PDT’s 60 Minutes Interview

Apparently now deleted by CBS but here it is all the same.

The Interviewer thought she had his number, that she would take him apart. But she is dealing with the absolutely best, most articulate president possibly in history. A masterclass, as is every public presentation he gives.

And more than anything else, he demonstrates that the American media is almost entirely corrupt. “Angry, bitter and partisan” is almost perfect as a descriptor of the media people he has to deal with.

UPDATE: Transcript and some parts of the video if you cannot get sufficient volume on the link above. Sorry about that.

It’s not what what happened but who it happened to that counts

A Rape Survivor Just Won the Nobel Peace Prize. ‘Feminists’ Are Nowhere to Be Found.

As feminists were busy peddling their “War on Women” narrative in the U.S., Yazidi sex slave survivor Nadia Murad was honored with the Nobel Peace Prize for fighting a real War on Women in the Middle East.

Nadia was honored for her efforts to end the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war, together with Dr. Denis Mukwege of the Democratic Republic of Congo, who has been a relentless healer and advocate for women.

Their stories serve as an important reminder that as American women debate what constitutes enough evidence to block a nominee from taking a seat on the Supreme Court, corroboration and evidence are abundant in places such as northern Iraq, where hundreds of women and girls are still enslaved and routinely subjected to rape.

The left doesn’t care about you at all unless your story can be used against first world white men.

Mad as a meat axe

By Sarah Hoyt: The Misandrist Editorial the Washington Post Should Be Ashamed Of. A must read, but here is a bit to get the flavour.

Her article starts with a confession of spousal abuse:

I yelled at my husband last night. Not pick-up-your-socks yell. Not how-could-you-ignore-that-red-light yell. This was real yelling. This was 30 minutes of from-the-gut yelling. Triggered by a small, thoughtless, dismissive, annoyed, patronizing comment. Really small. A micro-wave that triggered a hurricane. I blew. Hard and fast.

The question I often ask myself is whether I could survive a marriage with a women on the left side of politics. Well, if that is what it would be like, the answer is an absolute no, not because I would leave, but because she would. I would not sit quietly and take it in as her husband did.

And here is the original article from the WP: Thanks for not raping us, all you ‘good men.’ But it’s not enough. The author is described as “a retired history professor at Grinnell College”. As noted by Ron Dreher, she is married to “Mr. Brown, America’s Most Miserable Man”.

Jordan Peterson and Brett Kavanaugh

One of the major major flaws on the right is the reluctance to the point of refusal to back its side in a fight. Donald Trump is almost unique in his willingness to contest on every patch of disputed territory. On the left, no position is ever abandoned. McCarthyism, an entirely leftist meme when it began, is now used by everyone as a synonym for smearing the blameless as part of a partisan attack more than seventy years since the left began the savaging of his character. The reality is that McCarthy was 100% right about the existence of communist agents in the State Department, and yet, even now, only a handful will say a good word about one of the bravest statesmen who has ever lived.

Jordan Peterson is on our side. He hates the left and he hates their dishonesty and the ruin their march through the institutions has brought. He understands that wherever the left are in control they cause massive harm and destruction. And till now he has not put a foot wrong in fighting our fights and defending, and even extending, our positions. And even before now I have listened to no end of people without one one-hundredth of the influence for good he has had look down on him and his efforts to preserve our Western way of life.

What has now made many dismiss Peterson was his off-the-top-of-his-head comment – now retracted – that perhaps Brett Kavanaugh should be confirmed but then resign and allow someone less divisive be appointed in his place. He didn’t come out in favour of the Democrat position. He didn’t argue that Christine Blasey Ford had made her case. He didn’t suggest that Trump should find some compromise candidate who would be more amenable to his enemies. He just thought that once the confirmation was completed, then perhaps Kavanaugh might resign as a means of bringing the two sides closer together.

When I heard he had said this, I did roll my eyes. But it reminded me, as if I needed to be reminded, how difficult it is to understand politics. I did notice that no one on the Democrat side picked up this suggestion since it really has no potential. There is no possibility for compromise. And it is an oddity that even after all he has been through, that Peterson still thinks there is an ounce of good will on the left side of politics, that there are people who would understand such a compromise and work with the Republicans to find a candidate that would satisfy the aims of both sides at one and the same time.

But you know what? I don’t look to Peterson for his political judgement. His is better than almost anyone I know, but it’s not perfect (and neither is mine nor yours). But what I do know is that ninety percent of everything he says and does is working to roll back the left, from our institutions and from the mind-set of the young. This is hard work which I not only admire him for, but wish that he may long continue his work in these fields.

But to his critics on “the right” I feel only an anger at their wanton stupidity in not backing him to the hilt, and for trying to pull him down and in this way helping to advance the agendas of the left. Look at this:

Typical on the right, and how does this help our side in anything? What a smug jerk this chap is! Infuriating and far far more politically ignorant than anything Jordan Peterson has ever said or done.

Satire is absolutely forbidden until further notice

Lifted from Instapundit.


