Barrel Strength

About a year or more ago I made a number of $50 bets that Obama would be a one term President.

The rising tide of revulsion towards the man and his performance is so manifest, and the economic policies the United States is pursuing are so catastrophic, that everyone else is starting to say the same thing.

Let us review the events which are driving Americans to a frenzy of rage:

• appealing the Arizona immigration  law whose effect is merely to enjoin the state officials to enforce existing federal law;
• bowing (more than a civil nod, but a deep from-the-waist bow) to Mulsim leadership, such as the King of Saudi Arabia, while being rude to traditional allies (removing Winston Churchill’s bust from the Oval Office and actually returning the bst to the British embassy);
• a policy of ruinous inflation;
• ignoring the Muslim aspect of terrorist attacks on US bases;
• hindering the  Armed Forces  by forbidding terms like “Islamic jihad” in their planning;
• continuing the policies whereby white Americans are prevented or dissuaded from competing for student placements or jobs, saying truths about other races, or competing for contracts from government (affirmative action);
• supporting the Ground Zero victory mosque;
• a divisive and possibly unnecessary health care reform.

You will be able to add your own issues to this list, and I invite you to do so.

The farrago of politically correct attitudes that let Obama rise to the top of the Democratic party, and which sustain the basis of his support, are beyond my capacity either to amend or to tolerate. But a mighty judgment is coming, and the political elites willl be eating shit pie for their deluded arrogance soon enough. That many Americans believe Obama to be a Muslim reflects merely the correct perception that we do not have a President who is on our side.

In case you need confirmation of what the problem is, I highly recommend Thomas Sowell’s excellent “Intellectuals and Society”. A regime of intellectuals has been put in power. A group of people without wisdom, practical experience, or courage has been selected to govern. The consequences are that government will be returned to adult supervision as soon as possible.

Roger Scruton’s speech to Vlaams Belang  has touched upon the essential beliefs of the ruling sectors of the liberal intelligentsia, whose ideas still govern us even if conservatives are in power.

(If you doubt their ideas still rule, then why are there still human rights commissions and mass immigration of people unqualified to become Canadians and who will forever be a source of dissension, social dysfunction and underachievement?. Why the policing of thought to prevent accurate discussion of immigration and race?)

It is worth reading the whole speech that Scruton gave. I have extracted key points for the sake of brevity.

“For a long time now the European political class has been in denial about the problems posed by the large-scale immigration of people who do not enter into our European way of life. It has turned angrily on those who have warned against the disruption that might follow, or who have affirmed the right of indigenous communities to refuse admission to people who cannot or will not assimilate. And one of the weapons that the élite has used, in order to ensure that it is never troubled by the truths that it denies, is to accuse those who wish to discuss the problem of ‘racism and xenophobia’. People of my generation have been brought up in fear of this charge, just as the people of Salem were brought up in the fear of being denounced as witches….

“Every society depends on an experience of membership: a sense of who ‘we’ are, why we belong together, and what we share. This experience is pre-political: it precedes all political institutions, and provides our reason for accepting them. It unites left and right, blue-collar and white-collar, man and woman, parent and child. To threaten this ‘first-person plural’ is to open the way to atomisation, as people cease to recognize any general duty to their neighbours, and set out to pillage the accumulated resources while they can. Without membership we risk a new ‘tragedy of the commons’, as our inherited social assets are seized for present use….

“Members of our liberal élite may be immune to xenophobia, but there is an equal fault which they exhibit in abundance, which is the repudiation of, and aversion to, home. Each country exhibits this vice in its own domestic version….

“This repudiation of the national idea is the result of a peculiar frame of mind that has arisen throughout the Western world since the Second World War, and which is particularly prevalent among the intellectual and political elites….

“I call the attitude oikophobia– the aversion to home – by way of emphasizing its deep relation to xenophobia, of which it is the mirror image. Oikophobia is a stage through which the adolescent mind normally passes. But it is a stage in which intellectuals tend to become arrested….

