The history of policing in many countries is somewhat of a mixed bag of results, some positive and some very negative. Police at the end of the day are people doing a task which is enforcing prescribed laws and such laws often impact on whether police are seen as good or bad. The problem with this is that when corruption occurs or when bad policemen take advantages of situations or abuse their authority it may seem that all police are bad. Is this a reasonable and logical conclusion? Is simply defunding the police a satisfactory solution? Let us consider how to destroy economies and cause social breakdown.
Imagine a surgeon has been taken to court, the charge is gross negligence, dereliction of medical duty and serious breaches of medical ethics. The doctor is found guilty. Would it be reasonable then for the judge in sentencing, to declare the entire medical profession to be deficient, and then make a call to arrest all doctors and close all hospitals? The answer is of course no. The harm caused would far exceed anything even the guilty doctor could manage by himself.
Image then that such a doctor existed for every 100 doctors in practice. The scrapping of the entire medical field would not help, nor would it even if the number of corrupt doctors went higher, say 50 or 60 percent. In such a case, reform would be needed, especially investigations to understand a) how many doctors are corrupt and b) why corruption has become to widespread. Both such questions need to be answered to avoid creating a flat, univariate analysis. Such an investigation would require MORE allocation of resources, both monetary as well as in terms of human capital.
Imagine once again that such an investigation took place. The findings concluded three underlying factors:
In situation 1, funds would need to be allocated either to change the immediate environment or to find other solutions such as hiring more staff, an option requiring more funding.
In situation 2, insufficient, incorrect or absent equipment would require not only funds to acquire proper equipment but also funding to train doctor to properly use such equipment.
In situation 3, investigators would need to be paid to properly identify and prosecute corrupt doctors. Another are involving additional funds and not less.
Now let’s go back to the police. What do police actually do? As stated at the outset they enforce the law. However, what does that really mean? In a balanced society, they grease the wheels, keeping things in working order, removing undesirable or harmful elements and assisting the weak. True, in some countries this is not the case, however, community safety is meant to be the final goal of policing. Large amounts of policing work goes into prevention, that is to say, removal of elements that lead to antisocial or criminal behaviour before such behaviours occur. Hence, there are community outreach programs and the most successful police departments always work closely with their communities.
Policing takes training, especially good policing. In the case of Korea, police attain at least an Associated degree in policing with numerous degrees of specialisation (Bachelor’s and Master’s) also being available. Police are trained in de-escalation techniques that help prevent conflicts from devolving into physical encounters. Serious altercations and death are rare. Such training needs financial resources.
The case can be made that guns are common in the US and not so in Korea. True as this may be there are other factors to consider. The majority of the male population has undergone conscription and martial arts training, meaning that they are per capita more dangerous in close quarters especially with blunt or sharp items.
This is an issue police still have to contend with.
In the American case, police corruption has been advertised by popular media as being a race based disparity. At a glance, it would appear that the research supports this:
“Police violence is a leading cause of death for young men in the United States. Over the life course, about 1 in every 1,000 black men can expect to be killed by police. Risk of being killed by police peaks between the ages of 20 y and 35 y for men and women and for all racial and ethnic groups. Black women and men and American Indian and Alaska Native women and men are significantly more likely than white women and men to be killed by police. Latino men are also more likely to be killed by police than are white men.”
(Edwards, F., Lee, H. and Esposito, M., 2019. Risk of being killed by police use of force in the United States by age, race–ethnicity, and sex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(34), pp.16793-16798.)
This study however fails to account for specifics in demographics. Another study showed that lifestyle and occupation heavily skewed results, for example a black man who was a member of a gang and who dealt in drugs was found to have a one in four chance of being killed by another gangster over a period of four years. Which makes the chance of death for such an individual 250 times more likely than the risked posed by a police officer.
(Austin, A., 2006. Getting it wrong: How Black public intellectuals are failing Black America. iUniverse. P.25)
How data is presented can often also change the way it is perceived. For example when comparing rate as opposed to total number. Approximately double the rate of blacks (37 per million) are killed as opposed to whites (15 per million) in America, a number often highlighted, but when comparing totals 1,550 blacks compared to 2,960 whites are killed annually by police in America. The majority of those killed by police are male, 95% in fact.
Studies do not support the race-death correlation hypothesis. Rather, underlying patterns show that inexperienced police have a higher chance of shooting or getting into confrontational situations. Specifically when multinominal regression methodology is used, the race based disparity seemingly disappears instead showing regional disparities. The study by
"white police officers actually kill black and other minority suspects at lower rates than we would expect if killings were randomly distributed among officers of all races." and "we find that non-white officers kill both black and Latino suspects at significantly higher rates than white officers," the reason they speculated was "This is likely due to the fact that minority police officers tend to be assigned to minority neighbourhoods, and therefore have more contact with minority suspects."
Of course, this does not mean to imply that corruption does not exist; “ For example, the U.S. Department of Justice’s investigation of the behaviour of police officers in Ferguson in the aftermath of the killing of Michael Brown found “a pattern or practice of unlawful conduct”: the department was targeting black residents for fees and fines and treating them as a source of “alternative revenue” for the city (DOJ 2015).”
(Menifield, C.E., Shin, G. and Strother, L., 2019. Do white law enforcement officers target minority suspects?. Public Administration Review, 79(1), pp.56-68.)
This interestingly coincides with the number of homicide victims per race as perpetrated per race.
FBI statistics consistently demonstrate that the most significant chance of a white person being killed is by another white person and a black person by another black person.
No studies currently seem to focus on underlying behavioral patterns. A question should be asked “Do behavioral cultural clues make it more likely that a police officer will interpret a behavior as a threat?”. What does that mean? Alright, let’s break it down in animal terms. A goat may stamp the ground and bare its horns, a cow would understand this and see it as a threat display. However, a horse or a zebra would be unlikely to understand and would therefore not engage. In a similar way, individuals from different cultures or subcultures may not recognize or interpret behaviors as a potential threat, therefore failing to react to them, causing a decrease in confrontational behavior. A case of lost in translation.
To understand why police react the way they do requires research which requires funding. Updating training to focus on de-escalation also requires MORE funding and not less. Less funding also means that vulnerable elements in the community will lack protection.
Lower salaries means lower quality police, lower quality police means more brutality and more corruption.
Lower funding means lower quality training or equipment making officers more nervous and more likely to shoot.
Sadly, in America, many police departments are locally funded meaning that poorer communities, the communities that most need police assistance, are the most unlikely to receive good quality policing.
(Rushin, S. and Michalski, R., 2020. Police funding. Fla. L. Rev., 72, p.277.)
This then becomes a vicious circle, as organised crime elements target the poorer communities, especially children for grooming into gangs or exploit them via human trafficking to support various illegal and harmful activities.
Defunding is therefore a sure method for destroying local economies, increasing crime and antisocial behaviour as well as putting additional pressure on low income communities.
It is the same as defunding hospitals because some doctors are found guilty of malpractice.
I write concerning your book “Sure, I will be your Black Friend” and the contents thereof that resemble the thoughts of a short Austrian man who was dictator of Germany during the 1930s to 40s. This is a call for repentance and an appeal to conscience, if such a thing is in your possession. To outline to you the error of your folly.
In the Los Angeles Times you admit that the writing came from a place of anger, an emotion that brings out true primal sentiments that individuals hold. “I want to put readers in the shoes of a very specific Black friend. The cover of the book has this shapeless outline of a Black friend, but I hope by the end you have that shape filled in. It’s me, born in Haiti, raised in Canada. I’m in academia and the arts and I’m still trying to figure everything out, and I can be very moody and very angry at times.”
You wish readers to fill in the shape of a moody and angry individual? For what purpose? You continually mention anger and then say “I genuinely believe good wins out in the end, because good is more sustainable”, but what is this good you speak of? Your “logical conclusion” being identical with the “final solution” is one of the vilest things I have had the displeasure of reading. Your CBC interview and the book contents display a severe detachment from reality.
I would like to help you dissect your own words so as to help you understand yourself. The perversion of the fantasy that should never exist.
“When this race war hits its crescendo, I’ll gather you all into a beautifully decorated room under the pretense of unity…. “I’ll give a speech to civility and all the good times we share; I’ll smile as we raise glasses to your good, white health, while the detonator blinks under the table, knowing the exits are locked and the air vents filled with gas.”
Wars are filled with violence many times aimed at individuals who have done nothing deserving to suffer their grisly fate. A race war targets individuals of a certain ethnic group for extermination, it is a war of genocide, there can be no other definition for such an abomination.
Of special concern in this debased fantasy world is the “speech of civility” akin to something that Vlad Țepeș Dracul would do, you see, it is a greater evil to lure people to their death with flattery and lies, to gain their trust, to have them give over their full defences and faith to you. It is worse to savour such slaughter with glee, a smile and wine? You write in first person, indicating personal fantasy rather than hypotheticals that occur in third person writing styles.
Explosives are an especially violent form of attack, gas is cruel and inhuman and was used in NAZI Germany because it was both cheap and cruel. You seem to have gotten carried away because you have locked yourself in the room with those you wish to destroy.
The correct side to be on in a race war is always “neither”. At no point should any person fantasise about their side ending victorious in a race war because the result as stated previously is genocide. Let me share some stories with you as the descendant of survivors of the Boer Genocide and someone whose religious group was targeted for extermination in Germany.
History is full of people fighting against what despots and psychopaths deemed “the logical conclusion” of their ideologies. When the British were fulfilling “the logical conclusion” of their anti-Boer policies in South Africa, namely the extermination of Boer women and children, it was a British woman called Emily Hobhouse who caused such a hullabaloo that the genocide was finally stopped.
Hans Calmeyer, Oskar Schindler, Karl Plagge, Marie and Emile Taquet, Gertruida Wijsmuller-Meijer were all Germans and Dutch who defied the NAZIs and worked to save people of another “race” at great risk to their own lives in the midst of what Hitler viewed as a “race war”. There are many others but we don’t know their names because the NAZIs executed them when they were caught.
There are many cases of Hutu hiding their Tutsi friends and visa versa, at the risk of certain death during the Rwandan genocide.
All these examples show which side to be on in a “race” war which is merely an ethnocentric war aimed at genocide. Yes, I use race and ethnic group interchangeably because definitions are in a state of flux and because the same result occurs regardless of whether superiority of race or ethnic group or hatred for another race or ethnic group is the motivation.
