I think there was a real piece of buried treasure here, namely, today I learned that there is an entire journal called "Whiteness and Education," published by Taylor and Francis which is already on volume 11.
Just think for a moment about how much we, collectively, have learned about "whiteness" from the scores of articles already published in this journal, and the many thousands of hours of work that the authors and reviewers put into them. Truly, we are living in a golden age of science and enlightenment.
But just like other destructive cultural trends it should not be forgotten but held up as a lesson. There's a lot of lessons to be learned but first and foremost is the idea that one has to defer to certain people because of a demographic they belong to. That it's actually bad to treat people the same regardless of race, gender, nationality and so on. Much of it stems from this reversal that all of a sudden decided bias, generalizations about certain demographics, discrimination and so on we're very very good as long as it benefited specific groups.
From I scientific perspective,I think it is worse how their "science" often consists of asking people how they feel about something and draw conclusions from that.
E.g. black people feel like there is racism, so there is racism. It's not completely without merit, but from a scientific perspective it is useless.
Flora and fauna don't have race. They have separate species. A black cat sees no difference in a calico cat vs a tabby cat vs a tortoise shell one. Race as we know it is a completely man-made construct to justify discrimination against large groups of people. We are all the same species, and the vast majority of perceivable differences are genetic developments in response to geographical and environmental effects over a long period of time. If there was any significant difference to our genetic makeup, interracial procreation would not be possible.
As someone who has spent years living in minority-white "hoods" in North America, no amount of academic onanism will ever convince me that there are not serious objective differences between the races. At one point in my life I might have been convinced by masturbatory, quasi-academic Talmudic appeals to the contrary but lived experience will always trump Ivory Tower nonsense. Sure, a Mexican mestizo can reproduce with a Nordic White; who cares. Race is real, it is biologically immutable and the leftist ramblings to the contrary are simply pie in the sky Boomer self-pleasurings from the post-WW2 Western "liberal democracy" era that is now quickly coming to a close.
No. When there's evidence, for example, that some West Africans have up to 19% of a different hominid's DNA in them - they're up to 1/5th not even Homo Sapiens Sapiens. And that's just that part. The biggest differences between peoples exist in the brain. That's relevant. To pretend we're all the same when so much evidence exists - including our very eyes - tells us otherwise, is beyond obtuse. Even if "the vast majority of perceivable differences are genetic developments in response to geographical and environmental effects over a long period of time" is accurate, and it is only these that account for what you acknowledge are "perceivable differences," they're still "perceivable differences," and relevant. Races are likely due ad mixtures of other hominids - and the idea this is supposed to make people upset is laughable. It is simply the reality of the observable universe.
*And it is disingenuous, at best, to claim interracial procreation would not be possible. Do you have any idea how many species have intermixed, and produce fertile offspring? A great many. Regardless of all of this talk, however, the basic conclusion remains - access to Whites and what we create in the world isn't a right. Some of us love our own people and wish to live among our own people. We do not care, or need to care, what others think or feel about that.
Quote: "Race as we know it is a completely man-made construct to justify discrimination against large groups of people"
No. "Race" was originally a method of grading the market value of white slaves in AntiRacist islamic slave markets (e.g., Saqaliba versus Abeed). Race was subsequently discovered and used by whites to justify political and military organization to provide greater protection of large groups of white people better than could be obtained without the concept of the "White" Race.
By 1627, Blacks and other Muslims were sailing up to Iceland to kidnap and enslave hundreds of white people [1627 Sack of Iceland] pursuant to the Islamic Doctrine of AntiRacism. [Jón Þorsteinsson ("Jón the Martyr") was a minister on the Westman Islands who did not survive the raid. He was brutally murdered by the Blacks/Muslims during the initial attack on his home, becoming a prominent tragic figure and martyr in Icelandic folklore. His wife, Margrét, his daughter, Margrét, and his son, Jón, were all liberated from the white male patriarchy and taken to Algiers, where they were sold into slavery.] As Black CRT/AntiRacist Professor [at Texas A&M] Tommy Curry explained "In order to be equal, in order to be liberated, some white people might have to die." In 1631, Blacks and other Muslims sailed to Baltimore Ireland to kidnap and enslave the entire village, hundreds of white people, for sale as slaves in Africa. [1631 Sack of Baltimore] In 1625, blacks and other AntiRacist Muslims sailed to England and captured the Massachusettes Pilgrim’s ship named Little James and enslaved these white people in Africa. As America's first Muslim-born President, Barack Hussein Obama II, said: “Islam has always been a part of America's story." [See also Balthasar Sturmer's handwritten, Account of the Travels of Mister Balthasar Sturmer (1558 German manuscript; captivity in Tunis 1534–1535)] White Slaves were utilized for horrid galley-rowing labor [e.g., famously Miguel de Cervantes, Galatian de Sesse, and St. Vincent de Paul], domestic/sexual service, public works, or held for financial ransom through specialized Catholic redemptionist orders (e.g., the Trinitarians and Mercedarians).
Racism was established by the English as the official Doctrine of the English/Colonists/Americans in the 1705 Slave Act of the English Colony in Virginia which expressly prohibited “Blacks”, “Muslims” and “Indians” from owning any “White” Slaves. Thus, white slavery by blacks preceded “racisim”, and the official “racism” was adopted in 1705 to Deny blacks and muslims of access to whiteness (white slaves) that the blacks and muslims lusted for. [The 1705 Virginia Leglislation also discouraged immigration by blacks and muslims into the American colonies because by remaining in Africa the blacks and muslims could legally buy and own White Slaves] This 1705 official Racism was itself merely a continuation of the 1000-year old European Doctrine of Anti-AntiRacism that had animated millions of White People to use organized violence and technology to Marginalize Blacks and other Muslims who came to Europe to enslave White People. The Virginia Slave Act of 1705 was adopted as a defensive measure to prevent white enslavement (by Blacks and Muslims), and to provide assurances to white native people and future white immigrants (which later became the promise of "the Blessings of Liberty" made in the US Constitution to the white "progeny")
European “Colonialism” was decided as global international policy in 1492 (Spain and the Pope) and in the early 1600s (England, Dutch etc) as an extension of the ReConquista Crusade that had already been fought for 700 years. The motivation of the English in the early 1600s time of King James (Jamestown, Virginia) was to gather the Tall Pine Trees (and pitch/tar, iron) for masts and construction of new ships, and salted fish, that the English needed for buiding up a Navy to defend themselves from PREDATION BY BLACKS AND OTHER MUSLIMS who were kidnapping English whites at Sea and around the Coast of England. In 1627 the Islamic State had captured Lundy Island of the coast of England as their Naval base for slave raids to enslave Atlantic coastal Whites and Americans. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B… Two hundred years later, in 1816 the English/Dutch sailed their NewWorld-financed Navy under command of Lord Exmouth to bomb Algeria and forced the Blacks and other Muslims there to sign a “No More White Slaves For Muslims/Blacks” Treaty. This was only after the Racist White Supremacist US President Thomas Jefferson sent the new US Navy to bomb Tripoli to Free the White Slaves (not only Americans) [and tried to force the Blacks and other Muslims to sign a “No More White Slaves For Muslims/Blacks” Treaty]. So, the Whites clearly invented Racism (Anti-AntiRacism) prior to 1800 as a system to liberate White People from Enslavement by Blacks and Other Muslims, not to “justify” slavery.
“Non-Whites in Western academia constantly promote violence against White people, frequently making genocidal statements, like “abolish Whiteness” or “abolish the White race by any means necessary.” Of course, they attempt to doublespeak their way around promoting genocide by claiming that “Whiteness” is a “fabricated ideology,” rather than a biological reality.”
White progressives. They discriminate against their own. This is a study that shows they are the only demographic who have a lower opinion of themselves then they have of other racial groups.
It also feels like there are many groups of people who try to treat people fairly. None of us are perfect. But I give people a lot of credit for an honest attempt. But it is clear that anti-racist culture is quite the opposite. They just try and redefine racism so they can commit Injustice and make it look like it's not.
I think about a scenario: four teenage boys stomping to death a middle-aged woman. And I imagine different ethnic/cultural groups in the role of the teenage boys. And I imagine the victim was somebody of a different ethnic/cultural group.
Now I imagine how they would react if the racial demographics were reversed.
From my lived experience I feel pretty confident I know how most likely different ethnic groups in the US would react in those situations. Because I have seen similar situations again and again and it seems to get the same reaction.
Yes, almost everybody probably reacts more severely when their demographic is the victim then when they were the perpetrators.
But there are some demographics who would unequivocally condemn such an act and would not allow any sort of tribal allegiance to try and condone or excuse the violence. They would express shame and anger
And there are cultural groups whose response is almost entirely predictable: blame poverty, past injustices, present day injustices, do a "whataboutism", concoct a self-serving narrative which claims the victim, or somebody else of the victims demographic, did something that warranted it. We are coming up on the 25th anniversary of the lynching of Yankel Rosenbaum and that is a great example. You could look at the YouTube videos and conversation online and you will find people quickly claiming that an ambulance refused to help children and die in the street, and all sorts of narratives that are complete concoctions. But more importantly is the man who was lynched had nothing to do with any car accident. We live in a world where supporting lynching innocent people by bringing up somebody of the same demographic caused a car accident 2 hours earlier is routine. And it's not white rightwingers doing it.
First of all, the Crown Heights riot was a truly horrific series of events, and nobody should have died that day. It was a tragic accident by a foolish young man that resulted in the death of an even younger boy, leading to escalation of the racial tensions in the area. The aftermath actually led to the local Jewish population and black population having reduced racial tensions and actually resulted in them seeing each other as more than their race.
But you're seriously going to place this as the epitome of racial injustice in America and just ignore the fact that it wasn't until 1965 that black people were able to fully vote in America? That lynchings used to take place on a weekly basis in the south after the civil war if a black man so much as looked at a white lady? That black Africans were packed onto slave ships by the hundreds like sardines in a tin can and shipped across the Atlantic, with some ships having 60% of the people onboard die from the conditions and lack of humanity? You're going to pretend that for decades upon decades black people weren't treated as sub-human, essentially sold as livestock, made to pick hundreds of pounds of cotton a day for no pay, and when they came up short they would be beaten until their backs bled and expected to do it all again?
Racism is not justifiable, regardless of what color your skin may be. Black people discriminating against white people solely for their skin color is not okay, and it goes the same for all races. But there is a clear difference between isolated incidents like the Crown Heights riot and the multi-generational enslavement and societal discrimination of blacks in America. White people don't have 200+ years of generational trauma to carry. And I have seen far more forums on the internet with people whining about how hard it is to be white in America than I have seen forums of people talking about how horrible white people are. Most of the time when people like you and the rest of the small-minded men in this thread are offended by certain conversations, it's because you're so absurdly sensitive that even a discussion about the history of racism in America is an affront to your whiteness. "Oh black people had it soooo hard huh? Nobody cares about my struggles and my issues!" or "Well, black people can be racist too! They called me cracker!" Conveniently ignoring the very real & brutal history of slavery and widespread, violent discrimination of blacks in the country we call "Land of the Free."
Classism is by far the main issue in America, and it's time to wake up and realize that the billionaire elites of society absolutely love when people grovel about how the left is racist against white people. Because it keeps you complicit and happy to stand by while they shift as much wealth as possible from the pockets of the working class. Tariffs make prices increase? Oh, well turns out they were illegal so now all the companies that paid them get massive kick backs while we - the people who the tariffs were transferred to via price hikes - get nothing. And prices won't drop back to where they were, it's simply more money in the pockets of the ultra-wealthy. We are getting fleeced and some of you are happy to watch the world burn not realizing you're on fire too.
Oh, and your last statement of "We live in a world where supporting lynching innocent people by bringing up somebody of the same demographic caused a car accident 2 hours earlier is routine." is the most ridiculous thing I've read in weeks. It's not even an accurate historical account of the riots you claim to care about so much. I would, however, love to hear about a single other case of anyone "supporting lynching innocent people by bringing up somebody of the same demographic [who] caused a car accident 2 hours earlier". Because let's be honest, this isn't at all routine and I don't think you can point to any evidence showing that niche of a situation ever happened again. Except maybe if we go back to the Jim Crow era and beyond, but you don't want to do that, do you?
Liberals are the New White Janissaries who attack the Defensive Walls that protect Whites from enslavement.
By 1627, Blacks and other Muslims were sailing up to Iceland to kidnap and enslave hundreds of white people [1627 Sack of Iceland] pursuant to the Islamic Doctrine of AntiRacism. [Jón Þorsteinsson ("Jón the Martyr") was a minister on the Westman Islands who did not survive the raid. He was brutally murdered by the Blacks/Muslims during the initial attack on his home, becoming a prominent tragic figure and martyr in Icelandic folklore. His wife, Margrét, his daughter, Margrét, and his son, Jón, were all liberated from the white male patriarchy and taken to Algiers, where they were sold into slavery.] As Black CRT/AntiRacist Professor [at Texas A&M] Tommy Curry explained "In order to be equal, in order to be liberated, some white people might have to die." In 1631, Blacks and other Muslims sailed to Baltimore Ireland to kidnap and enslave the entire village, hundreds of white people, for sale as slaves in Africa. [1631 Sack of Baltimore] In 1625, blacks and other AntiRacist Muslims sailed to England and captured the Massachusettes Pilgrim’s ship named Little James and enslaved these white people in Africa. As America's first Muslim-born President, Barack Hussein Obama II, said: “Islam has always been a part of America's story." [See also Balthasar Sturmer's handwritten, Account of the Travels of Mister Balthasar Sturmer (1558 German manuscript; captivity in Tunis 1534–1535)] White Slaves were utilized for horrid galley-rowing labor [e.g., famously Miguel de Cervantes, Galatian de Sesse, and St. Vincent de Paul], domestic/sexual service, public works, or held for financial ransom through specialized Catholic redemptionist orders (e.g., the Trinitarians and Mercedarians).
Racism was established by the English as the official Doctrine of the English/Colonists/Americans in the 1705 Slave Act of the English Colony in Virginia which expressly prohibited “Blacks”, “Muslims” and “Indians” from owning any “White” Slaves. Thus, white slavery by blacks preceded “racisim”, and the official “racism” was adopted in 1705 to Deny blacks and muslims of access to whiteness (white slaves) that the blacks and muslims lusted for. [The 1705 Virginia Leglislation also discouraged immigration by blacks and muslims into the American colonies because by remaining in Africa the blacks and muslims could legally buy and own White Slaves] This 1705 official Racism was itself merely a continuation of the 1000-year old European Doctrine of Anti-AntiRacism that had animated millions of White People to use organized violence and technology to Marginalize Blacks and other Muslims who came to Europe to enslave White People. The Virginia Slave Act of 1705 was adopted as a defensive measure to prevent white enslavement (by Blacks and Muslims), and to provide assurances to white native people and future white immigrants (which later became the promise of "the Blessings of Liberty" made in the US Constitution to the white "progeny")
European “Colonialism” was decided as global international policy in 1492 (Spain and the Pope) and in the early 1600s (England, Dutch etc) as an extension of the ReConquista Crusade that had already been fought for 700 years. The motivation of the English in the early 1600s time of King James (Jamestown, Virginia) was to gather the Tall Pine Trees (and pitch/tar, iron) for masts and construction of new ships, and salted fish, that the English needed for buiding up a Navy to defend themselves from PREDATION BY BLACKS AND OTHER MUSLIMS who were kidnapping English whites at Sea and around the Coast of England. In 1627 the Islamic State had captured Lundy Island of the coast of England as their Naval base for slave raids to enslave Atlantic coastal Whites and Americans. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B… Two hundred years later, the English sailed their NewWorld-financed Navy to bomb Algeria and forced the Blacks and other Muslims there to sign a “No More White Slaves For Muslims/Blacks” Treaty. This was only after the Racist White Supremacist US President Thomas Jefferson sent the new US Navy to bomb Tripoli to Free the White Slaves (not only Americans) and forced the Blacks and other Muslims to sign a “No More White Slaves For Muslims/Blacks” Treaty. So, the Whites clearly invented Racism (Anti-AntiRacism) prior to 1800 as a system to liberate White People from Enslavement by Blacks and Other Muslims, not to “justify” slavery.
“Non-Whites in Western academia constantly promote violence against White people, frequently making genocidal statements, like “abolish Whiteness” or “abolish the White race by any means necessary.” Of course, they attempt to doublespeak their way around promoting genocide by claiming that “Whiteness” is a “fabricated ideology,” rather than a biological reality.”
Lysenkoism was largely abandoned by the late 1960s, and the Japhetic theory was rejected by Stalin. The social "sciences" and humanities were probably an ideological mess, but that's true of all societies including modern liberal democracies. It's generally hard to convince scientists to hold on to empirically wrong idea for long, especially when your ideology claims to be rooted in scientific materialism.
When I ask Assistant, it says the most important sociologists in the Soviet were Pjotr Fedosejev, Michail Rutkevitj, and Gennady Osipov. Their articles on Wikipedia are short, and Rutkevitj (Swedish spelling) doesn't even have one.
Despite their heavy books, they won't be rehabilitated or read again, because there just isn't any truth or reality to them.
If we contrast it to Western sociologists -- Habermas, Foucault, Bourdieu, Berger, Giddens, -- we'll be referencing them in 50 years from now. Because at least there was some reality in what they wrote (even if they were wrong about many things). It's more than an ideological mess.
That's why Woke stuff is more closely related to Soviet science. Take one of the important thinkers, Ibram Kendi, when did you last hear of him? In 10 years he will be nothing but a footnote.
> If we contrast it to Western sociologists -- Habermas, Foucault, Bourdieu, Berger, Giddens, -- we'll be referencing them in 50 years from now.
Not because they necessarily have more "truth or reality" to them. Mostly because the others are associated with a fallen government system.
If Germany had won WW2, nobody in Europe would be quoting the liberal sociologists either, even after the regime softened and direct prohibitions have stopped, just because they'd be associated to a losing system (and quoting them wouldn't advance anybody's career either).
Lysenkoism died in 1965. They did good work on genetics before that. As an example, experiments around the domestication of foxes via selective breeding. Genetics research was ideologically harmed between 1935-1965. From 1917-1935 and from 1965-1990 the field did well. It was good for 45 out of 73 years.
Japhetism was killed off by Stalin himself in 1950. Before that they did a lot of great linguistic work on grammars of various languages in the USSR. Japhetisim did not affect descriptive linguistics.
Sociology was bad from 1930-1956. Before and after, it did well. It was bad for 20 out of 73 years.
Ilyenkov, Vygotsky, Yanovskaya, and Mamardashvilli did great work in philosophy. They did well in economics but they were not allowed to study within the frameworks of Western economic market theory.
But not before it will do a lot of societal damage. They are steadily brainwashing more and more people every year that will end up taking positions in our government institutions. Because that is what these institutions are, covert socialist brainwash factories.
Just look at something like Gender studies, it is basically Marxism but molded towards gender while hiding it is really Marxism. Instead of bourgeoisie/proletariat it is non-ally white men/women etc.
They are basically creating their own version of Fight Club. Then when a conservative politician wants to cut government waste they will be opposed by thousands of brain washed useless bureacrats who only really know one thing well: how to destroy institutions from the inside.
"Then when a conservative politician wants to cut government waste they will be opposed..."
You just embodied one of the greatest successes of racial socialism, which virtually all of its self-styled opponents share. You started with the singular ("a"), and then switched to the plural ("they").
The other great recent success of rs, is capitalizing "black," which you were not guilty of.
I don’t know , but I don’t mind using the words the other side demands, so at least we don’t need to argue about the words. There’s plenty other stuff we can argue about.
For example, I don’t believe a man who puts on a wig becomes a woman, but if they demand it, I can call him a “her”.
For me it is the other way around. If they ask politely I will consider doing it when in their company. But when they start demanding it, forcing me to say it I resist.
Let's get real here, at the end of the day they are living in a fantasy world. They are basically larping (but on steroids, quite literally sometimes). They just need more people to play along to make it more believable. And the implications of playing along with them everywhere is that you will have men in womens sports, prisons, bathrooms etc. And it will spread, they will not stop at one thing. They are trying to brain wash 6 year olds already, essentially it is a bit like a religion.
I think Nudists understood the game, they know they are weirdos. They have their own spaces where they can play their game of walking around naked. They dont force it on the rest of us. They dont try to normalize it.
If we take trans women in women's sport, starting of by calling them men and "he" does the opposite. It makes them able to say "look these people are just transphobes".
I've written books (unpublished). If I use some other term than LGBTQ, I'm not been taken seriously -- other than by people who don't read books. It's important to try and use neutral terms to be taken seriously.
The other side demands that we use the words it chooses, because it knows that we will then become its mental prisoners. You are a willing prisoner. People like you will always say that there's no point fighting over words, and then you also surrender on everything else.
This has gone on for over 100 years, with Whites surrendering to black supremacists (so-called "civil rights"), feminazis, homosexuals, sexual psychopaths, etc.
Quote: "This has gone on for over 100 years, with Whites surrendering to black supremacists"
Before that, Whites violently struggled to overthrow the AntiRacists and Black Supremacists who threatened whites with enslavement.
