On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 16:22:54 +0000, Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com>
wrote:
Earlier this month, an SOS dropped into my inbox. It came from a student
at the University of Sussex. Lest her repressive professors punish her
for what I am about to report, letrCOs call her rCyEmmarCO. rCyI am in a mild
state of despair,rCO she wrote.
You must feel sorry for those poor conservatives, they feel despair.
"This week alone I have been told that the history of kinship theory has
been, up until now, rCyEurocentric and cisgenderedrCO, and another
anthropology module must be viewed through a rCyqueer and trans lensrCO. The >> word rCydecolonisationrCO comes up in almost every lecture. If university
campuses represent a microcosm of the greater society, then I fear we
are doomed."
IrCOm not surprised. After all, Sussex was the university that so failed
to protect the coolly reasonable, gender-critical philosopher Kathleen
Stock from a sustained campaign of vilification by students, aided and
abetted by some colleagues, that it destroyed her faith in academia and
drove her to resign. While the university was fulsome in its posthumous
regret at her leaving, it has yet to give any explanation rCo no matter,
make a confession rCo of its own astonishing failure to defend her.
Indeed, itrCOs currently litigating against a fine imposed by the Office
for Students for failures to uphold free speech.
Sussex had moved onto my radar before EmmarCOs email for two other
reasons. One is Alan Lester, the professor of historical geography who
has made it his mission in life to discredit me, lest anyone should be
seduced by my utterly moderate views of BritainrCOs colonial record. He it >> was who wrote a 15,000-word takedown of my book, Colonialism: A Moral
Reckoning, in which he could find nothing positive to say either about
me or the British Empire. Zilch. Nada. He then organised the
counter-publication of a collection of essays; every one of them
targeted at me. Emma reports that, judging by the amount of classroom
time he devotes to debunking me, I now live rCyrent-free in his headrCO.
The other instance of Sussex IrCOd encountered is Gurminder Bhambra, a
professor of social theory. Two weeks ago, she was on the other side of
the table in a recorded discussion about empire staged by the Doha
Debates in Qatar.
Like Lester, Gurminder simply cannot credit the British Empire with any
positive achievement. When the moderator put the topic of the EmpirerCOs
benefits on the table, she immediately issued the rhetorical challenge:
rCyWhat benefits?rCO
Flying in the face of obvious historical data, this is a main symptom of
the ideological character of her view. Her thinking is determined by a
theoretical axiom rCo that empire and colonial rule are totally unjust rCo >> that will not countenance any contrary evidence. Not the fact that the
British Empire was among the first states in the worldrCOs history to
abolish slavery and then led the world in suppressing it from Brazil to
New Zealand. Nor that it introduced liberal institutions of a free
press, independent judiciary, and representative government to parts of
the world that had never experienced them.
Similarly, nor that it made India the largest producer of steel outside
of North America, Europe, and Japan by 1935, and gave her 47,000 miles
of railway against ChinarCOs 17,000 by 1947. Nor that, between May 1940
and June 1941, it offered the massively murderous racist regime in Nazi
Berlin the only military opposition rCo with the sole exception of Greece. >> In GurminderrCOs eyes rCo implausibly rCo none of this counts for anything. >>
Behind this stubborn defiance of historical fact lies a more basic
axiom, namely, that colonialism was fundamentally about economic
rCyextractionrCO. In support, Gurminder invoked the argument that, since
India produced 25 per cent of world output in 1800 but only 2 to 4 per
cent in 1900, it follows that the British had plundered the country. Not
at all.
It only shows that industrial productivity in the West increased four to
six times during that period, reducing IndiarCOs share of global GDP. The
same fate befell uncolonised China. The neo-Marxist view that
colonialism was essentially about the predatory extraction of colonial
surplus owes much more to dogma than empirical data.
Over 25 years ago, the leading historian of imperial economics, David
Fieldhouse, endorsed Rudolf von AlbertinirCOs conclusion, based on an
exhaustive examination of the literature on most parts of the colonial
world to 1940, that colonial economics rCycannot be understood through
concepts such as plunder rCa and exploitationrCO. Recently, Tirthankar Roy, >> the Bengali-born professor of colonial economic history at the London
School of Economics, has confirmed this, writing that rCy[t]he proposition >> that the Empire was at bottom a mechanism of surplus appropriation and
transfer has not fared well in global historyrCO.
But thatrCOs the proposition that Gurminder sticks to dogmatically, with
the result not only that she denies the obvious rCo that the British
Empire did some good rCo but also that she spins seriously misleading
tales based on a highly partial selection of data. So, she characterises
the Empire as consistently callous towards the Indian victims of famine,
citing two facts. First, when famine hit Bengal in 1769-70, the East
India Company (EIC) callously increased the tax burden on the starving.
Second, when famine struck again toward the end of the 19th century, the
relief fund mandated by the Famine Code of 1880 was found to have been
spent on yet another Afghan war.
What Gurminder fails to mention is that, in 1769-70, the EIC governor of
Calcutta, John Cartier, strove assiduously to save Bengalis. That in the
following decades Warren Hastings and Lord Cornwallis instituted reforms
that enabled BengalrCOs economic recovery and made the company fitter to
govern. And that by 1900, the British had built in India the largest
irrigation system in the world rCo five times what the Mughals had
achieved rCo and figured out how to stop seasonal food shortages
escalating into famines.
At Sussex and elsewhere, ideologically distorted history is being
force-fed to students like Emma, who donrCOt dare voice their reasonable
dissent, rightly fearing that the professorial ideologues who determine
their fates may not reward them for it. That vulnerable students are put
in such a fearful position drives a stake into the heart of the liberal
culture of freely giving and taking reasons that should prevail on our
campuses. University authorities have a duty to defend them better than
Sussex defended Kathleen Stock.
