Monthly Archives: November 2017

Can reach all of everywhere

Posted on by
Reply

Don’t mean to distract you from the important news, but just thought I’d mention it.

NKorea says new ICBM test a success; Can reach all of USA!
Launch Calibrated to Avoid Military Response?
NIKKI HALEY: CLOSER TO WAR…
Beijing expresses ‘grave concern’…

As for what the alternative was, this is from one day ago: Hillary Clinton hits Trump over North Korea approach. Or to be more specific:

Serving as the keynote speaker at Caijing Magazine’s three-day annual conference on Tuesday, the former secretary of state called on Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping to avoid “bluster” and “personal taunts” when dealing with Pyongyang, according to Bloomberg.

She reportedly criticized the Trump administration for retreating from diplomacy in recent months and said she hoped that China wouldn’t follow suit.

While Clinton focused much of her sentiment on the US stance toward North Korea, she took most of her jabs at the Chinese — claiming they, too, were taking the wrong approach to the situation and making things worse with their “secret” military buildups.

“Beijing should remember that inaction is a choice as well,” Clinton said.

That’s worked so well up till now it’s hard to see why we can’t just keep on being inactive in just the same way as in the past.

A Jordan Peterson sampler

Posted on by
Reply

This man is amazing.

Quite an amazing rant! How does he keep his job at a university? His greatest ability beyond clarity of thought is patience. I don’t know how he does it. Just watch.

Then there is this rant on the oppression olympics: “of course you’re a victim” – “things are complicated”. Here his advice: “Be a better person”. “We’re so ungrateful!”

And just one more on: advice to students, beginning with: “Read Great Books!”

And then finally, the Top Ten Rules for getting on.

Very sound! Anyway, one more and this one on intelligence.

IQ as a predictor of perfomance with conscientiousness as the other possible predictor which, unfortunately, no one knows how to measure. Practical intelligence – street smarts – has shown no relationship to outcomes. Anyway, all common sense, as with everything else he says. And a continuation below since the first one ends so quickly.

Massive contributor to life-time success. And, my goodness, one more on not being a patsy.

Necessary, as Jung said, to integrate your shadow.

And one more, and the last which might have gone first.

Who is he?

Jordan Bernt Peterson is a Canadian clinical psychologist, cultural critic, and professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. His main areas of study are the psychology of religious and ideological belief, and the assessment and improvement of personality and performance.

He earned a degree in political science in 1982 and a degree in psychology in 1984, both from the University of Alberta, and his Ph.D. in clinical psychology from McGill University in 1991. He remained at McGill as a post-doctoral fellow for two years before moving to Massachusetts, where he worked as an assistant and an associate professor in the psychology department at Harvard University. In 1997, he moved to the University of Toronto as a full professor.

Dr. Jordan B Peterson has been a dishwasher, gas jockey, bartender, short-order cook, beekeeper, oil derrick bit re-tipper, plywood mill labourer and railway line worker. He’s taught mythology to lawyers, doctors and businessmen, consulted for the UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel on Sustainable Development, helped his clinical clients manage depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, anxiety, and schizophrenia, served as an advisor to senior partners of major Canadian law firms, identified thousands of promising entrepreneurs on six different continents, and lectured extensively in North America and Europe.

He has flown a hammer-head roll in a carbon-fiber stunt plane, piloted a mahogany racing sailboat around Alcatraz Island, explored an Arizona meteorite crater with a group of astronauts, built a Native American Long-House on the upper floor of his Toronto home, and been inducted into the coastal Pacific Kwakwaka’wakw tribe.

With his students and colleagues, Dr. Peterson has published more than a hundred scientific papers, transforming the modern understanding of personality, and revolutionized the psychology of religion with his now-classic book, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief. As a Harvard professor, he was nominated for the prestigious Levinson Teaching Prize, and is regarded by his current University of Toronto students as one of three truly life-changing teachers.