“I guess I was wrestling with the question that, isn’t the end result of that, all-out warfare? Like, ‘Game of Thrones’-style warfare? and what does that look like? And I lived in that sort of stray thought for a few pages. And it was disturbing to write, too. Because I’m not a violent person, I love all my white friends,”
Dungeons and Dragons and Game of Thrones? This highlights the fantasy more than anything. We have millennia of horrific bloodshed in the real world, the real world is not the Game of Thrones. I find it odd that as a person of Haitian birth that the Parsley Genocide or Haitian Genocide would not come to mind as real world examples, never mind the Armenian Genocide, Cambodian Genocide, Assyrian Genocide and the numerous other genocides in history. Perhaps reading more about the terrible history of genocide will cure you of your fantasy. I also recommend watching less Game of Thrones and playing less Dungeons and Dragons.
I do wonder if you at any point stopped to consider the repercussions of your writing on the black community. Racists of all types will view this as a call to action, white supremacy groups will use it as fuel to justify their depraved ideas leading to violence, black supremacy groups will be emboldened by such ideas being published in mainstream publishing houses once again leading to violence. Your work has provided support and ammunition for some of the most morally deficient ideologies in existence on both sides.
Will you take responsibility for the flames fanned by your rhetoric? In areas of racial tension, the answer is always de-escalation, your writing is like throwing petroleum on smouldering embers. Already extremists have started using your comments as a rallying cry on Social Media. While you make money off your new book, the black community will have to suffer the consequences of something that 99% of them do not support. Please desist from literary parasitism which negatively impacts on the very community you claim to care about.
Academics in positions of influence should not hold views of racial superiority and prejudice. I do wonder what values you convey to students if the fantasy of genocide is one that is so appealing. Espousing such views while having a duty of care toward students is repulsive.
Recant and repent of this vile world view, replace hatred with compassion. Recall the book before more damage is done.
To others reading this letter I strongly urge you not to take the bait. Never judge or form views of others based on monolithic ethnic stereotypes, do not allow yourself to become provoked by such evil concepts, always replace evil with good. The answer to ethnic tension is de-escalation and empathy, not flaming the fans of hatred.
Once again I say, recant, repent and get some anger management therapy.
The disgraceful slavery and abominable human rights abuses that resulted from colonialization cannot be denied. Chattel slavery will forever remain a stain on Western history. However, the notion that slavery in Africa was purely as a result of European powers is cognitively dissonant as well as historically false. Slavery has been part of culture in Africa, just as it has been globally for thousands of years.
Consider the historical evidence. Egypt had a history of slavery that lasted thousands of years, this is so obvious that it barely needs mentioning. African slavery was already lucrative in the Abbasid Caliphate (Arabic: ٱلْعَبَّاسِيَّةُ اَلْخِلَافَةُ , al-Khilāfah al-ʿAbbāsīyah) as early or earlier than the 7th Century AD. The Arabs treated their African captives cruelly and in September 869 Zanj Rebellion (Arabic: ثورة الزنج Thawrat al-Zanj / Zinj) began, lasting 14 years.
Later, the richest man in the world, Mūsā I of Mali (1332) had a personal retinue of 12,000 slaves. He had subjugated the Songhai Kingdom of East Africa thus taking over the slave trade in the region which in turn supplied the Arab world.
Later during the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, Ẹfúnṣetán Aníwúrà (c. 1790s – June 30, 1874) known for her love of using capital punishment on slaves that displeased her was a slaver of note. She was amongst the richest people in Africa and foremost in the slave trade in Ibadan. As a result of not being able to get pregnant herself, she created rules that ensured no slave in her household could get pregnant, or make anyone get pregnant, and instituted death as the penalty for this transgression. Records show that she had 41 of her slaves decapitated. Her tyranny ended when she was murdered by two of her slaves in 1874.
Efunroye Tinubu (c. 1810 – 1887), born Efunporoye Osuntinubu became highly influential in the pre-colonial and colonial Nigerian slave trade. She kept the slave trade going in Nigeria even though the treaty had banned it (Treaty Between Great Britain and Lagos, 1 January 1852). Instead of dealing with the British she went into business with the Brazilians and Portuguese which continued the slave trade and she sold slaves in exchange for guns. Ironically, she is now defended by many who said she had changed her ways, although the Nigerian biographer Oladipo Yemitan noted that in 1853, which is after slavery had been banned, Tinubu when speaking to another slave trader called Domingo Martinez in a dispute stated that "she would rather drown the slaves [20 in number] than sell them at a discount".
Ranavalona I (1778 – August 16, 1861), also known as Ranavalo-Manjaka I, was sovereign of the Kingdom of Madagascar, reformed her country’s economy into a slave economy. While slavery was already common, she imposed it harshly and drove up the demand for slaves. She forced conscription to supply troops for her bloodthirsty conquests. The combination of her terrible policies, executions, slavery and the resulting famines caused the death of 2.5 million people in a period of five years, which is to say 50% of the population!!!
Slavery in northern Nigeria was finally outlawed in 1936 but still continues. Ethiopia made several failed attempts to abolish slavery but it was only in recent history after pressure from Western nations that it finally came about. On 26 August 1942, Haile Selassie issued a proclamation outlawing slavery.
Unfortunately, the slave trade that supplied the European and North American market was comprised of middle men (and as the reader can see, women) who were either African or Arab. The reasons are more logistics and practicality than a lack of desire on the part of Europeans and North Americans at the time. Slaves were created via tribal wars or battles between Kingdoms which would then enslave their enemies and either keep them to work in various tasks or else sell them off as profits. Slaves were also simply free peoples who were captured by professional slavers. These slavers were African or Arabs who a) knew the terrain, b) could withstand the climate and dangers such as diseases etc and c) were physically formidable enough to capture able bodied people.
Europeans did not handle the heat well and would not have done well in either finding potential people to capture nor have had the physical ability to capture people who were at a great advantage knowing the terrain. Europeans would have no doubt liked to cut out the middle men but it simply was not a viable option. Hence, they bought slaves from these middle men, loaded them into terrible and inhumane conditions, then transported them across the world where if they survived they would be subject to the same inhumane treatment.
The sad reality though is that slavery never ended in Africa. Slavery still exists in Chad, Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, Togo, Benin, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Sudan, Eritrea, Burundi, and Central African Republic and even South Africa. Girls are sold as sex slaves or domestic workers, boys are sold to work in mines or other dangerous work, men and boys are forced to join militias. The cycle continues and the world gets to pretend that the evils of slavery in Africa have been solved and that everything ended when European powers left. This does nothing for the 9.2 million slaves in Africa today, the world gets to feel warm and fuzzy inside pretending that the problem has been solved.
So next time you feel the urge to virtue signal your pseudo-moralistic stance on social media about how much you care about the lives of black people and how terrible the past was, reflect for a moment that that new device in your hands has components such as cobalt that were almost certainly mined by a child slave in the heart of Africa. Slavery is not dead. If we do not consider the whole historical and whole modern picture, then there is little that can be done in terms of progress.
Campbell, Gwyn (October 1991). "The state and pre-colonial demographic history: the case of nineteenth century Madagascar". Journal of African History. 23 (3): 415–445. doi:10.1017/S0021853700031534.
Campbell, Gwyn. “Slavery and Fanompoana: The Structure of Forced Labour in Imerina (Madagascar), 1790-1861.” The Journal of African History, vol. 29, no. 3, 1988, pp. 463–486. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/182352. Accessed 26 Apr. 2021.
Yemitan, Oladipo. Madame Tinubu: Merchant and King-maker. University Press, 1987. p. 28.
Idowu, Olawale. "Gender and the Politics of Exclusion in Pre- Colonial Ibadan: The Case of Iyalode Efunsetan Aniwura". Journal of traditions and beliefs. Retrieved 2018-08-06.
Okunola, Akanji. "Research Note: Negative Life Events And Aggressive Behavior Of Efunsetan Aniwura" (PDF). African Journal of Criminology and Justice Studies. Retrieved 2018-08-06.
Most people today are not keenly aware of Biblical history for many reasons with many critics claiming it to be merely another white man’s book. However, is that really true? Not at all, the Bible was not written by individuals that modern groupings would classify as ethnically white. Also, there are many persons in the Bible that are African or have a connection to Africa which may not be notable at a quick glance.
One of the most ancient Kingdoms mentioned in the Bible is Cush (Kush Egyptian: 𓎡𓄿𓈙𓈉 kꜣš, Hebrew: כּוּשׁ) which is a synonym for Ethiopia. Yet, thinking of Ethiopia today would be incorrect as Cush actually spread from Upper (South) Egypt with the capital in what is today Khartoum in Sudan and spreading across into the West part of modern Ethiopia.
In the 8th Century BC, the Kushite Kingdom (Ethiopia) invaded and subjugated Egypt in a crushing defeat beginning the 25th Dynasty also known as Nubian Egypt. Pharoah Taharqa, called Tirhakah in the Bible is a notable Nubian Pharaoh who attempted to prevent Assyria from gaining complete control of Judah in 732BC.
“After the Rabʹsha·keh heard that the king of As·syrʹi·a had pulled away from Laʹchish, he returned to him and found him fighting against Libʹnah. Now the king heard it said about King Tir·haʹkah of E·thi·oʹpi·a: “Here he has come out to fight against you.”- 2Kings 19:8-9
Tirhaqa and other Pharaoh’s of the 25th Dynasty’s African heritage is clearly discernible from the archaeological evidence of carvings and statues that depict Kings with Bantu features rather than the types of faces found in other Dynasties which are Middle Eastern or Libyan in appearance.
The Bible also makes mention of Zerah the Ethiopian (Cushite) who invaded Judah with one million soldiers (2 Chronciles 14:9), the largest army the ancient world had ever seen. This Zerah is likely Usermaatre Setepenamun Osorkon II and while the 22nd Dynasty of Egypt to which he belonged was held by the Berber tribe of Meshwesh Libyans it is possible that he was born in the area of Cush hence the appellation.
The term Cushite could also apply to those on the other side of the Red Sea on the Arabian Peninsula, so there is some disagreement if the territory of Cush extended to the far side of the Red Sea or if those with dark complexion were collectively referred to as being Cushite. Zipporah the wife of Moses was from Midian, and is called Cushite.