Nigel Biggar
On 2/21/2026 8:46 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 16:22:54 +0000, Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com>Not sorry. There are only two biological genders: male or female.
wrote:
Earlier this month, an SOS dropped into my inbox. It came from a student >>> at the University of Sussex. Lest her repressive professors punish her
for what I am about to report, letAs call her aEmmaA. aI am in a mild
state of despair,A she wrote.
You must feel sorry for those poor conservatives, they feel despair.
Kathleen Stock resigned from the University of Sussex in 2021 following >intense backlash, protests, and accusations of transphobia regarding her >published views on gender identity and biological sex.--
She argued that biological sex is immutable and not synonymous with
gender identity, particularly in the contexts of law, policy, and
women-only spaces.
"This week alone I have been told that the history of kinship theory has >>> been, up until now, aEurocentric and cisgenderedA, and another
anthropology module must be viewed through a aqueer and trans lensA. The >>> word adecolonisationA comes up in almost every lecture. If university
campuses represent a microcosm of the greater society, then I fear we
are doomed."
IAm not surprised. After all, Sussex was the university that so failed
to protect the coolly reasonable, gender-critical philosopher Kathleen
Stock from a sustained campaign of vilification by students, aided and
abetted by some colleagues, that it destroyed her faith in academia and
drove her to resign. While the university was fulsome in its posthumous
regret at her leaving, it has yet to give any explanation u no matter,
make a confession u of its own astonishing failure to defend her.
Indeed, itAs currently litigating against a fine imposed by the Office
for Students for failures to uphold free speech.
Sussex had moved onto my radar before EmmaAs email for two other
reasons. One is Alan Lester, the professor of historical geography who
has made it his mission in life to discredit me, lest anyone should be
seduced by my utterly moderate views of BritainAs colonial record. He it >>> was who wrote a 15,000-word takedown of my book, Colonialism: A Moral
Reckoning, in which he could find nothing positive to say either about
me or the British Empire. Zilch. Nada. He then organised the
counter-publication of a collection of essays; every one of them
targeted at me. Emma reports that, judging by the amount of classroom
time he devotes to debunking me, I now live arent-free in his headA.
The other instance of Sussex IAd encountered is Gurminder Bhambra, a
professor of social theory. Two weeks ago, she was on the other side of
the table in a recorded discussion about empire staged by the Doha
Debates in Qatar.
Like Lester, Gurminder simply cannot credit the British Empire with any
positive achievement. When the moderator put the topic of the EmpireAs
benefits on the table, she immediately issued the rhetorical challenge:
aWhat benefits?A
Flying in the face of obvious historical data, this is a main symptom of >>> the ideological character of her view. Her thinking is determined by a
theoretical axiom u that empire and colonial rule are totally unjust u
that will not countenance any contrary evidence. Not the fact that the
British Empire was among the first states in the worldAs history to
abolish slavery and then led the world in suppressing it from Brazil to
New Zealand. Nor that it introduced liberal institutions of a free
press, independent judiciary, and representative government to parts of
the world that had never experienced them.
Similarly, nor that it made India the largest producer of steel outside
of North America, Europe, and Japan by 1935, and gave her 47,000 miles
of railway against ChinaAs 17,000 by 1947. Nor that, between May 1940
and June 1941, it offered the massively murderous racist regime in Nazi
Berlin the only military opposition u with the sole exception of Greece. >>> In GurminderAs eyes u implausibly u none of this counts for anything.
Behind this stubborn defiance of historical fact lies a more basic
axiom, namely, that colonialism was fundamentally about economic
aextractionA. In support, Gurminder invoked the argument that, since
India produced 25 per cent of world output in 1800 but only 2 to 4 per
cent in 1900, it follows that the British had plundered the country. Not >>> at all.
It only shows that industrial productivity in the West increased four to >>> six times during that period, reducing IndiaAs share of global GDP. The
same fate befell uncolonised China. The neo-Marxist view that
colonialism was essentially about the predatory extraction of colonial
surplus owes much more to dogma than empirical data.
Over 25 years ago, the leading historian of imperial economics, David
Fieldhouse, endorsed Rudolf von AlbertiniAs conclusion, based on an
exhaustive examination of the literature on most parts of the colonial
world to 1940, that colonial economics acannot be understood through
concepts such as plunder a and exploitationA. Recently, Tirthankar Roy,
the Bengali-born professor of colonial economic history at the London
School of Economics, has confirmed this, writing that a[t]he proposition >>> that the Empire was at bottom a mechanism of surplus appropriation and
transfer has not fared well in global historyA.
But thatAs the proposition that Gurminder sticks to dogmatically, with
the result not only that she denies the obvious u that the British
Empire did some good u but also that she spins seriously misleading
tales based on a highly partial selection of data. So, she characterises >>> the Empire as consistently callous towards the Indian victims of famine, >>> citing two facts. First, when famine hit Bengal in 1769-70, the East
India Company (EIC) callously increased the tax burden on the starving.
Second, when famine struck again toward the end of the 19th century, the >>> relief fund mandated by the Famine Code of 1880 was found to have been
spent on yet another Afghan war.
What Gurminder fails to mention is that, in 1769-70, the EIC governor of >>> Calcutta, John Cartier, strove assiduously to save Bengalis. That in the >>> following decades Warren Hastings and Lord Cornwallis instituted reforms >>> that enabled BengalAs economic recovery and made the company fitter to
govern. And that by 1900, the British had built in India the largest
irrigation system in the world u five times what the Mughals had
achieved u and figured out how to stop seasonal food shortages
escalating into famines.
