we are living in a liberal Oceania

Fred Reed writes:

“Affirmative action” means hiring people because they can’t do the job well. Near-synonyms are “diversity,” meaning groups that cannot do the job well, and “inclusiveness,” which means seeking people who you know cannot do the job well. These underpin American society, and have ruined education.

More here.

“Mac Donald goes on to tell of school after school accepting diversity with credentials well below those of real students, of schools dropping the GRE requirement because it makes obvious that in STEM fields women and minorities are not performing as desired. (“Minorities” always means “poorly performing minorities.” Chinese, Japanese, Koreans and so on don’t count.)”

Heather MacDonald on “How Identity Politics is Harming the Sciences”

The situation is dire because the lies are so deeply believed, the conformity required is so effectively enforced, and the penalty for thinking differently is exclusion and oblivion.

Hence we are living in a liberal Oceania

  • inclusion is exclusion

  • diversity is uniformity

  • tolerance is intolerance

He speaks for me and for many

And the time is coming when someone in Canada will say the same. I am the majority, and we are tired of being told bullshit by people who think they are better than us.

I am everybody! This guy is my hero!

Posted by Ron Fournier on Thursday, May 10, 2018

Ford

Image result for doug ford

 

Mrs. Dalwhinnie voted separately from me yesterday. Later, she shook her finger at me and swore me to absolute secrecy. Then she allowed as how she had voted Conservative in the Ontario elections.

Given the results of the election, I suspect there have been many many such conversations across Ontario yesterday, as long time Liberals, the indifferent, and the usually non-voting joined the committed Conservatives to crush the Ontario Liberals.

There are several reasons for this defeat. The most significant is the most obvious: after 15 years in power, every party needs to be purged. But in addition the Ontario Liberals were moving  the province in the direction of Venezuela. Oh I grant you it would have taken another fifty years to ruin the place, but intentions count.

Green energy, spending lavishly, ramping up the  debt to absurd levels, green energy, hugely expensive electrical power as a result of subsidizing green energy: you know the drill by now.

It all starts in the excesses of compassion and caring. Let these two forces run without any countering forces for 15 years and you have Ontario. People are being ‘left behind’, and government exists to do something about the left-behinds. So we raise the minimum wage because it is the “right thing to do”. Consequently people whose productivity does not reach $14 an hour are let go, or cannot find work. Compassion, doing the right thing, without any reckoning of practical consequences: that is the Ontario Liberal way.

Also, the planet is being ravaged by the menace of global warming. So green clean energy policies drive us off steady reliable low cost fossil fuels to  forms of energy that blight the countryside and provide rents to friends of the regime  who put up the windmills and charge the taxpayer/ratepayer for grossly inefficiently produced electricity. Double bonus for the Ontario Liberals: you get to posture as greenies and yet provide high-priced contracts to friends of the regime. That you impoverish your province is beyond the point. 75,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost as industry migrates out of the province to Great Lakes states and even [gasp!] Quebec.

When the basic facts of the situation are examined, it is surprising that the Liberals lasted as long as they did. The explanation lies in the long time it takes  for the electorate to draw the right inferences from political crap they don’t read in the papers to their electricity bills to the appropriate conclusions that their government is not working for their interests. In Ontario it took at last a decade.

When I hear a politician talking of compassion and caring, I look for my wallet. I know my money is about to be taken and misspent.

At last! All is revealed!

This is from Mother Jones today:

The other side—the accurate perspective—isn’t that complicated. In 2016, Vladimir Putin’s regime mounted information warfare against the United States, in part to help Trump become president. While this attack was underway, the Trump crew tried to collude covertly with Moscow, sought to set up a secret communications channel with Putin’s office, and repeatedly denied in public that this assault was happening, providing cover to the Russian operation. Trump and his lieutenants aligned themselves with and assisted a foreign adversary, as it was attacking the United States. The evidence is rock-solid: They committed a profound act of betrayal. That is the scandal.

 

It reads well until you parse it:

  • Vladimir Putin’s regime mounted information warfare against the United States, in part to help Trump become president

I assume this is true; Putin is a troublemaker. So far he has made huge gains in distrust among US political actors for a trivial investment of resources.

  • While this attack was underway, the Trump crew tried to collude covertly with Moscow,

As if the Trump team knew in relevant time about some Russian hackers buying ads on Facebook, and as if it mattered in the billion dollar ad campaign that Hillary and her allies waged.

  • sought to set up a secret communications channel with Putin’s office

All diplomatic communications are meant to be secret, especially when one is in power. Setting up communications channels with important foreign powers is standard operating procedure in a US presidential campaign. A giant “so what?”.

  • repeatedly denied in public that this assault was happening, providing cover to the Russian operation

What assault? Money spent by Russian hackers on advertizing on Facebook?  Or the theft of the Democratic emails? How was Trump’s team supposed to know specifics, let alone generalities? Assumes facts not in evidence.

  • Trump and his lieutenants aligned themselves with and assisted a foreign adversary, as it was attacking the United States.

