The house divided, a “soft civil war”

An article on university life by Fred Siegel in City Journal says better than I can why things are going to hell. The article is a review of a book published 25 years ago by Arthur Schlesinger, an arch-Democrat courtier of the Kennedys, and a liberal academic of some repute. It was called “The disuniting of America: Reflections of a Multicultural Society”.  Schlesinger foresaw some of the issues raised by multiculturalism in universities, but could not possibly have seen how bad it has become since his time.

 

disuniting of America

I have excerpted the core of Siegel’s argument.

The connection between political correctness and the doctrine of multiculturalism is integral. PC proscribes open debate. Instead, in classic Communist fashion, it judges an argument on the basis of the interests it serves….

Collapsing standards in high schools and colleges reinforced one another. Ill-prepared college freshmen increasingly needed remedial assistance. They arrived at college equipped with the politically correct attitudes appropriate for what passed as “higher education” in the humanities and “social sciences.” They left with their attitudes reinforced. Likewise, academia increasingly marginalized or repelled students with less politically correct views….

As the faculty became increasingly uniform in its outlook, power passed to students, who were treated as precious consumers. At the same time, academic administrators, now outnumbering the faculty, aimed for a stress-free atmosphere on campus. Colleges across the country replaced their classes on American history with therapy sessions about diversity that demanded not just orthodox thinking but orthodox speaking and feeling as well….

Somehow, even as they have spent the last 30 years insisting on the fundamental differences between people, multiculturalists are surprised at the rise of a white nationalism that feeds into the support for Donald Trump. Trump replays the extremism of Obama. Trump and Obama have been drawn into a see-saw dynamic in which each plays off the excesses of the other. Trump speaks to the frustration and anger of people whose wages have stagnated as government bureaucracy has grown dramatically more intrusive. Trump is a peculiar spokesman for that honor-driven egalitarianism that Walter Russell Mead describes as “Jacksonian America.” “Our ruling class,” writes Angelo Codevilla, “has created ‘protected classes’ of Americans defined by race, sex, age, disability, origin, religion, and now homosexuality, (and perhaps Islam) whose members have privileges that outsiders do not. By so doing, they have shattered the principle of equality—the bedrock of the rule of law. Ruling class insiders use these officious classifications to harass their socio-political opponents.”

What rankles most among workaday white Americans is that, even as their incomes and life expectancies decline, and even as the protections promised in the Fourteenth Amendment are eviscerated in favor of new minority carve-outs, they’re accused of benefitting from “white privilege.”…

Trump is both a reaction to and expression of liberal delusions. Schlesinger’s fears have largely come to pass; we’ve become what he called a “quarrelsome spatter of enclaves.” Schlesinger was too much a part of the elite to imagine that the class he always thought of as representing the best of the future would come to be despised by a broad swath of Americans for its incompetence and ineffectuality. But what Schlesinger saw on the horizon seems to have arrived, with no sign of abating: we are in the midst of a soft civil war.

 

The National Review attacks Trump

This morning I read the National Review’s attack on Trump. It would have been devastating, had I cared for Conservatism Inc.’s views on the matter.

 

Trump is a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones.

Maybe.

We need more fencing at the border, but the promise to make Mexico pay for it is silly bluster

Yes, probably.

As for illegal immigration, Trump pledges to deport the 11 million illegals here in the United States, a herculean administrative and logistical task beyond the capacity of the federal government.

Yes, it is impossible, but can you get  80%? The first 20%? Can the US at least enforce its current laws on immigration, as Obama conspicuously refuses to do? Very likely? Can you slowly begin to change the direction of the ship of state? Absolutely.

Indeed, Trump’s politics are those of an averagely well-informed businessman: Washington is full of problems; I am a problem-solver; let me at them. But if you have no familiarity with the relevant details and the levers of power, and no clear principles to guide you, you will, like most tenderfeet, get rolled.

The problem that Trump poses for the Republican intelligentsia is that of a man who seems disinclined to listen to their professional soothsaying. He does not care for them and they do not care for him.