At Sussex and elsewhere, ideologically distorted history is being
force-fed to students like Emma, who donAt dare voice their reasonable
dissent, rightly fearing that the professorial ideologues who determine
their fates may not reward them for it. That vulnerable students are put >>> in such a fearful position drives a stake into the heart of the liberal
culture of freely giving and taking reasons that should prevail on our
campuses. University authorities have a duty to defend them better than
Sussex defended Kathleen Stock.
Nigel Biggar
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 18:25:37 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/21/2026 8:46 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 16:22:54 +0000, Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com>Not sorry. There are only two biological genders: male or female.
wrote:
Earlier this month, an SOS dropped into my inbox. It came from a student >>>> at the University of Sussex. Lest her repressive professors punish her >>>> for what I am about to report, letrCOs call her rCyEmmarCO. rCyI am in a mild
state of despair,rCO she wrote.
You must feel sorry for those poor conservatives, they feel despair.
I say that your and my beliefs in the matter do not influence what
other people believe.
followingKathleen Stock resigned from the University of Sussex in 2021
intense backlash, protests, and accusations of transphobia regarding her
published views on gender identity and biological sex.
She argued that biological sex is immutable and not synonymous with
gender identity, particularly in the contexts of law, policy, and
women-only spaces.
"This week alone I have been told that the history of kinship theory has >>>> been, up until now, rCyEurocentric and cisgenderedrCO, and another
anthropology module must be viewed through a rCyqueer and trans lensrCO. The
word rCydecolonisationrCO comes up in almost every lecture. If university >>>> campuses represent a microcosm of the greater society, then I fear we
are doomed."
IrCOm not surprised. After all, Sussex was the university that so failed >>>> to protect the coolly reasonable, gender-critical philosopher Kathleen >>>> Stock from a sustained campaign of vilification by students, aided and >>>> abetted by some colleagues, that it destroyed her faith in academia and >>>> drove her to resign. While the university was fulsome in its posthumous >>>> regret at her leaving, it has yet to give any explanation rCo no matter, >>>> make a confession rCo of its own astonishing failure to defend her.
Indeed, itrCOs currently litigating against a fine imposed by the Office >>>> for Students for failures to uphold free speech.
Sussex had moved onto my radar before EmmarCOs email for two other
reasons. One is Alan Lester, the professor of historical geography who >>>> has made it his mission in life to discredit me, lest anyone should be >>>> seduced by my utterly moderate views of BritainrCOs colonial record. He it >>>> was who wrote a 15,000-word takedown of my book, Colonialism: A Moral
Reckoning, in which he could find nothing positive to say either about >>>> me or the British Empire. Zilch. Nada. He then organised the
counter-publication of a collection of essays; every one of them
targeted at me. Emma reports that, judging by the amount of classroom
time he devotes to debunking me, I now live rCyrent-free in his headrCO. >>>>
The other instance of Sussex IrCOd encountered is Gurminder Bhambra, a >>>> professor of social theory. Two weeks ago, she was on the other side of >>>> the table in a recorded discussion about empire staged by the Doha
Debates in Qatar.
Like Lester, Gurminder simply cannot credit the British Empire with any >>>> positive achievement. When the moderator put the topic of the EmpirerCOs >>>> benefits on the table, she immediately issued the rhetorical challenge: >>>> rCyWhat benefits?rCO
Flying in the face of obvious historical data, this is a main symptom of >>>> the ideological character of her view. Her thinking is determined by a >>>> theoretical axiom rCo that empire and colonial rule are totally unjust rCo >>>> that will not countenance any contrary evidence. Not the fact that the >>>> British Empire was among the first states in the worldrCOs history to
abolish slavery and then led the world in suppressing it from Brazil to >>>> New Zealand. Nor that it introduced liberal institutions of a free
press, independent judiciary, and representative government to parts of >>>> the world that had never experienced them.
Similarly, nor that it made India the largest producer of steel outside >>>> of North America, Europe, and Japan by 1935, and gave her 47,000 miles >>>> of railway against ChinarCOs 17,000 by 1947. Nor that, between May 1940 >>>> and June 1941, it offered the massively murderous racist regime in Nazi >>>> Berlin the only military opposition rCo with the sole exception of Greece. >>>> In GurminderrCOs eyes rCo implausibly rCo none of this counts for anything.
Behind this stubborn defiance of historical fact lies a more basic
axiom, namely, that colonialism was fundamentally about economic
rCyextractionrCO. In support, Gurminder invoked the argument that, since >>>> India produced 25 per cent of world output in 1800 but only 2 to 4 per >>>> cent in 1900, it follows that the British had plundered the country. Not >>>> at all.
It only shows that industrial productivity in the West increased four to >>>> six times during that period, reducing IndiarCOs share of global GDP. The >>>> same fate befell uncolonised China. The neo-Marxist view that
colonialism was essentially about the predatory extraction of colonial >>>> surplus owes much more to dogma than empirical data.
Over 25 years ago, the leading historian of imperial economics, David
Fieldhouse, endorsed Rudolf von AlbertinirCOs conclusion, based on an
exhaustive examination of the literature on most parts of the colonial >>>> world to 1940, that colonial economics rCycannot be understood through >>>> concepts such as plunder rCa and exploitationrCO. Recently, Tirthankar Roy,
the Bengali-born professor of colonial economic history at the London
School of Economics, has confirmed this, writing that rCy[t]he proposition >>>> that the Empire was at bottom a mechanism of surplus appropriation and >>>> transfer has not fared well in global historyrCO.
