More than a great cathedral has now been lost to us all

Today we merely saw a metaphor played out before us. What we have lost we have been in the process of losing for quite some time. The rest of this post is taken from here. And you should watch at least the first two minutes of Kenneth Clark’s opening.

There is no way to replace what Paris, what France, what Christendom, and indeed what humanity, has lost today. It is irreplaceable. For example, we literally cannot recreate the windows, which date from the time of Dante. We do not know how to do it. As a friend said to me, “You can rebuild the World Trade Center. You cannot rebuild Notre Dame de Paris.”

Embedded video

Kenneth Clark’s monologue opening his great 1969 TV series Civilisation (all of which is available on YouTube). Standing in front of the Notre Dame cathedral, Clark asks, “What is civilization?” He says he can’t define it in abstract terms, “but I think I can recognize it when I see it.” He then turns to the cathedral, and says, “I’m looking at it right now.” Watch:

Tactile nuclear weapons

Is this really funny? She is one of two Senators from New York and is running for President. This should truly frighten you, as much for the lack of attention this has received from the media as for her outright ignorance and stupidity. All this supposed concern with Presidents having their finger on the nuclear button, but then this: John Bolton ridicules Kirsten Gillibrand’s talk of ‘tactile nuclear weapons’.

“The presidential campaign is underway. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand ventured into strategic matters at a town hall in Dover,” Hewitt said, introducing the clip.

“When you say you want to develop low-yield nuclear weapons that are tactile, what you’re saying is you want to use them. Now, the military will make an argument to say, ‘Oh, this is just again to make, we have to have an equal threat. And this, if it’s usable, then it’s a better threat.’ I just found that is not believable,” Gillibrand said. “So I opposed the entire defense bill because of that one provision. So if I am president, I am going to make sure we unwind that completely, and I don’t think we should be trying to create tactile nuclear weapons.”

Bolton burst into laughter. “Tactile nuclear weapons?” he spluttered. “Well, I was unfamiliar with the concept, Mr. Ambassador,” Hewitt said. A mirthful Bolton responded, “I have to say, I was unfamiliar with it as well. I wonder what Sen. Gillibrand knows that I don’t.”

Sure it’s funny in a macabre kind of way, but if this does not terrify you about our future, what would? Her aim is to be the leader of the West in our defence of our way of life against others who would destroy it in a heartbeat if they could. Beyond this, what else does she know nothing about since her ignorance seems to be deep and vast.

How ignorant would a Democrat have to be for the media to start spreading cautious words about whether they should be elected? From the evidence we have, no such level of ignorance exists.

Some people said something


And from Omar’s colleague: Rashida Tlaib On Omar’s Disgusting 9/11 Remarks: She’s Just Speaking Truth.

They provide a major public service in alerting those who are capable of being alerted to the kinds of ideas that are harboured among the left. We either learn from it, or help them steamroll through our culture and civilisation and replace what we have with one of their own devising.

 

Why does the so-called right pay any attention to the left

From Mark Steyn: The Craven Pile-On of Hollow Conservatives.

The real problem, in America, Britain, Canada, Oz, NZ, is not the left, who know what they want and are serious about getting it, but the pansy right. It’s easy to mock AOC and Justin and Jacinta Ardern, but all they’re doing is sailing full steam ahead for their desired utopia. The right, who profess to disdain the final destination, nevertheless follow along, albeit at a more desultory rate of knots.

We see this routinely in their urge to “distance” themselves: In Washington, as I mentioned the other day, House Republicans ostentatiously distanced themselves from their colleague Steve King, because in an ill-advised interview with The New York Times he appeared to endorse “white supremacist” concepts such as “western civilization”. For some of us, it’s hard to see the point of a conservatism that distances itself from western civilization.

The same fate has now befallen the most thoughtful and serious of living conservative philosophers, Roger Scruton. I have a modest acquaintance with Sir Roger, both personal (he’s married to a friend of a friend) and professional: We once appeared in a debate moderated by none other than Margaret Thatcher. Mrs T obviously adored Roger and reckoned I was there just for the cheap laughs.

But that was then, and this is Theresa May’s Tory Party. So Roger Scruton gave an interview to The New Statesman, which is left-wing but once employed him as its wine critic. But that was then, etc. At the new New Statesman he fell into the hands of one of those lefties whose goal in the interview is to talk to you for two hours and then pluck three partial quotes uttered twenty-five minutes apart that destroy your career and get you banished from public life. In this case, it was various Scrutonisms on China, Islam, Hungary and homosexuality, all of which are worth thinking about seriously.

But, as I say, that’s the leftie hack’s objective, and you can’t blame him for achieving it. Douglas Murray, quite rightly, is more disgusted by the craven pile-on of so-called conservatives:

Within four hours of Eaton tweeting out his misquotations of Britain’s most prominent living philosopher, the housing minister (James Brokenshire) announced that Scruton had been dismissed with immediate effect from his role as Chairman of the ‘Building Better Building Beautiful Commission’. The sacking from this unpaid, advisory position came because of these ‘unacceptable comments’.

What’s the point of James Brokenshire? He is the so-called “Communities Secretary” and was formerly a most undistinguished Northern Ireland Secretary. But, more importantly, what’s the point of the Conservative government in which he sits? Roger Scruton is a humane and decent person: He wrote a novel about the girls of Rotherham, which none of the more fashionable literary types could be bothered with. He thinks seriously about everything from “Islamophobia” to social dancing. If there is “no place for the likes of Scruton” in public life, then there is no place for conservatism either. Douglas Murray again:

Even today the chances are that when you show up at any institution which has a position in the gift of the government the person still in charge there will be someone who used to write press releases for Tony Blair some two decades ago. And in nine years what have the Conservatives managed? Nothing. Or almost nothing. They pat themselves on the back for their heroism in a single successful appointment, only then – as Brokenshire showed today – to reverse and retreat when a left-wing magazine pumps inaccurate quotes onto social media.

There are many reasons to feel contempt for the modern Conservative party. Personally I can see no reason, after the fiasco they have made of Brexit, to ever vote for them again.

Indeed. I wish Douglas were correct that in nine years the Tories have managed merely to accomplish nothing. On everything from Brexit to Scruton to their new Internet clampdown they are making things worse.

And in case there is any curiosity about how it is done, there is this from Instapundit to remind you:

PUNCH BACK TWICE AS HARD. OKAY, MAYBE THREE TIMES AS HARD. Candace Owens clip becomes most watched C-SPAN Twitter video from a House hearing.

And in case you missed what she said and how she said it, here it is again.

Is this the greatest political scandal in American history?

Is a scandal still a scandal if it’s not reported in the press? If not, what is it? Seems pretty bad. Start with this from Ace of Spades.

Thursday and the big story is the reaction to Attorney General William Barr’s unvarnished, unapologetic and clinical declaration that yes indeed, there was spying (or bugging or eavesdropping or espionage or whatever Hawaiian Senator Brian Schatz-n-giggles can understand it) being perpetrated against the Trump presidential campaign. After more than two years of a steady diet of Trump and Russia colluded to steal the 2016 election and the anticipation that Robert Mueller’s persecution of the President and his allies would eject him from office, the one-two punch in the gut and boot to the groin of first the Mueller deception dissolving into thin air and AG Barr openly stating the plain hard truth was a marvel to behold. And without missing a beat, Barr announced that his office was going to at long last launch an investigation to uncover how the whole thing started and who was behind it. Frankly, there’s really not much to investigate since we know the machinations of the phony Steele dossier being used as a pretext to abuse the FISA courts to spy on the campaign and then use that as propaganda to insinuate Trump was a Russian spy or dupe. The real question is was this done with the knowledge of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama or was it done directly on their orders?

No matter what, this entire thing is without doubt the greatest political scandal in American history.

What if the Obama White House really was spying on the Trump campaign during the election? Sounds bad, if true. So a couple more from Lucianne before the story completely disappears.

Barr is right, spying on Trump
campaign did occur
Washington Examiner, by Byron York    Original Article
Democrats and some in the media expressed shock and outrage when Attorney General William Barr said Wednesday that “spying did occur” on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. Barr “must retract his statement immediately or produce specific evidence to back it up,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said. “Perpetuating conspiracy theories is beneath the office of the attorney general.” Barr has gone “off the rails,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. “The attorney general must retract his unfounded, irresponsible claim,” said Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal. Cable news commentators called Barr´s statement “stunning” and appeared baffled that th

 

Barr Confirms Multiple Intel Agencies
Implicated In Anti-Trump Spy Operation
The Federalist, by Mollie Hemingway    Original Article
 
“Spying on a political campaign is a big deal,” Attorney General William Barr told a Senate committee on Wednesday morning. Barr’s comments came in the context of potential Justice Department reviews of the Trump-Russia investigation and how it began in 2016. While it is important that the top law enforcement in the United States publicly acknowledged that the Obama administration and its intelligence agencies surveilled its domestic political opponents during the heat of a presidential election, it is what he said next that was most startling: that the CIA and other federal agencies

Add one more from Powerline.

