA did not have official permission to be tabling that day, that they twice refused to leave, and that their messaging and actions were “provocative.”

“The groups’ display included provocative posters with gun imagery, this being the same day as the Saugus High School shooting. Self-evidently from the nature of their display and their refusal to comply with procedures for reserving the space in question, the groups intended to be provocative,” Rose stated.

With that, the College Republicans may face some sort of consequences, Rose stated. “Had the group followed procedures, the University would have had the opportunity to plan for what was self-evidently a provocative presentation in a manner that may have facilitated expressive activity by both the tabling groups and those who wished to demonstrate against them. Any future action taken against the College Republicans will pertain to their violation of University and SA policies and procedures and not to the content of their message,” Rose stated.

He added the protesters will not face disciplinary measures: “There were also protesters who acted in a manner that may have violated University rules. In the context of the incident and in keeping with the principles and values noted above, the University did not seek to identify or charge any protesters.” [emphasis in original]

In fact, Mr. Ross’s statement is a lie. The conservative students had done nothing that violated school procedures, as many groups had routinely set up tables in this area in the past in exactly the same manner, with school approval.

What Mr. Ross has done, however, is signaled to this mob that they have his endorsement, that they can now with impunity attack conservatives on campus, in any way they like, whenever they wish, with no fear of punishment.

Then there were the events at Berkeley: Masked students and outside agitators block attendees from Coulter speech at UC-Berkeley.

This story is essentially a repeat of what happened in 2017 when other conservatives tried to give a speech at UC-Berkeley, with the exception that this time there actually was a police presence actually trying to prevent violence. A look at the videos (more available here and here) suggests that, though the speech went ahead, these police efforts were generally unsuccessful. The mob was going to get its pound of flesh, and knew that at most its members would only get a slap on the wrist for doing so.

This problem of mob rule however is not confined to leftists and fascists. We have become a global society that sets its political policy based not on reasoned debate and thoughtful analysis but instead on who can coordinate the largest political demonstrations.

Want to defend gay rights? Hold a parade! Hold lots of parades, in Washington, in Israel, in Atlanta, to name only a few, and even assign a defeated Democratic Party politician as grand marshal for one parade to protest her defeat.

Want to defend heterosexual rights? Hold your own parade in Boston. And to troll the gay community, make your parade marshal a conservative gay commentator!

Whoever carries the most signs and puts together the largest crowds is all that matters, nothing else. Sometimes the protests are caused by hate and a close-minded desire to silence all opposition, as in the first cases cited above. Sometimes they occur because of the oppressiveness of governmental control, as in Hong Kong and recently in Iran.

While the latter protests might be justified because the citizens of these oppressive regimes have little or no other option, the use of mob protests is merely a symptom of a society’s larger illness. Either it is not possible to use reasoned and open debate to settle society’s disagreements, or there is an effort to prevent reasoned debate from having a place at the table.

Nor is this mob rule limited to public protests. Consider the mobs that populate Twitter and all of social media. Say something someone doesn’t like on Twitter, and a crowd of self-righteous critics will pounce, working to not only silence you, but to get you fired from your job and ostracized from society.

None of this behavior really has anything to do with establishing justice or a civilized society. All these protests and parades really are are a gathering of a mob, screaming and yelling to demand its way. No one thinks much about anything during such events. Instead, they feel part of a greater cause, united in action, no matter what that action might be, or how violent or thoughtless.

In other words, it isn’t what you think that matters, but how you feel.

Sadly, this is what all modern political discussion has become. Do politicians and pundits thoughtfully analyze the issues of the day on television? Hardly. Instead they shout personal attacks, often based on no facts, simply to gin up ratings. Or they schedule Congressional hearings based not on any facts but on hearsay and slanders and fake charges, all for the purpose of blindly destroying their opponents.

In a sense these actions make them a mini-mob of one or a few, all focused on emotional attacks rather than looking at the issues in depth.