Why didn’t it occur to Democrats that their approach to Kavanaugh might bother black men as well as white ones? My theory is that Democrats now think so completely along racial lines that it probably wouldn’t occur to them that a black man could identify with something happening to a white man, and a preppy white man at that. That must be why writer Jemele Hill of the Atlantic could write something like this [emphasis mine]:

On Tuesday night, I was in an auditorium with 100 black men in the city of Baltimore, when the subject pivoted to Brett Kavanaugh. I expected to hear frustration that the sexual-assault allegations against him had failed to derail his Supreme Court appointment. Instead, I encountered sympathy. One man stood up and asked, passionately, “What happened to due process?” He was met with a smattering of applause, and an array of head nods.

Hill, who is a black woman (formerly a sportswriter), assumed that these black men would identify with the woman’s story of sexual assault, rather than the man’s story of false accusation. She thought they would accept and perhaps join in with the Democrats’ ridicule and demonizing of Kavanaugh’s rage at being falsely accused.

On a related topic, note that the bill is coming due for American literature’s most celebrated rape apologist. A week ago, Steven Crowder posted this parody video:

And proving out Muggeridge’s Law, which as the late Tom Wolfe wrote, postulated that “We live in an age in which it is no longer possible to be funny. There is nothing you can imagine, no matter how ludicrous, that will not promptly be enacted before your very eyes, probably by someone well known,” on Thursday, Milwaukee’s Fox affiliate posted this headline: “Shorewood School District cancels ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ play due to potential protests.”

The stated reason was the school district getting last-minute jitters over the play’s use of the N-word, but it’s still memory holing what was an American classic. “There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running around with lit matches,” Ray Bradbury wrote in the 50th anniversary edition of Fahrenheit 451.

Lies, damned lies and media reports

The entire post on What Media Bias Looks like taken from The Other McCain.

What Media Bias Looks Like

Rush Limbaugh has remarked that if all he wanted to talk about was media bias, he could spend all day, every day talking about it. As someone who’s been in the conservative journalism business for more than 20 years of my 32-year career, I know exactly what Rush means. Our job, as communicators on the Right, is to attempt to counteract the tsunami of left-wing propaganda from the major media establishment. When I was working the national desk at The Washington Times, my job often involved editing wire copy to remove liberal bias. For example, take the latest item from the Associated Press and remove those phrases and clauses that represented an intrusion — subtle or explicit — of political prejudice. I became very adept at such work, and also was a master of what you might call the compiled summary. A mass shooting happens, for example, and you assemble a 500-word story with bits and pieces from multiple sources (AP, Reuters, local newspaper coverage, etc.) to present the event in a neutral way, rather than as a rallying cry for new gun-control laws (which is how the Washington Post would report it).

Most journalists live inside an echo-chamber of liberalism, and therefore have no concept of what’s wrong with their worldview. Limbaugh has pointed out that many liberals go into the journalism business because they “want to make a difference.” They consider themselves missionaries of enlightenment, battling the forces of ignorance, and the only way they ever look at a Republican is down. The type of people who work at CNN or the New York Times view GOP voters as so far beneath them — morally and intellectually inferior — that they don’t even deserve to be noticed, except insofar as they deserve to be hated. It is impossible to exaggerate the contempt with which Jim Acosta or Carol Costello regard the 63 million people who voted for Donald Trump. And what the soi-disant “elite” media cannot be bothered to contemplate is that their prejudice is a result of their own ignorance. It would be interesting, if you just happened to encounter Mika Brzezinski at a cocktail party, to say, “Have you ever read Thomas Sowell’s The Vision of the Anointed?” Or: “Have you ever read The Long March by Roger Kimball?

Those are just a couple of titles on the list of Books Liberals Never Read, and the fact that they became “educated” (usually at very expensive private universities) without ever being exposed to any well-argued criticism of their beliefs is your first clue as to the source not only of their own political prejudice, but the general decline of intellectual standards in elite academia. Why is it that I’ve read so much Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky — picture me, circa 1995, with The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte as my bedtime reading — and yet none of the liberals who get paid to talk on cable-TV news programs can be bothered to read any of the books that well-informed conservatives have generally read? Do the anchors at CNN suppose that, for example, Heather Mac Donaldis just a bigoted dimwit? Do they think Charles Murray is a clown?

Hillary Clinton basically endorsed terrorism against Republicans the other day, and nobody at CNN thought to call it what it was. How can we explain this tone-deafness except as evidence that the mainstream media has succumbed to a cult mentality? But I digress . . .

Sometimes media bias is so pervasive that we wouldn’t notice it — fish don’t notice water — if no one bothered to measure it analytically:

Between June 1 and September 30, mainstream media TV networks obsessed over negative stories about President Donald Trump and his administration, while almost entirely ignoring the good news about the booming Trump economy.

Coverage of Trump from ABC, CBS, and NBC was 92 percent negative, according to a Media Research Center (MRC) analysis. Even worse, the booming Trump economy received less than one percent of air time on these three networks.