Worse, I think, than any of Trump’s anti immigration stances is his complete rejection of the free-trade orthodoxy of the past forty years. This orthodoxy has held that America is best off when it can get China and Japan to make its goods, and as the States has not enough to pay for the imbalance of trade, the US can sell them Treasury Bills (debt) in exchange. Thus, as Trump points out, the Asian powers take American jobs, we get their consumer goods, US factories shut down and move out, and the American working class is left in a crisis of despondency, which is reducing their lifespans in somewhat the same way that Russian men are dying earlier. Labour force participation is also dropping as more and more people find they can get by on disability pensions.

If it had been any other ethnic group than whites, the recent news that there is a huge die-off of the American working class male would have been declared a national crisis. But in a world where Black Lives Matter, white lives do not – or so it appears.

All this is well described in Charles Murray’s Coming Apart, the State of White America, 1960-2010, which should be  reading for anyone reading Barrelstrength, and for opinion writing in the National Review.

The proposition advanced by white nationalists like Pat Buchanan is that you cannot really have the United States without a significant, probably majority, core of white people; that the United States is a nation, not just an assemblage of factories and suburbs, tied together by laws, and that the policies of free trade and mass immigration as well as a host of other policies which are anti-white, anti-productivity, and against social order,  are threatening the social core that makes the United States work, as a society, as a nation, as the great experiment in republican government that it is.

We have wandered far from Trump into the basic issues that are confronting the United States, and in many cases they are racial, in the sense not of black versus everyone else, or white versus everyone else, but what is the United States going to be in fifty years? Will it persist in any recognizable form?

The questions that lie below the level of free trade and walls against Mexico, and the objections of the Republican intellectual class, derive from basic anxieties about the fate of the country that cannot be discussed in polite company, but which everyone knows are the real issues.

Here is where Trump is generating support, and it goes far deeper than trade policy and immigration. He is acting as the icebreaker for the rest of us, plowing through the frozen seas of Marxist thought control known as political correctness, shattering one shibboleth after another. The effect is to free up society to have the discussions which are prevented by the iron masks to which people have submitted, or which have been placed upon their heads, by the actions of left-wing intelligentsia trying to make society “safe” from white people and their attitudes and beliefs.

When Chinese dynasties changed they had a period called “the rectification of names”, when all the politically correct labels were replaced and people could go back to calling things by their real or habitual names again. Inevitably the new dynasty would create its own set of prohibited terms and changed expressions. For a brief few years, people could talk freely.

We have not been able to talk freely for fifty years about race, religion, class, sex, or any of the important issues of life. The promise of Trump is that for a little while, maybe even longer, it will be possible to talk about what most people think are the real issues, not those chosen for us by the increasingly fatuous National Review.

________________________________________

Post script: Rush Limbaugh said the same yesterday.

LIMBAUGH: It’s something really simple . . . They’re fed up with the modern day Democratic Party . . . The Republican Party establishment does not understand this. They do not know who their conservative voters are. They’ve over-estimated their conservatism . . . They’re not liberals. They’re not Democrat. Many of them do not want to be thought of as conservatives for a host of reasons. So somebody who comes along and is able to convey that he or she understands why they’re angry and furthermore, is going to do everything to fix it, is going to own them. What’s happening here is that ‘nationalism’–dirty word, ooh people hate it–and ‘populism’–even dirtier word. Nationalism and populism have overtaken conservatism in terms of appeal.

Life is about life, which is biological and inherently racial, tribal or national (depending on the scale of aggregation you consider). It is not essentially about markets, trade, or technical innovation, though we hold these to be naturally good things. When the underlying anxieties of people start to concern themselves with the question”will we exist in 50 years?”, then the kind of anti-white racialist talk and action which is tolerated by the official conservatives and encouraged by the Left start to become the issue. Thus to discuss Trump is often to discuss issues that the post-World War 2 consensus had banished, and wished would go away, but will not.

And this is what has official conservatism concerned. The topics of which they are masters have been declared irrelevant, and no one gives a damn for their views. National Review could banish the brilliant British mathematician John Derbyshire from its pages for his frank discussion of what white people must do to be safe against black criminality, but National Review cannot banish the issue he raised or the anxieties Americans experience for their continued existence.

 

Immune deficiency disease

A friend sent me an article asking if Europe was bent on self-destruction, and as you may be sure, answered to the effect that it is. You do not have to look far to find it: decline of faith, decline of mission, Muslim invasion, hatred of Israel,covering up Islamic atrocities,  blaming white people for everything are among the symptoms. David Goldman, who blogs as Spengler, is a firm exponent that Germany in particular is spiritually sick and demographically ruined.

