Fucking Gavin McInnes. After me spending all that time complaining about how he isn't very funny the other day, he puts out this today, which is pretty funny:
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
Tuesday, March 21, 2017
You'll learn some things if you watch this all the way through:
Monday, March 20, 2017
Morris Dees is a born salesman who was a committed capitalist before he entered elementary school. “When I was 5, I bought a pig for a dollar. I fattened it up and sold it for $12,” he once told People magazine. “I always had a feel for making money.”
When his mother sent him a fruitcake his freshman year in Tuscaloosa, Morris and classmate Millard Fuller wrote other students’ parents offering to deliver freshly baked birthday cakes. Soon they were selling 350 cakes per month. By the time they left law school, they were making $50,000 a year—$400,000 in today’s dollars.
After graduation, Dees and Fuller hung out a shingle and practiced law. But the real money came from their mail order business, peddling everything from cookbooks to tractor cushions. In 1969, Dees sold the direct-mail firm to the Times Mirror Co. for $6 million. By then, Fuller had cashed out, given away his money, and with his wife gone to live a Christian life building homes for the poor—efforts culminating in the creation of Habitat for Humanity.
Dees also started a nonprofit, which he named the Southern Poverty Law Center. But he gave up neither the high life nor the direct-mail business. He lives in luxury with his fifth wife and still runs the SPLC, which has used the mail-order model to amass a fortune. Its product line is an unusual one: For the past 47 years, Morris Dees has been selling fear and hate.
The business model is simple, albeit cynical, and best illustrated by its most famous case. In 1987, a Dees-led legal team won a $7 million judgment against the Ku Klux Klan in a wrongful death suit on behalf of Beulah Mae Donald, the mother of a 19-year-old kid murdered by members of the racist group. But the defendants’ total assets amounted to a building worth $52,000. That’s how much Mrs. Donald, who died the following year, received. But Dees reaped $9 million for the SPLC from fundraising solicitations about the case, including one showing a grisly photo of Michael Donald’s corpse.
Today, the center boasts a treasury of more than $300 million, the richest civil rights group in the country.
But with the Ku Klux Klan literally out of business, how was the SPLC able to frighten people into still donating? That’s where the AEI’s Charles Murray reenters our story, along with many other mainstream conservative groups. Scaring the bejesus out of people requires new bogeymen, and lots of them.
In recent years, you can find yourself on the SPLC’s “hate map” if you haven’t gotten fully aboard on gay marriage — or the Democratic Party’s immigration views. In other words, the Dees’ group classifies individuals and organizations as purveyors of “hate” for holding the same view on marriage espoused by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton until mid-2012...
Sunday, March 19, 2017
Obama did send around $80 Million to the city for it’s late woes, however he waited until the last waining months of his presidency, whereas Trump is jumping on the issue right away, providing a lot more support, and promising a lot more to come.
Saturday, March 18, 2017
Protesters threw glitter, blew horns and tried to shout down University of Toronto Professor Jordan Peterson Friday as he spoke about free speech and political correctness at McMaster University.
“This was by far the most contentious event that I’ve been to,” Peterson said. “They did everything they could to shut it down.”
Peterson — who was invited to speak at McMaster — has sparked controversy by refusing to use gender-neutral pronouns, such as ze and zir, and by denouncing political correctness run amok in post secondary institutions.
Hadhy Ayaz, a third-year student at the university and director of Overcome the Gap McMaster which organized the event, said most of the crowd came to hear the professor speak but about 15-20 protesters crashed the room, blew air horns, played loud instruments and threw glitter onto Peterson.
“They were shouting slurs at Dr. Peterson,” Ayaz said. “We weren’t able to run the event at all as intended. It’s really disappointing.”
He said students had made a point of telling people they were welcome to protest peacefully outside.
Peterson spoke for about half hour and then went outside to address students...
It's a great response, and it does highlight the hypocrisy of the leftists who jumped on McInnes.
Having said that, I still stand by my post on the subject where I wrote: McInnes' flaw is not that he's a Jew-hater, which he most certainly is not. It's that he's not great at comedy.
Having said that, I still stand by my post on the subject where I wrote: McInnes' flaw is not that he's a Jew-hater, which he most certainly is not. It's that he's not great at comedy.
Friday, March 17, 2017
The insistence that gender differences were and are immaterial to the proper functioning of a free society has been a feature of our common conversation since the 1970s. It was the key to “second-wave feminism,” the political and social movement that took women’s liberation beyond issues of suffrage and wages and employment to the question of how a just society orders itself.
By the close of the 20th century, however, the insistence that gender differences be treated as inconsequential had ossified into orthodoxy precisely at the moment when the biological sciences were uncovering differences between the sexes that had hitherto been unknown. An ongoing tug-of-war has resulted between scientists who investigate sex differences and activists who oppose such research. This battle over theory has had horrific real-world consequences. The minimizing of sex differences in areas of health and medicine in particular has led to sweepingly harmful and often fatal results, especially for women.
Consider the following fiasco. In 2013, the Food and Drug Administration announced it was slashing the recommended dosage of the sleeping pill Ambien in half—but only for women. The FDA had known for 20 years that women metabolized the active ingredient, zolpidem, more slowly than men, but the dosage for men and women had been exactly the same since the drug had been on the market. In 2014, neuroscientist Larry Cahill told 60 Minutes:
Thursday, March 16, 2017
Let’s start with the law.