Democrats cannot handle the truth. We saw this yesterday in their uniform reaction to Attorney General Barr’s acknowledgment that “Spying did occur” on the Trump presidential campaign. The link is to today’s Wall Street Journal editorial (by Kim Strassel, I am quite sure, and behind the Journal’s paywall.

Somewhere near the top of this post, however, I want to quote a sentence from Mollie Hemingway’s Federalist column on the Barr confirmation of the discomfiting truth sentient observers have pieced together over the past two years: “This is a scandal of epic proportions. It is one that threatens the foundations of constitutional government. It is a direct attack on American democracy.”

She puts it bluntly this way: “The fact of the matter is that federal intelligence agencies spied on a rival political campaign. They illegally leaked information about that surveillance. They abused their authority to at best undermine the duly elected president and at worst to attempt a soft coup against him. They did so with the near-total cooperation of the American media establishment.”

It’s clearly only those over-reacting fanatics who worry about such things.

And here as well

Via Instapundit.

MAY THE SAME THING HAPPEN HERE: There Is No Left Left In Israel. “The most far-reaching consequence of the 2019 Israeli election may well be that it verified, beyond any reasonable doubt, that there is functionally no left left in Israel. It has become a country with a center, a right, and a far right, but no electorally viable left to speak of.”

.
It’s not as if there is no welfare state. There is. Everyone seeks to find ways to make life easier for everyone, while the left are a bunch of socialist freaks, who also are even lax beyond sense about border protection. The left is filled with screwballs with a constituency who have no obvious understanding of the damage they inflict. And in this, I am not just referring to Israel.

Keynes’s 1933 letter to Harlan McCracken

The letter you see I uncovered in 2008 in the Harlan Linneus McCracken Archive at Louisiana State University, which has now been published in the March 2019 issue of the Journal of the History of Economic Thought. It has already been published by me, but only in black and white. Here we see the letter as it actually is. If you would like to read more fully of the letter’s significance, you can go to:

Kates, Steven. 2008. “A Letter from Keynes to Harlan McCracken Dated 31st August 1933: Why the Standard Story on the Origins of the General Theory Needs to Be Rewritten.” History of Economics Review 47: 20–38.

The letter would be momentous were it not for the fact that it reveals that Keynes with certainty was reading other sources than those he had previously owned up to in writing The General Theory which he commenced writing in 1932 and which was finally published in 1936. The letter substantiates virtually beyond argument – there is always an argument – that Keynes took up the notion of demand deficiency because he had been reading Malthus at the time. Malthus had been the single most important economist to have argued for the importance of demand deficiency as a cause of recession and unemployment during the nineteenth century. Virtually every other economist at the time and through to 1936 thought Malthus was completely wrong. It was unanimously agreed among mainstream economists that the notion of demand deficiency was totally false.

Going further, it was from McCracken that Keynes took his definition of Say’s Law: “supply creates its own demand”. These words are found for the first time ever as a definition of Say’s Law in the very book Keynes is thanking McCracken for having sent to him and which he had “now read”.

The article the letter is attached to, and now published in the Journal of the History of Economic Thought, was written to demonstrates that “Say’s” Law not was invented by J.B. Say. No understanding of the classical meaning of Say’s Law can be found other than by going through the literature that followed the publication of Malthus’s Principles in 1820, not by reading Say’s Treatise, whose first edition was published in 1803. Moreover, “Say’s Law” was the name applied to this concept for the first time by Fred Taylor in the twentieth century. It was not a classical term. Keynes took the phrase “Say’s Law” from Taylor or from one of Taylor’s contemporaries. I am near enough the only person from whom this can be found out. Virtually no one else will even repeat it, and certainly no one is capable of refuting it since the term never shows up anywhere until it was coined by Taylor. Beyond that, no one ever said “supply creates its own demand” in relation to Say’s Law until it was said by McCracken.

