Friday, July 16, 2004


An email from a British reader:

"This morning BBC Radio 4 at 9 am "reported" that Nic Griffin, leader of the British National Party, had been "caught on camera" saying things about Islam "which he admitted could get him imprisoned". Sounds genuinely reprehensible doesn't it?

Just a while earlier, the Today program had told the very different truth of the matter. Griffin had merely told the truth that Islam [ideology not people] is evil and vicious, and had told the media (very differently from the above) that he would be delighted to defend his words in court.

What better strategy for BNP success could there be than to give them a total monopoly on telling the truth? The fact is that Islam IS an evil and vicious "religion". It's all there in the Koran, in the thug Mohammed's proudly recorded behaviour, in the current practice of all Islamic regimes. And if Holocaust denial is unacceptable, what about Jihad denial, starting with the 80 million killed as a result of genuine Muslims trying to conquer India.

Here's just one bit of the Koran to be starting with, Surah 4-34 - "men are in charge of women .... good women are obedient .... if they disobey, admonish them and scourge them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted""


"I had returned from a sabbatical where I had been working on a book on narcissistic process in organizations. The campus minister was interested in my work and asked me to make a presentation at an institute that he was starting. The presentation, which ultimately grew into Chapter seven of my book Narcissistic Process and Corporate Decay (1990), required a presentation of Freud's concept of the Oedipus complex.

As I was going through this part of the argument, a woman in the audience, who happened to be the chair of the psychology department at the time, had what can only be called a fit. Without addressing herself to anything I was saying in particular, and without any apparent attempt to control her rage, she said that Freud was a sexist and a misogynist, and went on to condemn the entire psychoanalytic enterprise, which she said was "shot through" with sexism and racism. As she talked, it became clear to me that she had little idea of what she was talking about. She said, for example, that the Oedipus complex did not apply to women, which was why Freud invented the idea of the Electra complex. She was evidently unaware of the fact that it was Jung, not Freud, who used the term "Electra complex."

Despite this woman's evident lack of grounding in what she was talking about, her voice seemed to express a feeling of absolute authority. I recall that at the time this struck me as very peculiar. But what struck me as even more peculiar was that as she engaged in this frenzied performance, the other members of the audience were not looking at her as if she were acting strangely, but were looking at me as if I had done something contemptible and despicable. I remember thinking at the time that what was going on in that room was not the way things ought to be done in the university.

I cannot say that I felt wounded by this interaction. I was more bemused than anything else. But I did have the feeling that if events like this were becoming characteristic of the university, this indicated that there was something terribly wrong in an institution that was very important to me, and I felt a degree of outrage over that".

More here


American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.


No comments: