The Delusion of Diversity And The Victim Culture… Playing With Fire?

The Delusion of Diversity And The Victim Culture… Playing With Fire?


American author, Heather MacDonald, interviewed in the above clip, speaks a lot of sense, mostly applied to university education but it could all, every word, be applied more generally to society – including UK society.  She quotes a music student from Colombia University who says (incredibly): “Why did I have to listen to this Mozart? Who is this Mozart, this Haydn, these superior white men? There are no women, no people of color.” (sic)

The author goes on to make the point that this student (and her ilk) will take this hate which is being instilled into young people in their colleges, and take it out in the world.  Imagine being one of those females who goes through life perpetually believing that she is a victim, that all men are bad, out to persecute women. And that’s what the majority of the women in the public eye (not to mention students!) appear to believe.  Gimme strength.  

Previously in the interview, Heather had said she is sick of hearing sentences which begin: “As a female… as a black female… as a  black trans-female…” dubbing these “trivial categories.”  And she adds something that should ring true in the heads of all right-thinking people:  “Being female is not an accomplishment and it tells you nothing about me, which is what I know, what I have accomplished, and what my beliefs are.”

Ms MacDonald touches on many key areas of contemporary life, in relation to the diversity agenda and the sexual revolution. It’s well worth listening/viewing right through – takes just over half and hour. 

I couldn’t agree more with just about everything she says  – I’m thoroughly sick of the whole diversity and equality baloney.  What about you? And what, in your opinion,  will be the long-term effects of this “diversity delusion”? 

Comments (38)

  • Faith of Our Fathers Reply

    While I can still say the word as it hasn’t as far as I know down as a Hate Word am also PIG 🐷
    Sick of the whole Diversity Carry on . I must confess I never listened to the Video as am on a Downer with Barcelona getting beat by the Diversity Liverpool Mob . To sum lots of it up Ed I don’t know if you seen on Life Site News ( I think that’s where it was on ) . Now just read this for Diversity. Seemingly a Transgender Man who Dresses as a Woman ,went on stage dressed as a Man ( well he is a Man ) and was given a Standing Ovation for being so Brave . Yes Diversity is the new word also now of The SNP every time you see hear or look at one of their statements it’s all about Diversity. God Give Us Strength.

    May 7, 2019 at 10:49 pm
    • Laura Reply

      Faith of our Fathers,

      Your post made me LOL!

      I did watch the whole interview on the video and it’s well worth watching. Heather MacDonald talks a lot of sense and I’d like to see that interview discussed in all the secondary schools in Scotland. I definitely think there will be very bad long-term effects from all the brainwashing of young women that is going on, making them victims when there is no need to do that at all.

      Heather MacDonald sounds like a Scottish name – maybe her family is from these parts originally?

      May 7, 2019 at 11:01 pm
      • editor


        I wondered about Heather’s name, as well. She certainly displays some solid Scots common sense – if that’s not a “racist” thing to say 😀

        May 8, 2019 at 10:14 am
    • editor Reply


      You will find the video a great help in confirming your own position and giving some excellent examples of all that is wrong with the whole “diversity” agenda, which is unthinkingly accepted by most people today. I urge you to set aside a half and hour to watch it. Brownie points to follow 😀

      May 8, 2019 at 10:13 am
    • Allan Reply

      Faith of our Fathers,

      That’s hilarious about the “trans man” getting the standing ovation.

      May 8, 2019 at 6:17 pm
  • RCAVictor Reply

    Speaking as a person of the color white….I haven’t watched the video yet, but I intend to…I just wanted to point out that the goal of the globalists is a world government tyranny (by bureaucracy). In order to establish and maintain that tyranny, they understand that there must be anarchy at the societal level, so that no effective resistance can be mounted against their power. This anarchy must exist in every department of society, not only economic, political, religious, cultural and familial, but even down to the most basic element of human existence: gender. Anarchy to this extent has never been attempted before.

    In order to achieve this anarchy at the group level, there is an essential ingredient that must be established at the individual level: narcissism. There must be a critical mass of infantile individuals who are not only convinced that the world revolves around them and their beliefs, but that they have every right to be “offended” by those who rub their narcissism the wrong way. And we have now reached the point – some years ago, actually – where being “offended” is actionable. By censorship, as well as legal and economic sanctions.

    The more infantile the personality level, the more control is required by Big Brother, who is allegedly looking out for the welfare and well-being of all these professional victims, but who in reality is in the process of establishing a police state with uniform thought and behavior, and a variety of punishments for those who step out of line. This is exactly what 1984 was describing.