1 Kings 11:40, 14:25 and 2 Chronicles 12:2–9 speaks of Pharoah Shishak (Shoshenq I) who gave shelter to Jeroboam I of the Northern Kingdom of Israel after being defeated by Solomon of the Judean Kingdom. It appears that Jeroboam was married to the sister of Pharoah Shishak’s wife, which would explain the relationship between the two. Shishak invaded Judah during the fifth year of Rehoboam of Judah.
Another well known African is Ebed Melech who’s name means “Servant of the King” (מֶ֨לֶךְ עֶֽבֶד־) although in this case the actual Semantics for “King” may denote “God”. The Bible refers to Ebed Melech as a Eunuch however this should not be confused with a castrated male. While the Biblical Hebrew word for Eunuch (סָרִ֗יס) can refer to such a person it is more commonly used in the sense of a Court Official. Two other reasons for this rendering are as part of the culture in Judah, the Hebrews did not practice castration of boys or men like the pagan nations around them, a castrated male was not permitted to become a part of Israel. Furthermore, Ebed Melech was a person of considerable status in the Kingdom, being brave enough to ask permission from the King to rescue the prophet Jeremiah from certain death in a watery cistern into which he had been thrown by irate and apostate princes. Ebed Melech took thirty soldier with him to save the prophet and his name is recorded favourably in the scriptures, he did not perish in the coming Babylonian invasion.
The scripture reads;
“Go and tell Eʹbed-melʹech the E·thi·oʹpi·an (Lit: of Kush -הַכּוּשִׁ֜י), ‘This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, says: “Here I am fulfilling my words on this city for calamity and not for good, and in that day you will see it happen.”’
“‘But I will rescue you in that day,’ declares Jehovah, ‘and you will not be handed over to the men you fear.’
“‘For I will surely provide you with escape, and you will not fall by the sword. You will have your life as a spoil, because you trusted in me,’ declares Jehovah.”- Jeremiah 39:16-18
Africans who were Jewish proselytes (converts to Judaism) seem to have been fairly common sight in ancient Israel even as Jewish Ethiopians are seen in Israel today.
"Then Joʹab said to a Cushʹite: “Go, tell the king what you have seen.” At that the Cushʹite bowed to Joʹab and ran off." – 2 Samuel 18:21
The modern name of Ethiopia comes from the Greek name Ai-thi’o’pia meaning “Region of Burn Faces”. The strong connection between Jewish converts in Ethiopia to Israel is seen from the account in Acts 8:27-31;
“With that he got up and went, and look! an E·thi·oʹpi·an eunuch, a man who had authority under Can·daʹce, queen of the E·thi·oʹpi·ans, and who was in charge of all her treasure. He had gone to Jerusalem to worship, and he was returning and was sitting in his chariot, reading aloud the prophet Isaiah. So the spirit said to Philip: “Go over and approach this chariot.” Philip ran alongside and heard him reading aloud Isaiah the prophet, and he said: “Do you actually know what you are reading?” He said: “Really, how could I ever do so unless someone guided me?” So he urged Philip to get on and sit down with him.”
In this case once again the tern Eunuch does not refer to a castrated man but to a Court Official. This devout man likely had to travel more than 2500 kilometres in one direction in order to worship in Jerusalem. It is interesting to note that he was reading Greek because Ethiopia had been Hellenized under Ptoley II (308-246 B.C) This Court Official was the servant of an Ethiopian Candace or Queen (Kandake, kadake or kentake (Meroitic: 𐦲𐦷𐦲𐦡 kdke, 𐦲𐦴𐦲𐦡 ktke), the Candace referred to in Acts of Apostles is likely Queen Amanitaraqide.
Yes, there are many Africans mentioned in Biblical history, with just a little research one gains a deeper understanding of African history as recorded in scripture.
Another area of diversity that is often spoken of is that of women in STEM. Given the feminist media slant, one would assume that entry into STEM is somewhat of a David (women) and Goliath (men) battle. The statistics create a different picture, as do testimonies from women in STEM. One problem lies in the classification of what exactly STEM is, due to the fact that it is an appellation for a very diverse group of fields with specific areas to which males and females tend to naturally gravitate. Catalyst, a website showing statistics for women in STEM provides insight into this matter. In the case of Canada, the feminist world view is seemingly upheld as the female participation in STEM stands at a total of 37.8%.
A closer look at the specific fields will show that women dominate Science and science technology at 56.9%. In Australia the Natural and Physical sciences are dominated by women at 53.6%. Women in India earned over half of undergraduate degrees in both information technology and computer (50.7%) and science (54.1%) fields. In the European Union, women made up 54.8% of those with undergraduate Mathematics and Statistics degrees. In the Unites States, the STEM fields of Biological and Biomedical Sciences are dominated by women on every level of education with bachelors at 62.2%, masters at 59.1%, and PhDs at 53.4%. For the sake of equality then, should these female dominated fields be restricted so as to allow less females and make it more equitable for males who wish to enter? Using the theories of the DEI movement that is exactly what would be done, resulting in a great disservice to society by removing highly qualified women from an area in which they excel. This illustrates the irony of equal application of arbitrary diversity quotas. An artificial quota system is not the correct methodology for encouraging more women to enter this specific field, nor should a hypothetical Utopian 50/50 representation in a field be viewed as desirable.
As Prof. Jordan Peterson has pointed out, research shows that the more egalitarian a country becomes the greater the male and female gap becomes since people feel free to choose to study for field and occupations that interest them, this research is not an isolated study but includes thousands of participants over numerous years. The afore mentioned Catalyst inadvertently proves this point with its own statistics showing regions with less egalitarian policies to have more women in STEM namely “Central Asia (48.2%), Latin American and the Caribbean (45.1%), the Arab States (41.5%), and Central and Eastern Europe (39.3%)”.
For this article five scientists in the fields of computer science, data systems and virology, who also happen to be women from various ethnic backgrounds were asked about their experiences in the STEM field and if they had felt held back by men both in terms of study and of career progression. Among the questions asked was if lowering the bar would be a positive move to encourage more to enter. All of the scientists answered that the lowering of the bar would imply that women were not as capable as men in studying STEM subjects and that it implied covert sexism. A computer scientist who shall be called JL noted the following “Frankly, I think it’s incredibly condescending and an insult to the intelligence of every self-respecting woman who actually earned their way to a STEM career with pure grit, hard work and smarts. If anything it only exacerbates the prevailing stereotype that women are intellectually inferior to men. And by trying to make STEM ‘sexier’ end up attracting those who want to be in the field for all the wrong reasons.” and “I have encountered deliberately spiteful language from more female than male colleagues. E.g. ‘You have no right to use this room’, ‘You just don’t make sense blah blah blah...’”.
Although all noted individual men who had bad traits, none of the scientists noted that men in general had held them back, three noting that they had had more opposition from women especially in the workplace and that men had been more empathetic and helpful mentors both during university and in their careers. The computer scientist went on to state that while there were men who behaved badly, that this was the problem of that individual and not men, she says “If anything some of the best and most honest bosses and co-workers I have worked with have been men.”
Senior Scientist and Virologist, Dr. Mary Hauser notes that as gender is irrelevant in the pursuit of science, the academic aim of being a scientist is just that, to be a scientist. She states “I am proud of becoming a scientist not a woman scientist.” The scientists did however state that the difficulties face by male and females had differences, which was to be expected as sex difference will impact on behaviours and relationship dynamics. When Dr. Hauser was plainly asked if she had encountered more difficulties from men or women in her STEM career she replied “Interesting question. The answer will be skewed because I have encountered a less total number of women than men in STEM. The only discrimination I receive is for speaking out or challenging ideas from superiors. That has only occurred in industry, in my academic training challenge of ideas was encouraged.”
JL commented saying “No. STEM is an incredibly difficult field to get into for ANYONE - male or female. Having a ‘privileged’ background will not help - this is neither social media nor Marketing and Sales. Anyone not rigorous enough in critical thinking AND the humility to acknowledge that they might be wrong sometimes in order to adapt to the situation at hand will not last long here”.
A software engineer noted that men were supportive both in university and in the workplace, she went on to express how a female co-worker with less skill had made it her personal aim to undo all her hard work. Not only ruining work itself but creating an unpleasant atmosphere that male scientists found difficult to handle. Hence, its seems women’s greatest obstacle in STEM may in some cases unfortunately be other women not the long standing trope of men being the culprits.
So is the issue really that there is a "patriarchy" blocking the way into STEM for women OR are there multiple factors including STEM field choice that impact on the intake of women? It would appear that women who are serious scientists aren't letting themselves be held back but getting on with serious research.
Universities and colleges should Stop Wasting Money on Diversity and Spend It on Tutoring and Mentoring Instead
To know whether or not something has a positive effect on university students it is only necessary to see the results that it produces over a period of time. Diversity, Inclusion and Equity policies have shown that they have failed the test dramatically. Rather than provide a better environment for students. This initiative is undermining other areas of education that could greatly benefit students from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Evidence from a 2018 study shows that in the North American case, the percentage of enrolled students per ethnic groups have been fairly consistent from 1990 to 2015. The researchers, suggest more diversity instead of changing the approach. Is that really a wise choice considering the record that shows such diversity efforts are mostly ineffective? The question to ask then are “Why doesn’t diversity as a policy work?”, and “Why is spending money on mentoring and student support a better system?”
There are several reasons that diversity efforts do not work. Prof. Erec Smith points out that support for diversity theories such as Critical Race Theory often actually have an opposite effect than that which is desired because the initiatives take a shallow approach and do not address underlying problems. Instead, they appeal to the emotional aspect of attempting to do good or being shown to do good, this leads to free inquiry being stifled when any criticism of ideas takes place.
How does this impact on diversity efforts? Diversity of thought, experience, opinions and ideas are important and intellectual diversity is a predicate of high innovation both in the students and faculty. As Prof. Gad Saad mentions in his observation of DEI (which he calls DIE), the movement is often implemented in universities with a religious fervour and that not only students but also faculty are expected to agree to the most minute of details leading to a loss of meritocracy. This notion is supported by finding that the lowering of standards for certain groups also causes a bigotry of low expectations, causing a passive atmosphere of ethnic or racial superiority and inferiority where people are held to higher or lower standards based on their ethnicity or background.
