American Style Social Justice Spreads to Oxford

Ntokozo Qwabe is the black, South African that unfortunately won an Rhodes Scholarship to read law or some other thing.  It is a crying shame he was let in.  But more to the point, he unsuccessfully led a campaign whilst there to remove the Cecil Rhodes statue from Oriel College.  There isn’t really a good reason to remove the statue, it is all based on shaky reasoning.  Qwabe is more of a psychopath looking for fame and trying to destroy the good things others have done that he can not do than he is a wise, civil rights activist.  These antics, to me, seem to have originated in American academic institutions and they seem to be spreading around the world in an ironic twist on imperialism.

As I said, Qwabe wants to remove a statue of the man who, a century ago, set up the scholarship he arrived on. The reason is that Cecil Rhodes was a figure who stood out in the British Empire for having gained his wealth as an industrialist in South Africa.  He was also a politician there and may have held racist views although it is not completely clear what his thoughts were on race.  It is clear however that he thought British imperialism was a good thing.  The idea of taking the good from one one country and spreading it to other countries, is apparently offensive if it was done in the past by white men.

The thing is that it makes no sense to cry about racism and being oppressed by a dead man, when that man’s scholarship has enabled you to travel to a new country to get an education and presumably climb up without restriction to wherever one pleases to go in life.  How exactly is a man, with a very prestigious scholarship, in a most fortunate position, being oppressed?

He is not of course.  Qwabe is just a vile hater.  I like that word; hater.  The left are simply just haters.  It turns out he is a racist which we all could have seen.  Have a look at this tweet here of his.  What Qwabe wants to do is to destroy the successes other people have had.  He will probably make a career of doing this, his tweet makes me think of him as possibly being a sadist.

Of course, the irony of the whole thing is how imperialistic it all is.  American academic institutions develop a destructive, hateful, anti-historical type of social justice that demands the removal of arbitrary things to appease crowds of haters, this idea and technique spreads to South Africa, where it is adopted by Qwabe, who then proceeds to go to a foreign country (England) and demand that the people there do as he says or else.  Going to another country to impose a moral code and plunder for self gain, that sounds kind of… stereo-typically imperialistic… wouldn’t you say?


So Called Smart People Are Generally Stupid

We know that the educated, urban, middle class tends toward progressive thought.  They hold as virtues rationality, democracy, equality, the scientific method, and the defeat of our abhorrent past (perhaps in the year 1968) as self-evident truths.  They are enlightened, intelligent, intellectual, and they have shed their gender and replaced it with purely rational smart-think.  They have an “us versus them” mentality, wrongly and ironically believing themselves to be unique, special snowflakes in a violent blizzard of stupidity which is the other.  Unaware of their group-think, and unwilling to accept they are neither original, nor very clever, they have become a dangerously stupid group.

The belief they share is simple.  They are smart, and everyone else is dumb.  For them, masculinity is like a peacock’s colours; useless and lacking in substance yet pompous enough to be dangerous.  Only the stupid and emotional, those easily misled by sophistry and show, can believe it to be a good thing.  They have moved beyond the unscientific thought of the rest of humanity.  They are an elite minority that can solely know right from wrong.

They believe violence is the result of overzealous masculinity, forcing itself upon others.  Nationalism is an evil that can only lead to war, and in the past, people were stupider and more easily tricked by a group-of-men-up-to-no-good known as the patriarchy.

These people believe the smart set should be in charge and given all the power and it just so happens, in an incredible coincidence, that they are the smart set.  They will remove the concept of masculinity so that no one can ever enforce sexual norms again, and they will distribute wealth evenly by taking it from wealthy people who didn’t earn their money and giving it to the unemployed who did earn their money, and they will end war by granting brave terrorists each of their demands so that terrorists will hopefully, eventually run out of things to demand, and they will end the reign of archaic authorities by making sure that no one says anything offensive and if they do, they are put under arrest.

