What seven year old doesn’t need to know this?

View image on Twitter

`

Now, you might be asking yourself why a seven-year-old girl needs to learn about sexual desire at all, let alone homosexual sexual desire; you might be asking yourself why a seven-year-old should be indoctrinated about children being “assigned male or female at birth” when such language is the language of anti-scientific nonsense.

But according to Valenti, you would be the degraded one. After all, school teachers should certainly inform pre-pubescent children about matters of moral and scientific controversy. But, you might answer, young children don’t have the critical thinking skills necessary to ask important questions about this framework.

That, of course, is entirely the point. Children are supposed to be indoctrinated with left-wing views regarding gender and sex — they’re supposed to be told that sex and gender are utterly disconnected, that every sexual activity is equally valid. Children are supposed to be confused about matters of deep philosophical and lifestyle importance, so that later, they feel free to follow whatever feelings they have. We can’t teach children nothing — then their parents might teach them the wrong things. They might teach their children that men were men and women were women, for example, which could create preconceived notions about sex. And if parents were to teach children about the societal value of heterosexual lifestyles, or about the mere biological advantages of heterosexual activity, that could lead to discrimination.

Let me therefore mention a book I have come across by accident that could not be published today but is in print and shows it is still possible to access sanity even in the world the left is creating at every turn: William Kilpatrick’s Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right from Wrong, for which the link will get you to a pdf copy you can download for yourself.

Also available through the net but with certainty will not be found on the shelf in any bookshop anywhere in the world. I wonder if you can find it in a public library.

It was originally published in 1992 where he was warning us about the kind of world that was forming at the time. Only publishable even then because he no doubt looked like an extremest way out on a limb. In fact, the most prescient book I have ever come across. He describes everything you see today, explaining what is wrong, but was then only describing what was to come.

I cannot recommend a book more highly. Probably too late anyway, but worth having a deeper grasp of the horrors surrounding us now with no doubt worse to come in a world now completely out of control.

Canada in the news

Quite a dismal surprise to find Toronto in the midst of one of our modern forms of multicultural horror. I am particularly struck by the outrage expressed in this CTV headline: 10 dead, 15 injured in Toronto van incident. Incident, as in: oh, incidentally. Adding this:

Deputy Police Chief Peter Yuen told reporters Monday afternoon that police received multiple calls around 1:30 p.m. about a vehicle “driving on Yonge Street, striking a number of pedestrians between Finch Avenue and Sheppard Avenue.”

Yuen said one suspect was in custody, the van had been located and all available resources had been mobilized to investigate the situation. Sources told CTV’s Mercedes Stephenson that the suspect is Alek Minassian.

“I want to assure the public, the rest of the city (is) adequately policed,” Yuen said.

No doubt everyone now feels reassured. Of course, the ones who are likely being policed are those speculating in public about who the killer was and why he had done what he did.

And also from the Old Dominion, and indeed also from Toronto, we have: Jordan Peterson on Kanye Backlash: Candace Owens Is Right to Object to ‘Victimization Narrative’.

On Monday, Peterson, a University of Toronto psychology professor and author, said it’s “very, very dangerous” for the radical left to divide people into two groups — those who are victimized and those who are the oppressors.

Meanwhile Shania Twain apologizes after saying she would have voted for Trump. Retrospectively, she now says she is sorry she said it, but doesn’t change what she really would have done on November 8, 2016, had she been an American and not from the frozen north.

Who knows? Maybe the worms really are turning

NeverTrumpers: What if Trump really is making America great again?

They are afflicted with a nagging suspicion. Trump might, how shall they whisper it, Make America Great Again.

The tax bill has given the economy a bit of a tailwind, most Americans have more money in their pockets, and corporations have greater incentives to step up spending and to bring some funds home. The NAFTA trade agreement with Mexico and Canada likely will be revised to America’s advantage. The president’s decision to punish Assad for crossing the red line that Obama refused to enforce is popular and his decision to defer to his military advisers and keep the response targeted so as not to induce a response from Russia has met with broad approval. His threats against North Korea—my nukes are bigger than your nukes—appalled the fastidious members of the establishment diplomatic community, but have Kim Jong-un claiming to be willing to negotiate a peace treaty with South Korea and détente with the United States.

Then there is China. Trump has done what previous administrations failed to do: forced China to make some concessions, opening at least a crack in the wall it has erected against imports. Majority-owned American financial firms will gain entry into several sectors, and tariffs on made-in-America automobiles will come down, while the United States tightens restrictions on intellectual property theft by the Chinese regime, in part by limiting China’s ability to buy tech-heavy U.S. firms. Even dyed-in-the-cotton-apparel free-traders are now conceding that the president’s negotiating tactic—threaten to bring down the international system, unless it gets fixed—is working. And should have been tried administrations ago. . . .

