You're Fired: Blaspheming at Acadia

You're Fired: Blaspheming at Acadia



by Jonathon Kneeland



"The actual moment of my decision to break with the Eastern bloc could be understood, from the psychological point of view, in more ways than one. From the outside, it is easy to think of such a decision as an elementary consequence of one's hatred of tyranny. But in fact, it may spring from a number of motives, not all of them equally high-minded. My own decision proceeded, not from the functioning of the reasoning mind, but from a revolt of the stomach. A man may persuade himself, by the most logical reasoning, that he will greatly benefit his health by swallowing live frogs: and, thus rationally convinced, he may swallow a first frog, then the second; but at the third his stomach will revolt. In the same way, the growing influence of the doctrine on my way of thinking came up against the resistance of my whole nature." –  Czeslaw Milosz, The Captive Mind  

 

How would I get people to pay attention to the unjust firing of a single individual? How could I achieve this? I could say that you must pay attention, as it is quite possible that you'll be next. While this may be true, it wouldn't work because, as we know, we're unable to get people to stop smoking, driving too fast, overusing alcohol, or even to stop smoking crystal methamphetamine by warning them of dire consequences. I think a better way might be to let readers know that contained within the firing of this individual is injustice fueled by ignorance, religious dogma, and tribalism. Most people have an innate interest in fairness and justice, and so this is where I'll direct my efforts. 

 

Professor Rick Mehta, of Acadia University, had the misfortune of belonging to the 2.5 percent club. You can’t be nominated into this club nor does nepotism play any role. Neither connections nor wealth will get you in. The only way in is to have a strong conscience, a free mind, and a level of courage and conviction that is above the average. No one ever wants to be a 2.5 percenter when actual events collide with your innate personality and force you into the club. And it’s only many years later, once the risk has completely disappeared, that everyone likes to imagine that had they been there, they would have done the right thing.

 

The 2.5 percenters are people who act independently of the herd and do so out of moral conviction. If you read Christopher Browning’s Ordinary Men – you should if you haven’t – you will notice that of the five hundred Germans who were assembled as Police Reserve Battalion 101 for the purpose of executing women and children in Nazi occupied Poland, only twelve declined to participate. This is roughly 2.5 percent. This is a sobering thought and shows how powerful the herd instinct actually is. This number is also quite consistent with what I have noticed throughout my life. In a large company, committee, or community, it always seems to be roughly this percentage of people who are willing to take a risk and actually say or do something when a break from the herd is required. Many people will whisper to friends or coworkers, quietly complain with other quiet complainers, or make soft noises in safe places about being on the right side, but very few will actually do something if there's any risk involved. This shortcoming is the main reason that every so often, throughout history, large portions of humanity go sideways and fall into insanity and ruin.

 

We have no idea how much we owe to those who will take a stand against the majority and against public opinion. To the sheep we owe nothing – they'll do good or evil depending only on where they find the safety of consensus. The people who are willing to take the risk of breaking from the consensus on the power of their moral principles alone are owed much by civilization. A university, of all places, should know this; apparently not.

 

Acadia University's motto is "In pulvere vinces", which means "By effort, you will conquer." This motto is obviously bullshit. Their real motto is more like "By blind compliance, you shall collect your paycheque." In Nabokov's Invitation to a Beheading, the protagonist, a teacher named Cincinnatus C, is sentenced to death for the crime of "gnostical turpitude" – a charge which by design cannot be defined. While in prison he rereads the prison rules once again out of boredom. Rule #2 states "A prisoner's meekness is a prison's pride." Perhaps a more suitable motto for this wretched and bloated institution might be "A professor's meekness is a university's pride". Professor Mehta is not meek; and therefore, did not make his University proud, and so they fired him.  