By 1627, Blacks and other Muslims were sailing up to Iceland to kidnap and enslave hundreds of white people [1627 Sack of Iceland] pursuant to the Islamic Doctrine of AntiRacism. [Jón Þorsteinsson ("Jón the Martyr") was a minister on the Westman Islands who did not survive the raid. He was brutally murdered by the Blacks/Muslims during the initial attack on his home, becoming a prominent tragic figure and martyr in Icelandic folklore. His wife, Margrét, his daughter, Margrét, and his son, Jón, were all liberated from the white male patriarchy and taken to Algiers, where they were sold into slavery.] As Black CRT/AntiRacist Professor [at Texas A&M] Tommy Curry explained "In order to be equal, in order to be liberated, some white people might have to die." In 1631, Blacks and other Muslims sailed to Baltimore Ireland to kidnap and enslave the entire village, hundreds of white people, for sale as slaves in Africa. [1631 Sack of Baltimore] In 1625, blacks and other AntiRacist Muslims sailed to England and captured the Massachusettes Pilgrim’s ship named Little James and enslaved these white people in Africa. As America's first Muslim-born President, Barack Hussein Obama II, said: “Islam has always been a part of America's story." [See also Balthasar Sturmer's handwritten, Account of the Travels of Mister Balthasar Sturmer (1558 German manuscript; captivity in Tunis 1534–1535)] White Slaves were utilized for horrid galley-rowing labor [e.g., famously Miguel de Cervantes, Galatian de Sesse, and St. Vincent de Paul], domestic/sexual service, public works, or held for financial ransom through specialized Catholic redemptionist orders (e.g., the Trinitarians and Mercedarians).
Racism was established by the English as the official Doctrine of the English/Colonists/Americans in the 1705 Slave Act of the English Colony in Virginia which expressly prohibited “Blacks”, “Muslims” and “Indians” from owning any “White” Slaves. Thus, white slavery by blacks preceded “racisim”, and the official “racism” was adopted in 1705 to Deny blacks and muslims of access to whiteness (white slaves) that the blacks and muslims lusted for. [The 1705 Virginia Leglislation also discouraged immigration by blacks and muslims into the American colonies because by remaining in Africa the blacks and muslims could legally buy and own White Slaves] This 1705 official Racism was itself merely a continuation of the 1000-year old European Doctrine of Anti-AntiRacism that had animated millions of White People to use organized violence and technology to Marginalize Blacks and other Muslims who came to Europe to enslave White People. The Virginia Slave Act of 1705 was adopted as a defensive measure to prevent white enslavement (by Blacks and Muslims), and to provide assurances to white native people and future white immigrants (which later became the promise of "the Blessings of Liberty" made in the US Constitution to the white "progeny")
European “Colonialism” was decided as global international policy in 1492 (Spain and the Pope) and in the early 1600s (England, Dutch etc) as an extension of the ReConquista Crusade that had already been fought for 700 years. The motivation of the English in the early 1600s time of King James (Jamestown, Virginia) was to gather the Tall Pine Trees (and pitch/tar, iron) for masts and construction of new ships, and salted fish, that the English needed for buiding up a Navy to defend themselves from PREDATION BY BLACKS AND OTHER MUSLIMS who were kidnapping English whites at Sea and around the Coast of England. In 1627 the Islamic State had captured Lundy Island of the coast of England as their Naval base for slave raids to enslave Atlantic coastal Whites and Americans. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B… Two hundred years later, the English sailed their NewWorld-financed Navy to bomb Algeria and forced the Blacks and other Muslims there to sign a “No More White Slaves For Muslims/Blacks” Treaty. This was only after the Racist White Supremacist US President Thomas Jefferson sent the new US Navy to bomb Tripoli to Free the White Slaves (not only Americans) and forced the Blacks and other Muslims to sign a “No More White Slaves For Muslims/Blacks” Treaty. So, the Whites clearly invented Racism (Anti-AntiRacism) prior to 1800 as a system to liberate White People from Enslavement by Blacks and Other Muslims, not to “justify” slavery.
“Non-Whites in Western academia constantly promote violence against White people, frequently making genocidal statements, like “abolish Whiteness” or “abolish the White race by any means necessary.” Of course, they attempt to doublespeak their way around promoting genocide by claiming that “Whiteness” is a “fabricated ideology,” rather than a biological reality.”
I have better things to do than worry about if my words are making me a “mental prisoner” for the left wing.
I’m trying to change things, or to at least say things I reasonably believe are true.
I think the opposite of what you think. If our first argument is “i don’t agree with your definition of the words” then we never get further, and they will win the debate.
Seriously. Writing Black with capital or lower B is not making anyone a prisoner to anything. Arguing about what words to use is something the left-wing can dedicate their energy to.
While I do agree this plagiarized journal should not have come to fruition. His fellow professors are equally at fault for allowing it. That said. Using this particular topic to downplay the idea of what a socialist country could be is reductive.
After all, one could use the same argument for capitalist societies as well to show how destructive capitalism can be. It's not about the type of society in itself It's about the quality of its leaders.
Absolutely. I for one feel incredibly grateful to have such a wealth of reading and reference material I can draw from, whenever I need to find a way to couch my inherent nastiness in some beige-and-blandified sounding moniker, which I can then be castigated for, both by those with more melanin in their skin than me...as well as those who like to pretend that they're the most insanely righteous cultural warriors out there taking non-blue-haired scalps—even though they have even more homogeneity within their own circle of friends and family than your average Klan member.
Thank heavens the literary world just knows to take all of the problematic authors immediately out of my sphere of view—both online and in IRL bookstores also—so I rarely have to encounter an argument I haven't already learned how to refute. (Not using logic of course: I just figure out what I can pick on in an adversary, focus on that and then turn it all around and play the victim, once they get upset.)
I must say, it's been a fabulous system thus far. 10/10 would use to help hide my racist tendencies behind a wall of white guilt & histrionics, again.
Yes I suppose in this Brave New World joking about social scientists writing long racist essays why white people are the cause beind everything bad is just not ok. I need to do better, you are right.
I will jerk off to some more interracial porn to cleanse my conscience.
Yeah. Guess I need to add some Robin DiAngelo to my TBR. Although I'll likely get around to reading the autobiography of that esteemed scholar Trever Noah, titled 'Born A Crime' first. And I absolutely won't ever go anywhere near Kaufmann's 'Whiteshift' anytime soon. Pinky swear.
Yup, and it's amusing to me that some commenters seem to have taken me seriously. White fragility is one of the dumbest ideas in the history of humanity.
Spot on. A massive amount of social science research has ditched hard data for impenetrable buzzwords and subjective theory. Instead of doing proper, objective research, so many of these papers just cherry-pick biased reports and selective data from like-minded academics to back up what they already feel. It is basically an echo chamber designed to make personal opinions look like hard science.
When an entire field runs on that kind of circular logic, sloppy scholarship becomes rampant. That is why the selective outrage here is so telling: when a broken discipline is full of these exact issues, turning one person into a public spectacle while ignoring the rest is never about integrity.
> **[white fragility]**: *...Unmasking white fragility: how whiteness and white student resistance impacts anti-racist education The authors analyse how white undergraduate pre-service teachers...*
---
### 2. Exploring whether white male postsecondary presidents respond to racism
> **[white fragility]**: *...s that took place at the University of Missouri, the author explored whether White male presidents can respond to racial discord. Utilizing White Fragility, this cross-case analysis offers strategies for these leaders, such as institutional communication and improved hiring practices; yet, the...*
---
### 3. Acts of racial microdefense: embodied whiteness in social studies teacher education
> **[embodied whiteness]**: *...Acts of racial microdefense: embodied whiteness in social studies teacher education Embodied whiteness within teacher education operates in resistance to pedagogies, curriculum, discours...*
---
### 4. The white fragility dilemma in culturally responsive pedagogy professional development
> **[white fragility]**: *...The white fragility dilemma in culturally responsive pedagogy professional development Professional development on diversity, equity, and inclusion has mixed...*
---
### 5. Creating a mirror for transformative practice: phenomenological exploration of whiteness and white fear in teacher education in the Midwestern U.S.
> **[embodied whiteness]**: *...s the continued influence of whiteness and white fear in erasing diverse experiences and hindering awareness of harm that institutional and embodied whiteness (re)produce. By shedding light on sociohistorical processes and productions, this study aims to inform teacher education practices that cul...*
---
### 6. ‘This school is too diverse’: fragile feelings among white boys at elite independent schools
- **Authors:** Nora Gross, Charlotte E. Jacobs, Rekha Marar, Adam Lewis
> **[white fragility]**: *...adolescent boys experience these shifts emotionally. We find that a subset of particularly vocal white boys express key characteristics of white fragility and colorblind racism both in the negative feelings they report and the frames they use to explain race relations in their social worlds. O...*
---
### 7. A tale of two countries: how Whiteness shaped two women’s educations on race
> **[white innocence]**: *...cussed. Despite having vastly different upbringings in different time periods and different countries, the influence of the American Dream, White innocence, and White normativity had similar effects on their beliefs about race. The impact of the null curriculum in their educations is also discu...*
---
### 8. Critical race pedagogy at a crossroads: Accusations of reverse discrimination against international non-White faculty in the Trump era and beyond
> **[white fragility]**: *...ular notion of reverse discrimination in higher education in the Trump era and beyond. While mapping out how a Whiteness affect morphs from White fragility to victimhood, the study uses Critical Race Theory to examine the discourse of reverse discrimination in a predominately White institution....*
That Journal “Whiteness and Education” search feature shows there is NO MENTION OF “saqaliba”, and no mention of the 1816 Congress of Vienna. And, no mention of Racist White Supremacist “Knights Liberators of the White Slaves of Africa”. nor any mention of “White Slaves”
Millions of Racist White People were enslaved by Blacks and other AntiRacist Muslims [e.g., 1627 Sack of Baltimore. and the Morocco Black Guard enforced the enslavement of Whites who were forced to work in brutal heat] until the Racist White Supremacist “Knights for Liberation of the White Slaves of Africa” bombed Algeria repeatedly since 1816. https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Bombardment-Of-Algiers/
The enslavement of White People by Blacks and other AntiRacist Muslims was ongoing until after 1816. In 1816, the Racist White Supremacist “Knights for Liberation of the White Slaves in Africa” sailed under English and Dutch flags to Algeria and demanded that ALL the White Slaves be Freed, and demanded the End of White Slavery in Africa. Upon the refusal by the blacks and other Muslims to free the White Slaves, the Racist White Supremacist Knights fired 50,000 rounds of White Supremacist cannon balls into Algeria’s Capital City. The next day, the Racist White Supremacist Knights repeated their prior Demands (Free all the White Slaves) etcetera, and only then did the Blacks and other Muslims agree, freed some white slaves, and signed a “No More White Slaves for Blacks/Muslims” Treaty. But, the Blacks and other Muslims did not abide by that Treaty until the French White Supremacist Knights returned in 1830 and invaded and took control of the territory (colonized) of Algeria. Then the French and English continued the decades-long process of trying to free All the Black Slaves in Africa. This work by the White Supremacists continued into the late 1800s, and included the English gunship attacking and capturing the Arab slave ship carrying black slaves at Zanzibar in 1888. There are photos of the black slaves on the deck of the captured Arab slave ship.
The USA American Racist White Supremacists had also sailed to Algeria in 1815 and they bombed and tried to force them to FREE ALL THE WHITE SLAVES. But the American USA Racists did not have enough naval fire power to accomplish this Demand, so they only succesfully Freed the American White Slaves.
So, tell me why, if the Racist White Supremacist USA was too weak in 1815 to FREE ALL THE WHITE SLAVES in the African plantations and quarrys, why would the USA plantations not be justified to continue to employ blacks needed to build up the strenght of the USA Free Country until Black Slaves and Whites were no longer employed by the Enemy-Muslims in Africa. Why should only Arab Enemies possess and employ black workers, while White People are still enslaved????
What is your objection to Whiteness Studies? Historically, whiteness was valued in gold as "white gold"
By 1627, Blacks and other Muslims were sailing up to Iceland to kidnap and enslave hundreds of white people [1627 Sack of Iceland] pursuant to the Islamic Doctrine of AntiRacism. [Jón Þorsteinsson ("Jón the Martyr") was a minister on the Westman Islands who did not survive the raid. He was brutally murdered by the Blacks/Muslims during the initial attack on his home, becoming a prominent tragic figure and martyr in Icelandic folklore. His wife, Margrét, his daughter, Margrét, and his son, Jón, were all liberated from the white male patriarchy and taken to Algiers, where they were sold into slavery.] As Black CRT/AntiRacist Professor [at Texas A&M] Tommy Curry explained "In order to be equal, in order to be liberated, some white people might have to die." In 1631, Blacks and other Muslims sailed to Baltimore Ireland to kidnap and enslave the entire village, hundreds of white people, for sale as slaves in Africa. [1631 Sack of Baltimore] In 1625, blacks and other AntiRacist Muslims sailed to England and captured the Massachusettes Pilgrim’s ship named Little James and enslaved these white people in Africa. As America's first Muslim-born President, Barack Hussein Obama II, said: “Islam has always been a part of America's story." [See also Balthasar Sturmer's handwritten, Account of the Travels of Mister Balthasar Sturmer (1558 German manuscript; captivity in Tunis 1534–1535)] White Slaves were utilized for horrid galley-rowing labor [e.g., famously Miguel de Cervantes, Galatian de Sesse, and St. Vincent de Paul], domestic/sexual service, public works, or held for financial ransom through specialized Catholic redemptionist orders (e.g., the Trinitarians and Mercedarians).
Racism was established by the English as the official Doctrine of the English/Colonists/Americans in the 1705 Slave Act of the English Colony in Virginia which expressly prohibited “Blacks”, “Muslims” and “Indians” from owning any “White” Slaves. Thus, white slavery by blacks preceded “racisim”, and the official “racism” was adopted in 1705 to Deny blacks and muslims of access to whiteness (white slaves) that the blacks and muslims lusted for. [The 1705 Virginia Leglislation also discouraged immigration by blacks and muslims into the American colonies because by remaining in Africa the blacks and muslims could legally buy and own White Slaves] This 1705 official Racism was itself merely a continuation of the 1000-year old European Doctrine of Anti-AntiRacism that had animated millions of White People to use organized violence and technology to Marginalize Blacks and other Muslims who came to Europe to enslave White People. The Virginia Slave Act of 1705 was adopted as a defensive measure to prevent white enslavement (by Blacks and Muslims), and to provide assurances to white native people and future white immigrants (which later became the promise of "the Blessings of Liberty" made in the US Constitution to the white "progeny")
European “Colonialism” was decided as global international policy in 1492 (Spain and the Pope) and in the early 1600s (England, Dutch etc) as an extension of the ReConquista Crusade that had already been fought for 700 years. The motivation of the English in the early 1600s time of King James (Jamestown, Virginia) was to gather the Tall Pine Trees (and pitch/tar, iron) for masts and construction of new ships, and salted fish, that the English needed for buiding up a Navy to defend themselves from PREDATION BY BLACKS AND OTHER MUSLIMS who were kidnapping English whites at Sea and around the Coast of England. In 1627 the Islamic State had captured Lundy Island of the coast of England as their Naval base for slave raids to enslave Atlantic coastal Whites and Americans. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B… Two hundred years later, the English sailed their NewWorld-financed Navy to bomb Algeria and forced the Blacks and other Muslims there to sign a “No More White Slaves For Muslims/Blacks” Treaty. This was only after the Racist White Supremacist US President Thomas Jefferson sent the new US Navy to bomb Tripoli to Free the White Slaves (not only Americans) and forced the Blacks and other Muslims to sign a “No More White Slaves For Muslims/Blacks” Treaty. So, the Whites clearly invented Racism (Anti-AntiRacism) prior to 1800 as a system to liberate White People from Enslavement by Blacks and Other Muslims, not to “justify” slavery.
“Non-Whites in Western academia constantly promote violence against White people, frequently making genocidal statements, like “abolish Whiteness” or “abolish the White race by any means necessary.” Of course, they attempt to doublespeak their way around promoting genocide by claiming that “Whiteness” is a “fabricated ideology,” rather than a biological reality.”
I have a cousin who's ranked in the top few ultramarathon runners at Canadian races, and it still took him 20+ hours to complete 100 miles. Arday's story reads like folk legends you'd hear in middle age towns.
I think they just know what would happen if they disputed the legend. Self-preservation is a strong motivator and academics would be shunned if someone whispered the R word about them.
Well, technically. He's not even excelling at that. You'd at least have a fake Strava account or something to semi back up your clainms. He's also claimed to have raised £5m. That's the kind of thing that takes an ordinary person a lifetime to do even a 10th of that. He's just gone for, "cry racism if any claim is questioned, no matter how outlandish".
Here is a public record from the 'Richmond and Twickenham Times' (a local newspaper). It is dated 25th August 2010. I have no idea if there is proof that he really completed all of those marathons, or if they were independently verified.
Eddie Izzard is a millionaire and filmed his efforts. This guy claims to have done it off his own back with no publicity nor doing it for charity. 0% of this makes sense.
Your last sentence is all too true. I'm reminded of this grifter in the US (at least there is video of him in competitive track meets, so that part is true, unlike Arday): Source: NBC News https://share.google/PZjZBFb3Hv6MTc2ey
This dude appears to have tried to introduce an affectation into his so-called "scholarship," quoting lyrics in the titles of his papers: "No one can see me cry" is from the R.E.M. song "Imitation of Life," "The Times They Are A-Changin" is obviously a Bob Dylan song title and lyric and "We'll see things they'll never see" is from an Oasis song ("Live Forever").
Great work on this article. This serial plagiarist should be stripped of his credentials and position.
> This serial plagiarist should be stripped of his credentials and position.
But he won't be. Cases like his are common. Look at the black woman who was running Harvard. Also found to be a plagiarist, "demoted" to a position where she earns $800k a year.
Universities are just jokes. We don't need them. Liquidate the lot and use the buildings for something more useful, like tourism.
in 2013, the director of education for the Toronto School Board was busted for plagiarism in his PhD thesis and more recent articles. he was fired and stripped of his PhD. that was mainly because of public outcry though
Des Moines Public Schools was in the news for hiring "Dr." Ian Roberts, an immigrant from Guyana with quite a colorful backstory, as Superintendent.
His published biography was full of fabrications. He also coauthored "Dangerous Indifference: The Case for Culturally Sensitive Leadership," in which he has commentary about George Floyd. In 2021, he earned a PhD from a for-profit online university, Trident University International. For his dissertation in PK-12 leadership, he administered an online questionnaire to 15 "African American or Latinx" people.
It gives the impression that a black job candidate just needs to show up in a nice suit to secure a position these days. Roberts earned $300k per year in his role as Superintendant.
it's the bigotry of low expectations. progressives don't see that it's actually racist to act like an entire cohort of people are unable to follow the same academic rules as everybody else.
Quite a leap from finding that there are some cheats in academia (as there are everywhere there are humans) to saying academia as a whole is a waste and universities are stupid. I think you need to do some research yourself.
I don't think the whole thing is a waste. I took a few courses that I absolutely loved. But the Humanities, at least, is in need of a major overhaul.
As an undergrad, I did a double major in English and History. Half of each history course was devoted to historiography (methods, viewpoints, interpretations, and biases in the writing of history). Michel Foucault was assigned reading in 85% of the courses I took in BOTH English and History. Outside of a nakedly propagandist aim, what could possibly justify assigning a single author as frequently as my professors did?
Almost invariably, we were handed theory with no history or context.
We were assigned Laura Mulvey’s "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" (which claims women in film are passive objects dehumanized and objectified by the “male gaze”) but not Lacan. We were assigned Foucault but not Nietzsche. We were assigned Judith Butler but not Simone de Beauvoir.
I went to University because I wanted to learn how to think. I ended up embarking on a program of retroactive retribution against cis het white males (something I bought into 100% at the time). I viewed every human interaction through the reductive social justice framework of oppressor v oppressed. All of history was the subjugation of women by men and the tyrannical patriarchy. I was ashamed of my civilizational inheritance because…slavery (my profs elided the facts that slavery during the Islamic conquests lasted three times as long as the Transatlantic slave trade and that indigenous Americans practiced it too). I was assigned none of the foundational texts of Western civilization. I had to pursue all that stuff on my own later, haphazardly.
Academics in the humanities are engaged in “me-search,” faux research wherein they use academic jargon and buzzwords in the service of navel gazing. They try to legitimize it by calling it “auto-ethnography” or “subjective inquiry” but it’s basically just an excuse to talk about oneself and call it rigorous academic work. This occurs mostly in the fields of Critical Race Theory and Gender Studies. Examples of me-search: Eliza Steinbock's Shimmering Images, Patricia Williams' The Alchemy of Race and Rights: Diary of a Law Professor, or anything published in The Journal of Loss and Trauma. There is no objective methodology. It's not real research.
Treating the humanities as a staging ground from which to project a political ideology or one's identity is solipsistic, narcissistic, and narrow minded.
If the Humanities are going to be resurrected, Universities need to reverse the far left's capture of their departments. It's unbelievable that institutions of higher learning need to be reminded that a singular viewpoint on all subjects will not result in a well-rounded education, or that teaching students to hate western civilization while demanding grants and tax breaks from the federal government is deeply hypocritical.
