This is hardly the worst thing about this statement, but I can't get over the fact that the president of Harvard sounds like a 6th grade teacher. To give a sense of the decline, here is a speech from a Harvard president in 1961 saying roughly the same thing about free speech:
Nathan Pusey, president of Harvard 1953–71, opens the speech with this letter from an alumnus worried about subversives on the faculty: “When a whole Harvard department is so strongly promoting measures leading to totalitarianism, it seems I would be weak-minded to support it.”
“Harvard is a complex, lively, and involved institution. Now as always she includes many kinds and conditions of people—people of different interests, views, and opinions; and this grows increasingly so, the more the University becomes a world institution. But this is good, for diversity of opinion makes one think. As much as anything, it may set one on the path toward truth.
But never has Harvard tried to teach a single narrow orthodoxy in any field, nor does she now. From the time our first president, Henry Dunster, was dismissed for unorthodoxy, it has been her chief purpose to call men to think for themselves. Again and again there has been difficulty about this. Henry Dunster did not meet the conditions of the Massachusetts theocracy, but Harvard respected him for his courage and conviction and in time named a House for him.
Harvard still honors courage, conviction, and independent thought in her main and central thrust. As William James said in his much quoted address at Commencement fifty-eight years ago this month, ‘The day when Harvard shall stamp a single fast an hard type of character upon her children will be that of her downfall.”
“Our world is full of divergencies of opinion and unlimited perils. Granted. And this has made us all abnormally apprehensive. But surely the way to cope with this situation is not to begin by saying there is some simple, easily recognizable right to which we must adhere, and that all other views are wrong. Nor, let me add in fairness to my critic, is there any need to assume that any single individual who talks most frequently, or most conspicuously, or most assertively, must necessarily therefore be right or even in any degree representative. We all learned in the first discussion class we ever attended that this is not so.
Our world is full of divergencies of opinion, and so is Harvard.”
“What is the sum of these few brief remarks? It is simply that in my judgment there is one thing Harvard men must be agreed about. This is the recognition that truth is not something easily identifiable or simply stated, and that, this being so, those other qualities for which we all care so much—integrity, concern, and courage—these qualities make serious demands for understanding upon us all.”
The ruling ideology is just race communism. Taking stuff from the bad class and giving it to the good class is its central purpose as much as it was for the Soviets. Who gets board seats, jobs, college spots, loans, housing—it’s all about the allocation of resources by race.
“Wokeness” is a bad name for it because it sounds frivolous. It makes you think of diversity seminars and college professors. “Race communism” sounds like what it is: your telecommunications merger won’t be approved unless you give sufficient hand-outs to legally favored races.
Communists believe the central story of mankind is the oppression and eventual liberation of the working class. Race communists think the same thing but about non-white people. It is the dominant theme of all human history and the basis of the regime’s moral legitimacy.
Interesting New York Times Magazine article on white flight from 1971 by a journalist who grew up in a Slovak neighborhood of Cleveland in the early 1950s and returned after Carl Stokes was elected the city’s first black mayor in 1967. nytimes.com/1971/01/24/arc…
“The old ladies of the church were getting beaten and robbed on their way to early mass, so we stopped those… We had a lot of trouble with school children being beaten... I guess you heard about the eighth‐grade girl who was raped by four boys from Audubon.”
“Joe had been warned the neighborhood was changing, that five merchants or property owners had been killed during hold ups in the last few years. His response was, ‘Who would want to hurt me? Anyhow, they can take the money, I'll earn more.’ … His tire gauge had deflected a bullet, but his skull had been crushed in a remorseless beating.”
“In certain international markets, bad actors have long made concerted efforts to access and share test content.” As Americans get more exposed to Asian cultures of education, we are slowly learning about their downsides. So far we have been slow to adapt. nytimes.com/2026/01/28/us/…
As I wrote in Compact: “Meritocracy has within it certain forces that, unchecked, can turn into death spirals. The gaokao is China’s solution to those forces. As our meritocracy comes to resemble Asia’s, we will have to come up with a solution of our own.” compactmag.com/article/how-as…
The boom in Southern colleges is white flight from Asian educational norms. That’s my theory.
“For most outsiders, a principal and immediately apparent characteristic of Somalis, often strongly at variance with external circumstance, was their ‘inordinate pride and contempt for other nations.’ In their own minds, Somalis were always aristocrats among savages: Arabs in a continent of inferior Blacks;
Muslims in a continent of unbelief and confusion; herdsmen encompassed by diggers of mud; sometimes conquerors but never conquered…. Consider the opinion of one British soldier, a Commanding Officer of the Somaliland Camel Corps (SCC), with many years of experience, writing in 1944: The ‘Somali is convinced that he is entirely different from and vastly superior to any East African.’”
“The Protectorate Administration—such as it was—attempted nothing in the way of development and the British Somalis wanted none… Somaliland was firmly established in official minds as a ‘Type Four Dependency’: nothing was expected or possible here.”
“Somaliland ranked lowest in the Empire for revenue locally raised… Would it be possible to increase customs duties? The Governor was discouraging. Duties were already so high that smuggling was rampant, and prosecution simply led to litigation which the Somalis enjoyed as a type of free theatre.”
Irish authorities will go to great lengths to stop anyone “politicizing” horrific crimes by immigrants. In 2023, the boyfriend of murder victim Ashling Murphy made an impact statement in court that was initially reported but later censored from RTÉ press coverage of the trial. The section that was deleted from news stories said: “It just sickens me to the core that someone can come to this country, be fully supported in terms of social housing, social welfare, and free medical care for over 10 years—never hold down a legitimate job, and never once contribute to society in any way shape or form.”
After Ashling Murphy was murdered, Irish politicians repeated over and over the line that “there is no link betweeen migration and crime.” However, as Lenihan points out, of the 12 women murdered in Ireland that year, six were killed by immigrants.
Amazing. Most speeches from the last NatCon have a few dozen views. “The Great Feminization” is now approaching 100,000. I’m truly grateful to see this important message spreading. A few additional thoughts:
1. Remember how insane everything got in 2020? That is just a small preview of how things will be when women come to dominate our institutions. Back in the 1970s, a lot of people thought introducing women into institutions wouldn’t change them, or might make them slightly softer but otherwise the same. That prediction has been proven false. Look at how much the legal profession, journalism, medicine, and journalism have changed now that women are the majority of the younger cohorts. Imagine how much more they’ll change as the remaining men age out.
2. People think the difference between men and women is that men are logical and women are emotional. That’s true, but it’s just a tiny fraction of what “feminization” means.
For example, men have the concept of an honorable enemy. Men can engage in conflict with an opponent and still respect them. When the conflict is over, they’ll shake the other guy’s hand and accept the outcome gracefully.
Women don’t have that. If you’re her enemy, you are subhuman garbage. No rules govern the fight; no shaking hands when it’s over. It is never over.
Joyce Benenson speculates that this is because men evolved for warfare between tribes and women evolved for sexual competition within the tribe. See her book “Warriors and Worriers.”
Whatever the reason, this is actually the number one thing I worry about with the Great Feminization. I see it already in the female-dominated Democratic Party. That’s what I mean when I say logic vs. emotion is only a small fraction of the danger.