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.
For an explanation, you need to go to what is known as the Socialist Calculation Debate, and then be prepared to spend a long time thinking it through. You can easily see that all such experiments have failed in the past, but that is empirical, and never convinces since it is always different next time, at least when it all begins. The end point is always The Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela, but why?
I’m in the middle of writing a paper on Classical Economic Theory which has as its central theme how near impossible for someone educated within one school of economic thought to understand another. My own belief is that one can only understand an economic theory if one actually has at some stage thought it was valid.
But on the larger question whether economic theory can help us understand what to do, it is an unambiguous yes, if it’s classical economic theory, and for the most part if it’s Austrian. Otherwise, forget it. Modern economics is basically a bang-your-head-against-a-wall-theory because it feels so good when you stop.
This book has just come to my attention. I have highlighted two bits from the ad which make me very suspicious that she might really be able to help out any of us with much of anything at all.
Questions:
(1) What do the ideas of Karl Marx tell us about the likely future for the Chinese economy?
(2) With globalization in trouble, what can we learn about handling Brexit and Trumpism?
Answers:
(1) The more they pay attention to Marx, the worse their economic outcomes will be.
(2) If you are wondering how to “handle” Brexit and the economics of Donald Trump, you are already demonstrably incapable of understanding their natures or how and why they will improve things.
Anyway, here is the ad for the book. History of Economics is always worth a look, and you have to start somewhere, although if you want my advice, where to start is with this one. Meanwhile, there is this:
Since the days of Adam Smith, economists have grappled with a series of familiar problems – but often their ideas are hard to digest, even before we try to apply them to today’s issues. Linda Yueh is renowned for her combination of erudition, as an accomplished economist herself, and accessibility, as a leading writer and broadcaster in this field. In The Great Economists she explains the key thoughts of history’s greatest economists, how our lives have been influenced by their ideas and how they could help us with the policy challenges that we face today.
In the light of current economic problems, and in particular growth, Yueh explores the thoughts of economists from Adam Smith and David Ricardo to recent academics Douglass North and Robert Solow. She asks, for example, what do the ideas of Karl Marx tell us about the likely future for the Chinese economy? How do the ideas of John Maynard Keynes, who argued for government spending to create full employment, help us think about state intervention? And with globalization in trouble, what can we learn about handling Brexit and Trumpism?
How it’s done from an expert. This is the text of what she said:
Pelosi: It’s called the wrap-up smear. . . . You smear somebody with falsehoods and all the rest and then you merchandise it.
And then you [the media] write it, and they’ll say, see it’s reported in the press – that this, this, this and this – so they have that validation that the press reported the smear, and then it’s called a ‘wrap-up smear.’ And now I’m going to merchandize the press’s report on the smear that we made.
Here, for example, are more than enough reasons to understand Christine Ford was not playing straight with the truth, none of which was pointed out in the media that was merchandising all the falsehoods the Democrats could conjure:
She refused to hand over the results of her polygraph
She refused to hand over her 2012 therapist’s notes
She said she was afraid to fly, but has flown dozens of times.
Since she did in fact fly, she offered no other reason for the delay
She said she wanted anonymity but contacted [the Washington Post] multiple times
Said she got advice from “beach friends” but didn’t mention that the primary one was a former FBI lawyer, Monica McLean, who worked for Preet Bharara, a man Trump fired.
She also failed to mention, when talking of her Beach friends at the hearing, that Monica was sitting right behind her.
She had a perfect memory of 1982 but couldn’t remember basic things from the previous 10 weeks
She’d been drinking.
She changed the year of the alleged attack
She named 4 people, but had no backers
She couldn’t remember how she got home even though her story had her escaping the house far from home, pre-cell phone.
She gave no location or any details that could be researched for verification.
She never told anyone and never claimed PTSD prior to Kavanaugh’s name circulating 30 years later.
She said that she put the 2nd door on her house because of PTSD, but evidence shows it was to get around zoning laws to create a rentable apartment.
She said she didn’t know that Grassley offered to come to her, even though it was broadcast nationally.
She feigned no knowledge of polygraphs even though her ex’s sworn statement said she’d coached Monica McLean how to beat it in the 1990s, and in any case her profession should have at least well acquainted her with it.
She co-authored a paper on repressed memory creation years before she claimed to have one
Nothing is known of her pharmacology, but given her past alcoholism, her visits to a therapist and her general presentation, odds are high that it’s extensive.
She scrubbed her social media. We know from a pussy hat photo that she was rabidly anti-Trump.
She had zero family or friends with her, not from the 80s nor from today. She was surrounded only by Democrat Party handlers.
Constant cries of bravery & “nothing to gain” vs a $700,000 GoFundMe and a career boosted a la Anita Hill
Literally all there is her word vs all of the above. Not a shred of evidence.
All that is different this time is that you have seen it before your eyes. The parties of the left in cahoots with the media warp your perceptions of what is in reality taking place.
This is a quite astonishing paper: Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole. Anyway, in regard to the paper in question, is what it argues true? If it is true, should it matter? And even if it isn’t true, can we not discuss it? Here’s the first para.
In the highly controversial area of human intelligence, the ‘Greater Male Variability Hypothesis’ (GMVH) asserts that there are more idiots and more geniuses among men than among women. Darwin’s research on evolution in the nineteenth century found that, although there are many exceptions for specific traits and species, there is generally more variability in males than in females of the same species throughout the animal kingdom.
