Race

[Anonymouse]

I am amazed at the lack of profundity by those that defend the claim of egalitarianism.

I started a simple a thread. I am beginning to wonder if Fadix or Anileve even read the thread. It seems their attacks were directed only on the messenger, or a certain scientist that dares to present claims of racial differences, and not the content. It is ipso facto clear that those who cry for "tolerance" and "egalitarianism" and defend the "equality" of the races, are the ones that are the most intolerant towards dissenters.

I have repeatedly addressed the issue of name calling or smearing someone as a "hater" or "racist", yet it continues to predominate. No one is a hater here, except for Dan, but the same smear tactics that are used by the egalitarians, who themselves invented the phrase "white supremacist" ( in order to have something to screw drive with ), are not becoming for any intellectual discourse. Let's refrain from letting emotions get in the way shall we?

Whether you attribute racial differences to genetics or environment makes no difference, as you are admitting to differences, thus corroborating that nothing and no one is equal. In order for the defenders - rather those who disagree with my argument - to have any headway in this discussion, they must first define the premise of which their argument is based on, egalitarianism, and prove it. Forming a conclusion, while not showing how that conclusion derives from a false premise, is a logical fallacy.

I am an "anarchist", as defined by the status quo, better known as a "libertarian". I have already maintained I subscribe to the Austrian school of thought of economics. I am only stating this to save myself from getting smeared, perhaps too late. I am not a Statist, nor am I a Nazi, nor am I a "racist" or a "fascist", unless you cannot fathom the issue at face value and feel the need to reinforce your worldview by labeling everyone a hatemonger. If being a "racist" means that one doesn't buy into the egalitarian fiction and notes that indeed there are inequalities, then I am a "racist". "Racist" is another smear term invented by none other than the people who wish to make race "non-existent". It's amazing how terms such as "racism" and "white supremacy" are invented by the exact people who themselves are against this. Getting back to the topic. This is no room for ideological tug of wars. You either present an argument or stop name calling and resorting to ad homenim fallacies. It's sad we have to waste disk space to address such trivial things, when we can instead be talking about the topic, and not the tug of war surrounding it.

[Anonymouse]

In addressing the issue of "equality" I will post a piece from Murray N. Rothbard, who wrote, Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market. The specific text I am quoting is his response to objections regarding the free market, and one of them, is curiously enough, the issue of "equality". It would do justice for people to read this.

-----------------------------------------------

Number4: The Alleged Need for Equality

Probably the most common ethical criticism of the market economy is that it fails to achieve the goal of equality. Equality has been championed on various "economic" grounds, such as minimum social sacrifice or the diminishing marginal utility of money (see the chapter on taxation above). But in recent years economists have recognized that they cannot justify egalitarianism by economics, that they ultimately need an ethical basis for equality.

Economics or praxeology cannot establish the validity of ethical ideals, but even ethical goals must be framed meaningfully. They must therefore pass muster before praxeology as being internally consistent and conceptually possible. The credentials of "equality" have so far not been adequately tested.

It is true that many objections have been raised that give egalitarians pause. Sometimes realization of the necessary consequences of their policies causes an abandonment, though more often a slowing down, of the egalitarian program. Thus: compulsory equality will demonstrably stifle incentive, eliminate the adjustment processes of the market economy, destroy all efficiency in satisfying consumer wants, greatly lower capital formation, and cause capital consumption—all effects signifying a drastic fall in general standards of living. Furthermore, only a free society is casteless, and therefore only freedom will permit mobility of income according to productivity. Statism, on the other hand, is likely to freeze the economy into a mold of (nonproductive) inequality.

Yet these arguments, though powerful, are by no means conclusive. Some people will pursue equality anyway; many will take these considerations into account by settling for some cuts in living standards in order to gain more equality.

In all discussions of equality, it is considered self-evident that equality is a very worthy goal. But this is by no means self-evident. For the very goal of equality itself is open to serious challenge. The doctrines of praxeology are deduced from three universally acceptable axioms: the major axiom of the existence of purposive human action; and the minor postulates, or axioms, of the diversity of human skills and natural resources, and the disutility of labor. Although it is possible to construct an economic theory of a society without these two minor axioms (but not without the major one), they are included in order to limit our theorizing to laws that can apply directly to reality. Anyone who wants to set forth a theory applicable to interchangeable human beings is welcome to do so.