The president of the United States has power to bar “any class of aliens” both as immigrants and as nonimmigrants and to impose on their ordinary comings and goings “any restrictions he may deem appropriate.”
That’s the language of the U.S. Code, the law of the land as enacted by Congress, under Congress’ own constitutional power over immigration and naturalization.
Presidential power is never absolute, of course. It’s always subject to the Constitution. Many have argued that Trump's ban is unconstitutional because—as the president himself has repeatedly said—it’s intended to ban Muslims, and should be regarded as prohibited religious discrimination.
But here’s the problem for those making the argument: It’s firmly established U.S. law that the rights of the Constitution belong only to Americans. The U.S. Army can strip enemy combatants of weapons without offending the Second Amendment right to carry firearms. It can billet troops in private dwellings overseas without offending the Third Amendment. The NSA can intercept foreign communications without regard to the Fourth Amendment. The U.S. courts do not hear cases from foreign nationals who complain their due process rights under the Fifth Amendment somehow been infringed. And so through the gamut.
Where do foreign nationals then acquire their supposed First Amendment right to enter the United States without religious discrimination?
The answer offered by Judge Derrick Watson’s opinion is a judicial reach of a kind that might sound clever to the student editors of an academic law review—but that should worry all Americans in real life...
On Nov. 9, 2016, the day after the election of Donald Trump as U.S. President, The New York Times posted a video by its media columnist, Jim Rutenberg, in which he declared that political journalism in America is broken.
"Mainstream journalists who were covering this race and cover politics," he said, "really didn't understand the anger and … how many people held that anger toward the status quo – how widespread that was in the country. And it comes after we missed Brexit. It shows that the global media is having troubles keeping up with the changes in the world."
All of the foibles of Mr. Trump that drew so much media attention, Mr. Rutenberg concluded, "drew us away from the other part of the story, which was how some large percentage of this country thought about the way things are going."
There is a big warning here for Canadian media commentators and the country's political elites in general who are currently lecturing Conservative Party leadership candidates about fuelling populist anger and dismissing as ignorant, small and mean the perturbations of their supporters who are expressing fear and resentment over how Canada is being run.
Those supporters are real people – and there are a lot of them. Dismissing them and their concerns, however crudely they may be stated at times – as the U.S. media did with Americans who flocked to Mr. Trump's standard – is frankly more likely to increase their numbers and more deeply entrench their anger and their (justifiable) sense of being held in contempt by the mainstream media and political establishment...
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
The Rebel, The Walrus, and how Gavin McInnes is a crappy comedian, but that's not quite the same as being a Nazi
As far as I'm aware, my friend Michael Coren and I are two of only three people to be published by both The Rebel and The Walrus, which are close to being at opposite ends of the Canadian political spectrum. Indeed you can go further right or left, but that would take you, respectively, dangerously close to the insanity of James "Dimitri the Lover" Sears' Nazi-leaning Your Ward News or the demented neo-Marxist website, rabble.ca.
I'm acquainted with both The Rebel's founder Ezra Levant and The Walrus' Editor-in-Chief, Jonathan Kay, who have an odd public 'frenemy' relationship. I find them both to be charming, clever, and in their own ways, devoted to improving public discourse regarding the most important political issues facing the country.
The Rebel and The Walrus are both frustratingly biased in their overall coverage, and yet are important contributors to Canada's media landscape in that they delve into areas most mainstream media neglects. Although it's been a long time since I've bothered to submit anything to either, that's why I continue to read both often and feel both a sense of pride and embarrassment at having my name in some small way associated with them. This week, insofar as The Rebel is concerned, the embarrassment is significant.
Rebel contributor Gavin McInnes made some comments on another website that, on their surface, sound borderline Nazi-like. I've followed McInnes' material to some extent and I don't believe he is a Nazi or genuinely antisemitic. McInnes clearly sees himself as a comedian who offers social commentary. The problem is that, while he sometimes hits the mark, for the most part he's neither very good at comedy nor shows vast insight in his social commentary.
The first piece I wrote for The Rebel was titled Should Comedy Have Boundaries? At the risk of giving away the gist of the article, the answer is a qualified No. But at the time, I wrote that a particular problem that can occur: "when a comedian keeps making the same type of unfunny joke over and over, is that it can lead the casual observer to the natural conclusion that it's not actually a joke, and the joker is just an asshole. "
McInnes' frequent forays into White Identity Politics are often as shallow as the Identity Politics one hears from anyone else, and which have done nothing but divide people in the name of equity. By doing it as comedy, it doesn't make his insights any more poignant, but I suppose it gives him some deniability as to his intent.
McInnes' controversial comments indicate he thinks that the Holocaust isn't unique among 20th Century genocides. He's wrong. While all genocides are deplorable, the Holocaust is unique in that Germany singled out Jews alone for their religious identity and waged war with the intent to exterminate all of them them. Mao and Pol Pot's 's murders of millions of their countrymen was monstrous, but those were not attempts to eradicate an entire ethnic group. They were political acts of violence. Even Stalin's murder of millions of Ukrainians was not designed to annihilate a whole people but to force a nationality of people under his control into submission. It was, at its core, political terrorism.