So committed they are to this belief in themselves, that they simply refuse to accept they could be wrong when the failures started piling up.  The smart set was more committed to being a rising member of the club for smart people than it was in doing things that it listed as its virtues; things like making observations, testing hypotheses, and gathering evidence.

As a result, the smart set became quite dumb, unaware that it displayed all the traits it abhorred in others such as jealousy, and pettiness and commitment to emotional beliefs that validated their own egos.

The smart set won’t pay attention to anyone’s advice but their own.  Apart from that they seem to be too busy provoking riots, and smashing things, and angrily shouting obscenities at people they disagree with to spend their time thinking anyways.  The reality is that they show all the worst traits of humanity and maybe this is precisely where arguments against progressive thought should be made rather than assuming progressives are just mistaken people.

University Women’s Center on Policing Masculinity

Universities are creating “healthy masculinity” events to teach men that everything they know about masculinity is false and if you disagree then you are “policing masculinity”.  This story has come to my attention about the phenomenon.  It is a new trick the ever-creative academics are using which has been discussed before.  Policing masculinity is disagreeing with feminists about what masculinity is, and we certainly wouldn’t want to be policing anything(policing being a terrible thing to do), so ideally we should just go along with whatever the academic feminists are saying, right?

Academic feminists have done this before.  They will argue that a real man is a man that stays at home with the children whilst his wife, the corporate executive, goes out as the breadwinner.  When someone objects to this, perhaps mentioning rightly that such a man is not very attractive, the academic types will argue you are “policing masculinity”.   This, they claim, is the last resort of the misogynist male, to assert that masculinity is not a fluid definition, but that it means something, and that meaning is rooted in the historic patterns we have observed of the sexes.  They smear this attempt as an irrational attempt to save toxic masculinity.

So what is toxic masculinity according to them?  Things like playing sports, studying business, desiring sex, and not crying.  (A side note: these seem to be the same things women are being encouraged to do.)  So by objecting to this rather stupid list, you are policing masculinity and you need to stop.

But I ask, why did men do these things in the first place?  If they had been brain-washed into following toxic masculinity, why was it decided that they would be brain-washed into playing sports and studying business and not anything else?  Who came up with these things to brain-wash men with? Was it the Pope? Was it Biggie and Tupac?  Who?

Apart from the delusional idea that a widespread conspiracy is how men wound up liking business and desiring sex, there is another problem with feminists telling men to stop policing masculinity.  They themselves are policing masculinity.  You see, to them, masculinity is not found in competitive, active activities, or in the pursuit of wealth via business, or in the desiring of sex with women so don’t you dare say that it is.  How dare anyone claim that men might actually want to climb a corporate ladder.  This is to be discouraged.  To them, men should not do that.  They are enforcing morality among men by restricting so called “toxic masculinity” which is precisely what policing is.

So these university feminists have once again shown that they are hypocrites.  I don’t think we have reached the point that no one takes them seriously anymore, there is still a large segment of the population that would like the things they are saying here.  But it should be obvious that these people are the ones policing masculinity, not the ordinary people doing what comes naturally to them.

Academics Argue for a Fluid Definition of Masculinity

Men are tougher than women.  Perhaps I should say men are likely tougher than women since the research simply leans towards that view.  Regardless, it seems feminists don’t like this view and argue for a belief that men and women do not have any innate biological qualities, i.e. gender differences.  Instead they argue that any differences we see are actually a result of society and our education.  So, to them, men and women can simply be changed with education because their gender identity is learned.  I want to present some evidence I have accrued that does not reflect this view at all.

Have a look at this (somewhat older) video with Gavin McInnes in it arguing for gender differences against 3 pseudo-academics and a possibly gay man all at once.

I like Gavin McInnes, his fame and notoriety are growing in the media for speaking the truth and he hasn’t changed his message or issued any apologies.

To begin with, the female professor of law argues that toughness, aggression, and success are all wrongly linked to maleness.  Taking her at her word, that means she believes men are educated by society to be these things, it’s the old “patriarchy theory”, and that women could just as well be tough and aggressive.  This is where science disagrees.  This article points to a gene that only men have that is linked to differences in reaction to stress.  Men have more of a fight-or-flight response to stress than women.  The male response seems to be regulated by hormones influenced genetically via the SRY gene.

