Senior educated white male.

Senior educated white male.

Thought for the day

Lifted from the invaluable Takimag:

Probably the best thing about the current nuclear wave of Tranny Mania is that, if left unimpeded, it will destroy women’s sports,    firmly establish that gender is real and that men and women have different mean levels of athletic ability, anger lesbian feminists to the point where they engage in brutal and prolonged bloody street battles to establish dominance over male-to-female trannies, and herald in a new era where everyone returns to traditional gender roles, men stop being such pussies, and women wear chaste and modest Amish clothing while they resume baking pies.

____________________

My only objection is to the use of the word “gender” in any context other than linguistic and grammatical. The word is sex. I belong to the male sex. There are only two of them. To use the word “gender” is to accept the left wing idea that sex is a social construction. I refuse absolutely. Clear?

The sexual terror is a massive change of subject

As you are all aware, a frenzy of revisionism and sexual hysteria is sweeping the United States. Crude behaviour of twenty and thirty years ago is now cause for firing. Garrison Keillor was fired for placing a hand on the middle of a woman’s back, the place on the body with the fewest nerves. Canned on a single complaint. The Democrats are eating their own. What gives? Here are several observations and conjectures.

  • This movement has been planned for at least a year, and it is a directed event. I got wind of this a year ago at least, when our Democratic inside the Beltway lawyer told us that the standards  were being reset; sexual harassment, he warned us, was going to become anything and everything. This guy is a deep insider, and he was speaking with a certainty that comes from knowledge, not just conjecture or bar talk.
  • It is not principally directed at Republicans or Trump. It may serve the interests of Democrats to further blacken Trump, but that, I believe, is not their goal. Republicans are not buying into the smear campaigns. Witness Roy Moore. So the Democrats are shooting their wounded, such as Al Franken, who is a capable representative of their positions. Why?

Why are the Democrats willing to accept own-goals, sacrifices of their talented? What are they gaining?

I would like to postulate what I think is a reasonable, though far-fetched, explanation.

Let us suppose that there are such people as sane Democrats. [Bear with me conservatives]. They are like most reasonable people. They are concerned for the working classes, for America’s position in the world, for moderate and sensible behaviour. They are not concerned with transgender bathrooms, identity politics, or Trayvon Martin, though they may be appalled at the rate at which blacks are killing each other in Chicago and Baltimore. They foresee a Democratic Party doomed to perpetual electoral losses unless they get the Party back on track. It is possible they fear that the Democratic Party might even win future elections in its current state. This may scare them even more.

How is the Democratic Party to be rescued from the irrelevance of identity politics? Just put yourself inside the shoes of business Democrats. They see Trump reshaping the world the way Bismarck reshaped Germany and Europe in the 19th century. They see prosperity returning to the United States. They see their country dominating the world from a position of energy independence, courtesy of shale oil. They see Trump reforming the middle east, laying the groundwork for dealing with the Islamic threat, facing down North Korea and Iran. Above all, they do not share a smug conviction that Trump will be out in 3 more years.

They turn to their own party and what do they see? A corrupt Hillary Clinton taking money for the Clinton foundation in exchange for shifts in US foreign policy. They see Bill Clinton hovering in the background, the albatross hanging about the neck of the Democratic Party. They see a progressive disengagement between the party activists and the core of the American people, who want jobs, not transgendered bathrooms. They see their allies in Hollywood are the problem, not the solution.

Accordingly, it is time for a purge. But it is also a time for a change of subject. It is time for a cultural reaction, for diminishing the power of women, for reversing the sexual freedom of the 1960s, for putting people back into their closets.

Could this be true? Yes, I believe it could be.

I think the people who started this sexual panic want to swing the Democrats around the rear of the Republicans. (The metaphor is military, not sexual, but please yourself). I think that what they want is a return to sexual certainties, to men and women, not 26 genders. I think they have launched a general assault on the culture, and the way to get this done is to make everyone unsure of how to behave with the opposite sex. I am not sure they have thought everything before hand; and some may be content with further demonizing Trump. But I do not think this would be thinking large enough. What is intended, I suspect, is a massive change of the subject. The immediate targets may be men, but the inevitable result will be an insistence by men that there need to be rules of engagement. This may mean that men do not meet with women alone, as VP Pence has done for years. Another important Senator, John Thune, will not meet a woman alone after 8pm. It may go as far as restrictions on women in the workforce, which could take many forms, including a disinclination to hire them, but more likely codes of conduct that amount to chaperoning.

