Democrats Spin Kamala Harris Tap-Out Into Racial Injustice Story

Democrats Spin Kamala Harris Tap-Out Into Racial Injustice Story, by Tyler Durden.

Kamala Harris’s abrupt departure from the 2020 election due to a lack of funding has already sparked a debate over race – with the logic ultimately circling around to ‘Democrats aren’t ready to nominate and elect a strong black woman.’ …

Kamala Harris

Al Sharpton

Both Cory Booker and Al Sharpton have come out in recent days, lamenting the lack of black Democratic candidates — while blaming her failure as a candidate on sexism and racism instead of her inability to appear authentic, her roiling anger underneath a thin veneer, and general lack of any plan whatsoever. …

And no, it wasn’t because Samoan-American Tulsi Gabbard dismantled Harris during an April debate, which coincided perfectly with her demise in support.

And it wasn’t a series of articles in the San Francisco Chronicle penned by former California legislator Willie Brown essentially calling his old mistress an unqualified whore whose career he boosted.

Nope, according to Al Sharpton, whose Harlem-based charity pays him over $1 million per year, ‘black women are held to a different standard.’

Peter Hassoon:

Harris’s announcement means the only candidates who have qualified for the next Democratic debate are white, a fact that caused chagrin among media figures and liberal activists. …

Left-wing commentator Lauren Duca implied that Democrats have a racism problem, as evidenced by Harris’s failed campaign. “White supremacy is not just a Fox News problem, folks,” she charged. …

“It’s really fucked up that straight white male billionaires (plural) are going to qualify for the next debate while Kamala Harris is leaving the race. Like, immensely,” wrote Adam Peck, a staffer at the left-wing Center for American Progress.

David Bernstein:

What do you call a candidate pool with two women, a gay man, a jew, a half jew, and a Catholic?

If you’ve drank a certain type of Kool-Aid, you call this “not diverse” — even though there has been only one Catholic president, and no gay, Jewish, or woman presidents. The obsession with arbitrary and artificial “official” minority status may be the single worse feature of the modern chattering classes.

Mike LaChance:

Does anyone believe Michelle Obama would face any negative treatment by the media if she jumped into the race?

The media gave Harris every assistance because of her color and sex, but … white supremacy.

Oh wait, the racists on the left get even funnier:

‘Not one person of color’: Congressman scolds fellow Democrats for choosing only white impeachment witnesses, by Madison Dibble.

On Wednesday, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing featuring four constitutional scholars on the topic of impeachment. Rep. Al Green condemned the committee for only featuring white scholars during a speech on the House floor prior to the start of the hearings. …

What subliminal message are we sending to the world when we have experts but not one person of color? Are we saying that there are no people of color who are experts on this topic of impeachment?”

It’s pretty simple. Treat people as individuals (a moral choice), but do not be afraid of noting statistical differences between groups (that’s reality).

The left are pushing hard in the opposite directions. The new left treats people primarily as members of groups, and denies statistical differences between groups. Immoral and unreal.

China protests as US House passes Uygur bill demanding sanctions over human rights abuses in Xinjiang camps

China protests as US House passes Uygur bill demanding sanctions over human rights abuses in Xinjiang camps, by Owen Churchill.

Lawmakers voted 407 to 1 to approve the Uygur Intervention and Global Humanitarian Unified Response Act (UIGHUR Act) of 2019, which commands the US administration to identify and sanction officials deemed responsible for their involvement in the mass internment of members of ethnic minority groups in the country’s Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region.

It followed months of negotiations among lawmakers about how forceful the legislation should be.

The bill would also tighten export controls on China-bound US technology that could be used to “suppress individual privacy, freedom of movement and other basic human rights”. …

The bill passed by the House on Tuesday is more committal, ordering the US president, within four months of the legislation’s enactment, to submit to Congress a list of Chinese officials deemed responsible for, or complicit in, human rights abuses in Xinjiang.

The UIGHUR Act also demands that, on the same day, those individuals are subject to sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Act, seizing their US-based assets and barring them from entry onto US soil.

Since early 2017, the Chinese government is reported to have sent some one million Uygurs and members of other largely Muslim ethnic minority groups to mass internment camps, where inmates are forcibly held and subject to political indoctrination.

Islam has long been a problem for non-Muslims, but this is not the way to deal with it.

The Moral Case for Decoupling from China

The Moral Case for Decoupling from China, by David Archibald.

In Carroll Quigley’s ‘Tragedy and Hope’ first published in 1966, he wrote that the Chinese Communist regime in the first years after its founding was “insanely aggressive.” The Chicoms reverted to type about ten years ago and went back to ‘snarl diplomacy.’ Only being poor had kept them from trying to impose their will on others.

The corporate retreat from China is proceeding as fast as factory production can be relocated. But even if China wasn’t in breach of its WTO obligations to have a free market economy and a convertible currency, didn’t steal intellectual property, and wasn’t bullying its neighbours, there is another reason why we should completely decouple from China and it is a reason that is overarching and critical to our self-worth as a civilisation. …

Dr Arthur Waldron, now a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, has been studying China for over 50 years. He married a Chinese lady so his views are not those of an inherent Sinophobe.

