Pointing the bone at Western Civ and not before time

David Solway on Time to Leave Western Civ Behind: Looking for a Place to Emigrate.

Clearly, Western culture should be sent to the chop shop, dismantled piece by piece, and sold off to the newcomers. They may conceivably reassemble the parts into something far superior than the civilizational vehicle we’ve been driving around in. Indeed, these “parts” may have been theirs in the first place. We have been guilty of so much in the past, of condescension as well as outright plunder. We are obviously morally obligated to cheer them on, to surrender our “white supremacy” in favor of the nobility, wisdom and cultural glory of Third World saviors and aboriginal peoples. Perhaps we should be grateful to our betters for bringing the manifold fruits of their accomplishments to our wide-open doors. Perhaps that is their real agenda, bless their souls.

None of this should be forgotten as well.

Remember all the wonderful things invented by Black Africans or Muslims or both, and then stolen by whiteys. And don’t forget that indigenous people everywhere, before the ongoing genocide and dispossession, had a deep intimate spiritual knowledge of life, Universe and everything, far more evolved than our pitiful 300-yr-old settler-colonial narrative of “science.” They have known about dark matter in the sky for 50,000 years, while white people are only starting to discover it now with our telescopes, as the Dean of Research of my ex university once told us. As for music, as another SJW academic once told me, the genius of the Aboriginal artists is that every didgeridoo is unique, has a different sound from every other, unlike our boring Western instruments that all sound the same.

Makes an absolutely incontrovertible case. At the bottom of the page there are, incomprehensibly, these words, “RELATED: SATIRE“. It’s nothing of the kind. It’s actually about time someone pointed the bone at our poisonous culture, which David has now done.

Being on the left is merely a vanity project

I am off to the first ever Heterodox Academy meeting in New York which almost overlaps with the meeting of the American History of Economics Society meeting which is also in New York. When I’m in New York I always go here, which I like even more now that I understand the entrepreneurial vision of its owner. She must be the last of her kind among the Democrats.

Chaser: New York City Landmarks Historic Bookstore The Strand Over Owner’s Objections.

New York City’s Landmarks Preservation Committee (LPC) just wouldn’t take no for an answer. The group has conferred landmark status on the 119-year-old building at 826 Broadway, which has housed The Strand Bookstore since 1956. The owners of The Strandbought the building in the late 1990s and the third-generation owner of the store, Nancy Bass Wyden, opposed the action, telling Reason earlier this year:

The Strand is not going anywhere. There’s no need to protect it. Our family’s been a great steward of the building. Landmarking would add another component of government. You add bureaucracy, you add committees, you add people having opinions about what we should do inside the store as well as outside the store. And that does not allow me the flexibility to change with the retail book environment and to serve our customers.

Bass Wyden (who is married to Sen. Ron Wyden, the Democrat from Oregon) presented 11,000 signatures to the LPC in hopes of dissuading landmark status. Such popular support for what is generally considered New York’s best bookstore cut no mustard.

Being on the left is merely a vanity project. How what they do affects everyone else hardly matters at all, to them.

It is possible women who live in capitalist economies really do prefer socialism

Even more certain is that women who live in socialist economies prefer capitalism. It may take a year or two after the socialists have taken over, but eventually they figure it out, as do men as well. So let us begin with this: A MAJORITY of American women age 18-54 would prefer living in a socialist country to living in a capitalist country. That story was replied to here: 55% Of Women Prefer Socialism To Capitalism. Here’s Why They’re Wrong.

What is of particular interest is the list of attributes being sought in the socialist system these women are seeking to have introduced. The list is shown in descending order of approval, from 76% for the first through to 52% for the tenth.

  1. Universal healthcare (76 percent)
  2. Tuition-free education (72 percent)
  3. Living wage (68 percent)
  4. State-controlled economy (66 percent)
  5. State control and regulation of private property (61 percent)
  6. High taxes for the rich (60 percent)
  7. State-controlled media and communication (57 percent)
  8. Strong environmental regulations (56 percent)
  9. High public spending (55 percent)
  10. Government “democratizes” private businesses—that is, gives workers control over them—to the greatest extent possible (52 percent)

“State-controlled economy” pretty well defines socialism with 66 percent of women between the ages of 18 and 54 signing up for whatever it might mean in practice. These attitudes go very neatly with the 66% who seek “State-controlled media and communication”. With this as to provide the groundwork, let me continue with this: Can we risk nominating a man for president? Here is the point she is making:

Men have had their chance. Let us not risk four more years of this. After the past 230, we have been warned.