Media misrepresentation and PDT

Posted on by
Reply

Elizabeth Warren pretended to have Native American bloodlines which has turned out to be absolutely untrue. A liar, but what else is new. Cultural Marxists see absolutely no scandals on the left. All this is discussed in The Oz: Donald Trump in ‘Pocahontas’ race slur. One might be described as a racist for saying something about someone else’s racial background, but cannot be a racist by making fun of someone who describes themselves as a Native American who is not in fact a Native American. And to add to the pile-on, there is then this which has just come up: Elizabeth Warren ancestors rounded up Cherokee people for trail of tears. But that is just background to this:

As sexual misconduct allegations widen in the US congress [no details since they all involve Democrats], the President has broken with leading Republicans [Republicans! whose side are they on?] in effectively backing the conservative former judge accused of unwanted sexual advances towards teenage girls [forty years ago].

While warning that a Democratic victory would be a disaster for Alabama and the US Senate, Mr Trump has stressed that Mr Moore denied all the allegations [not to mention the absence of evidence aside from a single signature in a high school yearbook which is fake, fake fake].

Mr Moore, a populist fundamentalist Christian [and therefor obviously unfit to sit in the Senate], unveiled a campaign ad that claims he is the victim of “false allegations” in a “scheme by liberal elites and the Republican establishment” [where would he get such a notion not to mention what a really really strange pairing it is]. . . .

Meanwhile, Mr Trump badly needs a Moore victory to maintain the Senate’s 52-48 Republican majority [and why don’t the Republicans in general need this victory as well?]. A loss in Alabama would make it even more difficult to muster the votes to pass his tax, infrastructure and welfare reforms [don’t the Republicans want tax, infrastructure and welfare reforms?].

Critics speculate that his support for Mr Moore’s candidacy is partly influenced by Mr Trump’s own experience in facing sexual harassment allegations from several women before last year’s election. Mr Trump denied the claims [for which, surprisingly, there was also no evidence].

The allegations against the President followed the release of the “Access Hollywood tapes” in which Mr Trump made disparaging comments about women. The New York Times has reported that the President has privately denied the tapes were genuine, despite admitting last year to making the comments. But the White House said yesterday Mr Trump’s position on the tapes had not changed.

Democrat senator Al Franken, who has been accused by four women of inappropriate touching or groping, returned to Washington yesterday saying he was shocked and embarrassed [what about the pictures??? – without the pics he would have admitted nothing].

“I have been trying to take responsibility by apologising and by apologising to the people I let down. I’m going to work to regain their trust. I am going to be accountable, [whatever that means, which for a Democrat and media enablers is literally nothing]” Senator Franken said.

He refused to resign [among the great surprises of our time] and has pledged to co-operate with the Senate ethics committee. “I know that I have let a lot of people down. People of Minnesota and my colleagues, my staff, my supporters and everyone who has counted on me to be a champion for women [what a champ!]. To all of you I just wanted to say again I am sorry,” he said. [This wouldn’t be a different standard for Democrats, would it?]

Long-serving Democrat congressman John Conyers has stepped down from his position on the House Judiciary Committee after being accused of using taxpayer dollars to settle an unfair dismissal claim made by a former staffer who accused him of sexual harassment [he paid out money to settle the claim; now that is what I call evidence but he has not resigned from Congress].

And that’s The Oz although what difference does it at this stage really make? Will add a couple of comments from the story.

Mr Stewart lets give the real story. Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic congresswomen, told a bald faced lie when she stated that she had a native American heritage to gain benefits from the government.The press named her Pocahontas as a joke. Trump, as he does, picked up on it, and he is not above name calling as we all know. What a breath of fresh air for someone to call it like it is. And yes, the last of the Navajo code talkers from WW2 are the real Hero’s and REAL native Americans who did not need to lie to serve their country or make a fraudulently claim.

Should have called her by her original nickname Fauxohontas, more accurate than Pocohontas and is a fairer description of her deceit. Like all Leftists they will do whatever it takes to advance themselves and then the media criticises the critics who call it out. Strange days indeed.