But thatrCOs the proposition that Gurminder sticks to dogmatically, with >>>> the result not only that she denies the obvious rCo that the British
Empire did some good rCo but also that she spins seriously misleading
tales based on a highly partial selection of data. So, she characterises >>>> the Empire as consistently callous towards the Indian victims of famine, >>>> citing two facts. First, when famine hit Bengal in 1769-70, the East
India Company (EIC) callously increased the tax burden on the starving. >>>> Second, when famine struck again toward the end of the 19th century, the >>>> relief fund mandated by the Famine Code of 1880 was found to have been >>>> spent on yet another Afghan war.
What Gurminder fails to mention is that, in 1769-70, the EIC governor of >>>> Calcutta, John Cartier, strove assiduously to save Bengalis. That in the >>>> following decades Warren Hastings and Lord Cornwallis instituted reforms >>>> that enabled BengalrCOs economic recovery and made the company fitter to >>>> govern. And that by 1900, the British had built in India the largest
irrigation system in the world rCo five times what the Mughals had
achieved rCo and figured out how to stop seasonal food shortages
escalating into famines.
At Sussex and elsewhere, ideologically distorted history is being
force-fed to students like Emma, who donrCOt dare voice their reasonable >>>> dissent, rightly fearing that the professorial ideologues who determine >>>> their fates may not reward them for it. That vulnerable students are put >>>> in such a fearful position drives a stake into the heart of the liberal >>>> culture of freely giving and taking reasons that should prevail on our >>>> campuses. University authorities have a duty to defend them better than >>>> Sussex defended Kathleen Stock.
Nigel Biggar
On 2/22/2026 7:46 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 18:25:37 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Some people are highly susceptible to suggestion and are very prone to >suggestibility. They sometimes believe things they read on social media.
On 2/21/2026 8:46 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 16:22:54 +0000, Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com>Not sorry. There are only two biological genders: male or female.
wrote:
Earlier this month, an SOS dropped into my inbox. It came from a student >>>>> at the University of Sussex. Lest her repressive professors punish her >>>>> for what I am about to report, letAs call her aEmmaA. aI am in a mild >>>>> state of despair,A she wrote.
You must feel sorry for those poor conservatives, they feel despair.
I say that your and my beliefs in the matter do not influence what
other people believe.
Your data is all over the internet. Good work!--
followingKathleen Stock resigned from the University of Sussex in 2021
intense backlash, protests, and accusations of transphobia regarding her >>> published views on gender identity and biological sex.
She argued that biological sex is immutable and not synonymous with
gender identity, particularly in the contexts of law, policy, and
women-only spaces.
"This week alone I have been told that the history of kinship theory has >>>>> been, up until now, aEurocentric and cisgenderedA, and another
anthropology module must be viewed through a aqueer and trans lensA. The >>>>> word adecolonisationA comes up in almost every lecture. If university >>>>> campuses represent a microcosm of the greater society, then I fear we >>>>> are doomed."
IAm not surprised. After all, Sussex was the university that so failed >>>>> to protect the coolly reasonable, gender-critical philosopher Kathleen >>>>> Stock from a sustained campaign of vilification by students, aided and >>>>> abetted by some colleagues, that it destroyed her faith in academia and >>>>> drove her to resign. While the university was fulsome in its posthumous >>>>> regret at her leaving, it has yet to give any explanation u no matter, >>>>> make a confession u of its own astonishing failure to defend her.
Indeed, itAs currently litigating against a fine imposed by the Office >>>>> for Students for failures to uphold free speech.
Sussex had moved onto my radar before EmmaAs email for two other
reasons. One is Alan Lester, the professor of historical geography who >>>>> has made it his mission in life to discredit me, lest anyone should be >>>>> seduced by my utterly moderate views of BritainAs colonial record. He it >>>>> was who wrote a 15,000-word takedown of my book, Colonialism: A Moral >>>>> Reckoning, in which he could find nothing positive to say either about >>>>> me or the British Empire. Zilch. Nada. He then organised the
counter-publication of a collection of essays; every one of them
targeted at me. Emma reports that, judging by the amount of classroom >>>>> time he devotes to debunking me, I now live arent-free in his headA. >>>>>
The other instance of Sussex IAd encountered is Gurminder Bhambra, a >>>>> professor of social theory. Two weeks ago, she was on the other side of >>>>> the table in a recorded discussion about empire staged by the Doha
Debates in Qatar.
Like Lester, Gurminder simply cannot credit the British Empire with any >>>>> positive achievement. When the moderator put the topic of the EmpireAs >>>>> benefits on the table, she immediately issued the rhetorical challenge: >>>>> aWhat benefits?A
Flying in the face of obvious historical data, this is a main symptom of >>>>> the ideological character of her view. Her thinking is determined by a >>>>> theoretical axiom u that empire and colonial rule are totally unjust u >>>>> that will not countenance any contrary evidence. Not the fact that the >>>>> British Empire was among the first states in the worldAs history to
abolish slavery and then led the world in suppressing it from Brazil to >>>>> New Zealand. Nor that it introduced liberal institutions of a free
press, independent judiciary, and representative government to parts of >>>>> the world that had never experienced them.
Similarly, nor that it made India the largest producer of steel outside >>>>> of North America, Europe, and Japan by 1935, and gave her 47,000 miles >>>>> of railway against ChinaAs 17,000 by 1947. Nor that, between May 1940 >>>>> and June 1941, it offered the massively murderous racist regime in Nazi >>>>> Berlin the only military opposition u with the sole exception of Greece. >>>>> In GurminderAs eyes u implausibly u none of this counts for anything. >>>>>
Behind this stubborn defiance of historical fact lies a more basic
axiom, namely, that colonialism was fundamentally about economic
aextractionA. In support, Gurminder invoked the argument that, since >>>>> India produced 25 per cent of world output in 1800 but only 2 to 4 per >>>>> cent in 1900, it follows that the British had plundered the country. Not >>>>> at all.