So here is BT and AT:

Before Trump, Assad could use chemical weapons with impunity; after Trump, he pays a steep price. BT, China could plunder American intellectual property and disregard the rules of the trading system that it has manipulated in its rise to power; AT, it fears Trump’s tariffs sufficiently to begin modifying its unfair trading practices. BT, Russia could wage cyberwar on the U.S. electoral system without fear of response from America; AT, Putin and his oligarch cronies find themselves being cut off from access to the world financial system. BT, the economy was mired in sub-trend growth; AT and his tax cut, growth is up. BT, in the post-war years most presidents projected a dignity of sorts; AT, presidential dignity is not even considered a virtue.

The above is via Instapundit. The one below is from The Guardian! The ‘deep state’ is real. But are its leaks against Trump justified? where the answer is no. This is the subhead:

Even the most severe critics of the US president should worry about this subtle form of anti-democratic abuse

And worry you should. These are the concluding paras:

The whole intelligence collection system – which has an importance that far transcends its undoubtedly large importance in this discrete context – is vulnerable here for the simple reason that the intermixture of politics with intelligence collection is the intelligence system’s Achilles’ heel.

If surveillance comes to be seen through a domestic political lens, with domestic political winners and losers, the intelligence community will have a very hard time acting with needed public credibility. And that in turn means it will have a harder time doing what it needs to do to keep us safe.

Maybe, but only just maybe, there might be a bit of realism finding its way through. There are plenty of problems to be dealt with, and for a change there is a president who not only wishes to fix things, but has actually shown that he might just be able to. Would be nice if others began to see an advantage working with him on things they can agree on, and not just opposing what he is doing just because of who these things are being done by.

AND THERE’S MORE: This is via John Hinderaker at Powerline: CANDACE OWENS’ MOMENT: I’M NOT FAR RIGHT, I’M FREE

Which also includes this:

Yesterday morning, Kanye West tweeted his approval of Candace:

KANYE WEST

@kanyewest

I love the way Candace Owens thinks

And if you go to the link there’s much more as well.

Madness is the new normal

Does seem to show how relatively incompetent all of Trump’s recent predecessors were. But there is still all of this.

China military islands now control South China Sea…
Beijing final touches on battle plan to take back Taiwan?
Xi says internet control key to stability…

Not to mention this.

Moscow sends warship through English Channel…
ISIS Threatens CNN, Universal Studios…
LONDONISTAN: Leading Surgeon Predicts Summer of Carnage…
Al-Qaeda Using GOOGLE Maps to Plan Attacks…
Iran vows ‘expected and unexpected’ moves if U.S. exits nuclear deal

Yet what are the dominant issues for the loyal opposition and the media?

Problem solving as an aim now seems to be addressed towards solving the psychological problems of around half the population and not dealing with political issues. As found here, for example:

TO ALL HER OTHER CHARMS, SHE ADDS PARANOIA:  ‘They Were Never Going to Let Me Be President,’ Said the Woman Who Thought It Was Her Due.

 

What does one need to know to be an expert in human rights?

What expertise does someone appointed to the Human Rights Commission need to have? What is an expert in “human rights” and what do such people know that the rest of us might not? They pay these people a third of a million dollars a year, but what are they other than friends of those who make the appointments? Do they know the difference between good and evil? Can they even explain the difference between right and wrong? What exactly are we allowed to do and not allowed to do? Is the law merely made up of their own personal judgement? Are they given the right to plague other people because of their own personal opinions? Who are they and what do they know about anything?

Let us start with this story from Janet Albrechtsen:

Consider the poor barber at the Hunters Hill Barber Shop. Late last year Sam Rahim turned away a woman who wanted him to cut her daughter’s hair. Sam the barber told her he was qualified only to cut boys’ hair, politely directing her to a salon up the road. She took to social media and ran to the Australian Human Rights Commission claiming he breached anti-discrimination laws. He offered an apology. And now he has been served with court papers for a claim that he breached the Sex Discrimination Act.

Sam and his wife, Ronda, have set up a GoFundMe page because, as he told the media, “The legal costs are more than we have ever anticipated.”

Seriously, in what possible way is this a human rights issue? Do these people even have the foggiest idea what human rights are? Because of their oceanic ignorance, they are in the process of discrediting one of the most important concepts at the heart of Western civilisation.

Let me continue with Tim Blair in a post he titles, Finest intro ever written:

Daily Telegraph colleague Miranda Devine makes several strong points in her latest terrific column. Let’s take a detailed look, starting from the top:

Race Discrimination Commissioner Tim Soutphommasane’s term expires in August …

Actually, although there are no doubt many strong points, I wasn’t able to read anything beyond that opening line due to tequila shots.