Seeking to establish more normal relations with Putin is no more “aligning” than Obama’s coming to a deal with Iran on nukes was an alignment with radical Shia Islam. Agreements and attempts to reach them might be mistaken, but it is not treasonous in any  sense of the word to seek channels of communications with allies and enemies. It is the business of international relations.

The author of the piece, David Corn,  bemoans the lack of senior Democratic representatives engaging with the Republicans on this issue in its full seriousness. It is likely that senior Democratic politicians understand that the whole issue is piffle but are willing to use it to spread uncertainty and doubt, but even they are coming to see it is futile

Corn is the Mother Jones  Washington Bureau Chief and a correspondent for MSNBC.

Maureen Dowd gives Obama head in public

You are warned. To the best of my knowledge and belief, this is an actual column written by Maureen Dowd of the New York Times. It is not a satire.

 

WASHINGTON — It was a moment of peak Spock.

Hours after the globe-rattling election of a man whom Barack Obama has total disdain for, a toon who would take a chain saw to the former president’s legacy on policy and decency, Obama sent a message to his adviser Ben Rhodes: “There are more stars in the sky than grains of sand on the earth.”

Perhaps Obama should have used a different line with a celestial theme by Shakespeare: “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.”

As president, Obama always found us wanting. We were constantly disappointing him. He would tell us the right thing to do and then sigh and purse his lips when his instructions were not followed.

Shortly after Donald Trump was elected, Rhodes writes in his new book, “The World as It Is,” Obama asked his aides, “What if we were wrong?”

But in his next breath, the president made it clear that what he meant was: What if we were wrong in being so right? What if we were too good for these people?

“Maybe we pushed too far,” the president continued. “Maybe people just want to fall back into their tribe.”

So really, he’s not acknowledging any flaws but simply wondering if we were even more benighted than he thought. He’s saying that, sadly, we were not enlightened enough for the momentous changes wrought by the smartest people in the world — or even evolved enough for the first African-American president.

“Sometimes I wonder whether I was 10 or 20 years too early,” Obama mused to aides.

We just weren’t ready for his amazing awesomeness.

It is stunning to me, having been on the road with Barack Obama in the giddy, evanescent days of 2008, that he does not understand his own historic rise to power, how he defied impossible odds and gracefully leapt over obstacles.

He did it by sparking hope in many Americans — after all the deceptions and squandered blood and money of the Bush-Cheney era — that he was going to give people a better future, something honest and cool and modern.

But by the end of his second term, he had lost the narrative about lifting up people, about buoying them on economic issues and soothing their jitters about globalization. They needed to know, what’s in it for them?

He pushed aside his loyal vice president, who was considered an unguided missile, and backed a woman who had no economic message and who almost used the slogan, “Because It’s Her Turn.” Then he put his own reputation for rectitude at risk by pre-emptively exonerating Hillary Clinton on the email issue, infuriating federal agents who were still investigating the case.

The hunger for revolutionary change, the fear that some people were being left behind in America and that no one in Washington cared, was an animating force at the boisterous rallies for Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.

Yet Obama, who had surfed a boisterous wave into the Oval, ignored the restiveness — here and around the world. He threw his weight behind the most status quo, elitist candidate.

“I couldn’t shake the feeling that I should have seen it coming,” Rhodes writes about the “darkness” that enveloped him when he saw the electoral map turn red. “Because when you distilled it, stripped out the racism and misogyny, we’d run against Hillary eight years ago with the same message Trump had used: She’s part of a corrupt establishment that can’t be trusted to change.”

He did it by sparking hope in many Americans — after all the deceptions and squandered blood and money of the Bush-Cheney era — that he was going to give people a better future, something honest and cool and modern.

But by the end of his second term, he had lost the narrative about lifting up people, about buoying them on economic issues and soothing their jitters about globalization. They needed to know, what’s in it for them?

He pushed aside his loyal vice president, who was considered an unguided missile, and backed a woman who had no economic message and who almost used the slogan, “Because It’s Her Turn.” Then he put his own reputation for rectitude at risk by pre-emptively exonerating Hillary Clinton on the email issue, infuriating federal agents who were still investigating the case.

The hunger for revolutionary change, the fear that some people were being left behind in America and that no one in Washington cared, was an animating force at the boisterous rallies for Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.

Yet Obama, who had surfed a boisterous wave into the Oval, ignored the restiveness — here and around the world. He threw his weight behind the most status quo, elitist candidate.

“I couldn’t shake the feeling that I should have seen it coming,” Rhodes writes about the “darkness” that enveloped him when he saw the electoral map turn red. “Because when you distilled it, stripped out the racism and misogyny, we’d run against Hillary eight years ago with the same message Trump had used: She’s part of a corrupt establishment that can’t be trusted to change.”

Bad time to figure that out.

Where were the next Barack Obamas? Obama had never been about party building. He was the man alone in the arena.

Even though he could make magic — like the time he sang “Amazing Grace” at a funeral for black parishioners murdered by a white supremacist in South Carolina — Obama did not like persuading people to do what they didn’t want to do. And that is the definition of politics. He wanted them simply to do what he had ascertained to be right.