 

The firing of Professor Mehta by the taxpayer funded Acadia contains everything that I hate. Professor Mehta was the target of fear and ignorance, religious dogmatism, mob justice, a clique made up of dishonest and malignant individuals, a corrupt union, a corrupt public institution, a blatant misuse of public funds, hypocrisy, arrogance, a cult of political correctness, and petty and useless administrators absurdly attempting to pass themselves off as morally serious. To put it more simply, the people who participated in or derived enjoyment from the firing of Professor Mehta are a joke. They have no concept of justice, fairness, free enquiry or the pursuit of knowledge or wisdom. I'll go a step further and say that the cretins who were responsible for having this decent public servant fired cannot even read. I say this because Professor Mehta clearly does not hold the views that have been ascribed to him. He has been held personally responsible for the deranged perceptions of tender-headed imbeciles. All of this only further cements my theory that the longer one stays in school, the more stupid and irrational they become. This being the case, it's logical to conclude that if one went through elementary school, high school, university, and then finally became a university administrator, it is quite likely that this person, by age fifty, would be such a jackass that a large taxpayer funded staff would be required to dress and feed the proud intellectual. Here I must introduce Dr. Heather Hemming, Acadia University Vice President, lifelong welfare recipient, and author of a very revealing disciplinary letter aimed at Professor Mehta. As far as I am concerned, if your salary is paid with public money, and you're causing damage or producing nothing of value, you're on the dole.    

Dr. Hemming appears to me to be typical of academia in general. She at some point must have realized that it is actually possible to never leave school. This is from Acadia's own website:  

A two-time graduate of Acadia, Dr. Hemming’s faculty career at Acadia began in 1986 in the University’s School of Education. In 2000, she was appointed Director of the School of Education and in July 2007 was appointed Dean of the Faculty of Professional Studies comprising Acadia’s Schools of Education, Business, Kinesiology, and Community Development. 

 

Hemming swindles from the public an annual salary of roughly $187,000.00. This is according to a 2016 Acadia document. Now that the curtain has been pulled back a bit, I see what we're getting for this money. I know that if you pay a decent mechanic $187,000.00 per year, you're going to end up with a lot of smooth running machinery. But we are forced to pay these kinds of salaries to Hemming, and those like her, with a combination of public funds and money ripped off from students. This is like buying expensive plant food to nourish weeds in your garden. No one would ever do something so asinine on their own; it would require the guidance of a team of administrators.       

 

I don't make the accusation of stupidity and uselessness carelessly. I did read Weapons of Mass Instruction and I also recall Bertrand Russell saying "A certain percentage of children have the habit of thinking; one of the aims of education is to cure them of this habit. Inconvenient questions are met with ‘hush, hush’, or with punishment." I've also had my own experiences in our public education system. If this is all not enough, I've had the misfortune of reading tweets by radical leftist professors, such as Matthew A. Sears. Every time Sears – another individual badly damaged by our education system, and so thriving in it – sends out a tweet, I'm immediately reminded of Orwell's famous quote:  "One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool." Obviously, there are some gifted and useful individuals who did manage to make it through our public indoctrination mills, but these anomalies occurred in spite of and not because of our public education system. Many teachers, teachers unions, and school administrators are directly responsible for deliberately retarding human progress and it's about time that the entire system was exposed and mocked for the absurdity that it is. And is it too much to ask that they get their bloody hands out of our pockets and go out into the world and make their own money? If their indoctrination of the young is so important, then let them fund it themselves, or fuck off.    

 