Thus, the diversity of mankind is a basic postulate of our knowledge of human beings. But if mankind is diverse and individuated, then how can anyone propose equality as an ideal? Every year, scholars hold Conferences on Equality and call for greater equality, and no one challenges the basic tenet. But what justification can equality find in the nature of man? If each individual is unique, how else can he be made "equal" to others than by destroying most of what is human in him and reducing human society to the mindless uniformity of the ant heap? It is the task of the egalitarian, who confidently enters the scene to inform the economist of his ultimate ethical goal, to prove his case. He must show how equality can be compatible with the nature of mankind and must defend the feasibility of a possible egalitarian world.

But the egalitarian is in even direr straits, for it can be shown that equality of income is an impossible goal for mankind. Income can never be equal. Income must be considered, of course, in real and not in money terms; otherwise there would be no true equality. Yet real income can never be equalized. For how can a New Yorker's enjoyment of the Manhattan skyline be equalized with an Indian's? How can the New Yorker swim in the Ganges as well as an Indian? Since every individual is necessarily situated in a different space, every individual's real income must differ from good to good and from person to person. There is no way to combine goods of different types, to measure some income "level," so it is meaningless to try to arrive at some sort of "equal" level. The fact must be faced that equality cannot be achieved because it is a conceptually impossible goal for man, by virtue of his necessary dispersion in location and diversity among individuals. But if equality is an absurd (and therefore irrational) goal, then any effort to approach equality is correspondingly absurd. If a goal is pointless, then any attempt to attain it is similarly pointless.

Many people believe that, though equality of income is an absurd ideal, it can be replaced by the ideal of equality of opportunity. Yet this, too, is as meaningless as the former concept. How can the New Yorker's opportunity and the Indian's opportunity to sail around Manhattan, or to swim in the Ganges, be "equalized"? Man's inevitable diversity of location effectively eliminates any possibility of equalizing "opportunity."…

Human life is not some sort of race or game in which each person should start from an identical mark. It is an attempt by each man to be as happy as possible. And each person could not begin from the same point, for the world has not just come into being; it is diverse and infinitely varied in its parts. The mere fact that one individual is necessarily born in a different place from someone else immediately insures that his inherited opportunity cannot be the same as his neighbor's. The drive for equality of opportunity would also require the abolition of the family since different parents have unequal abilities; it would require the communal rearing of children. The State would have to nationalize all babies and raise them in State nurseries under "equal" conditions. But even here conditions cannot be the same, because different State officials will themselves have different abilities and personalities. And equality can never be achieved because of necessary differences of location.

Thus, the egalitarian must not be permitted any longer to end discussion by simply proclaiming equality as an absolute ethical goal. He must first face all the social and economic consequences of egalitarianism and try to show that it does not clash with the basic nature of man. He must counter the argument that man is not made for a compulsory ant heap existence. And, finally, he must recognize that the goals of equality of income and equality of opportunity are conceptually unrealizable and are therefore absurd. Any drive to achieve them is ipso facto absurd as well.

Egalitarianism is, therefore, a literally senseless social philosophy. Its only meaningful formulation is the goal of "equality of liberty"—formulated by Herbert Spencer in his famous Law of Equal Freedom: "Every man has freedom to do all he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man." This goal does not attempt to make every individual's total condition equal—an absolutely impossible task; instead, it advocates liberty—a condition of absence of coercion over person and property for every man.

Yet even this formulation of equality has many flaws and could profitably be discarded. In the first place, it opens the door for ambiguity and for egalitarianism. In the second place, the term "equality" connotes measurable identity with a fixed, extensive unit. "Equal length" means identity of measurement with an objectively determinable unit. In the study of human action, whether in praxeology or social philosophy, there is no such quantitative unit, and hence there can be no such "equality." Far better to say that "each man should have X" than to say that "all men should be equal in X." If someone wants to urge every man to buy a car, he formulates his goal in that way—"Every man should buy a car"—rather than in such terms as: "All men should have equality in car buying." The use of the term "equality" is awkward as well as misleading.

And finally, as Clara Dixon Davidson pointed out so cogently many years ago, Spencer's Law of Equal Freedom is redundant. For if every man has freedom to do all that he wills, it follows from this very premise that no man's freedom has been infringed or invaded. The whole second clause of the law after "wills" is redundant and unnecessary. Since the formulation of Spencer's Law, opponents of Spencer have used the qualifying clause to drive holes into the libertarian philosophy. Yet all this time they were hitting at an encumbrance, not at the essence of the law. The concept of "equality" has no rightful place in the "Law of Equal Freedom," being replaceable by the logical quantifier "every." The "Law of Equal Freedom" could well be renamed "The Law of Total Freedom."

