Everything the world has culturally appropriated from the west. That is, what are those parts of our Western Judeo-Christian way of life that have been taken on by other cultures. I’ve taken the painting from the post, but at least I can claim it as part of my own. I’ll provide the conclusion, but go to the link to see the examples.
Campus social justice warriors insist that the greatest victims of cultural appropriation are non-western cultures, like the Native Americans, Japan, and Mexico. No doubt, they would use some sort of intellectual contortion to claim that western culture can’t be appropriated. Something about “punching up,” or “culture plus power” no doubt.
But looking through history, a neutral observer can’t fail to see that western culture is the most appropriated of them all. Other countries have been borrowing, imitating, and remixing western culture for centuries.
And that, unquestionably, is a good thing. Look at what the Japanese have done with video games, computers, and animation. Look at the brilliance of Korean composers, trained in classical European music. Look at the industriousness of China. Western culture has enriched the world, just as non-western cultures have. It’s certainly possible to condemn it. But then, as demonstrated above, your arguments would look ridiculous.
“Western culture has enriched the world!” How does he think he can get away with saying that?
The Strange Case of the Secular Progressive-Islamist Alliance has been summarised by Robert at Small Dead Animals. These are the many things that Radical “Progressives” and ISIS have in common:
Both hate Christianity and Judaism
Both excuse the preaching of hatred towards disfavored ethnic groups
Both excuse violent attacks by Muslim terrorists, citing “Islamophobia”
Neither believe in free speech
Neither are capable of even the tiniest criticism, citing micro-aggressions or Islamophobia
Both hold America and Israel in contempt
Both favour rule by an unaccountable elite
Both have dreams of totalitarian rule with leaders selected by political or religious criteria
Both shun modernity, such as that provided by the energy from fossil fuels
Both lie habitually, believing such deception is completely justified
Both are determined to end, or severely curtail, our constitutional democracies that all stem from Judeo-Christian roots
This from the SMH: Loyalty, power and the plan to replace a PM.
Malcolm Turnbull offered Scott Morrison the position of treasurer in a Turnbull government in February, seven months before Tony Abbott was removed as prime minister.
It was the day before the first and unsuccessful spill motion against Mr Abbott, in a phone call with Julie Bishop as a silent participant, according to multiple informed sources. . . .
The call took place when Mr Turnbull and Ms Bishop happened to be at the same fundraising event in a private home in the Sydney suburb of Woollahra on Sunday, February 8. They repaired to a quiet room and closed the door for privacy.
Mr Turnbull phoned Mr Morrison, who was in his car driving to Canberra for the spill the next day. The phones at both ends of the call were switched to speaker-phone.
“Multiple informed sources”, were they? So let us see who could have known about this private conversation between Malcolm, Julie and Scott? Why it would be Malcolm, Julie and Scott.
And who come out looking like weaselly and duplicitous, or in other words, who would not have wanted to see this story in the press? Why none other than Julie and Scott. And who had ambitions to lead the party, as a kind of heir to Tony on the conservative side? Here we are down to Scott alone, who since becoming Treasurer and Shadow Minister for Middle Easter Affairs (Frydenberg Division), has done nothing but turn off those of us who still hold Tony in high esteem.
And in whose interests is all this leaking and story telling? I’ll have to think about it and will get back as soon as I can work it out. Whoever it is, must have irritated the others to an incredible extent. At least we can rule out Malcolm because how crazy would you have to be to start leaking against a government you lead.
There’s money in having oil to sell and there’s money in being opposed to the sale of oil. Funny world, and both sides have converge on Paris over the past fortnight. Oil money has been translated into ISIS while the global warming crowd are redirecting trillions into various projects that will deliver nothing other than wealth to those who could not possibly create it and never will. But they will certainly go through an enormous amount of this wealth in the process. The cretins marching in the street are encouraging the very outcomes that will keep themselves poor but make a very small proportion exceedingly rich.
