Ye have broken faith with those who died

Poppy Day used to be a big deal in Canada, even in downtown Toronto where I used to live. It’s because a Canadian wrote “In Flanders Fields” during World War I which is a poem every Canadian once knew. Its first words are:

“In Flanders fields the poppies blow,
between the crosses row on row
that mark our place.”

This is why poppies are sold and worn on Remembrance Day everywhere. Don Cherry is something like Richie Benaud in Canada, although I don’t think he ever played hockey, or not at the top level. But he was to hockey commentary what Richie Benaud was in cricket. Here is the story that goes back to November 11, but this is the best telling I have heard.

As anyone interesting in hockey or politics already knows, Don Cherry of Coach’s Corner fame was fired on Monday, Remembrance Day, for saying on the air that immigrants should wear their poppies and have some respect for the fallen soldiers just like the rest of us. He had the effrontery to actually say “you people” so all the friggin’ SJWs went nuts and now Don is fired.

Full disclosure, most of what I know about Don Cherry is he likes loud suits. I don’t watch Hockey Night in Canada. I hate hockey, I hate television, so I never was a fan of Don Cherry for the most part, except the suits. They were flashy.

I looked him up, he’s been wearing his loud suits and doing Hockey Night in Canada since 1980. 39 years of television. That’s longer than the Ed Sullivan Show. Its about the same length of time Ed Sullivan was a broadcaster. But Don didn’t die in the saddle like Ed, he had his horse shot out from under him by SJWs.

SJWs like these women here. CTV television, The Social.  Watch the clip… if you can. Its racist in the full dictionary sense of the word, also stupid and disgusting.

#fireJessAllen is trending on Twitter, and with good reason. Jessie Rae Allen came right out and said white boys who play hockey are bullies and morons. Her exact words are in the video clip, but I’ll reproduce them in case it gets memory-holed:

“I don’t worship at the altar of hockey. I never have,” Allen said, “and maybe it’s because of where I grew up and going to a couple of different universities. There’s a certain type of person in my mind, in my experience, who does.”
Allen continued saying, “And they all tended to be white boys who weren’t, let’s say, very nice. They were not generally thoughtful. They were often bullies.”
“Their parents were able to afford to put them, you know, spend $5,000 a year on minor hockey.” Allen suggests that the money would be better suited to travelling and learning about the world.
She concluded her statements saying that Don Cherry is a “representative” of the type of person that Allen is talking about. Allen acknowledged that Cherry has “done some good things” but added

 “Whether he’s charming or not, but he’s still a bigot and a misogynist.”

Generally I don’t believe in people getting fired for talking, not even talking on television. Free country, you are free to run your mouth. Be all the jackass you can be, I don’t care.

But this is not “generally”.

They fired Don Cherry after 39 years for saying the truth: Downtown Toronto, nobody wears a poppy. Mississauga, Brampton, nobody wears a poppy. And they should. Because people died for them to be free. Acknowledging that sacrifice is part of being a Canadian. That’s what he said, and they fired him.

Jesse Allen said white boys are bullies, idiots and bigots. Don Cherry is white, a bigot and a misogynist, and it was GREAT that they fired him.

Comparing Mr. Cherry to Ms. Allen, she’s a whole new level of bigoted. Hockey players and people who watch hockey are uncultured White hicks who hate immigrants, women and the outside world.

So if they fired Don Cherry, they BETTER fire Jesse Allan.

You Lefties wanted new rules? No problem. Now you can live in fear of your job just like Conservatives do.

Update! :

Seen first at Blazing Cat Fur (hi Arney!) we have The Apology from Jess Allen and CTV. From the Blob & Snail:

CTV says it is apologizing to anyone who was offended by comments made by a correspondent on its show The Social following the firing of hockey commentator Don Cherry.

As apologies go, its very legal boilerplate. Bottom line, -real- racism gets a pass, Jess Allen keeps her job, Don Cherry still very fired.

So no surprises here. Business as usual, shut up and get back to work you useless proles.