Even in regard to the shameful history of religious persecution in history, the Holocaust remains unique. The Spanish Inquisition persecuted Jews, to be sure (although unbelievers, 'heretics,' and Muslims were treated far worse by the Inquisition. But in that regard, Jews could avoid the Inquisition by leaving Spain or converting to Christianity. In contrast, the Nazis didn't care if a Jew practiced Judaism or Christianity. Merely having one Jewish grandparent was enough to qualify someone for Hitler's Jewish extermination policy in any country the Nazis conquered. Even in the waning days of the Second World War, Hitler and Himmler diverted resources that could have gone to the German war effort into rounding up and murdering Jews. It was a pathological, deranged, yet systematic attempt to kill off any trace of a whole group of people. The world has seen nothing like it before or since.
Saying stupid things meant to be taken ironically doesn't necessarily make someone a Nazi. McInnes has said that the comments he made were taken out of context, and to his credit, he has denounced actual Nazis and White Nationalists like the odious David Duke and Richard Spencer. In no uncertain terms, McInnes made it clear he supports Israel and that the antisemitic tropes he joked about were not true. An actual Nazi would have stood by them. Again, McInnes' flaw is not that he's a Jew-hater, which he most certainly is not. It's that he's not great at comedy. Maybe he should see if he can find a Jew to help him with that. I understand there are some good comedians among the Chosen People.
On the other side of the scale, Jon Kay suggested that if McInnes were a Muslim who said the sort of things he did at a mosque, the right-leaning media would be all over him. That comment suggests a distinct lack of perspective. McInnes did a terrible job of comedy on his own website. Yet even assuming he was serious about what he said, being an Internet comedian babbling online is a very different proposition than issuing religious edicts to hate and kill people in the name of Allah. Someone as smart as Jon Kay surely should understand the moral, if not the actual difference between the two.
So far, I've heard very little from The Rebel to indicate that they are interested in clarifying this controversy. That's probably a mistake as Conservatives like Chris Alexander are rushing to distance themselves from The Rebel. Leaving matters with only slight clarification creates the damaging impression for Ezra Levant's media creation that it enjoys flirting with the 'alt-right' while trying not to skate over the line into being part of it.
If that really is the case, I'm going to have to continue to be embarrassed by my Rebel past while still secretly being glad they're exposing the more flagrant and awful aspects of left-wing extremism and Islamism that have insinuated themselves into Canada's political establishment.
Of course, if I'm embarrassed, imagine how poor Jon Kay must feel. Barbara Kay, one of Canada's premier journalists, and Jon's mother, is that third person who was published by both The Walrus and The Rebel, where she remains a regular contributor.
UPDATE (March 18): Ezra Levant and The Rebel respond:
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
If you want to understand the role of Trump's America in the world today, it's summed up in this 2 minute speech from 2004's Team America. We have the assholes of Islamic extremism and North Korea still plaguing the world, and the pussies who want to appease them. Now the pussies have even taken to wearing pussy hats. History again repeats itself, right down to Alec Baldwin...
Monday, March 13, 2017
Three Canadians out of four believe immigrants to this country should be tested for “anti-Canadian” values, a survey conducted for Radio-Canada suggests.
The findings of the survey, carried by the CROP polling for the French-language service of the CBC, indicate that despite criticism from the media and within political circles, the controversial position taken by Conservative leadership candidate Kellie Leitch that immigrants be tested for an appreciation of “Canadian” values has traction with 74 per cent of Canadians. Inside Quebec, support for testing immigrants stood at 75 per cent.
The poll also suggests that 60 per cent of Canadians — and 67 per cent of those polled in Quebec — believe immigrants should put aside their own cultures and adopt that of Canada once they settle here.
The online survey of 2,513 respondents — 1,024 of them in Quebec — was conducted between Jan. 27-30, a time frame that in a grim coincidence includes the Jan. 29 attack on a Quebec City mosque that left six worshippers dead.
The poll also suggests that nearly one out of four Canadians (23 per cent) would favour a ban on Muslim immigration to this country, a level of support that rises to 32 per cent in Quebec...
Doc Holliday's derringer gun is bought for $84,000 by the town of Glenwood Springs where the legendary gunslinger died
A famous Old West gun is finally returning home to Colorado after a museum bought it in the hopes that it will bring tourism.
The Glenwood Springs Historical Society pulled the trigger and authorized the $84,000 purchase of Doc Holliday's derringer.
The derringer is one of the few items that is believed to have been in the Hotel Glenwood room where the notorious gunslinger died on November 8, 1887...
The Trump administration’s budding efforts to establish a new Middle East diplomatic process are about to run into some stiff headwinds at home. Many in Congress want to cancel all U.S. aid to the Palestinians because of payments made to militants who attack Israelis. President Trump will soon have to decide if confronting the Palestinians on that terrorist incitement is more urgent than pursuing a pathway to peace.
Trump conducted his first phone call with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Friday, and White House Israel affairs adviser Jason Greenblatt is headed to the region this week. On Greenblatt’s agenda will be whether the U.S. and Israeli governments should raise the pressure on the Palestinian Authority to stop paying the families of Palestinians imprisoned or killed after attacking Israeli or American civilians, a practice both governments believe incentivizes violence.
Republicans in both chambers of Congress are pushing legislation that would cut off all U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority, more than $300 million in fiscal year 2016 , unless its chief political counterpart, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, ceases rewarding the families of attackers. The bill is not new, but its sponsors believe that Trump’s victory bolsters their cause...
Sunday, March 12, 2017
This item from Australia shows the foolhardiness of the Canadian Liberal Party's divisive anti-Islamophobia Motion 103.