[Darorinag]

Interesting posts, Anon. Still haven't read the above one though.

Some excerpts from Christopher Brand's The g Factor: General Intelligence and its Implications:


[A]doption of black infants into white middle class homes had yielded its usual 8-point IQ gain plus some narrowing of the gap between black and white adoptees at age 7; but, by 17, the black youngsters lagged the white by the usual 12-15 IQ points (Weinberg et al., 1992; Lynn, 1994).

Black children's lower IQ's persisted even when black homes were matched to those of whites in terms of income, years of education, marital stability and health, or when children grew up in professionally selected white homes; blacks did not perform conspicuously better in any of the countries or North American cities run by blacks themselves - indeed, they usually performed much worse, though testing was patchy and subject to the interpretative problems that arise when comparing people having different countries and languages; and there was mounting evidence that the Japanese children, whether growing up in their war-torn and subjugated homeland or in North America had IQ levels that actually exceeded those of whites (Lynn, 1982; Vernon, 1982; Herrnstein & Murray, 1994; Burnham, 1994). The American dream of human improvability was now becoming a nightmare, for the only way to equalize black people in outcomes (and not just in opportunities) was to compel 'affirmative action' by colleges and employers. To legislate and enforce reverse racism would necessarily create bitterness - especially amongst Asians(5) and whites of mediocre abilities who were thus deprived altogether of college places and middle-class career opportunities by still less qualified black candidates.

Why expect further Afro-American gains? The secular g rise - or part of it - was presumably due to the massive twentieth-century improvements in affluence, in diet, in health and hygiene, and in obstetric and gynaecological practice. Yet, if such improvement-led g rises have occurred in the past, black people in the USA - the world's best-fed country - will already have enjoyed the g boost along with whites. Big nutritional improvements will be more readily achieved in people who, because of poverty or ignorance of proper nutrition have especially poor diets in the first place; so any black 'catching up' that was possible should have been accomplished already in the USA. Some highly publicized experiments have claimed IQ-boosting by vitamin and mineral supplements in schoolchildren on normal diets. However, these gains have occurred only on some tests rather than others; the particular tests showing gains were not especially the tests of fluid intelligence on which researchers had expected gains (Blinkhorn, 1991); and the gains were mainly slight and bore no relation to dosage (see Peritz, 1994(9)).

A proper understanding of human intelligence does not lead to segregated schooling decreed by experts - whether by teachers or by psychologists. Anyhow, schooling is increasingly segregated already by what parents can pay for their house-locations so that their children can escape the low standard of much state education (Wooldridge, 1994). Rather, a proper understanding of g discloses the need to allow constant niche-selection by children themselves - at school as much as at home. To associate belief in genetic g with some kind of brutal pessimism and educational nihilism may seem progressive and radical; but it is actually a distraction from how egalitarian policies waste children's time in the name of communal harmony yet still require repeated and expensive state intervention in family life.

[Anonymouse]

That is interesting, but let's not forget given race, it is up to the individual to leap as far as he may choose.
-------------------------------

Liberation through Commerce

by Gary Galles

[Posted March 11, 2004]

Many newspapers I read in February published articles in honor of Black History Month. In contrast to those who now so stridently advocate more government (i.e., more coercion) as the "solution" to social problems facing blacks, one article about George Washington Carver stood out to me as a sharp contrast. His creative scientific efforts (including developing products from peanuts, sweet potatoes and pecans) benefited blacks as well as many others, without coercion.



With my interest piqued, I started researching Carver, whose efforts were critical to southern economic development. But that soon led me to his connection to Booker T. Washington and the Tuskegee Institute he founded and led (they are buried alongside each other on the Tuskegee campus). In Washington's equally inspirational life and his more extensive written work, I discovered a man with a far better understanding of the moral means to success—self-improvement that benefited others as well through voluntary arrangements—than statist proposals others pushed then, and even more push now.