I did my undergrad @ University of Toronto 2008-2013. I did a Master's the year after that before leaving academia entirely. I was upset about leaving at the time but hiring policies in Universities in the 2010s were quite openly looking for anyone who wasn't a straight white cis male. I'm glad now that I stopped mainlining postmodern deconstructionist relativist Marxist horseshit and pursued my own curriculum.
Those days pale in comparison to today. I remember noticing the signs and seeing those who mentioned it be called conspiracy theorists. But the direction was there.
"I went to University because I wanted to learn how to think. I ended up embarking on a program of retroactive retribution against cis het white males (something I bought into 100% at the time). I viewed every human interaction through the reductive social justice framework of oppressor v oppressed. All of history was the subjugation of women by men and the tyrannical patriarchy. I was ashamed of my civilizational inheritance because…"
You were an adult. I doubt you lacked the agency to think critically about the issues raised in your classes. Children begin giving reasons for what they believe at age four and understand that other people can have false beliefs. Spare us.
when propaganda is disguised as education, ppl get hoodwinked quite easily.
for example, it takes decades of dedicated propaganda to convince an entire cohort to believe that enforcing border laws is racist. yet that's the American left even tho there's no country on earth where you can just walk in and stay indefinitely.
I admire yr ability to stay unaffected by the onslaught. stuff upper lip. what what. (whenever someone says “spare us,” I can't help but assume they're British, as in “give us a cup of tea.”)
The problem isn't the existence of cheats (as you point out, hardly a novel phenomenon); the problem is the (lack of) proper, moral institutional responses to them. I also don't think academia is useless or a waste, but it's definitely in danger of becoming so if it gives up all authority to maintain quality control. There's of course been a widespread loss of faith in many institutions since the mid-2010s, including academia. I don't think the others have quite deserved it as much as academia, though. At this point anyone who's worked recently in academia would have a story for you about a DEI hire who was protected from on high by the prince of darkness himself. My best example (of several), like Jason Arday, plagiarized quite a bit of his scholarly output and--once hired at my former institution--just kind of refused as a policy to attend any meetings, on the grounds that he didn't want to do "emotional labor." He missed several student oral exams because by his own admission he stayed up all night talking to women in Asia. This institution, by the way, is nominally a conservative Great Books school that recently has had to lay off quite a bit of non-tenured faculty because of budget cuts and the demographic cliff. Guess who's still there, beaming at one from every corner of the website? I don't really want colleges and universities to die for what amount, in the end, to aesthetic reasons. But they sure seem to be trying to commit suicide over this nonsense, helped along by the designated morons on the far right.
It isn't a matter of "some cheats". These "cheats" are placed there by the university regents. There is an agenda at work here (if it isn't already blatant to everyone) that has been playing out across all the major institutions of the West, leading to Western governments making policy and acting in ways that are directly against the interests of the populations they supposedly serve. These governments and institutions have obviously been captured. This is widespread coordinated political and cultural treason, not a handful of cheats acting independently.
I've read hundreds of academic papers across scores of fields over the past decade to reach this conclusion. Research: done.
Academia is rife with cheating at every level. Some fields are better or worse than others, but the few fields that aren't terrible are also easily handled better by industry. We don't need these organizations and they do everything possible to make us hate them.
“Serial Plagiarist” are you calling for all the other white professors to also have their credentials stripped like William O’Reilly ? Or are you just concerned about the Black professors.White Fragility is so exhausting
anyone who plagiarizes should be fired. However, Arday probably wouldn't have been fired because it's impossible to fire a tenured prof and Cambridge had already closed ranks around him. he resigned.
of course, no white professor with work as toothless and shoddy as Arday's would have been elevated to a senior professorship. the bigotry of low expectations is what put Arday in a position where he would be humiliated. the man's only topic of academic inquiry was...himself.
I'm amazed that BIPOC people are rallying behind a fabulist charlatan when there are SO MANY legitimately brilliant BIPOC scholars and profs out there who deserve to be elevated.
it's racist to believe that Black people somehow can't spell properly or do good research or cite sources properly. Even in death, Arday is still being treated like the left's little race mascot.
The one thing this midwit managed to add to the plagiarized scholarship (which itself was fake research before he lifted it) is the title of the papers, which, being a midwit, he pulled from popular music. Of course.
I got my last degree in 1995. I’m sad to hear it’s all changed so much. I was warned not to go into academia but mostly because of the funding cuts and refusal to hire permanent professors, less because of ideological pressures. But I cannot deny that family members who graduated later had the same kind of narrow ideology pushed on them. Here’s to hoping the pendulum swings back because a life in academia can be so rewarding (I know many professors but from ages ago).
I hope the pendulum swings back too. It probably will. Universities have been around for too long to fail now. (The first time I went to Europe, it blew my mind that there were Universities from the 1200s.)
And the good teachers I had always made the bad ones worth enduring.
I used to want to be a professor. The first time I walked into a prof’s office, I was in heaven. Hardcover books lining all four walls. Student papers on the desk with confident notations in the margins. The tenured professors seemed so damn comfortable while the contract instructors all had the same wild-eyed, desperate, “please hire me” expression.
With the way the world is right now, it looks like we're heading for a collision course with Hard Reality. When that happens, all this woke rubbish will vanish with the morning mist. It may even reach the point - cue the smelling salts - that "toxic" male qualities will be required once more.
Hard reality? Where people are unequal depending on their gender, race, sexuality? Or equality where people can just be who they are and achieve based on their talents and effort? In a society that values humans or one that values power
What a great piece! Not sure why it fell to Nathan to expose this huckster. Perhaps the thinking is that he may as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb.
Frausters like Arday must be laughing all the way to the bank, that is if they are even aware of the fact that they are fraudsters. It could be that they are so convinced by their own deceit that they no longer see it for what it is. Or perhaps they feel they deserve the money, plaudits and awards anyway, simply for being black.
Cambridge is an absolute disgrace run by cowards and racial grievance-mongers. More of these take-downs, please!
These types are miserable. I think on some level they know they were advanced beyond their ability and so they are constantly on defense. This is a huge part of why they see racism everywhere.
Education is the safest, most coddled, least racist environment on Earth. Yet in every educational establishment I've been in, they act as though it's 1950s Alabama.
Just last week I saw him in some interview. He looked cornered and kept an enormous smile plastered on his face. The presenter ended up doing all the talking. He looked right fake. So, I'm not surprised.
I think they tell themselves, whenever anyone engages in mild questioning of their scholarship, that it's white fragility and white conspiracy against them. They build a little rhetorical fortress around their own incompetence this way.
I would not be surprised if Substack claims " authors can decide the moderation decision rules " but in reality the AI moderator always has default background behaviour decided by Substack that author can't do much to prevent but only add to.
I know undergraduate students who have more substantive research experience and publications than this individual. Shocking to see what top institutions like Cambridge have become.
This is a quite extraordinary and very depressing tale (I write as a former professor of sociology myself). I witnessed quite a few cases of plagiarism in my career but nothing as blatant and extensive as this. I once knew an Australian professor who lost his job over a couple of paragraphs of inadvertent plagiarism. How Cambridge can jeopardise the university's standing by keeping this shyster on its books is beyond me.
And it's not just the plagiarism. The bullshit passing as 'research' that reputable journals have chosen to publish by this man is staggering. So much for peer review.
Congratulations on the meticulous research you've done on this - if Arday's 'research' warrants a chair at Cambridge, yours must surely deserve at least a Nobel prize!
Disgusting? What did he say that was lie? Stating the truth is no crime. They only to blame for Arday's death is Arday. He took the coward's way out rather than face the consequences of us serial lying.
Thank you for that. I found Nina's comment totally depressing and bewildering. A man fabricates his own work, steals other people's work to get a top job, demeans the learning experience of students who have worked their socks off to get to Cambridge, and leaves the reputation of one of our top universities in the dirt... and the people who criticise this are disgusting???
Peter spoke the truth. There is no shame when it comes to hard cold truth. And it is a fact that there was word for word plagiarism in that dissertation. You cannot deny this reality with your bullshit and it is hilarious
These are the people who screen candidates with an extremely fine comb, and this level of academic debauchery is unheard of. This is like giving a doctorate to a retard.
I think we're just surprised to see it at a top institution here in the UK. There is plenty of grift in the social sciences, I know, but this guy getting a professorship and everyone at Cambridge lauding his "scholarship" just seems to be on another level.
I mean, look at him. He dresses like a weird tarot card reader. There is nothing convincing. I found a clip of him on the BBC talking about migrants and even as a panellist providing basic soundbites, he seems out of his depth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee1oanxkN90&t=50s
Not only is it not "unheard of" but in current climes it is considered practically 'de rigueur' to bastardise the formerly hallowed halls of academia. And yes, it's supposed to irk you. It's supposed to make you angry, so you say or do something that can be forever used against you. Ask (virtually anyone who has been online for longer that 3 weeks) how they know.
I just decided that it was far more fun to leave school with only GCSEs, go to work in the kind of jobs that only the young are ever supposed to have to do, work hard and play harder. I spent the better part of my youth drinking, taking lots of drugs, letting my flat become a flop-house and just had way more fun than any of my friends who went away to university. They too drank a bit and did the odd 'E', but they came back with useless degrees, a shit-tonne of student debt, and one of them was pregnant, so she just married the father and gave up on anything else.
Meanwhile, I was actually really good at working damn hard in stressful environments. I moved from bar work, to hospitality, worked on a ferry, managed hotels a bit. Then when it all got a bit tiring, I figured it was time to grow up, so I switched to an entry level job in a finance company, worked my way up and by the time I was 30 I was bringing home a salary not to be sniffed at, a full complement of benefits, a very competitive pension plan, and an amazing team with whom it was an absolute joy to have next to me at 'the coalface'.
I'm now in my 40s. I have zero debt. I have savings. I have investments. I have a pension. I still only have a GCSE level of formal education, but I sure as shit didn't see anyone coming home from university any smarter or better equipped to take on the world as a fully functioning, independent adult. I can appear rough around the edges or as clipped and reserved as the moment requires; but there IS something quite satisfying about knowing I was always just going to be better off, getting out into the working world, doing something legal for money (mostly so I could something a little illegal on the weekends, lol) and not being interested in accruing any debt along the way.
I was also away from the intense leftist brainrot that permeates almost every area of academia, choosing instead to learn about the things I wanted to, on my own time, using my own money to buy my own books. Sure I was more liberal when I was younger, but as the old adage goes "if you aren't a liberal when you're young, you have no heart; but if you aren't a conservative when you're a little older, then you have no brain." I fully concur with that amusing little quote. Thankfully I was still able to enter the world of dating, whilst there were still men who acted like men, and women who were very much glad of it! Feminism was never something I found much truck with...probably because I'm a huge misogynist and hate most women. I reality, most women do in fact hate other women; it's only those of us who chose to opt out of the entire 'Kabuki-theatre-of-the-absurd' who are happy/willing to admit that though. The sooner this is learned, the saner your life will turn out to be.
It's just a shame that those of us who came up through the 90s, were as chilled a liberal as you could hope to find, getting to experience life before the internet was unleashed upon us...only for the truly retarded amongst us to start demanding guide-rails and various other bureaucratic methods of control, because they weren't able to control *themselves*...but what they also really hated, was the fact that they hated not being able to control *everyone else*. So we invented made-up rules and regulations, had a phalanx of Reddit moderators released onto the web, where they proceeded to act like they owned the place, in between periods of perving on any woman with an actual photo in her bio...or engaging in some yiffing with anyone willing to put on a foxes head and have fellow furries do whatever else it is that those weirdos do in a convention centre corridor on a Friday night.
Ahem. Sorry about that. I got a little carried away. Guess it was all that reminiscing. Oh well, on the plus side YOU also didn't go to university and I'm fairly sure you've managed to exist in the world quite adequately, without having to admit that you took a BA in Communications because you had no idea what you wanted to do with your life, but those student loans upfront were just too hard to ignore; especially around Spring Break time. But what would I know. I'm just a dumb broad who left school before doing her A-Levels and is really only formally educated to a GCSE level.
However am l supposed to compare to these intellectual titans, out there writing papers nobody wants to have to grade, about topics nobody will ever be able to use when out searching for a job in the real world?
You don't understand. They have a different understanding of science to us. We will never be able to appreciate the beauty inherent in those who occupy the coastal jewel that is Sentinel Island...but if we hang around there long enough, I'm sure we'll get to find out just how enriching they find both us and our culture. Just because they've never taken a Myers-Briggs personality test, doesn't mean they doesn't possess the intellect and acumen to knock the socks off of anyone else currently in academia.
Of course he's going to knock your socks off.
He would consider it vile to leave them on your feet as he's adding you to the cauldron above the campfire.
My brother in law is a big shot in business….CEO here, CFO there, Director of Sales somewhere else. Remarkable career. He told me big corporations pay the “black tax”. Whatever number of blacks and other minorities the EEOC and other racial bean counters/grievance merchants require them to hire, they do it. Give the DEI hires a desk, a title, performance reviews, appropriate raises, and some sort of work to do. Some are quite capable, most aren’t, but it matters not. Their employment is duly documented and reported to those interested, and in my bro-in-law’s words, this charade “adds a nickel to the cost of a box of Tide.”
Also, I have a new favorite neologism: “Serious work in the sociology of education.”
You could take the entire body of work ever produced in the sociology of education, throw it in a furnace, and very few would notice and no one would be affected.
>You could take the entire body of work ever produced in the sociology of education, throw it in a furnace, and very few would notice and no one would be affected.
So true. 99.9% of is probably net zero worth. A few interesting things scattered around like seaglass on a beach.
I am sorry but most people working in corporate are incompetent black or otherwise, so I doubt hiring black people is such a downgrade from their regular hiring.
This is infuriating and sickening. It evokes a bitter memory of my own (much smaller scale) experience of being denied a tenure-track promotion for a teaching position I had already held for over 20 years. In that time, I taught 13 different courses—8 of them self-authored— in the visual arts, English and philosophy, and curated the largest art exhibitions in my area, as well as co-writing and contributing to 2 best-selling books on art. As it happened, a DEI candidate with 1/10th the experience of another long-term colleague and myself was hired to complete an identitarian checklist. This individual’s sullen craft services the concerns du jour: Root Household Merits (RHM), Cultural Introspection Wealth (CIW), and Ecological Design Services (EDS)— whatever the hell those are. Throw in a little Gullah Geechee (look it up) and there’s a golden ticket from the Outer Banks to the Inner Circle.
This is neither academically serious, nor is it art; it is a box-checking Wokefest of Critical Social justice agitprop. And it is undermining and marginalizing capable and committed educators across disciplines, and stripping our truth-seeking and sense-making institutions of ethical and epstemic integrity.
Worse, it is openly bigoted and frames so-called "whiteness" as a repackaging of original sin.
These race ideologues are sick in the head. They've confused moral conceitedness for 'morality' unto itself and that has led them to create bogus fields built on sophistry, not genuine scholarship.
It's a faith-based quasi-religion more toxic than plutonium. Spiteful and vindictive even. Creating environments of intimidation and fear to prevent people from calling out the idiocy.
As is commonly said in the States, “ …you ain’t seen nothing yet…”. DEI aside, the concept of note in your missive is gross incompetence masked with lies and theft (plagiarism) abetted by disingenuous Whites. Soon it may not be so simple a process to unmask these people due to advances in AI or LLM’s.
Example, about a year or so ago, a commentary group that I posted to had a member disclose that he had for several months not written any of his comments himself, but merely fed the current discussion into his favorite AI and reposted the results/responses under his name. Until that point, his comments in the group discussion were read, responded to, and in my opinion, notable for their contribution to the discussion. In short, this commenter was well respected within the group for his postings. And I must admit, his “experimental” use of our group as his subjects quite enlightening. Indeed, it drove me to delve into AI science much more than previous.
One can only image how many budding Jason Ardays are out there waiting to be unmasked. The problem with AI is not that it will replace humans in the workforce as much as it will make the incompetent appear competent. Had Arday not been so stupid as to be as blatant as you describe in his career promotion, he might never have been outed. I fear the next “Arday” will not be so obvious.
I'm not so sure. If anything I think that those who utilise DEI to benefit themselves (and I'm talking about everyone who is involved in pushing the 'Didn't Earn It' candidates to the top of their game—not just the initial race-grifters themselves) will do all that they can to wring the last drops of money and power out of their hustle. But they will also start to become less subtle with what they're doing. They know that "woke" has become something of a dirty word in polite company, so they rejig the terminology, pretend to be doing everything they can to bring complete *equity* (ahem) to the educational realm...and yes....that's going to involve those working behind the scenes, intentionally choosing the least educated/most retarded mouthpieces they can, and pushing them into positions of power they ought not ever even know about...because they want the pushback. They want the argument. They're prepared for some pretty nasty fights, but they're going to get away with even more outrageous candidates being given insane qualifications, positions, salaries and grants before it's all over.
They're going to rub your nose in it.
The ultimate end to these means is the same as it has always been in far-left circles: they want to bring the system down, topple all of the pillars that hold a society together, and then after a time of arsing around with some cribbed version of the Hegelian Dialect, they'll happily smash all you think you know and love, together (as thesis meets antithesis) with the resulting synthesis being little more than yet more failed commie idealism, and do everything they can to contribute to the destruction of academia. These people don't care about the things they claim to become expert in. Their agitation works as nothing more than a wrecking ball, but they have no blueprints at the ready for the moment when the dictatorship of the proletariat are finally able to step back, and let real communism succeed for the first time ever.
Lol.
Until then, they're happy to just be able to use the tools to torment and prevent others from achieving anything worth working towards, because meritocracies are "problematic". Entire swathes of knowledge can be all but tossed to one side, as the next generation of victims come of age and are told to embrace the flux, get a septum piercing and post online about how you suck off dogs at the weekend (or something equally "exotic" sounding) because, like, THEY are totally not racist-towards-those-with-four-legs...and anyone who thinks it's gross is obviously a bigot.
And if you think the things I'm typing out here are mad, you want to see what they actually admit to in their own papers, books, seminars, lectures and sperg-outs on Twitter. I could only ever hope to invent something as batshit insane sounding as: "Straight Black Men Are the White People of Black People". Yet these nutty hucksters receive tenure for it. I'm sure the government are handling it all for us though. We're probably at the point where Andy Burnham is going to tell Britain that when it comes to 'stamping out racism' we just need to import another 500K migrants, to flatten the curve.
I mean, It's not like that "logic" wasn't a load of old bollocks the first time they rolled it out or anything...
I wish I could take the credit for it. But alas, someone beat me to it. I think it was originally published in Medium, but it’s now up on Refinery 29, IIRC.
Understood. That’s the reason I started off with “DEI aside…” in my comment. My intention was to make a generalization wrt potential fraud—academic and otherwise—outside of the all too commonly encountered “race hustlers” using the new development of AI. I did so fairly poorly as I read the comment again—a sure “tell” that AI was not used. 😉
I do love that. I used to think that my form of rambling was so waffling and littered with cuss-words/insults, that nobody would ever think it was AI generated or edited. Then I was accused on Twitter of using AI to compose my tweets because of...and I shit you not here...my use of parentheses & punctuation—especially semi-colons. Because of this I immediately started to also use em dashes in my tweets/online comments, because they too are supposedly the tell-tale sign of someone who has been using AI on the sly...and I do love messing with people when I have the time to waste.
And you weren't in the wrong whatsoever in the way in which you couched your concerns. I think I was too quick to respond to the most outrageous aspects of DEI-ism in the world of academia, to properly reply to your remarks regarding the likely onslaught of candidates being less than judicious with their own use of AI as a means to both plagiarise from other authors and have it all reworked for them, in a tone decided to be their "authentic voice". You are right to worry and your own experience with the AI question/answer program, shows you just how easy it was to get everyone else to think that they were indeed conversing with another person.
I don't fear automation on a certain level. If anything it is one of the greatest tools we have at our disposal, which can actually help countries with a declining birthrate (which is basically all of them these days) reorient their economy & avoid the upward spiralling pitfalls which result from simply adding "infinity migrants" into the mix, and kicking the can down the road. But we're in another kind of 'Wild West' sort of era online. This time the world governments are all TOO ready, to come at us with their censorious tyranny & need for absolute control & monitoring of every human being in the county/country/continent/planet. It's something we're going to have to work out along the way I guess. But in the meantime, what you are talking about? That presents a very real threat to so many areas of our life.
Academia is no longer about aspiring to learn, becoming well versed in and maybe contributing to the literature in some genuinely edifying and/or original way. It's about box ticking. Not only do students get AI to write their homework for them (from your group's experiment, it appears they could also use an AI bot to respond to any queries their Professor/teacher/lecturer has about what they have submitted.) The only talent it heightens, is a talent for the immoral, the unethical and the criminal. This is fraud. And fraudsters should pay for their crimes. Yet, we all know that instead of a kangaroo court, said fraudsters will likely just be told to log onto the local 'Legal Portal' where their case will be assessed by a LLM, and any punishment incurred will likely involved a period of time when their access to the internet is blocked (thanks to universal online ID's 👍) or at the very least only limited to sites involving their studying or their work. Social credit points will be deducted for repeat offenders, but at no point will this cybercriminal ever have to interact with another human being to plead their case.