Evidently there is such a thing as 'Menstrual Activism,' and with that, I give up on the survival of western civilization
Another for the file of stuff too crazy for me to have made up:
|From the Menstration Matters website, |
on which things are posted periodically
What is Menstrual Activism?
Menstrual activism—or social activism that works to upset, challenge, and reverse impulses to silence and shame menstruating women—has many goals, tactics, and styles. It takes as its central premise the fusion between menstruation and anarchy (some call menstrual activism “menarchy”) and targets a wide range of social and political problems: the toxic substances in tampons and commercial menstrual products; increasing diagnoses of “premenstrual dysphoric disorder” (PMDD) and “premenstrual syndrome” (PMS); negative depictions of menstruating women in film, television, music, and popular culture; over-medicalization of menstrual cycles, including menstrual suppression; double standards in imagining women’s bodies as “dirty” and men’s bodies as “clean”; men’s attitudes about menstruation and menstrual products; early menstrual education and messages of shame and taboo embedded in such messages, and a variety of other problematic aspects of contemporary menstrual culture.
Menstrual activism is both formal (e.g., Blood Sisters) and informal (e.g., individual women making menstrual art); it offers coherent, organized critiques and tactical interventions (e.g., working to pass a congressional bill on tampon safety) and it draws from organic and informal modes of communication and connection (e.g., women sharing first period stories on Facebook). It offers showy and artistic public displays (e.g., Spanish performance artists walking along public streets wearing pants stained with menstrual blood) and more private and subtle shifts of thinking (e.g., women embracing menstrual sex). It draws from the culture of punk and anarchy alongside the do-it-yourself aesthetic that arose in the early 1990s, just as it puts into dialogue diverse and sometimes painful social questions about bodies and identities. Chris Bobel (2010), whose work on menstrual activism stands out as exceptional, wrote of the possibilities of menstrual activism, “Menstrual activism helps us see what’s at stake in the spirited debates about what to do about gender and the ongoing struggles to engage a truly racially, ethnically, and economically diverse movement of social change advocates around a common issue” (13). Menstrual activism offers multiple, diffuse, tactical, and intuitive forms of resistance, many of which this book considers in detail. It builds upon what we already know about the benefits of resistance, as those who rebel through activism on behalf of any issue have better physical health and more enjoyment of life (Rittenour and Colaner 2012), fewer eating disorders (Peterson, Grippo and Tantleff-Dunn 2008), better mental health outcomes (Szymanski and Owens 2009), and more satisfying sex lives (Schick, Zucker and Bay-Cheng 2008). I argue that menstruation and resistance go hand in hand, that menstruating bodies are always already infused with the potential for activism, solidarity, defiance, feminism, and rebellion.
Saturday, March 11, 2017
By masking the truth, Chrystia Freeland made herself vulnerable to the sort of distraction Russia's Vladimir Putin has unleashed
It's clear from the scholarly work by Chrystia Freeland's uncle that her grandfather was indeed a Nazi collaborator who was Editor-in-Chief of a pro-Nazi, antisemitic newspaper. It also appears rather certain that she was aware of it, as she was a source for one of the papers.
Freeland is not responsible for the sins of her ancestors, but it does her no credit to have masked the truth. By doing so, she made herself vulnerable to the sort of distraction Russia's Vladimir Putin has unleashed.
Putin is responsible for terrible things in Crimea and in Syria that have contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Though Putin may be a despot, he's no fool.
|From John-Paul Himka's paper Krakivski visti and the Jews, 1943:|
A Contribution to the History of Ukrainian-Jewish Relations during the Second World War
...“Intersectionality” is the latest academic craze sweeping the American academy. On the surface, it’s a recent neo-Marxist theory that argues that social oppression does not simply apply to single categories of identity — such as race, gender, sexual orientation, class, etc. — but to all of them in an interlocking system of hierarchy and power. At least, that’s my best attempt to define it briefly. But watching that video helps show how an otherwise challenging social theory can often operate in practice.
It is operating, in Orwell’s words, as a “smelly little orthodoxy,” and it manifests itself, it seems to me, almost as a religion. It posits a classic orthodoxy through which all of human experience is explained — and through which all speech must be filtered. Its version of original sin is the power of some identity groups over others. To overcome this sin, you need first to confess, i.e., “check your privilege,” and subsequently live your life and order your thoughts in a way that keeps this sin at bay. The sin goes so deep into your psyche, especially if you are white or male or straight, that a profound conversion is required.
Like the Puritanism once familiar in New England, intersectionality controls language and the very terms of discourse. It enforces manners. It has an idea of virtue — and is obsessed with upholding it. The saints are the most oppressed who nonetheless resist. The sinners are categorized in various ascending categories of demographic damnation, like something out of Dante. The only thing this religion lacks, of course, is salvation. Life is simply an interlocking drama of oppression and power and resistance, ending only in death. It’s Marx without the final total liberation.
It operates as a religion in one other critical dimension: If you happen to see the world in a different way, if you’re a liberal or libertarian or even, gasp, a conservative, if you believe that a university is a place where any idea, however loathsome, can be debated and refuted, you are not just wrong, you are immoral. If you think that arguments and ideas can have a life independent of “white supremacy,” you are complicit in evil. And you are not just complicit, your heresy is a direct threat to others, and therefore needs to be extinguished. You can’t reason with heresy. You have to ban it. It will contaminate others’ souls, and wound them irreparably...
Friday, March 10, 2017
Iranian official boasts of using immigration infiltrators to prepare to launch terror attacks within the U.S.