Resolved: “there are no biological differences between men and women”

Posted on by
Reply

From Canada. Discussion of discipline handed down to Wilfrid Laurier University graduate student and Teaching Assistant Lindsay Shepherd for playing a 3 minute clip of a TV program with Jordan B Peterson debating Canada’s bill C-16 which would criminalise the use of certain gendered pronouns. The point Peterson is trying to refute is a statement made by some other PROFESSOR that there are “no biological differences between men and women”. Peterson begins at 2:17.

Lindsay Shepherd describes the eventual reaction of the university and her fellow students.

She is tougher than they are, shrewder, more clued in, but this is now and not even the medium term. Finally, here is the full recording of her discussing the issue with the University. Runs more than 40 minutes but worth your time. The disturbing notion presented by one of the academics was the equation that Opinion minus Evidence is Prejudice (O-E=P) with the only form of evidence permissible publication in a peer reviewed journal. Once control over what is published in peer reviewed journals is sealed up (see the debate on climate change which is even brought in by one of the professors) certain ideas can never be presented within an academic environment. The enemy seems to be “alt-right” opinion. So they have to provide them with a “critical tool kit” before they hear different opinions. Try this on for size (33:35):

“Everyone is entitled to their opinions but we have a duty as educators, as scholars, as academics, even as public intellectuals to make sure we are not furthering the kind of what I call charlatanism”.

Such self-delusion! Makes you sick. And there is little doubt that the same idea would be found at the highest reaches of the academic world.

Terrifying. I am actually astonished that when this became public that there was still enough reality left in their heads that they pulled back on their consideration of whether to terminate her employment. This then is an interview with Lindsay giving the background.

And here is one last commentary, this one from the United States. Has an excerpt from her tape of the interview which really gets to the heart of the issue.

She is astonishing and brave. Dissidents come in all forms and it is fortunate we are still able to bring these things to the attention of others. And like she says herself, her enemies are “insane”. Meanwhile will we still be able to teach free market capitalism when they turn their attention to that?

AND THERE’S MORE: The story is picked up by Steve Hayward at Powerline: The Inquisition at Laurier University.

And for some direct quotes from the Inquisition Ms Shepherd was forced to endure here via Steve Hayward “are some key excerpts and delightful commentary from Raffi Grinburg at Heterodox Academy“. But of more value are Grinburg’s comments between the quotes such as this which was picked up by Steve Hayward and is really to the point.

At Laurier—and other universities—can teachers be disciplined for being anonymously accused of violating an undefinable policy? If so, this has chilling implications for teaching and learning. Teachers will have to guess at what policies might protect students’ sensibilities, and eye their classrooms with fear. Each student is a potential accuser, so teachers must plan their lectures with the most easily-offended student in mind, taking account of all topics that could cause offense. In fact, since 2015 we have been hearing many reports of teachers self-censoring, “teaching on tenterhooks,” and cutting potentially controversial materials from their syllabi.

Anyway, I am thinking of applying for membership in the Heterodox Academy whose structure and aims are discussed here. My hesitation is Conquest’s Second Law: any organisation that is not by nature right wing eventually becomes left wing.

Agit prop and the agent provocateur Bowdlerised edition

Posted on by
Reply

Given some of the comments on a previous post let me give you a Bowdlerised version. Says the same thing as before but perhaps not quite as pointed. For myself, reading some of the reactions to what I wrote I can see there are quite a few, even amongst those who come here, who have no idea what the problem we are dealing with is nor what needs to be done. Anyway, see what you make of this.

The one blessing about being brought up in a communist household is that you understand the left a good deal better than most. It also brings an added measure of concern when I see how easily a public unused to lying as a tactic is influenced by these manoeuvres which are standard practice on the left. My Dad was an expert in agit prop and I grew up understanding the role of the agent provocateur only too well. These are not well-meaning individuals who wish to investigate the truth. They are individuals whose only interest is to disrupt the communications among those on the other side through whatever lies they might find convenient and they hope persuasive.