Upperdate: Full CTV statement:

“CTV’s The Social is based on opinion and debate about current issues, and we often hear from viewers who don’t agree with some of the perspectives on the show.
However, Jessica Allen’s comments about hockey have generated an extraordinary response. We’ve been touched by the stories we’ve heard from Canadians everywhere, including families from Humboldt, about what the game means to them. That matters to us.
We would like to apologize to everyone who was offended by the remarks, and let you know your feedback sparked much debate and introspection at The Social and CTV. We won’t restrict our hosts from offering their opinions on an opinion show, but we’ll always listen to viewers when they offer theirs.”

You know, the full Q&A schtick. So let me put it this way:
if they can re-elect Justin Trudeau they are as stupid a nation as the world now can find.

Here’s the question

From Instapundit.

JOEL KOTKIN: Will Australia Become A Vassal State of China? “China presents the most profound challenge to liberal values since the end of the Cold War, a development that has caught our consistently lame political establishment by surprise. The leaders of both parties, and much of the corporate America, never saw it coming.”

Well, what’s the answer? Might just add that that the article says nothing specifically about Australia.

Here was the best comment at Instapundit.

So long as the American people keep voting for four dollars of government for every three dollars they are willing to be taxed, and China has the economic strength to fund large proportions of that debt, the United States, fundamentally, cannot oppose her.

Or to put it this way:

Selling coal
along with our soul,
Is the government’s role
on the whole.

Does this mean it’s now OK to hate someone because of their religious beliefs?

Rouhani warns Muslim countries against ‘friendship’ with Israel.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani warned Muslim countries against working with Israel, in a speech aired Thursday by Iran’s IRINN TV news broadcaster.

“It is a strategic mistake in the Islamic world when some see Israel as their friend. It is very unfortunate that some Islamic countries, that are supposed to be steadfast against their enemies for the benefit of the world of Islam and the benefit of their own people, have extended a hand in friendship to Israel,” Rouhani said, according to a translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute watchdog group.

What makes them enemies? Why shouldn’t they be friends? Needs explanation.

Shameless and corrupt

An election is the final judgement of voters. There is plenty of chicanery in an American election, but almost all of it is on behalf of Democrats. Now these same Democrats want to add a another tier to the process: the right to try to remove a President from office if the President is not also a Democrat while the Democrats have a majority in the House. Here is some more from Drudge which is now anti-Trump and as corrupt as the rest of the media. This is a Democrat perspective, the same kind of vermin who think socialism is the answer.

Trump Nears Defining Hour as Impeachment Goes Public...
Faces limits of his power...
Schiff on Hook to Make Case...
Offenses Include 'Bribery'...
Dem lead lawyer known for prosecuting mobsters, swindlers...
Republican senator: All comes down to motive...
President Considered Firing Intel Inspector General...
In private speech, Bolton says policy decisions guided by personal interest...
Napolitano emerges as top critic...
FACEBOOK Sued for Censoring Posts Naming Whistleblower...
Death Threats Increase...
State Dept faces biggest crisis since McCarthy hysteria...
Aides counseling Trump not to fire Mulvaney...
Senate trial to last 6 WEEKS?
Therapy dogs headed to Capitol Hill...
Cable news showdown...

And to look at things from the other side, this is Victor Davis Hanson on 10 reasons why this impeachment ‘inquiry’ is really a coup. I’ll give you the last one but you should read the other nine as well.

10) Precedent. The indiscriminate efforts to remove Trump over the past three years, when coupled with the latest impeachment gambit, have now set a precedent in which the out party can use impeachment as a tool to embarrass, threaten or seek to remove a sitting president and reverse an election. We are witnessing constitutional government dissipating before our eyes.

Eight years of Obama was all right, but eight seconds of Trump was not. Biden and Clinton corruption as obvious as the moon on a cloudless night while after three years of hunting high and low there has been nothing found that could even begin to tarnish Trump and suggest his intent from start to finish was anything other than to provide honest government, prosperity and even-handed justice. But forecasts on these things are hard to make since you never really know what any of those Republicans really think.

Economic policy for idiots

Here’s a misleading headline: Interest rate cuts causing pain for no substantial gain. The reality is that interest rate cuts have done substantial harm to the economy, but at least people are beginning to see just how harmful these cuts have been.

The letter challenges the central bank’s strategy as it struggles to meet its inflation target and follows a groundswell of disquiet with the direction of monetary policy — including from former treasurer Peter Costelloformer RBA governor Ian Macfarlane and a trio of Liberal backbenchers.