“The domination of our national Parliaments and the EU machinery by oikophobes is partly responsible for the acceptance of subsidised immigration, and for the attacks on customs and institutions associated with traditional and native forms of life. The oikophobe repudiates national loyalties and defines his goals and ideals againstthe nation, promoting transnational institutions over national governments, accepting and endorsing laws that are imposed from on high by the EU or the UN, and defining his political vision in terms of cosmopolitan values that have been purified of all reference to the particular attachments of a real historical community. The oikophobe is, in his own eyes, a defender of enlightened universalism against local chauvinism. And it is the rise of oikophobia that has led to the growing crisis of legitimacy in the nation states of Europe. For we are seeing a massive expansion of the legislative burden on the people of Europe, and a relentless assault on the only loyalties that would enable them voluntarily to bear it….

“It is in the light of these double standards that the charge of ‘racism and xenophobia’ should be assessed. It is a charge almost invariably levelled at members of the indigenous communities of Europe, and in particular against those at the bottom of the social scale, for whom mass immigration is a cost that they have not been schooled (and through no fault of their own) to bear. It is levelled too at political parties that attempt to represent those people, and who promise them some relief from a problem that no other party seems willing to address. Those who level the charge are almost invariably in the grip of oikophobia….

“It is vital that the European states achieve an effective integration of their immigrant communities; but if the liberal élite will not discuss the matter, and continue to put all blame for the growing anxiety on the xenophobia of the indigenous population while ignoring the oikophobia which is an equal contributory cause, then the likely long-term effect will be a popular explosion, and one from which no-one will benefit, least of all the immigrant communities.”

Notice how this story is played, even by the conservative Daily Telegraph.

British Prime Minister David Cameron tells an obvious truth in public and the story is about how offended the Pakistanis are, not the susbstance which is “British Prime Minister calls Pakistan a source of terrorism”. Who gives a flying fuck for what the Muslim nations think? Do you?

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/university-illinois/2010-07-09/instructor-catholicism-ui-claims-loss-job-violates-academic-free

I am not making this up, and when you read the article, it gets worse. The complainant was not actually in the professor’s class.

Apparently everything is a code word for the oversensitive. And code words are forbidden. But what is code for what? Even to ask the question is insensitive.

Please sue the university for big bucks, Kenneth Howell.

I refer you to the texts of the BC Ministry of Education BC Performance Standards – Social Responsibility: A Framework . I cannot print the PDF versions here so I ask your indulgence to open them up and compare to this posting.

Take, for example, the program for grades 8 to 10. Any of the age-related curricula will suffice.

Go to the quick scale on page 139 and look under “exercising democratic rights and responsibilities”.

See how the desired criteria are

1. oriented to agreeability and conformity
2. require the teacher to make very precise judgments of character on a host of behaviours being shown by the children in her classroom;
3. and therefore are biased against males.

There are several acepted criteria for the measure of human psychological differences, summarized under the acronym GOCASE. Each criterion produces its own Bell curve, and each is independent of the other. For a discussion of this, please read Spent: Sex, Evolution and Consumer Behavior, by Geoffrey Miller.

G – general intelligence

O – openness

C – conscientiousness

A – agreeability

S – stability

E – extroversion

Two of these criteria are sex-linked. That is to say, males and females charcteristically differ on them. They are agreeability and stability. Males are more stable than females and less agreeable. Sorry, that is just the way it is. Now, return to our BC Ministry of Education judgement guidelines.

Under the title of “Exercising democratic rights and responsibilities” the worst performer is the kid who:

• tends to be egocentric and apathetic; displays little sense of community or responsibility for others

The next one up the hierarchy is one who

• shows some sense of of communitymindedness; may go along with positive actions organized by others, but without much commitment

And finally, Miss Goody Two-Shoes. He who fully meet expectations:

• shows a sense of responsibility and communitymindedness; increasingly interested in taking action to improve the world

The supreme one is she who:

• shows a strong sense of communitymindedness and accountability; can describe and work toward an ideal future for the world

The ideal student is a social policy activist. There is an explicitly political agenda to mark students according as they have plane to improve the world: abolish poverty, stop greenhouse gas accumulation, and so forth. A little Craig Kielburger.

The ideal student speaks out for “diversity and human rights” (see the set of boxes just above the ones cited here). In a former age or political clime they would speak for the brotherhood of man or the supremacy of the Aryan race, or the class struggle, or the reality of the Holy Trinity, or white Christian civilization, fair play and God save the Queen. Today the slogans are diversity and human rights. Why not uniformity and our duty to the country? Silly question. These words summarize the left agenda, which is instructing the little monsters of BC to turn into good socialist tattletales and agreeable conformists.

I am not saying that the students of British Columbia should act like junior Somali warlords. That is plainly a dysfunctional society and the children from it need to be socialized.

But I hear not a word about manliness. I see not a word about the virtues that make men they are, and to which boys should be taught to aspire. The whole program seems directed to inculcating uniformity, obedience, the mouthing of cant platitudes, and the handling of all disputes by girly behaviour rather than a punch-up.

I cannot imagine a male worth his salt who would not rebel against this claptrap. Or, as most likely happens, children realize they are living in a kind of benign dictatorship, and believe exactly the opposite of what Mrs. Lois Thoughtright of the BC Ministry of Education and her minions  try to teach them.

___________________________________________________________

The BC Ministry of Education describes these standards as “voluntary” in its introduction.

The BC performance standards for Social Responsibility have been developed for voluntary use in BC schools. They describe the professional judgments of a significant number of BC educators about standards and expectations for social responsibility, and they provide a context within which teachers, students, and families can examine aspects of social responsibility in their schools.

The categories of behaviour under observation are as follows:

CONTRIBUTING TO THE CLASSROOM AND SCHOOL COMMUNITY

• sharing responsibility for their social and physical environment
• participating and contributing to the class and to small groups

SOLVING PROBLEMS IN PEACEFUL WAYS

• arguments respectfully, and considering others’ views
• managing conflict appropriately, including presenting views and
• using effective problem-solving steps and strategies

VALUING DIVERSITY AND DEFENDING HUMAN RIGHTS

• treating others fairly and respectfully; showing a sense of ethics
• recognizing and defending human rights

EXERCISING DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

• knowing and acting on rights and responsibilities (local, national, global)
• articulating and working toward a preferred future for the community, nation, and planet—a sense of idealism

Check out this training video employed by the G-20 protestors:

H/T  www.latfh.com

For revealing what an intolerant leftist snob you are. 

That was redundant. Not all snobs are leftists but all leftists are snobs, and intolerance goes hand in glove with both. (Not that intolerance of the intolerable is a virtue). But back to our silly Mr. Rock, President of Ottawa University and former Liberal Minister of Justice, founder of the now defunct gun registry, and representative specimen of Canada’s former ruling class.

The Windsor Star says:

In fact, the released documents show that it was Rock — not Houle — who asked that the email be sent. Rock even dictated some of the wording.

“Ann Coulter is a mean-spirited, small-minded, foul-mouthed poltroon,” Rock wrote to Houle in a March 18 email. “She is ‘the loud mouth that bespeaks the vacant mind’.”

“She is an ill-informed and deeply offensive shill for a profoundly shallow and ignorant view of the world. She is a malignancy on the body politic. She is a disgrace to the broadcasting industry and a leading example of the dramatic decline in the quality of public discourse in recent times.”

At the same time, he argued, “we should not take any steps to interfere with her plans to speak next week on our campus.”

Instead, Rock advised Houle he should write to Coulter informing her of the different rules surrounding free speech in Canada compared with those in the United States.

“You, Francois, as Provost, should write immediately to Coulter informing her of our domestic laws. … You should urge her to respect that Canadian tradition as she enjoys the privilege of her visit.”

After seeing a copy of the final email to Coulter, Rock praised Houle: “Quel excellent message! Merci et felicitations. I am sure she has never been dressed down so elegantly in her life!”

O gosh golly, Allan, are we ever kicking butt today!