No. Much cleaner and tidier this way. Keep 'em all indoors, away from that scary outside where there's always a non-zero chance that today might just be the day when you get macheted to death in the street, by one of our most recently arrived "esteemed scholars". Don't go out there and antagonise them. This is their world now.
DEI initiatives at Cambridge were insane while I was working there (2018-21). The institution was so sensitive to, and desperate to shake, accusations of elitism that it would seize any opportunity to bolster progressive/woke credentials. I sat in DEI training sessions that were complete absurdities, little different to religious indoctrination, and where the demand to leave our critical faculties at the door was almost explicit. So turning a blind eye to a sham employee does not surprise me in the slightest.
I say it over and over. The complete lack of viewpoint diversity in the social sciences and humanities, despite all the lip-service given to how important diversity is, has crippled this section of academia. It cannot see, or speak up against, deep-seated failures in scholarly work emanating from the field and seems entirely comfortable with the biases that will result from a population that 95% left v 5% right aligned.
Reading this after learning of Jason Arday’s death is deeply unsettling. Serious allegations should always be investigated, but writers and media outlets also have a responsibility to consider the human impact of what they publish.
None of us yet know the full truth about every allegation or every claim that was made. What we do know is that a man is dead, a family is grieving, and years of public attacks, scrutiny, and online commentary took place in full view of the world.
Racism remains a reality in the UK, particularly within elite institutions and academia. That does not mean legitimate questions should never be asked, but it does mean extraordinary care should be taken to ensure criticism is evidence-based and not driven by a desire to destroy a person’s reputation.
There is a difference between seeking truth and conducting a public takedown. When the target is a human being, that distinction matters.
This cuts straight to the core of the issue that so many here seem determined to ignore.
There is a vast difference between standard academic oversight and an orchestrated public mobbing campaign. When scholars find legitimate editorial or citation discrepancies, standard practice is to notify journal editors and institutional committees, allowing formal review to take place.
What happened here had nothing to do with scholarly standards; it was driven by personal grievance. After Emmanuel College sacked him for his racist writings, he suffered a massive status blow and turned that rejection into an obsessive vendetta to embarrass Cambridge and prove his debunked racial theories. Weaponising editorial questions into sweeping biological generalisations to settle a personal score with his former employer completely abandons academic ethics, and pretending that an aggressive public crusade carries no human cost is sheer bad faith.
Thank you for bringing basic empathy, proportion, and moral clarity back to this thread.
Very interesting article. I know little about the field of sociology nor of what scholars do at Cambridge that's different from what they do elsewhere. Arday's weael-worded "Principal and Recent Publications" looks thin, but how much else he's published I don't know. And there are no links on his teaching section to actual classes taught....but maybe that's normal at Cambridge? They're all dead lazy? 🙂 But it does all add up to not very much of an academic track record as far as I can see, and it seems clear that his "Identity" is at the heart of all this; what else would justify the uncritical BBC piece: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64717079
I didn't include this in the article because I can't confirm it 100%, but it appears that he's never delivered a lecture course at Cambridge. This is highly unusual, even for the most senior faculty.
Maybe his ability to speak in public is late developing also. Just like his speaking voice. If we're lucky, he'll be ready to teach us all somewhere around the year 2040. I for one look forward to learning more from this modern-day miracle worker. 🙄
He will never have to actually speak. AI tools already permit him to copy someone else's speech into the prompt and have it spoken by another voice (Martin Luther King Jr or Nelson Mandela) with him nodding beside it as if he wrote or understands any of it. Fake scholarship, fake speech, fake voice.
Judging by the stories I've heard, a lot of managers are fully aware that their diversity hires are dead weight and only keep them around (but away from important work) to game social metrics and/or ward off discrimination lawsuits.
But, to be fair, I did subsequently come across two books he's written or co-written: "We See Things They’ll Never See: Love, Hope, and Neurodiversity" (Princeton)
And
"Great and unfortunate things" (Simon and Schuster).
The fact I have seen it somewhere else just now and he now says he broke his leg while doing the marathons lol he is a serial lier and I have met them before they are actually very dangerous!
A noteworthy observation is that his recruitment to top universities and much of his scholarly "work" seem to have happened during the covid years or just after (aka the post-George Floyd era). Did anyone actually meet him in person during this time, or did he simply do a bunch of Zoom interviews before getting hired?
And has he ever actually set foot on campus while at Cambridge, or have ongoing "health problems" or his supposed neurodiversity kept him at home, conducting his lectures and seminars remotely? (Wouldn't surprise me one bit.)
Does Cambridge have any expectation whatsoever that he continue to publish while being a professor? It rather appears that he just banks his check every month but is for all intents and purposes a phantom faculty member.
Perhaps Cambridge professors approach IQs of 140-here's hoping but are there actually 1000 black people in the UK with an IQ of 140. It seems unlikely unless there is a significant proportion from international sources. If 3.5K have an IQ of 130+ then the the 155 of 25,000 professors in the BBC article are still overrepresented relative to the white population by a factor of 2.
Does this fellow just walk around the beautiful campus like a latter day Chauncey Gardner, spouting drivel that is interpreted as wisdom. Although, perhaps the running motif is more resonant of Gump.
Shrewsbury school the prestigious fee paying school flew the LGBT flag this week. These moronic universities and school, in particular the private or so called elite are soiled institutions. At another prep school a 5 year old boy was told by a teacher that boys can marry boys.. he’s f…..g SIX. She then went on to say Trump is a bad man… yep… indoctrinated from infants to uni… places of learning my a£$€.
I wondered if you would be interested in looking at what I've explored here around Jason Arday’s claims about his speech and literacy before 18.
Whether or not he lied in other areas is another matter. I was interested in whether a complicated neurodiverse childhood may have gradually been turned into a cleaner, easy to understand story through memory, repetition, retelling & the expectations of people around him who don't understand how neurodiverse processing works..
He may initially gone along with that version of events, then embellished it, got carried away with a version of himself that increasingly benefited both him and others around him.
All these people blaming you for Arday offing himself are really missing the point. The man cheated and bullshitted his way to an early grave. It was inevitable his fraudulent behaviour and absurd claims would be uncovered at some point. His demise is his own fault.
There is a profound difference between standard academic scrutiny and a targeted crusade designed to dehumanise someone. Academics make citation errors and face peer corrections every single day without being subjected to a racialised public witch hunt. Blaming someone for breaking under an unbearable mob campaign ignores the reality that this went far beyond research integrity: it reduced an individual to racial IQ quotas, mocked childhood neurodivergence, and turned scholarly inquiry into a vehicle for personal destruction. Academic misconduct warrants journal errata and institutional review, not public torment. Treating this death as an inevitable consequence of editorial errors is callous, and it excuses a campaign where cruelty, not accountability, drove the final tragedy.
@Edmund Price, you are simply confused. The public interest in the story and Arday's deception are two sides of the same coin. Arday repeatedly lied and defrauded institutions and journals for personal gain. These universities receive public funding. Therefore, indirectly, he defrauded all UK citizens. He also stole positions, accolades and benefits from actual deserving academics. The story is gripping because people like to see frauds and thieves get their comeuppance. Cofnas and the media did nothing wrong in this case. It is healthy for society to have mechanisms to expose frauds and thieves.
If academic misconduct at a publicly funded university means defrauding the UK taxpayer, why does that rule only seem to apply when the scholar is Black?
Cambridge, King's College London, and Leeds all take in hundreds of millions in public money. When William O'Reilly at Cambridge, Meg Maguire at KCL, and Ray Pawson at Leeds were caught lifting extensive text, nobody talked about defrauding the public. Their universities handled it quietly behind closed doors, called it careless, and let them keep their jobs, their pensions, and their taxpayer-funded salaries. If this is genuinely about protecting public funds, where was the national media circus and the demand for their comeuppance?
You say he took spots from deserving academics, but misconduct is an open secret across the entire sector. Surveys show 1 in 7 UK academics admit to plagiarising, and 1 in 5 admit to outright faking data. There are thousands of people sitting in taxpayer-funded university posts right now who have done the exact same thing.
The normal, healthy mechanism for dealing with bad scholarship is straightforward: internal investigations, journal retractions, and disciplinary panels. That is the system white academics benefit from every day. What happened here wasn't a standard review. Cofnas used this to push his own well-documented obsession with race and IQ, turning it into a public pile-on that mocked a man's childhood disability and hounded him until he took his own life.
White scholars get quiet internal reviews and second chances. A Black neurodivergent scholar got turned into a public spectacle and driven to suicide. Calling a digital mob a healthy mechanism for society is just dressing up selective malice as civic duty.
You're seeing the asymmetry in how the media treats the two cases and you're attributing it to racism. This is an error. There are two reasons this story blew up so hard.
The main one is that this was such an egregious DEI case - his work has essentially zero scholarship value, he was only promoted so highly because of the woke fervour at the time and he was a triple-win for DEI (black, neurodivergent, and with a lower class upbringing). In this sense, you could say it was "because he was black", but not really; any diversity hire with abysmal output would've been held to account and rightly so. It would also have been just as sensational if a white professor became the youngest ever Oxbridge professor but then it was revealed that nepotism was the reason for his appointment rather than actual scholarship and merit. Why? Because people like to see thieves and frauds get their comeuppance.
The second reason it blew up is that his many ridiculous and easily dispovable biographical claims make excellent fodder for news commentary and sound bites.
Random white academics may get caught for plagiarism but they're missing both of these ingredients because they actually produce real scholarship and don't spin dozens of fairy tale lies about themselves. Thoughtless people have a bad habit of attributing all disparities to the racist intent of others - please don't be among them!
Let's be completely honest about what you are actually saying here.
When a white academic cheats, you still see them as a real scholar who just messed up. When a Black academic does the same thing, you write off his entire life as worthless and blame his whole career on his skin colour.
"DEI hire" doesn't change what is going on. Assuming a white person naturally earned their place even when they break the rules, while assuming a Black person could only ever get there as a charity case, has nothing to do with academic standards. It is just racism in its rawest form.
You claim this isn't about race, yet your own logic relies on a massive racial bias. When white academics are caught plagiarising, you automatically assume they still produce "real scholarship." When a Black academic is caught, you instantly write off his entire life's work as having "zero value" and reduce his career to a diversity quota. Giving white scholars the benefit of individual merit while reducing a Black scholar to a political category is exactly the asymmetry I am talking about.
You also call his childhood struggles an easily disprovable fairy tale. Jason Arday's diagnoses of global development delay and autism were publicly verified by his family and by Professor Simon Baron-Cohen. Baron-Cohen is one of the most respected clinical autism experts on the planet. You are actively choosing to believe the armchair diagnosis of a blogger over a world-renowned medical expert, just so you can feel justified in mocking a dead man's neurodivergence.
You argue that a white professor would face the exact same sensational destruction for a scandal. History proves otherwise. Look at Kevin Kruse at Princeton or Laurence Tribe at Harvard. Both faced highly publicised plagiarism scandals involving extensive, verbatim copying. Neither had their medical histories dragged through the mud by an orchestrated online mob. Neither was hounded to the point of suicide. They faced standard academic criticism and kept their prestigious Ivy League jobs.
People only seem to demand this level of absolute, life-ending destruction when the target fits a very specific demographic. Twisting yourself into knots to justify a vicious public pile-on isn't defending meritocracy. It is just making excuses for cruelty. 🤦🏻♂️
You're making leaps that aren't justified here. I claimed that Arday produced virtually zero real scholarship by reviewing what he called, in his own words, his 10 most important publications. I didn't assume that; everyone with an Internet connection can plainly see there's no substance there.
Yes, I assume that most scholars of any race who are caught plagiarizing actually produce real scholarship, because I assume that most academics produce real scholarship! Jason's is a case where we know simultaneously that he's a fraud and liar, AND he's a plagiarist, AND he was unduly promoted because of DEI despite abysmal scholarly output. Neither of the examples you give meet those criteria.
Your own arguments and statistics prove you wrong. If 1 in 7 UK academics admit to plagiarism, then just statistically there must be dozens of black UK professors who have been caught plagiarizing, and yet they didn't get this treatment. Why might that be? Oh, it's because I'm 100% correct, and the attention is because of the other scintillating factors, not his race. So they were black professors who plagiarized, but there was no racist mob around ... That's because there was no racist mob re Arday either. People just like to see frauds and thieves get their comeuppance, regardless of their race.
He could have just self identified as "bipolar" and done some sort of mental health redemption arc tour and all of the coddlers would have bought it. For someone that supposedly ran 300 miles in 3 days he sure didn't seem to have much resilience.
I remember when I was getting published during law school, my paper (which was honestly a pedestrian analysis of a Supreme Court case!) was torn to SHREDS. Every citation was scrutinized by a team of other law students. I got my ass kicked, though the ultimate result was at least my own genuine analyses and conclusions.
Which is why I can’t believe stuff like this happens at the highest levels of scholarship! How are these papers not getting reviewed? Perhaps I’m being naive, but shouldn’t these papers be scrutinized as much as a college student’s?
Anyway, I enjoyed your systematic takedown. Cheers!
Well, being bad at law school means you will be a bad lawyer who can't win any cases. Being bad at the humanities, on the other hand, means that you can publish a highly regarded paper on how the standards by which you are "bad" are a product of whitecismaleheteronormativity.
One has an incentive to weed out ideas that don't hold up, the other doesn't.
I think there was a real piece of buried treasure here, namely, today I learned that there is an entire journal called "Whiteness and Education," published by Taylor and Francis which is already on volume 11.
Just think for a moment about how much we, collectively, have learned about "whiteness" from the scores of articles already published in this journal, and the many thousands of hours of work that the authors and reviewers put into them. Truly, we are living in a golden age of science and enlightenment.
I often reflect on how most of the science produced in the socialist countries was simply thrown away in 1992.
That's what's going to happen to all this woke garbage too. Just as with middle age theology, alchemy, 19th century medicine and so on.
But just like other destructive cultural trends it should not be forgotten but held up as a lesson. There's a lot of lessons to be learned but first and foremost is the idea that one has to defer to certain people because of a demographic they belong to. That it's actually bad to treat people the same regardless of race, gender, nationality and so on. Much of it stems from this reversal that all of a sudden decided bias, generalizations about certain demographics, discrimination and so on we're very very good as long as it benefited specific groups.
From I scientific perspective,I think it is worse how their "science" often consists of asking people how they feel about something and draw conclusions from that.
E.g. black people feel like there is racism, so there is racism. It's not completely without merit, but from a scientific perspective it is useless.
To the leftist mindset (which unfortunately pervades higher education), feelings and emotion trump facts and data.
Except that the Republikaner in Amerika facts and data, e.g. Donaldae Trumpescu.
It seems clear that the racism is against whites
Name one flora or fauna that does not discriminate in favor of its own race?
Flora and fauna don't have race. They have separate species. A black cat sees no difference in a calico cat vs a tabby cat vs a tortoise shell one. Race as we know it is a completely man-made construct to justify discrimination against large groups of people. We are all the same species, and the vast majority of perceivable differences are genetic developments in response to geographical and environmental effects over a long period of time. If there was any significant difference to our genetic makeup, interracial procreation would not be possible.
Yet we aren’t the same, as there are no Ely cathedrals in the Congo.
And it is becoming increasingly more likely scientifically that we are infact different races of hominid.
As someone who has spent years living in minority-white "hoods" in North America, no amount of academic onanism will ever convince me that there are not serious objective differences between the races. At one point in my life I might have been convinced by masturbatory, quasi-academic Talmudic appeals to the contrary but lived experience will always trump Ivory Tower nonsense. Sure, a Mexican mestizo can reproduce with a Nordic White; who cares. Race is real, it is biologically immutable and the leftist ramblings to the contrary are simply pie in the sky Boomer self-pleasurings from the post-WW2 Western "liberal democracy" era that is now quickly coming to a close.
No. When there's evidence, for example, that some West Africans have up to 19% of a different hominid's DNA in them - they're up to 1/5th not even Homo Sapiens Sapiens. And that's just that part. The biggest differences between peoples exist in the brain. That's relevant. To pretend we're all the same when so much evidence exists - including our very eyes - tells us otherwise, is beyond obtuse. Even if "the vast majority of perceivable differences are genetic developments in response to geographical and environmental effects over a long period of time" is accurate, and it is only these that account for what you acknowledge are "perceivable differences," they're still "perceivable differences," and relevant. Races are likely due ad mixtures of other hominids - and the idea this is supposed to make people upset is laughable. It is simply the reality of the observable universe.
*And it is disingenuous, at best, to claim interracial procreation would not be possible. Do you have any idea how many species have intermixed, and produce fertile offspring? A great many. Regardless of all of this talk, however, the basic conclusion remains - access to Whites and what we create in the world isn't a right. Some of us love our own people and wish to live among our own people. We do not care, or need to care, what others think or feel about that.
Quote: "Race as we know it is a completely man-made construct to justify discrimination against large groups of people"
No. "Race" was originally a method of grading the market value of white slaves in AntiRacist islamic slave markets (e.g., Saqaliba versus Abeed). Race was subsequently discovered and used by whites to justify political and military organization to provide greater protection of large groups of white people better than could be obtained without the concept of the "White" Race.
By 1627, Blacks and other Muslims were sailing up to Iceland to kidnap and enslave hundreds of white people [1627 Sack of Iceland] pursuant to the Islamic Doctrine of AntiRacism. [Jón Þorsteinsson ("Jón the Martyr") was a minister on the Westman Islands who did not survive the raid. He was brutally murdered by the Blacks/Muslims during the initial attack on his home, becoming a prominent tragic figure and martyr in Icelandic folklore. His wife, Margrét, his daughter, Margrét, and his son, Jón, were all liberated from the white male patriarchy and taken to Algiers, where they were sold into slavery.] As Black CRT/AntiRacist Professor [at Texas A&M] Tommy Curry explained "In order to be equal, in order to be liberated, some white people might have to die." In 1631, Blacks and other Muslims sailed to Baltimore Ireland to kidnap and enslave the entire village, hundreds of white people, for sale as slaves in Africa. [1631 Sack of Baltimore] In 1625, blacks and other AntiRacist Muslims sailed to England and captured the Massachusettes Pilgrim’s ship named Little James and enslaved these white people in Africa. As America's first Muslim-born President, Barack Hussein Obama II, said: “Islam has always been a part of America's story." [See also Balthasar Sturmer's handwritten, Account of the Travels of Mister Balthasar Sturmer (1558 German manuscript; captivity in Tunis 1534–1535)] White Slaves were utilized for horrid galley-rowing labor [e.g., famously Miguel de Cervantes, Galatian de Sesse, and St. Vincent de Paul], domestic/sexual service, public works, or held for financial ransom through specialized Catholic redemptionist orders (e.g., the Trinitarians and Mercedarians).
Racism was established by the English as the official Doctrine of the English/Colonists/Americans in the 1705 Slave Act of the English Colony in Virginia which expressly prohibited “Blacks”, “Muslims” and “Indians” from owning any “White” Slaves. Thus, white slavery by blacks preceded “racisim”, and the official “racism” was adopted in 1705 to Deny blacks and muslims of access to whiteness (white slaves) that the blacks and muslims lusted for. [The 1705 Virginia Leglislation also discouraged immigration by blacks and muslims into the American colonies because by remaining in Africa the blacks and muslims could legally buy and own White Slaves] This 1705 official Racism was itself merely a continuation of the 1000-year old European Doctrine of Anti-AntiRacism that had animated millions of White People to use organized violence and technology to Marginalize Blacks and other Muslims who came to Europe to enslave White People. The Virginia Slave Act of 1705 was adopted as a defensive measure to prevent white enslavement (by Blacks and Muslims), and to provide assurances to white native people and future white immigrants (which later became the promise of "the Blessings of Liberty" made in the US Constitution to the white "progeny")
See "The History of White Supremacist Warfare Against AntiRacist Enslavement of White Racists" https://write.as/mwq381bw4r7ms.md
European “Colonialism” was decided as global international policy in 1492 (Spain and the Pope) and in the early 1600s (England, Dutch etc) as an extension of the ReConquista Crusade that had already been fought for 700 years. The motivation of the English in the early 1600s time of King James (Jamestown, Virginia) was to gather the Tall Pine Trees (and pitch/tar, iron) for masts and construction of new ships, and salted fish, that the English needed for buiding up a Navy to defend themselves from PREDATION BY BLACKS AND OTHER MUSLIMS who were kidnapping English whites at Sea and around the Coast of England. In 1627 the Islamic State had captured Lundy Island of the coast of England as their Naval base for slave raids to enslave Atlantic coastal Whites and Americans. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B… Two hundred years later, in 1816 the English/Dutch sailed their NewWorld-financed Navy under command of Lord Exmouth to bomb Algeria and forced the Blacks and other Muslims there to sign a “No More White Slaves For Muslims/Blacks” Treaty. This was only after the Racist White Supremacist US President Thomas Jefferson sent the new US Navy to bomb Tripoli to Free the White Slaves (not only Americans) [and tried to force the Blacks and other Muslims to sign a “No More White Slaves For Muslims/Blacks” Treaty]. So, the Whites clearly invented Racism (Anti-AntiRacism) prior to 1800 as a system to liberate White People from Enslavement by Blacks and Other Muslims, not to “justify” slavery.