To make matters worse, Dr. Thomas Sowell noted that allowing students to enter by lowering the bar rather than allowing them to get to a position where they could pass the bar, resulted in high dropout rates among black students at MIT (about 25%).
Essentially, this poor school matching for the sake of affirmative action became a slap in the face to hardworking black students who were told they were being given an opportunity but then thrown in the deep end when it came to scholastic competitiveness, leading to what Sowell termed “artificial failures”.
In the case of Harvard, socio-economic status speaks volumes, with 70% of students coming from the richest 20%, 15.4% from the country’s richest 1% elite. The issue here is not then systemic racism as so often espoused but actually an issue of socio-economics. How can a young black student from Harlem who enters Harvard hope to compete with a black student from the top 20% or 1%? It is unlikely that the student from Harlem has enjoyed the same access to elementary and secondary education as those with privileged backgrounds.
Therefore, instead of lowering the bar, it seems that the large amount of money and resources which could instead be used either to prepare students and bring them up to standard or create scholarships for highly intelligent but economically underprivileged students, are being wasted on ineffective and needless positions diversity positions. The following are salary estimates of Diversity Officers from the website “Glassdoor”.
Surely such funds would be better directed at assisting students who need it the most rather than hiring someone to do the job that a counsellor could do better. Such funds would provide much needed fees for scholarships, mentoring or tutors. Or alternatively, instead of hiring individuals who have a title based on diversity but little actual impact, would it not be better to do away with such positions and lower college and university fees across the board but especially for students from disadvantaged backgrounds?
In reality a better methodology would be to allow students to enter lower level universities or colleges and use funding that is paid to Diversity Officers and divert these funds to tutors who for one or two years would focus on assisting promising students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds in order to attain the level of essential skills needed to succeed at elite universities. Students can then be allowed to transfer the elite university via a scholarship program and have a far greater chance of graduating.
Alternatively, such tutors and mentoring programs could take place inside the elite universities themselves. Instead of merely ticking a box, students will have received the skills they need to succeed and can do so using their own hard work. This not only creates meritocracy but also eradicates tokenism and the bigotry of low expectations because no one can then argue that any group has been given a “free ride”.
Does mentoring really work? In an interview, Professor and author Isaiah Rashad II spoke of the powerful effect of mentorship and how it assists struggling students from low income backgrounds.
Prof. Rashad is no stranger to difficulty himself, his story having some parallels to Dr. Sowell. He had a difficult childhood. He tried to make a library card at the age of ten even though he was in a gang and couldn’t read. Helped by a librarian, it opened his eyes to a new world. He admitted that the fact that he couldn’t read was one of the factors that led him to be “educated” by the gang, further underscoring the need for good basic education.
At the age of 12, he decided to leave the gang, a potentially deadly action as most who make this decision are killed, fortunately he survived the process of “jumping out” of the gang (“Jumping out” refers to leaving a gang) but he was beaten so severely that he was hospitalized for a few days.
Over the years, he was mentored and guided by people who saw his potential allowing him to grow. Now an avid supporter of mentoring students, Prof. Rashad made a poignant statement “mentorship for students is of more value than a PhD”, in his university he has seen how such one on one mentoring and support drastically increases students’ chances of success. It would then seem that the simplistic, on paper policy of diversity is just that, something that looks good on paper.
The observations of Prof. Rashad are supported by extensive research conducted by Professor Nuria Ruiz Morillas and Prof. Manel Fandos Garrido who discovered that tutoring was highly appreciated by students and that positive academic relationships with tutors resulted. The same study found that only a small number of students reached out for tutoring but that more would do so if it were actively promoted in the university.
Higher education must move from squandering money on diversity policies that look good on paper and instead start putting the money into tutoring and mentoring programs that can actually help students. change and assistance for students from disadvantaged backgrounds whether they be black, white, Hispanic or any other group then really depends on the support given by both universities and educators. Defunding of DEI and funding of mentors and tutors is the first step to helping those who need it most.
Foreword: The following was published in Res Publica a student magazine on the 18th of Feb, 2021. It was removed due to complaints on the 19th of Feb,2021. The magazine also made a public apology for the "controversy" that the article had caused. The article attempts to shed light on why arbitrary classifications such as blackness and whiteness can do more harm than good. This seems not to have sat well with my critics and I quote:
Critic :"This piece is one of the most egregious examples of weak academic scholarship and malpractice I have ever come across."
Response: Large but mostly emotive words of opinion.
Critic : An "incoherent attempt to cloak an argument in favour of ignoring race and minimising the impact of racism in a litany of unsupported claims and boilerplate historical whataboutery, wrapped in a shell of bad-faith concern-trolling. The primary target of this shoddy diatribe is seemingly the actually fairly small tranche of academics who, the author insinuates, as usual without evidence, corruptly "keep racialisation alive" in return for "financial incentives". It is flatly unconscionable that a university magazine would publish such a baseless attack on the integrity of a section of the academic population that is (1) disproportionately drawn from BIPOC scholars and (2) currently in the front line of funding cuts being imposed on non-STEM subjects."
Considering history of both sides and comparing these is not historically whataboutery, but rather a consideration of history, as inconvenient as that may be. Making observations of a self evident reality is not diatribe, but an observation. The article never denies racism or the impact of it, the very opposite in fact, which makes one wonder if the critic can understand what was written at all. The university magazine claims to publish numerous points of view and a response piece was published alongside the article, hence it was designed as two perspectives of one discussion. The idea that the piece attacks BIPOC scholars seems to be a heavy projection on the part of the critic who is discontent with a loss of funding for non-STEM subjects. In reality, was not specifically concerned with BIPOC scholars at all but was poking at the work of individuals such as DiAngelo who DO make money off of the anxiety and pain of others. I offer no apology for stating reality.
Critic : "In truth, the worst aspect of the piece is that it takes up space that could have been used to platform an actually insightful, nuanced, and accessible introduction to the controversies in the study of race and racism by someone with expertise on the subject. Or, even more valuably, it could have platformed someone with lived experience of racism: someone who currently does not have any platform at all because of (e.g.) their youth or professional juniority. That is where student journalism is at its best; not in peddling tired misinformation that reinforces the prejudices of those who are already empowered."
Response: An online magazine, as far as I am aware, does not have a limit on space unless I am mistaken and their server is of low capacity. The critic makes two assumptions, that I have no expertise in the subject, and that I have never experience racism. Both of which are untrue and fairly lazy method of creating doubt without presenting a factual argument. The magazine also has articles from numerous other professors, should they also be removed to make space for "student journalism" or are they permitted because they follow the Orthodoxy the critics described views? It is interesting to how the critic is capable of intellectual contortionism based on personal opinion.
Foreword Continued: I make historical observations on issues with terminology and practice and call for personal accountability for biases as a method for self-improvement and empowerment regardless of ethnicity. Interestingly, direct feedback has been overwhelmingly positive from people of numerous ethnic backgrounds, this is food for thought. I will let the reader decide as to the validity of the critics statements.
And now the actual Article...
When viewing history from afar, there is a strong danger that events can be simplified, misconstrued or even misread. Attempting to understand history therefore requires a rounded view and an understanding of both sides of the story. One should aim to understand the motivation and the applicable factors that led to certain events. If this is not done, it is likely that history will be interpreted through a modern lens, thus devoid of the context in which it happened. This does not mean that the terrible events that took place in the past can be condoned, nor does it detract in any way from the horror that people have experienced, however, understanding why these events happened and the motivations that led to these events happening, can give us a deeper understanding of where we have come from, where we are, and where we are going. Considering the immense pain and anguish that many people have suffered throughout history, it is understandable that there can be a degree of resentment. Be that as it may, while empathy is an admirable quality to display in daily life, it serves to constrain our understanding of history which should be methodological and devoid of emotional interpretation. This brings us, to the very sensitive subject of race and ethnicity.
Firstly, it should clearly be understood that race does not exist, it is a scientifically debunked and obsolete term in the same manner the definitions “Mongoloid, Negro or Caucasian” are now obsolete. Historically speaking ethnic hatred of which racism is a part has also not been the monopoly of any single group, but to a certain extent has been practiced in some form, at some time in history, by almost every ethnic group on the planet. The common faux pas in the Western world is that racism and the concept race are both seen as recent historical developments. This is only true for places where different races have not interacted until recent history. At the crossroads so to speak of civilizations, there are many historical records of racist sentiments being displayed on both sides. Contemplate for a moment the ancient Egyptian context. Egypt had various dynasties throughout its very long history, some of these dynasties belong to the more fair-skinned Egyptians, while others belonged to the darker-skinned Nubians after their conquest of Egypt. In ancient writings the fair skinned Egyptians refer to the barbarians with white skin from the north and the barbarians with black skin from the south. The Nubian Dynasty refers to the Egyptians as barbarians and also to the other fair skinned people of other lands. The idea of racial superiority, therefore depended mostly on who was in power at any particular time. When considering the writings of 3rd Century Generals in China, one General referred to the northern barbarians as strongly resembling the Apes from which they descended. There was also no love lost between the peoples of Europe and the Arabs and the Turks during the Crusades. So racial categorization is far from a modern invention, however, the modern system of classification went further by attempting to create a scientific understanding of races and therefore give a scientific reason or justification for the treating of others as inferior. Thus, the field of eugenics was born and was used as a strong justification for some of the most abhorrent events in human history. American eugenicists saw this “racial science” as the promised Holy Grail for the creation of a superior white race, the breeding of the perfect slave race but also the eradication of “inferior” bloodlines of the white race. Margaret Sanger knew that Eugenics could be a powerful tool in reducing the Black and Hispanic populations but she also wished to remove the lower class white population so as to “purify” the genetics of the upper class. It is little wonder that American eugenicists had strong connections to eugenicist working in the Nazi party. Recall that Hitler was not only concerned with the genocide of Jews in Europe but also of all undesirable individuals such as the disabled and those with mental problems so as to free the “pure German race” from “inferior pedigrees”. Racial superiority had created the concept of “racial cleansing”. This same concept was used in Imperial Japan, Unit 731 was created possibly as a Eugenics lab and partly as a laboratory for the experimentation and creation of deadly disease especially for use in biological weapons. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan share many striking similarities in their general ideologies. Nazi Germany sought to create the pure German race not only by exterminating any deemed unworthy of life or inferior, but also in reclaiming the so-called lost bloodlines of the German diaspora in other European countries. Imperial Japan took a similar line of action due to their belief that the Japanese were the superior Asian race, to this end the Koreans while seen as inferior to Japanese and treated extremely brutally, were also seen with potential for assimilation. Therefore, the Japanese aimed at destroying Korean culture through aggressive language assimilation, brutality and heavy propaganda. A similar approach was taken in Taiwan and it was hoped the Japanese settlers would be able to breed out and absorb the local population. The Chinese however, were simply viewed as little better than animals. Unit 731, captured local Chinese men, women and children for the most indescribable human experimentation. At the time, to cover over the real research that was taking place, these so-called researchers referred to their human test subjects as Manchurian monkeys. This lexical choice is no coincidence, as “Manchurian monkey” was the racial epithet used for Chinese. The Imperial Japanese attitude towards the ethnic groups in China became undeniably clear during the massacre of Nanjing.