Since my time in college, back in the late sixties, an eruption of anti-intellectual, anti-white, anti-male and anti-Christian thought has marched through the learning institutions, such that kids graduating from school are firmly in the grip of Marxian opinions without the bother of actually knowing anything, as it seems. While the economic claptrap of Marx has been abandoned, the mindset inculcated in universities is largely hostile to those institutions, beliefs and  customs that make life as rich and free as it is in the West. Spineless self-hatred seems to be the order of the day.

This deduction could be the effect of reading too many conservative blogs, or it could be an actual phenomenon out there in the real world. The Islamic refugee invasion permitted by Chancellor Merkel testifies to the fact that what I am talking about is out there in the real world.

To cite Herbert Marcuse’s seminal article, Repressive Tolerance, from 1965:

   Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance: … it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word.

And so forth. The malign effects of the Frankfurt School seems to have gained an impressive victory over everything standing in its path. Its influence is the lasting inheritance of largely German, and almost exclusively Jewish, Marxists or Marxians. (Jürgen Habermas is an exception).

It is not unusual for there to exist powerful alternatives to the dominant ideology in a liberal society. What is unusual these days is that the dominant ideology seeks the destruction of the society that tolerates it in our universities and guardian institutions. Many tenured intellectuals seem to be generating the rot on which they feed, as termites take down the house in which they dwell.

Western self-hatred and self-disgust is not, I would argue, a natural phenomenon, or the waking up to the sins of the past,  but is the calculated result of the poison we have allowed to drip into our veins from the writings of Marxists and their successors. But why have we allowed it? And why has it been so successful?

The difference in post World War 2 western societies is that the cultural anti-bodies have been so weakened that we have no longer have sufficient defences against these poisons. In my view, however mistaken it may be, multiculturalism is not in substance tolerance – which is a worthy state of being in certain circumstances – but is used and promoted as an antidote to remedy the whiteness of our civilization, which is a defect that needs fixing. Anyone familiar with a truly multi-cultural society, such as Lebanon, India, or the Balkans, knows that truly different cultures are not a source of strength, but act as much as fissures for sectarian and cultural strife. Look at French and English Canada, Walloon and Flemish Belgium. These are mild compared to serious religious differences. When two cultures in the bosom of one state cannot agree that God is powerless to make 2+2=5, then the differences go to the root of one’s apprehension of reality.

And how did we arrive here?

I blame Adolf Hitler. His poisonous ideology of racial supremacy and his wars of annihilation had to be defeated and stopped, as they duly were. But the reaction against Hitlerism and its associated white supremacism has been endless. In every department of inquiry,  the inherent differences between and among people, sexes, races, nations and cultures have been ignored, and discussion of them made too expensive, too risky. Thus for instance, despite all the strong and unequivocal evidence for the predominant influence of genes on intelligence, such findings are systematically discounted. The mention of male-female differences  by a Harvard President cost him his job and the possibility of being US Federal Bank Chairman, yet, for example,  the most important woman mathematician ranks 140th in the list of the world’s most important mathematicians.

human accomplishment

 

As Charles Murray demonstrates in his Human Accomplishment, the overwhelming preponderance of important scientists, musicians, authors, and artists who have ever lived were white, and came from very specific regions of Europe, which have changed over time, from around Florence to the Low countries and England. Don’t believe me? Read the book. The detail, the maps, the facts will persuade you. As Murray observed, the entire scientific output of Islamic civilization is ranked less by scientific encyclopedias than that of Michael Faraday.

So why then, have our cultural anti-bodies become so weak? Every being in nature is constantly beset and invaded by germs, and would-be parasites. Likewise every society is constantly exposed to ideas hostile to its beliefs,customs, and institutions. What is decadent and abnormal is that we accept the views of ourselves promulgated by our enemies, internal and external. And of the two kinds, the internal are the more serious long term threat.

I know that my liberal friends may think this is nuts; they believe that we are strong because we are so open. I say we are open because we are strong, but that the source of our strength lies not merely in openness, but a belief that we are right. And that belief has been systematically sapped for generations by leftist spiritual termites.

Where is the can of Raid?

Trump?