The religious dogmatism involved in the firing of Professor Mehta is hard to miss. When I was young, I read a lot of work by famous atheists. Bertrand Russell and H.L. Mencken were my favourites, and they were followed by slightly more charismatic but perhaps less rigorous thinkers, frequently labelled by their enemies as "the new atheists". Apparently, to be a "new atheist" was to be strident and noisy and this was somehow supposed to diminish the intellectual seriousness of their arguments. Later, Youtube got going and the growing appetite for sensational exchanges did lend this accusation some credibility. Anyway, I've watched many debates between the religious and the new atheists as well as seen many book tours, all of these followed by Q&A periods. It never failed during the Q&A that someone would assertively take the microphone to ask some form of this question: "If you succeed in getting rid of religion, what will replace it?" In my militant atheist days, I would find this predictable question boring and idiotic. Under my breath I would always reply, "Reason". Many years later, I've come to realize that it was not the question that was idiotic but rather my answer to it. I had naively assumed that if you succeeded in getting rid of religion that reason would replace it. This was a logical error. The correct answer to the question is "another religion". People, for the most part, are tribal and religious by nature. If you get rid of one religion or tribe, another will form. This is a mathematical certainty. True atheists and freethinkers are actually very rare.  

 

The new religion that has replaced the old is the Political Correctness cult. Universities are churches. Diversity and Equity Officers are priests. Lawyers and HR departments serve as inquisitors. With social media being what it is, whispers of the presence of a blasphemer can rally an ignorant and revenge seeking mob within hours. There's absolutely nothing missing here from the old religion, and it contains the same level of irrationality, fear, superstition, faulty justifications for the most offensive behaviour, and a reliable tendency towards violence.  And of course, the desire of the new clerics to have the new religion reign supreme inspires them to lie to themselves and to others, and to insist that questions that might produce embarrassing answers not be asked. If you dare to blaspheme, they are quite happy to get rid of you by bullying you out of your employment.   

 

Professor Mehta's crimes against the Church consisted of making statements that were factually correct. Galileo Galilei ran afoul of his church for the same type of crime. Galileo made the mistake of asserting that the Earth revolved around the Sun. For this he was found "vehemently suspect of heresy" by the church inquisitors. Contained in a petition to have Professor Mehta fired is a factual statement that he simply retweeted. He's also been accused by his university of "creating a poisonous work environment." Here is the statement that Mehta retweeted:  "It is statistically impossible for all Native children to have had a negative experience with residential schools. To deny this fact would be just as bad as denying the majority that did have negative experiences." This statement is put forward as the main reason for having Mehta fired in a petition created for that purpose, and in many "news" articles. Almost all of these articles used the predictable recycled Dollar Store headline "Controversial Professor..." The CBC used the same headline. If I had the CBC's budget (1.6 billion dollars) I'd hire a writer so that I wouldn't have to recycle this annoying headline every time some individual demonstrated the tiniest level of courage or originality. It seems odd to me that cowardly journalists would insist on using the lazy recycling of headlines in an attempt to attack anyone who's not lazy and cowardly.  

 There’s nothing controversial about Professor Mehta’s opinions. It’s the University’s behaviour that’s controversial.

There’s nothing controversial about Professor Mehta’s opinions. It’s the University’s behaviour that’s controversial.

 

The statement that Mehta shared is factually correct. The problem is that the statement disrupts official church dogma and threatens at least two corrupt and shady industries that are designed to promote incompetence and to divert massive sums of public funds to who know where – but more on those at another time. It is estimated that 150,000 First Nations ended up in residential schools. In order to claim that the experience was a hundred per cent uniform across all 150,000 people, you would either have to lie, or be so intellectually underpowered that you would require assistance to manufacture a peanut butter sandwich. The term "experience" is subjective. It is obvious that in distant subjective experiences, it's impossible to get a consistent detailed recollection from ten people, never mind 150,000. And as human beings reflect and remember, their recollections continue to change and evolve. There is nothing controversial here. The statement is obviously correct. If you're still not convinced, and you're the type of person who prefers personal recollections of subjective experience to mathematical certainty, perhaps you'll accept the word of the First Nations writer and playwright, Tomson Highway, who had this to say about his residential school experience in an interview with the National Post:  

First of all, too many people, in my opinion, talk about it as if they were there, as if they actually saw it. Different people had different experiences. There was an awful lot of us who survived and who have beautiful, beautiful lives. I don't dwell in the past. I dwell in the present and the future. Even if the school system had destroyed me, which it didn't, you know what happens when something destroys you? You pick yourself up, you brush yourself off, and you move on. Who's had a perfect school experience? How many kids were you tortured by in the schoolyard when you were six years old? How many 14-year-old white teenage girls are being tortured to death literally on the Internet? There are many, many positive things, and that's what I like to think about. [Because] of the residential system, by the time I was 12, I was trilingual. Because of the residential system, I learned how to play the piano and I play like a dream.