...In response to Trump’s updated executive order on immigration, former Democratic Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders released a statement saying the immigration pause was nothing but a “racist and anti-Islamic attempt to divide us up.”
In Canada, NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair called the revised travel ban “racist.” Former Liberal candidate Bernie Farber wrote that Trump’s immigration policies show that “racism and bigotry have moved from the margins to the mainstream.”
For years, security experts have warned that the Islamic Republic of Iran uses lax immigration policies to thwart our national security and send terrorists and spies into North America.
There is now video evidence of a senior-ranking Iranian official discussing these very plans and operations...
A Ryerson University student who wanted to write a paper on the “myth” of the male-female wage gap was told by her prof that not only was she wrong, she should only rely on feminist journals for her assignment instead of business sources which “blame women,” her sister says.
Josephine Mathias, 21, a fourth-year political science student at University of Toronto, took to YouTube Wednesday to criticize the assignment given her twin Jane for a sociology class.
“I mean it’s easy to prove a point when you remove all other sources,” Josephine said Thursday. “If she just gives you the ones that...the professor agrees with, then that’s basically brainwashing. It’s indoctrination.”...
Thursday, March 9, 2017
...they came to serve the cause of Islamofascism.
White youths in bandanas and facemasks roughed up Canadians, including their Muslim Canadian allies, who were protesting Liberal MP Iqra Khalid’s “Islamophobia” motion, M-103.
Among the bullied victims of the supposed anti-racist activists, who included communists and Arab Islamists, were Muslim Canadians who were pushed and kicked, their placards seized and torn, with close-up pictures of them taken by a counter protester.
“We fear our pictures were being taken to be passed on to the Pakistani Consulate in Toronto,” said Imtiaz Baloch, a small business owner who escaped Islamic tyranny three decades ago.
Said another protester named Ahmad: “I escaped Pakistan because of the jihadist threat there to liberal values. I never thought that the (jihadi) mindset I escaped, would chase me to Canada.”...
Idiots are reading 1984 to try to understand Donald Trump (and most aren't even managing to understand what 1984 is really about); smart people who want to understand Trump are reading The Art Of The Deal:
One thing I’ve learned about the press is that they’re always hungry for a good story, and the more sensational the better. It’s in the nature of the job, and I understand that. The point is that if you are a little different, or a little outrageous, or if you do things that are bold or controversial, the press is going to write about you. I’ve always done things a little differently, I don’t mind controversy, and my deals tend to be somewhat ambitious. Also, I achieved a lot when I was very young, and I chose to live in a certain style. The result is that the press has always wanted to write about me.,,
...I’m not saying that [journalists] necessarily like me. Sometimes they write positively, and sometimes they write negatively. But from a pure business point of view, the benefits of being written about have far outweighed the drawbacks. It’s really quite simple. If I take a full-page ad in the New York Times to publicize a project, it might cost $40,000, and in any case, people tend to be skeptical about advertising. But if the New York Times writes even a moderately positive one-column story about one of my deals, it doesn’t cost me anything, and it’s worth a lot more than $40,000.
The funny thing is that even a critical story, which may be hurtful personally, can be very valuable to your business. Television City is a perfect example. When I bought the land in 1985, many people, even those on the West Side, didn’t realize that those one hundred acres existed. Then I announced I was going to build the world’s tallest building on the site. Instantly, it became a media event: the New York Times put it on the front page, Dan Rather announced it on the evening news, and George Will wrote a column about it in Newsweek. Every architecture critic had an opinion, and so did a lot of editorial writers. Not all of them liked the idea of the world’s tallest building. But the point is that we got a lot of attention, and that alone creates value. . . .
Most reporters, I find, have very little interest in exploring the substance of a detailed proposal for a development. They look instead for the sensational angle...
Wednesday, March 8, 2017
...Students who try to shut down debate are not junior Nazis or proto-Stalins. If they were, I would be content to say that their antics will wind up on the proverbial ash heap of history. Alas, the downshouters represent something more insidious. They are, I am sorry to say, Marcusians. A half-century-old contagion has returned.
For Marcuse, the fact that liberal democracies made tolerance an absolute virtue posed a problem. If society includes two groups, one powerful and one weak, then tolerating the ideas of both will mean that the voice and influence of the strong will always be greater. To treat the arguments of both sides with equal respect “mainly serves the protection and preservation of a repressive society.” That is why, for Marcuse, tolerance is antithetical to genuine democracy and thus “repressive.”
He proposes that we practice what he calls a “liberating” or “discriminating” tolerance. He is quite clear about what he means: “tolerance against movements from the Right, and tolerance of movements from the Left.” Otherwise the majority, even if deluded by false consciousness, will always beat back efforts at necessary change. The only way to build a “subversive majority,” he writes, is to refuse to give ear to those on the wrong side. The wrong is specified only in part, but Marcuse has in mind particularly capitalism and inequality...
|Gay Iranian refugees at Toronto's Pride conceal their identities|
so their family's won't suffer repercussions from Iran's dictatorship
Canada’s federal immigration department has acknowledged it resettled fewer LGBT Iranians from Turkey, in order to make space for the late-2015 Syrian airlift.
The comments, made by a senior official at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, came on Feb 21, 2017, two weeks after an Xtra investigation found that Canada started referring LGBT Iranians to the United States for resettlement. Under the previous Harper government, Conservatives gained international praise for the program that brought hundreds of LGBT asylum seekers from Turkey.