    “Diversity,” therefore, is nothing more than a benign-sounding code word for this anarchy. The more people – esp. Catholics – realize this and fight it, the more this freight train of evil will be slowed down and finally halted. The more they surrender to it, the more they will be crushed beneath it.

    Looking forward to the video. Perhaps I’ll put on some Mozart and Haydn while I’m watching, not to mention Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, Schubert, Brahms, Palestrina, Vivaldi, Corelli…..and all those wonderful European composers of the color white.

    May 8, 2019 at 2:32 am
    • editor Reply

      RCA Victor,

      That’s what drives me nuts – that being “offended” is actionable these days.

      Let’s know if you agree with my analysis of the video when you’ve watched it, but I’d say leave listening to Mozart etc until later…. otherwise they’ll drown out the speaker… and the daft student would interpret that as your/their attempt to oppress Heather MacDonald just because she’s female.

      Gimme, I repeat, gimme strength!

      May 8, 2019 at 10:17 am
  • editor Reply

    I’ve just signed this petition about the restoration (?) of Notre Dame Cathedral which, predictably, Macron et al are trying to modernise. I urge everyone to sign.

    May 8, 2019 at 2:35 pm
  • Fidelis Reply

    I have watched the video and I agree with everything the speaker says. How perceptive she is about the brainwashing of young women by the whole feminist machine.

    The music student sounds like a real idiot, frankly. It’s hard to believe that any student of music could fail to appreciate classics like Mozart and Haydn.

    If only we had someone equivalent to Heather MacDonald over here. There’s a real vacuum for someone to challenge the propaganda about women, “trans”, race etc. over here.

    May 8, 2019 at 4:26 pm
    • Nicky Reply


      The music student is worse than an idiot. She’s an idiotic music student with no sense of musicality! She’ll never get a job at anything to do with music, unless she’s planning to be a busker, LOL!

      May 8, 2019 at 6:29 pm
  • Margaret Mary Reply

    I’ve now watched the video and it’s excellent, I agree with everything Heather MacDonald says, absolutely everything.

    I do often wonder how many people really do go along with the whole diversity and feminist thing. I would love to see a poll taken which is very carefully worded to allow genuine responses. I suspect we would get a pleasant surprise and the liberals would get a shock!

    May 8, 2019 at 5:54 pm
    • Michaela Reply

      Margaret Mary

      I found this poll which shows that modern women don’t identify with the feminist movement as such – it makes very interesting reading.

      May 9, 2019 at 7:10 pm
  • Allan Reply

    Yes, the speaker on the video is very good and saying all the things I’ve thought for a long time, so my question is, why did it take so long? I think we’ve been needing people to speak up about this diversity stuff for a very long time. Better late than never, I suppose.

    May 8, 2019 at 6:18 pm
  • Athanasius Reply

    This is the agenda of cultural Marxism, conditioning the minds of the young to rebel against all normality and authority as it has been established for generations, especially in Christian culture.

    It’s the demon turning everything on its head and using what Pius IX called “incautious youth” for its ends by propaganda.

    Take, for example, the women’s equality movement, a misnomer that sets women in competition against men in every sphere of life. It’s the turning on its head of the Christian complimentarity of the sexes, men and women using their God-given talents and fulfilling their duties according to gender for the glory of God and the good of society. The equality movement destroys that and underpins the present assault on gender identity.

    May 8, 2019 at 11:48 pm
    • editor Reply


      “conditioning” is the word. And “incautious youth” – it’s precisely because young people are so easily influenced, worked up to take on a “cause” that the “diversity” etc extremists target them. Same with those who want 16 year olds to have the vote whether it be for Scottish independence or a second EU referendum. It’s so obvious what they are up to, and yet they get away with it. Incredible.

      May 9, 2019 at 9:19 am
    • RCAVictor Reply


      Yes, and Pope Francis has learned his Marxist lessons well, when one considers the craven, pathetic pandering to uncatechized and non-Christian “young people” during last year’s Synod, in which said young people were practically worshiped as the future saviors of the Church, not to mention of the world.

      Little did those young people suspect that they were being manipulated, by flattery, for other ends. I wonder if any of them have since realized that…besides that group whose input was suppressed because they were interested in Tradition.

      May 9, 2019 at 8:38 pm
  • Margaret Mary Reply

    Young people are very easily roped into causes which is why the terrorist groups can recruit them – they are very impressionable and easily inspired. It’s a pity the pope isn’t taking advantage of that and inspiring them to read the lives of the saints and work to be holy, instead of telling them to “make a mess” in their diocese.