 

Highway's statement is actually quite beautiful. It contains several ideas that show that he's a real thinker and quite likely a very decent human being. He sees the humanity that we all share, he demonstrates a cool rationality, and he has the qualities of self-observation and honesty. He also very clearly displays the human resilience that we can all aspire to. This is far more than can be said of the frauds who created and signed the offensive and boneheaded petition to have Professor Mehta fired for the crime of retweeting a condensed and less beautiful version of Highway's statement.

One of these frauds, the liar and imbecile Jessica Durling, puts forward as the very first thing about herself on her petition profile, "human rights activist" – uh huh. Beware of anyone who labels themselves a "human rights activist." Usually these people know nothing about or care very little for human rights. They are usually vile misfits who have found a niche within the new religion of Political Correctness and are aware of the fact that if they can manage to get themselves called a human rights activist, then they can spew their innate malevolence from behind a facade of righteousness. They might be able to fool their mothers or the university administrators, but they don't fool me for a second. I'll apologize for modifying and recycling an old cliché here: Being a human rights activist is a little like being ladylike – if you have to say it, then it probably ain't so. I'm also sorry to have to inform Ms. Durling that if she wishes to see a fellow human being lose their employment because they have opinions that differ from her own, then there is something seriously wrong with her and I'm extremely thankful that I don't know her. If she has any conscience at all, her behaviour should bother her for the rest of her life. This probably won't happen, as Durling is simply just another in a long and growing line of unhinged religious crackpots rejoicing in the punishment of sinners.

Untitled.png
mehtafirepetition.png

 

As with all religions in all times and in all places, our new religion is the perfect camouflage to hide the true motives of predatory sociopaths and psychopaths. It's the perfect cover for people who enjoy hurting and punishing others while convincing the fools around them that they're labouring under the service of a higher moral calling. Durling is no different than a 1600's Salem witch hunter – she's utilizing a period of mass hysteria as a cover in order to get away with behaving like a complete asshole. There's no question in my mind that if Durling were in some previous period in human history that was flooded in blood and cruelty, she would be enjoying herself, and claiming to be doing God's work.     

 

During the heresy hunt that Professor Mehta was exposed to, he was accused of being a racist, a transphobe, a bigot, and a supporter of the residential school system. All of these accusations are religiously motivated lies. If you read or listen to what he has actually said, you will find only rational and factual statements that are very reasonable and measured. Our education system has been so successful in damaging the minds of the young and indoctrinating them as lifelong members of the Church of Political Correctness that many of them can't handle hearing very simple factual statements. They've been made to swallow whole narratives as religious dogma, and any statement that is not in complete harmony with the entire narrative is rejected outright and reported as blasphemy. Lies are peddled as truths and truths are crushed as blasphemy by a mob of heresy hunters. In addition, our public indoctrination system has succeeded in placing whining and a cult of self-importance and victimhood above self-challenge and hard work. All of this becomes apparent as soon as you read the disciplinary letter that Acadia University's Vice President, Dr. Hemming, produced. She's been inside so long that she has no idea how absurd her letter looks to the outside world.