Vladimir Putin

Vladimir Putin gave this speech in 2013, which is far from the standard liberal blather about the man and his thought. In it he repudiates the western and Atlantic abandonment of Christianity, among other things.

Excerpts of it can be found in a printed version at William Briggs’ blog here.

Among them are these words:

Another serious challenge to Russia’s identity is linked to events taking place in the world. Here there are both foreign policy and moral aspects. We can see how many of the Euro-Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their roots, including the Christian values that constitute the basis of Western civilisation. They are denying moral principles and all traditional identities: national, cultural, religious and even sexual. They are implementing policies that equate large families with same-sex partnerships, belief in God with the belief in Satan.

The excesses of political correctness have reached the point where people are seriously talking about registering political parties whose aim is to promote paedophilia. People in many European countries are embarrassed or afraid to talk about their religious affiliations. Holidays are abolished or even called something different; their essence is hidden away, as is their moral foundation. And people are aggressively trying to export this model all over the world. I am convinced that this opens a direct path to degradation and primitivism, resulting in a profound demographic and moral crisis.

What else but the loss of the ability to self-reproduce could act as the greatest testimony of the moral crisis facing a human society? Today almost all developed nations are no longer able to reproduce themselves, even with the help of migration. Without the values ??embedded in Christianity and other world religions, without the standards of morality that have taken shape over millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity. We consider it natural and right to defend these values??. One must respect every minority’s right to be different, but the rights of the majority must not be put into question.

Why not?

 

 

I have only one question for those who are shocked by the Muslim attacks on women in the Cologne railroad station, and elsewhere across Europe, as some are only now waking up to Islamic male behaviour towards women.

Why are you surprized that adherents of a religion that consider women to be a speaking and slightly intelligent form of domestic animal whose purpose is to be available for man’s pleasure behave like men who believe women are a form of domestic animal?

Rape culture indeed.

 

George Jonas

georgejonas

George Jonas exceeds my capacity properly to eulogize him: my acquaintance with him was exclusively through his newspaper writings and a very occasional video.

I will venture to say that he has been Canada’s most important public intellectual, exceeding even Conrad Black. Jonas has served as a pillar of right thought and action for his entire career. He has opposed Naziism, Communism, and the latter’s home-grown derivative, political correctness. He has stood for freedom when it was unfashionable and inconvenient, as it almost always is.

His was a life of action and reflection. Much of his practical reflections were based on flying and motorcycles, his passions, and I can relate to any man whose life encompassed more than just ideas, but speed, flight, danger, and, in his younger days, picking up attractive girls, and in even younger days, escaping Communist Hungary.

I am told he was the best of friends, and a fine poet. I regret that I have not been acquainted with him personally, while an appreciation of his poetry may lie in the future.

Guy Gavriel Kay wrote this obituary in the Globe.

 

His sort of brother-in-law Conrad Black [they had both been married to Barbara Amiel]  had a few words this week in the Post, as a sort of preliminary to his full eulogy.

Others have written eloquently, in the National Post and elsewhere, of the sadness of the death and greatness of the character and achievements of George Jonas, poet, writer, and intellectual, who died last weekend. There will be a secular remembrance occasion in due course, at which he asked me to give a eulogy; so I will not pre-empt myself here, but only repeat what I said when his family asked me to say a few words at his burial. Though we met and were brought together because, decades apart, we married the same woman, and that would not normally seem a matrix for close friendship, George became one of the dearest and wisest friends I, and I think anyone, ever had. He was a great man, who can never be forgotten or replaced.

Let me speak for a moment about Hungarians and the country they come from. Jonas was a refugee from the 1956 uprising against Communist rule in his native country. I think the Hungarians are a special people. Among them are numbered some of the most important mathematicians and scientists of the 20th century, including Eugene Wigner, John von Neumann, Edward Teller, Leo Szilard, Albert Szent-Gyorgy and not dozens, but verily hundreds more. I do not know what is in the genes or in the water, but I have not met an ordinary-seeming Hungarian. I have met Jewish Hungarians, Catholic Hungarians, and Protestant Hungarians. I have yet to meet stupid Hungarians. Its culture allows a free rein  brilliance and eccentricity.