Meanwhile, Skeptical Climate Documentary Set to Rock UN Climate Summit – ‘Climate Hustle’ To Have Red Carpet Premiere in Paris. You can go to the link for more, and there is quite a bit more. The one thing I am sure of is that the movie will not rock anything, but it will be nice for us to be aware of as we are being fleeced. Here I will only repeat the first comment on the thread.
Hope it is effective in explaining WHY it is a “hustle”, climate issues notwithstanding– because it isn’t about “climate” at all– it is about the use/abuse of “climate” from schools to political circles, in propaganda form, to beat over the heads of both the unsuspecting and the skeptical, ultimately for pushing a global governance agenda. And in the process, corrupting honest scientific debate, leading directly to the destruction of the preimminence of scientific leadership in America, when deference to so-called United Nations climate concensus is given. Make no mistake, it corrupts the ENTIRETY of the scientific community, by a relatively small, vocal, and cult-like fanaticism.
Or to quote from another of the comments: “Funny how the ‘cure’ is the re-distribution of wealth.”
It’s hard to believe people treat this stuff seriously, but there you are. It’s how our elites recognise each other. It’s their form of a secret handshake. They have to know it’s nonsense, but if they are going to cream off more of our money for their uses, this is the perfect set up. Yet even as our leaders head off to Paris for a couple of weeks of high living paid for by us, we do see this:
Decade long ice age predicted as sun ‘hibernates’…
FLASHBACK: Temp data fiddling ‘biggest science scandal ever’…
The evidence just doesn’t seem to matter since the evidence won’t be evident for fifty years.
The 21,000 metric tons comes from The Telegraph in London and this doesn’t include any of the travel. I won’t link because it’s too depressing.
From the distant past: C’mon, seven days from now it will all be last week’s news, “it” of course being the mass migration to and ISIS attacks in the heart of Europe. And so it has turned out, even as back to Paris we go. This time for the climate summit, where everyone can take their brave and transgressive positions on the greatest non-issue in history. The headline today at Drudge:
WORLD LEADERS PREP WAR ON ‘WARMING’
Good to know they are taking these issues seriously. Therefore, from The Wall Street Journal we have Matt Ridley and Benny Peiser with Your Complete Guide To The Paris Climate Summit. Here’s how it starts which only shows you once again how obsessive some people are about things that don’t matter:
In February President Obama said, a little carelessly, that climate change is a greater threat than terrorism. Next week he will be in Paris, a city terrorized yet again by mass murderers, for a summit with other world leaders on climate change, not terrorism. What precisely makes these world leaders so convinced that climate change is a more urgent and massive threat than the incessant rampages of Islamist violence?
It cannot be what is happening to world temperatures, because they have gone up only very slowly, less than half as fast as the scientific consensus predicted in 1990 when the global-warming scare began in earnest. Even with this year’s El Niño-boosted warmth threatening to break records, the world is barely half a degree Celsius (0.9 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than it was about 35 years ago. Also, it is increasingly clear that the planet was significantly warmer than today several times during the past 10,000 years.
Whatever the temperatures were, are and will be, the planet is warming and we must act now to prevent catastrophe fifty years from now or maybe it’s a hundred. It warms the heart finally to see political leaders taking a longer-term perspective, not chaining themselves to the immediate moment and the election cycle, as they can almost inevitably be expected to do.
There seems to be some resentment hereabouts.
Climate change is a belief system for the smug and oblivious. It is neither believed nor practised in any part of the world in which its population remains at the $10 a day level, which accounts for a major proportion of the world’s population. This is an interview of Indur Goklany, an Indian climate analyst, conducted by Ralf Bodelier and translated from Dutch. The article is titled: Our Biggest Problem is Poverty. I share Goklany’s disgust with the mean-spirited and hard-hearted representatives of the first world who are doing all they can to raise production costs across the world, which in their ignorance means doing all they can to lower living standards across the world by adding to the cost of energy. This is from the interview, which is long but needs reading. It is especially useful because he raises the immorality of the global warming brigade.
Many think climate change is the main problem we face today. Apparently you see that differently.