That however is modern history, where there was more likelihood of interaction between completely different races. Racism is in fact merely an extension of ethnic hatred. Consider the history of almost any modern country, that is to say those with recorded history, and one will quickly find the same brutalities taking place between closely related ethnic groups as those that took place between races. During the Hundred Years War, white Europeans wholeheartedly butchered other white Europeans from opposing ethnic groups. During the Warring States and Three Kingdoms periods in Chinese history different Chinese ethnic groups wholeheartedly slaughtered other Chinese ethnic groups. During the various Bantu expansions, different Bantu tribes and ethnic group wholeheartedly destroyed people from other Bantu groups. For the majority of history, the chance of being murdered by a member of one's own racial or closely related group has been significantly higher than suffering the same fate at the hands of someone from a different racial group. It is therefore intellectually dishonest to only consider recent history when trying to understand the social interactions of ethnic groups and races over the course of history or to ignore the ongoing ethnic tensions around the world when considering contemporary history.
Race is predominantly viewed as an obsolete concept by the majority of the population regardless of their political inclination, yet there are aspects of Academia which seem disproportionately focused on keeping racialization alive. The motivation for doing so likely boils down to two things. Firstly, racialization and concepts of race are easily accessible methods for creating support as they draw on historical injustices. Secondly, these factors also serve to create considerable financial benefits for academics who keep this concept alive. The most vocal academic proponents of this highly racialized worldview are individuals who stand the most to gain via the financial incentives such as research sponsorship or publication of their books which are bought by those who feel disenfranchised and who may have genuinely suffered or by those who wish to help. Such manipulation can rightly the reviewed as having a predatory aspect because it capitalizes on the suffering of others.
The most common modern racialisations which animate the corpse of racial thought, are the concepts of Blackness and Whiteness with numerous books written on these subjects. The concepts of Blackness and whiteness are in themselves deeply racist as well as highly erroneous. Both terms are used to describe individuals' life experiences based on the tone of skin. This in turn becomes highly problematic because skin tone is a poor predicate of personal views, ethics, worldview, religious belief and of course personality. Both terms also erroneously assume the homogeneity of a very large groups of people based purely on the content of melanin or lack thereof. Simply considering some of the basic facts concerning the ethnic makeup of people with different skin tones shows exactly how crude if not laughable the concepts of Blackness and Whiteness really are, both in practice and as a theory to understand social phenomenon. The continent of Africa, is home to more than 3000 ethnic groups which speak more than 2,100 languages, most of these groups have their own rituals, customs and traditions which have been developed over millennia. The attempt of attributing a common shared life experience based on something as superficial as skin tone, verges upon the insulting. Consider then Europe which has 87 indigenous ethnic groups, all of which have their own unique perspectives and many who have their own languages. Then consider the diaspora of Europeans across the globe, can it be assumed that all these individuals have a similar view who have had similar life experiences. This has not even touched upon the numerous ethnic groups that exist in Asia, the Americas, Oceania or the many island nations around the world.
In discussing the ideas encased in such an ethnic monolith, further questions then arise. Are individuals with multi-ethnic ancestry to be classed as having benefited from whiteness, or have they been oppressed for that blackness? Does such a classification take place based merely on the melanin content? Are East Asians to be classified as white and therefore beneficiaries of whiteness? Are South Asians, to be classed as black, or does it depend on their melanin content or caste? Who is to decide which persons are classified as being impacted by Blackness or Whiteness? These are really the same questions that arose at the time when eugenics was the dominant racial theory thus ironically recreating the very racialized ideologies of the past. These concepts of Blackness and Whiteness, should therefore be rejected as a continuation of that same pre-modern system of eugenics which has led to the genocide of countless people. This system also encourages the view of eternal oppressor and eternal victim narrative which does not assist those who have truly been disadvantaged or disenfranchised but locks them into a vicious and hopeless cycle of despair and resentment. It becomes like giving a man a fish instead of teaching him how to fish, and then blaming the lack of this knowledge on a third party.
When filtering into education, these concepts cause a social divide from a young age and is child abuse in two ways, a) children who happen to have more melanin are taught they will be disadvantaged and never have the same chances in life due to the system that their lower melanin class mates belong to, b) the lower melanin class mates then feel guilty for belonging to an oppressive caste which keeps their fellow classmates down. This does not foster warm relationships, on the contrary, it serves to add a divisive factor to the class environment and stifles free interaction. It also produces a narrow and ideological world view. Students should be taught historical realities in history class, with context, to understand events as they took place within the time that events occurred to avoid repeating them, rather than to resuscitate a system of a bygone era for application in a modern setting.
This concept also feeds the notion that racism is an inescapable institutional system of power plus privilege and not a serious personal flaw. By so doing, it absolves the individual of the need to address their own biases and to correct these as part of their personal self-development. In the modern application, racism cannot be argued to be institutionalized if there is no policy that clearly favours a certain race (although there are organisations with race related problems that are separate from policy). Therein lies the danger of blaming the institute or organization of being institutionally racist, when the reality is that the individual holds responsibility for their own actions and by failing to address this aggravates the social problem. This in turn means that any individual regardless of their skin tone can in fact be racist and must take the personal responsibility to make a personal effort if they are so inclined, to remove this bias and the associated actions. An oxymoron then states that members of certain ethnicities are incapable of being racist towards members of certain other ethnicities, this itself is quite racist as it proposes that one group is unable for reasons of race to hold a certain view and inadvertently creates a racial hierarchy of inferiority and superiority. Hence, such a definition is really contradictory and self-defeating as it deflects away from personal development and instead anger towards a system. When such a view becomes mainstream it results in bigotry of low expectations for certain ethnic groups, serving only to strengthen basic tropes and stereotypes. Are all conflicts then based on ethnicity?
Most disagreements, miscommunications and misunderstanding in multi-ethnic environments arise not as a result of melanin content, but rather from cultural differences. Different cultures and languages cause people to see the world in a different way, decode behaviours differently and therefore interpret actions according to their cultural norms. Often what is viewed as polite or acceptable in one culture may be viewed as rude or unacceptable in another, with such differences occurring even between closely related cultural groups that speak the same language. These may even include fairly harmless mannerisms, which of course are not wrong in of themselves, but could be misunderstood in a certain cultural context. Such differences can occur even with individuals of the same ethnic group that have lived in a different country and have been raised there. For example, some Koreans view Gyopo (Koreans born/raised Overseas) as being rude. In actual fact they may not be rude at all, but because their mannerisms have been Westernized and because of their Asian appearance they are held to the cultural standard of Koreans who have only known their own country and culture resulting in a misunderstanding. The same cultural differences occur even within the Anglosphere as the cultures in different English speaking countries differ considerably. Such phenomenon only highlights the problematic nature of describing the world and its people through highly racialized terms like Blackness and Whiteness.
In essence, terminology such as Blackness and Whiteness, keep racial stereotypes alive and are also very little use in studying complex social phenomena because by definition these terms attempt a univariate approach in the classification of manifold social interactions across numerous cultures, language groups and also over vast expenses of time. Comparatively speaking, such a hyper simplified model is the equivalent of trying to understand the game of chess by looking at only a single chess piece.
Rather than taking a very simplistic view of history and human interactions developed over millennia a more comprehensive view is needed. The context of historical events regardless of the emotional attachment and brutality of such events must be considered to fully understand why they happened and the motivation behind them so as to avoid repeating them. Racism should not merely be seen as an institutional construct, but as a personal prejudice and the responsibility of the individual to address thereby affecting the wider community. If academics truly believe and agree that the concept of race is outdated and obsolete, they should discontinue the use of racialized terms like Blackness and Whiteness which have no validity in understanding the ways in which people behave and merely perpetuate shallow pseudoscientific understanding.
One can be forgiven in thinking that colonialism ended almost a century ago. However, the turnings of the cogs of the gears of time reveals that such evil “entities” rarely die out but rather change their forms. In a modern sense colonisation has moved on to parasitic ideologies which latch onto language in much the same manner as a virus, injecting their ideological DNA to warp language into their own form.
This redefinition of language and the reconstruction of language into an “approved” form are vital in the process of making easily discernible falsehoods seem like facts and making blatant propaganda seem like sweet whisperings of divine truth.
In traditional colonialism a minority gains control over a large populace within the host nation, state or region. Linguistic colonialism is no different. In this context, an aggressive and highly vocal minority begins to dictate the “taboo” language to be avoided and “approved” languages forms to be taught and to be used. This is often done with such persuasion and force that legislation is moulded around an ideological structure regardless of its moral, ethical or scientific validity.
As in the traditional forms of colonialism which imposed harsh penalties on those deemed “ignorant savages”, linguistic colonialism also brands as “ignorant savages” all those whom will not be swayed to join the hive mind and who troublesomely persist in “wrong speak”. In both traditional and linguistic colonialism there is a persistently debased ideology that supposes itself to be of utmost moral authority and that its implementations of totalitarian ideals are not only “kind” but also “for the greater good”.
The language we use and think in, WILL shape not only the WAY in which we think but also our perspective and world view. Linguistic colonialism is a form of slow and insidious indoctrination which is especially effective in corrupting children who do not have their perceptive powers trained to distinguish between right and wrong. The steps it takes are simple and yet highly effective.