Her books sell more than yours, she makes tons of money more than you do, she influences public policy much more effectively than you ever did, even as fons et origo of the hated and useless gun registry, she eats meat (which you do not) and she is welcome at the best parties, whereas you are not, since your reputation as a prating killjoy precedes you. So if you want ad hominem (or ad feminam) attack, check your face in the mirror. Realize what  you are in store for. You stepped into this, and the smell is all over you.

The paralyzing influence of the Leftist mind set is discussed in today’s article in the National Post by Shelby Steele. 

One reason for this is that the entire Western world has suffered from a deficit of moral authority for decades now. Today, we in the West are reluctant to use our full military might in war lest we seem imperialistic; we hesitate to enforce our borders lest we seem racist; we are reluctant to ask for assimilation from new immigrants lest we seem xenophobic; and we are pained to give Western Civilization primacy in our educational curricula lest we seem supremacist. Today, the West lives on the defensive, the very legitimacy of our modern societies requiring constant dissociation from the sins of the Western past–racism, economic exploitation, imperialism and so on.

This philosophy is not for me, not for us at Barrelstrength, but you can smell the prevailing wind, can’t you? And what a fine ally this miasma of leftism has in militant know-nothing Islam! As AIDS is to HIV, so is the spreading blight of Islam to the immuno-depressant effect of political correctness. We are the best (civilization and culture) and they can go fuck off.  Say it repeatedly. You will feel better and you will be right.

I find myself in total agreement with the decision of  Judge Gerard Dugre in the case of  Loyola High School in Montreal versus the Quebec government, which appears to be engaging in a clear-cut attack on the right of Catholics to be Catholics, and in so doing, for parents to educate their children with any religious conception of existence whatever. However ironic it is to find Jesuits on the side of religious freedom, nonetheless the clear and present danger comes from the overmighty and pretentious State, not the Roman branch of the Christian church.

Reading the case judgment is a revelation of the intolerance of the new secular humanist establishment. In the words of the expert witness for Loyola High School, Douglas Farrow:

« … first, that the Ethics and Religious Culture (ERC) program represents a significant transfer of power from civil society to the state; second, that its ambitious goals belie any claim to neutrality; third, that the ERC program is intended to provide formation (i.e., to cultivate a world view and a way of thinking and acting consistent with that world view) and not merely information, and that the formation it hopes to provide is at points incompatible with a Catholic formation; fourth, that the imposition of this curriculum (with its mandatory pedagogy) on Catholic schools constitutes, from the perspective of the Catholic Church, a breach of fundamental rights as well as a defeat for certain of the program’s own objectives in recognizing diversity. »

The case concerned whether Loyola could teach its students about other cultures and religions from a Roman Catholic point of view. Specifically, the objection of Loyola to the government’s approach was based on the idea that the government was calling for the acceptance of all practices without any reference to the underlying beliefs that gave them meaning. Loyola wrote:

“Nous avons conçu un programme qui affirme la valeur des religions du monde et qui enseigne leurs coutumes et croyances d’une manière bien plus approfondie que le nouveau programme d’éthique et de culture religieuse.  Notre programme examine non seulement les coutumes externes des autres religions mais aussi leurs croyances fondamentales.  En effet, nous sommes convaincus qu’une simple explication de pratiques externes accomplira bien peu en termes de promouvoir la tolérance et l’acceptation des autres sans une compréhension plus complète des autres fois, comme il est proposé dans notre programme

“We have developed a program which affirms the value of the world’s religions and which teaches  about their customs and beliefs from a much deeper viewpoint than the new program of ethics and religious culture. Our program examines not only the external customs  of other religions but also their fundamental beliefs. In effect, we are convinced that a simple explanation of external practices will accomplish much less in terms of promoting tolerance and the acceptance of others without a more complete understanding  of other religions, as it is proposed in our program.