It only shows that industrial productivity in the West increased four to >>>>> six times during that period, reducing IndiaAs share of global GDP. The >>>>> same fate befell uncolonised China. The neo-Marxist view that
colonialism was essentially about the predatory extraction of colonial >>>>> surplus owes much more to dogma than empirical data.
Over 25 years ago, the leading historian of imperial economics, David >>>>> Fieldhouse, endorsed Rudolf von AlbertiniAs conclusion, based on an
exhaustive examination of the literature on most parts of the colonial >>>>> world to 1940, that colonial economics acannot be understood through >>>>> concepts such as plunder a and exploitationA. Recently, Tirthankar Roy, >>>>> the Bengali-born professor of colonial economic history at the London >>>>> School of Economics, has confirmed this, writing that a[t]he proposition >>>>> that the Empire was at bottom a mechanism of surplus appropriation and >>>>> transfer has not fared well in global historyA.
But thatAs the proposition that Gurminder sticks to dogmatically, with >>>>> the result not only that she denies the obvious u that the British
Empire did some good u but also that she spins seriously misleading
tales based on a highly partial selection of data. So, she characterises >>>>> the Empire as consistently callous towards the Indian victims of famine, >>>>> citing two facts. First, when famine hit Bengal in 1769-70, the East >>>>> India Company (EIC) callously increased the tax burden on the starving. >>>>> Second, when famine struck again toward the end of the 19th century, the >>>>> relief fund mandated by the Famine Code of 1880 was found to have been >>>>> spent on yet another Afghan war.
What Gurminder fails to mention is that, in 1769-70, the EIC governor of >>>>> Calcutta, John Cartier, strove assiduously to save Bengalis. That in the >>>>> following decades Warren Hastings and Lord Cornwallis instituted reforms >>>>> that enabled BengalAs economic recovery and made the company fitter to >>>>> govern. And that by 1900, the British had built in India the largest >>>>> irrigation system in the world u five times what the Mughals had
achieved u and figured out how to stop seasonal food shortages
escalating into famines.
At Sussex and elsewhere, ideologically distorted history is being
force-fed to students like Emma, who donAt dare voice their reasonable >>>>> dissent, rightly fearing that the professorial ideologues who determine >>>>> their fates may not reward them for it. That vulnerable students are put >>>>> in such a fearful position drives a stake into the heart of the liberal >>>>> culture of freely giving and taking reasons that should prevail on our >>>>> campuses. University authorities have a duty to defend them better than >>>>> Sussex defended Kathleen Stock.
Nigel Biggar
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 09:53:03 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/22/2026 7:46 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 18:25:37 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Some people are highly susceptible to suggestion and are very prone to
On 2/21/2026 8:46 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 16:22:54 +0000, Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com>Not sorry. There are only two biological genders: male or female.
wrote:
Earlier this month, an SOS dropped into my inbox. It came from a student >>>>>> at the University of Sussex. Lest her repressive professors punish her >>>>>> for what I am about to report, letrCOs call her rCyEmmarCO. rCyI am in a mild
state of despair,rCO she wrote.
You must feel sorry for those poor conservatives, they feel despair. >>>>>
I say that your and my beliefs in the matter do not influence what
other people believe.
suggestibility. They sometimes believe things they read on social media.
But you and I know better than to do that, don't we?
Your data is all over the internet. Good work!
followingKathleen Stock resigned from the University of Sussex in 2021
intense backlash, protests, and accusations of transphobia regarding her >>>> published views on gender identity and biological sex.
She argued that biological sex is immutable and not synonymous with
gender identity, particularly in the contexts of law, policy, and
women-only spaces.
"This week alone I have been told that the history of kinship theory has >>>>>> been, up until now, rCyEurocentric and cisgenderedrCO, and another >>>>>> anthropology module must be viewed through a rCyqueer and trans lensrCO. The
word rCydecolonisationrCO comes up in almost every lecture. If university
campuses represent a microcosm of the greater society, then I fear we >>>>>> are doomed."
IrCOm not surprised. After all, Sussex was the university that so failed >>>>>> to protect the coolly reasonable, gender-critical philosopher Kathleen >>>>>> Stock from a sustained campaign of vilification by students, aided and >>>>>> abetted by some colleagues, that it destroyed her faith in academia and >>>>>> drove her to resign. While the university was fulsome in its posthumous >>>>>> regret at her leaving, it has yet to give any explanation rCo no matter, >>>>>> make a confession rCo of its own astonishing failure to defend her. >>>>>> Indeed, itrCOs currently litigating against a fine imposed by the Office >>>>>> for Students for failures to uphold free speech.
Sussex had moved onto my radar before EmmarCOs email for two other >>>>>> reasons. One is Alan Lester, the professor of historical geography who >>>>>> has made it his mission in life to discredit me, lest anyone should be >>>>>> seduced by my utterly moderate views of BritainrCOs colonial record. He it
was who wrote a 15,000-word takedown of my book, Colonialism: A Moral >>>>>> Reckoning, in which he could find nothing positive to say either about >>>>>> me or the British Empire. Zilch. Nada. He then organised the
counter-publication of a collection of essays; every one of them
targeted at me. Emma reports that, judging by the amount of classroom >>>>>> time he devotes to debunking me, I now live rCyrent-free in his headrCO. >>>>>>
The other instance of Sussex IrCOd encountered is Gurminder Bhambra, a >>>>>> professor of social theory. Two weeks ago, she was on the other side of >>>>>> the table in a recorded discussion about empire staged by the Doha >>>>>> Debates in Qatar.