From an interview with Dr Waldron:

China is the most evil regime the world has seen since the Third Reich, setting aside the Soviet Union. …

People are being killed so their organs can be used for transplants. Many of which go to the very elderly Chinese leadership or their children. The son of one of the recent leaders of China has had cancer and he has had many organs replaced. …

And that is one of the reasons we have to quarantine China economically.

A rationalisation for saying ‘Well yes it’s true that there is some question with what Hitler is doing with the gypsies and the Jews but Leica still makes a hell of a good camera.”

Why we should decouple from China:

In the late 1930s when it was quite evident that Hitler was persecuting and killing minorities, would you have bought any German goods, knowing that in doing so you were an enabler of that evil regime?

It is no different today. Every Chinese plastic toy or Christmas decoration plucked off the shelves at Walmart contributes to a future U.S. combat death, but beyond that there are also metaphorical vats of human organs at the back of the Walmart store that the buyer is enabling.

Thankfully killing people for their organs is repugnant to us and that needs to continue if we are to remain a good and kind civilisation. But trading with, speaking with, interacting with people who kill people for their organs debases us. …

Dr Waldron’s view is that without our trade the Chinese polity will disintegrate; their state-owned enterprises aren’t enough to sustain their economy. The Chinese people’s best chance of liberation is if we nudge things in that direction.

Russians spent $95 million to NGOs to feed “shale fear” and anti-fraking campaigns. Most of the West fell for it…

Russians spent $95 million to NGOs to feed “shale fear” and anti-fraking campaigns. Most of the West fell for it…, By Joanne Nova.

Russia makes about $300 billion in gas and oil exports each year. For a tiny tenth of a billion dollars it fed western activists and successfully stopped fracking development in the UK (and some parts of Australia apparently). It’s what you call a stupendous investment.

Matt Ridley lays out just how game changing the discovery of shale fracking could have been for the UK, and how easily the politicians and system was exploited and fell over. …

It wouldn’t have worked if the West had good media, and if schools taught students how to spot con artists, witchcraft, and fake reasoning.

Matt Ridley:

When the shale gas revolution first came along, some environmentalists welcomed it, and rightly so. …

But then the vested interests got to work. Renewable energy promoters panicked at the thought of cheap and abundant gas. Their business model was predicated on the alleged certainty that prices would rise as fossil fuels ran out, making subsidised wind and solar power look comparatively cheap. …

The Russians also lobbied behind the scenes against shale gas, worried about losing their grip on the world’s gas supplies. …

The Centre for European Studies found that the Russian government has invested $95 million in NGOs campaigning against shale gas. Russia Today television ran endless anti-fracking stories, including one that “frackers are the moral equivalent of paedophiles”.

The US Director of National Intelligence stated that “RT runs anti-fracking programming … reflective of the Russian Government’s concern about the impact of fracking and US natural gas production on the global energy market and the potential challenges to Gazprom’s profitability.” Pro-Russian politicians such as Lord Truscott (married to a Russian army colonel’s daughter) made speeches in parliament against fracking.

No scare story was too far-fetched to be taken up and amplified. Tap water would catch fire (no: though it’s a natural phenomenon in some places in America where gas naturally contaminates ground water). There would be significant gas leaks (no: there are more gas leaks from natural sources and pipelines). The water that comes out of the well is dangerously radioactive (no: it is not). Fracking uses a lot of water (a lot less than farming). And so on. The unelected quangocracy that runs these things on behalf of taxpayers, mainly in the form of the Environment Agency, appeared at times to be taking its instructions directly from Friends of the Earth. So, of course, did the BBC.

As night follows day, Tory politicians lost courage and slipped into neutrality then opposition, worrying about what posh greens might think, rather than working-class bill-payers and job-seekers.

A golden opportunity was squandered for Britain to get hold of home-grown, secure, cheap and relatively clean energy. We don’t need fossil fuels, the politicians thought, we’re going for net zero in 2050! But read the small print, chaps: the only way to have zero-emission transport and heating, so says the Committee on Climate Change, is to use lots of hydrogen. And how do they say most of the hydrogen is to be made? From gas.

Or buy it from Russia.

The left complain about a tiny amount of election interference in the US in 2016, that was in any case aimed at the left as much as the right. Shheeesh. The Russians interfered in Western politics big time from the 1940s through the 1980s, for the left. Remember McCarthy in the 1950s?

And the Russian interference continues ’til today, predominately for the green movement. Where would the Greens be without Russian help? You think a bunch of tree huggers and bird watchers have the political skills or motivation to build and finance a world wide movement that bosses governments around? Not bloody likely.

Russia’s economy is very dependent on energy exports and the price of oil. Nowadays their interference is mostly about Russia’s income.

‘See How You Like This, Bigot’

‘See How You Like This, Bigot’ By Rod Dreher.