The cuts have also sparked alarm for reigniting house prices in Sydney and Melbourne without boosting economic growth, or household or business confidence.

Mr Costello — Nine chairman — said record low interest rates and tax cuts had failed to stimulate consumer spending, which had hit advertising spending.

It’s this modern macroeconomic junk science that never ever gets anything right. I will again mention my Free Market Economics, Third Edition An Introduction for the General Reader where in its final two chapters sets out the flaws in Keynesian monetary policy as clear as you might like. Keynesian economics has evolved into the modern form of socialism, giving blanket approval to public spending, massive deficits and incompetent monetary policy. Think how incredible it is that the approaches taken to fix the Global Financial Crisis have never worked in a single instance in any country in the world. For an abbreviated version of all of this see The Dangerous Persistence of Keynesian Economics which begins with these two quotes:

Just as the causes of this downturn cannot be charted through a Keynesian demand deficiency model, neither can the solution. The world’s economies are not suffering from a lack of demand and the right policy response is not a demand stimulus. Increased public sector spending will only add to the market confusions that already exist.
What is potentially catastrophic would be to try to spend our way to recovery. The recession that will follow will be deep, prolonged and potentially take years to overcome.
—Steven Kates, Quadrant, March 2009
Why have the IMF, the OECD, the ILO, the treasuries of every advanced economy, the Treasury in Australia, the business economists around the world, why have they got it so wrong and yet you in your ivory tower at RMIT have got it so right?
—Question to Steven Kates from Senator Doug Cameron, Senate Economic References Committee, September 21, 2009

Great question. For the answer see my text. I might also mention that I have just sent off to the publisher my “Classical Economics for the Modern Economy” but that won’t be around till next year. But these central bankers and Treasury economists do only harm every time they touch the economy. And just for the record, infrastructure spending, beyond a minimum – and we are well beyond that minimum – will only make things worse.

Wasn’t he the clown on Howdy Doody?

Re Whistleblowers: Eric Ciaramella or Voldemort? I suppose we can mention his name in Australia.

Very early on in the whistleblower saga, I asked, plaintively, who the “whistleblower” knew. There’s been lots of action on the topic since then, and it looks increasingly like the answer is “everyone.”

I’ve been trying to keep up with all the traffic on this, and frankly, it makes my head hurt. But not too long after my article, Paul Sperry at Real Clear Investigations reported extensive evidence that the person I was calling “whistleblower one” (WB1) was a man named Eric Ciaramella, who:

  • Is a registered Democrat, held over from Obama
  • Worked with Biden on Ukraine
  • Worked for John Brennan when he was DCIA
  • Worked for the National Security Council
  • … until he was fired for leaking
  • … who then turned to Rep Adam Schiff for “guidance” before filing the original “whistleblower” brief
  • Cooperated with Alexandra Chalupa, who was lobbying for a Ukraine aid and who Sara A. Carter reports was part of the group coordinating with the then-prime minister of Ukraine to support Hillary Clinton’s campaign over Trump’s.

My suspicion is that the Whistleblower is such a comprehensive nobody that letting his name come out deflates the entire impeachment process. Like finally finding out what a nobody the Deep Throat of the Watergate Investigation was. Once you knew, and understood his petty motives, it really was a scandal that it had ever been a scandal.

As for Clarabell the Clown, entirely from my youth and very very North American. From the Howdy Doody show.

A bit more on Howdy Doody which I had not known before with something of an Australian connection.

Chief Thunderthud (portrayed by Bill Le Cornec): Head of the Ooragnak (kangaroo spelled backward) tribe of American Indians. Edward Kean originated Thunderthud’s greeting “Kowabonga!”—a nonsense word that eventually became part of the California surfer culture lexicon.

The whole thing is so politically incorrect I’m amazed it can still be found on the net.

German political philosophy

Let me bring some extension to a previous post. When I think of the political and philosophical tradition of the West, I think in relation to the Anglo-sphere, who run from Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Edmund Burke, David Hume, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Michael Oakeshott and also Roger Scruton, who I will mention just to bring it up to the immediate present. This is the philosophy of freedom of the individual and human rights. It is pretty well unknown everywhere else.