 

Hemming begins her letter by foolishly exposing herself as a deluded member of a cult. She doesn't let us forget for a second that we are in fact dealing with a religion. The first accusation she levels at Professor Mehta is that of "Unprofessional and non-collegial conduct..." She might as well have accused him of "gnostical turpitude." As evidence of Mehta's heretical inner thoughts, Hemming offers the following statement that has been attributed to Professor Mehta: "...Acadia should start saving money by cutting the Women and Gender Studies Program." Hemming is so deluded that she offers, as evidence of Mehta's evil and heretical mind, the fact that he dared to suggest that there could be cost savings to be found by cutting back on some programs. Ms. Hemming, do you have the faintest idea how this looks to people who live in the real world and who are not receiving truckloads of cash pick-pocketed from the real producers in our economy? I'll take this opportunity to remind people that Acadia burns through millions of dollars of other people's money and mismanages itself so badly that it's had to go on its knees begging for bailouts. How dare Mehta blaspheme by suggesting cost savings via cutting useless and frivolous programs? This careless slip by Hemming tells us a lot.     

 

Here's what the feminist and academic Camille Paglia has to say about Women and Gender Studies programs while arguing that they should be defunded:     

 “The English Department had taken a century to develop. All of a sudden, to create a department with a politicized agenda from the start taught by people without any training in that field? What should be the parameters of the field? What should be the requirements of the field? How about biology? If you are going to be discussing gender, that should be a number one requirement...The administrators wanted to solve a public relations problem. They had a situation with very few women faculty nationwide, at the time when the women’s movement had just started up. The spotlight of tension was on them. They needed women faculty fast. They needed the women’s subject on the agenda fast. So they just like, poof! ‘Let there be Women’s Studies. Now we will just hire some women, usually from English departments, and we’ll just throw them together. You invent it, you say what it is. That is why women’s studies got frozen at a certain point of ideology of the early 1970s. I couldn’t even have a conversation with any of these women. They were hysterical about the subject of biology. They knew nothing about hormones. I probably got in fist fights over this. People were so convinced that biology had nothing whatever to do with gender differences.”

 

Another well known and respected feminist, Christine Hoff Sommers, had this to say about Women's and Gender studies:

"The perspective now, from my point of view, is that the better things get for women, the angrier the women's studies professors seem to be, the more depressed Gloria Steinem seems to get."

       

Both Sommers and Paglia are serious and respected thinkers and both have discussed women's issues extensively in a serious and credible way. Some universities are dropping their women's and gender studies programs due to lack of interest, lack of credibility and academic rigour, and  because of grim employment prospects for graduates. Surely a tenured professor concerned with university expenditures is allowed to bring the topic up. Apparently not, according to the perpetual public cash vacuum Dr. Hemming. Only in an institution funded with a never ending supply of other people's money could it be considered taboo to discuss the financial value of any department. Hemming's attitude in this case displays the arrogant disregard for reality that rivals that of your most devious and infallible Catholic choir master.     

 

Dr. Hemming's hysterical and flailing letter then goes on to use the most predictable and endlessly recycled tactic of the self-proclaimed social justice fanatic, and dishonestly and irrationally accuses Mehta of being a racist, homophobe, transphobe, bigot, etc.... I have not seen a single racist, sexist, or homophobic comment anywhere from Professor Mehta. Again, Hemming obviously operates in a world that has been insulated from reality and where language has no precise meaning, and we're expected to finance it.    

 

Later in the same letter, we find out that someone thought that Professor Mehta might have rolled his eyes. Again, I have to ask what world Hemming lives in. This is comical. Are we supposed to take these people seriously? When an eye roll makes it into a disciplinary document, we know our civilization has reached peak uselessness. If it is the case that Mehta rolled his eyes, and someone thought that this warranted some sort of administrative involvement, I would suggest that this indicates that Acadia requires many more psychologists and not fewer. I think they should get Mehta back there, and quickly. 

 

Hemming's letter goes on to say that "Virtually every staff member identified situations of harassment and discrimination of women, transgendered individuals, black students, victims of violence, and Indigenous people." Apparently, you have to spend decades in our public education system to reach a point where you no longer know the correct definition of "harassment" or "discrimination". Hemming has obviously never seen harassment or discrimination, or she would be incapable of making such an idiotic statement about Professor Mehta. If you were to believe Hemming, you might picture Mehta roaming the halls of Acadia, screaming racial slurs while smashing in doors in with an axe and searching for visible minorities to duct tape to the walls. If this were the case, then by all means let them fire him, and I'd agree with them. However, we know that this is not the case. Mehta is a visible minority himself. He is mild mannered, soft spoken, and seems to be genuinely concerned with what's true in the world. When I've communicated with him, he's come across as very decent, courteous, and forthcoming with information. I have been unable to find anything about Mehta that would not make him an asset to any place of learning. Hemming's version of events makes sense only if you view it through the lens of extremist religious doctrine. If you view it that way, things clear up right away. Mehta did blaspheme when he allowed the phrase "women's studies" to venture outside of his own head. He blasphemed when he attempted to suggest that there might possibly be a full range of human experiences in Canadian residential schools. He blasphemed when he attempted to bring diversity of thought into his institution.        

 

You might think that a tenured professor would have some protection from this kind of institutionalized pogrom against real diversity. Mehta didn't get the backing of his union and this story cannot be discussed properly without discussing that.

 

Like the universities, public sector unions create "equality and diversity" departments to help spread incorrect definitions of equality and diversity for the purpose of completely eliminating equality and diversity. In order for the new religion to succeed, diversity of thought has to be completely eliminated. Equality also needs to be eliminated. This is done by pushing aside harder working and more talented individuals to make room for the less talented and more lazy. There is only one correct line of thought permitted and anything else is blasphemy. Simply pointing out the truth in most cases is enough to put you under suspicion. I'm an atheist and so I can take an impartial view and compare our old religion to the new. In the area of placing value on honesty and truth telling, I can comfortably say that our old religion is far superior to the new one.

 

The Acadia University Faculty Association was supposed to be protecting Professor Mehta from an inquisitional mob, but instead discarded good principles in favour of cowardice and appeasement. In fact, Mehta's union signed an agreement allowing him to be fired. I've been involved in a fair bit of union business myself and I can only imagine the conversations that took place behind closed doors. There would have been the inevitable "he brought this on himself" (designed as a cheap excuse to permit them to do nothing while maintaining their pathetic consciences), and the always trusty "he should have known better" (again designed to allow mediocre and cowardly types off the hook for doing nothing). These statements are more common than you might think. If you ever catch yourself making such statements, stop immediately and question your own motives. It's quite likely that what are at work are fear and a desire to trick yourself into believing that now is not the time to fight – you can do that forever and you'll never suffer a single scrape. What this union has done in this case is degrade all unions. They have put the mob ahead of the individual. They have put the new faith above reason, truth, and a clear conscience. If this is what unions have become then unions are finished and have no place in our society. If they want to side with our public institutions in spreading this destructive new religion, and do it on the taxpayer's dime, then they're pathetic parasites, and we should work hard to ruin them.              

 

Professor Mehta made a complaint to the labour board about his union. He was correct in doing this; although, the complaint was destined to fail for the same reason that his university and his union failed him. I would like to share part of the decision from the body that oversees Professor Mehta's union, the Nova Scotia Labour Board:

 [69] The duty of fair representation balances the overall interests of the membership with those of individuals. It is the nature of collective bargaining that what is in the overall best interests of the unit will be contentious and may conflict with the personal interests of some individual members. The union’s duty is to fairly represent the interests of all the members of the bargaining unit. Where the interests of individual members must be balanced with those of the bargaining unit as a whole, the union has considerable discretion as to how this should be done. And, as Gagnon makes clear, the standard is not perfection.

 

"Not perfection" is a bizarre euphemism. Upside down and backwards would be more apt. What the ruling says is that the will of the mob will take priority over any principle or any principled individual. What this tells us is that a public sector union will blindly follow a mob into the ditch (as long as it's safely within the consensus – no matter what the consensus is), and that following the mob is more important than the sound principles of any individual. The choice between dying in a ditch and paying dues to these useless frauds would not be an easy one to make.  