The example I am going to use is my post Remember Michelle Fields? It is simply undeniable that Fields told a story that was intended to harm Donald Trump’s run for president but was thoroughly discredited by the videos that showed everything she said, and the Washington Post initially said, were lies. The point of the post was to remind us that the media will lie without any hesitation if they can see some political advantage for the left’s political agenda. That is also the message of this post, and it is one that can never be repeated often enough. You will be lied to by the left to the furthest extent they believe they can get away with. That there is not an instantaneous scepticism amongst us on this side of politics from any unverified political story carried by a mainstream media organisation fills me with dread since most of us are so middle class that we find it hard to believe others will lie, distort, or withhold relevant information without the slightest hesitation if it serves their ends. The attitude you need to take when reading anything from an MSM report is the same attitude you might take when buying a used car. Do not trust a thing you are told and make sure you verify everything you can from a separate source.

Dishonesty is the trade mark of the left, not that they have a monopoly, but it is a specific tactic aimed at the fair minded who are seldom as aware as they need to be of the practice, and seldom think of the need to guard against the premeditated lies they tell. You would have to be pretty thick not to know that Michelle Fields was a liar and that her aim was deliberate and strictly political. The interesting part is that for the left to succeed, they can only achieve their ends by lying. For the right, what you hear people say is almost invariably what they believe. The left often mimics the same concerns but it is tactical and never substantive unless for a change good policy overlaps what they see as tactical advantage.

The one valuable part of being on this side of the fence is that with so many out there on the left who will swarm around any genuine falsehood stated by someone on the right, the standard of probity is higher. This is part of the reason why sex scandals, to just name the issue in relation to Roy Moore, are not as common on the right as on the left. Except that when they are caught out – such as with Bill Clinton – it is no longer a scandal and is put to bed as soon as it is practical to do so. They never mean it. It is not hypocrisy, it is a policy of deceit. They are perfectly aware they are lying and just take the rest of us for fools.

Oh by the way, have you caught up with the CNN story about Trump feeding the fish in Japan.

You cannot believe a word they say. Why is this even controversial?

Agit prop and the agent provocateur

Posted on by
Reply

The one blessing about being brought up in a communist household is that you understand the left a good deal better than most. It also brings an added measure of concern when I see how easily a public unused to lying as a tactic is influenced by these manoeuvres which are standard practice on the left. My Dad was an expert in agit prop and I grew up understanding the role of the agent provocateur only too well. These are not well-meaning individuals who wish to investigate the truth. They are individuals whose only interest is to disrupt the communications among those on the other side through whatever lies they might find convenient and they hope persuasive.

There are a few I feel I have spotted over the years coming to this site, but I will only focus on one since I find the comments by BorisG particularly instructive. And the example I am going to use are the comments made on my post Remember Michelle Fields? It is simply undeniable that Fields told a story that was intended to harm Donald Trump’s run for president but was thoroughly discredited by the videos that showed everything she said, and the Washington Post initially said, were lies. The point of the post was to remind us that the media will lie without any hesitation if they can see some political advantage for the left’s political agenda. That is the message of this post, and it is one that can never be repeated often enough. You will be lied to by the left to the furthest extent they believe they can get away with. That there is not an instantaneous scepticism amongst us on this side of politics from any unverified political story carried by a mainstream media organisation fills me with dread since most of us are so middle class that we find it hard to believe others will lie, distort, or withhold relevant information without the slightest hesitation if it serves their ends. The attitude you need to take when reading anything from an MSM report is the same attitude you might take when buying a used car. Do not trust a thing you are told and make sure you verify everything you can from a separate source.

So let me take you to BorisG’s comments on Michelle Field’s post. And the first one he wrote was also the first one on the thread since one of the basic aims is to structure the subsequent discussion in a different direction. Below are all of his posts in sequence without the comments from other commenters. We will see if we can find a pattern of wilful obtuseness.