Like Lester, Gurminder simply cannot credit the British Empire with any >>>>>> positive achievement. When the moderator put the topic of the EmpirerCOs >>>>>> benefits on the table, she immediately issued the rhetorical challenge: >>>>>> rCyWhat benefits?rCO
Flying in the face of obvious historical data, this is a main symptom of >>>>>> the ideological character of her view. Her thinking is determined by a >>>>>> theoretical axiom rCo that empire and colonial rule are totally unjust rCo
that will not countenance any contrary evidence. Not the fact that the >>>>>> British Empire was among the first states in the worldrCOs history to >>>>>> abolish slavery and then led the world in suppressing it from Brazil to >>>>>> New Zealand. Nor that it introduced liberal institutions of a free >>>>>> press, independent judiciary, and representative government to parts of >>>>>> the world that had never experienced them.
Similarly, nor that it made India the largest producer of steel outside >>>>>> of North America, Europe, and Japan by 1935, and gave her 47,000 miles >>>>>> of railway against ChinarCOs 17,000 by 1947. Nor that, between May 1940 >>>>>> and June 1941, it offered the massively murderous racist regime in Nazi >>>>>> Berlin the only military opposition rCo with the sole exception of Greece.
In GurminderrCOs eyes rCo implausibly rCo none of this counts for anything.
Behind this stubborn defiance of historical fact lies a more basic >>>>>> axiom, namely, that colonialism was fundamentally about economic
rCyextractionrCO. In support, Gurminder invoked the argument that, since >>>>>> India produced 25 per cent of world output in 1800 but only 2 to 4 per >>>>>> cent in 1900, it follows that the British had plundered the country. Not >>>>>> at all.
It only shows that industrial productivity in the West increased four to >>>>>> six times during that period, reducing IndiarCOs share of global GDP. The
same fate befell uncolonised China. The neo-Marxist view that
colonialism was essentially about the predatory extraction of colonial >>>>>> surplus owes much more to dogma than empirical data.
Over 25 years ago, the leading historian of imperial economics, David >>>>>> Fieldhouse, endorsed Rudolf von AlbertinirCOs conclusion, based on an >>>>>> exhaustive examination of the literature on most parts of the colonial >>>>>> world to 1940, that colonial economics rCycannot be understood through >>>>>> concepts such as plunder rCa and exploitationrCO. Recently, Tirthankar Roy,
the Bengali-born professor of colonial economic history at the London >>>>>> School of Economics, has confirmed this, writing that rCy[t]he proposition
that the Empire was at bottom a mechanism of surplus appropriation and >>>>>> transfer has not fared well in global historyrCO.
But thatrCOs the proposition that Gurminder sticks to dogmatically, with >>>>>> the result not only that she denies the obvious rCo that the British >>>>>> Empire did some good rCo but also that she spins seriously misleading >>>>>> tales based on a highly partial selection of data. So, she characterises >>>>>> the Empire as consistently callous towards the Indian victims of famine, >>>>>> citing two facts. First, when famine hit Bengal in 1769-70, the East >>>>>> India Company (EIC) callously increased the tax burden on the starving. >>>>>> Second, when famine struck again toward the end of the 19th century, the >>>>>> relief fund mandated by the Famine Code of 1880 was found to have been >>>>>> spent on yet another Afghan war.
What Gurminder fails to mention is that, in 1769-70, the EIC governor of >>>>>> Calcutta, John Cartier, strove assiduously to save Bengalis. That in the >>>>>> following decades Warren Hastings and Lord Cornwallis instituted reforms >>>>>> that enabled BengalrCOs economic recovery and made the company fitter to >>>>>> govern. And that by 1900, the British had built in India the largest >>>>>> irrigation system in the world rCo five times what the Mughals had >>>>>> achieved rCo and figured out how to stop seasonal food shortages
escalating into famines.
At Sussex and elsewhere, ideologically distorted history is being
force-fed to students like Emma, who donrCOt dare voice their reasonable >>>>>> dissent, rightly fearing that the professorial ideologues who determine >>>>>> their fates may not reward them for it. That vulnerable students are put >>>>>> in such a fearful position drives a stake into the heart of the liberal >>>>>> culture of freely giving and taking reasons that should prevail on our >>>>>> campuses. University authorities have a duty to defend them better than >>>>>> Sussex defended Kathleen Stock.
Nigel Biggar
On 2/23/2026 10:54 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 09:53:03 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Most of the things I know I learned in elementary school starting in
On 2/22/2026 7:46 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 18:25:37 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>Some people are highly susceptible to suggestion and are very prone to
On 2/21/2026 8:46 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 16:22:54 +0000, Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:Not sorry. There are only two biological genders: male or female.
Earlier this month, an SOS dropped into my inbox. It came from a student
at the University of Sussex. Lest her repressive professors punish her >>>>>>> for what I am about to report, letAs call her aEmmaA. aI am in a mild >>>>>>> state of despair,A she wrote.
You must feel sorry for those poor conservatives, they feel despair. >>>>>>
I say that your and my beliefs in the matter do not influence what
other people believe.
suggestibility. They sometimes believe things they read on social media. >>>
But you and I know better than to do that, don't we?
grade three. Two genders. Then, later in Biology 101: Anatomy and >Physiology. Two geners confirmed.
--Your data is all over the internet. Good work!
followingKathleen Stock resigned from the University of Sussex in 2021
intense backlash, protests, and accusations of transphobia regarding her >>>>> published views on gender identity and biological sex.
She argued that biological sex is immutable and not synonymous with
gender identity, particularly in the contexts of law, policy, and
women-only spaces.