So following from Tim and Miranda, let me take you to Frank Chung: For $340,000 a year, we deserve better than Race Discrimination Commissioner Tim Soutphommasane which has as its subhead:

AUSTRALIA’S race discrimination commissioner has lamented the “dismal” fact that there are too many white people in top positions.

These are Frank’s last two paras:

There may be many reasons for the lack of one-to-one population representation at the very highest levels of business and politics — but for the Race Discrimination Commissioner, when you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

For someone who is paid $340,000 a year to come up with this dross, it’s not surprising the concept of meritocracy is a foreign one. Or is that being racist?

Forget about good and evil or right and wrong, of which these people appear to have no clear idea at all. How about just something as simple as profit and loss, something else they have no clear idea about at all. If they really think it is a human rights issue for a men’s barber not to cut women’s hair, they need to be sent to a re-education camp as soon as possible and for as long as it takes. And just in case they don’t get it, which is likely, this is just meant as a joke.

It’s much worse than you might ever have thought

DON’T KNOW MUCH ABOUT HISTORY: Holocaust Museum tour by lawmaker who said Jews control the weather does not go well.

The photo, taken in 1935, depicts a woman in a dark dress shuffling down a street in Norden, Germany. A large sign hangs from her neck: “I am a German girl and allowed myself to be defiled by a Jew.” She is surrounded by Nazi stormtroopers.

D.C. Council member Trayon White Sr. (D-Ward 8) studied the image. “Are they protecting her?”

Lynn Williams, an expert on educational programs at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and White’s tour guide for the day, stared at the photo.

“No,” she said. “They’re marching her through.”

“Marching through is protecting,” White said.

“I think they’re humiliating her,” Williams replied.

* * * * * * *

The tour, scheduled to last 90 minutes, was halfway done. Seven of White’s staff members stayed with the guide, who soon was showing them an exhibit on the Warsaw Ghetto. As she explained the walling in of Polish Jews, one aide asked whether it was similar to “a gated community.”

Glazer spoke up.

“Yeah, I wouldn’t call it a gated community,” she said. “More like a prison.”

Via Instapundit

I can see there’s a consensus building for the next departure from the HRC

Let us begin with Tim Blair in a post he titles, Finest intro ever written:

Daily Telegraph colleague Miranda Devine makes several strong points in her latest terrific column. Let’s take a detailed look, starting from the top:

Race Discrimination Commissioner Tim Soutphommasane’s term expires in August …

Actually, although there are no doubt many strong points, I wasn’t able to read anything beyond that opening line due to tequila shots.

So following from Tim and Miranda, let me take you to Frank Chung: For $340,000 a year, we deserve better than Race Discrimination Commissioner Tim Soutphommasane which has as its subhead:

AUSTRALIA’S race discrimination commissioner has lamented the “dismal” fact that there are too many white people in top positions.

I will leave you with Frank’s last two paras:

There may be many reasons for the lack of one-to-one population representation at the very highest levels of business and politics — but for the Race Discrimination Commissioner, when you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

For someone who is paid $340,000 a year to come up with this dross, it’s not surprising the concept of meritocracy is a foreign one. Or is that being racist?

 

“The perpetrator is considered to be as much of a victim as the victim”

This is so spot on it’s amazing no one has said it before. He is talking about the stabbings in London:

“All of the attacks are non-white, and so they cannot be truthfully addressed by the British government or the Met Police or the BBC because of political correctness.

“What this means is that the perpetrator is considered to be as much of a victim as the actual victim.”

Soon they will have to start arresting the people who are stabbed for incitement to violence.

If this is true, why aren’t they in jail?

Via Instapundit:

MICHAEL MUKASEY: Trump, Cohen, and Attorney-Client Privilege: The protection has limits, but is it worth testing them over a possible campaign-finance offense?

After anthrax spores killed five people, infected 17 others, and showed up in envelopes mailed to U.S. senators and media organizations in 2001, the current special counsel, then director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, spent years chasing and destroying the reputation of a microbiologist named Steven Hatfill, zealous in the belief that Mr. Hatfill was the guilty party. Another zealot, James Comey, then deputy attorney general, said he was “absolutely certain” no mistake had been made.

After Mr. Hatfill was exonerated—he received more than $5.5 million in damages from the government—Mr. Mueller then decided that another microbiologist, Bruce Ivins, was the culprit. When Ivins committed suicide, Mr. Mueller pronounced the case closed. A subsequent investigation by the National Academy of Sciences suggests Ivins too was innocent.

Mr. Mueller is not a bad man, nor is Mr. Comey. It’s just that both show particular confidence when making mistakes, which makes one grateful for safeguards like the attorney-client privilege.

Well, I wouldn’t say that Mueller and Comey are good men. And neither has faced any significant accountability for his mistakes and misbehavior.

Not bad men! They are evil beyond belief.