Trump

They're not the only ones. There are several uni's who just will not allow any challenge to their cosy, left wing, consensus view.

If you can spare 10 min's, I strongly urge you to read this superb article on this subject by brilliant Camille Paglia. thesmartset.com/free-speech-the-modern-campus/

*I'm posting now, because will not have time later on).

Trump goes against their "divide and rule", and he goes against their Syria policy of backing the Jihadis against a secular regime. One day the entire truth will come out about the pay for play charidees and Benghazi and who backed the Jihadis and who funded Isis and who promoted the divide and rule that caused so many problems across the world

When I first learnt that USA was backing the fucking jihadists, I could not make sense of it. Why on earth create another vacuum for a fundamentalist regime to take power. They naffed up re Iraq and Libya, so why another? I now understand far more, but this is not the place to expound on it - everyone can do their own research.

Egypt seemed to be the only country who resisted a takeover by the jihadis and threw out the Muslim Brotherhood. They are one of the groups that make up the jihadis fighting in Syria and elsewhere.

The Western media is fond of saying that Assad is "a monster" and needs to be removed. This is regime change and fuck-all to do with the West. I am told by Iraqi friends that life under Hussein was not bad; no group such as christians or jews were allowed to be discriminated against. He was not a good guy but the country was in life.

Life and attitudes in the MENA countries are very different to ours in the West. There is now a great deal of hatred between the two main sects of Islam and it is for them to find a middle way, no one else.

I'm of an age that I can remember life before political correctness. You know, when black people could be called derogatory names and politicians on the right could put leaflets through your door stating to vote for them if you didn't want a nr for a neighbour

toomanypetals - No, that is NOT what PC is about. Banning such language was a good move, but I believe it would have been cultured out anyway. Political correctness was introduced to us firstly with regard to teaching us that epithets like the above should not be used. That was 'entry level' of PC but then the great & the good went on with their real intention, which was to make people afraid to talk candidly. Some were even afraid to have thoughts, because it felt to them as if they would be found out!

The whole PC business was a long-range plan to essentially (i) control thought, and (ii) dissuade us from challenging. But more than that, an atmosphere was created that somehow if you were not part of the consensus of opinion on anything, you were bad.

When I first encountered it, it felt like a hive mentality. Remember this film?

If that is correct, that Obama removed the hotline to the Kremlin, then he really is not the cultured, mature, educated person we see on our screens. That is what a bitchy teenager would do.

Germaine Greer was banned from speaking on campuses because of one comment she made about transgender, which offended politically-correct thought.

The unis who banned not only Greer but also Bindel must not have read any of their writings in the first place. But so what is they have a different view - isnt that what uni debate is all about? Clearly not, uni debate is about agreeing with the prevailing political bullshit.

Would you agree that IonaMumsnet's plee, not to use disablist language, is political correctness gone mad?

Jeez. If you cannot differentiate then you really do hv a problem.

Good post Southallgirl I completely agree.

All this screeching that passes for debate, and the inability to name a problem and discuss it has had to come from somewhere. People who cannot acknowledge a reality have been brainwashed. This inculcation must have started in our schools and continues into university. It seems others seem to be of the same opinion:

"The proportion of far left academics in British universities is completely out of proportion with national population norms. An example? A leading prof at King's London, a Professor of European Studies, has been on the leadership of the Trotskyite Socialist Workers Party since the 1970s. He has been hugely influential in the lives of hundreds of students. The political indoctrination of students under the guise of university teaching has gone unchallenged in British academia for far too long."

www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html?_r=1

Oh my gosh!!!. Diane Abbot is being called a loony lefty, her voice impersonated and this is ethnic hatred? So Politicians can get satirised, impersonated and mocked all the time in this country but Diane Abbot's ethnicity means she can't be included in that and needs protection t?

You know howabout In Colonial times there was a very paternal relationship between blacks and whites in Africa. Whites often regarded blacks as children and treated them as such.

*By the way, it's against the law to incite racial hatred and that includes using hate speak. Obviously the law has boundaries regarding what can and can't be said in a public sphere. Rightly so(

In that case, why is this type of demo allowed to continue? No one is ever cautioned or arrested. This is hate speech and incitement to violence made in public. And there are worst ones than these examples.

Just because Im looking at market watch this morning...

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bond-guru-bill-gross-says-trump-voters-will-suffer-most-from-election-result-2016-11-16?mod=MWstoryytopstories

Whilst the message is expected, I think this quote from Bill Gross shows a little insight. (From the above article)

"But if Trump fails to deliver on his campaign promises, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are prepared to stem the tide of global populism, Gross says. Unless the political establishments adopts new, bold policies to help workers reclaim their lost share of U.S. GDP, “populists will reject establishment parties in almost every future election.”