Yes, let women take over running our communities with no involvement of men where they can introduce exactly what they are looking for (see above). And following from that, let me continue with this: How Feminism Breeds Marital Resentment. I am sure it does with consequences all of their own. There is then this, where again both sides of the story are told. First this.

I’m sure this is wrong. Here is the other side.

Well, I’m not going to be around to know how it finally turns out when and if this has all played itself out. But I have to say, a complete take-over of our societies by Islam seems a more likely prospect than a society run by feminists.

Defining socialism in the modern world

Here is the original story: Socialism is losing its stigma thanks to Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez as a MAJORITY of American women age 18-54 would prefer living in a socialist country to living in a capitalist country. That story was replied to here: 55% Of Women Prefer Socialism To Capitalism. Here’s Why They’re Wrong. But what is of particular interest is the list of attributes being sought in the socialist system these women are seeking to have introduced, in descending order of approval, from 76% for the first through to 52% for the tenth.

  1. Universal healthcare (76 percent)
  2. Tuition-free education (72 percent)
  3. Living wage (68 percent)
  4. State-controlled economy (66 percent)
  5. State control and regulation of private property (61 percent)
  6. High taxes for the rich (60 percent)
  7. State-controlled media and communication (57 percent)
  8. Strong environmental regulations (56 percent)
  9. High public spending (55 percent)
  10. Government “democratizes” private businesses—that is, gives workers control over them—to the greatest extent possible (52 percent)

“State-controlled economy” pretty well defines socialism with 66 percent signing up for whatever it might mean in practice. Goes very neatly with “State-controlled media and communication”. The full socialist box and dice.

If it’s not illegal to say it, it should be illegal to stop it from being said

Comes with this: ‘The Five’ song about politics hits NUMBER ONE, so Twitter BANS IT!

And let me add this from Instapundit as well. It’s the comments thread that is of particular interest.

THE NEW RULES DON’T ONLY WORK ONE WAY: The woman who screamed ‘Nazi’ at a Trump supporter has been hounded out of a job. I don’t approve of people being hounded out of jobs for what they say, or even scream. But I didn’t make the new rules, and they won’t change back to something more civilized unless they’re uncomfortable for the left as well as the right.

This is the top comment.

Going by their fulminations on Twitter, it seems some right-wingers think this is about playing the left at its own game, as right-wingers have been the targets for myriad twitch-hunts in the past. But these people are just dressing up their own lack of principle and shrill, pearl-clutching authoritarianism as tactical nous.

The author of that article needs to read a treatise on the Prisoner’s Dilemma in game theory. Then perhaps he would see that tit-for-tat is necessary to deter bad actors.

Nobody likes outrage mobs. But the left pushed outrage mobs into the mainstream, and for a long time they had that particular tactic to themselves. They also pushed the concept so far that trivial things caused outrage, or even in some cases made up things.

Outrage became a weapon, a cudgel they gleefully wielded. I contend that it’s impossible to curb their use of that weapon unless they see it used against them.

Free speech, but on any platform like Twitter or Facebook, if it’s not illegal to say it, it should be illegal to prevent it from being said.

Just do it or you won’t do it at all

Wall Street Journal op-ed:  The Dangers of Half Measures, by Sam Walker (author, The Captain Class: The Hidden Force That Creates the World’s Greatest Teams (2018)):

In the early summer of 1776, John Adams had grown profoundly exasperated.

King George had declared the 13 American colonies in open rebellion and sent troops to enforce his authority. A declaration of independence, and all-out war, seemed inevitable but still, holdouts in the Second Continental Congress kept clogging the docket with feckless half-measures and spineless appeasements.

“In politics, the middle way is none at all,” Adams fumed that March in a letter to an ally. “If we finally fail in this great and glorious contest, it will be by bewildering ourselves in groping for the middle way.”

One of the hallmarks of a great leader is the ability to convince others to do something difficult under maximum duress. For Adams, America’s loudest voice for independence, this test finally arrived on July 2, 1776, when the matter was put to a vote.

More than two centuries later, on March 29, 2019, British lawmakers convened in London to vote on a different kind of high-stakes divorce proposal: The United Kingdom’s long-planned departure from the European Union.

When Prime Minister Theresa May rose that day to support her Brexit deal, I couldn’t help but wonder if she’d spent any time studying the events of 1776. By the time she’d finished talking, I was fairly certain she hadn’t.

