Back in the Cold War days, folks in the Soviet Union knew that the media was completely controlled by the state so they had to read between the lines to get any information. No real news was available, only propaganda that fitted the Party line of the moment—the original fake news.
Fast forward thirty years to the fact-free reporting of so-called scandals about the Trump/Russia conspiracy. Lies, innuendo, brain-dead journalists repeating their own half-baked views as if they were news, pundits dreaming up fantasies, in short, the jabbering of an hysterical mob of semi-literate drones of the Democrat Party are now the current American Media. No-one knows fake news better than the Russians, they lived with for seventy years.
At a press conference in Cyprus on Thursday, when asked asked about these rumors, accusations and innuendos in the American Media, Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, replied:
“Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke about that in detail at a news conference following his talks in Sochi yesterday. Since you raised the issue again, I can say the following. I sometimes get the impression that many US media outlets work according to a principle which was common in the Soviet Union. Back then people used to joke that the newspaper Pravda [Truth] had no truth in it, and the Izvestia [News] paper has no news in it. I get the impression that many US media operate in the same way.”
Too much— and too true. The American Media now being justly compared to the Soviet media from the Communist era, by the Russian Foreign Minister! It’s just so sweet.
We were about to sit down to a formal dinner. The lads were hungry, and we had been smoking some excellent weed and sipping beer and wine for some time. We had been listening to ZZ Top’s One Foot in the Blues. The acting guardian of good taste replaced it with Purcell’s Ode for the Birthday of Queen Mary, justifying the decision with:
“We need something more frankly élitist”.
The phrase struck a chord. Today, you need something more frankly élitist. I present two arias from Vivaldi’s opera, Bajazet. First Vivica Genaux, then Elena Garantsa, spelled Garanca.
Bajazet recounts, in baroque Italian operatic fashion, the fate of the Ottoman Sultan and Caliph Bayezid I when his armies were crushed by the forces of Timur in 1402 AD. Timur is known to us as Tamerlane.
The Wikipedia article says of him:
Scholars estimate that his military campaigns caused the deaths of 17 million people, amounting to about 5% of the world population at the time.
An equivalent warlord today would have to kill or cause the deaths of 5% of 7.5 billion people, or 375 million people. With nukes it could be done. Hmmmn…..
When you cannot distinguish a tough, vulgar, self-promoting New York liberal property developer from the Anti-Christ, I would say you have poor judgment. When the Wahabist menace to civilization escapes serious scrutiny, but slight departures from political correctness, and a reorientation of American foreign policy, elicit volcanic upheavals of hatred, fear and derision, I would say that some have reached terminal fatuity. Warren Kinsella is not alone in this; he is merely a convenient representative of Trump Derangement Syndrome. It appears to me that many otherwise sensible people have lost their minds; and I exclude Warren Kinsella from the category of “otherwise sensible people”.
Are we causing it?
Almost certainly human activity is likely to be causing some of it. We are pushing a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere and atmospheric CO2 is rising , but so what?
Do I care about it?
Not enough to turn my economy into a North Korea for a one degree centigrade increase in a century.
Read the evidence from a global warming believer. Read it carefully. Read it again. After you get through the arguments of the nature of “97% of Renaissance cardinals believe in Ptolemy”, there is a modicum of fact to be absorbed. Mainly that the global temperature – whatever that means – has been increasing at about one degree centigrade in the last century. For my part I hope it continues.
Is there anything we can do?
I take the the position of Bjorn Lomborg: if we had one hundred problems, anthropogenic global warming would be number 100 on the list of things to worry about.
The part of the world I live in is too cold for too much of the year, and I suspect that most of the AGW fluff and botheration is futile policy being pushed by anti-capitalists and control freaks, and governments seeking fresh sources of taxation.
In the meantime:
Following the ever-accelerating trend of institutional insanity blazed by the US Lying Media in politics, the social science quacks are eager to fight to the last man, or wimmin, or thingy, to regain the lead.
Recall how Alan Sokal, the physicist who wrote a nonsense paper on “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity” for the ‘journal’ Social Text, and got it published, beautifully scammed the fake social science folks.
The latest affair in this genre will leave you chortling (see here). The authors even proclaimed the scam, but to no avail. Contemporary social science is completely oblivious to reality (like the US Media).
In their tell-all article in Skeptic, the authors admit they jammed the paper full of jargon and made it purposefully incoherent. They said, “After completing the paper, we read it carefully to ensure it didn’t say anything meaningful, and as neither one of us could determine what it is actually about, we deemed it a success.” Finally, they made this particularly damning observation:
We assumed that if we were merely clear in our moral implications that maleness is intrinsically bad and that the penis is somehow at the root of it, we could get the paper published in a respectable journal.
That says it all. I recommend you download the paper (while it’s still up); it’s a hoot. Social science is now simply anti-male, anti-White, anti-European, anti-civilization propaganda vomited forth by the multi-culti Marxoids of pseudo-academia. It is the Faculty of Drivel.
The billboard says “billionaire’s men” and shows George Soros and Lajos Simicska – a former Minister of Revenue in the Hungarian government – holding their respective puppets. I counted 33 of them in the ride out to Budapest’s Liszt Ferenc airport. There were as many on the way into town. They could be found in every town I saw in Hungary.
I can relate from recent travels that Hungary was one of the cleanest, safest, and most attractive places I have travelled to. I was informed by a German-speaker that many German pensioners are moving there to live out there days in peace, far from the crime tourism and Islamic hooliganism that makes so much of Germany dangerous. As someone recently pointed out, Eastern Europe is overwhelmingly white and wants to stay that way. Czechia was recently told it would have to pay something like 14,000 Euros for every refugee it refused to take. Having calculated the long and short term costs of Islamic refugees in their midst, the Czechs chose to pay the price.
