terça-feira, 1 de julho de 2025

The Spectator - The derangement of Harvard

 

(personal underlines)

The derangement of Harvard

It is 60 years since William F. Buckley said that he would ‘rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the Boston telephone directory than by the 2,000 people on the faculty of Harvard University’. Yet even the godfather of American conservatism would be surprised at how much more attractive the folks in the phone directory appear today.

Harvard is currently having a major row with Donald Trump’s administration. It results from the way in which the university responded to the 7 October attacks in Israel. While the Hamas massacres were still on-going, more than 30 Harvard University student organisations signed a letter which claimed to hold the ‘Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence’.

You might wonder why students at Harvard have such an inflated sense of their own importance that they imagine any ‘regime’ or government would be waiting for their take on things. Stranger still was the students’ apparent belief that Harvard was somehow central to the Israeli war effort. ‘Harvard out of Occupied Palestine’ was one of their demands. You would be hard-pushed to find anyone in the Middle East who believes that their lands are occupied by Harvard University, whoever else they think culpable.

Since then, events on campus have become increasingly insane. Jewish students were subjected to assaults, insults and intimidationall while the university authorities defended all this as a ‘speech’ issue. In a set of notorious hearings in front of a Congressional committee, the then president of Harvard, Claudine Gay, insisted that calls for ‘genocide’ against Jews would have to be judged based on their ‘context’.

Many observers noted that if it had been black students being chased across the Harvard campus with calls for lynchings then things might have been regarded differently. If foreign students were shown to have participated in such activities, then withdrawing their visas would have been the least of the demands. Yet students at Harvard who were part of a group that attacked their Jewish peers were not only given free rein to do so, but only the other day a number of them were honoured by the university and given further scholarships.

The latest Trump administration has made Harvard one of the focuses of its attempts to de-radicalise the American university system. It has threatened to freeze tens of millions of dollars of federal subsidies to the university and warned that the Internal Revenue Service would be taking away the institution’s tax-exempt status. Last week the Department of Homeland Security said that it was revoking Harvard’s certification for participating in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program – effectively cutting billions of dollars of further financing.

Many Americans will have been surprised to learn that billions of dollars of their taxes have been going to educate foreign students at Harvard – including the sort of foreign students who use their time to foment revolution in the United States. Harvard started legal proceedings against the government within the day, once again reminding us that the only people who always benefit from this sort of dust-up are members of the legal profession.

This week the Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the Trump administration is ‘holding Harvard accountable for fostering violence, anti-Semitism and co-ordinating with the Chinese Communist party on its campus’. She went on: ‘It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enrol foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments. Harvard had plenty of opportunity to do the right thing. It refused.’

Harvard and its supporters have done what any university would do, insisting that the cuts threatened by the Trump administration have already affected research into cancer and other diseases. This is a pretty cunning move. Harvard knows what it could do to clean up the mess made by its students and faculty, yet it presents itself as the victim of brutal and inexplicable cuts that threaten the very things that everybody agrees a research university should focus on. It is the playbook that the left always uses whenever financial cuts occur, here or in the US – portraying them as falling hardest on ‘the most vulnerable’. Campaigners are one step away from proclaiming: ‘It is such a shame that since the government’s slashing of funding to our egregious and politicised campaigns all the puppy sanctuaries will have to close.’

Harvard is betting that it can win the war with Trump. His administration is clearly enjoying the opportunity to sock it to an institution that has become increasingly partisan and political. Yet all the time the obvious correction remains in plain sight.

The trouble lies in the fact that Harvard is no longer Harvard, just as so many other institutions in the West are not what outsiders imagine them to be. Harvard’s best line of defence would be to return to what it is meant to be – a genuinely world-class university which prioritises the cultivation of excellence. It is many years since it or most other higher education institutions in the US have been any such thing. It is one reason why students are desperate to enrol in new establishments such as the University of Austin and Ralston College in Savannah. These places aim to provide a true, classical education, because it is so hard for Americans to find it where they once did.

One left-wing author claimed this week that through its attacks on Harvard, the Trump administration ‘has launched a comprehensive attack on knowledge itself’ which ‘if successful will undermine Americans’ ability to comprehend the world around us’. We shall see. But for that line of argument to work, the people in what used to be the phone directory would have to be persuaded that Harvard has been an enlightening presence in American life of late, rather than an utterly deranging one.

Youtube - Talking with doctors

 

Interesting programs with doctors talking on different subjects



Why You Should Stop Having Dairy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDaE__jxWqY













Música - Hahn: Chansons grises: No. 5, L'heure exquise

L'heure exquise - CDA67962 - Hyperion Records - MP3 and Lossless downloads 

Da banda sonora da série "


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ke2u8JtS9tc





Almoço - DSL 2 (Escola Alemã 2)

Em 27.06.2025, na Trafaria, no Fragateiro, eu o Carlos Medeiros, o Manuel Ribeiro e o João Leite passámos mais uma tarde a discutir a actualidade. 





The Spectator - Did Greta Thunberg refuse to watch the October 7 video?

 (personal underlines)


Did Greta Thunberg refuse to watch the October 7 video?

Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg (Getty images)

Did Greta Thunberg refuse to watch footage of Hamas’s 7 October atrocities? That’s the accusation being made by Israel’s defence minister, Israel Katz. Greta and her crew, upon their arrival in Israel last night, were taken into a room to be shown the harrowing truth of what Hamas did 20 months ago, says Katz. But when the video started rolling, and ‘they saw what it was about’, they ‘refused to continue watching’, he alleges.