These two “exits” were vastly different, of course, but there were a few key similarities. In both cases, the will of the people was clear enough. In 1776, most colonists supported independence, or soon would, while British voters had approved Brexit in a 2016 referendum.

Political maneuvering had delayed both measures for months, and time was running short. The colonists had a war to prepare for, while the U.K. faced the prospect of expulsion from the EU with no accommodations at all.

The key difference was the outcome: The colonies opted for independence without a single dissenting vote, but Parliament rejected Mrs. May’s last-ditch Brexit proposal by a 58-vote margin. John Adams, hailed as the “Atlas” of independence, went on to become president in 1796. On May 24, with no Brexit resolution in sight, Mrs. May announced her resignation.

If there’s a leadership lesson in these two tales, it’s this: The best way to persuade people to do something hard is to present them with the hardest possible choice.

Although Adams lobbied his colleagues tirelessly, he also set limits. He didn’t cut deals to secure votes or waste time negotiating with the king. He wanted delegates to cast their votes on one question only: whether the colonists, and really all people, had a fundamental right to be governed by consent.

By framing the vote as a matter of principle, Adams boxed “the cool crowd,” as he called them, into a difficult corner. They weren’t weighing another bundle of deal points and compromises, they were ruling on the nature of government itself. …

From the moment she became prime minister in 2016, Mrs. May’s primary job, as she saw it, was to honor the Brexit referendum while negotiating the best deal possible from the EU.

Three years later, on March 29—the very date Britain had originally set for Brexit—she presented Parliament with a proposal that was starkly different from the one Adams had offered. It was, quite literally, a half-measure.

To exit the EU, Parliament had to approve two things: a negotiated withdrawal agreement laying out the practical, immediate details of a Brexit, and a political declaration that would define the U.K.’s relationship with Europe in the future.

Rather than dialing up the pressure, Mrs. May tried to make the vote less intimidating. The more-contentious political declaration, which would ultimately determine the scope and severity of Brexit, was withheld, leaving lawmakers to rule solely on the basic nuts and bolts. In other words, she postponed the tricky bit. …

Like it or not, the British public chose a difficult, treacherous road. Brexit isn’t an incremental issue, it’s existential. In a case like that, concessions and middle measures only give ditherers more pegs to hang their pet concerns on. …

[T]he most fateful moments in the life of a nation, or a company, can’t be micromanaged. When a leader arrives at the edge of a cliff, the best approach is to distill the debate down to one stark, unequivocal choice.

Are we going to jump, or not?

From an old Australia but comfortable in the new

I just thought that this was a story worth making sure everyone interested in this sort of thing would see. It is from cricket, and the opposite end of the Adam Goodes story told so well by Jupes. This is about Alan Davidson turning 90.

No other sport is like cricket, and certainly there is nothing like it I can think of from the North American sports I grew up on. Possibly my favourite quote is from hockey, from the owner of the Toronto Maple Leafs when I was growing up, Conn Smythe: “if you can’t lick ’em in the alley, you can’t lick ’em on the ice.” Cricket is different, very different, and Alan Simpson Davidson showed it. A wonderful article, from which the following two stories are told in succession:

After play on the third evening of the last Test of the 1961 Ashes, Alan was having a drink with Ken Barrington, England’s ruggedly dependable No 5. What was Alan doing the following night, he asked. Would he come along to help at a junior presentation night? They agreed to rendezvous at 6.30pm.

It happened that Alan was bowling the last over of the day’s play to Barrington, stubbornly ensconced on 33. He finished the over with a fierce bouncer; rather than hook, Barrington stopped it with his chest.

As stumps was called, spectators saw Barrington gesturing towards Alan with his bat, seemingly in remonstrance. In fact, he was saying: “Remember! 6.30!”

Familiarity maintained behavioural bounds in play as well. During the Headingley Test, Barrington’s teammate Colin Cowdrey was 93 when he gloved a ball down the leg side but looked like getting away with it when the umpire’s finger stayed down.

Cowdrey’s reputation as a “walker”, even as a man of piety, was briefly jeopardised by the scent of a hard-won 100. From Alan’s wicketkeeper, Wally Grout, emanated a delicious sledge: “Are you reading the lesson this Sunday, Colin?” Cowdrey hastily tucked the bat beneath his arm and departed.

Another world, in relation to the times these stories are from and in comparison between cricket and every other sport ever known.

