Uncommon valour.

There are points in any man’s life where you’ve been backed into a corner, and then successively downwards, until there’s no escape. They’ve got you pinned and there is simply no hope, no way of winning, no way home. All the moves it’s possible to make have been made, and there are no more chess pieces left on the board. You’ve got nothing left to fight back with. All the ammo has been expended and you’re totally exhausted anyway, but you’ve still got enough spunk left inside of you to find a way of telling them to bugger off.

There’s still that essential little kernel of resistance inside of you which they can never take away from you, and that’s the bit of you they’re really after and the one you’re determined you’ll never give over to them. That last inch. You’d rather die first. If you’ve ever done that harsh trip, you’ll know how it feels. At the bottom of that well of despair and when they’re absolutely sure they’ve got you, if you can make a funny remark at their expense, it totally takes the wind out of their sails.

You can see it in their faces. Suddenly, they realise who’s been kidding who and know they’re totally back to square one, and you can take a perverse satisfaction at destroying what they thought of as a carefully constructed and seductively inviting narrative being instantly trashed. No matter what, you’re not giving up. All along, you’d been the one watching them. You will always get punished for it, but that was going to happen anyway. It’s an act of childish petulance that confirms your aim was true.

It’s a coping with stress mechanism I’ve noticed is common with men. It’s perverse, not very sophisticated, but it’s the final fuck you you’ve been carefully hoarding inside of you just awaiting for the perfect moment to deliver it. Women, as always, have their own approach to dealing with such extreme situations. The weak sisters will start bawling to get the men running to their aid, but the strong ones can weep just as well, but in their case it means nothing. There’s a whole different meaning to it. It’s just a physical stress reaction. They don’t care that they’re crying because they’re not giving up – there’s still lots of fight in them.

Having done more than my share of recruitment, you realise there’s a fair bit of deadwood bolted onto whatever institution someone has passed onto you. The elderly deadwood is always obvious and can’t be got rid of, but the seasoned mahogany that is irreplaceable and approaching retirement is an eternal problem, because they’re so valuable to the organisation. Decades of experience and talent just walking out the door.

Both of those extremes are givens and usually there’s nothing you can do about either. You very quickly come to realise it’s the younger generation you’re recruiting that you should be looking at very hard, because that’s where you can effect a lasting change for the better. Does he or she have a good service ethic, will they steadily grind out the selfless work for the next decade or two, and really get invested in whatever endeavor it is.

I’d like to introduce you to a young woman called Lindsay Shepherd. She is a graduate student employed as a teaching assistant at Wilfred Laurier University, which if you’ve never heard of it is located in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada or the arse end of nowhere. It’s by no means a prestigious university; second-rate on a good day but usually regarded as an obscure third-rate college that hands out degrees in the soft subjects to the academic dross like sweeties. They’re essentially vanity degrees, and therefore of little worth.

She was teaching a class in psychology and to show an alternative viewpoint on the topic being taught, showed a short video by Jordan B. Peterson, a distinguished and tenured professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, which it should be noted comes in considerably higher in the academic pecking order than Laurier. If you read through that link on him, you can see his work is quite wide-ranging. In terms of consensus academia, what’s controversial in some of his published work is that his dissenting views on political correctness and identity politics are not received well by the rigid mentality now prevailing in tertiary level education.

Dissent from the one officially sanctioned viewpoint is not allowed.

As a result of showing the short clip, one or more students made a complaint and Lindsay was dragged up before a disciplinary hearing that quite frankly was nothing more than a Kangaroo court that was always going to deliver a guilty verdict. She wasn’t allowed to be told how many and which students complained, and just to make sure she hadn’t a hope of defending her decision to include the Peterson clip, what exactly the complaint was.

You can get a flavour of what happened inside the meeting from a secret recording that Lindsay made of it. Smart girl. I would recommend you listening to it all the way through, though if you have an ounce of protectiveness in you, you’re probably going to get very angry. If you’re interested, you can also find a longer interview she gave about the controversy, and comes across well in it.