BorisG
#2564074, posted on November 24, 2017 at 1:16 am (Edit)
Steve is an amazing partisan hack. Even Trump initially said that the allegations against Moore if true, are deeply troubling. No one knows if they are true but the fact that 30 people gave information to the Post about it suggest that they are likely true. Papers can be sued for big bucks and won’t publish such things without good research.

BorisG
#2564091, posted on November 24, 2017 at 2:54 am (Edit)

Moore is going to win bigly

Ok but according to Steve

The great uncertainty I have is who will be elected to the Senate from Alabama in December.

Who is right ?

BorisG
#2564101, posted on November 24, 2017 at 3:14 am (Edit)
Seven middle aged women not known to each other made allegations and gave their names. Sorry it is hard to imagine they are all lying.

Maybe you also believe the women who accused Trump also lied.

BorisG
#2564363, posted on November 24, 2017 at 11:13 am (Edit)

Boris there is no more leftist communist partisan blogger here than you.

Even though I says the same things about Moore and clinton?

Anyway I see there are enough sane people still left here.

Just a coupe of points
1) it is not accurate to claim that the media only targets the right. The media is busy reporting allegations against all sides, including media itself. Including NPR.
2) I am myself troubled by lack of due process. How do you defend yourself against trial by media? The only way is to sue them but this just reverses the burden of proof, and that is not fair. But no one suggests Moore should be jailed. The people of Alabama will decide in this case.

BorisG
#2564393, posted on November 24, 2017 at 11:33 am (Edit)
And Ivanka Trump. Is she a Democrat? If she was she would probably have distanced herself from her father. Or trump would distance himself from her.

BorisG
#2564398, posted on November 24, 2017 at 11:36 am (Edit)

you think if Moore had an ongoing interest in teens given his profile something would have emerged in the last 40 years,

Yes. But he wasn’t ongoing and he wasn’t a national figure.

BorisG
#2564404, posted on November 24, 2017 at 11:39 am (Edit)
Spacey has had a couple of ‘incidents’

Unfortunately many incidents. Hollywood knew about it. We didn’t.

Let’s face it, politicians will always be held to much higher standard than actors.

BorisG
#2564413, posted on November 24, 2017 at 11:40 am (Edit)
And this thread is a good example the far right are enraged when someone disagrees with them. Good example of tolerance and Christian ethics they pretend to adhere to.

BorisG
#2564439, posted on November 24, 2017 at 11:53 am (Edit)

The entire story was a fabrication,

It is amazing what for Steve and co passes for evidence.

You can take him and others of his kind as just stirrers or contrarians. BorisG is deadly earnest in everything he says without the slightest indication he is interested in an actual debate or in discovering the truth. Fascinating to watch and there is much to learn from what he and others of his kind do. Dishonesty is the trade mark of the left, not that they have a monopoly, but it is a specific tactic aimed at the fair minded who are seldom as aware as they need to be of the practice, and seldom think of the need to guard against the premeditated lies told by the left. Boris G would have to be pretty thick not to know that Michelle Fields was a liar and that her aim was deliberate and strictly political. The interesting part is that for the left to succeed, they can only achieve their ends by lying. For the right, what you hear people say is almost invariably what they believe. The left often mimics the same concerns but it is tactical and never substantive unless for a change good policy overlaps what they see as tactical advantage.

The one valuable part of being on this side of the fence is that with so many out there on the left who will swarm around any genuine falsehood stated by someone on the right, the standard of probity is higher. This is part of the reason why sex scandals, to just name the issue in relation to Roy Moore, are not as common on the right as on the left. Except that when they are caught out – such as with Bill Clinton – it is no longer a scandal and is put to bed as soon as it is practical to do so. They never mean it. It is not hypocrisy, it is a policy of deceit. They are perfectly aware they are lying and just take the rest of us for fools.