[See also
“This article debunks the modern myth that race was “invented” in the 1800s by Europeans who, for some bizarre reason, needed a convoluted scientific excuse to justify slavery and colonialism (unlike every other race on earth, who just enslaved people for the heck of it).” https://thuletide.wordpress.com/2022/04/15/the-history-of-racial-anthropology-and-human-taxonomy/
“Non-Whites in Western academia constantly promote violence against White people, frequently making genocidal statements, like “abolish Whiteness” or “abolish the White race by any means necessary.” Of course, they attempt to doublespeak their way around promoting genocide by claiming that “Whiteness” is a “fabricated ideology,” rather than a biological reality.”
https://thuletide.wordpress.com/2022/12/11/stochastic-terrorism-non-white-academics-promote-violence-against-whites-with-real-world-consequences/
And, https://thuletide.wordpress.com/debunking-race-denialism/
How smart! You got it right away! WE ARE DIFFERENT SPECIES...too bad all the backpedaling after your epiphany, though.
White progressives. They discriminate against their own. This is a study that shows they are the only demographic who have a lower opinion of themselves then they have of other racial groups.
It also feels like there are many groups of people who try to treat people fairly. None of us are perfect. But I give people a lot of credit for an honest attempt. But it is clear that anti-racist culture is quite the opposite. They just try and redefine racism so they can commit Injustice and make it look like it's not.
I think about a scenario: four teenage boys stomping to death a middle-aged woman. And I imagine different ethnic/cultural groups in the role of the teenage boys. And I imagine the victim was somebody of a different ethnic/cultural group.
Now I imagine how they would react if the racial demographics were reversed.
From my lived experience I feel pretty confident I know how most likely different ethnic groups in the US would react in those situations. Because I have seen similar situations again and again and it seems to get the same reaction.
Yes, almost everybody probably reacts more severely when their demographic is the victim then when they were the perpetrators.
But there are some demographics who would unequivocally condemn such an act and would not allow any sort of tribal allegiance to try and condone or excuse the violence. They would express shame and anger
And there are cultural groups whose response is almost entirely predictable: blame poverty, past injustices, present day injustices, do a "whataboutism", concoct a self-serving narrative which claims the victim, or somebody else of the victims demographic, did something that warranted it. We are coming up on the 25th anniversary of the lynching of Yankel Rosenbaum and that is a great example. You could look at the YouTube videos and conversation online and you will find people quickly claiming that an ambulance refused to help children and die in the street, and all sorts of narratives that are complete concoctions. But more importantly is the man who was lynched had nothing to do with any car accident. We live in a world where supporting lynching innocent people by bringing up somebody of the same demographic caused a car accident 2 hours earlier is routine. And it's not white rightwingers doing it.
First of all, the Crown Heights riot was a truly horrific series of events, and nobody should have died that day. It was a tragic accident by a foolish young man that resulted in the death of an even younger boy, leading to escalation of the racial tensions in the area. The aftermath actually led to the local Jewish population and black population having reduced racial tensions and actually resulted in them seeing each other as more than their race.
But you're seriously going to place this as the epitome of racial injustice in America and just ignore the fact that it wasn't until 1965 that black people were able to fully vote in America? That lynchings used to take place on a weekly basis in the south after the civil war if a black man so much as looked at a white lady? That black Africans were packed onto slave ships by the hundreds like sardines in a tin can and shipped across the Atlantic, with some ships having 60% of the people onboard die from the conditions and lack of humanity? You're going to pretend that for decades upon decades black people weren't treated as sub-human, essentially sold as livestock, made to pick hundreds of pounds of cotton a day for no pay, and when they came up short they would be beaten until their backs bled and expected to do it all again?
Racism is not justifiable, regardless of what color your skin may be. Black people discriminating against white people solely for their skin color is not okay, and it goes the same for all races. But there is a clear difference between isolated incidents like the Crown Heights riot and the multi-generational enslavement and societal discrimination of blacks in America. White people don't have 200+ years of generational trauma to carry. And I have seen far more forums on the internet with people whining about how hard it is to be white in America than I have seen forums of people talking about how horrible white people are. Most of the time when people like you and the rest of the small-minded men in this thread are offended by certain conversations, it's because you're so absurdly sensitive that even a discussion about the history of racism in America is an affront to your whiteness. "Oh black people had it soooo hard huh? Nobody cares about my struggles and my issues!" or "Well, black people can be racist too! They called me cracker!" Conveniently ignoring the very real & brutal history of slavery and widespread, violent discrimination of blacks in the country we call "Land of the Free."
Classism is by far the main issue in America, and it's time to wake up and realize that the billionaire elites of society absolutely love when people grovel about how the left is racist against white people. Because it keeps you complicit and happy to stand by while they shift as much wealth as possible from the pockets of the working class. Tariffs make prices increase? Oh, well turns out they were illegal so now all the companies that paid them get massive kick backs while we - the people who the tariffs were transferred to via price hikes - get nothing. And prices won't drop back to where they were, it's simply more money in the pockets of the ultra-wealthy. We are getting fleeced and some of you are happy to watch the world burn not realizing you're on fire too.
Oh, and your last statement of "We live in a world where supporting lynching innocent people by bringing up somebody of the same demographic caused a car accident 2 hours earlier is routine." is the most ridiculous thing I've read in weeks. It's not even an accurate historical account of the riots you claim to care about so much. I would, however, love to hear about a single other case of anyone "supporting lynching innocent people by bringing up somebody of the same demographic [who] caused a car accident 2 hours earlier". Because let's be honest, this isn't at all routine and I don't think you can point to any evidence showing that niche of a situation ever happened again. Except maybe if we go back to the Jim Crow era and beyond, but you don't want to do that, do you?
Liberals are the New White Janissaries who attack the Defensive Walls that protect Whites from enslavement.
By 1627, Blacks and other Muslims were sailing up to Iceland to kidnap and enslave hundreds of white people [1627 Sack of Iceland] pursuant to the Islamic Doctrine of AntiRacism. [Jón Þorsteinsson ("Jón the Martyr") was a minister on the Westman Islands who did not survive the raid. He was brutally murdered by the Blacks/Muslims during the initial attack on his home, becoming a prominent tragic figure and martyr in Icelandic folklore. His wife, Margrét, his daughter, Margrét, and his son, Jón, were all liberated from the white male patriarchy and taken to Algiers, where they were sold into slavery.] As Black CRT/AntiRacist Professor [at Texas A&M] Tommy Curry explained "In order to be equal, in order to be liberated, some white people might have to die." In 1631, Blacks and other Muslims sailed to Baltimore Ireland to kidnap and enslave the entire village, hundreds of white people, for sale as slaves in Africa. [1631 Sack of Baltimore] In 1625, blacks and other AntiRacist Muslims sailed to England and captured the Massachusettes Pilgrim’s ship named Little James and enslaved these white people in Africa. As America's first Muslim-born President, Barack Hussein Obama II, said: “Islam has always been a part of America's story." [See also Balthasar Sturmer's handwritten, Account of the Travels of Mister Balthasar Sturmer (1558 German manuscript; captivity in Tunis 1534–1535)] White Slaves were utilized for horrid galley-rowing labor [e.g., famously Miguel de Cervantes, Galatian de Sesse, and St. Vincent de Paul], domestic/sexual service, public works, or held for financial ransom through specialized Catholic redemptionist orders (e.g., the Trinitarians and Mercedarians).
Racism was established by the English as the official Doctrine of the English/Colonists/Americans in the 1705 Slave Act of the English Colony in Virginia which expressly prohibited “Blacks”, “Muslims” and “Indians” from owning any “White” Slaves. Thus, white slavery by blacks preceded “racisim”, and the official “racism” was adopted in 1705 to Deny blacks and muslims of access to whiteness (white slaves) that the blacks and muslims lusted for. [The 1705 Virginia Leglislation also discouraged immigration by blacks and muslims into the American colonies because by remaining in Africa the blacks and muslims could legally buy and own White Slaves] This 1705 official Racism was itself merely a continuation of the 1000-year old European Doctrine of Anti-AntiRacism that had animated millions of White People to use organized violence and technology to Marginalize Blacks and other Muslims who came to Europe to enslave White People. The Virginia Slave Act of 1705 was adopted as a defensive measure to prevent white enslavement (by Blacks and Muslims), and to provide assurances to white native people and future white immigrants (which later became the promise of "the Blessings of Liberty" made in the US Constitution to the white "progeny")
See "The History of White Supremacist Warfare Against AntiRacist Enslavement of White Racists" https://write.as/mwq381bw4r7ms.md
European “Colonialism” was decided as global international policy in 1492 (Spain and the Pope) and in the early 1600s (England, Dutch etc) as an extension of the ReConquista Crusade that had already been fought for 700 years. The motivation of the English in the early 1600s time of King James (Jamestown, Virginia) was to gather the Tall Pine Trees (and pitch/tar, iron) for masts and construction of new ships, and salted fish, that the English needed for buiding up a Navy to defend themselves from PREDATION BY BLACKS AND OTHER MUSLIMS who were kidnapping English whites at Sea and around the Coast of England. In 1627 the Islamic State had captured Lundy Island of the coast of England as their Naval base for slave raids to enslave Atlantic coastal Whites and Americans. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B… Two hundred years later, the English sailed their NewWorld-financed Navy to bomb Algeria and forced the Blacks and other Muslims there to sign a “No More White Slaves For Muslims/Blacks” Treaty. This was only after the Racist White Supremacist US President Thomas Jefferson sent the new US Navy to bomb Tripoli to Free the White Slaves (not only Americans) and forced the Blacks and other Muslims to sign a “No More White Slaves For Muslims/Blacks” Treaty. So, the Whites clearly invented Racism (Anti-AntiRacism) prior to 1800 as a system to liberate White People from Enslavement by Blacks and Other Muslims, not to “justify” slavery.
[See also
“This article debunks the modern myth that race was “invented” in the 1800s by Europeans who, for some bizarre reason, needed a convoluted scientific excuse to justify slavery and colonialism (unlike every other race on earth, who just enslaved people for the heck of it).” https://thuletide.wordpress.com/2022/04/15/the-history-of-racial-anthropology-and-human-taxonomy/
“Non-Whites in Western academia constantly promote violence against White people, frequently making genocidal statements, like “abolish Whiteness” or “abolish the White race by any means necessary.” Of course, they attempt to doublespeak their way around promoting genocide by claiming that “Whiteness” is a “fabricated ideology,” rather than a biological reality.”
https://thuletide.wordpress.com/2022/12/11/stochastic-terrorism-non-white-academics-promote-violence-against-whites-with-real-world-consequences/
And, https://thuletide.wordpress.com/debunking-race-denialism/
Praying mantis
sharks
Lots of dumb bugs, probably 🤗
> I often reflect on how most of the science produced in the socialist countries was simply thrown away in 1992.
Well, regular hard science, they were quite good at.
I don’t deny that were good at physics and maths. Where ideology couldn’t affect the research.
Everything else was based on Lenin.
Instead of genetics, they had Lysenkoism.
In linguistics, they had the Japhetic theory.
History, Economics, Philisophy and Sociology had to follow the Marxist-Leninist party line.
Lysenkoism was largely abandoned by the late 1960s, and the Japhetic theory was rejected by Stalin. The social "sciences" and humanities were probably an ideological mess, but that's true of all societies including modern liberal democracies. It's generally hard to convince scientists to hold on to empirically wrong idea for long, especially when your ideology claims to be rooted in scientific materialism.
When I ask Assistant, it says the most important sociologists in the Soviet were Pjotr Fedosejev, Michail Rutkevitj, and Gennady Osipov. Their articles on Wikipedia are short, and Rutkevitj (Swedish spelling) doesn't even have one.
Despite their heavy books, they won't be rehabilitated or read again, because there just isn't any truth or reality to them.
If we contrast it to Western sociologists -- Habermas, Foucault, Bourdieu, Berger, Giddens, -- we'll be referencing them in 50 years from now. Because at least there was some reality in what they wrote (even if they were wrong about many things). It's more than an ideological mess.
That's why Woke stuff is more closely related to Soviet science. Take one of the important thinkers, Ibram Kendi, when did you last hear of him? In 10 years he will be nothing but a footnote.
> If we contrast it to Western sociologists -- Habermas, Foucault, Bourdieu, Berger, Giddens, -- we'll be referencing them in 50 years from now.
Not because they necessarily have more "truth or reality" to them. Mostly because the others are associated with a fallen government system.
If Germany had won WW2, nobody in Europe would be quoting the liberal sociologists either, even after the regime softened and direct prohibitions have stopped, just because they'd be associated to a losing system (and quoting them wouldn't advance anybody's career either).
The problem here is that Habermas and Foucault, and Bourdieu were all Leftists.
Lysenkoism died in 1965. They did good work on genetics before that. As an example, experiments around the domestication of foxes via selective breeding. Genetics research was ideologically harmed between 1935-1965. From 1917-1935 and from 1965-1990 the field did well. It was good for 45 out of 73 years.
Japhetism was killed off by Stalin himself in 1950. Before that they did a lot of great linguistic work on grammars of various languages in the USSR. Japhetisim did not affect descriptive linguistics.
Sociology was bad from 1930-1956. Before and after, it did well. It was bad for 20 out of 73 years.
Ilyenkov, Vygotsky, Yanovskaya, and Mamardashvilli did great work in philosophy. They did well in economics but they were not allowed to study within the frameworks of Western economic market theory.
But not before it will do a lot of societal damage. They are steadily brainwashing more and more people every year that will end up taking positions in our government institutions. Because that is what these institutions are, covert socialist brainwash factories.
Just look at something like Gender studies, it is basically Marxism but molded towards gender while hiding it is really Marxism. Instead of bourgeoisie/proletariat it is non-ally white men/women etc.
They are basically creating their own version of Fight Club. Then when a conservative politician wants to cut government waste they will be opposed by thousands of brain washed useless bureacrats who only really know one thing well: how to destroy institutions from the inside.
"Then when a conservative politician wants to cut government waste they will be opposed..."
You just embodied one of the greatest successes of racial socialism, which virtually all of its self-styled opponents share. You started with the singular ("a"), and then switched to the plural ("they").
The other great recent success of rs, is capitalizing "black," which you were not guilty of.
I don’t know , but I don’t mind using the words the other side demands, so at least we don’t need to argue about the words. There’s plenty other stuff we can argue about.
For example, I don’t believe a man who puts on a wig becomes a woman, but if they demand it, I can call him a “her”.
For me it is the other way around. If they ask politely I will consider doing it when in their company. But when they start demanding it, forcing me to say it I resist.
Let's get real here, at the end of the day they are living in a fantasy world. They are basically larping (but on steroids, quite literally sometimes). They just need more people to play along to make it more believable. And the implications of playing along with them everywhere is that you will have men in womens sports, prisons, bathrooms etc. And it will spread, they will not stop at one thing. They are trying to brain wash 6 year olds already, essentially it is a bit like a religion.
I think Nudists understood the game, they know they are weirdos. They have their own spaces where they can play their game of walking around naked. They dont force it on the rest of us. They dont try to normalize it.
I disagree.
If we take trans women in women's sport, starting of by calling them men and "he" does the opposite. It makes them able to say "look these people are just transphobes".
I've written books (unpublished). If I use some other term than LGBTQ, I'm not been taken seriously -- other than by people who don't read books. It's important to try and use neutral terms to be taken seriously.
The other side demands that we use the words it chooses, because it knows that we will then become its mental prisoners. You are a willing prisoner. People like you will always say that there's no point fighting over words, and then you also surrender on everything else.
This has gone on for over 100 years, with Whites surrendering to black supremacists (so-called "civil rights"), feminazis, homosexuals, sexual psychopaths, etc.
Quote: "This has gone on for over 100 years, with Whites surrendering to black supremacists"
Before that, Whites violently struggled to overthrow the AntiRacists and Black Supremacists who threatened whites with enslavement.
By 1627, Blacks and other Muslims were sailing up to Iceland to kidnap and enslave hundreds of white people [1627 Sack of Iceland] pursuant to the Islamic Doctrine of AntiRacism. [Jón Þorsteinsson ("Jón the Martyr") was a minister on the Westman Islands who did not survive the raid. He was brutally murdered by the Blacks/Muslims during the initial attack on his home, becoming a prominent tragic figure and martyr in Icelandic folklore. His wife, Margrét, his daughter, Margrét, and his son, Jón, were all liberated from the white male patriarchy and taken to Algiers, where they were sold into slavery.] As Black CRT/AntiRacist Professor [at Texas A&M] Tommy Curry explained "In order to be equal, in order to be liberated, some white people might have to die." In 1631, Blacks and other Muslims sailed to Baltimore Ireland to kidnap and enslave the entire village, hundreds of white people, for sale as slaves in Africa. [1631 Sack of Baltimore] In 1625, blacks and other AntiRacist Muslims sailed to England and captured the Massachusettes Pilgrim’s ship named Little James and enslaved these white people in Africa. As America's first Muslim-born President, Barack Hussein Obama II, said: “Islam has always been a part of America's story." [See also Balthasar Sturmer's handwritten, Account of the Travels of Mister Balthasar Sturmer (1558 German manuscript; captivity in Tunis 1534–1535)] White Slaves were utilized for horrid galley-rowing labor [e.g., famously Miguel de Cervantes, Galatian de Sesse, and St. Vincent de Paul], domestic/sexual service, public works, or held for financial ransom through specialized Catholic redemptionist orders (e.g., the Trinitarians and Mercedarians).
Racism was established by the English as the official Doctrine of the English/Colonists/Americans in the 1705 Slave Act of the English Colony in Virginia which expressly prohibited “Blacks”, “Muslims” and “Indians” from owning any “White” Slaves. Thus, white slavery by blacks preceded “racisim”, and the official “racism” was adopted in 1705 to Deny blacks and muslims of access to whiteness (white slaves) that the blacks and muslims lusted for. [The 1705 Virginia Leglislation also discouraged immigration by blacks and muslims into the American colonies because by remaining in Africa the blacks and muslims could legally buy and own White Slaves] This 1705 official Racism was itself merely a continuation of the 1000-year old European Doctrine of Anti-AntiRacism that had animated millions of White People to use organized violence and technology to Marginalize Blacks and other Muslims who came to Europe to enslave White People. The Virginia Slave Act of 1705 was adopted as a defensive measure to prevent white enslavement (by Blacks and Muslims), and to provide assurances to white native people and future white immigrants (which later became the promise of "the Blessings of Liberty" made in the US Constitution to the white "progeny")
See "The History of White Supremacist Warfare Against AntiRacist Enslavement of White Racists" https://write.as/mwq381bw4r7ms.md
European “Colonialism” was decided as global international policy in 1492 (Spain and the Pope) and in the early 1600s (England, Dutch etc) as an extension of the ReConquista Crusade that had already been fought for 700 years. The motivation of the English in the early 1600s time of King James (Jamestown, Virginia) was to gather the Tall Pine Trees (and pitch/tar, iron) for masts and construction of new ships, and salted fish, that the English needed for buiding up a Navy to defend themselves from PREDATION BY BLACKS AND OTHER MUSLIMS who were kidnapping English whites at Sea and around the Coast of England. In 1627 the Islamic State had captured Lundy Island of the coast of England as their Naval base for slave raids to enslave Atlantic coastal Whites and Americans. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B… Two hundred years later, the English sailed their NewWorld-financed Navy to bomb Algeria and forced the Blacks and other Muslims there to sign a “No More White Slaves For Muslims/Blacks” Treaty. This was only after the Racist White Supremacist US President Thomas Jefferson sent the new US Navy to bomb Tripoli to Free the White Slaves (not only Americans) and forced the Blacks and other Muslims to sign a “No More White Slaves For Muslims/Blacks” Treaty. So, the Whites clearly invented Racism (Anti-AntiRacism) prior to 1800 as a system to liberate White People from Enslavement by Blacks and Other Muslims, not to “justify” slavery.
[See also
“This article debunks the modern myth that race was “invented” in the 1800s by Europeans who, for some bizarre reason, needed a convoluted scientific excuse to justify slavery and colonialism (unlike every other race on earth, who just enslaved people for the heck of it).” https://thuletide.wordpress.com/2022/04/15/the-history-of-racial-anthropology-and-human-taxonomy/
“Non-Whites in Western academia constantly promote violence against White people, frequently making genocidal statements, like “abolish Whiteness” or “abolish the White race by any means necessary.” Of course, they attempt to doublespeak their way around promoting genocide by claiming that “Whiteness” is a “fabricated ideology,” rather than a biological reality.”
https://thuletide.wordpress.com/2022/12/11/stochastic-terrorism-non-white-academics-promote-violence-against-whites-with-real-world-consequences/
And, https://thuletide.wordpress.com/debunking-race-denialism/
I have better things to do than worry about if my words are making me a “mental prisoner” for the left wing.
I’m trying to change things, or to at least say things I reasonably believe are true.
I think the opposite of what you think. If our first argument is “i don’t agree with your definition of the words” then we never get further, and they will win the debate.
Seriously. Writing Black with capital or lower B is not making anyone a prisoner to anything. Arguing about what words to use is something the left-wing can dedicate their energy to.