They basically try to crush, bully and browbeat her down and actually manage to reduce her to tears, but she keeps on gamely defending her position that alternative viewpoints should not be suppressed since they’re an expression of free speech. At one point in the inquisition, she actually asks what exactly has she done wrong, what’s she actually being accused of? There’s a distinct pause because none of the bullies can actually think of a concrete answer to that simple question.

The Laurier louts should hang their heads in complete shame for one of the most disgraceful examples of smug academic bullying I’ve ever heard of. Absolutely sickening behaviour from a bunch of cowards. It is always motivated by the same reason – the bullies gang up on a young person they know is a lot brighter than they will ever be.

But, when you consider it from the viewpoint of the victim’s reaction, this is courage, this is uncommon valour. She wouldn’t be crushed by them. If there’s a chancellor, bursar, or beadle or someone of any sanity who feels an articulate and intelligent young woman of such academic courage should be on their teaching staff for the next few decades, pick up her ticket and leave the University of Laurier to mire themselves deeper into a well-deserved corner of complete educational oblivion.

The long-term future of any teaching institution is guaranteed if you can just recruit and keep young, talented people who you can grow into senior teaching roles. If you fail to do that, you’re looking at a slow spiral downwards, and once word of that becomes common knowledge, as it will for Laurier after this disgraceful incident, all the negative reinforcement kicks in to accelerate that fall. This exercise in bullying is plastered all over the Internet and as they say – the Internet never forgets. When prospective students google Laurier, that’s what they’re going to find, so it’ll be a no sale.

The average young person won’t want to be educated in such fascist hellholes, never mind going there to work, so your revenue plummets. They see any degree obtained there as worthless, because they know potential employers will. Despite spending more on education than we’ve ever done at any time in the history of the world, there’s little if any substantive return on that investment, if you exclude creating a thumb-sucking generation of triggerable snowflakes who desperately need their safe spaces to hide from differing opinions.

While there’s always been an altruistic indulgence on the part of donors and governments towards funding third level education, there was an occasional leap forward in knowledge. Not one Earth shattering idea has come out of academia in nearly half a century and that being the case, investment in university education will naturally taper off since there’s no return on it.

Several colleges have closed in recent years because in essence they went bankrupt, and if you look at formerly prestigious places like Ole Miss and Berkeley, you can see that exact pattern of plunging enrollment numbers and therefore falling revenue, beginning to pull them into the abyss.

The abuse of young bright academics like Lindsay Shepherd can only hasten that process, because they’ll inevitably move to the private sector which is better paid and where big new ideas are welcome, since they can be monetarised.


Related articles by Pointman:

Safe zones, free speech and the Islamisation of the West.

The Madrassa mindset.

The Weaponisation of pure Research.

For a friend.

Click for a list of other articles.

18 Responses to “Uncommon valour.”
  1. Truthseeker says:

    I saw this a few days ago or more and thought it was very beautiful in terms of showing exactly what these bureaucratic snowflakes are … cockroaches … why … because they ran into hiding as soon as the spotlight was turned on them.

    This Youtube video featuring Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Haidt shows where these SJW universities are headed – to the dustbin of history ….

    Liked by 1 person

    • Old Rooster says:

      Brilliant in every way. I’d like to see both our publicly funded broadcasters (ABC & SBS) air this material but I doubt they would. If they did it is most likely that they would bring on the usual suspects to bag it mercilessly.


  2. Truthseeker says:

    As an aside, when I clicked on your Wikipedia link for Jordan Peterson, I was greeted with a desperate plea for money, from Wikipedia.

    My answer – if you did a better job of keeping the scientifically unsupported crap out it, then maybe many of us would be better disposed to keeping it going. Personally, it can die the death of irrelevance as far as I am concerned.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Retired Dave says:

    Well as they say “What is the opposite of diversity? – University.

    Most developed countries have at least double the number of school leavers going to university than their declining economies require. To some extent these factors are cause and effect in both directions.