I realize that these speculations are far fetched, but they seem to be exactly where we are going. The subject is being changed. This refashioning of the culture is more than a moral panic, it is being directed at refashioning what politics should be doing. Is it reactionary? Yes. And the reaction is not coming from the political right. Allow yourself to think about that for a moment.

__________________________

On the difficulty of Democrats trying to be the party that protects women, by Maureen Dowd.

If you think there are such people as centrist Democrats, then the idea that the future of the Party lies with an unreformed Marxist like Sanders would appall you.

Cleaning up the Democratic National Committee, where they see Bernie Sanders as the future of the party

Bernie Sanders robbed of the Democratic nomination by Hillary Clinton

________________________________________________

Jen Gerson expresses parallel ideas in the National Post about the implications of this scare.

Hypocrisy in the name of partisanship will no longer do. The culture is beginning to shift in ways that social conservatives should embrace.

There should be no expectation that everyone will be held to the new sexual standard that emerges from this mire; but with the current round of public prosecutions, there is, once more, a sexual standard to be held to.

The global cooling scare of the 1970s

An article by Bernie Lewin in Watts Up That is worth reading. I cite the particular paragraph below because it lays out the fact that the recent (last 700,000 years ) of earth’s history has been a continuous ice age interrupted by brief interglacials, such as the last 10,000 years. This is called the Quaternary ice age, and we are still in it. My inference from this fact is that humans have much less control over the planet’s climate than the global warming catastrophists would have us believe. And as others have demonstrated, there has been a continuous leaching of CO2 out of the atmosphere for the last 33 million years.

Atmosphere CO2 levels from 600 million years ago to present

source: http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml

Combine these two facts. The earth has experienced increasingly severe ice ages in the last 700,000 years. CO2 has been depleted from the atmosphere for a long time. Some have reasoned that this has accelerated from the time the Indian plate collided with the Asian tectonic plate between 50 and 25 million years ago and pushed up the Himalayas. The action of monsoon rains falling on exposed limestone has had the effect of leaching CO2 from atmosphere, and dissolving it in the oceans. [It is important to note that regardless of the cause of the CO2 depletion, it has been occurring over a vast stretch of time.]  Quaternary CO2 levels reached a low of 180 parts per million (PPM). Partly because of human activities, CO2 is back up to over 400 ppm, the highest in the last 800,000 years. This is not the catastrophe that some would have us believe, but a recovery from a low point associated with ice ages.

Accordingly, if this association of depleted CO2 and ice ages is correct, then the threat to the planet is cold not heat. So far we are dealing with inferences from observed facts in the geological records.

And now to the conjectures.

Since humans are adding to the planet’s atmospheric CO2, then perhaps humanity’s function is to keep a recurrence of the next ice age from happening. Rubbish? Teleology? Maybe James Lovelock is right, and that our job as a species is to keep Gaia happy. In either case, we are heading into another ice age, unless the heat that humans are adding to the environment prevent one. And I rather doubt our power to prevent the next big advance of ice, but that is mere conjecture on my part.

So back to the global cooling scare of the 1970s (the one I think is better founded, because it rests on the demonstrable facts of glaciology). As Mr. Lewin writes:

The one great scientific advance that contributed to the 1970s cooling scare was a revolution in Quaternary geology. Until the late 1960s, it was generally agreed that there had been four recent glaciations, however their timing was largely unknown due to inadequate dating techniques. As the new dating technology was brought into play, it revealed that since the last geometric reversal, around 700,000 years ago, there had been no less than 8 cool/warm cycles. It also showed that cool was the norm. Indeed, the whole Quaternary period (i.e., the last 2.5 million years) is best described as an ice age punctuated by brief ‘interglacial’ warm ‘epochs’. These interglacials appeared like clockwork on a 100,000 cycle, and the record clearly showed that this cycle was about to switch phases. That is to say, the current epoch—the ‘Holocene’, the 10,000 years of warm stable climatic upon which agriculture-based civilization had been built—was about to end.

Quaternary Geologists promote a cooling scare

The realization that we are at the end of a warm period was not itself alarming, as rapid climate change on a geological scale might be 1o C per millennia. Such a gradual trend would hardly be recognizable with all the local and global fluctuations known to occur across centuries and decades. If the decline out of past warm periods were associated with wider fluctuations on these time scales then this would remain unknown because the proxies indicators for temperature did not have the necessary resolution to pick them up. However, soon some geologists were claiming resolution down to a century or two which revealed evidence of climatic instability as previous interglacial epochs ‘broke down’. According to the Danish geologist, Willi Dansgaard, if the deep past is anything to go by, then ‘the conditions for a catastrophic event are present today’. This quote comes from the conclusion of a paperpresented to a conference at Brown University early in 1972 that was called in light of the new evidence to answer a question of singular pertinence:

The present interglacial, how and when will it end?