Corruption and criminality

A fantastic series of posts from today that outline not just the corruption but outright criminality among the left in the United States in which they have used the levers of the Federal Government to attack their enemies and benefit themselves. Start here with a story found nowhere else I could see: True the Vote Wins Stunning Court Ruling Against IRS in Lois Lerner Scandal.

The True the Vote v. IRS lawsuit has finally come to a close with a stunning ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton ruling in favor of True the Vote; penalizing the IRS with maximum attorneys fees due to their unconstitutional discrimination against the group and their unethical behavior in the case.

This decision marks the end of a nearly decade long battle that first began in 2010, when federal government agencies including the IRS, DOJ, FBI, ATF, OSHA weaponized against True the Vote and its founder, Catherine Engelbrecht. Under Obama Administration leadership, the agencies leveled a barrage of attacks, including twenty-three audits, investigations, and inquiries, against the group in an attempt to stop their work in election integrity. “

At one point the IRS got Child Services to try to take Ms. Engelbrechts’ children from her—this is how vicious Lerner and the crowd became, to stop honest elections. To stop those exposing the corruption of elections.

There is then this: Investigation finds Ilhan Omar illegally used campaign funds to pay lawyers related to allegations that she married her brother.

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., is facing financial penalties for campaign finance violations following a Thursday ruling from the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board.

Which may be supplemented by this: WHEN THE CAT HAS OMAR’S TONGUE. Which gets into her fraudulent marriages and tax fraud.

She held out Ahmed Hirsi as her husband on her campaign site and elsewhere. We found that Omar had legally married Elmi in 2009 and wondered if he was her brother. Omar remained married to him from 2009 to 2017. Although Omar has three children with Hirsi, Omar never did marry him until last year….

Although she didn’t marry Hirsi until last year, Omar has held Hirsi out as her husband at all times since she became a public figure. Over what period of time did Omar and Hirsi file joint tax returns? My guess is that it runs back to 2002. We know she filed joint tax returns with Hirsi while she was still married to Elmi. In addition to the IRS issues, the questions intersect with those arising from Omar’s marriage to Elmi.

Then there’s this: Profiles in Treason Bruce and Nellie Ohr.

The latest emails and memos uncovered shows clearly that Fusion GPS, hired by Hillary Clinton and the DNC in an attempt to destroy the Trump candidacy was assisted in its agenda by the FBI the DOJ and the intelligence agencies of the Obama administration. The notes, some of which are from Associate Deputy District Attorney Bruce Ohr, whose contact was Deputy AG Sally Yates. Bruce Ohr was demoted four times since the investigation began, at least twice for failing to disclose his involvement with figures associated with the unverified dossier from Fusion GPS. Sally Yates was fired for insubordination and refusing to implement a legal order from the President. Both are members of the Deep State Resistance doing everything they can to usurp the power of President Trump.

Finally, in the midst of actual criminality and fraud, there is this question over possibly the most-investigated political leader of modern times, A Serious Question For Democrats: What Exactly Was Trump’s Crime?.

Democrats need to answer the question. Impeach Trump for what?

Specifically, what law did our President violate?

If you asked any one of them, really pressed them, they wouldn’t be able to come up with an actual crime. Trump is so vile and we are so virtuous and enlightened will no longer cut it.

And a reminder we are this week celebrating the 70th anniversary of the publication of Orwell’s 1984: George Orwell’s prescient novel 1984 is turning 70 and only growing more relevant with age. To add to how fantastic this is, truly space age incredible, the article is from our ABC.

This was not a borderline issue

If you don’t think that stopping the boats won the election for the Coalition you are completely out of it. Adani also mattered. But without both, we would have a Labor Government right now.

Speaking of which:

DEVELOPING: Trump announces tariff-avoiding deal with Mexico.

Pop the tequila and pass the guacamole — the US has struck a trade deal with Mexico that will avert tariffs on imports.

“I am pleased to inform you that The United States of America has reached a signed agreement with Mexico,” President Trump tweeted Friday night.

“The Tariffs scheduled to be implemented by the U.S. on Monday, against Mexico, are hereby indefinitely suspended,” he added.

“Mexico, in turn, has agreed to take strong measures to stem the tide of Migration through Mexico, and to our Southern Border,” he said.

Related: Mexico Capitulates to Trump’s Tariff Threat, Deploys 6,000 Troops to Guatemalan Border to Curb Migration.

And that will be just a start. Incredible there are votes in open borders for the Democrats, since the certainty of maintaining an open border will be the submergence of everything that has made America the great country she is.