Booker T. Washington, born a slave, was seven when the Emancipation Proclamation was announced. At 11, he got his first book and taught himself to read. He thought to "get into a schoolhouse and study . . . would be about the same as getting into paradise." At 16, he went to Hampton Institute in Virginia—500 miles away—with but $1.50 in his pocket, where he attended classes by day and worked nights to earn his room and board. After graduation, Hampton made him an instructor. In 1881, he founded and then led what is now the Tuskegee Institute for years as principal, emphasizing education and an unwavering work ethic.

Washington was a tireless educator and advocate of black self-improvement. At Tuskegee, he taught technical skills needed to provide the ability to earn a good living. He pushed the values of individual responsibility, the dignity of work, and the need for enduring moral character as the best means for former slaves, who started with little but the shirts on their backs, to succeed. He encouraged business, industry and entrepreneurship, rather than political agitation, as the most effective foundation for success. He formed the National Negro Business League. He understood and modeled the spirit of capitalism, recognizing that those who serve others best will benefit themselves by doing so.
Washington recognized that for blacks to advance, starting with little but the legacy of government-enforced slavery, coercion on other fronts was not the answer. Instead, that could not be found except in self-improvement and voluntary arrangements. That is because, regardless of past injustices, only voluntary arrangements prevent additional injustices from being committed, and "No question is ever permanently settled until it is settled in the principles of the highest justice."

On the Inadequacy of Coercion

- . . . whenever people act upon the idea that the disadvantage of one man is the good of another, there slavery exists.
-You can't hold a man down in a ditch without staying down in the ditch with him.
-There are two ways of exerting one's strength; one is pushing down, the other is pulling up.
-decide with yourselves whether a race that is thus willing to die for its country, should not be given the highest opportunity to live for its country.
-I have never seen one who did not want to be free, or one who would return to slavery.
-Slavery presented a problem of destruction; freedom presents one of construction.
- . . . we shall make a fatal error if we yield to the temptation of believing that mere opposition to our wrongs, and the simple utterance of complaint, will take the place of progressive, constructive action, which must constitute the bedrock of all true civilization . . .
-[instead of politics] . . . I would be helping in a more substantial way by assisting in the laying of the foundation of the race through a generous education of the hand, head, and heart.

On Self-Improvement

-I have never had much patience with the multitudes of people who are always ready to explain why one cannot succeed. I have always had high regard for the man who could tell me how to succeed.
-Each one should remember there is a chance for him.
no one can degrade us except ourselves . . .
-Nothing ever comes to one, that is worth having, except as a result of hard work.
-Nor shall we permit our grievances overshadow our opportunities.
-I have learned that success is to be measured not so much by the position that one has reached in life as by the obstacles which he has had to overcome while trying to succeed.
-Few things help an individual more than to place responsibility upon him, and to let him know that you trust him.
-Character, not circumstances, make the man.
-. . . only little men cherish a spirit of hatred.
-I will permit no man to narrow and degrade my soul by making me hate him. If you want to lift yourself up, lift up someone else.
-I believe that any man's life will be filled with constant and unexpected encouragement, if he makes up his mind to do his level best each day . . .
-Success in life is founded upon attention to . . . the every day things nearest to us rather than to the things that are remote and uncommon.
- . . . in a state of freedom, along with the elements of industry there has got to go one other element, and that is the element of intelligence, the element of education.
- . . . freedom, in the broadest and highest sense, has never been a bequest; it has been a conquest.
-One constructive effort in the way of progress does more to blot out discrimination than all the whinings in the world.

On Freedom and Voluntary Arrangements

- . . . the most complete development of each human being can come only through his being permitted to exercise the most complete freedom compatible with the freedom of others.
-Our republic is the outgrowth of the desire for liberty that is natural in every human breast . . . freedom of body, mind, and soul, and the most complete guarantee of the safety of life and property.
- . . . at bottom, the interests of humanity and of the individual are one . . .
-In a state of freedom and enlightenment, [man] renders the highest and most helpful form of service [to others].
-The world cares very little about what a man knows; it is what a man or woman is able to do that counts.
-No man who continues to add something to the material, intellectual and moral well-being of the place in which he lives is left long without proper reward.
-No race that has anything to contribute to the markets of the world is long in any degree ostracized.
-The individual who can do something that the world wants will, in the end, make his way regardless of race.
-More and more thoughtful students of the race problem are beginning to see that business and industry constitute what we may call the strategic points in its solution.
-...those who are guilty of such sweeping criticisms [of the rich] do not know how many people would be made poor, and how much suffering would result, if wealthy people were to part all at once with any large proportion of their wealth in a way to disorganize and cripple great business enterprises.