“We never stopped taking LGBTQ Iranians. We had a large flow of referrals that involved Iranians. As we increased the number of referrals for Syrians, we decreased the number of referrals from Iranians,” says David Manicom, the associate assistant deputy minister for strategic and program policy...
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
Being a woman didn't hurt Hillary Clinton. Being Hillary Clinton hurt Hillary Clinton:
After watching the second televised debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in October 2016—a battle between the first female candidate nominated by a major party and an opponent who’d just been caught on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women—Maria Guadalupe, an associate professor of economics and political science at INSEAD, had an idea. Millions had tuned in to watch a man face off against a woman for the first set of co-ed presidential debates in American history. But how would their perceptions change, she wondered, if the genders of the candidates were switched? She pictured an actress playing Trump, replicating his words, gestures, body language, and tone verbatim, while an actor took on Clinton’s role in the same way. What would the experiment reveal about male and female communication styles, and the differing standards by which we unconsciously judge them?
Guadalupe reached out to Joe Salvatore, a Steinhardt clinical associate professor of educational theatre who specializes in ethnodrama—a method of adapting interviews, field notes, journal entries, and other print and media artifacts into a script to be performed as a play. Together, they developed Her Opponent, a production featuring actors performing excerpts from each of the three debates exactly as they happened—but with the genders switched. Salvatore cast fellow educational theatre faculty Rachel Whorton to play “Brenda King,” a female version of Trump, and Daryl Embry to play “Jonathan Gordon,” a male version of Hillary Clinton, and coached them as they learned the candidates’ words and gestures. A third actor, Andy Wagner, would play the moderator in all three debates, with the performances livestreamed. Andrew Freiband, a professor in the Department of Film/Animation/Video at the Rhode Island School of Design, provided the video design. (Watch footage from a Her Opponent rehearsal below.)
Salvatore says he and Guadalupe began the project assuming that the gender inversion would confirm what they’d each suspected watching the real-life debates: that Trump’s aggression—his tendency to interrupt and attack—would never be tolerated in a woman, and that Clinton’s competence and preparedness would seem even more convincing coming from a man.
But the lessons about gender that emerged in rehearsal turned out to be much less tidy. What was Jonathan Gordon smiling about all the time? And didn’t he seem a little stiff, tethered to rehearsed statements at the podium, while Brenda King, plainspoken and confident, freely roamed the stage? Which one would audiences find more likeable?
...Many were shocked to find that they couldn’t seem to find in Jonathan Gordon what they had admired in Hillary Clinton—or that Brenda King’s clever tactics seemed to shine in moments where they’d remembered Donald Trump flailing or lashing out. For those Clinton voters trying to make sense of the loss, it was by turns bewildering and instructive, raising as many questions about gender performance and effects of sexism as it answered...
...Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government is putting Muslim feelings above free speech. Without defining Islamophobia — a term often applied to legitimate criticisms of radical Islam — these motions tell Canadians that their government deems some types of speech off-limits. Americans may shrug off this legislative virtue signaling, assured of First Amendment free-speech protections. Canadians aren’t so lucky, however. Our 35-year old Charter of Rights and Freedoms — part of our Constitution — does afford us “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression” — but only with a catch. The very first section of that charter sets out “reasonable limits” against which all of our supposed freedoms are measured. This caveat has given other arms of government carte blanche to curb allegedly offensive speech in the past decade.
Federal and provincial human rights tribunals have gone after authors, bloggers and radio hosts — the most notable of which is Mark Steyn — for “hate speech,” even when comments fall short of the criminal threshold, which requires incitement to violence and public disorder. Steyn and his then-publisher, Maclean’s magazine, faced a slew of complaints over publication of an excerpt of Steyn’s bestseller, “America Alone,” which Muslim groups said was Islamophobic (despite how prescient Steyn’s message was.) Ezra Levant similarly found himself in front of a human rights tribunal to defend his right to publish the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons in 2006. Both Steyn and Levant emerged victorious, but the process itself was the punishment. Both cases came about because the government had been empowered to enforce incredibly loose definitions of hatred.
Toronto Sun columnist Tarek Fatah said the anti-Islamophobia motions will target moderate Muslims like himself; he fears his criticisms of sharia law, radicalization and the Muslim Brotherhood’s widespread influence in Canadian Muslim organizations are effectively being stifled...
...SJWs believe in a world with “no boundaries” where “everyone is equal” -- free immigration, open access to healthcare and education, etc. -- but at the same time are obsessed with creating segregated spaces.
While they protest against the “fascist patriarchal state” they are, at the same time, fundamentally Statist, demanding that the government police language for them and punish their enemies. While SJWs claim to fight for human rights, they parade the symbol of the largest genocides in history -- the Communist flag. They are pro-feminist, and at the same time defend Sharia law.
Living-in-contradiction is similar to the “Love me -- I hate you” dynamic in Borderline pathology called “Splitting.” In splitting, everything is “all or nothing,” and the thing that was passionately idealized suddenly becomes an object of hatred. Traitors are everywhere. This was exemplified by the expulsion of gay men and “TERFS” -- “Trans exclusionary radical feminists” -- from LGBT+ groups by Intersectional feminists.
Along with splitting comes the symptoms of low-impulse control, histrionics, dysphoria, a pervasive sense of emptiness, suicidal ideation, and self-harming...
Monday, March 6, 2017
When the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down President Trump's original executive order banning immigration and travel to the U.S. from a list of seven countries early last month, the president's opponents on the left cheered what looked like a victory for their side.