"This week alone I have been told that the history of kinship theory has
been, up until now, aEurocentric and cisgenderedA, and another
anthropology module must be viewed through a aqueer and trans lensA. The
word adecolonisationA comes up in almost every lecture. If university >>>>>>> campuses represent a microcosm of the greater society, then I fear we >>>>>>> are doomed."
IAm not surprised. After all, Sussex was the university that so failed >>>>>>> to protect the coolly reasonable, gender-critical philosopher Kathleen >>>>>>> Stock from a sustained campaign of vilification by students, aided and >>>>>>> abetted by some colleagues, that it destroyed her faith in academia and >>>>>>> drove her to resign. While the university was fulsome in its posthumous >>>>>>> regret at her leaving, it has yet to give any explanation u no matter, >>>>>>> make a confession u of its own astonishing failure to defend her. >>>>>>> Indeed, itAs currently litigating against a fine imposed by the Office >>>>>>> for Students for failures to uphold free speech.
Sussex had moved onto my radar before EmmaAs email for two other >>>>>>> reasons. One is Alan Lester, the professor of historical geography who >>>>>>> has made it his mission in life to discredit me, lest anyone should be >>>>>>> seduced by my utterly moderate views of BritainAs colonial record. He it
was who wrote a 15,000-word takedown of my book, Colonialism: A Moral >>>>>>> Reckoning, in which he could find nothing positive to say either about >>>>>>> me or the British Empire. Zilch. Nada. He then organised the
counter-publication of a collection of essays; every one of them >>>>>>> targeted at me. Emma reports that, judging by the amount of classroom >>>>>>> time he devotes to debunking me, I now live arent-free in his headA. >>>>>>>
The other instance of Sussex IAd encountered is Gurminder Bhambra, a >>>>>>> professor of social theory. Two weeks ago, she was on the other side of >>>>>>> the table in a recorded discussion about empire staged by the Doha >>>>>>> Debates in Qatar.
Like Lester, Gurminder simply cannot credit the British Empire with any >>>>>>> positive achievement. When the moderator put the topic of the EmpireAs >>>>>>> benefits on the table, she immediately issued the rhetorical challenge: >>>>>>> aWhat benefits?A
Flying in the face of obvious historical data, this is a main symptom of
the ideological character of her view. Her thinking is determined by a >>>>>>> theoretical axiom u that empire and colonial rule are totally unjust u >>>>>>> that will not countenance any contrary evidence. Not the fact that the >>>>>>> British Empire was among the first states in the worldAs history to >>>>>>> abolish slavery and then led the world in suppressing it from Brazil to >>>>>>> New Zealand. Nor that it introduced liberal institutions of a free >>>>>>> press, independent judiciary, and representative government to parts of >>>>>>> the world that had never experienced them.
Similarly, nor that it made India the largest producer of steel outside >>>>>>> of North America, Europe, and Japan by 1935, and gave her 47,000 miles >>>>>>> of railway against ChinaAs 17,000 by 1947. Nor that, between May 1940 >>>>>>> and June 1941, it offered the massively murderous racist regime in Nazi >>>>>>> Berlin the only military opposition u with the sole exception of Greece.
In GurminderAs eyes u implausibly u none of this counts for anything. >>>>>>>
Behind this stubborn defiance of historical fact lies a more basic >>>>>>> axiom, namely, that colonialism was fundamentally about economic >>>>>>> aextractionA. In support, Gurminder invoked the argument that, since >>>>>>> India produced 25 per cent of world output in 1800 but only 2 to 4 per >>>>>>> cent in 1900, it follows that the British had plundered the country. Not
at all.
It only shows that industrial productivity in the West increased four to
six times during that period, reducing IndiaAs share of global GDP. The >>>>>>> same fate befell uncolonised China. The neo-Marxist view that
colonialism was essentially about the predatory extraction of colonial >>>>>>> surplus owes much more to dogma than empirical data.
Over 25 years ago, the leading historian of imperial economics, David >>>>>>> Fieldhouse, endorsed Rudolf von AlbertiniAs conclusion, based on an >>>>>>> exhaustive examination of the literature on most parts of the colonial >>>>>>> world to 1940, that colonial economics acannot be understood through >>>>>>> concepts such as plunder a and exploitationA. Recently, Tirthankar Roy, >>>>>>> the Bengali-born professor of colonial economic history at the London >>>>>>> School of Economics, has confirmed this, writing that a[t]he proposition
that the Empire was at bottom a mechanism of surplus appropriation and >>>>>>> transfer has not fared well in global historyA.
But thatAs the proposition that Gurminder sticks to dogmatically, with >>>>>>> the result not only that she denies the obvious u that the British >>>>>>> Empire did some good u but also that she spins seriously misleading >>>>>>> tales based on a highly partial selection of data. So, she characterises
the Empire as consistently callous towards the Indian victims of famine,
citing two facts. First, when famine hit Bengal in 1769-70, the East >>>>>>> India Company (EIC) callously increased the tax burden on the starving. >>>>>>> Second, when famine struck again toward the end of the 19th century, the
relief fund mandated by the Famine Code of 1880 was found to have been >>>>>>> spent on yet another Afghan war.
What Gurminder fails to mention is that, in 1769-70, the EIC governor of
Calcutta, John Cartier, strove assiduously to save Bengalis. That in the
following decades Warren Hastings and Lord Cornwallis instituted reforms
that enabled BengalAs economic recovery and made the company fitter to >>>>>>> govern. And that by 1900, the British had built in India the largest >>>>>>> irrigation system in the world u five times what the Mughals had >>>>>>> achieved u and figured out how to stop seasonal food shortages
escalating into famines.