Also, male facial shape appears to be buttressed against punches.  Violence and men go back a long time and this shows up in their biology.  Men also are larger, stronger, and have more testosterone.  Testosterone is linked with aggression.  Not only this but men are 70% of the victims of homicide.  If aggression was simply something that was taught, why wouldn’t men and women be targeted equally by men?  Instead men primarily seem to target other men suggesting a possible link to reproductive strategies.  Further, this quote:

Also important in this regard are the findings of social psychologists who have noted that the social emancipation of women in recent decades has barely influenced or enhanced the expressiveness of aggressive behavior in women, which is additional proof that the higher degree of masculine aggressiveness is, first of all, due to genetic factors.

(Both the homicide statistic and the quote taken from here.)  In other words, being encouraged to act like men, women do not appear to be committing violence as much as men.

Men and women also have language use differences according to this research paper.  Men use more direct language.  Direct language would seem to be an important part of successful negotiation therefore perhaps lending credibility to the idea that success in areas of business is indeed a male thing, contrary to what the female professor said.

One thing to keep in mind is that violence is not necessarily a bad thing but the professors seem to believe it is always a bad thing.

I also want to address this bogus idea that Gavin was policing what masculinity is.  Gavin argues for what masculinity is based on biological grounds and then a professor disagrees by accusing him of trying to police what masculinity is.  So these feminists argue that insecure patriarchal males are bullying and policing masculinity and that defining masculinity is bad, then they themselves try to define and police what masculinity is.  At no point did anyone actually refute Gavin, they just accused him of things.

The professors also say Gavin is afraid and weak and insecure because he thinks masculinity is biological.  If anything, I suspect the professors are insecure with the concreteness of a biological definition.  Whether they realise it or not, they are saying that there are no gender differences because any perceived difference is actually a result of education.  So where is the evidence this is true apart from a nice theory?

There is some very strong evidence that the “education” theory of gender differences is false.  Although it is long, the article from Wikipedia explains the story of a man whose penis was destroyed at a young age and his parents were convinced by a psychologist that to resolve this issue, they could simply raise him as a girl and things would turn out fine.  The brainwashing did not work out and the man did not identify as a woman in his life, he later committed suicide.  Researching such a thing on a large scale would be highly unethical but this I suspect contains more evidence that gender is not learned.

The gender education theorists do not have any scientific proof of their theory.  We are slaves to our biology, and this is a good thing.  Leftists believe societal norms can be divorced from, separate to biology so that the two have nothing to do with each other. That professor, Mary Anne, says what’s wrong with masculinity is insisting it is one particular way, biological. Yet she herself can only insist it is not biological.  Even by arguing that men could and should if they wish become house husbands, she is arguing that masculinity is not biological but fluid.  I imagine this view will continue to be pushed in western education for a while to come and I think it has had pernicious effect on society.

Recently, Gavin was seen in this video telling a woman she would be happier at home.

There is another interesting video of Gavin McInnes I dug up where he is debating a social justice warrior.  It is about an hour if you have the time.

Something’s Off: A Leftist Fakes Data Used in a Study

The story is here from fivethirtyeight.  Basically, a study showed that being in contact with a gay person that is pro gay marriage dramatically shifted people’s opinions of gay marriage towards being more in favour of it more so than heterosexual people could convince people to support it.  The story was retracted because when researchers tried to replicate the data, they could not and then they found anomalies in it that suggested it was manipulated by hand, probably by one of the study’s authors.  The original research was used by many gay groups and by ridiculous media outlets like buzzfeed and vox to explain to people that a personal story from a gay person can convince people opposed to gay marriage to be more “open” very effectively.  I personally would have been sceptical of this study if I had seen it before I knew the data was faked.  I also want to point out that predictably, the Left is not talking about how their own might be corruptible or driven by ideology but rather that the author that faked the data, Michael J. Lacour, was a victim of a power structure inside academia.