This is not how America used to function. I know from personal experience that the general public in the U.S. once frowned strongly on the use of public protest, not because they wished to silence opposition and dissent, but they looked at it as a childish and improper way to debate the issues of the day.

I sensed this social attitude during the first protest demonstration I ever attended, against the Vietnam War in 1966. After participating for several hours I increasingly felt uncomfortable about what I was doing. There was something about it that made me feel like a sheep. As we protested we had time to talk to each other instead of chant, and I found that my fellow marchers were not happy if I took an independent look at their positions. It wasn’t so much that I was disagreeing with them, but I was finding their level of knowledge about the Vietnam War to be woefully incomplete. They were simply glad to be part of that protest mob, unified in action, and didn’t like it if someone threatened their simplistic view of the issues.

They knew little about the history behind the war, the protest was doing nothing to educate them, and in fact was preventing them learning anything. It was instead fueling their ignorant and shallow emotions.

I did not like this, and decided it was time to leave. I quietly slipped away. I might be against the Vietnam war, but I was not going to be a sheep.

Part of the reason I was able to resist the peer pressure of this mob and make this decision was that in the 1960s I had read and heard more than a few opinions expressing these same thoughts. The culture did not oppose dissent; it just strongly believed that protests were simply not a good way to do things. This belief had struck a cord in my soul, especially after I had been a protester myself.

Since then I have participated in only a handful of other demonstrations, one in favor of Israel around 2005, and several Tea Party events in 2008 and 2009. Each time, I came away feeling the same. We had really done nothing but heighten the emotions, without enlightening anyone about the issues involved.

Unfortunately, my disdain of protests has become the exception to the rule. Americans now endorse the idea of protest as political debate. They might disagree with a demonstration, but their answer is to organize more protests in response. No one takes a breath and thinks. Instead, the goal is to gather a larger crowd with bigger signs and louder chants.

The result is consensus by mob, and decisions that are shallow, childish, and thoughtless. No wonder so many of our city and state governments are facing bankruptcy and lawless societies, while the federal government is bankrupt and fails in practically every task it tries to do.

Can this change? Yes, though I am doubtful and pessimistic. It will take an effort by every adult American, at all times, including accepting some sacrifices, such as giving up much of the worst types of behavior on social media.

American need to make an effort to once again become civilized adults, embarrassed when they find themselves doing childish things simply because it satisfies their childish emotions. That is not how a mature person behaves.

Or a mature civilization. There is a reason that “civil” is the central core of that word.

According to the report [pdf], people will be living mostly in very dense urban environments consisting of giant, self-sufficient skyscrapers that grow their own food, huge underground complexes, and even undersea colonies. Travel will be by self-driving pods that can double as hotel rooms on long trips, with travel possible between places like Britain and Scandinavia by aquatic highways. Alongside these will be autonomous air taxis that use rivers as commuter routes, hyperloops, and hypersonic airliners.

Not that there will be much traveling. For environmental reasons, most food will be grown close to home, if not in the home itself. Manufacturing will be equally local thanks to 3D printing. And, thanks to automation and artificial intelligence, most people will work in their self-cleaning homes with most of their professional and personal interactions with others conducted through means of full-feedback holographs.

That means that most people will live very sedentary lives, but they’ll also be monitored by biosensors throughout the day as virtual digital companions assess their health, help doctors to prescribe treatments to keep them at peak fitness, dispense health advice, and even custom tailor diets and medicines. [emphasis mine]

The last paragraph immediately stood out to me. These academics saw no moral or ethical problem with such monitoring and supervision. Nor it appears were they aware of the political ramifications of such technology.

Similarly, the report also envisioned “TV and movies beamed directly to your brain via optoelectronic devices” and “Living forever with our memories uploaded to the Cloud.” And from introduction in the report [pdf] itself:

One of the first things that struck me, reading their submissions, was how much consensus there seems to be between all our futurologists, on matters such as direct brain-to-internet connection being a very real possibility before 2069.

