You are here

New front in the eternal war on bigotry!

Building on a foundation laid by the Massachusetts “gay marriage” decision, and perhaps the Larry Summers smackdown, some students at Harvard are working with an official university body to do something about the problem of heteronormativity—the tendency some people still have of speaking as if male-female relations set some sort of sexual standard. The issue came to a head when a female singer came to campus to receive an award and made some inspirational feminist comments about relationships in the course of her talk:

“Women, you can have it all—a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career … They say you gotta choose. Nah, nah, nah. We are a new generation of women. We got to set a new standard of rules around here. You can do whatever it is you want. All you have to do is want it.”

“To my men, open your mind, open your eyes to new ideas. Be open.”

Students who took offense because the comments were so specific to opposite-sex arrangements issued a press release calling for an official apology and remedial action. They’ll be consulting with the appropriate authorities, who it appears had a hand in drafting the press release, so it seems likely that steps will be taken.

In Ontario they seem to be a few steps ahead of us on these things, so there’s been some official progress on the point. Words like “wife”, “husband”, “widow” and “widower” are to be struck from their law on the grounds that they offend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It appears that such words now stand for a love—married love—that dare not speak its name because its name has been compulsorily redefined to mean something else. Things won’t stop there, of course. The reason for PC is that an attempt to restructure reality can’t possibly come to an end. Infinite vigilance is needed, and the need only grows as time goes by and the ramifications of the stubborn inherited “bigotries” that constitute actual human life become more apparent. Wait until the professionals take on education. Family, marriage and domesticity have taken somewhat of a beating in modern textbooks. They’re likely to make a comeback, now that a new form has been found that aligns them with the forces of what is called progress.

Emerson put it best: “Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances.” The difference between today and his time is that the reforms advance more quickly, and there is less need to hide their meaning, because their advocates are more generally in control of things.

Share/Save

Comments

This article (linked in the log entry) amounts to a manifestation of group insanity from start to finish. There’s no sane person who doesn’t know this. Some sane Marxist individuals with ulterior motives might pretend to defend this stuff, but only because it serves their political purposes. They know it’s insanity. This whole article could perfectly well be a word-for-word transcription of some conversation overheard taking place among the nuts in the hallway of some nut house. Try it. Walk through a nut house and listen to the conversations among the nuts—you’ll hear no difference. Obviously, the majority of Harvard’s well-to-do contributors know this, because no sane person can’t know it (I didn’t say all Harvard’s well-to-do contributors know it—some of them are just as insane). We could speculate as to why they, the sane people who know this is insane, defend and encourage it in places like Harvard “University.” The article itself contains a hint of part of the explanation. The hint is the way the only one in the article allowed to talk sense is an African Negro (a white man saying the exact same words would have had his comment deleted from the article and/or been sneered at):

“Ofole U. ‘Fofie’ Mgbako ’08, a performer in the Cultural Rhythms show who watched Pinkett Smith’s speech, said he thought the speech was ‘insightful.’ ‘You can never appeal to every single group,’ he said. ‘You’ll always in some way be exclusive. I thought her message was clear. I thought it was sincere.’ â€

This piece of ordinary good sense spoken by Mr. Mgbako needed to be uttered according to the script, and of course no white man would have been allowed to utter it because that’s not in the script. Only the “good guy” can utter it. White men can’t be good because they’re the cause of all the evil in the world. They have to be punished and replaced. Non-white men possessing common sense, such as this African Negro man, are going to replace them according to the script. Everyone in this play’s audience knows the script by heart, as it’s rehearsed over and over every single day, directly or indirectly, in one way or another, during their entire tenure at Harvard “U.”—be that four years for the students, or some other duration for the faculty—to make sure they all “get it.” They’re in the equivalent of “The Village,” the brainwashing little place that was the setting of the old British TV series “Secret Agent,” with Patrick McGoohan, or “Number 6,” as he was called.
________________________

Long live Flanders!

________________________

“The [British] Government aims to bring in a single equality Act […] that will ban hotel owners from refusing rooms to gays.’

“The background to this proposal shows how the ratchet operates. Last July Stephen Nock, a homosexual living in London, tried to book a room with double bed for himself and his boyfriend at a ‘Bed & Breakfast’ in the wild and mountainous North-West of Scotland. Now, the b&b—Cromasaig in Kinlochewe, Wester Ross—is a family home. The owners, Liz and Tom Forrest, didn’t want that kind of trade. Renting a double bed to two homosexuals entailed a certain complicity in an act which Liz and Tom saw as a perversion. And that is what Tom perhaps somewhat bluntly said to Mr Nock in an e-mail extending his hospitality if the two homosexuals settled for a twin-bed room.

“Evidently, Mr Nock didn’t appreciate the offer because the result, in Tom’s words, was that in no time he got ‘stitched up.’ Homosexual political activists and a prurient press began to sh*t upon him from a very great moral height.

“A weak man would have buckled. Tom Forrest is not a weak man. When he was accused of homophobia he replied, ‘I have no hatred or fear of poofs. I just do not approve of unnatural acts being performed in my home.’ Even when a woman from the National Tourism Board of Scotland arrived to re-educate him—Cromasaig was listed on its website so presumably she thought she had a duty to do so – he remained true to his down-to-earth principles.

“He asked her if she thought homosexual sex was natural. ‘Yes,’ she replied.

“ ‘There is no point in talking to people like that,’ Tom told the press. ‘It’s obvious which side they are on. If that’s the sort of organisation they are, they are welcome to it.’

“Well, Tom brought a smile to a lot of ordinary people’s faces and he has been rewarded. ‘We have had messages from people congratulating us from as far away as California and more accommodation inquiries than you can ever imagine,’ he told the press. One message from someone in Middlesex read, ‘Thank God there is a man who will stand up to some of the daft changes to the laws of this land. You have spoken for the majority of people who think like you but are too afraid to say so.’

“Too afraid to say so. Yes, the majority is cowed into silence. But it is also atomised and incapable of self-organisation in its own interests. The Party that should naturally serve as its rallying point is simply not Conservative anymore. We no longer live in an age—a Conservative age—when politicians of the right can be relied upon to entrench the life-long love of man and woman in our mores and protect the population from deviance. We live in a liberal age, and have done for a very long while.”

________________________

Long live Flanders!

________________________