    May 9, 2019 at 11:42 am
  • Michaela Reply

    I definitely believe that this culture of instilling victimhood in the minds of young women is playing with fire, without a doubt.

    What I don’t understand is how any man is ever attracted these females. I really don’t. I’ve asked men in my own circle, family and friends, and none of them are attracted to the “feminist” sisterhood, not even one, from the young ones to the elderly, they all say they are absolutely not attracted to that type of female.

    I think it’ll be a few more years before we see the terrible effects of this hate-men movement which is what feminism is really all about, much as they’d deny it. Maybe when these women have sons who are victimised by feminists, maybe then they will waken up. Here’s a short video clip where Ben Shapiro is on this subject about a feminist who is so brainwashed with the “men are all bad” mentality, even talking about her sons as potential rapists, and it is really funny.

    May 9, 2019 at 7:00 pm
    • editor Reply

      Priceless! It’s been a while since I’ve seen Ben Shapiro in action. Laughed heartily at his commentary on the “feminist blogger”. Madwoman!

      May 9, 2019 at 8:35 pm
  • Lionel Reply

    I do not believe in the concept of « evolutionary Truth ».
    Now, the search for unity in diversity is to rebuild the Tower of Babel, whereas unity in truth embodies truly Catholic ecumenism, the unity to which the Holy Church has always aspired.

    May 9, 2019 at 10:32 pm
    • Prognosticum Reply

      But neither is truth static, as is illustrated very well by the divine revelation itself. Revelation does not begin with Jesus Christ, but with creation (in which the divine logos certainly places a very important role). It then moves on to the historical revelation (the election of Israel) and to the prophetical one before the appearance of Christ. Thus revelation is an unfolding of truth. We must never forget that Israel’s tragedy was its incapacity to see the Messiah in Jesus precisely because the prevailing vision of truth was static.

      The Church herself is a perfect illustration of unity in diversity. Just look at the various rites which compose her public worship.

      May 10, 2019 at 4:51 am
      • Lionel

        What you write is very interesting!
        Truth remains unchangeable. What you rightly describe is a manifestation of the Truth that is revealed to us in different forms but never contradictory.
        So there is no evolution, because the Truth remains forever and it has been revealed to us definitively through the apostles: “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14: 6).
        It is clear that if we had been in the place of the Jews, we would have also asked questions!…

        May 11, 2019 at 9:02 am
  • Prognosticum Reply

    I clicked on the second option on the poll, ‘overwhelmed by societal acceptance’, but I could just as well clicked on the first. I am certainly not of the view that Catholics are not into fighting the diversity agenda because of poor leadership from Bishops and priests. Believing Catholics stopped looking to Bishops and priests for guidance a long time ago, a consequence, I fear, not just of their credibility being shot to hell in the light the plethora of scandals over the last almost two decades, but also of the fact that the clergy are deeply divided and their answers to questions of faith and morals are likely to be as subjective as they are unrooted in the teaching of the Church.

    My problem with the music student at Colombia University, always considered as a very prestigious seat of learning, is how she got there in the first place. I am very sorry, but the idea that the canon of the arts should be dictated by the colour of the artist’s skin or his gender is philosophically absurd. But wait, didn’t the Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Oxford recently set a minimum in percentage terms for female authors in its reading lists?

    Developments like these should make us very worried indeed. Last year I attended a tedious lecture in a European country on the subject of faith and the digital world. The lecturer, a religious priest who teaches in a very prestigious Catholic theology faculty, said that one of the problems with his students is that they are almost incapable of critical thinking, more or less going with the flow and evaluating propositions according to their popularity, just as one ‘likes’ things on Facebook. The real scandal in this case is that access to a Catholic theology faculty requires two years of philosophy; did no one in two years ever point out the danger of consensus in relation to truth?

    To my mind (and I would be interested in our esteemed Editor’s opinion on this since she is a former teacher), the problem begins at school. In too many countries too many teachers are intent on teaching students not how to think, but what to think. But there has also been a lot of dumbing down for which school league tables and associated public relations paraphernalia bear a heavy responsibility.

    But it is not just schools. I remember in my first year of university, in the early eighties, speaking to an academic (a philosopher) who was very worried about Mrs. Thatcher’s plans for institutions of higher learning. Hitherto, he explained, academics were encouraged not to publish unless they had something original to say. Mrs Thatcher’s reform of the allocation of university funding meant that academics’ performance had to be measured in some way, and so it came to be expected of them that they produce at least two articles per year and a book every two or three years. Result? A lot of useless books and articles.