Id agree with that.

Cleese, having worked with psychiatrist Robin Skynner, says there may even be something more sinister behind the insistence to be always be politically correct

Yes, I've always felt this. It gives me a shiver down my spine. The people I came across who are like that seem like automatons, like the Borg!

Market watch are selling potential 20% gains playing the mexican market at the moment, due to some confidence that Trumps 'bombast' was just that.

www.marketwatch.com/story/mexico-is-now-a-screaming-buy-for-investors-thanks-to-donald-trump-2016-11-16?reflink=zacks

A small flurry of uncertainty, or confidence that the bombast was indeed bombast?

Thanks for the HIGNFY link Claig. Id lost the will to go seeking, so thank you for the quick reference. Tropez, no, no veiled anything. Id hope this can be put to bed now, though I think the positive discrimination debate could go on for some years yet.

Just one other point I meant to say whilst I was catching up here yesterday, language, and the 'disablist' storm. I think Claig had a good point when she noted a cultural/common useage issue. I forget who said 2 nations divide by a common language, but we all know that quote. There are indeed significant discrepancies between US and UK 'understandings' on language. For example, when the Black Lives Matter UK protests happened, I googled to find out more. Reading their website, I was struck between the eyes by their use of the word 'queer'. Now to any american readers out there, the term 'queer' here in the UK was consigned to the homophobic bin of utterly unacceptable words decades ago. What I think I concluded though from that was, it did indeed hugely detract from the point being made behind it.

We've all been confused by unacceptable terms then becoming acceptable if its 'reclaimed' by the group/identity who were originally offended by it. (The N word being the obvious) But Id reiterate Claigs points about PC correctness. If any point or concern raised, is dismissed due to either clumsy communication or a debatable terms used, then that in itself is wrong. PC correctness does indeed shut us down.

Thank Claig .. I'll take a look

I hope I don't have to watch it on Iplayer again, the show was rather a dull one last week.

Sorry to lurk, but I'm genuinely interested to know more about those 'subtle racist digs' that were directed at Diane Abbott on HIGNFY last Friday, howabout ?

Not sure I really explained that too well, however the whole Nigel thing is a good example.

Relations between states are, or were, dictated by protocols and norms. Diplomacy a sombre business with plans and discussions in the background from civil servants and the like producing a coherent discourse through the established and proper channels. Ambassadors, state visits, all that sort of thing.

It wasn't just Farage taunting the foreign office and Theresa May, it was also Trump's team ignoring the norms by even meeting him. Which is a matter of strategy.

Now it may well just be just stating a self evident truth that a failed politician with no elected office or official capacity can short circuit the process, it may even be that said chap might have more influence than the proper channels. A willingness to embrace this this however shows a contempt not just for politicians and the establishment but for the entire apparatus of state.

If a radio shock jock has more influence than a government department then does that make the department obsolete? An anachronism?

Which is the point I was trying to make, destroying something is fine as a source of power, but what happens when you need the very thing you have destroyed and have not been able to replace it with something coherent?

This isn't just a Trump or Nigel thing, Obama for instance ordered that the hotline to the Kremlin be removed, which as a symbol of intent was more powerful than him removing Churchill's image from the Oval office. Those phones were there for good reason, not least the opaqueness of the Kremlin's processes. Removing it signalled that Russia didn't matter. Putin never mentions it explicitly but the butthurt is self evident.

Borris too not attending EU meetings. A crass and clumsy signal of intent.

I would suggest that ignoring the norms of diplomacy also ignores the lessons from history which formed them, slow and cumbersome though they may seem.

Can't say I like the idea of Bannon, no-one likes him not even the loonier alt right. Not sure I like his circle either, Raheem Kassam wouldn't be my choice for a party invite.

Trust me when I say they would love to see the faux outrage and name calling, they wouldn't be influential without it.

Trouble is their agenda is to destroy though without any clue what to build in it's place. If there is a philosophy behind then I can't discern it.

Those who sling mud in their direction are cut from the same cloth, just opposite ends of the spectrum with little signal to noise and nothing constructive to say.

The appointment does indicate a desire for a Trump administration to destroy the GOP as it currently stands. This can be applauded, question is what is proposed to replace it?

Is Bannon likely to expose the little corruptions or merely reinforce them and create new ones? I have no doubt that political correctness will continue to drown in the tidal wave of illiberal tears and I doubt America will forget these protests against democracy. As Trump's strategist though does he know how to rout an already defeated enemy and for what reason.

An interesting appointment, the language from the democrats will be interesting as so far they are just rubbing salt into their own self inflicted wounds.

Nomnomnom ". Whatever happens next is on you."

Wow. Just simply wow. So half of the USA are on a white supremacist march (as are half of the UK as seen in brexit). What on earth are you basing that on?