University of Fools

A statement by the leadership of Kings College London promises its alumni, staff and students it will begin:-

  • Increasing the ethnic diversity of our senior leaders
  • Supporting staff and students to sensitively discuss race and racism
  • Supporting staff and students to identify and report racial microaggressions
  • Continuing to close King’s BME attainment gaps and to develop inclusive curricula

To read the Kings statement click here

On my reading and the reading of any reasonable person this in effect is a declaration that Kings is no longer a university. How could any system of lectures function if due to microaggressions somebody in the audience decides he or she has been racially slighted, even if there is no evidence of this whatsoever, the offence being entirely in the mind of the slighted ?

Destroying the meaning of language by replacing it with meaningless accusations was the technique used by Maoist Gangs to close universities during the Cultural Revolution in China. With a few months the entire country and culture was on its knees. 100,000 died

Fortunately Jordan Peterson in his most recent essay (below Missives of Appalling Idiocy……) has lightened the darkness caused by the squalid ignorance and terrified cringing before a minority of students by university leaders worldwide.

Jordan Peterson

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

21 Comments on University of Fools

  1. The key to the current political destruction of civilization is, as the above article points out, the increasingly constipated, narrow, propagandist intellectual base of education. It now rests comfortably on a pin-point – and so we have pin-head graduates.

  2. The whole notion of a “microaggression” is itself an aggressive intrusion into the privacy and liberty of the subject. Presuming to judge someone guilty of some supposed crime simply because of an expression or a turn of the body is totalitarian oppression. It reverses the presumption of innocence, dispenses with the need for evidence and allows of no defence. And where is our fathead prime minister in all this? Nowhere at all. He presides over a long submission to this lunacy and people are at last beginning to notice.

  3. I much admire Jordan Peterson, but I’m afraid I was unable to read his linked article. I tried! I really tried, but for all his oratorical brilliance, he seems unable to write in a tight, concise manner. Seriously, it made my head hurt trying to wade through his prolixity.

    • I absolutely agreed. I like his YouTube talks and he is an interesting person, but my goodness some of his sentences in this piece were convuloted and difficult to follow. It’s his style, I suppose, but will put off a lot of people who don’t want to wade through such verbiage.

      • It’s a good way to make people think you sound intelligent and insightful while spouting utter bollocks. If he ever had a decent point to make he could do it so you could understand.

  4. Remember: never, *ever*, go to a dark-skinned physician or lawyer who was trained in the west. (Those of them who were trained in their own countries of origin, which have not yet been bitten by the PC bug, are another issue).

    You never know if their high grade in, say, anatomy, was genuine – or if they do not know their ass from their elbow but the “gap in grading had to be closed”.

    I mean, this isn’t like, say, literature or sociology, where everybody gets prizes anyway and the whole fields is worthless. This is something serious.

  5. Sir Simon McDonald the PUS at the Foreign Office wishes to have the statue of Clive of India, removed from the pavement outside his office.
    Mr Andrew Banks, is given fourteen days in gaol for relieving himself near a small and easily overlooked memorial. He did this during a time when all public lavatories are closed because of the reaction to the corona virus.
    Sir Simon McDonald has been given money, status and influence by the United Kingdom, yet he clearly despises his own country.
    Mr Andrew Banks has been roughly treated by the judicial system, which has carried out the wishes of the establishment that Sir Simon McDonald is part of, yet I suspect that Mr Banks is rather fond of his country.

    • What a brilliant comment, showing the ugly hypocrisy of British justice and its class snobbery. Man who defends his country unfairly imprisoned. His superior who wants to pull down our rich heritage is rewarded with a knighthood.
      Thank you for this.

      • Dear Niall,
        The very people who have been given the rewards of status and large salaries by the institutions of the UK, repeatedly fail to recognise their good fortune, and seem astonishingly scornful of the country that has looked after them so well. The senior civil servants, the BBC’s newsroom staff, the fourteen professors at the University of Oxford (who wish to remove the Statue of Cecil Rhodes) all are contemptuous of their fellow Britons.
        Yet when hardy comes to hardy, their ill-thought of countrymen, who do love their country, have pulled them out of the fire repeatedly
        “For it’s Tommy this, an Tommy that, an’ “Chuck him out the brute!”
        But it’s “Saviour of ‘is country” when the guns begin to shoot;”

        R

      • “Man who defends his country” (shuerly shome mishtake) was given one day per pint of lager he had consumed and was struggling with. Since the pubs, like the toilets, are closed, where do you think he obtained them?

  6. The two aims are incompatible:
    1. Supporting staff and students to sensitively discuss race and racism
    2. Supporting staff and students to identify and report racial microaggressions

    There is no possibility of ‘discussing racism’, however ‘sensitively’, without either a participant or an eavesdropper identifying some ‘micro-aggression’ and reporting it in order to silence, or have sacked, the speaker who challenges Big Woke. Given that the law of the land prohibits ‘hate speech’, and does not grant a protected right to ‘discuss racism’, then we already know which of the two aims will be pursued, and which not. To pretend that any meaningful discussion of racism can take place in a university in the current era, is to be either dishonest or deluded. One suspects that the leaders of KCL are not deluded.

    • Good point. I have often said to academic colleagues that EQUALITY and DIVERSITY are basically incompatible. It just shows how the ‘progressive’ middle class establishment captures positive phrases so that you cannot argue against them.

  7. The sad irony is that the document itself is guilty of the “micro aggression” it purports to suppress, namely the assertion that senior staff recruitment be made based upon race regardless of candidate’s other attributes.

  8. Nearby UCL is also an offender. They have done nothing at all about the law lecturer who said he had to smile when the PM went into hospital though they jumped on Tim Hunt (Nobel laureate) when he made a harmless and feeble joke about female scientists. I forget the lawyers name – he also works for a barristers’ chambers still, but he was of the approved ethnic community.

    White privilege doesn’t go very far these days.

  9. I am English. I want my country back from this activist class of morally corrupt liberals and neo-Marxists. They are cynically employing the lie of “racism” to complete our dispossession. They have to held to account, yet not even Dominic Cummings wants to move against them.

      • Do you think my MP will take the matter up with Boris? Or are you fresh out of reasons not to argue in these pages for more than the politics of passing the port?

        Come on, Myles, you’re miffed because the purity and justice of the English nationalist cause throws an unflattering light on your conservatism, and you cannot find a moral or intellectual argument to get you back the prior comforts of looking down upon it. The question, really, is: why did you ever look down upon it? What is it, do you think, that causes traditional conservatives like you to disdain nationalists and nationalism in an age of our people’s replacement and dissolution?

        • I am not a conservative don’t know where you got that idea. A few years ago a previous editor attended a Tory party local party. She said to the chairman I wish more members would read the Salisbury Review. He replied ‘My dear Conservatives don’t read – they know ‘ I think that’s sums it up

          • Do you not know the difference between a conservative and a Conservative?

            In so much as I map at all on the liberal compass, I am an instinctual or natural conservative. It means that in the liberal system I am against liberalism … I oppose the Christo-liberal fiction of the unfettering will in all its forms, and oppose the equally fictitious liberal desideratum of equality however it is framed … I do all that, but I am still trapped with the system itself; as we all are.

            How about you? To which fictitious political gods do you genuflect?