I am less keen on the Continental tradition. In actual fact, I am not keen on the continental tradition at all. Perhaps I don’t know these well enough, since I won’t claim any deep knowledge of any of them. Still, for most people, the most they might know about the German philosophical tradition comes from Monty Python’s Australian Philosophy Department.

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable

Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table

David Hume could out-consume
Schopenhauer and Hegel

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel

There’s nothing Nietzsche couldn’t teach ya
’bout the raising of the wrist
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed,

So let’s do a little run-down, starting with Martin Heidegger.

Martin Heidegger (/ˈhdɛɡər,  hdɪɡər/;[12][13] German: [ˈmaʁtiːn ˈhaɪdɛɡɐ];[14][12] 26 September 1889 – 26 May 1976) was a German philosopher and a seminal thinker in the Continental tradition of philosophy. He is “widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century.” Heidegger is best known for his contributions to phenomenologyhermeneutics, and existentialism, though, as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy cautions, “his thinking should be identified as part of such philosophical movements only with extreme care and qualification”. Heidegger was a member and public supporter of the Nazi Party. There is controversy over the degree to which his Nazi affiliations influenced his philosophy.

There is, of course, no doubt about the extent to which his philosophy influenced his Nazi affiliation. Not to mention his massive influence on the Green Movement, to this day.

Heidegger’s later work includes criticisms of technology‘s instrumentalist understanding in the Western tradition as “enframing“, treating all of Nature as a “standing reserve” on call for human purposes.

Let me now add Ludwig Wittgenstein to the list. This is from a previous post of mine:

If you are interested in a genuinely plausible fifth (sixth?) Cambridge spy, Wittgenstein who was at Trinity is a better bet. This is discussed in an extraordinarily fascinating book The Jew of Linz published by my fellow Australian, Kim Cornish. The title comes from a phrase in Mein Kampf in which Hitler traces his anti-Semitism to a ‘Jew of Linz’ with whom he had gone to high school. Although the family had converted from Judaism, Ludwig Wittgenstein had, in one of the most amazing coincidences in history, gone to the same high school at the same time as Hitler. The book then argues that Wittgenstein had been the person who had recruited Philby and the others. This is from Kim’s Wikipedia entry:

‘The Jew of Linz (1998) is a controversial book by Australian writer Kimberley Cornish. It alleges that the Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein had a profound effect on Adolf Hitler when they were both pupils at the Realschule (high school) in Linz, Austria, in the early 1900s. He also alleges that Wittgenstein was involved in the Cambridge Five Soviet spy ring during the Second World War….

‘Cornish also argues that Wittgenstein is the most likely suspect as recruiter of the “Cambridge Five” spy ring. The author suggests that Wittgenstein was responsible for British decryption technology for the German Enigma code reaching the Red Army and that he thereby enabled the Red Army victories on the Eastern Front that liberated the camps and ultimately overthrew the Reich.

‘He writes that the Soviet government offered Wittgenstein the chair in philosophy at what had been Lenin’s university (Kazan) at a time (during the Great Purge) when ideological conformity was at a premium amongst Soviet academics and enforced by the very harshest penalties. Wittgenstein wanted to emigrate to Russia, first in the twenties, as he wrote in a letter to Paul Engelmann, and again in the thirties, either to work as a labourer or as a philosophy lecturer. Cornish argues that given the nature of the Soviet regime, the possibility that a non-Marxist philosopher (or even one over whom the government could exert no ideological control) would be offered such a post, is unlikely in the extreme.’

Shall we try Hegel?

Hegel’s distinctions as to what he meant by civil society are often unclear. For example, while it seems to be the case that he felt that a civil society such as the German society in which he lived was an inevitable movement of the dialectic, he made way for the crushing of other types of “lesser” and not fully realized types of civil society as these societies were not fully conscious or aware—as it were—as to the lack of progress in their societies. Thus, it was perfectly legitimate in the eyes of Hegel for a conqueror such as Napoleon to come along and destroy that which was not fully realized….

The State is “objective spirit” so “it is only through being a member of the state that the individual himself has objectivity, truth, and ethical life” (section 258). Furthermore, every member both loves the State with genuine patriotism, but has transcended mere “team spirit” by reflectively endorsing their citizenship. Members of a Hegelian State are happy even to sacrifice their lives for the State.