You would not think there would be such a cover-up in something as esoteric as the History of Economic Thought, but the implications are explosive, the more so to the extent that others might begin to appreciate there is more in pre-Keynesian economic theory than anyone since 1936 has given it credit for.

In Trump’s America: Mr 53%

Following the Mueller saga has been quite a diversion from politics as it normally is, but this had occurred to me as well: Rod Rosenstein may have appointed Mueller to save Trump from Obama’s FBI and DOJ.

At this point I do think it’s very possible that Rosenstein recognized the democrat-led conspiracy and had enough.  He realized that there was no chance Trump was going to receive fair treatment because of the wide spread corruption. He then appointed Robert Mueller- to take the Russian accusations out of the hands of the FBI and the corrupt Obama Intelligence Community. The last honest man at the top of the IC was Admiral Mike Rogers. Rosenstein released the letter describing the Mueller appointment, but in August Mueller gave Mueller an additional directive allegedly to specifically investigate Paul Manafort.

Mueller then packed his team with the most virulent and rabid anti-Trump people possible. This turned out to be fortuitous. The worst possible jury found no evidence of collusion or conspiracy, a conclusion from which democrats have yet to recover.

And the President does like to to accumulate enemies of the finest kind: Trump Climate Panel Could Expose Huge Fraud, Hence the Hysteria. Would Trump approve the Adani mine? What a question!

The collective freak out over President Donald Trump’s proposed Presidential Committee on Climate Science (PCCS) highlights the fact that the hysteria surrounding the man-made global-warming hypothesis is unscientific — and that it must be re-examined by competent, credible experts. According to scientists and experts, if the science on “climate change” were truly settled, Democrats, tax-funded climate alarmists, and the establishment media would all be celebrating another committee to confirm that “conclusion.” Instead, the unhinged shrieking over Trump’s plan to investigate the matter strongly suggests something very fishy is going on, critics argued. Indeed, there is a good chance that even more fraud could be revealed.

He also accumulates some of the best people as friends as well. WATCH: Candace Owens DESTROYS Democrat in congressional hearing after getting unfairly smeared. You may want to go back and read the story to see just why she was so angry.

Affirmative dissent

This is a comment on a post with a self-explanatory title, The Looming Danger for Dissident Professors. It’s essentially why sites like this are necessary just to remind ourselves that it isn’t us who are nuts.

Friedrich Nietzsche once wrote “All sheep and no shepherd, everyone is the same, everyone wants to be the same — anyone who is different goes voluntarily to the Madhouse.”

Notwithstanding all of the purported liberal views, what exists today in academia is nothing but textbook fascism. Everyone is the same. Everyone wants to be the same. And anyone who differs from the mob is inherently “crazy & dangerous.” “Dangerous” because they believe that anyone engaging in “cognitive aggression” (i.e. expressing & defending a dissident viewpoint) will inevitably progress from the use of words to the use of automatic weapons — unless stopped. Hence the overwhelming effort to silence dissent and the repeated references to “safety.”

This is why I keep coming back to the Behavioral Intervention Teams and the increasing influence of the Psychologists in Education. This is where this stuff is coming from and the more I study it, the more truly terrifying it becomes — and I say this as someone who does not frighten easily, someone who comes from a commercial fishing background.

In order to brainwash someone, you must first isolate the person from all other support networks and anything that confirms the legitimacy of the views/values which you wish to eliminate. “Gaslighting” ceases to work when the subject of it is able to obtain independent confirmation that he/she/it isn’t imagining things. In the play, the gas lights really were dimming because the husband was using the gaslights upstairs (which dropped the pressure in the lines) — it took the police detective confirming that he also saw the lights dimming for her to believe what she saw happening with her own eyes. Likewise, psychological “gaslighting” falls apart when the subject is able to obtain independent confirmation of what he/she/it believes to be true.

Professor Abrams is thus dangerous because he essentially confirmed that the gaslights are dimming. People can’t be told that they’re imagining things anymore because they now have an academic citation defending their perception of reality.

And his willingness to persist in the defense of his views notwithstanding the overwhelming gauntlet of opposition he is enduring — well, there is a reason why I consider Behavioral Intervention Teams to be both scary and dangerous.

The article itself is worth the read. We are not as far gone here in Australia, but things always happen here after a delay.