 

All of this got me to wondering where all these people fit in the world and how bizarre our world actually is. If our planet were hit by an asteroid tomorrow and most of humanity and all of our infrastructure were wiped out, I am confident that if I and six of my coworkers survived, we would gather up some scrap metal and, within a day or two, we'd be producing electricity. A day or two after that, we'd have light, heat, and hot water. Next, we might find someone with medical expertise and trade the products of our labour for their skills. Maybe we'd run into someone skilled at growing food or caring for animals. After that, a moral philosopher might come in handy and they might work with lawyers to further get things going. We'd definitely want to train some accountants before long and maybe once things were safe we'd let the engineers start tinkering. And yea, we'd build a school or two; but we wouldn't be in the business of indoctrinating – we'd let the kids learn how to think and not what to think. If a student or a teacher speaks up against the majority or the consensus we'll ask to hear more (we won't fire or expel them). Maybe they'll guide us. Maybe they'll have something important to tell us. Maybe a year or two later we'd allow a few politicians – but we'd warn them: "The penalty for corruption is very serious; so be extremely careful." Our little society would be nowhere near needing a university administrator at that point, and I can't think of anytime in the future where it might be necessary or even beneficial. Perhaps after we have everything we need and we're dying of boredom, caused by an excess of resources, lack of struggle, and the desire to see everything ruined, we might finally bring on the university administrators.

 

As for Professor Mehta, we'd take him into our new society right away – he'd let us know if he thought we were going sideways and that's an extremely valuable commodity. He's also trained in psychology and can probably tell us something about what motivates people. I'm not sure what use there'd be for Dr. Hemming and her ilk. The moral philosophers would urge us to feed her and treat her well. We'd do that for sure, but we wouldn't follow her advice or expect anything useful from her. We'd have to deny her demands for public cash in exchange for divinely inspired pogroms against blasphemers. If she can do anything useful, I'd really like to see it; otherwise, let her be on the dole and remain quiet.

 

I opened with a passage from The Captive Mind, by Czeslaw Milosz. I'll close with one as well. Milosz witnessed the Red Army march into Nazi occupied Poland and then witnessed its transformation into a Stalinist occupied Poland. If he were alive today, he might immediately recognize where our society is headed.

"Officially, contradictions do not exist in the minds of the citizens of the people's democracies. Nobody dares to reveal them publically. And yet the question of how to deal with them is posed in real life. More than others, the members of the intellectual elite are aware of this problem. They solve it by becoming actors.

It is hard to define the type of relationship that prevails between people in the East otherwise than as acting, with the exception that one does not perform on a theatre stage but in the street, office, factory, meeting hall, or even the room one lives in. Such acting is a highly developed craft that places a premium on mental alertness. Before it leaves the lips, every word must be evaluated as to its consequences. A smile that appears at the wrong moment, a glance that is not all it should be can occasion dangerous suspicions and accusations. Even one's gestures, tone of voice, or preference for certain kinds of neckties are interpreted as signs of one's political tendencies."  

 

Professor Mehta refused to be an actor, and that's why he was fired. For this he has my admiration and support. For Acadia University, I have only contempt. Acadia lives off the backs of those who get up and go to work, at real jobs, and produce real value through their efforts. The least that Acadia could do in return is behave decently. There is no value in Acadia's religious dogma, and yet, they demand that citizens forward a percentage of the proceeds of their labour to help spread and enforce it. This requires a level of arrogance and delusion that is deserving of a strong response. I'll warn Acadia here and now that many citizens have had about enough of this arrogant, obscene, and obnoxious behaviour from our publically funded institutions. The pendulum always swings back, and when it does, it's going to be forceful and unforgiving, and you'll have deserved every bit of the callousness that will be the inevitable by-product of its increasing momentum.

 

Again, I remind my fellow citizens to vote. Our society is still in our hands, for now.        

Help Support This Work

Follow on Twitter

Facebook