How about Kant. Not that you can make sense of him without a few years of serious application, if even then, but let this be a taste. No natural law in Kant, that’s for sure, and he was certainly not a utilitarian.

In Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant also posited the “counter-utilitarian idea that there is a difference between preferences and values, and that considerations of individual rights temper calculations of aggregate utility”, a concept that is an axiom in economics:

Everything has either a price or a dignity. Whatever has a price can be replaced by something else as its equivalent; on the other hand, whatever is above all price, and therefore admits of no equivalent, has a dignity. But that which constitutes the condition under which alone something can be an end in itself does not have mere relative worth, i.e., price, but an intrinsic worth, i.e., a dignity. (p. 53, italics in original).

A phrase quoted by Kant, which is used to summarize the counter-utilitarian nature of his moral philosophy, is Fiat justitia, pereat mundus, (“Let justice be done, though the world perish”), which he translates loosely as “Let justice reign even if all the rascals in the world should perish from it”.

If there is a more dangerous political-philosophy position anywhere among the supposedly great philosophers than “let justice be done though the world may perish” I have not seen it.

And there is, of course, Nietzsche. He was not an anti-semite, but he was hardly a democratic liberal seeking the greatest good for the greatest number. Since, unlike Heidegger, he didn’t wear a Nazi pin on his collar to the very end of the Third Reich, he is separated as much as possible from having had a direct link to Fascism by all right-thinking individuals who still find his philosophy attractive. Yet between his Will to Power and the search for the Superman, not to forget his disdain for the bourgeoise and the high regard he had among the Nazis, you cannot expect to find in him anything that seeks to create the open society and the largest expanse of personal freedom for the greatest number. From Influence and reception of Friedrich Nietzsche we find this from an American, although there is more there if you would like to look.

American writer H. L. Mencken avidly read and translated Nietzsche’s works and has gained the sobriquet “the American Nietzsche”. In his book on Nietzsche, Mencken portrayed the philosopher as a proponent of anti-egalitarian aristocratic revolution, a depiction in sharp contrast with left-wing interpretations of Nietzsche. Nietzsche was declared an honorary anarchist by Emma Goldman, and he influenced other anarchists such as Guy AldredRudolf RockerMax Cafard and John Moore.

And do I need to enter into a discussion of Marx and Engels, both of whom took their turgid idiocies from Hegel? And just to bring these closer to the present, we must not leave out The Frankfurt School who dominate our universities to this very day.

Remember, remember the 9th, 10th and 11th of November

See if you can see any connection.

November 9 was the day, thirty years ago, that the Berlin Wall fell.

November 9-10 was Kristallnacht in 1938.

November 11 was the day the Armistice was signed to end World War I, you know, the War to End All Wars.

And now, we have Angela Merkel, with her open-borders policy, which may end up being as destructive as any of these previous disasters.

Donald Trump has the home team advantage outside Washington

This was at the World Series game held at the centre of the swamp.

This was at the White House where Trump welcomed the Nationals who had won the World Series.

And this is from the LSU-Alabama game played yesterday that I picked up from Youtube. Watched it on The Outsiders where you can hear wild cheering, but this version, for some reason, has had the sound cut off. Perhaps it will be restored later, but does not work for me so far. [comes the morning, the sound now works.]

The left is not only repulsive and deep-set fools, but are also adolescent and the proven enemies of free expression.

A shorter version with the sound turned on.

The MCW vote

From Paul Kelly on why Labor lost: A tale of two Labors. Here is Labor’s core constituency:

Labor has no option but to remain a champion of progressivism, the tertiary-educated, high-income cosmopolitans focused on climate change, social justice, inclusion and, increasingly, identity politics.

Progressivism!! The Moron Class, he means. And then he says it again.

It must reconcile the cultural tension — certain to intensify — between urban, well-off, self-righteous progressives and the alienated, more socially conservative workers facing poorer incomes and weaker services.

I especially liked the “self-righteous” bit. Did he really mean to say that? Does he think this is a positive feature?

He is of course discussing the self-satisfied, pseudo-intellectual classes, many if not most of whose incomes are paid via taxation, who would be the last groups damaged by the political dead ends they are pursuing. They rack up high incomes while providing near nothing to the strength of the economy. The entire public service is filled with people like that, not to mention our crony capitalists, and there are others as well.