Even the NeverTrumpers are coming around

Posted on by
Reply

It’s from Instapundit

IN NATIONAL REVIEW, OF ALL PLACES: This Thanksgiving, Thank Donald Trump:

This Thanksgiving, Americans in general — and free-market conservatives in particular — have plenty for which to be grateful. And much of it would be absent had the White House’s current occupant not become president on November 8, 2016. The day after Donald J. Trump defeated Hillary Clinton, Princeton University economist Paul Krugman called Trump’s victory “the mother of all adverse effects.” He predicted “very probably . . . a global recession, with no end in sight.” • The Dow Jones Industrial Average, NASDAQ, and S&P 500 all hit record highs on Tuesday. The Wilshire 5000 Index calculates that some $3.4 trillion in new wealth has been created since President Trump’s inauguration and $5.4 trillion since his election. Fueled by the reality of deregulation, expectations of lower taxes, and a new tone in Washington that applauds free enterprise rather than excoriate it, the economy is on fire. • Atop the second quarter’s 3.1 percent increase in real GDP, and 3.0 in 3Q, the New York Federal Reserve Bank predicts that 4Q output will expand by 3.8 percent. This far outpaces the feeble average-annual GDP growth rate of 1.5 percent on President Obama’s watch. Meanwhile, the IMF expects global GDP to rise by 3.5 percent this year. So much for a Trump-inspired “global recession.”

Unemployment is at 4.1 percent, a 17-year low. New unemployment claims in September were at their most modest since 1974. Goldman Sachs on November 20 “lowered our unemployment rate forecast to 3.7 percent by end-2018 and 3.5 percent by end-2019.” According to the Wall Street powerhouse’s chief economist Jan Hatzius, “Such a scenario would take the U.S. labor market into territory almost never seen outside of a major wartime mobilization.” . . .

• For every new regulation that Trump has imposed, 16 have been erased.

• The FCC has begun to dismantle Obama’s “Net Neutrality” takeover of the Internet, which functioned marvelously, thank you, before his needless e-power-grab.

• Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch is on the bench, along with 13 constitutionalist lower-court judges. At this stage in Obama’s presidency, the Senate had confirmed just seven of his district- and circuit-court nominees.

Much more at the link, concluding with this: “The Never Trump faction still claims that the president of the United States ‘is no conservative.’ And yet, with rare deviations (such as free trade), he spends nearly every day implementing the conservative agenda. Ideas that center-Right activists have demanded for decades are becoming public policy, one after another — to the pleasant surprise of even some of Donald J. Trump’s most enthusiastic supporters.”

Did I mention this was in National Review, of all places?

101Posted at 10:58 pm by Glenn Reynolds
.

Can these people be trusted with our children?

Posted on by
Reply

Picked up on a Canadian website with the heading: I, Napoleon. I assume this is Victoria, Australia and not Victoria, British Columbia, which is only a city, but wherever it is, it is seriously disturbing. The most telling comments on the thread:

“mature minor” – Words right out of Newspeak.

Just pass a law that no one can perform “gender transition” without prescribing aspirin for the patient. Since a minor cannot be prescribed aspirin without informing the parents, the proposed “gender transition” will be leaked to them as well. What a totally screwed up department of education, and screwed up liberal idea of health care in general. You cannot give an aspirin or apply band-aid to a kid without parental consent, but you can perform abortion or “gender transition.”

The habit of choosing one’s own course for oneself

Posted on by
Reply

This is how Alfred Marshall, in the last editions of his Principles of Economics published in 1920 (in para 4), described “the fundamental characteristics of modern industrial life”.

There is no one term that will express these characteristics adequately. They are, as we shall presently see, a certain independence and habit of choosing one’s own course for oneself, a self-reliance; a deliberation and yet a promptness of choice and judgment, and a habit of forecasting the future and of shaping one’s course with reference to distant aims.

This is what freedom means, and it is a burden. Not everyone can bear the weight. It is the struggle between those who value freedom and independence against those who wish to be told what to do and given their daily bread like a household pet that has been at the centre of the great political divisions for the past five hundred years.