In reading Booker T. Washington's words, I found someone who inspired me with both his actions and his character. His emphasis on rejecting coercion of others, and relying instead on self-improvement and voluntary arrangements is exactly what we, as parents, try teach our children today, regardless of race, as we prepare them to make the most of their lives. And despite the fact that it involves hard work and sacrifice (as does every real success), which makes it a message many do not want to hear, it is as true, and as valuable, today as it was during his life.

____________________________

Gary M. Galles is a professor of economics at Pepperdine University.

http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=1468

[Darorinag]

Anon, as always, your great articles and sources are very insightful and interesting.

What I was talking about in this thread and in fact everywhere else whenever the question of intelligence and race comes up, is ONLY intelligence - i.e. not coupled with anything such as success or personal achievements. On that note, I am a firm believer that success does not always require intelligence. That is not to underestimate the contributions of Booker T. Washington or other blacks. As I pointed out, I am not claiming that the difference in intelligence levels necessarily imply inferiority; just that they imply difference, and hence inequality.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Darorinag Anon, as always, your great articles and sources are very insightful and interesting.

What I was talking about in this thread and in fact everywhere else whenever the question of intelligence and race comes up, is ONLY intelligence - i.e. not coupled with anything such as success or personal achievements. On that note, I am a firm believer that success does not always require intelligence. That is not to underestimate the contributions of Booker T. Washington or other blacks. As I pointed out, I am not claiming that the difference in intelligence levels necessarily imply inferiority; just that they imply difference, and hence inequality.

Since it is common of egalitarians that suggest "race doesn't exist", yet to contradict that statement by supporting affirmitive action and other Statist legislation ( more coercion ) that chooses one race over another, mind boggles me. The same ones that cry out for "equality" and "no race", are the same ones that support Statist legislation such as affirmitive action, forceful integration of schools, and other measures aimed at bringing about "equality", by favoring one race over another. The irrationality of the position can only be vindicated by personal attacks. With that said, I agree with your point.

I was trying to make this thread not so much about posting articles, but that one about Washington was one I liked and thought it was interesting because of his idea of not having "victim status". It is interesting to note that the first people to advocate for "racial equality" the "civil rights", and other Statist measures were mostly Communist Jews. But why bother stating this, when it is easier to label someone a "racist"? It saves themself having to research and dig up the facts themselves, and remain with their worldview, than expose it to criticism. Perhaps no one has done a finer job than the "racist", Kevin MacDonald, in his Culture of Critique:An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements



Taken from amazon.com

About the Author
KEVIN MACDONALD is Professor of Psychology, California State University, Long Beach. He is the author of numerous works in evolutionary biology, including A People that Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy (Praeger, 1994) and Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (Praeger, 1998). --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Book Description
MacDonald provides a theoretical analysis and review of data on the widespread tendency among certain highly influential, Jewish-dominated intellectual movements to develop radical critiques of gentile culture that are compatible with the continuity of Jewish identification. Particular attention is paid to Boasian anthropology, psychoanalysis, leftist political ideology and behavior, the Frankfurt School of Social Research, and the efforts to influence United States immigration policy. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

[Darorinag]

I totally agree with what you said.

The fact that books such as the one you mentioned are not even present in university libraries (and I can name more than a dozen of them) in contrast to books of propaganda about racial equality, affirmative action, and so on being present in huge numbers (exceeding 200 for each topic) demonstrates how much people are willing to censor for the sake of their personal, political, or cultural agendas. I was reading a post by Ara Baliozian just a few hours ago and I find that it applies to this and many such cases: "Censorship is an admission of defeat."

This applies to almost any politically incorrect idea that has undergone fierce censorship from the state.

People in academic circles who conduct researches on these things are being labelled racists left and right, simply because their findings do not coincide with what would be ideal for the state's plan of social "unity." This is nothing new. Science has lost its objectivism; history has lost its truth. Society has lost its individuality.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Darorinag I totally agree with what you said.

The fact that books such as the one you mentioned are not even present in university libraries (and I can name more than a dozen of them) in contrast to books of propaganda about racial equality, affirmative action, and so on being present in huge numbers (exceeding 200 for each topic) demonstrates how much people are willing to censor for the sake of their personal, political, or cultural agendas. I was reading a post by Ara Baliozian just a few hours ago and I find that it applies to this and many such cases: "Censorship is an admission of defeat."