    May 10, 2019 at 4:43 am
    • editor Reply


      “In too many countries too many teachers are intent on teaching students not how to think…”

      Since you ask for my opinion on the teaching of critical thinking in schools, I am happy to do so.

      Based on my own experience – and this applies especially to Catholic schools in relation to teaching about the authority of the Church, the emphasis is almost entirely on encouraging young people to question what has gone before. The general thrust is that rules and regulations are made by other people, who, at the end of the day, are just human beings like we are. I’ve never seen papal infallibility, for example, listed in any RE syllabus in Catholic schools, nor has it been present in any RE programme which I’ve inherited when taking up a new post. Indeed, in a Catholic sixth form college where I was appointed Head of RE, I was told by one of the staff that I would completely put the students “off the Church” if I taught them about the authority of the Church to teach in in Christ’s name That particular member of staff ended up teaching in an ecumenical college in the north of England.

      Without knowing the divine constitution of the Church, established by Christ to teach in His name (the conditions applying and the link to the earliest beliefs of the first Christians) then the Church makes no sense whatsoever to young people. Modernists either cannot see this or they see it and use it to their own nefarious ends.

      Similarly, the young cannot comprehend why the Church teaches about morality contrary to the prevailing permissive norms.

      In summary, critical thinking in education today means NOT objective thinking, but literally criticizing in the sense of questioning all that has gone before with a view to rejecting what individuals do not like or want to believe. Encouraging young people to apply their critical faculty to the permissive sexual culture is not allowed. I’ve recounted on here before, the occasion when I was approached by Senior Management to take a sex-education class at lower school level (2nd year). I said that I could only do that – and would be happy to help out – if I were able to provide the facts about sex-education which would make the pupils realise that the notion of “safe-sex” was one which they really did have to question. I would not, in conscience, I said, be able to simply give the Government message using the resources. I would have to provide alternative resources and information in order to feel that I was truly being an educator in the subject matter. “Of course, I understand” said the senior member of staff, adding that he would get back to me. Never did.

      So, it’s not only due to league tables etc that there has been a dumbing down although no doubt that is part of the whole picture. Pupils studying the history of England at the time of the Reformation e.g. were (and I presume still are, if the same textbooks are in use) required to learn a blatantly hostile history of the Catholic Church. Every page of the “Changing Minds” series of history books contained bare-faced lies about the Church and the interpretation of Catholicism was/is, therefore, of necessity wholly negative.

      I agree, therefore, that there is an absence in education of authentic critical thinking, which we see reflected in the mass acceptance of scientific theories about evolution and climate change in wider society. People, generally speaking, appear to be incapable of critical thinking. And that’s not just my opinion. Here’s the atheist George Bernard Shaw, and I’ll finish with this: “It is difficult, if not impossible, for men to think differently from the fashion of the age in which they live.”

      May 10, 2019 at 10:48 am
      • RCAVictor


        Not sure if this information is still current, but about 15 years ago, here across the pond, that process of “encouraging [not to mention rewarding] young people to question” was called “values clarification.”

        The Satanic left is always careful to disguise its real objectives with benign or even benevolent-sounding labels. You know, like “aggiornamento”….

        May 10, 2019 at 4:51 pm
      • Fidelis

        RCA Victor,

        I don’t think it was called that here, but I wouldn’t know, really.

        I saw this interview with Ben Shapiro on the BBC lunchtime discussion called Politics Live. In the end, Ben ended the interview.

        May 10, 2019 at 6:06 pm
      • Petrus


        I think this is the first time I’ve been less than impressed with Ben Shapiro. He let Andrew Neil under his skin.

        May 11, 2019 at 5:39 pm
      • Margaret Mary


        I do think it’s a pity that Ben didn’t just answer Andrew Neil’s questions and not end the interview, but I don’t like Andrew Neil at the best of times and I think he was out to trap Ben, so I’m a bit torn on this one.

        What I don’t understand is why Ben would talk about punishing women who have had miscarriages – surely he meant abortions?

        May 11, 2019 at 6:24 pm
      • Petrus

        Margaret Mary,

        Absolutely. I agree with everything you say.