Step 1: Divide and conquer. Redefine the meanings and usage of words and shun not only the original usage but also those who would use it in such a manner. Redefinition prevents reflection on past realities and inhibits orientation within the real world by being unable to anchor oneself by means of clear definitions.
Step 2: Divide and conquer. Create nonsense words with vague meanings, expect those who are to be “approved” to use this terminology as this is “right speak”. Initially, no penalties are introduced. As the terms become more widely known, start to implement the strong use of these words or phrases with penalties on a social, emotional, physical or professional level. Harass those who do not conform, force legal/government agencies to legislate this “right speak”.
Step 3: Divide and conquer. Infiltrate the education system and “reform” it in order to act as the outlet for propaganda. Strongly penalise and demonise teachers who refuse to conform (as an example to the general public). Ensure that textbooks and others materials adapt to this and boycott those which do not.
Step 4: Divide and conquer. Repeat the previous three steps. Given enough time the general population will either be unquestionably indoctrinated or otherwise fear the repercussions of speaking out more than responsibility of relaying truth. Science and all other subjects can be redefined to fit the desired narrative.
One may think, “well that sounds Orwellian and restrictive but things are not at that level yet”, indeed, but this implementation has already begun and totalitarianism is not far off. One should not lose sight of the fact that this is the exact methodology used by the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany (NAZI) and the United Socialist Soviet Republics and that global communication would allow for similar policies to be easily implemented. Currently “hate speech” laws are being augmented to include labelling scientific facts as taboo as well as imposing on the freedom of conscience by demanding compelled speech under legal ramifications.
A large part of the current language colonisation is aimed at destroying the biological family unit (male-female-offspring), the relationship between the two genders and the removal of individual identity as well as freedom of thought. Consider how the English language is being colonised and crushed into submission.
The word “kind” has been warped to become synonymous with “accepting everything regardless of how immoral, unethical, debased, pseudoscientific or wicked it may be, for the sake of avoiding causing offence”. To disagree or to point out the ethical, moral or scientific flaw of an argument is “unkind” and being unkind means that one is “not conforming” and hence by extension is a “bigot”, which is to say one who indulges in “hate speech”. “Kindness in theory” becomes dominant over actual kindness.
Originally, hate speech is language used to incite violence or hatred towards a certain group. Sadly, any expression of personal viewpoint may now be considered hate speech if ANY member of the public feels that the opinion expressed is different to their own, regardless of whether it incited violence or hatred. This shift in the definition of what is hate speech, is designed to give legal clout to what amounts to legal censorship and harassment by law for thought crimes. Interestingly, actual hate speech that calls for the slaughter of Jews or to “kill all men” are brushed aside as being “symbolic”. Whether hate speech laws are applied (or not), seems to depend largely on the degree of ideological contortionism that the listeners can manage.
Man / Women
A man is a person who is born with XY chromosomes (or mutations thereof) and female is a person who is born with XX chromosomes. Humans are like the majority of mammals sexually dimorphic (from the Greek : di — two, morphous — forms). The redefinition of what it means to be male or female and that gender can be chosen is a direct attack on the entire biological structure of our species. The happiness of our species will be undermined by these false doctrines. This forms a basis and is an integral part of further propaganda techniques.
Scientifically : Men are adult human males and women are adult human females, everything in excess of these is merely pseudoscience.
Note: while intersex individuals exist this is not a third gender or sex (as most are sterile) but rather a dangerous mutation that requires medical attention to ensure quality of life. It should be viewed as it is, an anomaly and not the norm.
For the majority of the history of the English language there was no distinction between the words sex and gender. As sex/gender is a clearly identifiable biological axiom which causes a great deal of annoyance to certain ideologies, it would need to be forced into an ideological mould to make sense to those who would wish to reject its validity. The brain child of this was to split the meaning of sex and gender. Sex would become biological and therefore science could be largely ignored in favour of ideology, whereas gender could be defined as a “social construct” and much in the manner of wet clay, be shaped and reshaped endlessly to conform with an ever degrading ideology. We have now reached the tipping point whereby ideology is undermining known hard sciences such as biology in what can only be describes as semi-religious, cultish fervour. It is all the more abhorrent that children are being targeted with this perverse teaching. Clearly the promoted lifestyles that are pushed as “normal” are not and are self eliminating due to a failure to reproduce offspring, to find an alternative route therefore, the children of heterosexuals are being targeted in order to continue the façade.
The very word “trans” denotes by association something that is faux and a copy of the real original. There are those that argue that transwomen are real women or that transmen are real men, however, the semantic meaning of pseudo-gendering remains attached to the word. The ideologue will strongly protest this and yet the encoded meaning within the semantics will merely transfer with any alternative name that they create. Realising that this is the case, some ideologues are now pushing to redefine the very meaning of man and woman. Women who protest at the presence of biological men( and as yet, entire, or in plain English, not yet castrated males pretending to be women) in their restrooms, are now being labelled as bigots. In recent years in the United Kingdom and the United Stated, several paedophile trans “women” who actively preyed on both adult women and young girls, have been treated as women, even though they are fully intact males. Their debauchery and crimes are not punished to the full extent and some have been put in female prisons only to continue their depraved actions…. For some reason unknown to mentally sane people, governments have chosen, proverbially at least, to send wolves in among sheep. Criminals are quickly gaining more rights than common people with a serial Paedophile and rapist, who raped three women in prison, demanding that the government pay for his sex change surgery. It is indeed a slippery slope that we have already started to slide down when vicious paedophiles receive more human rights protections than their pure, innocent, child victims.
Alternative and Preferred Pronouns
Perhaps one of the most frontal attacks to personal freedom and the right to conscience and expression is the demand to use alternative or preferred pronouns. Alternative and preferred pronoun mandates are the first manifestation of the implementation of an all out totalitarian system. In many countries this compelled speech is mandated by law and attracts penalties for failure to comply. This can leave a persons career in tatters, simply because they did not indulge in the delusion of a mentally and emotionally unstable individual. What is more, this compelled speech is a violation of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, which states that: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. However, this inconvenient right has been circumvented by some governments adding a hate speech clause that essentially nullifies this human right by classifying “misgendering” as a form of hate crime. In Canada, Bill C16 has set the basis for further erosion of human rights by criminalising the refusal to use compelled speech. This law has already been used (although as yet unsuccessfully) to attack academics such as Jordan Peterson and Lindsay Shepherd. As more and more universities succumb to this pestilence, one should expect the quality of actual education to rapidly decay with the implosion and devaluing of credentials within certain fields becoming widespread.
Ideologues feel the need not only to redefine themselves but also the “oppressor”. This devil figure is central to the victimhood ideology so often preached by social justice warriors as it cements all social problems on an outside group, hence meaning that personal responsibilities and personal life choices are negated and not applicable. Fault for all grievances is deflected outward in much the manner of a small child that finds reasons to blame everyone else for its own actions. In this case, “cis” is used to classify and label a unit of society that is “oppressive and problematic”, heterosexuality which is the way our species procreates and is our normal condition. By redefining normal as abnormal and abnormal as normal it is therefore possible to break away for moral and ethical gravity and float off into the void of all pervasive virtue signalling, trigger warnings, coddling and other generally cognitively deficient self preening behaviours. “Cis” when used in the digressive circles (progressive seems like such a misnomer) is often used with animosity and should be viewed as the slur that it is, which aims to segment society into castes of ideological desirability.
A term used by intellectual infants to describe their own dislike of hearing reality/facts stated publicly.
Anyone who does not follow “group think” and has a different opinion regardless of whether or not they are actually a bigot.
Pedophilia / Child Abuse
Pedophilia is increasing alarmingly, spreading through the Internet and organisations the use charity or social awareness as a front. If children, the proverbial pillars from which future generations are to be supported, themselves become corrupted by pedophiles who are given free reign to practice their debauchery and target children, then the destruction of society as we know it is assured. Abhorrent “associations” such as MAP (Minor Attracted Persons) and NOMAP (Non Offending Minor Attracted Persons) advocate for the acceptance of pedophilia and its perversions as a “genuine sexual orientation” claiming that they are unfairly treated by society. Twitter which is extremely zealous about imposing its pseudoscience based “misgendering” policy, gave a lethargic and emancipated response in tackling the huge amount of accounts created by members of these groups, which openly discussed their deplorable and unspeakable desires to target children. Recent news shows children participating in drag going as far as to perform in homosexual bars and to do nude photo shoots with adult men in drag. Instead of arresting those involved and providing psychological support for the child, this was celebrated as an LGBTQABCDEFG+ victory of liberation. Be assured, there is a historical pattern observable in the great empires of history, if depraved behaviour and in particular pedophilia becomes the norm, Western civilisation WILL fall.
The unique highfaluting definition of racism as provided by sociology, has in of itself, formed the basis of a large amount of racism. Sociology defines racism as “power plus prejudice” whereas the original definition defines it as a prejudicial hatred of people of a different race. The original meaning is highly problematic to ideologues because it supposes that ANYONE, regardless of their race, can be racist. The ideologue narrative of only white people being racist then makes no sense because people are generally judged on a personal basis, dependent on their own personal behaviour of racism and not of a group identification. Ideologues however aim to fragment society by keeping groups that historically suffered abuses in a mindset of victimhood, bound in solid mental chains and unable to improve their own lives due to this psychological enslavement. This enslavement to a victimhood ideology serves to bolster the illusion that the untruths spoken by ideologues are based in fact. The reality is that all races are of equal worth, that certain races may have certain strengths or weaknesses that do not affect their value as people and also that there are subcultural differences within a single society. These are facts that ideologues do not want to acknowledge as existing because these call for personal responsibility regardless of race.
Assumes that successful people have an upper hand largely due to their skin colour. While it is true that SOME white individuals have benefited significantly from the wealth of their ancestors, the same can be said for people of all races who have affluent families. Statistics consistently disprove that the white race (whatever that is) is not the financially dominant group when considering income and population percentages. Asian males (East and South) as well as those from the Middle East are shown to be the highest earning percentile. There are plenty of poor blacks, whites, Asians and so forth, however, it is not only opportunities that allow individuals to rise out of poverty, but rather, a mindset, motivation, the intelligence to identify opportunities when they present themselves and the humility to grasp them. Money does grease the wheels so to speak and therefore it can be said that instead of white privilege there is “green privilege” or the benefits that wealth could possibly bring.