The other day, I published a list of things that the Left doesn’t like you to question.  The relevant ones for this article are that “people are blank slates that education can change”, “Education can solve all social issues”, and “People become prejudiced through ignorance”.  I might as well add that “Conservative ideology is entirely ignorance” because that is what many of the Left actually think.  Reading the article about the fake study, and seeing the ideas behind the fake study, I can tell the ideologically driven authors believe that opposition to gay marriage is based on ignorance, i.e. there is no reason to oppose it so if you do then you are full of hate and stupid.  Whatever your views, people can be opposed to gay marriage for a wide variety of reasons, many of which are secular I should add but the Left instead attributes any disagreement with them to irrational malice.  It’s rather ironic, because assuming conservatives are all ignorant is, well, ignorant.

That the study accorded so nicely with those tenets of the Left should trigger alarms.

The man that faked this data must have sat in secrecy and spent considerable time and effort generating artificial data points, to be published as “science” and used by the public, that he thought would help advance his career and his ideology.  I find this very dark and twisted and I wonder if the researcher even believes in his own cause.  Yet no one is bringing it up that it sounds like something a sociopath would do.  Instead, the “power structures” and “incentive systems” are the problem here instead of, say, expecting researchers to be honest.

It is important to keep in mind that much of what academia does is indeed biased but that they do not view themselves as ideological or corruptible.  It is also important to know what their biases are and they are heavily biased towards a Utopian belief in education.  They believe that education and information can be used to shape people in to a more desirable form for their ends.

A Look at the Academic-Industrial Complex’s Hostility Towards Men

There are many reasons for this.  I want to take a moment to discuss some of these reasons and still it is necessary to point out that in spite of the hostility and lack of return that men get from the academic-industrial complex, they continue to invest huge amounts of money in it.  I call it the academic-industrial complex because it is common to hear the Left refer to any Western military as the military-industrial complex in a conspiratorial manner.  Except the alliance between government and academia is plainly obvious and the conspiracy demonstrably exists.  This is especially true in America where the academic degree mill industry is most pronounced.

I have a chart I used in a different post on this blog.

The first thing we will note is that in America, the price of a university degree continues to go up and yet the return has remained stagnant.  The same can be said of universities in the UK, prices have gone up and whether or not the return was worthwhile is questionable.  Men are continuing to get the education and put themselves in great debt to do so.  They are then saddled with debt when they graduate and this causes them to delay their progression through adulthood as they are now less financially fit with the loan debt.

People at the universities are required to take general-ed classes that serve only to expose an audience to various minority cultures wherein they are told that all conflicts those minorities experience are a result of evil Western forces.  They are told about the great superiority of other cultures and the inferiority of their own.  This is to enrich their lives and is considered by many intellectuals to be a hallmark of good education, a scepticism of Western cultures.  Although in the UK it is different because people going in to a university are already on a special track, there are still people there that teach and spread this type of propaganda.  As a result of these things being considered mandatory or part of the university life, students are indoctrinated and accept most of what they have been told.  This includes the message that men oppress women.  Despite this, men continue to pay for degrees.

Just recently I saw an advert for an academic position that specifically stated that the department was looking to hire more women.  Universities are under pressure to grant special favours to women and not men.  In America it is legally allowed under Title IX to do so, as well, admissions policies and hiring practices, particularly for science and technology graduate positions, are biased to increase the number of women.  This is a two-tier system in which women are preferred over men for admittance whether as a student or as part of the university staff.  Despite this, men will continue to try to get these positions.

Recently, this concept of “rape culture” on campuses has been widely reported in the media.  Stretching back to the Duke Lacrosse scandal in which a group of innocent men was maligned in front of the whole world for a rape that never took place, and more recently, the UVA rape hoax, the idea has spread that there is widespread rape of college women.  There is no evidence that rape is happening on a large scale on campuses but in spite of this campuses have responded to pressure from the government to increase their vigilance and prevention of rape.  This came in the form of Title IX being used to reduce the standard for guilt to be declared.  It went from being “beyond a reasonable doubt” to merely a “preponderance of evidence” meaning that being accused of rape shall be considered evidence that a rape took place.  This is frighteningly hostile towards men.