At Sussex and elsewhere, ideologically distorted history is being >>>>>>> force-fed to students like Emma, who donAt dare voice their reasonable >>>>>>> dissent, rightly fearing that the professorial ideologues who determine >>>>>>> their fates may not reward them for it. That vulnerable students are put
in such a fearful position drives a stake into the heart of the liberal >>>>>>> culture of freely giving and taking reasons that should prevail on our >>>>>>> campuses. University authorities have a duty to defend them better than >>>>>>> Sussex defended Kathleen Stock.
Nigel Biggar
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 19:18:34 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 10:54 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 09:53:03 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Most of the things I know I learned in elementary school starting in
On 2/22/2026 7:46 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 18:25:37 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>Some people are highly susceptible to suggestion and are very prone to >>>> suggestibility. They sometimes believe things they read on social media. >>>>
On 2/21/2026 8:46 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 16:22:54 +0000, Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:Not sorry. There are only two biological genders: male or female.
Earlier this month, an SOS dropped into my inbox. It came from a student
at the University of Sussex. Lest her repressive professors punish her >>>>>>>> for what I am about to report, letrCOs call her rCyEmmarCO. rCyI am in a mild
state of despair,rCO she wrote.
You must feel sorry for those poor conservatives, they feel despair. >>>>>>>
I say that your and my beliefs in the matter do not influence what
other people believe.
But you and I know better than to do that, don't we?
grade three. Two genders. Then, later in Biology 101: Anatomy and
Physiology. Two geners confirmed.
I learned at university that all sorts of genetic variations are
possible (but not common). hermaphroditic, multiple pairs of mammary
glands in females, whatnot. The prof's comment was that nature is not
nearly so obssessed with gender as we are.
You really can't get an education in a jr college.
On 2/23/2026 10:40 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 19:18:34 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 10:54 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 09:53:03 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>Most of the things I know I learned in elementary school starting in
On 2/22/2026 7:46 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 18:25:37 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>Some people are highly susceptible to suggestion and are very prone to >>>>> suggestibility. They sometimes believe things they read on social media. >>>>>
On 2/21/2026 8:46 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:I say that your and my beliefs in the matter do not influence what >>>>>> other people believe.
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 16:22:54 +0000, Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:Not sorry. There are only two biological genders: male or female. >>>>>>
Earlier this month, an SOS dropped into my inbox. It came from a student
at the University of Sussex. Lest her repressive professors punish her
for what I am about to report, letAs call her aEmmaA. aI am in a mild >>>>>>>>> state of despair,A she wrote.
You must feel sorry for those poor conservatives, they feel despair. >>>>>>>>
But you and I know better than to do that, don't we?
grade three. Two genders. Then, later in Biology 101: Anatomy and
Physiology. Two geners confirmed.
I learned at university that all sorts of genetic variations are
possible (but not common). hermaphroditic, multiple pairs of mammary
glands in females, whatnot. The prof's comment was that nature is not
nearly so obssessed with gender as we are.
You really can't get an education in a jr college.
"Condescension is a recurring tactic. The leftist says dissenters are >uninformed,
morally deficient, or acting in bad faith.
Rather than
engaging with ideas, they employ a "talking down" tone where their views
are assumed as self-evident truths.
The left often denigrates opponents instead of answering their
arguments, which is a sign of intellectual insecurity."
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 10:41:20 -0500, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 2/23/2026 10:40 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 19:18:34 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/23/2026 10:54 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 09:53:03 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>Most of the things I know I learned in elementary school starting in
On 2/22/2026 7:46 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 18:25:37 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>Some people are highly susceptible to suggestion and are very prone to >>>>>> suggestibility. They sometimes believe things they read on social media. >>>>>>
On 2/21/2026 8:46 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:I say that your and my beliefs in the matter do not influence what >>>>>>> other people believe.
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 16:22:54 +0000, Julian <julianlzb87@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:Not sorry. There are only two biological genders: male or female. >>>>>>>
Earlier this month, an SOS dropped into my inbox. It came from a student
at the University of Sussex. Lest her repressive professors punish her
for what I am about to report, letAs call her aEmmaA. aI am in a mild
state of despair,A she wrote.
You must feel sorry for those poor conservatives, they feel despair. >>>>>>>>>
But you and I know better than to do that, don't we?
grade three. Two genders. Then, later in Biology 101: Anatomy and
Physiology. Two geners confirmed.
I learned at university that all sorts of genetic variations are
possible (but not common). hermaphroditic, multiple pairs of mammary
glands in females, whatnot. The prof's comment was that nature is not
nearly so obssessed with gender as we are.
You really can't get an education in a jr college.
"Condescension is a recurring tactic. The leftist says dissenters are >>uninformed,
dissenters are not necessarily uninformed. Uneducated people are.
morally deficient, or acting in bad faith.
Who said anything about that? But yes, propaganda is bad faith at its >finest.
Rather than
engaging with ideas, they employ a "talking down" tone where their views >>are assumed as self-evident truths.
I engaged my profs with ideas while I was at university, when I
occasionally had one worthy of their attention. And I am engaging
with your ideas, whether you like it or not.
Remembering that lies are not ideas, are not theories, are not
opinions.
The left often denigrates opponents instead of answering their
arguments, which is a sign of intellectual insecurity."
No that is what the rightwing that wants to say: I am entitled to my
opinion (yes you are) and it is as good as the opinion of somebody who
has spent years of their lives successfully learning about a topic
(no, your opinions are not without similar training. Without that
your ideas are ignorance, even though you occasionally can be
accidentally right).
You of course can accuse those who disagree with you of condescension.
That is a whine unless you undertake to inform yourself with real
knowledge. At that point you would deserve attention whether I would
then agree with you or not.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 19:51:29 |
| Calls: | 812 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
20 files (23,248K bytes) |
| Messages: | 210,075 |