But what it really did was force the most liberal federal court in America and a bevy of advocacy groups to show their cards and give the White House all the information it needed on how to elude the most serious legal and political barriers to this immigration policy going forward.
On Monday, the Trump team used that information and cashed in.
When the new revised travel ban was rolled out by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, the announcement clearly had the parameters set by the 9th Circuit in mind.
First and foremost, the court's objection to banning entry to people who already had visas to be in the United States was addressed by the fact that the new travel ban excludes those visa holders.
Even though conservative Constitutional scholars have argued that the federal government has the right to rescind those visas, the Trump administration didn't choose to assert that right. And in so doing, the most potent legal aspect in the appeal decision has been defused.
But the case has also been fought in the court of public opinion. And the anti-immigration ban forces wisely latched on to the plight of many Iraqi citizens and ex-soldiers who had fought alongside U.S. forces in the recent past.
The sheer number of those Iraqis is large compared to most other groups seeking asylum, and their stories garner a lot of justified sympathy in and out of the courts. And so, with that card revealed, the Trump team decided to exclude Iraqis from the new ban and thus eluding another problem.
None of this means there won't be new protests against the revised ban in and out of the courts. But the White House has an upper hand now. Its legal opponents will now have to come up with new objections that even the uber-liberal 9th Circuit didn't consider last month...
Orwell's 1984 doesn't explain Trump, but it does reflect the mindset of idiot communist "antifa" protesters
Lots of people have taken to reading 1984 since Trump's election, supposedly to 'understand' his presidency. If someone's an adult and is just getting around to reading 1984 now, that's a bad enough sign, but thinking it explains Trump makes that person an idiot. His presidency isn't characterized by state surveillance of individuals, elimination of individual rights, and a repressive state that suppresses all criticism of its leaders. The massive protests in America prove that Trump isn't doing what communists say his is.
However there are features of the current political climate that 1984 does reflect. Although they aren't so much elements of a dystopian future as much as they were Orwell's observations about communists of his day. Part of it was the cultish stupidity and the need to create enemies to hysterically vilify in service of the cause.
Greg Renouf, a Toronto-based independent journalist, is neither a white supremacist nor a fascist; not in any way. Yet the self-described "antifascists" attacking him are themselves practicing fascism; using violence and intimidation to silence their political opposition. Local communist-aligned groups fear and hate Renouf because he has done a considerable amount of work in exposing them.
We can see that and the political dementia Orwell described in the local communists' deranged attacks on Greg while mindlessly shrieking chants in the video below. The video was taken this last weekend while he was covering the protests for and against a Canadian Parliamentary Motion which condemned Islamophobia.
Shelby Steele is one of America's foremost living intellectuals. From The Wall Street Journal:
The recent flurry of marches, demonstrations and even riots, along with the Democratic Party’s spiteful reaction to the Trump presidency, exposes what modern liberalism has become: a politics shrouded in pathos. Unlike the civil-rights movement of the 1950s and ’60s, when protesters wore their Sunday best and carried themselves with heroic dignity, today’s liberal marches are marked by incoherence and downright lunacy—hats designed to evoke sexual organs, poems that scream in anger yet have no point to make, and an hysterical anti-Americanism.
All this suggests lostness, the end of something rather than the beginning. What is ending?
America, since the ’60s, has lived through what might be called an age of white guilt. We may still be in this age, but the Trump election suggests an exhaustion with the idea of white guilt, and with the drama of culpability, innocence and correctness in which it mires us.
White guilt is not actual guilt. Surely most whites are not assailed in the night by feelings of responsibility for America’s historical mistreatment of minorities. Moreover, all the actual guilt in the world would never be enough to support the hegemonic power that the mere pretense of guilt has exercised in American life for the last half-century.
White guilt is not angst over injustices suffered by others; it is the terror of being stigmatized with America’s old bigotries—racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia. To be stigmatized as a fellow traveler with any of these bigotries is to be utterly stripped of moral authority and made into a pariah. The terror of this, of having “no name in the street” as the Bible puts it, pressures whites to act guiltily even when they feel no actual guilt. White guilt is a mock guilt, a pretense of real guilt, a shallow etiquette of empathy, pity and regret.
It is also the heart and soul of contemporary liberalism. This liberalism is the politics given to us by white guilt, and it shares white guilt’s central corruption. It is not real liberalism, in the classic sense. It is a mock liberalism. Freedom is not its raison d’être; moral authority is...
Sunday, March 5, 2017
Friday, March 3, 2017
Many social scientists are excited about and poised to participate in the upcoming March for Science, which is being described by the organizers as a “celebration of our passion for science and a call to support and safeguard the scientific community.” I realize that this will be a controversial position, but I believe the best way social scientists can contribute to the March for Science is to quietly sit this one out. I am very much pro-science and share some of the concerns people have about cultural and political threats to science. That being said, in my opinion, the social sciences are currently too compromised to help the cause. Even those who have the best intentions risk doing more harm than good.
Why? For one, there is very little political and ideological diversity in the social sciences. It is true that many academic fields lean left, but this especially the case within the social sciences. Check out Heterodox Academy for details. In many social science departments it is easier to find a Marxist than a Republican. In fact, it is quite common for social sciences departments to have no Republicans at all.