The government of Quebec wrote to the high school saying that:

“Les deux grandes finalités du programme Éthique et culture religieuse sont la reconnaissance de l’autre et la poursuite du bien commun.  L’approche et la conception du bien commun développées dans le programme Éthique et culture religieuse et celles proposées par Loyola High School sont très différentes.  L’approche préconisée dans le programme Éthique et culture religieuse est culturelle et non fondée sur la foi.  Or, suivant le sommaire du programme proposé par Loyola High School et soumis au Ministère pour évaluation, il appert que le programme de Loyola High School est fondé sur la foi catholique et a pour principale finalité la transmission des croyances et convictions catholiques.  Il englobe une conception de l’autre, mais toujours par rapport à la perspective chrétienne catholique.

“The two great goals of the ethics and religious culture program are the recognition of the other and the pursuit of the common good. The approach and conception of the common good  developed in the ethics and religious culture program  and the one proposed by Loyola are very different. The approach extolled in the ethics and religious culture program is cultural and is not founded on faith. Now, according to the summary of the program proposed by Loyola High School and submitted to the Minister for evaluation, it appears that the program of Loyola High school is founded on the Catholic faith and has for its principal goal the transmission of Catholic beliefs and convictions. It encompasses a conception of the other, always in relation to the Christian Catholic perspective.

and further:

“…il appert que, contrairement au programme Éthique et culture religieuse, le programme de Loyola High School n’amène pas l’élève à réfléchir sur le bien commun, ni sur des questions d’éthique, mais l’amène plutôt à adopter la perspective jésuite du service chrétien.

“It appears that, contrary to the ethics and religious culture program, the program of Loyola High school does not lead the student to reflect on the common good, nor on questions of ethics, but leads him rather to adopt a Jesuit perspective on Christian service.

The Quebec government’s guidelines for teaching the Ethics and religious culture program were another triumph of compulsory ethical relativism.

« De plus, elle [la formation] ne propose pas à l’élève un univers particulier de croyances et de repères moraux. »

Dans ce contexte, il lui [l’enseignant] faut comprendre l’importance de conserver une distance critique à l’égard de sa propre vision du monde, notamment de ses convictions, de ses valeurs et de ses croyances.

Posture professionnelle

Pour favoriser chez les élèves une réflexion sur des questions éthiques ou une compréhension du phénomène religieux, l’enseignant fait preuve d’un jugement professionnel empreint d’objectivité et d’impartialité.  Ainsi, pour ne pas influencer les élèves dans l’élaboration de leur point de vue, il s’abstient de donner le sien. »

Moreover, the course does not propose to the student a particular universe of beliefs and moral benchmarks.

In this context, the student must understand the importance of keeping a critical distance in regard to his own view of the world, notably his convictions, his values and his beliefs.

Professional approach

To encourage a reflection by the students on questions of ethics or an understanding of the religious phenomenon, the teacher demonstrates a professional judgment characterized by objectivity and impartiality. Moreover, so as not to influence his students in the development of their point of view, he abstains from giving his own.

 I would characterize this approach by saying that Quebec allows teachers to expose students to religion as long as it is done in such a way that they deal with the outer behaviour and not the beliefs which inform them, and requires the student to refrain from any kind of critical judgment of others’ beliefs, convictions, and world views, ultimately with the effect of rendering him incapable of moral judgment – including judgment of his own beliefs, convictions and world view. Belief is all absurd, religious and ethical questions become a “whatever”, a zone from which critical thinking is excluded.

Hence the welcome decion of Judge Dugre  when he said:

“…l’obligation imposée à Loyola d’enseigner la matière ÉCR de façon laïque revêt un caractère totalitaire qui équivaut, essentiellement, à l’ordre donné à Galilée par l’Inquisition de renier la cosmologie de Copernic.”

“…The obligation imposed on Loyola to teach the ECR course in a secular fashion reveals a totalitarian character which is equivalent essentially, to the order given to Galileo by the Inquisition to deny the Copernican cosmology.”

Marci McDonald’s dimwitted expose of the vast conservative and Christian plot to change Canada is a classic example of a very narrow mind encountering people who do not agree with her, and recoiling in shock . Glendronach nailed it a few days ago. Marci McDonald manifests the curious and increasing phenomenon of the left bigot; the side that used to believe in the inexorable triumph of their brand of rationalism is frightened that the tide has turned.