    A paper I read in 2016 showed how the countries with least university take up have the fastest growing GDP’s. We can all think of many reasons that should be, but the high level of debt required to obtain a useless degree is a deadening factor in many countries.

    The UK now has more university lecturers than it had university students 50 years ago. In the 1960s 5% went to university and now it is nearly 50%. Is it any wonder that the quality has fallen.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Blackswan says:

      In the early 1990s I read a statistic that declared Australian universities had nine times as many law students as engineering students, whereas Japan had nine times as many engineers in school as law students. That spoke volumes then, and we see the results today.

      Also around that time it was estimated that five years after graduation, 40% of Uni students were not working in the field for which they had a degree. One young woman cited in the article, despite her law degree, had been so disenchanted with the legal world that she’d quit and opened a florist shop. I admired her integrity.

      I suspect that similar statistics in 2017 would be so dire that nobody has the courage to publish them.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. rapscallion says:

    I’ve watched quite a lot of Jordan Peterson and I have to say how refreshing he is. The bastards are out to get him you understand, but he doesn’t really care that much. He does duos with Haidt, as mentioned by Truthseeker and also with Camille Paglia. He thoroughly rips the SJW’s and their ilk to shreds with logic and a deep understanding of his subject. I particularly liked his youtube vid on why they cannot force him to use genderless pronouns – you can feel his anger.

    What was done to Lindsay, would not be not be out of place in a Soviet “court” circa 1937. She’s already guilty by their warped standards, but instead of admitting that she’s an enemy of the people”, she fights back – and then some. Courageous woman.

    This only the start, the fight back has well and truly begun Look at Milo, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Petersen and Trump, who trigger them all so beautifully and so consistently. You’d have to have a heart of stone not to laugh.


  5. Michael 2 says:

    I listened to the recording. I was distinctly reminded of George Orwell’s “1984”. To paraphrase Descartes: I think, therefore I’m wrong.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Truthseeker says:

    This event has achieved real pop culture gravitas. It has been Hitler’ed …


  7. Santa's little helper says:

    This has been going on since the early eighties when, for my sins, I taught in FE colleges in the UK. I remember one occasion when the Eng Lit. lecturer was appointed. Also known as the racial diversity lecturer. A senior lecturer post . Not only did she teach all the wrong books for the examination, so condemning students who had failed in school and thought this was their second chance, but she physically threatened them with violence. Indeed, even grabbing a young woman by the throat in the class room. The student was in tears and told me afterwards. She was a prime example of the hypocrisy of the left. On one social occasion, a Christmas college dance I believe, when she approached the mathematics teacher. He was from Mozambique and as black as the inside of your hat and a real favourite with the students because he taught using the chalk and talk method. She approached him whilst he was dancing with a white woman and said he should be ashamed and should be at home with his wife. He turned to her and said, this IS my wife! I kid you not. I didn’t stay very long in that particular college. Oh where are you now C*** of L******* Community College.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Pointman says:

    Suddenly, when the donations dry up and the enrollment applications drop to zero, they make an apology. Hypocrites. Fire the inquisitors for gross misbehaviour and you’d be making a real statement.


    Liked by 1 person

    • Old Rooster says:

      🤔🤔🤔 By fire 🔥 are we talking “burn at the stake” Joan of Arc style? That would mirror the approach taken by these Inquisition style adjudicators. Actually that is too kind, the Inquisition operated with more fairness and due process.

      HL Mencken, from at least a century ago made the following observations which it might benefit the malefactors in this and similar cases to read, at least it would if they had the wit and education to comprehend.