Many have criticized social science research for being ideologically biased and, frankly, many of these criticisms are fair. For one, social scientists have spent decades using sloppy empirical methods, or no methods at all, to make the case that conservatives uniquely possess a number of undesirable personal characteristics (e.g., prejudice and intolerance). However, as I discussed in an articlefor Scientific American, recent studies reveal methodological flaws of past research and show that liberals are no more tolerant or nondiscriminatory than conservatives.
Moreover, a number of the psychological concepts social scientists and activists have used to support social justice-oriented interventions and policies have not stood up well to empirical scrutiny. Take, for instance, the concept of stereotype threat. Psychologists proposed that female math performance is undermined by the existence and situational awareness of the stereotype that women are bad at math. However, the stereotype threat explanation of women’s math performance has failed multiple replication attempts. Meta-analyses have offered no support for the idea. And the original supporting research has been widely criticized as having many methodological and statistical problems. Still, many social scientists, activists, and college administrators continue to teach and champion the idea.
Unfortunately, the stereotype threat example is not an anomaly...
Thursday, March 2, 2017
When people publicly rage about perceived injustices that don't affect them personally, we tend to assume this expression is rooted in altruism—a "disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others." But new research suggests that professing such third-party concern—what social scientists refer to as "moral outrage"—is often a function of self-interest, wielded to assuage feelings of personal culpability for societal harms or reinforce (to the self and others) one's own status as a Very Good Person.
Outrage expressed "on behalf of the victim of [a perceived] moral violation" is often thought of as "a prosocial emotion" rooted in "a desire to restore justice by fighting on behalf of the victimized," explain Bowdoin psychology professor Zachary Rothschild and University of Southern Mississippi psychology professor Lucas A. Keefer in the latest edition of Motivation and Emotion. Yet this conventional construction—moral outrage as the purview of the especially righteous—is "called into question" by research on guilt, they say.Feelings of guilt are a direct threat to one's sense that they are a moral person and, accordingly, research on guilt ﬁnds that this emotion elicits strategies aimed at alleviating guilt that do not always involve undoing one's actions. Furthermore, research shows that individuals respond to reminders of their group's moral culpability with feelings of outrage at third-party harm-doing. These findings suggest that feelings of moral outrage, long thought to be grounded solely in concerns with maintaining justice, may sometimes reflect efforts to maintain a moral identity...
Wednesday, March 1, 2017
Looking back from the Twenty First Century at the witch trials of medieval Europe and 17th Century America, our generation has a smug feeling of superiority over predecessors we deride as being gripped by stupidity, superstition, and hysteria.
But are we really better?
It's unlikely future generations will take a kind view of masses of our contemporaries who don pussy hats, people dressed as vaginas, lily white "social justice" activists marching at Black Lives Matter events where the organizers refer to white people as sub-human, and histrionic denunciations of anyone who says anything favorable about Donald Trump.
Whether those protesting and denouncing any challenge to the status quo of 'progressive' dogma have any command of relevant facts is immaterial. What's important is that one is perceived to be part of the herd, or else face denunciation and ostracism from all the "goodly, caring folk."
We live in times where not just to saying, but physically embodying in dress and action what the 'socially conscious' are supposed to think has become a form of mass hysteria not witnessed since the panic of the Loudun possessions during the Reformation years in Europe.
This week's Globe and Mail has a column that is completely characteristic of the sort of unthinking idiocy that comprises much of today's leftist zeitgeist.
Milo Yiannopoulos is a thinker, and public figure who dared to challenge leftist doctrine on issues like identity politics, Third Wave Feminism, Islam, free speech and censorship, and conservatism. His appearances on college campuses were often met with violence from leftists who were terrified of his message and his persuasiveness. Yiannopoulos is neither racist nor a fascist, but was characterized that way by ignoramuses who are terrified of what the anti-establishment provocateur represented. Some exceptionally ill-advised, badly phrased comments by Yiannopoulos, which indicated approbation of sex between adults and teenagers, derailed his career last week and that was seen as a great victory by the left. Forget for a moment that leftist darlings like Bill Maher and George Takei have said virtually the same thing as Yiannopoulos without any consequence. What's important is that a witch was burned and we can all rejoice.
Emblematic of the hysteria and stupidity that typifies contemporary leftists is an article in Canada's Globe and Mail, a newspaper which is generally considered the nation's 'newspaper of record.'
A writer named R.M. Vaughan, in denouncing Yiannopoulos' politics, described the object of his contempt as, "a nasty and cruel hate-monger, a vicious creature propped up by the U.S. far-right who enriched himself by selling prejudice, racism and lies."
What is truly incredible is in the subsequent paragraph that Vaughan wrote.
After describing Yiannopoulos as a proponent of racism, and then writing, "no reasonable person could ever condone Yiannopoulos’s writings or the ideas he disseminated," Vaughan actually put in print the admission, "Personally, I am unable to read more than a paragraph of his essays. I cannot bear to watch him on television. And yet, to my horror, I think I now understand what propels a person like Yiannopoulos to make a living off of hate."
There's nothing any critic could say that is more damning than the words the political left crafts on their own. A leftist at one instant decries someone as a racist, a liar, a hatemonger, and professes to understand what motivates him, and in the next proudly admits to not ever reading or listening to a substantial amount of what the condemned person actually ever wrote or said.
Does a trial in which guilt has been pre-established without the need for any evidence sound familiar?
Fanatics and unthinking fools conducted them in the courtrooms of Salem in the 17 Century, and fanatics and unthinking fools conduct them, through the media, in our time. It's not really all that different.