The article continues with a discussion of the politics and organization of world conferences on climate change, and concludes:

Thus it can be seen that the cooling scare—linked as it was with the food and energy crisis—provided the impetus behind the launch of the warming scare, and it also provided the institutional platforms upon which the launch of that scare would take place.

 

The Liberals are having a bad month: blame ideology

 

 

On trade issues, the global free traders who constitute our federal Liberal government are supposed to be the masters. Instead, they have in the past several weeks encountered rebuffs.

  • China has handed us our hats and asked ‘what’s your hurry?’ The Chinese did not want to make our free trade deal contingent upon extending various labour rights, employment equity provisions, and other crunchy granola to the Chinese populace.
  • Canada has angered long time allies Japan and Australia by intransigent demands in the Trans- Pacific Partnership trade talks.
  • The US is proposing absurd demands of its own in the NAFTA re-negotiations.

I cite Andrew Coyne who, on trade matters, is  sane.

If there is a common thread, in particular, it seems to be the Liberals’ insistence that agreements on liberalized trade should also commit the signatories, disparate in outlook and development though they may be, to Liberal Party of Canada policies on labour, gender, indigenous rights and climate change.

It is not clear what business these have in a trade deal, or why the economic interests of this country should be hostage to the project of imposing “progressive” values on other countries that are not even universally shared in our own. Certainly our negotiating partners have a right to be wary, for fine-sounding principles have a way of being turned to protectionist ends: seemingly even-handed environmental policies, for example, that just happen to hit other countries’ industries harder than our own.

Terry Glavin is one of the few who can still rouse himself to fury at China’s “gangster state”, as he calls it:

In a recent analysis prepared for Global Affairs Canada, Ottawa’s Centre for the Study of Living Standards calculates that at least 150,000 Canadian jobs were lost to Chinese imports during the first decade of this century, and at least 100,000 of those jobs were in manufacturing….

The Communist Party elites have amassed fortunes to themselves equal to the Gross Domestic Product of Sweden. They have the money, the guns, the technology, the numbers, the UN votes, the lot. And now Beijing is openly and explicitly waging an ideological global war against democracy, the rule of law, free speech, the “rules based” global economic order, the whole schmeer. They’re quite candid about it, too.

So let’s see: the Liberals are cosying up to China, snubbing the Japanese-Australian Trans-Pacific Partnership, and getting nowhere with NAFTA (not entirely their fault). Also they are not getting pipelines built to export Albertan oil. Since Alberta is now paying for Confederation, but is in recession, and Ontario is heading into the toilet, long-term, with politicized energy pricing and grotesque levels of debt. Am I missing something?

The reason I do not comment much on politics in Canada is that there are only a few issues we have to get right.

  • Relationships with Quebec
  • Relationships with the United States
  • Management of our economy

Quebec is quiet, but holds up pipelines and continues to be subsidized excessively by English Canada, particularly by Alberta. It is better managed under Premier Couillard than at any time since the 1960s.

Relationships with the US are so-so, or only as good as Trump wants them to be.

Overspending continues in Ontario and Ottawa, and one of the few tasks of the federal government, to build piplines and unify the country, is left undone. Quebec, by contrast, is starting to be run effectively.

If I were the federal Liberals, I might begin to be concerned. This government may not be turned out in the next election, but I am beginning to think their re-election is not as secure as it seemed a year ago.

 

Mark Steyn

At his funny and serious best. Since we are talking about freedom of speech this week at BS, here is the incomparable Mark Steyn, talking in Australia in 2015, about how the new world order has made jokes illegal, and where there are no more Cockneys in London. Where a man was arrested in England and held for eight hours of interrogation for calling his slow-to-close computer “Nelson Mandela”. That’s not funny.

Steyn: If you fight back as hard as the Left fights for its positions, you can prevail. Vow not to surrender the fruits of a liberated society. Everyone of us is made to feel isolated until you speak out, then you find your allies.

I think the offence we commit, in the eyes of the Left, is precisely that we authorize ourselves to act as if we were free. Sharia comes in various forms: climate warming sharia, racial sharia, sexual sharia. Steyn says: act as if you were free. Exercise your liberties. Offend against the various Leftist sharias of our time. Lord knows that should be easy enough to do.

Janet Albrechtsen on free speech

Janet Albrechtsen is a leading Australian commentator, lawyer and a mother of three. She offers a spirited defence of liberal values against the Left’s commitment to grievance, envy, and intolerance.

“It s no coincidence that the corruption of feminism has occurred at the same time that our commitment to free speech has faltered.”

“Forty years ago the left abandoned libertarian notions of human rights and embraced this new definition of egalitarian rights.” And it began with “the right to equal concern and respect”.

“Under this new framework, people are not seen as autonomous resilient and rational, under this new framework people are seen as masses of nerves that need protection”.

There is more. “The scandal is the strategic silence of modern feminism around freedom for women”.

 

 

 

Detroit

You can blame its decline on the decline of the automobile industry: once the fifth largest city in America, now the 11th largest, $18 billion in debt, or you can blame it on the Big Three automakers, Democratic government, buying off the UAW, black misrule and white flight, all or any of them. Here are three dots which I invite you to connect.

https://fredoneverything.org/absolute-obvious-unacknowledged-disaster-a-racial-snapshot-of-america/

Cronyism and corruption? Or the third world status of the people who still inhabit it and who voted in the governments that pillaged the cities and the taxpayers? All of the above? Who voted the crooks in? Who were the crooks? The UAW? the black city government?

I invite you watch The Wire. It is an artistic masterpiece, and it details what happens when a city – Baltimore in this case – becomes 64% black. The bodies of black male drug dealers pile up, and no one cares except a few cops, many of them black, some of them white.

The Wire shows that not one city institution: city hall, the cops, or the school system is working effectively. Without saying a word, the Wire addresses what decadence and decline look like. The irony lies  in watching all the Baltimore politicians and cops in magnificent government buildings, belle époque  creations of the 19th century, when whites dominated, and now their successors wander through halls like barbarians of 400 AD wandering through the Roman forum. There will never be enough wealth in Baltimore to rebuild them.

 

 

 

 

Why I do not need to believe in climate change, I know there is climate change

Here is an aerial view of the outskirts of Naples. Those are volcanic craters, with magma seeping upward close to the surface. They are called the Campi Flegrei, the fields of fire.

 

Why would anyone build over a volcanic caldera? Because the last time it seethed with magma was in 1538, and who remembers that, aside from a vulcanologist?

“It’s much more dangerous than Vesuvius because we don’t know where the eruption will be,” said Morra. Unlike Vesuvius, where the eruption is likely to come from the top or side of the cone, a caldera has the potential to erupt in many different locations simultaneously. “But people are more scared of Vesuvius because with Campi Flegrei you don’t see the cone, so there is not the same perception of danger,” he said.

So let us build a city on top of it, shall we?

Yet it is perfectly rational to do so, if your time horizon is short enough. And what I am going on about today is time horizons. We humans have the lifespan of grass, of mayflies, compared to the time spans that govern the earth. Consider this piece of short-sightedness, if you were a being that lived 50,000 years, of settling in northern North America.

So why would you ever build in Montreal, when it is periodically crushed by 10 thousand feet of ice? The height of ice was 10,725 feet, or 3300 meters.

By comparison, here is a map showing the thickness of ice over Greenland today.

http://www.athropolis.com/arctic-facts/land/greenland-thick.gif

 

Or here is a map of the world covered by ice a mere 21,000 years ago, at the height of the last ice age.

 

http://www.humberriver.ca/images/worldmap1.jpg

So, do I believe in climate change? No, I do not need to believe, as we would believe in God, or even believe in the idea that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon in 43 BC.

I let a pencil fall from my hand, I know it will hit the floor. Belief in the operation of gravity on this planet would be superfluous.

For this reason I do not believe in climate change, I know it. And by a similar process of reasoning, I know that humans have not caused the extent of climate change that keeps Toronto, Montreal, Chicago and Boston ice free (most of the year).

If some person asks you to believe in climate change, they are unaware. Belief is superfluous.

But to believe that we are causing it, now that takes belief.

 

 

 

 

The Omnivore’s Dilemma

Two of my favourite thinkers speak of disgust, exposure to foreign matter, the body, and how people divide politically: openness versus security – Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Haidt. It leads to a very interesting discussion of Hitler, in passing. It shows how much we are slaves to metaphors.

Haidt situates the problem in

  • loss of unsupervised play as children, so that they arrive at university expecting a parent will always intervene;
  • excessive exposure to social media as children, and the pervasive use of media platforms (Facebook etc) that expose women and girls to reputation damage by mob;
  • Political polarization and segregation of people into hostile tribes; no one has been exposed to a differing opinion.

Haidt recommends everyone read Lenore Skenazy’s “Free Range Kids“. Why should kids always be confined to organized play?