This is a serious charge. Thunberg and her fellow sailors should address it with haste. For if what Mr Katz is saying is true, if they really did look away upon being shown footage of the torture and slaughter of the Jews of Southern Israel, then we need to know why. To shut one’s eyes to the grim reality of Hamas’s anti-Semitic barbarism is to be wilfully blind to one of the great horrors of our age – did you do that, Greta?

Greta’s boat, the Madleen, was intercepted by Israeli forces. She and 11 other keffiyeh-wearing agitators had been hoping to land in Gaza, to ‘break the blockade’. It was a ‘selfie yacht’, in Israel’s salty words, that was carrying a ‘tiny amount of aid’. Israel towed the boat to its port city of Ashdod. The crew, these self-imagined saviours of Gaza, are being repatriated to their countries of origin this week.

Many shrill claims are being made about Israel’s interception. We’ve been ‘kidnapped’, said Greta. They haven’t. They’re fine and they have sandwiches. If anything happens to us, this is a war crime’, cried one of the boat folk as the IDF boarded. This is teenage petulance masquerading as activism. Israel just saved you from a bloody warzone and you accuse it of war crimes? How about showing some gratitude?

If these people want to see real war crimes, they could do worse than watch Hamas’s own footage of the racist terror it inflicted on the innocents of Israel. And yet, according to Katz, they turned a ‘blind eye’ to those war crimes. They looked away from the screen. His allegations are being widely reported in Israel and beyond.

Self-styled warriors for human rights refusing to watch one of the bloodiest assaults on human rights of the 21st century so far? Implacable anti-racists turning away from the worst act of anti-Jewish racism since the Nazis? If this is true, then it surely speaks to a profound moral blindness among the activist class, where they will sympathise with suffering humans everywhere except in Israel.

We await comment from Greta and the rest about whether they ‘refused’ to watch – and if so, why. To my mind, if this shunning of truth did occur, then it is of a piece with the left’s agonised and sometimes outright shameful attitude towards 7 October. 

Greta and Co would only have been doing physically what the ‘pro-Palestine’ set has been doing morally for nearly two years: refusing to grapple with the enormity of what Hamas did to the Jews on that darkest day.

The activist set has a truly tortured relationship with 7 October. Some deny it, in a gross rehash of Holocaust denialism. It’s exaggerated, they cry. Women weren’t raped, they claim. Others say it was ‘resistance’. ‘This didn’t start on 7 October’, they snivellingly say, as if Hamas’s fascistic actions, its slaughter of Jewish women and burning alive of Jewish families, were an ‘understandable’ response to Israeli policy. The last people who thought a pogrom was a legitimate response to political grievance were the Nazis.

The anti-Israeli mob can’t make their minds up. They can’t decide if 7 October didn’t really happen, or it did and it was justified. Their swirling post-truth disorientation, their sick refusal to speak honestly about what an army of anti-Semites did to Jews in this very decade, is born of a depthless moral cowardice. For they know that the truth of 7 October threatens to utterly shatter that precarious moral high ground they teeter on.

To admit that Hamas visited Nazi-style violence on innocent Jews would be to admit that leftists took the wrong side in the aftermath of that grimmest crime against humanity. For self-styled anti-fascists to acknowledge that they made excuses for the worst act of fascist violence of our times is unthinkable. So they bury, or at least downplay, the truth of Hamas’s atrocities, all to the low end of preserving their own phoney moralism. Nothing as trifling as the suffering of Jews can be allowed to meddle with the self-aggrandising narratives of the new left.

We cannot know for sure if Greta and her friends really ‘refused’ to watch the 7 October footage. If they did, might this be why – because they could not bear to glimpse the barbarism committed by the Palestinian side in this war? By the side whose flag they wave and whose keffiyehs they wear? They must tell us what happened. This is important.

Desporto - Sumo (torneio de Maio)

E Onosato venceu, uma vez mais. E foi promovido a Yokozuna!






Em ascensão?













Em declínio...

Ura

Midorifuji

Nishikigi

Shodai



Mitakeumi

Ryuden











 

Série - O suspeito

 






Reflexão - LBC (Leste - Oeste)

(enviado à SIC N) 


Exmos. Senhores:


1 - Sou espectador assíduo, há muitos anos, do vosso colaborador Nuno Rogeiro, no programa “Leste- Oeste”. Para que conste, nunca o vi, nem o conheço pessoalmente.

2 - É, na verdade, e por mais piadas e insinuações mais sarcásticas que sejam difundidas nos media e nas conversas privadas, alguém que continua a passar informação fidedigna mas, sobretudo, sustentada! É uma questão de experiência e, já agora, em extinção...!

3 - No passado dia 22.06.2025, a vossa “colaboradora” que interpelou o Entrevistado, ultrapassou largamente - na minha perspectiva, claro -, as suas funções, interrompendo, “complementando”, insinuando”, enfim, sendo de uma inconveniência e má educação que já há algum tempo não via na SIC N.

4 - Se foi por indicação superior, compreende-se ( a incompetência do superior hierárquico!!), mas lamenta-se. 
Se foi por iniciativa da “entrevistadora", creiam-me solidário com a paciência  do Dr. Nuno Rogeiro. Como é possível aguentar “profissionais” deste calibre que, pondo-se em bicos de pés, pretendem quase que substituir-se ao entrevistado? Gabo-lhe, uma vez mais a paciência, bem como esta característica adicional...

5 - Antevejo a resposta com que V. Exas. me irão contemplar: “agradecemos ….", “o seu mail foi reencaminhado”, "mas procuraremos….", "melhoria da qualidade….”, "etc”.
Isto se a resposta acontecer, claro está!

6 - Se efectivamente estão apostados na melhoria da Qualidade, lutem por ela, eliminem quem não a tem, expurguem os que não servem!

Os meus cumprimentos

Luiz Carvalho