Ideologues would paint traditional masculinity as “toxic masculinity”. In the past, chivalric codes dictated a strict set of principles, rules and responsibilities that men were expected to follow in dealing with women. Self control and discipline were valued along with mental fortitude. Traditional masculinity then was a system for strength and protection that eradicated undesirable behaviour. In Western Chivalry, violence against women and even losing ones temper while duelling or being unmerciful were all viewed as serious breaches of ethics. A man who broke these would be ostracised by other men. Far from being an oppressive patriarchy, it was designed to protect women and children under pain of death. Due to feminism a large part of these traditions have dissipated, leading to weak willed and selfish men who lack any moral compass, yet instead of admonishing the emasculated behaviour of feminist men and “soy boys” , those who are “traditional” in their mindset are criticised. It has and will always be a part of true masculinity to protect women and children because that is the true male instinct.
Femininity can be a beautiful thing. Feminism has destroyed a large part of female contentment and happiness by setting expectations of how women should behave in view of feminist perspective. Females who do not conform are often shamed for simply being women. Some feminists attack women who get married, those who have children (especially male children), are anti-abortion, enjoy “traditional” lifestyles and the like. That is not to say that a woman must do all of these things, however, there are no grounds to criticise a woman who does choose to.
Inclusive / Inclusivity
Inclusivity was originally a term used to encourage the participation of previously disparaged racial groups and ethnic minorities. This notion was hijacked by ideologues who sought to include all manner of groups and conflate the real and horrendous historical suffering of racial and ethnic groups with non-issues of modern social justice warriors who feel that the unavailability of low fat soy milk is a form of oppression. Inclusion has been warped from helping the historically disadvantaged to become another ploy of ideologues to “include” ethically, morally and socially unacceptable behaviour and concepts in the public sphere, cloaked in this “tolerant” bubble wrap, mentally corrupting concepts are unaffected by the social immune system of open critique.
Linguistic colonialism is the new frontier of totalitarian control. This gangrene spreads through society causing moral and mental necrosis. It enslaves the mind to ideologies that harm not only the individual but the entirety of society. It is up to the individual to show the mental fortitude to reject this ideology which fractures social unity, pits man and woman against one another, encourages racial hatred, erodes basic morals and corrupts children with pseudoscientific drivel. The real question is, will you, the reader succumb evil or refuse to?
As the Lamborghini grade intellectual powerhouse of linguistic genius that I am, I rarely read the common literature which equates to mental junk food. The key word is “rarely” for at some point I see headlines which scathe my soul to its depth. “Pray what can scathe one so deeply?” you may ask. The answer is simple. The nigh on unforgivable sin of teaching erroneous grammar or warping meaning.
I speak of the article written for “Teen Vogue” which is entitled “All your Questions about Gender-Neutral Pronouns Answered” by Desmond Meagley. Fear not Desmond, I am a beneficent linguist and while I generally charge money to educate, I will be merciful upon your linguistically challenged soul by instructing you in the basics of the English language.
The first thing one should remember is that in any language the rules are governed not only by grammar or by a single word free of context but by semantics and morphology (I know they are big words but do try to keep up). In layman’s terms, there are principles of context and grammar which form rules so as to encode meaning which is subsequently decoded by the listener (oh dear was that very patriarchal of me? layman….). It means one can babble on and make all sorts of nonsensical assertions about language and how it is used and yet, the actual way that it is decoded will render one’s utterances invalid if the message is not understood.
To assist understanding, I will analyse the article and clearly display why when one wishes to dance the linguistic tango, that one must in fact know the steps or else risk looking like an uncoordinated and somewhat intoxicated grasshopper.
The aforementioned article is written in a format of question and answer format that even the dimmest of teenagers is likely to understand and reasonably so for the magazine “Teen Vogue” is not aimed at the sharpest tools in the shed. The context of this piece is that the author argued for the use of they /them as a singular personal pronoun.
“You look like a boy/girl. Why use they instead of he/she? I look like me. That’s all there is to it. If someone else looks at me and decides I am something or another based on the clothes I’m wearing, or whether or not I’m wearing make up, that assumption is on them: it has nothing to do with who or what I actually am.”
A mildly passive aggressive answer and yet somewhat of an oxymoron. I do wager to ask: “If indeed you are self-confident enough to not care what assumption others make about your personage, then why is it necessary to impose the usage of a predefined term of self-identification on others? Would that not rather suggest insecurity and immaturity?” Just asking for a friend.
The following was like watching a rocket blast off heavenward full of energy and power only to suddenly veer off at an angle strike the ground with excessive force and burst into flame. The design was flawed. So near and yet so far………..
“You’re only one person! How does that work?”
It’s really, really simple. In English, we already use singular “they” all the time when the gender of a person is unknown. Say you see fifty bucks on the ground and pick it up. You might say: “Oh, someone dropped their money here. I’ll set it aside for them, I bet they are looking everywhere!”
Alas, so near thee saileth, so near yon words thee spake rung true. Indeed, “they” and “them” are used as a singular plural within very strict semantic and morphological parameters defined by spoken situational context. “They” and “them” are used ONLY when the person is unknown and their gender, that is to say, their sex, is unknown. It is never used when the person is known to those communicating and only leaves possibility open that a member or members of either gender could carry out an action. (Fun biological fact, there are two genders.)
“When someone uses they/them pronouns, all you have to do is apply that same sentence construction: “Oh, Desmond dropped their money here. I’ll set it aside for them, I bet they are looking everywhere!”
The rocket has disintegrated. I take it that English was not your forté at school. The sentence is both semantically and morphologically incorrect and looks ridiculous. Perhaps it would be a kindness unto thyself to refrain from explaining any more of your pseudo-linguistic musings. Sadly, it continues….
“I’m fine with non-binary people, but I don’t believe in singular they pronouns. It makes no sense.”Not only are you on the wrong side of history, you’re also on the wrong side of English, my friend.”
Firstly, expressing an attitude of friendship when one has only just introduced oneself in an article could give the impression of a condescending attitude, we wouldn’t want that now would we?
Secondly, humans are dimorphic and hence we all belong to a binary.
Thirdly, I strongly recommend against attempting to pull out a dictionary and embarrassing oneself by spouting a poorly formed and linguistically unsound argument with below par reasoning. Especially, when historically it has been used only to refer to unknown individuals.
Alright then, it’s a free country.
“Major dictionaries have recognized singular they as grammatically correct for years, including the Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, and dictionary.com. The word “they” has been used as a singular pronoun since at least the 16th century, and some argue it goes back even earlier. We’re not making up new words and grammar here. Clearly, it makes sense to a lot of people who know a lot about the English language, so I don’t know why everyone gets so hung up on this.”
No one, “gets hung up” on this point when it is used to refer to an unknown individual carrying out an action. People only object to the incorrect grammatical usage based on erroneous semantic and morphological structures. You are attempting to make new grammar by insinuating a form that violates the semantic structure. The dictionary definition only applies to the already explained reference of when one is talking about an unknown individual or individuals. It does make sense to those who know a lot about the English language that the proposed assertion of using they/them for a known individual is laughably inaccurate. This is starting to get painfully repetitive.
The arguments given are taken out of context and obviously lacks any depth or linguistic insight. The poor developed reasoning skills are aimed at the cognitively underdeveloped and is likely to further inhibit future growth of mental capabilities if teens consume this sort of faux linguistics.
Alas, to err is but human, in the future let us continue to use the English language as it is supposed to be used and not put too much thought into our own whimsical interpretations. Let us pass over this as the result of misguided youthful over exuberance and deficit of knowledge. It would be highly recommended that one invest in a grammar exercise book which would save one from this type of embarrassment in the future.
I have educated the throngs against this grammatical faux pas and extended my benevolent mercy upon the linguistically underdeveloped. May proper linguistics smile benignantly on your attempts to master the English language.
The train wreck original article : https://www.teenvogue.com/story/they-them-questions-answered
The Western world is undergoing an ideological war directed at science and reality itself. Scientific fact is now construed as “offensive” or “insulting”. Interestingly, the so called “progressive” minds which one would assume to be more accepting of scientific realities are in fact in total opposition to this. Normally, I remain silent on these issues and let insane people follow their course of insanity. However, this pseudoscience, this faux reality, this paradox of logic, has spread and is now infiltrating and corrupting the very fabric of society at its root. Its root? Yes. children, those who will continue to live and create, those who will be responsible for building this world to be something better or destroying it through their own greed or stupidity.
The Transcult is responsible for the dissemination of the worst forms of pseudoscientific dross, with certain doctors, keen on building a customer base and who are all too willing to defecate on the Hippocratic Oath they have taken, furthering medically unsound and downright harmful quackery.
Let us then consider the actual science that undermines the religious fervour of this Transcult.
Myth 1: I have a female brain in a male body (or vice versa).
Reality: Sorry, but that is a biologically disproven absurdity. Human bodies are governed by constraints. Each sex develops in the womb with their neurons being woven together based on the hormones present for their sex.
This means that a male body will have neurons that weave together with greater density from front to back (and opposite) within the same hemisphere, the mass of the brain will be greater, with more overall white matter volume and an adult brain mass of approximately 1,370 grams. The female brain will have a total mass of approximately 1,200 grams, (one should not construe mass with IQ) higher overall grey matter volume but significantly higher inter-hemispheric white matter than males.
That men and women behave differently is biologically encoded in the brain, female body = female brain and male body = male brain. No amount of pseudoscientific gymnastics can nullify these basic biological facts. A woman is a woman and a man is a man, physically, neurologically and genetically.
Myth 2: Helping children “transition” earlier helps them have better lives because they know what they are.
Reality: This argument is debased on many levels. Take the later half of the argument. It implies that children ( sometimes as young as three or four) have the cognitive ability to orientate themselves in the world to the mental level of an adult. This is in total opposition to well documented theories of children’s cognitive development such as Vygotsky and Piaget. Both of which argue that children’s cognitive development and self realisation happen in stages and that such young children are not fully cognizant as to themselves.
Being a tomboy does not make one a boy trapped in a girls body, neither does being a sensitive boy make one a girl trapped in a boys body.