        May 11, 2019 at 6:55 pm
      • Laura


        I really get hot under the collar watching Andrew Neil, in fact I try not to watch him. I remembered this interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg, who kept his cool in the face of Andrew Neil’s rudeness. I do wish Ben had done the same. He did let himself down by ending the interview and answering back the way he did, which is a pity because it’s obvious that Andrew New was out to roast him on the prolife issues. Ben would have won the debate easily, if he’d just been a bit more patient.

        Watching the interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg I kept thinking what a buffoon Andrew Neil is.

        May 11, 2019 at 7:10 pm
      • Petrus

        Margaret Mary,

        I’ve just finished watching a video of Ben Shapiro being interviewed about same sex “marriage”. I have to say I was very disappointed. I’d be interested in the opinion of others.

        May 11, 2019 at 7:11 pm
      • Laura


        I actually think that Ben did quite well in that interview about same sex marriage. If he was a Catholic, I’d have been disappointed but as a Jew or a secular person, I think he did well. He wasn’t afraid to call it a sin, for example, and he stuck to that.

        Also he showed that he can take being quizzed in some depth without getting annoyed. Joe Rogan was much more professional than Andrew Neil although I disliked his bad language, obviously.

        The only thing that I found disappointing was that he was OK about same sex marriage being legal, as he took the modern approach of “I can’t tell you what to do”. Yes, that was disappointing but he was much stronger in general than most Catholics would be these days, IMHO.

        May 11, 2019 at 7:36 pm
      • Petrus

        That’s interesting, Laura. I wasn’t really impressed at all to be honest. I was appalled that he said he would have a homosexual man and his “husband” round to his house for a dinner with his wife. I thought this was a shocking comment. If he truly believes that homosexuality is a sin I don’t think for one minute he would do that.

        I have to say I also thought he was poor when it was put to him that the Bible condemned homosexuality because of a limited understanding of biology. Ben rejected this and missed a golden opportunity. Biology itself tells us, whether we are Catholic, Jewish, atheist, whatever, that homosexual acts are wrong. I would have jumped on this and pointed out the numerous well-documented health risks associated with homosexual acts.

        Granted , he made some good points but I think, on the whole, Ben Shapiro was too concerned with appearing reasonable. I thought he was quite weak. It shouldn’t matter that he’s Jewish and not Catholic – Natural Law applies to all.

        May 11, 2019 at 7:52 pm
      • Margaret Mary


        I have to be honest, I agree with most of what Laura says.

        If Ben was a Catholic, I’d have felt let down but I think he did well in sticking to his guns about gay sex being a sin.

        I’m curious – what was it that disappointed you?

        May 11, 2019 at 7:40 pm
      • Petrus

        Margaret Mary,

        See my response to Laura. I’m astounded that neither of you picked up on his willingness to have a homosexual and his “husband” round for dinner! How is that “sticking to his guns”? I question whether he really does believe it’s a sin in light of that comment.

        May 11, 2019 at 7:54 pm
      • Margaret Mary


        I totally agree about the homosexual and “husband” round for dinner – that was in my mind when I said he did as well as I think can be expected from anyone who is not a Catholic, these days, and I do agree that he was too anxious to appear reasonable, as you said to Laura.

        I also disagree with him about legalising it. Laws send a signal to society. It was just refreshing to hearing someone saying clearly that it’s a sin but you are right that his willingness to have two so-called married men to his home for dinner with him and his wife makes it seem he’s not really all that convinced about it being a sin.

        There would surely be awkward silences at the meal if the same-sex couple knew that their hosts believed they were sinners because of their homosexual activity. It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall, LOL!

        May 11, 2019 at 8:19 pm
      • Petrus

        Margaret Mary,

        I couldn’t agree more.

        May 11, 2019 at 9:23 pm
      • editor


        I’ve now watched the interview on same-sex “marriage” and I agree with you that it’s very disappointing.

        I see what the others have said about him calling homosexual activity a sin and being clear that he would not attend such a “wedding” although it is contradictory of him to say he would, nevertheless, invited a homosexual and his “husband” round for dinner. That’s certainly very disappointing.

        I fully agree with you about his anxiety to appear to be “reasonable” – that’s a terrible temptation faced by commentators who know in their hearts what is moral and immoral, but can’t get past the fact that the person interviewing them has the standard, the PC view, and is keen to not appear too “rigid”.

        In summary, I agree with Laura and Margaret Mary when they say that, considering he is not a Catholic, he held his own quite well, but that his argument(s) fell well short of what we would like to have seen and heard and it really does all boil down to this rather immature desire to be seen as “reasonable”.

        May 12, 2019 at 7:14 pm

Join the discussion...

%d bloggers like this: