Mark Steyn on Mueller’s conscious sham

Mark Steyn on village and other forms of idiot. It wasn’t Alexander Downer after all.

The Mueller investigation was a conscious sham: an investigation into foreign interference in the 2016 US election created to cover up high-level domestic interference in the 2016 US election. Which is far more serious. Mueller’s report dutifully did its part, asserting belatedly that it was the so-called tip from a friendly ally (ie, Alexander Downer’s g&t with George Papadopoulos in the Kensington Wine Rooms) that led to the unprecedented “counter-intelligence” operation against a major-party candidate in the presidential election.

The ever expanding FBI/DoJ paper trail suggests otherwise. The FISA applications relied on Christopher Steele, and the FBI knew the Steele dossier was a crock even as they laid its garbage before the FISA judge. It’s not just a lack of candor before the tribunal, but outright perjury. Ten days before the Feds obtained their first warrant to spy on the Trump campaign, the Deputy Secretary of State, Kathleen Kavalec, had Steele’s number, and put it in writing:

Kavalec’s handwritten notes clearly flagged in multiple places that Steele might be talking to the media.

“June — reporting started,” she wrote. “NYT and WP have,” she added, in an apparent reference to The New York Times and The Washington Post.

Later she quoted Steele as suggesting he was “managing” four priorities — “Client needs, FBI, WashPo/NYT, source protection,” her handwritten notes show.

Indeed. He was a hopelessly conflicted MI6 guy. But a foreign spook obsessed with Trump was vital to the FBI – because they had nothing else. Perhaps the most pitiful yet damning part of Ms Kavalec’s memo is this:

She quoted Steele as saying, “Payments to those recruited are made out of the Russian Consulate in Miami,” according to a copy of her summary memo obtained under open records litigation by the conservative group Citizens United. Kavalec bluntly debunked that assertion in a bracketed comment: “It is important to note that there is no Russian consulate in Miami.”

We shall have more on this in the days ahead.

“We live in a totally moronic age”

From which the title of this post comes. Mark starts with a story from Melbourne about Barry McKenzie or something. Meanwhile, from today’s Cut and Paste in The Australian.

Oh dear. Annette Grossbongardt in Der Spiegel on February 7:

The East German state had a habit of taking children from politically undesirable parents and giving them up for adoption. It is a horrific aspect of the communist regime that has never received the attention it deserves.

Grossbongardt continues:

Parents were required to raise their children to become “active contributors to socialism”. If they didn’t do so sufficiently in the eyes of the state, then, in a worst-case scenario, their parenting rights could be withdrawn. This law, says a legal commentator, “opened the door” to punishing aberrant behaviour displayed by parents … Fleeing the country, or even attempting to, was considered a “seriously negligent breach of duty”, the lawyer says. Parents could also lose their children for “subversive agitation”. Indeed, “essentially anything that was adversarial to the state” was considered a violation, “including saying anything that was critical of the regime or reading the foreign press”. The law also foresaw another political justification for interfering in a parent’s rights: a “non-socialist lifestyle”. That applied to people who were active in the church, to those who did not fulfil the “obligation to work”, or to women who frequently changed partners and had many children.

Meanwhile in Canada: Canadian Court: Father Found Guilty of Family Violence for Calling Daughter a Girl.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, has ruled that a 14-year-old girl can, without parental permission, get hormone treatments to change her sex, and it has also ruled that the father is guilty of “family violence” because he called her a girl.

Back in February of this year, the girl’s father was ordered to stop calling her a girl and calling her by her birth name, which he refused to do. To stop that crime, the Supreme Court issued a “protection order” mandating that her father be arrested immediately without a warrant, if calls her a girl privately or publicly or speaks about the case at all.

So the courts in Canada will now force parents to indulge the delusions of minor children who think they’re members of the opposite sex.

Virtually proving that the opposition to the move is correct in its belief that this is craziness, the court also expunged court records of the names of two doctors who were in favor of a gender transition for the girl, one doctor of whom, Dr. Wallace Wong, is catching flak for “diagnosing as much as 20 percent of the children in his local orphanage system with some form of gender dysphoria,” reported The Federalist.

And this, just for emphasis: Father Gagged, Found Guilty Of ‘Family Violence’ For Calling His Trans Daughter A ‘She’.

The court also emphasized that Clark must not allow relevant documents (petitions, affidavits, letters, court orders, etc.) to come into the hands of third parties not “authorized by order of this court,” or with “written consent” from his daughter.

While forbidding Clark to speak to the public about his daughter’s case, [bc supreme Court Justice] Marzari stated that she was not overriding Clark’s “freedom of thought and speech.” “There is no requirement that [Clark] change his views about what is best for [Maxine],” she explained. “It is only how he expresses those views privately to [Maxine] and publicly to third parties that is affected.”

The fact that Clark is now not allowed to express his views publicly to anyone at all was, apparently, understood to be a fairly imposed consequence for his previous court-objected behavior. Had he strictly abstained from referring to his daughter “as a girl or with female pronouns,” he might not have been guilty of family violence and so subject to this order.

While the judge’s view of matters enjoys support on the political left, some feel the ruling is biased and politically motivated. Kari Simpson, president of Canadian pro-family organization Culture Guard, argued that Marzari’s decision severely limits Clark’s freedom of speech. Citing Marzari’s significant and recent history of LGBT and pro-abortion activism before her 2017 appointment to the BC Supreme Court, Simpson argued that she was operating as an “activist judge” more interested in delivering a ruling convenient to her cause than enforcing laws designed to protect families and children.

Unfortunately, the gag order on Clark makes it difficult to report his reaction to this new development in his case. In the meantime, his appeal of the court’s original ruling regarding testosterone injections is set to be heard on May 14.

Freedom of speech in Canada includes the provision that a judge can stop someone from saying what they think in public. A totally moronic age, perhaps, but actually an age of deep evil, which is getting worse! The thing is that everyone knows how insane all this is, but no one is allowed to say it.

We are in a moment of reprieve

I finally got to listen to PDT’s whole speech and it was spellbinding. Mark Steyn and Tucker Carlson both watched it and both have had the same reaction. Who else today can give a speech that lasts an hour and a half and leave you sorry it has come to an end?

I will also draw your attention to the last quarter hour, from around one hour and ten minutes in, where the President kind of summarises the themes of the 2020 campaign to come.

It could all have been so different from how it is. Like the market economy, which effortlessly produces the goods, almost making it seem as if there is nothing to it, in the same way you think that things just go right, when they go right, because they always will. For myself, I am too too aware how we are in a moment of reprieve from a deluge, that if it happens, will wipe our civilisation away until there is nothing left.

Lindsay Shepherd and Mark Steyn

On the off chance you think the generations coming through to replace us are in some sense onside with the notion of free speech and an open society, then watch this video. As they discuss, argument from the left is reduced to ad hominem forms of personal attack. Since everything is socially constructed everything must be socially deconstructed. White males believe what they believe because it is in their personal interests to believe it. Therefore, nothing white males have to say has the slightest value so far as understanding the world is concerned. Non-white, non-males have the answers and are the only ones anyone should pay attention to, all the more so since truth is relative and never absolute.

In the video, Mark Steyn talks to Lindsay Shepherd, the Teaching Assistant at Wilfrid Laurier University in Canada who became internet famous at the end of 2017, when three members of the WLU faculty attempted to destroy her life for having shown a short Jordan Peterson public television clip to her students. She had, however, recorded her interview and then released the recording to the media which stopped them in their tracks, and has, in fact, made her famous. Articulate beyond her years, a product of the modern left though she is, she is a bridge between us and the millennial generation. She describes herself as “the most left-wing member of her family”.

Here as well is the original recording of Lindsay’s inquisition by the faculty at Wilfred Laurier, worth every minute of the 43 minutes it takes to listen to it through.

And if you want to see where this is heading, you should look at this and this. More people in “the shut up business”, as Steyn describes it. However, as one commenter on the MS/LS video said:

Peterson’s command of facts, deep understanding of human nature and group behaviour, and wealth of experience with people in need is a reality the SJWs and post modernists cannot deal with. And it rings true to those who listen to him. And gives them something real to anchor too.

So there is hope, as faint as it may well be.

The Mark Steyn interview comes via Expression, Identity, and the Corruption of the Academy.

Jordan Peterson with Mark Steyn

From June 2017. About Free Speech. You might even wonder whether this conversation could happen today, never mind a decade from now.

Some quotes from JBP but you need to watch it all for yourself. And there is also Mark Steyn!

I’ve studied the development of totalitarianism for a very long time and one of the things I know is the issue of ceding control over language, and the Government has carelessly made a precedent and the precedent is compelled speech essentially.”

“I think I am a classical liberal in the old school sense. I am an individualist.”

In reference on the form of sex and gender education that is happening in schools, “people have no idea it is happening. . . . The average person has no idea that it is happening.”

“We take free speech for granted, we actually take our whole civilisation for granted and we don’t understand that it rests on certain foundation blocks and if you remove those blocks all hell will break loose. And I think our civilisation is a whole lot more fragile that people understand and it is also in a lot more peril than people understand.”

“We’re also in a situation right now where your right to say anything about religious beliefs, unless they’re Christian, is seriously in danger, and that’s so dangerous that it’s almost beyond comprehension. It puts us back in Mediaeval times.”

“The patriarchy is just Western Civilisation. Patriarchy is just a code word for that. Governed by their Marxist dogma and post-Marxist dogma, they think it needs to be re-tooled from the bottom up. It makes them natural allies of any other system that opposes our system.”

“Jacques Derrida may be is the most dangerous person of the last forty years.” His writings are the basis for “an all out assault on Western categories of thought. . . . Categorisation is the basis of cognition. And so he has basically made the claim that thought itself is an agent of oppression.”

“As the politically correct movement inches forward. . . . [The Social Justice Warrior types] find a hypothetically vulnerable group – it doesn’t matter what it is – and then they use them as a protective shield while they move incrementally forward and so if you object you are targeted as if you are picking on the poor vulnerable people.”

Why I had stood out was not that I was speaking in generalities but that “I had said there was something I would not do and so had drawn a line so it was the combination of generalities with specificity that made the issue real for people.”

“Many of the kids on the left equate argument for free speech with racism.”

“Why I took these issues on now is because I believe it will be worse later.”

Mark Steyn on and Jordan Peterson with Lindsay Shepherd

Satire is no longer possible against the humourless and the stupid. When all is said and done, you are no longer entitled to your own opinion.

“Why were you thinking this might be sufficiently dangerous that you would need taped evidence?”

At the end, my impression is that Lindsay Shepherd fundamentally disagrees with Peterson. She is learning but is more millennial than not. But she is getting there and can only hope she brings many others along.

The Mark Steyn Club – join it

Before I go further, if you are interested in doing your own bit to save as much of our past and history, as well as maintaining as much of our way of life as possible, you must join The Mark Steyn Club. This blog is a tiny tiny part of the global conversation trying to save us. Mark Steyn is a larger part and is read worldwide. You can help him by joining The Mark Steyn Club by going here. I would have thought it’s too late but Donald Trump did get elected so who can know? This is from his latest post, which really did astonish me. He actually went to Rotherham and spoke to the girls who had been sexually abused and worse by Muslim men, and discovered this:

The sexual exploitation of children is still going on in Rotherham. In broad daylight.

Cannot be, you say. Well, apparently it can. Sign up and do your bit.

Anonymity on the net

I don’t often find myself disagreeing with Mark Steyn about things, but on this one I am completely on the other side. I will let Mark present his case:

Kathy Shaidle and Gavin McInnes have been discussing online anonymity. I agree with them. You’re not in the battle unless you put your name to it – and don’t give me that Scarlet Pimpernel stuff: you’re not riding out after dark on daring missions, you’re just reTweeting some bloke’s hashtag.

Mr McInnes is withering about the cyber-warrior ethos – the butch pseudonym, the graphic-novel avatar. But, cumulatively, it’s making the Internet boring and ineffectual for everyone other than Isis. Speaking of which, notice how few of their followers have reservations about enthusiastically liking and favoriting and reTweeting their Islamic snuff videos, apparently indifferent as to whether Twitter, Facebook or the NSA know their IP numbers.

Let me say that I am sensationally grateful when people take on serious anti-PC issues and use their own names. It is crucial that someone like Andrew Bolt is identifiable and that their blogs, columns and media presentations allow those of us in more vulnerable positions to see these views presented in public. It is important for each of us to understand that we are not alone. We are not at the samizdat stage of our cultural development but we’re not that far away either. The police will not come for you in the middle of the night, and you are very unlikely to be shot down in the street by those who disagree with your views. But for all that, there are large risks for which there is no compensation to any of us in being identified as holding unpopular opinions. With the left, they will come after you to deprive you of your job and your income, and for them, there will be no holds barred. They are not debaters, they are haters. They want to shut you up and they have no qualms about it. There is no value to them in free speech and open debate. They are totalitarians who value nothing but their collective power which they ruthlessly use to do harm to others who step outside their predetermined bounds of acceptable opinion. No one on the left is permitted to be heretical on so much as even a single oissue. You are either all in or you are out.

Think about the testimony offered by Laura Rosen Cohen, who runs a blog I admire, in which she describes the kind of reality most of us are not prepared for. First she writes this:

Having written professionally for a number of years, I also blogged anonymously.

I was scared that I would be harassed at work (or worse) for having “controversial” opinions. So, I published a lot of articles in “mainstream” publications under my own name, and saved my more raucous, obnoxious, super-Jewy stuff for my anonymous blog.

Then, some evil, anonymous and cowardly twerp, sitting at a computer somewhere in the world made a comment on my blog that was mildly threatening. An ‘I know who you are’ kind of thing, kind of threatening to ‘expose’ me. It freaked me out, despite the fact that I was becoming less and less comfortable with anonymity.

Shortly after that, Andrew Breitbart died suddenly of a heart attack. I remember the exact moment when I read about his death and decided right then and there that I was not going to be scared anymore of putting my own name to everything I write. Within a week or so, I had closed the anonymous blog, and started a brand new one with my own name on the masthead, front and centre.

That was also my way of telling that anonymous troll to shove it up his (or her-who knows) ass.

As Gavin, Kathy and Mark say-if you don’t put your name on it, you have no skin in the game.

Excellent. Brave. Forthright. But after all that comes this immediately after:

I have been passed over for many opportunities because my views are not mainstream. I’ve been eased out of jobs, rejected for others, and even asked off-record questions at interviews about my ability to “get along” with ‘people of diverse backgrounds’.

So you see, free speech of unpopular opinions – meaning opinions that are unpopular on the left – is not so free after all, but comes with a huge potential cost. The anonymity of the net allows many of us to say things in public that we are very aware may have us receiving modern versions of being burned at the stake or sent to the gulag. The same people who will sniff at the Catholic Church for arresting Galileo and preventing him from repeating that the sun was at the centre of the solar system are now prepared to jail people who are sceptical about global warming. There are some people who have made a career out of expressing unpopular opinions (of which there are literally none on the left), and I say again how grateful to them I am. But the dangers remain to us folk in the trenches who do not have fame and position to protect us. Anonymity is crucial for many of us and should be protected at all costs by everyone on the net.

A disgrace to the economics profession – the single most damaging graph in human history

Which has been the most damaging single diagram in the entire history of the sciences? There is not even a contest? The graph is, without any doubt, the Keynesian-cross diagram invented by Paul Samuelson which has been depriving economists of the ability to make sense of economic events since first published in the first edition of his Economics text in 1948.

keynesian cross

The idea for honouring this diagram has occurred to me with the publication by Mark Steyn of his just published book, “A Disgrace to the Profession” which he describes as “the story of the 21st century’s most famous graph and the damage it has done both to science and public policy”. Ah, but the present century is still young and although the harm the hockey stick has undoubtedly caused may well already be calculated in the billions, the harm Samuelson’s 45-degree diagram has done may be calculated in the trillions, and the damage it is doing is far far from over.

For those unfamiliar with the Keynesian-cross, it shows an upward sloping aggregate demand curve which reaches equilibrium where it crosses the 45-degree line at a level of national income well below the level of production that would employ everyone who wants a job. The answer, therefore, is an increase in public spending which pushes the line upwards and therefore pushes the equilibrium level of production along the horizontal axis to the right which then allows everyone to find a job.

The policy has, of course, never ever worked, but the trillions of dollars of public sector waste have drained our economies of astonishing levels of wealth that have kept our living standards well below their potential now for seventy years.

I have written my own book on the disgrace to the economics profession Free Market Economics which is now in its third edition. It takes apart Samuelson’s piece of beguiling illogic which has mesmerised the profession since it was first published. It is itself the very height of junk science, which has never on a single occasion given advice that has allowed an economy to raise its level of production and return an economy to full employment. It has, instead, led governments to pour their trillions into one wasteful project after another, of which green energy is only the latest, and while wildly expensive is for all that far from the most expensive example.

Economists who use any of these Keynesian diagrams starting with Samuelson’s are throwing sand in their own eyes. Profoundly shallow it is almost impossible to explain to someone who has been taken in by these graphs why they have been so badly misled. But there you are. No stimulus has ever worked but we still teach the diagrams that say public spending will bring our economies out of recession and give us strong and balanced growth. Do you believe that after what has gone on since 2009? Does anyone? A disgrace, but what is even more disgraceful is that the entire profession continues to accept a theory that has never worked. And there is the diagram that has corrupted the understanding of more individuals than any other diagram in human history.