Today the Telegraph ran a mad Marxist horror story on an ambitious attempt by the equality tzars to control our tongues:-

Publishers and universities are outlawing dozens of seemingly innocuous words in case they cause offence.

Banned phrases on the list, which was originally drawn up by sociologists, include Old Masters, which has been used for centuries to refer to great painters - almost all of whom were in fact male.

It is claimed that the term discriminates against women and should be replaced by “classic artists”.

The list of banned words was written by the British Sociological Association, whose members include dozens of professors, lecturers and researchers.

The list of allegedly racist words includes immigrants, developing nations and black, while so-called “disablist” terms include patient, the elderly and special needs.

It comes after one council outlawed the allegedly sexist phrase “man on the street”, and another banned staff from saying “brainstorm” in case it offended people with epilepsy.

However the list of “sensitive” language is said by critics to amount to unwarranted censorship and wrongly assume that people are offended by words that have been in use for years.

Well, I’ve had a look at the website of the theologically marxoid British Sociological Association, and found three lists of “Words That Must Never Again Pass Our Sinful Lips”.  Anyone who wants a good laugh can sample these links (at least one of which dates back to 2004, not that you would know it from the Telegraph report): Sex and Gender; Ethnicity and Race, Non-Disablist.

However, this encounter with a malignant academic tumour was but the first of my day.  A little later I came across something called The Anti-Racist Toolkit, a basis, apparently, for “building the Anti-Racist HEI” (High Educational Institution).  It’s dated 2002, and formed the centre-piece of a post-Lawrence Enquiry investigation of Institutional Racism.  It was conceived by three Leeds University sociologists: Laura Turney, Ian Law & Debbie Phillips.  It ventures onto some familiar ground for MR readers:-

Unpicking ‘Whiteness’
For many HEIs, the ‘whiteness’ of the institution goes unnoticed and is simply rationalised into a day-to-day perception of ‘normality’. The research we undertook at the University of Leeds indicated, however, that when forced to identify the ‘face’ of the institution, many people working there described it (with reference to staff) as not only predominantly white, but also predominantly white and male. For the most part, however, people don’t really notice the ‘whiteness’ of an institution and the implications that this normative whiteness has for those staff and students working and studying there. What is more, people tend to over-estimate the numbers of Black and minority ethnic people working and studying in a place and assume that equality policies of any kind work primarily in favour of Black and minority ethnic people, women and disabled candidates (both staff and students). In this way the whiteness of an institution is ignored and downplayed.

... It is only recently that the study of ‘race’, ethnicity and culture has also begun to specifically address questions of whiteness. The study of whiteness has been important for this project for a number of reasons, primarily because the acknowledgement or identification of ‘whiteness’ becomes a way of making unstable its position as the normalised, central space from which ‘others’ (racialised, ethnicised, etc, groups) are differentiated.

READ MORE...

A decade or so ago, one of the frequent frustrations of my life as a school-run parent was catching Steve Jones, a geneticist who has specialised in Bosnian snails, on Radio 4’s Today programme. The BBC of the 90s had a particularly strong penchant for race denial, and here was an “expert” geneticist who talked the mitochondrial talk, and gave them what they wanted to hear.

It wasn’t what I, sitting in my car, wanted to hear.  But it was to bury the “racism” and “oppression” of people like me - white people, in other words - that the whole charade was played out.  And pretty much played out it is, now, in the era of micro-array analysis.  But that doesn’t stop Steve Jones from splurging his same old nonsense at us, when he’s given the chance.  Today the Telegraph has done just that.

Jones’s headline argument is that there are not enough older fathers to drive the evolutionary process in European Man - older fathers being the key producers of genetic mutation in their spermatazoa.  Somewhere along the line the confused Telegraph sub-eds have widened the claim to a complete halting of the process in Mankind, which is obviously silly because Jones says:-

Today’s men start late, but stop early. In Cameroon, almost half the fathers are over 50, in Pakistan about a fifth, and in France only about one in twenty.

So evolution marches on everywhere else but among us, it seems.  But towards the end of the article it becomes plain that when Jones says “evolution” in respect to Cameroonians and Pakistanis he actually means “European race-replacement”:-

As Darwin himself realised, evolution’s third ingredient is isolation. Humans are 10,000 times more common than any other mammal of their size, and without modern technology the world’s population would be half a million - about that of Glasgow.

People are dense, and on the move. No man (or woman) is an island nowadays, for the world is becoming a single genetic continent. History has always been made in bed, but the beds are getting closer together.

Once, we stayed close to where we were born and populations could build their own identity. Now, we no longer have to marry the girl or boy next door but can hop onto a plane and find a mate from miles away.

How far was your birthplace from that of your partner and how far apart were your mother and father, and your grandmother and grandfather on each side, born? In almost every case the distance has increased and continues to do so (my wife and I first saw the light 3,000 miles apart, my mother and father ten; and, as my students say, it shows).

Everywhere, the biological frontiers are getting leakier. A grand averaging is slowing evolution’s power. One British marriage in fifty is between partners from different ethnic groups and many more cohabit.

Afro-Caribbean males are half as likely again to marry a white female than are black women to find a white husband, while among Chinese those preferences are reversed. Britain is among the most sexually open nations in the world.

People choose mates almost as much by level of education as by skin colour. Other countries are going the same way and Homo sapiens will soon be a lot more uniform than it was.

Health, birth control and the healing power of lust all conspire to tell us that, at least in the developed world, and at least for the time being, evolution is over. So, if you are worried about what Utopia is going to be like, cheer up - you are living in it now.

All this describes the European genocide quite well.  It is only when, at the very end, Jones comes to the values to be ascribed to it that we realise what being a devoted Labour Party supporter does to the scientific mind.

This 2002 BBC video predates The Discovery Channel’s “Ice Age Columbus” by 3 years and is, in my opinion, superior.