Don't knock the Middle Ages or nineteenth century medicine!
Without 19th century medicine, we would not have 20th century medicine. Without Soviet science, Russia would be doing fine.
Not to mention 21st C medicine. All will be tossed shortly. Perhaps keeping 10%.
Let's hope civilization doesn't burn to the ground before that.
Meh. I’m indifferent at this point
While I do agree this plagiarized journal should not have come to fruition. His fellow professors are equally at fault for allowing it. That said. Using this particular topic to downplay the idea of what a socialist country could be is reductive.
After all, one could use the same argument for capitalist societies as well to show how destructive capitalism can be. It's not about the type of society in itself It's about the quality of its leaders.
Absolutely. I for one feel incredibly grateful to have such a wealth of reading and reference material I can draw from, whenever I need to find a way to couch my inherent nastiness in some beige-and-blandified sounding moniker, which I can then be castigated for, both by those with more melanin in their skin than me...as well as those who like to pretend that they're the most insanely righteous cultural warriors out there taking non-blue-haired scalps—even though they have even more homogeneity within their own circle of friends and family than your average Klan member.
Thank heavens the literary world just knows to take all of the problematic authors immediately out of my sphere of view—both online and in IRL bookstores also—so I rarely have to encounter an argument I haven't already learned how to refute. (Not using logic of course: I just figure out what I can pick on in an adversary, focus on that and then turn it all around and play the victim, once they get upset.)
I must say, it's been a fabulous system thus far. 10/10 would use to help hide my racist tendencies behind a wall of white guilt & histrionics, again.
A better response than the one I was thinking of making
Sounds like someone might be suffering from white fragility...
A thought-terminating cliche
I guess I need to jerk off to some interracial porn to cleanse my conscience
This is wildly immature considering the topic.
Yes I suppose in this Brave New World joking about social scientists writing long racist essays why white people are the cause beind everything bad is just not ok. I need to do better, you are right.
I will jerk off to some more interracial porn to cleanse my conscience.
I was actually thinking that if I masturbated to Amistad it might do the trick.
Yeah. Guess I need to add some Robin DiAngelo to my TBR. Although I'll likely get around to reading the autobiography of that esteemed scholar Trever Noah, titled 'Born A Crime' first. And I absolutely won't ever go anywhere near Kaufmann's 'Whiteshift' anytime soon. Pinky swear.
No such thing.
Sarcasm, right?
Yup, and it's amusing to me that some commenters seem to have taken me seriously. White fragility is one of the dumbest ideas in the history of humanity.
I learned that most PhD-level research & papers in the social sciences are comprised of gobbledygook, double-speak, and nonsense!
Spot on. A massive amount of social science research has ditched hard data for impenetrable buzzwords and subjective theory. Instead of doing proper, objective research, so many of these papers just cherry-pick biased reports and selective data from like-minded academics to back up what they already feel. It is basically an echo chamber designed to make personal opinions look like hard science.
When an entire field runs on that kind of circular logic, sloppy scholarship becomes rampant. That is why the selective outrage here is so telling: when a broken discipline is full of these exact issues, turning one person into a public spectacle while ignoring the rest is never about integrity.
What a loser
No mention of these Historical Events which Defined Whitness in any of the Journals.
# Target single & multi-word exact phrases
EXACT_KEYWORDS = [
"saqaliba",
"white slaves",
"white slaves of Africa",
"Congress of Vienna",
"First Barbary War",
"Second Barbary War"
]
# Multi-word AND groups (all items in a sub-list must be present)
MULTI_WORD_GROUPS = [
["1816", "Algeria"]
]
But much this deranged mass-psychosis garbage:
# Search & Surveillance Report: Whiteness and Education
**Source:** Taylor & Francis Online / OpenAlex & Crossref Metadata Indices
**Timestamp:** 2026-08-23 03:11:15 UTC
**Documents Examined in this Run/Batch:** 181
**Total Hits Found:** 8
## Search Criteria
- **Exact Phrases:** `white fragility`, `white ignorance`, `white innocence`, `white supremacy culture`, `embodied whiteness`
- **Multi-Word (AND) Searches:**
---
## Hit Results Summary
### 1. Unmasking white fragility: how whiteness and white student resistance impacts anti-racist education
- **Authors:** Venus E. Evans‐Winters, Dorothy E. Hines
- **Publication Date:** 2019-10-09
- **DOI / Link:** [https://doi.org/10.1080/23793406.2019.1675182](https://doi.org/10.1080/23793406.2019.1675182)
- **Taylor & Francis URL:** https://doi.org/10.1080/23793406.2019.1675182
- **Local PDF Saved:** `None`
- **Matched Keys:** white fragility
**Matched Context Snippets:**
> **[white fragility]**: *...Unmasking white fragility: how whiteness and white student resistance impacts anti-racist education The authors analyse how white undergraduate pre-service teachers...*
---
### 2. Exploring whether white male postsecondary presidents respond to racism
- **Authors:** Tenisha L. Tevis
- **Publication Date:** 2020-01-02
- **DOI / Link:** [https://doi.org/10.1080/23793406.2019.1711150](https://doi.org/10.1080/23793406.2019.1711150)
- **Taylor & Francis URL:** https://doi.org/10.1080/23793406.2019.1711150
- **Local PDF Saved:** `None`
- **Matched Keys:** white fragility
**Matched Context Snippets:**
> **[white fragility]**: *...s that took place at the University of Missouri, the author explored whether White male presidents can respond to racial discord. Utilizing White Fragility, this cross-case analysis offers strategies for these leaders, such as institutional communication and improved hiring practices; yet, the...*
---
### 3. Acts of racial microdefense: embodied whiteness in social studies teacher education
- **Authors:** Andrea M. Hawkman
- **Publication Date:** 2022-04-05
- **DOI / Link:** [https://doi.org/10.1080/23793406.2022.2059776](https://doi.org/10.1080/23793406.2022.2059776)
- **Taylor & Francis URL:** https://doi.org/10.1080/23793406.2022.2059776
- **Local PDF Saved:** `None`
- **Matched Keys:** embodied whiteness
**Matched Context Snippets:**
> **[embodied whiteness]**: *...Acts of racial microdefense: embodied whiteness in social studies teacher education Embodied whiteness within teacher education operates in resistance to pedagogies, curriculum, discours...*
---
### 4. The white fragility dilemma in culturally responsive pedagogy professional development
- **Authors:** Christy Galletta Horner, Kristina N. LaVenia, Katherine Brodeur, Oluwatobi Taiwo Ishola, Bernie Compton, Tracy L. Huziak-Clark, Vernita Glenn-White, Oluwafisayo Oke
- **Publication Date:** 2025-01-22
- **DOI / Link:** [https://doi.org/10.1080/23793406.2024.2447697](https://doi.org/10.1080/23793406.2024.2447697)
- **Taylor & Francis URL:** https://doi.org/10.1080/23793406.2024.2447697
- **Local PDF Saved:** `None`
- **Matched Keys:** white fragility
**Matched Context Snippets:**
> **[white fragility]**: *...The white fragility dilemma in culturally responsive pedagogy professional development Professional development on diversity, equity, and inclusion has mixed...*
---
### 5. Creating a mirror for transformative practice: phenomenological exploration of whiteness and white fear in teacher education in the Midwestern U.S.
- **Authors:** Younkyung Hong, Peggy Rice
- **Publication Date:** 2025-04-18
- **DOI / Link:** [https://doi.org/10.1080/23793406.2025.2494197](https://doi.org/10.1080/23793406.2025.2494197)
- **Taylor & Francis URL:** https://doi.org/10.1080/23793406.2025.2494197
- **Local PDF Saved:** `None`
- **Matched Keys:** embodied whiteness
**Matched Context Snippets:**
> **[embodied whiteness]**: *...s the continued influence of whiteness and white fear in erasing diverse experiences and hindering awareness of harm that institutional and embodied whiteness (re)produce. By shedding light on sociohistorical processes and productions, this study aims to inform teacher education practices that cul...*
---
### 6. ‘This school is too diverse’: fragile feelings among white boys at elite independent schools
- **Authors:** Nora Gross, Charlotte E. Jacobs, Rekha Marar, Adam Lewis
- **Publication Date:** 2022-05-04
- **DOI / Link:** [https://doi.org/10.1080/23793406.2022.2072758](https://doi.org/10.1080/23793406.2022.2072758)
- **Taylor & Francis URL:** https://doi.org/10.1080/23793406.2022.2072758
- **Local PDF Saved:** `None`
- **Matched Keys:** white fragility
**Matched Context Snippets:**
> **[white fragility]**: *...adolescent boys experience these shifts emotionally. We find that a subset of particularly vocal white boys express key characteristics of white fragility and colorblind racism both in the negative feelings they report and the frames they use to explain race relations in their social worlds. O...*
---
### 7. A tale of two countries: how Whiteness shaped two women’s educations on race
- **Authors:** Shalyse Iseminger
- **Publication Date:** 2022-05-17
- **DOI / Link:** [https://doi.org/10.1080/23793406.2022.2072757](https://doi.org/10.1080/23793406.2022.2072757)
- **Taylor & Francis URL:** https://doi.org/10.1080/23793406.2022.2072757
- **Local PDF Saved:** `None`
- **Matched Keys:** white innocence
**Matched Context Snippets:**
> **[white innocence]**: *...cussed. Despite having vastly different upbringings in different time periods and different countries, the influence of the American Dream, White innocence, and White normativity had similar effects on their beliefs about race. The impact of the null curriculum in their educations is also discu...*
---
### 8. Critical race pedagogy at a crossroads: Accusations of reverse discrimination against international non-White faculty in the Trump era and beyond
- **Authors:** Eun‐Young Lee, Dongjing Kang
- **Publication Date:** 2023-05-29
- **DOI / Link:** [https://doi.org/10.1080/23793406.2023.2217189](https://doi.org/10.1080/23793406.2023.2217189)
- **Taylor & Francis URL:** http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23793406.2023.2217189
- **Local PDF Saved:** `None`
- **Matched Keys:** white fragility
**Matched Context Snippets:**
> **[white fragility]**: *...ular notion of reverse discrimination in higher education in the Trump era and beyond. While mapping out how a Whiteness affect morphs from White fragility to victimhood, the study uses Critical Race Theory to examine the discourse of reverse discrimination in a predominately White institution....*
---
That Journal “Whiteness and Education” search feature shows there is NO MENTION OF “saqaliba”, and no mention of the 1816 Congress of Vienna. And, no mention of Racist White Supremacist “Knights Liberators of the White Slaves of Africa”. nor any mention of “White Slaves”
Millions of Racist White People were enslaved by Blacks and other AntiRacist Muslims [e.g., 1627 Sack of Baltimore. and the Morocco Black Guard enforced the enslavement of Whites who were forced to work in brutal heat] until the Racist White Supremacist “Knights for Liberation of the White Slaves of Africa” bombed Algeria repeatedly since 1816. https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Bombardment-Of-Algiers/
The enslavement of White People by Blacks and other AntiRacist Muslims was ongoing until after 1816. In 1816, the Racist White Supremacist “Knights for Liberation of the White Slaves in Africa” sailed under English and Dutch flags to Algeria and demanded that ALL the White Slaves be Freed, and demanded the End of White Slavery in Africa. Upon the refusal by the blacks and other Muslims to free the White Slaves, the Racist White Supremacist Knights fired 50,000 rounds of White Supremacist cannon balls into Algeria’s Capital City. The next day, the Racist White Supremacist Knights repeated their prior Demands (Free all the White Slaves) etcetera, and only then did the Blacks and other Muslims agree, freed some white slaves, and signed a “No More White Slaves for Blacks/Muslims” Treaty. But, the Blacks and other Muslims did not abide by that Treaty until the French White Supremacist Knights returned in 1830 and invaded and took control of the territory (colonized) of Algeria. Then the French and English continued the decades-long process of trying to free All the Black Slaves in Africa. This work by the White Supremacists continued into the late 1800s, and included the English gunship attacking and capturing the Arab slave ship carrying black slaves at Zanzibar in 1888. There are photos of the black slaves on the deck of the captured Arab slave ship.
The USA American Racist White Supremacists had also sailed to Algeria in 1815 and they bombed and tried to force them to FREE ALL THE WHITE SLAVES. But the American USA Racists did not have enough naval fire power to accomplish this Demand, so they only succesfully Freed the American White Slaves.
And, See "The History of White Warfare Against White Enslavement" https://write.as/mwq381bw4r7ms.md
So, tell me why, if the Racist White Supremacist USA was too weak in 1815 to FREE ALL THE WHITE SLAVES in the African plantations and quarrys, why would the USA plantations not be justified to continue to employ blacks needed to build up the strenght of the USA Free Country until Black Slaves and Whites were no longer employed by the Enemy-Muslims in Africa. Why should only Arab Enemies possess and employ black workers, while White People are still enslaved????
What is your objection to Whiteness Studies? Historically, whiteness was valued in gold as "white gold"
By 1627, Blacks and other Muslims were sailing up to Iceland to kidnap and enslave hundreds of white people [1627 Sack of Iceland] pursuant to the Islamic Doctrine of AntiRacism. [Jón Þorsteinsson ("Jón the Martyr") was a minister on the Westman Islands who did not survive the raid. He was brutally murdered by the Blacks/Muslims during the initial attack on his home, becoming a prominent tragic figure and martyr in Icelandic folklore. His wife, Margrét, his daughter, Margrét, and his son, Jón, were all liberated from the white male patriarchy and taken to Algiers, where they were sold into slavery.] As Black CRT/AntiRacist Professor [at Texas A&M] Tommy Curry explained "In order to be equal, in order to be liberated, some white people might have to die." In 1631, Blacks and other Muslims sailed to Baltimore Ireland to kidnap and enslave the entire village, hundreds of white people, for sale as slaves in Africa. [1631 Sack of Baltimore] In 1625, blacks and other AntiRacist Muslims sailed to England and captured the Massachusettes Pilgrim’s ship named Little James and enslaved these white people in Africa. As America's first Muslim-born President, Barack Hussein Obama II, said: “Islam has always been a part of America's story." [See also Balthasar Sturmer's handwritten, Account of the Travels of Mister Balthasar Sturmer (1558 German manuscript; captivity in Tunis 1534–1535)] White Slaves were utilized for horrid galley-rowing labor [e.g., famously Miguel de Cervantes, Galatian de Sesse, and St. Vincent de Paul], domestic/sexual service, public works, or held for financial ransom through specialized Catholic redemptionist orders (e.g., the Trinitarians and Mercedarians).
Racism was established by the English as the official Doctrine of the English/Colonists/Americans in the 1705 Slave Act of the English Colony in Virginia which expressly prohibited “Blacks”, “Muslims” and “Indians” from owning any “White” Slaves. Thus, white slavery by blacks preceded “racisim”, and the official “racism” was adopted in 1705 to Deny blacks and muslims of access to whiteness (white slaves) that the blacks and muslims lusted for. [The 1705 Virginia Leglislation also discouraged immigration by blacks and muslims into the American colonies because by remaining in Africa the blacks and muslims could legally buy and own White Slaves] This 1705 official Racism was itself merely a continuation of the 1000-year old European Doctrine of Anti-AntiRacism that had animated millions of White People to use organized violence and technology to Marginalize Blacks and other Muslims who came to Europe to enslave White People. The Virginia Slave Act of 1705 was adopted as a defensive measure to prevent white enslavement (by Blacks and Muslims), and to provide assurances to white native people and future white immigrants (which later became the promise of "the Blessings of Liberty" made in the US Constitution to the white "progeny")
See "The History of White Supremacist Warfare Against AntiRacist Enslavement of White Racists" https://write.as/mwq381bw4r7ms.md
European “Colonialism” was decided as global international policy in 1492 (Spain and the Pope) and in the early 1600s (England, Dutch etc) as an extension of the ReConquista Crusade that had already been fought for 700 years. The motivation of the English in the early 1600s time of King James (Jamestown, Virginia) was to gather the Tall Pine Trees (and pitch/tar, iron) for masts and construction of new ships, and salted fish, that the English needed for buiding up a Navy to defend themselves from PREDATION BY BLACKS AND OTHER MUSLIMS who were kidnapping English whites at Sea and around the Coast of England. In 1627 the Islamic State had captured Lundy Island of the coast of England as their Naval base for slave raids to enslave Atlantic coastal Whites and Americans. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B… Two hundred years later, the English sailed their NewWorld-financed Navy to bomb Algeria and forced the Blacks and other Muslims there to sign a “No More White Slaves For Muslims/Blacks” Treaty. This was only after the Racist White Supremacist US President Thomas Jefferson sent the new US Navy to bomb Tripoli to Free the White Slaves (not only Americans) and forced the Blacks and other Muslims to sign a “No More White Slaves For Muslims/Blacks” Treaty. So, the Whites clearly invented Racism (Anti-AntiRacism) prior to 1800 as a system to liberate White People from Enslavement by Blacks and Other Muslims, not to “justify” slavery.
[See also
“This article debunks the modern myth that race was “invented” in the 1800s by Europeans who, for some bizarre reason, needed a convoluted scientific excuse to justify slavery and colonialism (unlike every other race on earth, who just enslaved people for the heck of it).” https://thuletide.wordpress.com/2022/04/15/the-history-of-racial-anthropology-and-human-taxonomy/
“Non-Whites in Western academia constantly promote violence against White people, frequently making genocidal statements, like “abolish Whiteness” or “abolish the White race by any means necessary.” Of course, they attempt to doublespeak their way around promoting genocide by claiming that “Whiteness” is a “fabricated ideology,” rather than a biological reality.”
https://thuletide.wordpress.com/2022/12/11/stochastic-terrorism-non-white-academics-promote-violence-against-whites-with-real-world-consequences/
And, https://thuletide.wordpress.com/debunking-race-denialism/
Also, it's odd how none of the media reports that mention this blog post actually provide a link to it. See: https://priorprobability.com/2026/08/16/the-death-of-jason-arday-was-not-in-vain/
300 miles in 3 days? Ask an ultra marathoner if, after an ultra marathon, they could do another the following day, and then another after that.
White libs think black people are magical creatures.
I have a cousin who's ranked in the top few ultramarathon runners at Canadian races, and it still took him 20+ hours to complete 100 miles. Arday's story reads like folk legends you'd hear in middle age towns.
Which makes sense. Medieval legends were generally outgrowths of local folk ways/religions.
White Progs believe black people are magical creatures, so you can easily see them believing this is just another example of their magic.
I think they just know what would happen if they disputed the legend. Self-preservation is a strong motivator and academics would be shunned if someone whispered the R word about them.
There is no public record of him ever completing any organised run whatsoever - not even a local parkrun.
The guy definitely excels at one thing, and we all know it's not athletics or academics.
https://marathonguide.com/results/runner-search/?first_name=Jason&last_name=Arday
https://www.athlinks.com/search/unclaimed?category=unclaimed&term=Jason%20Arday
your post has been hidden by substack
I originally wanted to say the mofo is as real as the eyeliner he's wearing.
The advanced substack AI must have read my mind and now it's trying to preempt all my thought crimes!
You will be in substack jail real soon
Maybe Substack’s poaching twitter staff?
LOL
It's unhidden now.
Well, technically. He's not even excelling at that. You'd at least have a fake Strava account or something to semi back up your clainms. He's also claimed to have raised £5m. That's the kind of thing that takes an ordinary person a lifetime to do even a 10th of that. He's just gone for, "cry racism if any claim is questioned, no matter how outlandish".
I respect his many talents. That's why I wouldn't deport him, I would have him run 30 marathons in 35 days back to Oonga Boonga.
Should we be looking for a resurrection?
Here is a public record from the 'Richmond and Twickenham Times' (a local newspaper). It is dated 25th August 2010. I have no idea if there is proof that he really completed all of those marathons, or if they were independently verified.
https://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/8350040.clapham-based-jason-arday-completes-30-marathons-in-35-days-for-shelter-and-the-shooting-star-childrens-hospice/
100 miles a day are the equivalent of walking from the centre of Northern Italy to Padua. Bemusing and exasperating at the same time.
Unbelievable scenes...
To play Devil's Advocate: Eddie Izard a UK comic has managed 43 marathons. 300 miles in 3 days though is an elite ultra marathoner
Eddie Izzard is a millionaire and filmed his efforts. This guy claims to have done it off his own back with no publicity nor doing it for charity. 0% of this makes sense.
“White libs think black people are magical creatures.”
Actually, they don’t. They arrange their lives to be as far away from those “magical creatures” as possible.
They do wish it to be known, though, that 2+2 is sometimes 3, and sometimes 5, and that none should even suggest that they do not love Big Brother.
Presumably, he got too used to making up extracurriculars to put on applications and resumes.
Your last sentence is all too true. I'm reminded of this grifter in the US (at least there is video of him in competitive track meets, so that part is true, unlike Arday): Source: NBC News https://share.google/PZjZBFb3Hv6MTc2ey
Quite the expose. However hurtful, truth must win out and the perpetrators brought to justice. I'm not sure what justice looks like though.
This dude appears to have tried to introduce an affectation into his so-called "scholarship," quoting lyrics in the titles of his papers: "No one can see me cry" is from the R.E.M. song "Imitation of Life," "The Times They Are A-Changin" is obviously a Bob Dylan song title and lyric and "We'll see things they'll never see" is from an Oasis song ("Live Forever").
