Leftist Academic agenda alive and well at Cambridge

Yesterday I sent a very silly article about a very silly man to a friend of mine, commenting that I could imagine what my father would have said about this “academic” – he would have called him a “Fathead!” and then said that he had been “educated beyond his intellectual capacity.” I don’t think anyone would disagree with that:

Cambridge 1.jpg


I quote:

‘I would lower the voting age to six, not 16, and I’m serious about that,’ he said. ‘I would want people who vote to be able to read, so I would exclude reception.

‘The old thing about voting for people like you wouldn’t happen, 9-year-olds aren’t going to elect 9-year-olds to Parliament and even if they did they’d be outvoted.

‘What’s the worst that could happen? At least it would be exciting, it would make elections more fun. ‘

Prof Runciman said the system of only allowing voting at 18 but having no cut-off point at the other end left young people vastly outnumbered.

He did not suggest stripping older people of their votes but said including young children was necessary to correct the ‘structural imbalance’.

What a total balloon! But where is the outrage? Where are the calls amongst his fellow academics to “burn the witch”? No, there are none, because in the intellectual vacuum of Cambridge University controversy is fine as long as it suits the general agenda of the Left.

When it doesn’t, then the calls for “burn the witch” are as shrill as can be, as in the case of this poor unfortunate fellow who has discovered that there is a link between race and intellect as well as race and criminality. This is not new, but 200 of his fellow intellectuals from as far away as Princeton are determined to destroy him:

Cambridge 2.jpg


The phrase “ethically suspect” is particularly amusing and pertinent – it tells me that it’s unethical, in their minds, to even look at the issue. It’s only ethical to ignore the issues caused by “diversity” and not address them scientifically. Because they don’t like it they label him a eugenicist, which he may or may no be, and call his work “pseudoscience” which it is not. This is a subject which has been studied over and over and the conclusion is that there is a definite difference in intelligence between races, on average. But we mustn’t say so, or we will fall foul of the thought police.

I quote:

They said that they are ‘deeply concerned that racist pseudoscience is being legitimised through association with the University of Cambridge.’

They added: ‘This fellowship was awarded to Carl despite his attendance at, and public defence of, the discredited ‘London Conference on Intelligence’, where racist and pseudoscientific work has been regularly presented.

‘Carl’s work has already been used by extremist and far-right media outlets with the aim of stoking xenophobic and anti-immigrant rhetoric…this kind of pseudoscientific racism runs the serious risk of being used to justify policies that directly harm vulnerable populations.’

Yes, because immigrants are vulnerable, but the populations they join are not. The immigrants must be allowed to enter and destroy our countries (because destroy them they will) because otherwise it’s racist.

Take a look at Ethiopia:

tragic ethiopia.jpg

When Africans make Africa great they will be far more welcome here. The men of Africa should be at home building up their countries, but that is not the plan. As we know the plan is the Kalergi Plan: Kalergi plan – advertised, yet ignored by the masses

Remember folks, it’s not the immigrants fault in all this – our leaders are to blame. Diversity is our destruction, and intellectual rigour will not be applied unless you want to lose your career.



Survivial of “Democracy” depends on censorship according to Senator

Oh dear. Can of worms…

thought crime

Freedom of speech is not Senator Chris Murphy’s strong point. Does he claim to support the Constitution?


The London police now have a firm definition of thought-crime – by Jon Rappoport

“Whether he went on with the diary, or whether he did not go on with it, made no difference. The Thought Police would get him just the same. He had committed—would still have committed, even if he had never set pen to paper—the essential crime that contained all others in itself. Thoughtcrime, they called it. Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they were bound to get you.” (George Orwell, “1984”)

Welcome back, George. Things are playing out as you predicted.

From the UK Met Police website, here is the latest official attempt to censor speech. It’s actually more than that. Read carefully while pointing a fan at the screen to disperse the noxious fumes:

“If someone does something that isn’t a criminal offence but the victim, or anyone else, believes it was motivated by prejudice or hate, we would class this as a ‘hate incident’. Though what the perpetrator has done may not be against the law, their reasons for doing it are. This means it may be possible to charge them with an offence.”


It—an action or statement—isn’t a crime, but the perpetrator’s reasons for “doing it” may spring from hatred—and then it turns into a crime.

via The London police now have a firm definition of thought-crime

Peter Hitchens nails it –

I read his piece yesterday in the Mail on Sunday – an he get’s it just right. I agree with him:

“As an extremist, I am very worried about the planned Extremism Bill, which our Prime Minister is about to ram through Parliament.

So should you be. You are probably extremists, too, or will soon become extremists.

You may well remember when many opinions now viewed as despicable and more or less criminal were freely expressed – often by the same people and media who now condemn them.

I certainly do. Much of the conservative patriotic Christianity which my parents’ generation saw as normal has now been driven underground, and those who express it – especially in the public sector – face discipline or the sack, and are sometimes prosecuted.

Many of the current establishment’s attacks on Labour aren’t disagreements among free people in a free society. They are demands for abject recantations expressed by people who clearly think such views should not be allowed.

And the expression ‘extremism’ doesn’t mean anything objective or measurable. It just means a view that is out of favour with the current government and establishment.[…]

Yet, instead, we waste our time and destroy our freedom by futile attempts to control what people think.”

Yes, Peter, as an extremist myself – for example, I believe that homosexuality is a sin, and as such I’m likely to be viewed as though I might want to throw a gay man off a tall building which is the very last thing I would do, or condone, but hey, I’m an extremist. If you’re reading this blog, you probably are too.

You are committing a thought crime by even considering that the world is flat, just as God said it was. You are committing a thought crime by questioning the media’s version of events surrounding any of the too-numerous-to-mention false flag attacks, most notably 9/11. For being against war. For believing that unfettered immigration is treason against the British people. I could go on…

Get ready to be locked up for what you believe. What goes on in your head is no longer “nobody’s business” when your very facial expression can be read by a facial recognition camera and have you logged for further surveillance.

I am saddened that we have reached this point of all-out Stasi state, all out Communism in fact. It looks like fascism, but they are really the same. Easiest to refer to it as totalitarianism. That it certainly is.

God Bless you