President Obama could be deliberative, reticent and cautious to a fault, which spurred an appetite for a more impulsive, visceral, hurly-burly successor. He got tangled in a cat’s cradle on the twin F.B.I. investigations into Hillary’s emails and Russian meddling; in retrospect, he probably should have been more transparent about both.

Rhodes says that weeks after the election, he warned Obama that a narrative was developing that they didn’t do enough about the Russians and fake news.

“And do you think,” Obama replied, “that the type of people reading that stuff were going to listen to me?”

Obama was well aware during the campaign that his chosen heir sometimes seemed to be phoning it in. Campaigning together in Charlotte, he was nonplused to find out that Hillary had quickly slipped out of a barbecue joint where they had stopped to get food and greet people, while the president was left on his own, shaking every hand.

Afterward he told his aides: “Most of the folks in these places have been watching Fox News and think I’m the Antichrist. But if you show up, shake their hand, and look them in the eye, it’s harder for them to turn you into a caricature. You might even pick up a few votes.”

General Zod versus Doug Bozo

For Ontario voters dissatisfied with Ford, Horwath and Wynne, there’s another choice: General Zod

I have been pondering my options this morning.

First the claim that General Zod is less evil than Doug Ford is nonsense. His main attraction is that he promises:

  • mass enslavement
  • smiting of enemies
  • depopulating Toronto
  • killing millions
  • this will be your last vote you ever cast.

This is an exciting program. It calls for the creation of a master class of sadists, prison guards, executioners, extermination camps, and the immiseration of most of the populace. In other words it shows promise from a satanic point of view. Though General Zod claims to be already ruling the world, we know in truth that Satan has this job. So General Zod must be Satan’s lieutenant. So we know he lies. This is a good start.

Doug Ford’s platform includes

  • to change the Municipal Act to strengthen the hand of mayors in running cities, [boring]
  • to lower taxes on minimum wage earners,  [boring]
  • oppose the carbon tax [slightly interesting]
  • repeal sex education curriculum – since kids learn best by porn on the Internet [shows promise]
  • lower corporate taxes [boring]
  • require parental permission if you are a minor seeking an abortion [ho-hum]
  • gut the health care system [not really]

Altogether General Zod’s program shows a spark of imagination, compared to which Doug Bozo Ford looks boringly normal and focused on real-world issues.

 

My old pal Conrad Black recommends Doug Ford for his moderation:

Doug Ford represents frugal but compassionate government, concern for the people but refusal to make a socialist hammock-pitch for their votes. He is not a precise and overly articulate champion of detailed policy, but he can be relied on to do the right and the sensible thing. That cannot be said of his opponents.

Especially General Zod. It is rare that one has a real choice in the election. Lesbian know-it-all Kathy with greemie policies that are ruining us, versus Horwath, the stooge of trade unions and of anti-white, anti-male and anti-Christian forces, that would get us to Venezuela faster than lesbian know-it-all, versus a normal white guy, versus General Zod. I say that is a real choice.

I am reining in my deplorable instincts here and voting for Doug Bozo Ford. I hope you will likewise restrain yourselves and vote for Bozo-hood, which will be exciting enough for Ontario.

As Annie Leibowitz [?] once said, fascism is too exciting, communism too boring.

 

Tommy Robinson and the British Disease

What can be said with absolute certainty is that Tommy Robinson has been treated with greater suspicion and a greater presumption of guilt by the United Kingdom than any Islamic extremist or mass rapist ever has been. That should be — yet is not — a national scandal. If even one mullah or sheikh had been treated with the presumption of guilt that Robinson has received, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the rest of them would be all over the U.K. authorities. But different standards apply to Robinson.

 

From the National Review, article by Douglas Murray

 

Further observations on the state of the United Kingdom from the Zman.

This is the heart of the matter. The Pax Americana, which has guaranteed peace in Europe for the last 75 years, has done more than pacify the continent. It has turned the political classes of Europe into children. They are not real leaders in any meaningful sense, because no matter what they do, Uncle Sam is there to make sure they never get a serious boo-boo. Because they are insulated from serious consequences, they have become the Eloi, playing dress-up and pretending to be big boys and girls.

Victor Davis Hanson: how Obama destroyed the Democrats

VDH spoke to a [middle-aged] group of the Young Americas Foundation. His analysis of the damage that Obama did to the Democratic Party is accurate. Obama is far to the left of the Democrats, but he shifted the centre of  political discussion leftward, at the expense of the voting strength of the Democratic Party. He points out that someone in middle America is always paying the price of the smug misplaced idealism of rich liberals on the coasts. Hence a man with orange skin, yellow hair and a vocabulary of at best 1000 words is now governing them, because he figured this out early. The Republican Establishment is still trying to figure out where they went wrong. They confused their class disdain for something more serious, actua; political disagreement.

The Democratic leadership is not yet asking itself the  question, “why, if we are so smart, are we losing?” For them, the election was illegitimate, and did not happen.

You cannot win a war if you fail to realize that you are losing it.

As for Trump, he fights. He wins. And the progressive transformation the Left envisaged for America is not happening.