The networks dedicated 342 minutes to the Russia “collusion” investigation, with coverage that was 97 percent negative on Trump. They spent 308 minutes discussing immigration policies, with 94 percent of that coverage negative. They spend 291 minutes on the Supreme Court battle over Brett Kavanaugh, 82 percent negative. The networks gave 179 minutes to the diplomacy with North Korea, 90 percent negative. They spent 151 minutes discussing Trump’s relations with Vladimir Putin’s Russia, 99 percent negative.

“Amid this sea of coverage, the networks spent almost no airtime — a mere 14 minutes, or 0.7 percent — on the administration’s economic achievements, including the positive effects of the tax cuts and deregulation, plus historic job growth,” MRC’s Rich Noyes reported.


A dark age coming

The headline story in The AFR today begins:

The federal government has slammed plans by business to go it alone on climate and energy policy but industry leaders are holding their ground and have the backing of Labor and the Greens.

It’s a new world out there.

Meanwhile, in the US: Is The Fed Trying To Tank The Trump Economy Before The Midterms? Want to breed uncertainty? Try this on for size:

Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan said he still favors the central bank raising short-term interest rates three more times before deciding whether more increases will be necessary to keep the economy on an even keel.

This suggests the Federal Reserve should lift rates at its December, March and June policy meetings “unless something changes,” Mr. Kaplan said Tuesday in a Wall Street Journal interview.

Fed Chairman Jerome Powell said then that rates remain low enough to continue stimulating economic growth. But according to the Wall Street Journal other officials have expressed a range of views, and some uncertainty, about how high rates would have to go to reach a so-called neutral level that neither spurs nor slows growth.

A COMMENT ON RISING RATES: I have been asked about rising rates in the comments. And as I have said in the past, rates have been too low for too long which has lowered the productivity of our array of investments. The issue is not whether rates should rise – they should – but whether they should rise now immediately before an election. The effect on share markets was obvious enough. Front-page treatment of a falling market can move voter sentiment, specially the way it can be played on by the media. The Fed kept rates down throughout the Obama presidency and there was never any doubt it would push them up once PDT was elected. Optics is all, and even if the adjustments brought on by higher rates are positive for the economy, it may not look that way to anyone who is paying out more on their mortgages or small-business loans.

Gone dark from end to end

It’s by David Solway and about The Canadian Mind. We’re not there yet but enough of it applies to Australia to make you worry. It may only be a matter of time. A sample, but needs to be read through.

Any nation the preponderance of whose citizens regularly elects left-wing political parties; accepts single-payer healthcare; believes in the efficacy of the welfare state; endorses the hoax of global warming; accommodates swarms of third-world immigrants and refugees who have no love for or understanding of a country becoming an open-to-all multicultural tombola with the highest proportionate rate of immigrants in the Western world; has allowed its educational industry, from pre-school to graduate school, to be corrupted possibly beyond retrieval by lockstep Leftism, “diversity and inclusion,” and “social justice” claptrap; has caved to the feminist and campus-rape fable; dutifully takes CBC Leftist propaganda as gospel; has fallen for the 16th Century meme of the “Noble Savage” in its dealings with the aboriginal peoples; extravagantly celebrates a second-rate rock band like The Tragically Hip and names a street after it; reads (when it does read) tedious scribblers like the acclaimed Joseph Boyden and Ann-Marie MacDonald; and gives a complete ignoramus like Justin Trudeau a majority government on the strength of name and coiffure, cannot be regarded as informed, well-educated or in any way distinguished. Unlike the U.S., there are no cracks, to quote Leonard Cohen, where the light gets in. The Canadian political, cultural and academic spectrum has gone dark from end to end.

Safe for now breeds a cheap sentimentality and a lack of cautious good sense, but the way we are going, we wont’t be safe for long.

If only logic had anything to do with it

Something to read and ponder: Four Reasons “Gender Theory” Is Ridiculous. Actually it’s a test: can you believe six impossible things before breakfast. And on the left they all can. Just one bit, but as funny as it is, a very depressing article when you think about it.

Never mind that any culture we could visit on a class field trip at any time in history would only present to us the binary male/female system we have in our own communities. And we will not have any difficulty determining the males from the females as they both have an unmistakable essence, even apart from body parts. Few things in nature are so obvious. So, as serious students, we must raise our hand and ask how all the diverse cultures of the world have just happened to “construct” the same exact two sexes, in the generally same ways. While it’s a totally legitimate question, your professor is starting to see you as a trouble-maker.

You can at least believe some women

From my home city, once again in the news. An example of another male oppressor. And as it says at the link: “If you didn’t notice this video was satirical, that’s a commentary on you.” Even has an Australian angle towards the end. And below, a bit more from the Old Dominion, the incomparable Janice Fiamengo.

Comes with this in the comments which is an issue all on its own:

YouTube is demonetizing videos that are critical of the Left. This makes it nearly impossible for critics of feminism to survive off of their work. A viral video like this one would normally gather $2,000 per day in ad revenue, but because it criticizes a feminist position this revenue is denied. This is part of the bias that we are fighting.

And there is then this. Stefan Molyneux is also from Canada, at least he is now anyways.