      “The final test of truth is ridicule. Very few dogmas have ever faced it and survived. Huxley laughed the devils out of the Gadarene swine. Not the laws of the United States but the mother-in-law joke brought the Mormons to surrender. Not the horror of it but the absurdity of it killed the doctrine of infant damnation. But the razor edge of ridicule is turned by the tough hide of truth. How loudly the barber-surgeons laughed at Huxley—and how vainly! What clown ever brought down the house like Galileo? Or Columbus? Or Darwin? . . . They are laughing at Nietzsche yet . . .”
      “On Truth” in Damn! A Book of Calumny (1918), p. 53

      “School teachers, taking them by and large, are probably the most ignorant and stupid class of men in the whole group of mental workers.”
      The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche (1908), pg. 217

      “Critical note.—Of a piece with the absurd pedagogical demand for so-called constructive criticism is the doctrine that an iconoclast is a hollow and evil fellow unless he can prove his case. Why, indeed, should he prove it? Is he judge, jury, prosecuting officer, hangman? He proves enough, indeed, when he proves by his blasphemy that this or that idol is defectively convincing—that at least one visitor to the shrine is left full of doubts. The fact is enormously significant; it indicates that instinct has somehow risen superior to the shallowness of logic, the refuge of fools. The pedant and the priest have always been the most expert of logicians—and the most diligent disseminators of nonsense and worse. The liberation of the human mind has never been furthered by dunderheads; it has been furthered by gay fellows who heaved dead cats into sanctuaries and then went roistering down the highways of the world, proving to all men that doubt, after all, was safe—that the god in the sanctuary was finite in his power and hence a fraud. One horse-laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms. It is not only more effective; it is also vastly more intelligent.”
      “Clinical Notes” in The American Mercury (January 1924), p. 75; also in Prejudices, Fourth Series (1924)

      “I have maintained for years, sometimes perhaps with undue heat: that pedagogy in the United States is fast descending to the estate of a childish necromancy, and that the worst idiots, even among pedagogues, are the teachers of English. It is positively dreadful to think that the young of the American species are exposed day in and day out to the contamination of such dark minds. What can be expected of education that is carried on in the very sewers of the intellect? How can morons teach anything that is worth knowing?”
      On “teachers of English” in “The Schoolmarm’s Goal” in The Lower Depths (1925)

      “Liberty and democracy are eternal enemies, and every one knows it who has ever given any sober reflection to the matter. A democratic state may profess to venerate the name, and even pass laws making it officially sacred, but it simply cannot tolerate the thing. In order to keep any coherence in the governmental process, to prevent the wildest anarchy in thought and act, the government must put limits upon the free play of opinion. In part, it can reach that end by mere propaganda, by the bald force of its authority — that is, by making certain doctrines officially infamous. But in part it must resort to force, i.e., to law. One of the main purposes of laws in a democratic society is to put burdens upon intelligence and reduce it to impotence. Ostensibly, their aim is to penalize anti-social acts; actually their aim is to penalize heretical opinions. At least ninety-five Americans out of every 100 believe that this process is honest and even laudable; it is practically impossible to convince them that there is anything evil in it. In other words, they cannot grasp the concept of liberty. Always they condition it with the doctrine that the state, i.e., the majority, has a sort of right of eminent domain in acts, and even in ideas — that it is perfectly free, whenever it is so disposed, to forbid a man to say what he honestly believes. Whenever his notions show signs of becoming “dangerous,” ie, of being heard and attended to, it exercises that prerogative. And the overwhelming majority of citizens believe in supporting it in the outrage. Including especially the Liberals, who pretend — and often quite honestly believe — that they are hot for liberty. They never really are. Deep down in their hearts they know, as good democrats, that liberty would be fatal to democracy — that a government based upon shifting and irrational opinion must keep it within bounds or run a constant risk of disaster. They themselves, as a practical matter, advocate only certain narrow kinds of liberty — liberty, that is, for the persons they happen to favor. The rights of other persons do not seem to interest them. If a law were passed tomorrow taking away the property of a large group of presumably well-to-do persons — say, bondholders of the railroads — without compensation and without even colorable reason, they would not oppose it; they would be in favor of it. The liberty to have and hold property is not one they recognize. They believe only in the liberty to envy, hate and loot the man who has it.”
      “Liberty and Democracy” in the Baltimore Evening Sun (13 April 1925), also in A Second Mencken Chrestomathy : New Selections from the Writings of America’s Legendary Editor, Critic, and Wit (1994) edited by Terry Teachout, p. 35

      “I believe that no discovery of fact, however trivial, can be wholly useless to the race, and that no trumpeting of falsehood, however virtuous in intent, can be anything but vicious.