The essays in the report itself confirmed this impression. The predictions of all these academics are all focused on imposing their hot-button leftist agenda, including preventing global warming, allowing gender fluidity, pushing environmental activism, and eliminating of meat as food (to name a few), and doing so by the use of technology that is implanted directly into each human being. The world they envision will have every human a pawn in their interconnected robotic-controlled society, with brain implants eliminating our ability to think independently because we are now part of a kind of hive mind.

Samsung then asked British citizens to rank these predictions by what they would most like to see come true. Self-cleaning robotic homes was by far the most popular prediction at 63%, with “Body implants that monitor our health and translate any language” coming in second at 44%.

This poll however was rigged, as it did not ask anyone if they opposed some predictions. I wonder what response Samsung would have gotten had they asked that question.

Nonetheless, the number of people enthused by the idea of monitoring by body implants make me fear for the future. Today young people are addicted to their smart phones and that hive mind. They see nothing wrong with Google monitoring their lives and even acting to control them. I fear that when more convenient but invasive monitoring and control become technologically possible, future generations will be quick to accept it, while they simultaneously lose their individuality and ability to create uniquely.

The judgement is now stayed about three weeks, until August 19, 2019, during which time Oberlin must submit its appeal. If it does so the stay will be extended another two weeks for responses, with a decision on September 9.

At that point expect further appeals, no matter how the judge rules.

On the 5th of May, the American Freedom Alliance convened a conference on leftist radicalism. Before David Horowitz stepped up to the podium to discuss the threat of leftist extremism, Dr. Karen Siegemund, the president of the AFA, welcomed the attendees by speaking to our common values. “Each of us here believes in the unparalleled force for good that is Western Civilization, that is our heritage, whether we were born here or not,” she said.

After Dr. Siegemund and Horowitz’s remarks, a panel discussed radicalism in the school system.

The day after this event, Dr. Siegemund was informed by Le Lycée Français de Los Angeles, the school where she had taught mathematics for four years and where she had studied as a child, that her contract would not be renewed because she had praised western civilization.

The conference, which had addressed leftist radicalism in educational institutions, had struck home.

“On Monday, I was informed that my teaching contract won’t be renewed because of my ‘widely publicized views,’” Dr. Siegemund said. “You know, I’d always known I was vulnerable – of course. We on the right all know how vulnerable we are. But when it happens – when you actually become a victim, a casualty of this Long March, of the Left’s silencing tactics, it’s truly breathtaking.” [emphasis mine]

The key here is that the modern cultural left is not interested in other points of view. Either you agree with them, or you are evil and must be squashed. Or as Orwell said, speaking of the socialist/communist attitude toward power in 1984:

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.

Orwell’s book was supposed to a warning to the future. Instead, for the left it has become an instruction manual. As spoken by those in power in Orwell’s book,

Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten…The process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller.

The demonizing of western civilization and American history is all part of a comparable effort to make that knowledge inaccessible to future generations. And it appears that too many modern Americans are too cowardly to fight that effort.

The goal of the entire seminar is to demonstrate that knowledge, and truth, is always tied to power, which means that all knowledge, and truth, is entirely subjective, and if discovered by some ethnic groups in power (whites or Christians or Jews), other ethnic groups out of power have the right, the obligation, to reject that knowledge, and truth, in order to establish their own power base.

So, if an leftist Antifa fascist thug hits me, a white Jew, over the head with a rock and kills me, I can declare I am still alive because my interpretation of knowledge and truth is different than that leftist Antifa fascist thug.

Even more important, that leftist Antifa fascist thug will be justified in claiming he or she did nothing wrong, because from his or her perspective of knowledge and truth they did not kill me, but merely stopped me from oppressing them unjustly.

That dark age is coming on very fast. Be warned.

Hat tip Robert Pratt of Pratt on Texas.