‘I do. Despite the dramatic reduction in poverty because of economic development, the biggest problems we face today are still extreme poverty and its consequences – hunger, premature death, disease and an impaired environment. Extreme poverty is the fundamental problem of the moment. If we reduce poverty first, we will reduce these other problems. It is therefore good news that the elimination of poverty is still number one in the list of new development goals of the United Nations. ‘
What is the connection between alleviating poverty and your plea for fossil energy?
‘Between 1981 and 2012, the number of people in absolute poverty declined by over a billion people worldwide as the rate of absolute poverty declined by almost three-quarters, from 54 percent to 15 percent. The vast majority of these reductions occurred in South and East Asia – think of India and China. What happened? They got wealthier, because of economic growth fueled literally by fossil fuels. This is why they are also major contributors today to CO2 today. It is not rocket science – you are poor, you need to get richer, but for that you need access to cheap and reliable energy. And today energy is, for practical purposes, synonymous with fossil fuels. However, there are still almost a billion people living in absolute poverty today. Ensuring that they have the means for economic development, which means ensuring they have access to cheap and reliable energy, should be our first concern. We have no idea how pathetic it is to not have energy, although I can still remember from my childhood in India. People with no access to electricity or any of the conveniences we take for granted, cooking their meals using dung, all the while inhaling the noxious fumes from the burning dung; women and children walking miles to fetch water; when the sun set so did all productive activity including studying and working because lighting was rare and expensive; streets without light; the fact that any action took physical effort and was time consuming, because gasoline, diesel and electric powered machines and appliances weren’t available.
Anyone who can turn on a light by the flick of a switch who then seek to deny our technologies to others are anti-social scum. They are vicious, cruel and ignorant; the virtue they believe they have in denying our technologies to the rest of the world makes them some of the most despicable people who have ever lived.
Look, Malcolm might not be the worst economic manager in the world: Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to unzip $33bn on welfare. The Japanese economy has never recovered from its stimulus program of the 1990s, and despite its twenty years of failure, the addiction to public spending just keeps getting worse.
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will increase spending on social programs and raise the minimum wage as he tries to jump-start the flagging economy ahead of an election next year.
Mr Abe said on Thursday the government would give cash handouts to the elderly poor, and build childcare and aged-care facilities to help people enter and stay in the workforce, as part of a stimulus package expected to cost at least ¥3 trillion ($33 billion).
He hopes to revive an economy that has slipped into recession for the second time in two years, heightening scepticism about whether Abenomics will succeed in generating sustainable growth.
Why should anyone be sceptical? They’re just stimulating demand, just like the textbooks say they need to do.
Arnold Kling raised an interesting question: The Puzzle of Low Real Interest Rates and Low Investment. He summarises the various possibilities into Keynesian and non-Keynesian:
The puzzle in macroeconomic data is that the real interest rate is low and investment is low. There are a number of stories, none of them fully convincing.
In the Keynesian category, we have:
1. Low “animal spirits.” As far as I know, no one has actually propounded this.
2. Accelerator model. That is, when other forms of spending are high, investment is high. So when spending by households goes down, investment goes down. I put Furman (and most Keynesians) in this camp.
In the non-Keynesian category, we have:
3. Real interest rates are actually high, because prices are falling. This is perhaps more plausible if you think about sectoral price movements. If the price indexes go up because of college tuition and health insurance, then prices elsewhere may be falling.
4. Real interest rates are actually high for risky investment. Interest rates on government debt and on high-grade private bonds are a misleading indicator of the marginal cost of capital.
5. Crowding-out can occur at low interest rates. That is, if financial intermediaries are gorging on government debt, they may not seek out private-sector borrowers.
The puzzle in my view is a result of thinking entirely in money and not looking at the real side of the story at the same time. See Chapters 16 and 17 of my Free Market Economics, but essentially the reason for low money rates creating a fall in the real level of investment is because the supply of savings diminishes, and then, because the price of these savings to those who can get the money is so low, many really low productivity and no productivity activities ended up being funded. The analysis may be faulty somehow, but the conclusions it reaches is what you see in the world around us today.