Here then is the last para along with the closing quotation that comes at the very end:
Educators must practice what we preach and lead by example. In this way, we can help to foster intellectual curiosity and the discovery of fresh reasoning so compelling that it causes even the most sceptical to change their minds. But this necessarily requires us to reject censorship and open ourselves to the civil discussion of sensitive topics such as gender differences, and the variability hypothesis in particular. In 2015, the University of Chicago’s Committee on Freedom of Expression summarized the importance of this principle beautifully in a report commissioned by none other than Professor Robert Zimmer:
In a word, the University’s fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed.
You can read for yourself what comes in between. And the fact is, there are some things that cannot be said, but these are entirely restricted to religious truths. When you read this, you will know more about the times in which you live and the kinds of beliefs you are absolutely forbidden either to have or discuss.
As I began to think about Kavanaugh’s confirmation, my first thoughts were along the lines of there was once a time we could agree on many things, but most importantly we could agree on the processes by which we sorted out our differences. But if even the process of working and living together are gone, what really is left?
Yet the process did work. But in working it further exposed the raw timber of a corrupt media and political class. The system tilts not just left, but crazy left. It is no longer a case where there is overlap between the two sides. On the right, there is common sense and a continuity with our own past. On the left, there is a mad socialism, the identity politics of victimisation, and via migration and other policies of that kind, a clear desire to throw overboard all that has made Western Civilisation what it is.
Donald Trump is either a turning point, or a last ditch effort to save our way of life before the deluge. I am pleased to see Kavanaugh confirmed, but it is only a minor skirmish amid much larger issues. The best recap of what has gone on is from Conrad BlacK: Trump the Indestructible. A headline writer’s view of what he said, and it was published by the #NeverTrump National Review.
If Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed and the Republicans hold both houses of the Congress, it will be the greatest and swiftest ascension to comprehensive power in all branches of American government in history. A measurement of how the tide has shifted is the disappearance from public consciousness of the Mueller inquiry. The number of Trump-haters who are still clinging to that waterlogged life-vest is statistically trivial. It was just six weeks ago, when Michael Cohen’s plea bargain was announced and Paul Manafort was convicted (of offenses that occurred a decade before he knew the president), that Trump’s enemies ululated their triumph and proclaimed, in the words of one often-published Trump-hater, that “The fat lady is singing; it’s almost over.” She wasn’t and it isn’t. It has only just begun, and it will get better. Trump isn’t an aberrant interlude; he is a sea change. He has a mandate to clean up Washington and he plans to fulfill it.
Hope so. I nevertheless remain pessimistic for the long term. But there is Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, and there behind him is PDT, so hope does remain.
INSTAPUNDIT UPDATE: And I certainly agree with both.
As Glenn has tweeted, “Trump’s greatest gift is getting various institutions to make clear in obvious ways that they’re as corrupt as he says they are.”
There was once a time we could agree on many things, but most importantly we could agree on the processes by which we sorted out our differences. But if even the process of working and living together are gone, what really is left?
In this exclusive, in-depth interview, author and clinical psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson joins Dr. Oz to discuss how we can find meaning in our lives, challenge our thinking, and provide tactical ways we can reach our full potential.
If next year Jeremy Corbyn becomes prime minister of Britain, this political figure, hitherto dwelling in the margins of politics, becomes a world historical figure.
Historic figure? After being in politics for 35 years and serving on the frontbench only when he became leader? But how else to view it? Corbyn is proposing the reversal of Thatcherism, the 1980s program of privatisation and union-busting implemented under the Iron Lady’s leadership, and thought by all to be irreversible.
One columnist has branded Corbyn’s program an “unapologetic onslaught on the crumbling neoliberal order”. He should have added, “And not just in Britain.” If Corbyn wins and starts peeling Thatcherism from the statutes, he will provide an irresistible model for other European centre-left parties being devoured by right-wing nationalists.
Given this, it’s surprising the reaction to his speech to the British Labour Party conference on September 26 was so muted. Here he was proposing the renationalisation of water, rail and the Royal Mail; a tax on second homes to fund expansion of public housing; board-level representation of employees; and pulling 65 per cent of workers under 25 on to a guaranteed minimum wage. Most radically, his government would appropriate 10 per cent of every company’s shareholdings on behalf of employees and the state. Plus grant free childcare.
In 1983, the last time the Left controlled British Labour, MP Gerald Kaufman branded its explicitly socialist manifesto “the longest suicide note in history”. It helped Margaret Thatcher consign Labour to 27.6 per cent of the vote in her 1983 landslide.
Right now, however, the red flag radicalism is escaping attention because the debate over Brexit is sucking the air out of British politics. But there is another factor: a striking shift in opinion. Fear of nationalisation and chaotic economic management were, until Tony Blair, well-tested rallying cries against Labour. No more. Expanding the state is popular. Two-thirds of the electorate wants railways back in public ownership. Only 17 per cent of the electorate think capitalism is working for them. Voters born after Thatcher are Corbyn’s strongest supporters.
Discovered last night – either from the Bolt Report or The Outsiders – that Ann Coulter will be coming to Australia!!!!!!
I therefore immediately bought tickets. But what is the venue, you might ask? This is what it said on the receipt.
Venue: Venue address will be announced by email on the day of the event.
Why will they not tell you. Because wherever it is will draw a crowd of thugs, so this at least gives the police a head start in getting the fences up.
But why stop us hearing them speak? If everything they say is nonsense, let them say it and discredit themselves. But if it’s not nonsense, then how will you know?
The point is that one way or the other, only in open dialogue is there any hope that the truth can be discovered.
Law of Markets 