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.

More news Americans don’t know

animus river

Once they have you hooked on the idea that everything that’s important will be reported and fairly at that, the leftmedia are able to swindle the wilfully ignorant. Nowadays, of course, these same people trust the media never to disturb their belief systems with inconvenient facts. Just think of this. It is Hugh Hewitt (HH) talking to Mark Steyn (MS) about the toxic dump by the Environment Protection Agency of the US on the Animus River in Colorado:

HH: Now I wanna do a test on my audience if they know the name Shaun McGrath. Shaun McGrath turns out to be the regional administrator of the EPA, formerly the mayor of Boulder. He joined the Obama administration as the deputy director of Intergovernmental Affairs at the White House in January of 2009. He is a political hack just like the OPM director Katherine Archuleta was a political hack. And Gina McCarthy didn’t show up at the “Yellow River” for a week. She’s running EPA. Remember the heck-of-a-job Brownie – remember after Katrina when it wasn’t even Bush’s fault that the mayor and the governor couldn’t get their acts together? This is a – they actually caused it! They punched the hole in the dyke, Mark! And no one knows the name or the fact that they’re political hacks from Team Obama.

MS: No, I know! And you know, the funny thing about it is all the people that I hear from because I’m in a big climate lawsuit at the moment. So I get hammered as a denier by all the usual people – the people that know the name of every Koch brother. The people who find if there’s some Zeppo Koch sitting on the board of some obscure NPR affiliate in the middle of nowhere – we’ll bombard NPR to demand that Zeppo Koch be removed from the board of advisors to the NPR affiliate. None of them are advertising these names. It’s the usual big climate mafia’s code of omerta. They all circle the wagons around the guilty bureaucrats…

HH: This really fits with your new book, “A Disgrace to the Profession”, because it is a disgrace to the profession. Your argument with Michael Mann on climate – here we have a real example where there are twelve thousand times the lawful levels of lead in this river now headed towards Mexico and Utah. People could get really sick doing this, but we have no coverage, yet we’re worried about the mythical rise of the oceans fifty years from now because the former was done by the Left on the orders by the Left in an attempt to take over the clean-up of Colorado mines and the other is a hypothetical imaginary threat that benefits the agenda of the Left. I don’t think it’s ever been this obvious to people.

I don’t think it’s obvious at all unless you care to look, which would first require the media to say what is going on. So the question is, what are the American media like that? Why are they knowingly contributing to the utter ruin of their own country, in the same way that the same kind of leftmedia in ours does the same. Do they actually want union corruption to continue? Would they like to see illegal migrants return? Are they complete economic zombies about public spending? Do they really not care if we end up like Greece? It is a mystery, but disturbing whatever may be the cause.

Supermann – strange visitor from another planet

With Mark Steyn, you always want to quote the whole thing, but I won’t. Just go to the article, “A Disgrace to the Profession” which has as it subtitle, “The World’s Scientists – in their own words – on Michael E Mann, His Hockey Stick and their Damage to Science – Volume One”. I will give you a couple of paras but don’t deny yourself, read the whole article and then buy his book. And while you are reading the article, do keep in mind that Mann has sued Steyn for defamation!

A guy can’t sit around waiting for litigious fake Nobel Laureates to agree to discovery and deposition. So, with the Mann vs Steyn Trial of the Century currently stalled in the choked septic tank of the DC court system, I figured I might as well put some of the mountain of case research clogging up the office into a brand new book – all about the most famous “science” graph of the 21st century and the man who invented it.

Michael E Mann’s defamation suit against me for a 270-word blog post is about to enter its fourth year in the District of Columbia Superior Court, so I’m confident this little tome should be good for at least a third of a century. Therefore, without further ado, I’m pleased to announce the summer beach read of 2015:

“A Disgrace To The Profession”:
The World’s Scientists – In Their Own Words – On
Michael E Mann, His Hockey Stick And Their Damage To Science
Volume One

It’s a snappy title, I think you’ll agree. Personally autographed copies are available right now at the SteynOnline bookstore, and profits therefrom help to prop up my end of the forthcoming trial.

Alan Moran – Global Warrior

alan moran climate change the facts

Since everyone else is discussing it, I cannot see why we should not as well, since the book was edited by a good friend and close colleague. This is from Mark Steyn, speaking for us all:

I’ve had a fun time out on the Earth Day airwaves talking about Climate Change: The Facts. That’s the new book featuring me and some of the world’s most eminent scientists on the state of the climate debate as we prepare to enter the third decade of the global-warming pause. And I’m thrilled to find that the book is currently Number One on the Climatology Hit Parade, ahead of Naomi Klein, Naomi Oreskes and any number of Naomis, and also Number One on the Environmental Policy Hot 100.

If this keeps up, in the forthcoming Mann vs Steyn trial I may call myself as an expert witness.

My sincere thanks to everyone who’s bought this important new book. The turn-of-the-century cartoon science of the hockey stick is over, and it’s time for climate science to make a new start.

Having edited books myself, it is both insanely finicky and ridiculously unrecognised given how many hassles there are. I just hope Alan won’t mind my putting him up in lights in this way, but it is an astonishing achievement.

Here is how you can get a copy of the book while helping Mark Steyn in his climactic battle against the forces of stupidity and deceit. And here is where you can buy the book through the IPA which was the publisher of this worldwide success.

A round-up of the usual suspects and others less usual

From Kathy Shaidle: If you can read this, I guess I didn’t block you yesterday during #JeSuisCharlie.

From Mark Steyn: The Fire Rages and “I’d Rather Die Standing Than Live on My Knees”.

From Jay Curry: Useful Horror.

From Frank Pledge: The Left’s Unholy Alliance.

From Peter Smith, On Making Hatred Disappear.

From Paul Mirengoff: Four observations prompted by the Paris attack.

From Anjem Choudary: Why did France allow the tabloid to provoke Muslims?

From Stacey McCain: On Anjem Choudary

From Pam Geller: Jihad in America 2014

From Ezra Levant: Slams Media’s #JeSuisCharlie Phonies with must-see video

From Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Charlie Hebdo: West must stop appeasing Islamic purveyors of hatred

From Roger Simon: 2016 and Paris. It’s the jihad, stupid

From Brendon Bordelon: I am not Charlie: Leaked Newsroom Emails Reveal al Jazeera Fury over Global Support

Peter Hitchens: The sinister, screeching mob who want to kill free speech (And no, I DON’T mean the Islamist terrorists in our midst)

Robert Crumb: Legendary Cartoonist Robert Crumb on the Massacre in Paris

From Henry Ergas: Eyes wide shut to Islamist threat

From Clarice Feldman: Je Suis Sick and Tired of Cant

Pope Francis: Pope condemns ‘deviant forms of religion’ in the wake of French massacre, accusing them of causing ‘the breakdown of society and spawning violence and death’

From Victor Davis Hanson: Multicultural Suicide

From Marine Le Pen: To Call This Threat by Its Name: France Was Attacked by Islamic Fundamentalism