This applies to almost any politically incorrect idea that has undergone fierce censorship from the state.

People in academic circles who conduct researches on these things are being labelled racists left and right, simply because their findings do not coincide with what would be ideal for the state's plan of social "unity." This is nothing new. Science has lost its objectivism; history has lost its truth. Society has lost its individuality.

I attend UCLA, perhaps one of the most liberal "equality"-driven campus' in the nation. Bruinwalk, is a strip of walk on the campus that is full of every political fringe group you can think of advertising themselves, from "Christian Korean Club", to the "Indonesian Student's Business Association" to "Israeli Students Association" to "Jewish Business Club". Ethnic solidarity among non-whites and Jews is encouraged and promoted. "Whites" do not have any such club, nor are considered to be "white", but you can deduce what the reaction would be. Of course when they say "liberal" it means those who agree with them.

Recently the school's "Bruin Republicans", another club, launched a campaign against the Hispanic student group MEChA, interestingly, one of their literature contains ideas about the breakway of the southwestern U.S. for greater Aztlan, and other militant chicano claims against whites. The Bruin Republicans, while I do not agree with them, attacked MEChA as being "racist", in in the UCLA newspaper the Daily Bruin, it was the Bruin Republicans that got verbally assaulted and washed by all sorts of commentators.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Fadix What does it say? Nothing...

It says more than you wish to take away from it. It says that there are indeed marked differences in the population groups.

[Darorinag]

I am not surprised, Anon... and who's to be blamed? The individuals for not thinking by themselves about what they're being bombarded with, or the state for the massive brainwashing that it's implementing? Are those "liberals" aware of their own racism, or are they blind to it? I am not sure about that. But everything they say and do shows that they are doing it with the full realisation of what their actions result in and the hypocrisy of what they are doing. But then again, if they are called hypocrites, who's to believe the "racists" for calling them hypocrites, right? It's a loop with no exit. The cause results in an effect and the effect further fuels the cause... The most popular term in classrooms these days is "marginalisation." How women, blacks (and other non-whites), gays, and other "minorities" are marginalised by our "white heterosexual patriarchal society."

What you said also exists on my campus, with the exception that you aren't able (under the Canadian "hate crime laws") to do what the "Bruin Republicans" did. Arguably, the Canadians with all their claims of moral and legal superiority, lag behind USA in the most inherent of rights, freedom of speech, although arguably again, it's not much better in USA (from what I hear).

The university I attend has two polarities, the conservatives & zionists (albeit sometimes acting separately), and the liberals & pro-Arabs (aka anti-zionists), who are pro-"diversity." Where do non-jewish, non-pro-arab, non-pro-diversity people fall? There is a black "alliance" COMPLETELY funded by the university, in addition to the Jewish student federation. To speak about "white alliance", however, is considered racism; people are obsessed with whites just like some men were obsessed with hunting "witches" during the witch-hunting and trials era...

To celebrate white culture and white heritage is considered racist, neo-Nazist, denialist, revisionist, anti-immigration. You name it. To talk about the differences in sexes brings vicious attacks on you by the radical feminists who run the "Women's centre" and the Sexual Assault Survivors Support Line... To talk against the gay rights movement and its hypocrisies brings complaints from the LGBT association against you at the Office of Student Affairs, and calls to the cops and security because of non-existant "threats."

To refuse to befriend black people in your class is considered racist. To speak out in a tutorial against that liberal nutcase who insists that there should be mandatory "positive-space" (LGBT) training for all teachers and students in high schools would have severe effects on your marks, because well, the T.A is a lesbian.... Not to mention the "humiliation" (personal attacks) you will receive by the mindless parroting of mainstream propaganda by the 29 other students in the classroom...

To be anti-communist labels you as an ignorant Nazi scum who "doesn't know sh*t about politics"...

THIS is the level of brainwashing we are at. And I could go on with more examples.

How does this relate to race? It does, in very obvious ways. Race has become the most controversial issue, and in being so, it has sparked censorship, political correctness and other not-so-tolerant practises against dissenters; and this is severely effecting academic freedom and TRUTH. Universities are no longer institutions that provide FACTUAL HIGHER EDUCATION. They are centres of nodding in agreement about politically correct views of the most controversial issues...