I believe that all government is evil, in that all government must necessarily make war upon liberty and the democratic form is as bad as any of the other forms.

      [ ]
      I believe in the complete freedom of thought and speech — alike for the humblest man and the mightiest, and in the utmost freedom of conduct that is consistent with living in organized society.

      I believe in the capacity of man to conquer his world, and to find out what it is made of, and how it is run.

I believe in the reality of progress.

I —But the whole thing, after all, may be put very simply. I believe that it is better to tell the truth than to lie. I believe that it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe that it is better to know than be ignorant.”
      “What I Believe” in The Forum 84 (September 1930), p. 139; some of these expressions were also used separately in other Mencken essays.

      I believe in only one thing and that thing is human liberty. If ever a man is to achieve anything like dignity, it can happen only if superior men are given absolute freedom to think what they want to think and say what they want to say. I am against any man and any organization which seeks to limit or deny that freedom. . . [and] the superior man can be sure of freedom only if it is given to all men.”
      As quoted in Letters of H. L. Mencken (1961) edited by Guy J. Forgue, p. xiii

      “Truth, indeed, is something that is believed in completely only by persons who have never tried personally to pursue it to its fastness and grab it by the tail. It is the adoration of second-rate men — men who always receive it as second-hand. Pedagogues believe in immutable truths and spend their lives trying to determine them and propagate them; the intellectual progress of man consists largely of a concerted effort to block and destroy their enterprise. Nine times out of ten, in the arts as in life, there is actually no truth to be discovered; there is only error to be exposed. In whole departments of human inquiry it seems to me quite unlikely that the truth ever will be discovered. Nevertheless, the rubber-stamp thinking of the world always makes the assumption that the exposure of an error is identical with the discovery of truth — that error and truth are simply opposites. They are nothing of the sort. What the world turns to, when it has been cured of one error, is usually simply another error, and maybe one worse than the first one. This is the whole history of the intellect in brief. The average man of today does not believe in precisely the same imbecilities that the Greek of the Fourth Century before Christ believed in, but the things that he does believe in are often quite as idiotic.
Perhaps this statement is a bit too sweeping. There is, year by year, a gradual accumulation of what may be called, provisionally, truths — there is a slow accretion of ideas that somehow manage to meet all practicable human tests, and so survive. But even so, it is risky to call them absolute truths. All that one may safely say of them is that no one, as yet, has demonstrated that they are errors. Soon or late, if experience teaches us anything, they are likely to succumb too. The profoundest truths of the Middle Ages are now laughed at by schoolboys. The profoundest truths of democracy will be laughed at, a few centuries hence, even by school-teachers.”
      Ch. 3 “Footnote on Criticism”, pp. 85-104

      The professor must be an obscurantist or he is nothing; he has a special and unmatchable talent for dullness, his central aim is not to expose the truth clearly, but to exhibit his profundity, his esotericity – in brief to stagger sophomores and other professors.”
      Ch. 15 “The Dismal Science”

      “The lunatic fringe wags the underdog.”
      Sententiæ: The Citizen and the State

      “Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong. All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who have doubted the current moral values, not of men who have whooped them up and tried to enforce them. The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant, in this field as in all others. His culture is based on “I am not too sure.
      Minority Report : H.L. Mencken’s Notebooks (1956) p 418


  9. Pointman says:

    Oh dear, things are getting dark and interesting. Was there ever a complaint in the first place? Was it a just crush the kid exercise from the very start?



  10. Pointman says:

    Lindsay Shepherd and the Potential for Heterodoxy at Wilfrid Laurier University


    An interesting read.



  11. Pointman says:

    President’s statement re: independent fact-finder report.


    When you strip away the verbiage, was there even a complaint in the first place? That’s pretty much Laurier buggered as a centre of learning. When you allow a culture like that to develop, you do have to live with its consequences.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s