Women are supposedly 1/3 more likely to earn a degree and still earn less than men.  This is likely because they get degrees in subjects that should not exist.  One can earn a bachelor’s in any of lesbian, queer, transgender, black, african, gay, or women’s studies or essentially the same thing: a marketing degree, or the two pseudo-science studies Psychology and Sociology. In those two studies, the predominant thought is no different than a coffee table discussion from a group of leftists.  Indeed White Babies are Racist and Exposure to American Flag Causes One to Support Republicans.  This is what we should expect from Psychology and Sociology.

You can even earn a degree in Communications, studying the theory of communication.  Somehow even Communications can not escape from Marxism.

Recently, an American woman was seen on video insulting an attendant.  Here it is.  Now, the attendant may well have earned the derogatory comments so I won’t say much about that but the two things that stick out to me in the video are that first, Britt McHenry certainly does not appear to be acting like an educated person and second that she kept referencing her degree.

I looked it up and she got an English degree from an American university I have no familiarity with; Stetson University.  A quick look at her English program, although they are all the same, shows reading Shakespeare is not even required.  What is required however is “critical theory” which you can search but it is a line of thinking from the Frankfurt School.  I can do my best to make a summary but it intentionally resists people doing that because it isn’t meant to be argued with but simply accepted but it primarily rests on discovering “power structures” in a text and how they oppress.  It primarily isn’t falsifiable and tends to be overtly political and leftist and this is what we can expect a person with an English degree to have studied rather than Shakespeare.  It is absolutely the case that the notion of a patriarchy and applying scrutiny towards a patriarchy in a text in order to show the oppression men may cause is part of the curriculum.

Not going to university, men may fear then that women will out-credential them and put them in a more difficult spot but these credentials are essentially meaningless.  A credential distinguishes someone but it seems the majority of women will be earning some type of a degree so it hardly counts as a credential when everyone has it.  Further, many of these degrees are in entirely superfluous and ridiculous subject areas.

Most important of all, men are delaying their adulthood.  Instead of learning a business trade and beginning to climb the social ladder, men just squander their time and resources at university only to discover that they will still need to be trained for whichever industry they choose afterwards and their degree offers little as far as actual practical knowledge goes.  Many disciplines do not require a diploma and the UK has several statesmen I can name that don’t have a degree yet did fine for themselves.  Men should absolutely stop paying their money in to this system because it is harming them and the administrations of these institutions are hostile towards them.  I think a return to apprenticeships would be much more economically feasible and beneficial to men than earning degrees.

Professor’s Beginning to Fear Political Correctness Gone Mad

Ace rather nicely makes a summary of the events here.  Basically, professors are beginning to fear the monster they created.  Anything can ignite the leftist PC crowd to a frenzy, and professors are worried.  Even feminist professors are worried about the backlash and have begun to speak out against it.  Feminists that shame male sexuality have in the past instituted policies to prevent evil men from having sex with female students.  But according to feminists, it was entirely female professors doing this anyways.  But they don’t like being told they can’t have relationships with their students.  So they speak out, and they speak out against the constant triggering students may feel, and they speak out against the rejection of truth and reality in favour of a safe fictional universe.

But let’s not mince words here, professors caused this mess.  They are like Trotsky, a communist whose death was plotted by other communists.  Professors are feminists who are now facing a new crowd of feminists that want their power.  The professors autonomy will be completely removed unless they merge themselves with the feminist student movement.

I have no mercy for these people and hopefully this hastens the death of academia.  Departments such as political science, sociology, psychology, black studies, etc have provided no benefit to society while continuing to collect large sums of taxpayer money.  They aren’t on the side of conservatives or reality, they are sellouts, evil as can be.

Let us wait and hope this brings down the administration and the evil, excesses, and corruption of academia.