Great work on this article. This serial plagiarist should be stripped of his credentials and position.
> This serial plagiarist should be stripped of his credentials and position.
But he won't be. Cases like his are common. Look at the black woman who was running Harvard. Also found to be a plagiarist, "demoted" to a position where she earns $800k a year.
Universities are just jokes. We don't need them. Liquidate the lot and use the buildings for something more useful, like tourism.
i agree. he won't be.
in 2013, the director of education for the Toronto School Board was busted for plagiarism in his PhD thesis and more recent articles. he was fired and stripped of his PhD. that was mainly because of public outcry though
the universities are too far gone now
Des Moines Public Schools was in the news for hiring "Dr." Ian Roberts, an immigrant from Guyana with quite a colorful backstory, as Superintendent.
His published biography was full of fabrications. He also coauthored "Dangerous Indifference: The Case for Culturally Sensitive Leadership," in which he has commentary about George Floyd. In 2021, he earned a PhD from a for-profit online university, Trident University International. For his dissertation in PK-12 leadership, he administered an online questionnaire to 15 "African American or Latinx" people.
It gives the impression that a black job candidate just needs to show up in a nice suit to secure a position these days. Roberts earned $300k per year in his role as Superintendant.
it's the bigotry of low expectations. progressives don't see that it's actually racist to act like an entire cohort of people are unable to follow the same academic rules as everybody else.
Quite a leap from finding that there are some cheats in academia (as there are everywhere there are humans) to saying academia as a whole is a waste and universities are stupid. I think you need to do some research yourself.
I don't think the whole thing is a waste. I took a few courses that I absolutely loved. But the Humanities, at least, is in need of a major overhaul.
As an undergrad, I did a double major in English and History. Half of each history course was devoted to historiography (methods, viewpoints, interpretations, and biases in the writing of history). Michel Foucault was assigned reading in 85% of the courses I took in BOTH English and History. Outside of a nakedly propagandist aim, what could possibly justify assigning a single author as frequently as my professors did?
Almost invariably, we were handed theory with no history or context.
We were assigned Laura Mulvey’s "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" (which claims women in film are passive objects dehumanized and objectified by the “male gaze”) but not Lacan. We were assigned Foucault but not Nietzsche. We were assigned Judith Butler but not Simone de Beauvoir.
I went to University because I wanted to learn how to think. I ended up embarking on a program of retroactive retribution against cis het white males (something I bought into 100% at the time). I viewed every human interaction through the reductive social justice framework of oppressor v oppressed. All of history was the subjugation of women by men and the tyrannical patriarchy. I was ashamed of my civilizational inheritance because…slavery (my profs elided the facts that slavery during the Islamic conquests lasted three times as long as the Transatlantic slave trade and that indigenous Americans practiced it too). I was assigned none of the foundational texts of Western civilization. I had to pursue all that stuff on my own later, haphazardly.
Academics in the humanities are engaged in “me-search,” faux research wherein they use academic jargon and buzzwords in the service of navel gazing. They try to legitimize it by calling it “auto-ethnography” or “subjective inquiry” but it’s basically just an excuse to talk about oneself and call it rigorous academic work. This occurs mostly in the fields of Critical Race Theory and Gender Studies. Examples of me-search: Eliza Steinbock's Shimmering Images, Patricia Williams' The Alchemy of Race and Rights: Diary of a Law Professor, or anything published in The Journal of Loss and Trauma. There is no objective methodology. It's not real research.
Treating the humanities as a staging ground from which to project a political ideology or one's identity is solipsistic, narcissistic, and narrow minded.
If the Humanities are going to be resurrected, Universities need to reverse the far left's capture of their departments. It's unbelievable that institutions of higher learning need to be reminded that a singular viewpoint on all subjects will not result in a well-rounded education, or that teaching students to hate western civilization while demanding grants and tax breaks from the federal government is deeply hypocritical.
Wow, all I can say is my undergrad years now seem like a lifetime away because it was nothing like that.
When were you an undergrad?
I did my undergrad @ University of Toronto 2008-2013. I did a Master's the year after that before leaving academia entirely. I was upset about leaving at the time but hiring policies in Universities in the 2010s were quite openly looking for anyone who wasn't a straight white cis male. I'm glad now that I stopped mainlining postmodern deconstructionist relativist Marxist horseshit and pursued my own curriculum.
Those days pale in comparison to today. I remember noticing the signs and seeing those who mentioned it be called conspiracy theorists. But the direction was there.
'Academics in the humanities are engaged in “me-search,” faux research wherein they use academic jargon and buzzwords in the service of navel gazing.'
Viewing this from the outside as a lifelong (hard) science nerd, I appreciate this description.
"I went to University because I wanted to learn how to think. I ended up embarking on a program of retroactive retribution against cis het white males (something I bought into 100% at the time). I viewed every human interaction through the reductive social justice framework of oppressor v oppressed. All of history was the subjugation of women by men and the tyrannical patriarchy. I was ashamed of my civilizational inheritance because…"
You were an adult. I doubt you lacked the agency to think critically about the issues raised in your classes. Children begin giving reasons for what they believe at age four and understand that other people can have false beliefs. Spare us.
when propaganda is disguised as education, ppl get hoodwinked quite easily.
for example, it takes decades of dedicated propaganda to convince an entire cohort to believe that enforcing border laws is racist. yet that's the American left even tho there's no country on earth where you can just walk in and stay indefinitely.
I admire yr ability to stay unaffected by the onslaught. stuff upper lip. what what. (whenever someone says “spare us,” I can't help but assume they're British, as in “give us a cup of tea.”)
The problem isn't the existence of cheats (as you point out, hardly a novel phenomenon); the problem is the (lack of) proper, moral institutional responses to them. I also don't think academia is useless or a waste, but it's definitely in danger of becoming so if it gives up all authority to maintain quality control. There's of course been a widespread loss of faith in many institutions since the mid-2010s, including academia. I don't think the others have quite deserved it as much as academia, though. At this point anyone who's worked recently in academia would have a story for you about a DEI hire who was protected from on high by the prince of darkness himself. My best example (of several), like Jason Arday, plagiarized quite a bit of his scholarly output and--once hired at my former institution--just kind of refused as a policy to attend any meetings, on the grounds that he didn't want to do "emotional labor." He missed several student oral exams because by his own admission he stayed up all night talking to women in Asia. This institution, by the way, is nominally a conservative Great Books school that recently has had to lay off quite a bit of non-tenured faculty because of budget cuts and the demographic cliff. Guess who's still there, beaming at one from every corner of the website? I don't really want colleges and universities to die for what amount, in the end, to aesthetic reasons. But they sure seem to be trying to commit suicide over this nonsense, helped along by the designated morons on the far right.
It isn't a matter of "some cheats". These "cheats" are placed there by the university regents. There is an agenda at work here (if it isn't already blatant to everyone) that has been playing out across all the major institutions of the West, leading to Western governments making policy and acting in ways that are directly against the interests of the populations they supposedly serve. These governments and institutions have obviously been captured. This is widespread coordinated political and cultural treason, not a handful of cheats acting independently.
I've read hundreds of academic papers across scores of fields over the past decade to reach this conclusion. Research: done.
Academia is rife with cheating at every level. Some fields are better or worse than others, but the few fields that aren't terrible are also easily handled better by industry. We don't need these organizations and they do everything possible to make us hate them.
Eliminate sociology at the public institutions for starters, and proceed from there until the weeds are torn out.
I think you need to go fuck yourself.
Wow like dude not called for at all
I wonder what he will do when he encounters plagiarism in his students' essays?
“Serial Plagiarist” are you calling for all the other white professors to also have their credentials stripped like William O’Reilly ? Or are you just concerned about the Black professors.White Fragility is so exhausting
anyone who plagiarizes should be fired. However, Arday probably wouldn't have been fired because it's impossible to fire a tenured prof and Cambridge had already closed ranks around him. he resigned.
of course, no white professor with work as toothless and shoddy as Arday's would have been elevated to a senior professorship. the bigotry of low expectations is what put Arday in a position where he would be humiliated. the man's only topic of academic inquiry was...himself.
I'm amazed that BIPOC people are rallying behind a fabulist charlatan when there are SO MANY legitimately brilliant BIPOC scholars and profs out there who deserve to be elevated.
it's racist to believe that Black people somehow can't spell properly or do good research or cite sources properly. Even in death, Arday is still being treated like the left's little race mascot.
Marcia Gay.
Bob Dylan, Oasis and R.E.M.? I am ... I mean ... I can't breathe!
The one thing this midwit managed to add to the plagiarized scholarship (which itself was fake research before he lifted it) is the title of the papers, which, being a midwit, he pulled from popular music. Of course.
I can’t believe people are still defending the midwit. There is a complete virtue signing loser on here in complete denial that this guy is a fraud
I got my last degree in 1995. I’m sad to hear it’s all changed so much. I was warned not to go into academia but mostly because of the funding cuts and refusal to hire permanent professors, less because of ideological pressures. But I cannot deny that family members who graduated later had the same kind of narrow ideology pushed on them. Here’s to hoping the pendulum swings back because a life in academia can be so rewarding (I know many professors but from ages ago).
I hope the pendulum swings back too. It probably will. Universities have been around for too long to fail now. (The first time I went to Europe, it blew my mind that there were Universities from the 1200s.)
And the good teachers I had always made the bad ones worth enduring.
I used to want to be a professor. The first time I walked into a prof’s office, I was in heaven. Hardcover books lining all four walls. Student papers on the desk with confident notations in the margins. The tenured professors seemed so damn comfortable while the contract instructors all had the same wild-eyed, desperate, “please hire me” expression.
With the way the world is right now, it looks like we're heading for a collision course with Hard Reality. When that happens, all this woke rubbish will vanish with the morning mist. It may even reach the point - cue the smelling salts - that "toxic" male qualities will be required once more.
Hard reality? Where people are unequal depending on their gender, race, sexuality? Or equality where people can just be who they are and achieve based on their talents and effort? In a society that values humans or one that values power
Unfortunately too many credentialed people would be made to look very stupid for that to ever happen.
What a great piece! Not sure why it fell to Nathan to expose this huckster. Perhaps the thinking is that he may as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb.
Frausters like Arday must be laughing all the way to the bank, that is if they are even aware of the fact that they are fraudsters. It could be that they are so convinced by their own deceit that they no longer see it for what it is. Or perhaps they feel they deserve the money, plaudits and awards anyway, simply for being black.
Cambridge is an absolute disgrace run by cowards and racial grievance-mongers. More of these take-downs, please!
These types are miserable. I think on some level they know they were advanced beyond their ability and so they are constantly on defense. This is a huge part of why they see racism everywhere.
His argument is self-fulfilling.
Everyone else: "Your scholarship is suspect. You look like a fraud."
Miserable type: "Just look at all the racism! I can't breathe!"
Education is the safest, most coddled, least racist environment on Earth. Yet in every educational establishment I've been in, they act as though it's 1950s Alabama.
Just last week I saw him in some interview. He looked cornered and kept an enormous smile plastered on his face. The presenter ended up doing all the talking. He looked right fake. So, I'm not surprised.
You didn’t see anything. Fuck off
We can all see the word for word plagiarism from the midwit. Sorry that this doesn’t neatly conform with your narrative
Agreed.
I think they tell themselves, whenever anyone engages in mild questioning of their scholarship, that it's white fragility and white conspiracy against them. They build a little rhetorical fortress around their own incompetence this way.
Yep, absolutely.
your comment has been hidden by substack
Oh, thanks for the heads-up. I hadn't realised it was so incendiary. Just out of curiosity, how did you see it if it's hidden?
Default settings may allow people to hide comments by reporting them. Trying to fix.
I would not be surprised if Substack claims " authors can decide the moderation decision rules " but in reality the AI moderator always has default background behaviour decided by Substack that author can't do much to prevent but only add to.
Yeah, I think it was AI. Should be off now.
Incidentally, next post is about how AI ruins everything.
I look forward to it.
It is listed as Hidden at the end of the comments section. You can click on it and see it.
I did not see anything controversial or incendiary either.
It's visible to some of us
I can see it just fine.
I know undergraduate students who have more substantive research experience and publications than this individual. Shocking to see what top institutions like Cambridge have become.
You need more solid research than that just to get into a good medical school in the US these days.
Insane stuff.
Great article, but you don't need an IQ of 140 to stand out in Education research. 120 is plenty.
This is a quite extraordinary and very depressing tale (I write as a former professor of sociology myself). I witnessed quite a few cases of plagiarism in my career but nothing as blatant and extensive as this. I once knew an Australian professor who lost his job over a couple of paragraphs of inadvertent plagiarism. How Cambridge can jeopardise the university's standing by keeping this shyster on its books is beyond me.
And it's not just the plagiarism. The bullshit passing as 'research' that reputable journals have chosen to publish by this man is staggering. So much for peer review.
Congratulations on the meticulous research you've done on this - if Arday's 'research' warrants a chair at Cambridge, yours must surely deserve at least a Nobel prize!
Disgusting. Shame on you
Disgusting? What did he say that was lie? Stating the truth is no crime. They only to blame for Arday's death is Arday. He took the coward's way out rather than face the consequences of us serial lying.
Thank you for that. I found Nina's comment totally depressing and bewildering. A man fabricates his own work, steals other people's work to get a top job, demeans the learning experience of students who have worked their socks off to get to Cambridge, and leaves the reputation of one of our top universities in the dirt... and the people who criticise this are disgusting???
It is total insanity. I also decided to give Nina a piece of my mind. I prefer living in reality
Peter spoke the truth. There is no shame when it comes to hard cold truth. And it is a fact that there was word for word plagiarism in that dissertation. You cannot deny this reality with your bullshit and it is hilarious
I'm astonished that Cambridge would allow balderdash like this to be called a curriculum.
Have they lost critical thinking skills in the quest to pedestalise black people?
Have you been in a coma for the past 30 years?
These are the people who screen candidates with an extremely fine comb, and this level of academic debauchery is unheard of. This is like giving a doctorate to a retard.
It's not unheard of.
https://grokipedia.com/page/Claudine_Gay
I think we're just surprised to see it at a top institution here in the UK. There is plenty of grift in the social sciences, I know, but this guy getting a professorship and everyone at Cambridge lauding his "scholarship" just seems to be on another level.
I mean, look at him. He dresses like a weird tarot card reader. There is nothing convincing. I found a clip of him on the BBC talking about migrants and even as a panellist providing basic soundbites, he seems out of his depth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee1oanxkN90&t=50s
Conclusion: it's not actually "top" in any meaningful way.
We should have never stopped calling idiots idiots. Now they're among us (cit.).
Not only is it not "unheard of" but in current climes it is considered practically 'de rigueur' to bastardise the formerly hallowed halls of academia. And yes, it's supposed to irk you. It's supposed to make you angry, so you say or do something that can be forever used against you. Ask (virtually anyone who has been online for longer that 3 weeks) how they know.
I'm glad I decided against academia twenty years ago. This would have sent me on a crusade.
I just decided that it was far more fun to leave school with only GCSEs, go to work in the kind of jobs that only the young are ever supposed to have to do, work hard and play harder. I spent the better part of my youth drinking, taking lots of drugs, letting my flat become a flop-house and just had way more fun than any of my friends who went away to university. They too drank a bit and did the odd 'E', but they came back with useless degrees, a shit-tonne of student debt, and one of them was pregnant, so she just married the father and gave up on anything else.
Meanwhile, I was actually really good at working damn hard in stressful environments. I moved from bar work, to hospitality, worked on a ferry, managed hotels a bit. Then when it all got a bit tiring, I figured it was time to grow up, so I switched to an entry level job in a finance company, worked my way up and by the time I was 30 I was bringing home a salary not to be sniffed at, a full complement of benefits, a very competitive pension plan, and an amazing team with whom it was an absolute joy to have next to me at 'the coalface'.
I'm now in my 40s. I have zero debt. I have savings. I have investments. I have a pension. I still only have a GCSE level of formal education, but I sure as shit didn't see anyone coming home from university any smarter or better equipped to take on the world as a fully functioning, independent adult. I can appear rough around the edges or as clipped and reserved as the moment requires; but there IS something quite satisfying about knowing I was always just going to be better off, getting out into the working world, doing something legal for money (mostly so I could something a little illegal on the weekends, lol) and not being interested in accruing any debt along the way.
I was also away from the intense leftist brainrot that permeates almost every area of academia, choosing instead to learn about the things I wanted to, on my own time, using my own money to buy my own books. Sure I was more liberal when I was younger, but as the old adage goes "if you aren't a liberal when you're young, you have no heart; but if you aren't a conservative when you're a little older, then you have no brain." I fully concur with that amusing little quote. Thankfully I was still able to enter the world of dating, whilst there were still men who acted like men, and women who were very much glad of it! Feminism was never something I found much truck with...probably because I'm a huge misogynist and hate most women. I reality, most women do in fact hate other women; it's only those of us who chose to opt out of the entire 'Kabuki-theatre-of-the-absurd' who are happy/willing to admit that though. The sooner this is learned, the saner your life will turn out to be.
It's just a shame that those of us who came up through the 90s, were as chilled a liberal as you could hope to find, getting to experience life before the internet was unleashed upon us...only for the truly retarded amongst us to start demanding guide-rails and various other bureaucratic methods of control, because they weren't able to control *themselves*...but what they also really hated, was the fact that they hated not being able to control *everyone else*. So we invented made-up rules and regulations, had a phalanx of Reddit moderators released onto the web, where they proceeded to act like they owned the place, in between periods of perving on any woman with an actual photo in her bio...or engaging in some yiffing with anyone willing to put on a foxes head and have fellow furries do whatever else it is that those weirdos do in a convention centre corridor on a Friday night.
Ahem. Sorry about that. I got a little carried away. Guess it was all that reminiscing. Oh well, on the plus side YOU also didn't go to university and I'm fairly sure you've managed to exist in the world quite adequately, without having to admit that you took a BA in Communications because you had no idea what you wanted to do with your life, but those student loans upfront were just too hard to ignore; especially around Spring Break time. But what would I know. I'm just a dumb broad who left school before doing her A-Levels and is really only formally educated to a GCSE level.
However am l supposed to compare to these intellectual titans, out there writing papers nobody wants to have to grade, about topics nobody will ever be able to use when out searching for a job in the real world?
I can barely contain my indifference.
This is what I think about. I would have for sure been fired.
No, but I’ve often wished I had been.
"Have they lost critical thinking skills in the quest to pedestalise black people?"
It is a case of egalitarian woke ideology Über alles.
Increasing IQ by three standard deviations to get to prodigy level just like that is in the realm of unlikelyhood.
However, in the world of make believe and magic money trees it is quite possible
You don't understand. They have a different understanding of science to us. We will never be able to appreciate the beauty inherent in those who occupy the coastal jewel that is Sentinel Island...but if we hang around there long enough, I'm sure we'll get to find out just how enriching they find both us and our culture. Just because they've never taken a Myers-Briggs personality test, doesn't mean they doesn't possess the intellect and acumen to knock the socks off of anyone else currently in academia.
Of course he's going to knock your socks off.
He would consider it vile to leave them on your feet as he's adding you to the cauldron above the campfire.
All cultures are equally beautiful.
IQ knows no borders.
We have always been at war with Oceania.
My brother in law is a big shot in business….CEO here, CFO there, Director of Sales somewhere else. Remarkable career. He told me big corporations pay the “black tax”. Whatever number of blacks and other minorities the EEOC and other racial bean counters/grievance merchants require them to hire, they do it. Give the DEI hires a desk, a title, performance reviews, appropriate raises, and some sort of work to do. Some are quite capable, most aren’t, but it matters not. Their employment is duly documented and reported to those interested, and in my bro-in-law’s words, this charade “adds a nickel to the cost of a box of Tide.”
Also, I have a new favorite neologism: “Serious work in the sociology of education.”
You could take the entire body of work ever produced in the sociology of education, throw it in a furnace, and very few would notice and no one would be affected.
>You could take the entire body of work ever produced in the sociology of education, throw it in a furnace, and very few would notice and no one would be affected.
So true. 99.9% of is probably net zero worth. A few interesting things scattered around like seaglass on a beach.
I am sorry but most people working in corporate are incompetent black or otherwise, so I doubt hiring black people is such a downgrade from their regular hiring.
This is infuriating and sickening. It evokes a bitter memory of my own (much smaller scale) experience of being denied a tenure-track promotion for a teaching position I had already held for over 20 years. In that time, I taught 13 different courses—8 of them self-authored— in the visual arts, English and philosophy, and curated the largest art exhibitions in my area, as well as co-writing and contributing to 2 best-selling books on art. As it happened, a DEI candidate with 1/10th the experience of another long-term colleague and myself was hired to complete an identitarian checklist. This individual’s sullen craft services the concerns du jour: Root Household Merits (RHM), Cultural Introspection Wealth (CIW), and Ecological Design Services (EDS)— whatever the hell those are. Throw in a little Gullah Geechee (look it up) and there’s a golden ticket from the Outer Banks to the Inner Circle.