The younger the child the less they are developed, children should not have any predefined “ideas” about gender because their behaviour at this stage is mostly compelled by their genetics. Baby girls are much more interested in people’s faces with baby boys being more interested in objects in their surroundings. This can in no way be argued to be anything other than a preprogrammed genetic default. It is impossible for a young child to “self identify” as anything because they lack the mental and cognitive ability (never mind the brain mass for computation) to physically do this.
Using this same arguments by ideologues, a young child should also be able to drive, work, pay tax, get married, become part of government, run for office and the like. If it is considered for such things to be an absurdity for young children, why is the concept of choosing one’s gender especially at that age, not equally laughable? Children transitioning earlier only assures damaging the developing body to a greater degree. Imagine a sapling tree which is contorted into an unnatural shape. As it is young and supple it can handle the twisting, however, as the tree ages any attempt to correct its shape or to improve its shape will likely cause the wood to split. The same is true of children, biologically corrupting children can have no long term benefits, on the contrary, long term health problems ranging from mental illness to drastically increased risk of cancer due to DNA and hormonal damage along with a plethora of other diseases and conditions are the inevitable results of this abuse.
Myth 3: “Transitioning” is safe and proven science.
Reality: Changing sex is technically impossible. Even when everything is chopped and inverted and that individual “believes” that they are now the sex they “identify” with, their body cannot accept the lie. Biologically their DNA will continue to scream their true gender, so to speak. The body will continue to reject the lie, the body will continue to fight to repair itself, the body will continue to attempt to revert to reality. What does that logically mean? A man is a man and a woman is a woman.
Biologically their DNA will continue to scream their true gender
From this DNA rejection of changes comes a massive challenge. The body considers the wound caused by surgery as just that, a wound, which needs to be repaired. The body and the entire immune system will then attack and try to correct this immune system breach. Massive doses of hormones will then be needed to stave off this reaction, essentially putting the body in a DNA-Immune stupor. If at any time the hormones are ceased, the body will attempt to aggressively revert.
Hormones also control the stability of the neural tissue. The brain is extremely sensitive, when hormones are used for extensive periods the neurological electro-chemical system is upset and starts to become damaged. This neurological instability leads to mental and emotionally unpredictable and often devastating results. It may increase aggression, depression and decrease the natural will to live. About 40% of males who undergo this procedure commit suicide and another larger percentage self harm. To put that into perspective, the Spanish flu killed about 20% of those who contracted it, the Ebola Virus (depending on the strain) kills about 50% of those who contract it. This means that the pseudo-medical procedure that kills 40% of those who undergo it is equitable to one of the most deadly viruses on the planet. Yet, little is said about this. Usually society is blamed for being “unaccepting” however this rate does not change regardless if the individual is in an accepting environment or not. This would then denote that the mortality rate is NOT affected by the wider society and rather that this is a mental illness ( Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition also known as DSM 5 refers to it being a Mental Disorder).
To present this in another manner, imagine that a drug company created a drug and then put out it out to market knowing that the drug had a 40% chance of giving fatal anaphylactic shock to its consumers. Two questions arise, would they not be held legally responsible for the deaths and secondly, would you be willing to use medication that has a 40% chance of ending your existence? Transcultists argue that this is a chance worth taking.
Far from being safe, this is untested, haphazard and slapdash pseudo-biology that is literally killing people, many times children.
Myth 4: They are real women.
Reality: No, they most certainly are not. The differences extend far beyond the brain and hormones. Males and females are structurally different. To put this in very politically incorrect terms, a female is not only a walking, talking individual just like a male, she is in fact more than that, she is a walking, talking life support system.
This is a significant biological axiom, as the design of the body is heavily impacted by this. Take for example the centre of gravity. Females who have to carry a significant weight while pregnant hence having a lower centre of gravity than men. This puts less pressure on the spine which is caused the additional frontal weight and assists in stability while walking or doing other activities while being pregnant. They also tend to have lower core abdominal muscle mass as the abdominal regions need to expand during pregnancy.
Males generally have higher overall muscle mass and a higher centre of gravity along with a smaller Q- Angle, making them less stable from a gravitational standpoint but faster and more powerful thereby giving males a enormous advantage especially in the upper body and when lifting weights. The larger Q-angle in women also puts them at significantly greater risk of severe knee injury when pressure is exerted on the anterior surface, hence the significantly greater amount of knee injuries in professional female athletes (this is one reason than men are not permitted to compete with women).
Females have a lower set Sacrum, wider Pelvic Brim and wider Subpubic Angle than males, all of which are imperative to be able to give birth. This results in the stereotypical “child bearing hips” of women and the wider positioning of the legs.
The cervix and the ovaries are also immensely complex, as is the amniotic sac that acts as a supplementary immune system for the fetus. A real women is therefore and adult human female, one who possesses XX chromosomes or X / XXX chromosomal mutations.
Myth 5: You can be female by behaving female.
Reality: a large number of behaviour sets between men and women are identical. However, from a biological and physiological standpoint there are differences in certain common behaviours. Consider language and mannerisms. Women tended to use more agreeable language forms and less foul language in their interactions. Interestingly this would support the understanding that women have a better agreeableness rating in their general leaning, a point on which I concur.
Further, “women and men may have different paralinguistic system and move and gesture differently” a point that can be seen with general gestures being understood to be predominantly masculine or feminine.
Men tend to push the status quo considerably more and are often more blunt in their language forms and more likely to ignore social hierarchy or employ dialects in spoken language. Men are more likely to use physical cues to intimidate other men or to elevate their own status.
Interestingly, the men who claim to be women, retain male gestures and speech patterns. Even when they attempt to use feminine forms, masculine forms are triggered by emotion and they cannot but help reverting to their “natural state”. Take for example the debate between Mr. Tur and Ben Shapiro.
men who claim to be women, retain male gestures and speech patterns
During the debate, Robert continually used body language of intimidation used by males. A hand on the shoulder (a masculine form used to try and signal physical superiority) and strong eye contact as commonly used by males in conflict. He then threatened Ben when he felt offended (by scientific fact) and told him that he would be leaving in an ambulance if he repeated his comments. Females rarely react like this, their conflict management tends to work by verbally communicating their offense and not with threats of violence toward unknown males(a pattern which is also based on a physically weaker physiology). Later Mr. Tur threatened to “curb stomp” (a very violent stepping on the back of the skull) Ben Shapiro.
Another example is Bruce Jenner who aggressively stated no one should ever question whether a man, who claims to be a woman, is an actual woman and that they can never judge until they are in that position. He was apparently upset that some would question why a man had won a woman’s prize. He was essentially saying that science and discussion should be censored to further his pseudoscientific views. A common tactic of the Trancult is to attack any free thought that may question the validity of their carefully constructed pseudoscientific and baseless safe space.
Myth 6: Acceptance is the kind thing to do.
Reality: Here we have a severe case of conflating the two words acceptance and tolerance. Acceptance means that one condones certain actions and does not find anything wrong with a persons course of behaviour. Tolerance on the other hand, recognises the right of that individual to choose their life course but does not mean that one agrees with nor condones the actions of that individual. Hence, no conflict occurs when the other party does not impose their ideology on someone else.
The Transcult however, is confused about not only acceptance and tolerance but also the meaning of kindness. Kindness is empathy and compassion. One can have a difference of opinion and still be empathetic and compassionate.
Imagine a doctor who has to set a broken bone. The doctor will make a concerted effort to cause as little pain as possible, however there may still be considerable pain involved. The positive result of setting the bone outweighs the pain caused. No one would view a doctor who refuses to set a broken bone as being kind.
In like manner, drawing attention to the pseudoscientific arguments of the Transcult, while seemingly painful to that individual is actually the real kindness. Imagine for a moment a schizophrenic patient. No good comes from indulging the audio-visual disturbances that a schizophrenic experiences as a reality. Schizophrenic persons have a severe mental disorder that than be a danger to not only those around them but also to themselves. They receive help and medication to enable them to live as normal and fulfilling lives as possible.
The same should be true for those who believe a fallacy, that they are born in the wrong body. Research should be done not into how to further mutilate their bodies but how to correct the imbalances that make them delusional in the first place. An argument that angers many proponents of the transcult who are satisfied with their own delusion and encourage viewing as “normal” that which is not.
It should be noted that those who so loudly espouse “tolerance” are the least tolerant of all. Any difference at all in opinion, even highlighting the scientific facts are deemed hate speech or offensive. An example is the so called Dr. Harrop (for some reason I hear the sound of a duck whenever that name is mentioned) who led a campaign against a certain Mrs. Posie Parker who dared to put up a sign saying that “women (noun) = adult human female”. She was subject to an online campaign of harassment and her children and husband were targeted. I do not personally know her and am opposed to feminism, yet, regardless of what one personally thinks of her, it seems highly unethical for “tolerant” and “accepting” people to target those who were not part of the argument, particularly her children. Regardless of my opinion on feminism, the fact remains that her statements are not scientifically inaccurate as the rest of this article has already demonstrated and that she was stating widely held mainstream medical belief. Sadly, rather than the harassers, it was Mrs. Parker who was deplatformed by those very “tolerant” and “large hearted individuals”.
Espousing the lie that gender and sex can be chosen is the opposite of kindness, it is encouraging a mentally unstable individual to self harm and is devoid of all ethics and morals.
I could write on and on about the evidence that shows how harmful the mutilations of sex change surgery are to the body and mind, as to how children are condemned to a lifetime of hormones and depression, as to non-feminine behaviour of these who “transition”, as to the violent criminals, rapists and paedophiles that want to be imprisoned as females such as Stephen Terence Wood (now Karen White), Paul Banfield, David Aryton, Craig Hauxwell and many others. I could write about the campaigns by the Transcult to silence any dialogue and remove free speech as well as label anything they find mildly annoying to be hate speech. I could but I will not, as I do not desire to write an encyclopaedic length book on the subject, merely state a few of the blinding facts.
Normalising the abnormal does not mean that reality will bend and that biology will obey ideology.
Normalising the abnormal does not mean that reality will bend and that biology will obey ideology. One can manipulate biology into abnormalities but the results will never be beneficial, it will simply create other problems that add to human misery. Those with mental problems and disabilities should be assisted to live as normally as possible to add quality to their life, not make their disabilities and problems worse. This ideology of faux science continues to spread by brute force, will you accept the lie as truth?
Alaric Naudé is a professor specialising in education, linguistics and social science. He is widely recognised as having a great face for radio.