“Who are these revolting people, anyway?”, she seems to ask. The same people who voted for Reagan, honey.

 In an interview in the Toronto Star, she says:

“That showed the canniness of Harper’s strategy,’’ explains McDonald. “Most people saw it as, ‘Oh yes the neocons don’t like government-funded social policies.’ What they didn’t realize was that he was also pandering to social conservatives who don’t believe that the government should have any role in child-rearing, who believe that mothers should be at home bringing up their children or who send their children to religious daycares and schools. It was one of those policies that cut across both of his constituencies, economic and social. That would characterize most of his policies.”

“This was not a polemic I wrote; I do not reveal that Stephen Harper has a secret altar in his basement. But I did try to connect the dots because everybody was telling me this isn’t happening here, not in nice, tolerant, moderate Canada,” says McDonald.

For a conservative (or sensible moderate, for that matter), it would appear normal that governments have a highly restricted role in child-rearing, that mothers as much as possible be enabled to stay home to raise children, having regard to women’s free choice and economic opportunities, and that the family, not the state, have the preponderant if not exclusive voice in religious education. This has been the way societies of all religions have modelled themselves, since time out of mind.  The late 19th and 20th century  fixation on the state as the levelling, progressive, and liberating vehicle for social progress is the exception in millennia of human history.

The challenge to all those folks down in Toronto’s Beaches area is that they have inherited a civilization whose tolerance in based in the evolution of Christian thought, and who believe that Christianity is per se the enemy of that nice, decent moderate Canada in which they live.  As far as I can see, their anti-Christianity  is to the polity as carpenter ants are to a house. They seem to believe that belief in our creaturehood by a higher power, who is also the author of this universe, is something that should not be allowed to inform politics, but their “nice”, secular, “moderate” beliefs are to be the exclusive legitimate basis of both  political participation and set of goals which politics seek to achieve.

As Charles Lewis observed in the National Post, if McDonald wished to find intolerance in Canada, she need only look at her face in the mirror.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/016360.html

 In the same vein: anti-white male policy and action is okay, but enforcing America’s existing laws against illlegal immigrants is “racist”, etcetera. And to quote the redoubtable Lawrence Auster:

“The most important point is the first one: liberals across the land are directing the most extreme invective against Arizona for a law that simply enforces immigration law on illegal aliens, a law that is not about race, but about violation of the law. They call the people who passed this necessary, non-racial law white racists and Nazis and threaten to use economic and other warfare to beat them to their knees. .

“At the same time, those same liberals have put in place and enforced throughout the land the systematic discrimination against white men on the basis of their race and their sex.

“So, according to the liberals, race blind immigration laws that are being violated by nonwhite lawbreakers cannot be enforced, because that is racist. But race conscious employment practices that bar qualified whites from jobs and give them to less qualified nonwhites are the essence of virtue and cannot be challenged, because that is racist.

Soon-to-be-former Prime Minister Gordon Brown had a run-in with a real elector the other day.  His shock upon confronting the real opinions of an elector was so great that he was overheard to call her a bigot for mentioning the very large number of Eastern Europeans immigrating to Britain. 

Mrs Duffy, a lifelong Labour supporter, had the temerity to tackle Gordon Brown on the national debt, education and his party’s immigration policy.

Worse than leaving the microphone on, he was heard to blame the entire idea of meeting an elector.

Brown: That was a disaster. Should never have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that?

Aide: I don’t know, I didn’t see.

Brown: Sue’s, I think. Just ridiculous.

Aide: Not sure if they’ll go with that one.

Brown: They will.

Aide: What did she say?

Brown: Everything. She’s just this sort of bigoted woman who said she used to be a Labour voter. Ridiculous.

Just ridiculous to endure the unscripted opinions of the electorate!

As anyone who has campaigned knows, you meet some real wackos going door-to-door. But Gillian Duffy is not that type. She is a solid and sensisble Labour supporter, and, from earlier reports in the papers, a former councilwoman and a hospital volunteer. Not the sort to blather on about the intergalactic conspiracy of Masonic-Judeo-Bolshevik mentats out to destroy our way of life.

The shock of meeting someone from outside the bubble (of political correctness) was more than Gordon Brown could stand.

Sort of reminds me of Allan Rock: the kind of guy who arrives at a summer barbecue where people are drinking wine and eating meat who announces pompously that neither he nor his  wife drink alcohol or eat meat. Who has his subordinate warn Ann Coulter of the limits of expression in thought-controlled Canada. Who wants your rifle registered with the state. Who finds himself out of power, the place where Gordon Brown will also shortly find hismelf.

These people must be driven frompower everywhere. But who are they?

As I do not participate in the classes where they learn to obey their alien overlords, I cannot be sure. The Gordon Browns and Allan Rocks of this world seem to combine invincible ignorance of the real world  and the humans who compose it with invincible sense of entitlement to govern it in the name of improving us, to bring us up to their exalted level of political correctness. They are shocked, shocked to discover that people might actually have formed negative views about high rates of taxes, immigration, or crime, and declining standards of education, civility and garbage removal.

Theodore Dalrymple, the most perceptive chronicler of this species of human, and the Orwell of our age, was once in conversation with a dining-room full of Allan Rocks and Gordon Browns. Despite thirty years’ worth of close acquaintance with the dysfunctional behaviours of the lower classes, caused in large part by the welfare policies supported by the people at the dinner party, he was unable to persuade of the most elementary facts he had observed.  People who could not cook, clean, or take care of themselves or their bastard children, and whose behaviour could only be described as intensely self-destructive.

Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad. Unfortunately, the form of madness taken by the Gordon Browns and Allan Rocks of this world is the entire set of conventional left-wing beliefs, and they are impervious to fact, criticism, or revision.

Ontario is to introduce more explicit sexual education at younger ages, says the Globe and Mail.

Pre-pubescent children have enough difficulty suppressing their natural disgust at the way wholly biological way in which they were generated, let alone getting them to consider homosexual sex, that I imagine many children will be sent to the principal’s office for making “insensitive” remarks. Given the Ontario Liberal government, I assume it is intended to advance some gay-friendly agenda, namely that gay is normal, whatever that means, and young kids had better get used to it, regardless of their parents’ feelings.

Let us ignore the substance of the issue for a moment, which is the wisdom and efficacy of this form of education, and ponder how the government justifies the decision. Responding to the accusation that the curriculum is being modified to appease a lesbian Minister of the government, the article says:

The curriculum hadn’t been reviewed since 1998, and the changes reflect Ontario’s diverse societyand have nothing to do with Ms. Wynne, who is now Transportation Minister, said Michelle Despault, a spokeswoman for Education Minister Lorna Dombrowsky.

“As a government, we have a commitment to provide a curriculum that is both equitable and inclusive,” she said.

Notice how “diverse”, “equitable” and “inclusive” are summoned to replace “good”, “suitable”, “appropriate”, and “sensible”. And as I decode the message, it becomes apparent that the diversity, equity and inclusiveness under discussion refer to the presence of same-sex parents sending their children to school. I do not think it refers to Islamic families: their tendency to marry first cousins,  remove their daughter’s clitorises, or drown them for looking at boys.   Just wait, however, for that to be justified as diverse, equitable, and inclusive.

Let us look at the facts:

1. Europe is being destroyed from within by elites who seek to replace its actual populations with a rabble of barbarian immigrants, with all the effects of crime, no-go zones, and imposition of the values of those barbarians on Europe.

2. The same process is happening in the United States, by uncontrolled illegal immigration of mestizo-Spanish central Americans.

3. The United States has been taken over by an affirmative-action President who neither understands the culture of the place nor its capitalist underpinnings, and who does not much like its white citizens.

4. A variety of laws and speech-control commissions have been empowered to suppress discussion of race, religion, and intelligence distribution on any terms other than the virtues of mulitculuralism, massive barbarian unqualified immigration, tolerance of Islam and the assumption of white guilt for all social evils.

Yes, this is one of those days when I think that western civilization is in a process of rapid and uncontrollable decay. I do not see anywhere, except on a few conservative blogs, any realization of how bad it is and how rapidly it is getting worse.

I do not see any political leadership, or serious political movements, anywhere in the West, daring to take on the assumptions that are driving us over a cliff, namely:

1. The equality of all cultures

2. the equality of all races (in terms of intelligence and achievement)

nor do I see any challenge being mounted to

3. The apparent desire to diminish, demean and or replace the white race with something else wherever it is currently dominant, if that is the appropriate word, or hanging on, if you prefer

or defence of

4.The superiority of of our constitutional order.

Do you?

The Ottawa Citizen this morning portentiously announced that women have “grabbed power” in the federal public service. Nothing of the sort has happened. They have been handed it on the silver platter of preferential hiring and promotion. Men have been excluded from increasing amounts of  the hiring for 25 years. Starting with Trudeau’s establishment in 1976 of a secretariat in the Privy Council Office on the status of women, bureaucratic power for women rapidly morphed (metastasized?) into equivalent bureaux everywhere throughout the bureaucracy to promote women. Once you establish some point of responsibility in the central agencies, then corresponding units have to spring up throughout government to respond. They all write reports to one another to show progress in hiring females. Hiring males bad, hiring women evidence of progress and enlightenment. Thus the inevitable results: year after year, white males are discouraged from applying. This is not rocket-science. If you established quotas for any conceivable group, and gave it powerful political backing, the same results would be achieved in twenty years. Whether the institution would be better off is a question left unasked.

The article says:

“In Ottawa, 12 of 29 deputy ministers are women. In the private sector, among FP 500 companies, 18 chief executive officers are women.”

About ten years ago I walked through an entire floor of Treasury Board secretariat, about a half-acre of cubicles, and did not see one male. Not one. I knew then that the public service had become irrelevant.

Year in and year out, talented males left the public service to become consultants to it, or lobbyists of it. They could earn the income without the manifold hassles of being inside the service.

The article again:

“Linda Duxbury, professor at Carleton University’s Sprott School of Business, questions whether  it is time to re-examine why women, who have 55 per cent of federal jobs, are still protected and given preferential treatment under Canada’s employment equity law, along with visible minorities, aboriginals and disabled.”

And then we are treated to the usual anti-male crap that goes unnoticed because anti-male crap is the new orthodoxy:

“Lorraine Dyke, director of the Sprott’s Centre for Research and Education on Women and Work, says history bears this out. Occupations that shift from being male to female-dominated are perceived as less important, less valued, and pay less. This downgrading in pay and status has happened with professions such as teachers and family physicians.

Still, Dyke believes a key reason the public service is attracting women is that the government runs a much more rigorous and objective hiring process than the private sector, which rids competitions from bias and ensures qualified women get an equal shot.

Absolute rubbish! As anyone with the vaguest conception of government hiring knows, extra points are scored for hiring women and designated minority groups. Nothing complicated about that. Pressure is applied from on top throughout the system to produce more women hirees. Obediently, the managers do so.

She says research has shown that women are drawn to the public sector and work that “makes a difference” and feel successful if they think they are making a difference.

Generally, women are more collegial and collaborative in the way they manage compared to men who are more directive, a leadership style considered more effective in the public and not-for-profit sectors.

Men are typically driven by work in which they have influence in shaping the direction of a company or organization. That’s a big drawback for the public service, where even the most senior bureaucrats are subject to the influence of their political masters who make the decisions and tell them what to do.

Let us phrase it another way, shall we?  Women, being as a sex more compliant (agreeable) and less achievement oriented than men, find more rewarding the atmosphere of the civil service, which rewards academic credentialism, routine, conformty and social skills, but which fears entrepreneurialism, strong personalities, and the possibility of real accountability for demonstrable achievement.  That is reserved for people at the top. In the feminine environment of the civil service, everyone is vying for the gold stars of compliant obedience to Big Sister. While unfair, this caricature is not untrue, and does as much justice to the facts as the self-serving blather of Mrs Dyke.

If you want more men in the civil service, you have to value the specifically male virtues, or stop stigmatizing them.