If there is one thing I could wish for the future of this country, it would be that Canada could nurture such brilliance and mental rigor as a matter of course. George Jonas found his home here, for which we may all be grateful. Where shall we find another of his likeness? Only by encouragement of talent, and by educational discipline,  are such people nurtured and found.

So let us do one thing in memory of George Jonas: let us recognize and encourage such independence of spirit and breadth of mind in our fellow man, and if that means we suffer fools less gladly, it might be a start, though by no means the whole, of an approach to developing a national culture of merit. For surely Jonas had great merit, which can be appreciated in the depth of his wisdom that we were privileged to have known.

__________________________

His website is here.

Envy

Joseph Sobran, April 1997:

“The concept of envy – the hatred of the superior – has dropped out of our moral vocabulary… The idea that white Christian civilization is hated more for its virtues than its sins doesn’t occur to us, because it’s not a nice idea… Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible. It’s Western exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the world to itself. Other races feel like subjects of Western power long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have disappeared. The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they don’t grasp what it really means: humiliation. The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn’t conscious of it. And, superiority excites envy. Destroying white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of designated victims we call minorities.”

 

Sobran got into trouble for alleged (and probably actual) anti-Semitism, or anti-Israeli sentiment, which is too bad, because there is much in his writings that merits attention.

His quotes can be found here: http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/joseph+sobran

On the subject of envy, which is an enormous driver of human behaviour and the ruin of many human cultures, it is vital that you delve into Helmut Schoeck’s book, simply called “Envy”. It was the first discussion of the entire subject, its pervasiveness,  its poisonous effects, and which cultures have found remedies for it. You need not think more than a second to realize that the society that has overcome envy – of the really poisonous variety – is ours. That is why we are successful, because we have suppressed and delegitimized the power of envy.

 

Fascism, and Trump

A fascist is a conservative who is winning an argument with a liberal.

Therefore Trump must be a fascist. That is about the level of discussion about Trump by liberals.

Having just refreshed my memory in Ian Kershaw’s To Hell and Back, Europe, 1914-1949, let me remind you what fascism actually consists of.

-Extreme xenophobia

-autarkic economic organization, no free trade, and a war economy

-the invention and reviling of classes of subhuman who need to be exterminated

-one party suppressing all public dissent and opposition through the application of legal and illegal violence

-an emphasis on action, violence, and glorification of a leader.

By contrast, what Trump is talking about is getting control of US borders, negotiating better trade deals with China, and actually taking effective measures, or even ineffective ones, against Islamic terrorism, and being less predictable (and therefore less goody-goody two shoes towards the enemies of America).

Thus we have Gil Troy, a professor at McGill, condescendingly trying to explain to liberals (including National Post readers) why Trump is not an umitigated disaster

The broad contempt for Trump, while justified, fails to recognize many Americans’ worries, as the economy sags, ISIL expands, Russian President Vladimir Putin struts, U.S. Congress gridlocks, and illegal immigrants swarm the country. These concerns won’t disappear just because they are not politically correct. The next president will ignore them at his – or her – peril.

America in 2016 needs a healthy debate about the policy flashpoints reporters have raised in debates. It also needs a deeper debate that, ironically, Trump has conducted telegraphically, symbolically.

We are not going to have that debate unless people like Trump are shouting from the rooftops what everybody knows, but which the Establishment denies. Liberal America is baffled and confused, the natives are restless, and when they step out of line, words like American fascist are easily at hand.

A short reading of history will make it clear that Trump is well within the range of American republican and democratic forms of government. He is far closer to the centre than Bernie Sanders, who is not, so far, being labelled an American communist.

But we all know how this game works don’t we? Sweet old curmudgeonly Bernie Sanders, the old socialist, gets a free pass, but anyone who actually wants to change the system of received liberal truths, as I think Trump does, must be condescended to.

I remember how Reagan was spoken of, and while Trump is no Reagan, the reaction to both men by the political Left is exactly the same. Shock, horror, revolt, condescension, and a bad case of the vapours.

 

 

 

Kai Murros

This man must not prevail! But not before you see his lecture. No pussy-footing with this guy. A genuine white nationalist.

Quotes:

“psychopathic capitalist class and their parasitic minions”.

“complete annihilation of the decadent academic class.”

“to become a monster to protect those you love”.