I am increasingly of the view that everything the mainstream media are telling us about people like Orban, Trump, Farage, LePen, and thier like is motivated by unreasoning hatred for anything not on the Soros agenda.
In any case, Hungary is a conservative Catholic society and wants to stay that way. Obviously this offends the rulers of this world.
Jonathan Kay resigned a few days ago as editor in chief of Canada’s Walrus magazine. He writes:
….One of the lingering problems at The Walrus — and this is something I was never fully able to extirpate — is a failure to accept the fact that great educational journalism will inevitably step on toes and anger some people. Because the magazine was conceived as High Canadian Holy Writ delivered to subscribers’ doorsteps on the wings of angels, Walrus old-schoolers still lose their owl feathers if a Walrus writer challenges any of the many suffocating ideological taboos cherished by the cultural Eloi.
I cannot resist comparing the earnest do-goodedness of the Walrus to the assured tone of the old Idler Magazine (1985-1993), which was David Warren’s highest secular achievement. The Idler lacks even a Wikipedia page by which to remember it, alas. For certain the old Toronto Idler challenged every one of the suffocating ideological taboos of the cultural Eloi, even as it was the product of dissident Eloi.
Speaking of suffocating cultural taboos, I recently heard an American professor speak of the need for glasnost and perestroika in North America, openness and restructuring. I do not think he meant de-communization in any formal sense. What he meant was the same as Jonathan Kay meant: our lives are being crushed or confined by suffocating taboos. Those of us who are old have escaped the full weight of them, but I think younger people are experiencing totalitarian cultural conformity on university campuses. It is a totalitarianism enforced by social media, which is to say, by the worst-acting in any population. Or the Eloi being conditioned by Morlocks, to follow the metaphor.
I have been increasingly concerned for the state of free speech in this country and in the States. At every turn we witness resignations, purges, denunciations, firings, exclusions, bannings and condemnations for the slightest deviation from particular policy lines in every medium of communication.
Not to put to fine a point on it, the heretical expressions concern any attempt to qualify the general guilt of white people for their various actual, historical, real or imagined sins, including especially any attempt to explain why the complaining group ought to tone it down, think another way, or mollify its criticism. I say usually the target is white people. In this exercize of demonization, I would submit that the actual race of the complained-against party is largely irrelevant. If North American society were composed mostly of Japanese people, the rhetoric would be anti-Japanese. Whatever is normal, straight, traditional, reasoned, moderate, and which assigns praise or blame wholly or partly on the basis of the complaining group’s own behaviours, cultures, and manners, is forbidden.
The announcement that Jonathan Kay, editor until yesterday of the Walrus, had felt forced to resign his position because he had come to the defence of free speech in the pages of the National Post, is but this week’s leading example.
There will be more of such events. They seem to be numbered in the dozens a month. A micro-eruption in an unread art magazine leads to the resignation of a person coming to his defence in a wider-circulation politics and arts magazine. Why? Why was Jonathan Kay’s continuing editorship felt to be untenable?
Amidst the lunacy the article by Conor Friedersdorf in the Atlantic magazine comes as a breath of fresh air. Friedersdorf tries to explain why the political Left is in general, losing the battle (even as it seems to me they are everywhere triumphant).
He cites Andrew Sullivan at one point:
“Among many liberals, there is an understandable impulse to raise the drawbridge, to deny certain ideas access to respectable conversation, to prevent certain concepts from being ‘normalized,’” Sullivan wrote, anticipating the objection. “But the normalization has already occurred — thanks, largely, to voters across the West — and willfully blinding ourselves to the most potent political movement of the moment will not make it go away. Our job in these circumstances is not to condescend but to engage — or forfeit the politics of the moment (and the future) to reaction.”
I saw this once on CBC TV, when during the usual political talking heads round-up, the NDP spokesman said “we shouldn’t even be debating this!”, when discussing the topic was precisely what needed to happen. The urge to ban speech they do not like is overwhelming them, and generating a deep-rooted repugnance among the sane.
I confess I am getting closer and closer to the contemplation of political actions to oppose the tide of leftist oppression, including: federal government defunding of large parts of illiberal higher education, or the shutting down on entire departments of literature, sociology, women’s studies, and the like. But I digress too soon from analysis to recommendation.
That a serious politician will soon make such proposals is foreseeable; that they will be implemented is conceivable, if the survival of liberal democracy seems to be at stake.
From Friedersdorf again, this time quoting Phoebe Maltz Bovy:
Trumpism isn’t about weaving poor and working-class white men back into discussions of socioeconomic inequality. It’s about declaring whiteness and maleness forms of marginalization.
At last we get to the essence of the matter. The modern form of Leftist discourse – I use the word ‘discourse’ to describe shouting through megaphones- is to place the honest and hard-working people who make the country a success and seek to place them permanently in the wrong by reason of their sex, their race, and their class.
This is racist, sexist, classist and – a lesser sin – utterly snobbish. It is to judge people on the colour of skin rather than the content of character. Making people permanently wrong on these bases is designed to achieve futility and heartache. Why do it?
I confess I do not know. And I also confess I am less and less concerned with understanding the Left’s psychosis and more and more concerned with how we are going to fight it. I am worried that I am seeking less and less to understand and more and more to have some heads cracked and some people fired.
The range of what is allowed to be said has been shrinking since I left university in the 1970s, but the shrinkage seems to be accelerating.
We in the West badly need glasnost and perestroika, openness and restructuring.