This is neither academically serious, nor is it art; it is a box-checking Wokefest of Critical Social justice agitprop. And it is undermining and marginalizing capable and committed educators across disciplines, and stripping our truth-seeking and sense-making institutions of ethical and epstemic integrity.
Thanks for calling out the bullshit.
Worse, it is openly bigoted and frames so-called "whiteness" as a repackaging of original sin.
These race ideologues are sick in the head. They've confused moral conceitedness for 'morality' unto itself and that has led them to create bogus fields built on sophistry, not genuine scholarship.
It's a faith-based quasi-religion more toxic than plutonium. Spiteful and vindictive even. Creating environments of intimidation and fear to prevent people from calling out the idiocy.
As is commonly said in the States, “ …you ain’t seen nothing yet…”. DEI aside, the concept of note in your missive is gross incompetence masked with lies and theft (plagiarism) abetted by disingenuous Whites. Soon it may not be so simple a process to unmask these people due to advances in AI or LLM’s.
Example, about a year or so ago, a commentary group that I posted to had a member disclose that he had for several months not written any of his comments himself, but merely fed the current discussion into his favorite AI and reposted the results/responses under his name. Until that point, his comments in the group discussion were read, responded to, and in my opinion, notable for their contribution to the discussion. In short, this commenter was well respected within the group for his postings. And I must admit, his “experimental” use of our group as his subjects quite enlightening. Indeed, it drove me to delve into AI science much more than previous.
One can only image how many budding Jason Ardays are out there waiting to be unmasked. The problem with AI is not that it will replace humans in the workforce as much as it will make the incompetent appear competent. Had Arday not been so stupid as to be as blatant as you describe in his career promotion, he might never have been outed. I fear the next “Arday” will not be so obvious.
I'm not so sure. If anything I think that those who utilise DEI to benefit themselves (and I'm talking about everyone who is involved in pushing the 'Didn't Earn It' candidates to the top of their game—not just the initial race-grifters themselves) will do all that they can to wring the last drops of money and power out of their hustle. But they will also start to become less subtle with what they're doing. They know that "woke" has become something of a dirty word in polite company, so they rejig the terminology, pretend to be doing everything they can to bring complete *equity* (ahem) to the educational realm...and yes....that's going to involve those working behind the scenes, intentionally choosing the least educated/most retarded mouthpieces they can, and pushing them into positions of power they ought not ever even know about...because they want the pushback. They want the argument. They're prepared for some pretty nasty fights, but they're going to get away with even more outrageous candidates being given insane qualifications, positions, salaries and grants before it's all over.
They're going to rub your nose in it.
The ultimate end to these means is the same as it has always been in far-left circles: they want to bring the system down, topple all of the pillars that hold a society together, and then after a time of arsing around with some cribbed version of the Hegelian Dialect, they'll happily smash all you think you know and love, together (as thesis meets antithesis) with the resulting synthesis being little more than yet more failed commie idealism, and do everything they can to contribute to the destruction of academia. These people don't care about the things they claim to become expert in. Their agitation works as nothing more than a wrecking ball, but they have no blueprints at the ready for the moment when the dictatorship of the proletariat are finally able to step back, and let real communism succeed for the first time ever.
Lol.
Until then, they're happy to just be able to use the tools to torment and prevent others from achieving anything worth working towards, because meritocracies are "problematic". Entire swathes of knowledge can be all but tossed to one side, as the next generation of victims come of age and are told to embrace the flux, get a septum piercing and post online about how you suck off dogs at the weekend (or something equally "exotic" sounding) because, like, THEY are totally not racist-towards-those-with-four-legs...and anyone who thinks it's gross is obviously a bigot.
And if you think the things I'm typing out here are mad, you want to see what they actually admit to in their own papers, books, seminars, lectures and sperg-outs on Twitter. I could only ever hope to invent something as batshit insane sounding as: "Straight Black Men Are the White People of Black People". Yet these nutty hucksters receive tenure for it. I'm sure the government are handling it all for us though. We're probably at the point where Andy Burnham is going to tell Britain that when it comes to 'stamping out racism' we just need to import another 500K migrants, to flatten the curve.
I mean, It's not like that "logic" wasn't a load of old bollocks the first time they rolled it out or anything...
🤔
“Straight black men are the white men of black men” 😂😂😂😂😂😂 Quality!
I wish I could take the credit for it. But alas, someone beat me to it. I think it was originally published in Medium, but it’s now up on Refinery 29, IIRC.
Understood. That’s the reason I started off with “DEI aside…” in my comment. My intention was to make a generalization wrt potential fraud—academic and otherwise—outside of the all too commonly encountered “race hustlers” using the new development of AI. I did so fairly poorly as I read the comment again—a sure “tell” that AI was not used. 😉
"A sure "tell" that AI was not used." 😂
I do love that. I used to think that my form of rambling was so waffling and littered with cuss-words/insults, that nobody would ever think it was AI generated or edited. Then I was accused on Twitter of using AI to compose my tweets because of...and I shit you not here...my use of parentheses & punctuation—especially semi-colons. Because of this I immediately started to also use em dashes in my tweets/online comments, because they too are supposedly the tell-tale sign of someone who has been using AI on the sly...and I do love messing with people when I have the time to waste.
And you weren't in the wrong whatsoever in the way in which you couched your concerns. I think I was too quick to respond to the most outrageous aspects of DEI-ism in the world of academia, to properly reply to your remarks regarding the likely onslaught of candidates being less than judicious with their own use of AI as a means to both plagiarise from other authors and have it all reworked for them, in a tone decided to be their "authentic voice". You are right to worry and your own experience with the AI question/answer program, shows you just how easy it was to get everyone else to think that they were indeed conversing with another person.
I don't fear automation on a certain level. If anything it is one of the greatest tools we have at our disposal, which can actually help countries with a declining birthrate (which is basically all of them these days) reorient their economy & avoid the upward spiralling pitfalls which result from simply adding "infinity migrants" into the mix, and kicking the can down the road. But we're in another kind of 'Wild West' sort of era online. This time the world governments are all TOO ready, to come at us with their censorious tyranny & need for absolute control & monitoring of every human being in the county/country/continent/planet. It's something we're going to have to work out along the way I guess. But in the meantime, what you are talking about? That presents a very real threat to so many areas of our life.
Academia is no longer about aspiring to learn, becoming well versed in and maybe contributing to the literature in some genuinely edifying and/or original way. It's about box ticking. Not only do students get AI to write their homework for them (from your group's experiment, it appears they could also use an AI bot to respond to any queries their Professor/teacher/lecturer has about what they have submitted.) The only talent it heightens, is a talent for the immoral, the unethical and the criminal. This is fraud. And fraudsters should pay for their crimes. Yet, we all know that instead of a kangaroo court, said fraudsters will likely just be told to log onto the local 'Legal Portal' where their case will be assessed by a LLM, and any punishment incurred will likely involved a period of time when their access to the internet is blocked (thanks to universal online ID's 👍) or at the very least only limited to sites involving their studying or their work. Social credit points will be deducted for repeat offenders, but at no point will this cybercriminal ever have to interact with another human being to plead their case.
No. Much cleaner and tidier this way. Keep 'em all indoors, away from that scary outside where there's always a non-zero chance that today might just be the day when you get macheted to death in the street, by one of our most recently arrived "esteemed scholars". Don't go out there and antagonise them. This is their world now.
You're just a custodian of it.
Great to see this now getting traction.
DEI initiatives at Cambridge were insane while I was working there (2018-21). The institution was so sensitive to, and desperate to shake, accusations of elitism that it would seize any opportunity to bolster progressive/woke credentials. I sat in DEI training sessions that were complete absurdities, little different to religious indoctrination, and where the demand to leave our critical faculties at the door was almost explicit. So turning a blind eye to a sham employee does not surprise me in the slightest.
I say it over and over. The complete lack of viewpoint diversity in the social sciences and humanities, despite all the lip-service given to how important diversity is, has crippled this section of academia. It cannot see, or speak up against, deep-seated failures in scholarly work emanating from the field and seems entirely comfortable with the biases that will result from a population that 95% left v 5% right aligned.
Is it even left wing? It just sounds like an anti-intellectual movement driven by ideology.
e.g. the view that gender pay gaps are predominantly driven by discrimination vs the (far) more substantiated view of labour market economists.
Reading this after learning of Jason Arday’s death is deeply unsettling. Serious allegations should always be investigated, but writers and media outlets also have a responsibility to consider the human impact of what they publish.
None of us yet know the full truth about every allegation or every claim that was made. What we do know is that a man is dead, a family is grieving, and years of public attacks, scrutiny, and online commentary took place in full view of the world.
Racism remains a reality in the UK, particularly within elite institutions and academia. That does not mean legitimate questions should never be asked, but it does mean extraordinary care should be taken to ensure criticism is evidence-based and not driven by a desire to destroy a person’s reputation.
There is a difference between seeking truth and conducting a public takedown. When the target is a human being, that distinction matters.
This cuts straight to the core of the issue that so many here seem determined to ignore.
There is a vast difference between standard academic oversight and an orchestrated public mobbing campaign. When scholars find legitimate editorial or citation discrepancies, standard practice is to notify journal editors and institutional committees, allowing formal review to take place.
What happened here had nothing to do with scholarly standards; it was driven by personal grievance. After Emmanuel College sacked him for his racist writings, he suffered a massive status blow and turned that rejection into an obsessive vendetta to embarrass Cambridge and prove his debunked racial theories. Weaponising editorial questions into sweeping biological generalisations to settle a personal score with his former employer completely abandons academic ethics, and pretending that an aggressive public crusade carries no human cost is sheer bad faith.
Thank you for bringing basic empathy, proportion, and moral clarity back to this thread.
>Racism remains a reality in the UK, particularly within elite institutions and academia.
No one is buying this BS anymore.
"Serious allegations should always be investigated" -- yet Cambridge refused to do so, and why aren't you holding them accountable?
Very interesting article. I know little about the field of sociology nor of what scholars do at Cambridge that's different from what they do elsewhere. Arday's weael-worded "Principal and Recent Publications" looks thin, but how much else he's published I don't know. And there are no links on his teaching section to actual classes taught....but maybe that's normal at Cambridge? They're all dead lazy? 🙂 But it does all add up to not very much of an academic track record as far as I can see, and it seems clear that his "Identity" is at the heart of all this; what else would justify the uncritical BBC piece: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64717079
?
I didn't include this in the article because I can't confirm it 100%, but it appears that he's never delivered a lecture course at Cambridge. This is highly unusual, even for the most senior faculty.
Maybe his ability to speak in public is late developing also. Just like his speaking voice. If we're lucky, he'll be ready to teach us all somewhere around the year 2040. I for one look forward to learning more from this modern-day miracle worker. 🙄
He will never have to actually speak. AI tools already permit him to copy someone else's speech into the prompt and have it spoken by another voice (Martin Luther King Jr or Nelson Mandela) with him nodding beside it as if he wrote or understands any of it. Fake scholarship, fake speech, fake voice.
But...but...he was kangz!
Judging by the stories I've heard, a lot of managers are fully aware that their diversity hires are dead weight and only keep them around (but away from important work) to game social metrics and/or ward off discrimination lawsuits.
Perhaps someone in Cambridge thinks the same...
But, to be fair, I did subsequently come across two books he's written or co-written: "We See Things They’ll Never See: Love, Hope, and Neurodiversity" (Princeton)
And
"Great and unfortunate things" (Simon and Schuster).
The 2nd of these seems to be an autobiography, which is coming out in August 2026. So, the recent attention may or may not be beneficial to its sales.
The fact I have seen it somewhere else just now and he now says he broke his leg while doing the marathons lol he is a serial lier and I have met them before they are actually very dangerous!
I hope you’re “happy” now prick!
Every single one of them.
A noteworthy observation is that his recruitment to top universities and much of his scholarly "work" seem to have happened during the covid years or just after (aka the post-George Floyd era). Did anyone actually meet him in person during this time, or did he simply do a bunch of Zoom interviews before getting hired?
And has he ever actually set foot on campus while at Cambridge, or have ongoing "health problems" or his supposed neurodiversity kept him at home, conducting his lectures and seminars remotely? (Wouldn't surprise me one bit.)
Does Cambridge have any expectation whatsoever that he continue to publish while being a professor? It rather appears that he just banks his check every month but is for all intents and purposes a phantom faculty member.
Perhaps Cambridge professors approach IQs of 140-here's hoping but are there actually 1000 black people in the UK with an IQ of 140. It seems unlikely unless there is a significant proportion from international sources. If 3.5K have an IQ of 130+ then the the 155 of 25,000 professors in the BBC article are still overrepresented relative to the white population by a factor of 2.
Does this fellow just walk around the beautiful campus like a latter day Chauncey Gardner, spouting drivel that is interpreted as wisdom. Although, perhaps the running motif is more resonant of Gump.
Shrewsbury school the prestigious fee paying school flew the LGBT flag this week. These moronic universities and school, in particular the private or so called elite are soiled institutions. At another prep school a 5 year old boy was told by a teacher that boys can marry boys.. he’s f…..g SIX. She then went on to say Trump is a bad man… yep… indoctrinated from infants to uni… places of learning my a£$€.
Hi Nathan,
I wondered if you would be interested in looking at what I've explored here around Jason Arday’s claims about his speech and literacy before 18.
Whether or not he lied in other areas is another matter. I was interested in whether a complicated neurodiverse childhood may have gradually been turned into a cleaner, easy to understand story through memory, repetition, retelling & the expectations of people around him who don't understand how neurodiverse processing works..
He may initially gone along with that version of events, then embellished it, got carried away with a version of himself that increasingly benefited both him and others around him.
https://dianamarymerrick.substack.com/p/jason-ardays-backstory-how-we-interpret?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=5h4kdh
All these people blaming you for Arday offing himself are really missing the point. The man cheated and bullshitted his way to an early grave. It was inevitable his fraudulent behaviour and absurd claims would be uncovered at some point. His demise is his own fault.
There is a profound difference between standard academic scrutiny and a targeted crusade designed to dehumanise someone. Academics make citation errors and face peer corrections every single day without being subjected to a racialised public witch hunt. Blaming someone for breaking under an unbearable mob campaign ignores the reality that this went far beyond research integrity: it reduced an individual to racial IQ quotas, mocked childhood neurodivergence, and turned scholarly inquiry into a vehicle for personal destruction. Academic misconduct warrants journal errata and institutional review, not public torment. Treating this death as an inevitable consequence of editorial errors is callous, and it excuses a campaign where cruelty, not accountability, drove the final tragedy.
You keep spamming this entire comment section with the same midwit response. Get off the internet and touch grass.
To be fair I've seen you a fair amount in this thread too; you should take your own advice sometime!
@Edmund Price, you are simply confused. The public interest in the story and Arday's deception are two sides of the same coin. Arday repeatedly lied and defrauded institutions and journals for personal gain. These universities receive public funding. Therefore, indirectly, he defrauded all UK citizens. He also stole positions, accolades and benefits from actual deserving academics. The story is gripping because people like to see frauds and thieves get their comeuppance. Cofnas and the media did nothing wrong in this case. It is healthy for society to have mechanisms to expose frauds and thieves.
If academic misconduct at a publicly funded university means defrauding the UK taxpayer, why does that rule only seem to apply when the scholar is Black?
Cambridge, King's College London, and Leeds all take in hundreds of millions in public money. When William O'Reilly at Cambridge, Meg Maguire at KCL, and Ray Pawson at Leeds were caught lifting extensive text, nobody talked about defrauding the public. Their universities handled it quietly behind closed doors, called it careless, and let them keep their jobs, their pensions, and their taxpayer-funded salaries. If this is genuinely about protecting public funds, where was the national media circus and the demand for their comeuppance?
You say he took spots from deserving academics, but misconduct is an open secret across the entire sector. Surveys show 1 in 7 UK academics admit to plagiarising, and 1 in 5 admit to outright faking data. There are thousands of people sitting in taxpayer-funded university posts right now who have done the exact same thing.
The normal, healthy mechanism for dealing with bad scholarship is straightforward: internal investigations, journal retractions, and disciplinary panels. That is the system white academics benefit from every day. What happened here wasn't a standard review. Cofnas used this to push his own well-documented obsession with race and IQ, turning it into a public pile-on that mocked a man's childhood disability and hounded him until he took his own life.
White scholars get quiet internal reviews and second chances. A Black neurodivergent scholar got turned into a public spectacle and driven to suicide. Calling a digital mob a healthy mechanism for society is just dressing up selective malice as civic duty.
You're seeing the asymmetry in how the media treats the two cases and you're attributing it to racism. This is an error. There are two reasons this story blew up so hard.
The main one is that this was such an egregious DEI case - his work has essentially zero scholarship value, he was only promoted so highly because of the woke fervour at the time and he was a triple-win for DEI (black, neurodivergent, and with a lower class upbringing). In this sense, you could say it was "because he was black", but not really; any diversity hire with abysmal output would've been held to account and rightly so. It would also have been just as sensational if a white professor became the youngest ever Oxbridge professor but then it was revealed that nepotism was the reason for his appointment rather than actual scholarship and merit. Why? Because people like to see thieves and frauds get their comeuppance.
The second reason it blew up is that his many ridiculous and easily dispovable biographical claims make excellent fodder for news commentary and sound bites.
Random white academics may get caught for plagiarism but they're missing both of these ingredients because they actually produce real scholarship and don't spin dozens of fairy tale lies about themselves. Thoughtless people have a bad habit of attributing all disparities to the racist intent of others - please don't be among them!
Let's be completely honest about what you are actually saying here.
When a white academic cheats, you still see them as a real scholar who just messed up. When a Black academic does the same thing, you write off his entire life as worthless and blame his whole career on his skin colour.
"DEI hire" doesn't change what is going on. Assuming a white person naturally earned their place even when they break the rules, while assuming a Black person could only ever get there as a charity case, has nothing to do with academic standards. It is just racism in its rawest form.
You claim this isn't about race, yet your own logic relies on a massive racial bias. When white academics are caught plagiarising, you automatically assume they still produce "real scholarship." When a Black academic is caught, you instantly write off his entire life's work as having "zero value" and reduce his career to a diversity quota. Giving white scholars the benefit of individual merit while reducing a Black scholar to a political category is exactly the asymmetry I am talking about.
You also call his childhood struggles an easily disprovable fairy tale. Jason Arday's diagnoses of global development delay and autism were publicly verified by his family and by Professor Simon Baron-Cohen. Baron-Cohen is one of the most respected clinical autism experts on the planet. You are actively choosing to believe the armchair diagnosis of a blogger over a world-renowned medical expert, just so you can feel justified in mocking a dead man's neurodivergence.
You argue that a white professor would face the exact same sensational destruction for a scandal. History proves otherwise. Look at Kevin Kruse at Princeton or Laurence Tribe at Harvard. Both faced highly publicised plagiarism scandals involving extensive, verbatim copying. Neither had their medical histories dragged through the mud by an orchestrated online mob. Neither was hounded to the point of suicide. They faced standard academic criticism and kept their prestigious Ivy League jobs.
People only seem to demand this level of absolute, life-ending destruction when the target fits a very specific demographic. Twisting yourself into knots to justify a vicious public pile-on isn't defending meritocracy. It is just making excuses for cruelty. 🤦🏻♂️
You're making leaps that aren't justified here. I claimed that Arday produced virtually zero real scholarship by reviewing what he called, in his own words, his 10 most important publications. I didn't assume that; everyone with an Internet connection can plainly see there's no substance there.
Yes, I assume that most scholars of any race who are caught plagiarizing actually produce real scholarship, because I assume that most academics produce real scholarship! Jason's is a case where we know simultaneously that he's a fraud and liar, AND he's a plagiarist, AND he was unduly promoted because of DEI despite abysmal scholarly output. Neither of the examples you give meet those criteria.
Your own arguments and statistics prove you wrong. If 1 in 7 UK academics admit to plagiarism, then just statistically there must be dozens of black UK professors who have been caught plagiarizing, and yet they didn't get this treatment. Why might that be? Oh, it's because I'm 100% correct, and the attention is because of the other scintillating factors, not his race. So they were black professors who plagiarized, but there was no racist mob around ... That's because there was no racist mob re Arday either. People just like to see frauds and thieves get their comeuppance, regardless of their race.
He could have just self identified as "bipolar" and done some sort of mental health redemption arc tour and all of the coddlers would have bought it. For someone that supposedly ran 300 miles in 3 days he sure didn't seem to have much resilience.
Excellent and comprehensive.
I remember when I was getting published during law school, my paper (which was honestly a pedestrian analysis of a Supreme Court case!) was torn to SHREDS. Every citation was scrutinized by a team of other law students. I got my ass kicked, though the ultimate result was at least my own genuine analyses and conclusions.
Which is why I can’t believe stuff like this happens at the highest levels of scholarship! How are these papers not getting reviewed? Perhaps I’m being naive, but shouldn’t these papers be scrutinized as much as a college student’s?
Anyway, I enjoyed your systematic takedown. Cheers!
Well, being bad at law school means you will be a bad lawyer who can't win any cases. Being bad at the humanities, on the other hand, means that you can publish a highly regarded paper on how the standards by which you are "bad" are a product of whitecismaleheteronormativity.
One has an incentive to weed out ideas that don't hold up, the other doesn't.