‘the epicentre of the global capitalist system must in the coming years suffer the violent convulsions of the national revolution”

“the iron will to rebuild, recreate, and rejuvenate the nation”

He apparently means what he says and I am interested, if not baffled, why he has not come to the attention of thought control authorities. Oh well. Genuine national socialism must be so powerless as to leave the authorities amused by its presumption.

Murros preaches an unadulterated Nazism, a term which is seldom applied correctly: a combination of racial romanticism, utopian fantasy, anti-capitalism and anti-Marxism, and appeals to violence. I can hear Ferric Jaggar and the Iron Dream in the distance.

IronDream

 

From the Ministry of Political Lesbianism

I was at the urinal last night in a bar and confronted an ad from the Ontario government. It showed the remnants of a restaurant meal, the bill on the table, and the apparent male voice saying “I’ll pay for the meal and you can come back to my place to work off the debt”. Below the words was the message from the Ontario Government “If it’s not okay to say, it’s never okay to do” and a reference to www.ontario.ca/itsneverokay

I had plenty of occasions to return to the ad that evening and tried to figure what was the most offensive thing about that ad.

  • the assumption that there can be no valid bargain between men and women for sex, even if that bargain is not primarily monetary and is mostly a set of signals about one’s suitability as a mate;
  • the assumption that the man would think like that;
  • the assumption that the man would act like that.

On top of that, there are many situations where social politesse requires the reverse: it’s not okay to say, but it is almost always okay to do. Think of our learned reticence about bathroom functions. It is always okay to ask where the washroom is; it is never okay to say to your hostess that you plan to have an enormous dump there, and in either case it is always okay to use the bathroom for its intended functions.

Today I visited the Ontario government’s website in order to continue my long overdue political education:

Let’s stop sexual harassment and violence

There are no grey areas when it comes to sexual violence or harassment.

Whether it’s unwanted touching, inappropriate comments or the expectation of sex. We know it happens every day and it’s never okay.

Learn more, join the conversation and tell us why #ItsNeverOkay.

There are always grey areas in sex; it is a largely irrational transaction, played out in general between the woman’s desirability, which in her reproductive years is based in physical beauty, and the man’s desirability, which is usually based in the resources he can command, now or in the future,  as well as his physical attractiveness in the woman’s opinion, and the participants’ levels of lust.

There is always touching, there is always sexual innuendo, and in the beginning od a relationship there is always the hope of sex. “Unwanted” cannot be determined until something is tried: close proximity, hand holding, fondling, naughty comments.

What the government of Ontario seems to believe is that we all need to be educated in the arts of seduction, and  good manners.

Here is their definition of violence:

What is sexual violence

Sexual violence is any sexual act or attempt to obtain a sexual act by violence or force. This includes:

  • unwanted sexual comments or advances
  • selling or attempting to sell someone for sex
  • acts of violence directed against an individual because of their sexuality, regardless of the relationship to the victim

Unwanted sexual comments and advances are now to be considered violence, mind you, not just rude behaviour. Then there was this little jewel of PC:

  • Clothes are not a risk factor. What someone is wearing is never an indication of anything other than their fashion choice.

I beg to disagree. Within the context of a culture, some forms of dress are intended to be provocative, and others not. What a woman is wearing is a direct indication of whether she is out looking for a man or grocery shopping or picking up the kids at school, and to pretend otherwise is raving nonsense.

For the morally blind chauvinist pigs who read this blog, here is a very truncated guide to women’s sexual signalling.

 

dressedup2

Above: Hot, but not available (see male on her left shoulder)

Grocery store shopping - Young woman with mobile phone in a supermarket
Above: Hot, busy, and possibly available.

young-mother-walking-in-a-park-with-children-in-pushchair-mom-and-kids-in-a-buggy-walk-in-forest-302442239Above: Not available, already spoken for, and busy.

 

sayhello

She is looking for action. Say hello, sailor

Even the most cursory examination of stock photos shows that women send signals as to their availability or not  for sexual banter, conversation, or a casual joke. How they are dressed is all signal, all the time.

The point of these ruminations is that the Government of Ontario can mismanage the energy sector by $37 billion dollars out of our pockets and still has lots of money left over to treat males as primitive dolts in its advertizing.

Hint: The Auditor General of Ontario is not available for your charms at the moment, and that includes you, Kathleen Wynne

auditor-general.jpg.