The reader, a white male Millennial, said he was raised in a secular left environment, by liberal Boomers. Mom was an activist, dad was into the counterculture. Six marriages between them. They divorced when the reader was seven; he grew up shuttling between their homes. …

He studied education in college, and said that many of the materials they studied were preoccupied with “white privilege” and woke ideology. He didn’t think it was a problem, because it conformed to the view of the world that he’d been raised with. He ended up in the social work field, which was ideologically the same.

In college, he converted to Christianity, which radically changed some of his values. He now identifies as a conservative, though he has never voted Republican in a presidential race. He says he’s “kind of confused politically” because of all this.

He says that he’s growing increasingly angry by the relentless wokeness in popular culture. …

Dreher’s ex-leftie reader feels the anti-white racism, and takes it personally:

I certainly feel like the progressive ideology is being forced down my throat at every turn. I have unfollowed basically everyone on social media and stopped using it except for work purposes because the stuff people posted made me like them less (both on the left and right). I can’t count how many times I have heard people make flippant comments about the taint white men and the patriarchy have left on our society. I don’t feel like I can express my thoughts about any polarizing topic because I will be dismissed due to my sex and skin color. It really is maddening. In many ways I align with left social principles (care for the poor, minorities, women) but more and more I feel like to support anything on the left is to support something that sees me and people like me as the problem and therefore of less value than other human beings.

I don’t know what to do with this. I certainly don’t want to be “pro-white, pro-male” in some sort of political manner, but I do feel like the left is forcing me into a corner I don’t want to be in. …

I don’t want to watch shows and movies and feel so sensitive to what seems like a political agenda or start disliking friends who are left leaning and that I may even agree with about a lot of things! Even if they aren’t militant, I still feel threatened.

I have a friend who is letting her 8 year old present as the opposite gender. She announced it on Facebook and got showered with praise. I have said nothing. How can I? I’m just a hater and bigot, right? I have some serious concerns about all of that, but I would be wasting my breath and inviting a lot of stress into my life if I confronted that.

I’m not sure how to conclude this which is why I just ranted a little right there. I’m not completely sure why I’m even writing this to you. I’m probably going to vote for Trump in 2020, so maybe this is about that in some way. I think he is a disaster of a human being and president, but you know, he doesn’t hate me and everything I stand for. I didn’t think the left did even as recently as 2016, but I don’t know what else to think based on their rhetoric and actions.

But it’s deeper than just who I vote for. It’s permeating my whole life. I can’t even enjoy a good tv show without getting all fired up about some perceived propaganda. I say perceived because I think I’m looking for it more than I did in the past. In some ways I’m frustrated with myself even.

Dreher comments:

Boy oh boy, is this ever true. And it’s invisible to so very many on the Left, because like this reader before his religious conversion, their worldview is completely normal….

The reader’s story about how the overwhelming, increasingly militant progressivism of popular culture, and how that is replicated in the lives of many people he knows, rings true to me — as does his frustration with himself over having developed reactionary instincts out of self-defense. I think this is becoming common. …

I subscribe to The New York Times and read it daily. It’s the parish newsletter of the Church of Wokeness. If the Times was your only source of news, you would think that white male heterosexual Christians were the source of evil in the modern world. I exaggerate only slightly. ..

It ought to be possible to talk about how yes, LGBT people have to deal with some discrimination, without having to take the position that anything view less extreme than the militant activists’ opinions is “hate,” and must be suppressed. It ought to be possible to talk about the real problem of global warming without taking the idiotic Greta Thunberg view that, as she stated this past weekend in a syndicated op-ed that bore her byline, “Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it. We need to dismantle them all.” …

I don’t see an answer here, and I expect most liberal readers to deny the thing, or to admit it, but to resort to whataboutism in an effort to dismiss it. Still, it is worth talking about, because this dynamic is close to the heart of our social disintegration. You have in this letter the testimony of a young man who was raised a liberal, in a mixed-race family, and who acknowledges that the Left has some important and truthful insights to offer, and that conservatives need to hear. But he is also finding himself increasingly unwilling to hear them, because they come as part of a broader message that demonizes people like him. He has been pushed to the point where he is disinclined even to open his mind to any of this, because to do so, he feels that he has to buy the entire vicious narrative — a narrative that, in his view, is racist, sexist, and anti-religious, and, if it keeps growing, is going to make life in America for people like him unlivable.

At this rate, there soon won’t be any countries left soon where being white (or, especially, Jewish) is ok.

Transgender clinic’s bid to operate on girls under 17

Transgender clinic’s bid to operate on girls under 17, by Bernard Lane.

Australia’s biggest youth gender clinic wants to start surgery on teenage girls under the age of 17 and to lock in long-term funding increases that will survive beyond Victoria’s pro-transgender Andrews government.

In unreported evidence to the state’s mental health royal commission, clinic director Michelle Telfer from the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne reveals that about two-thirds of last year’s record new referrals are girls past puberty who identify as boys, with “many” asking for “chest reconstructive surgery”.

RCH and the government have refused requests from The Australian and the opposition for basic patient data. …

In her evidence, [Dr Telfer] says: “Given the politicisation of gender diversity and of (trans) child and adolescent healthcare in particular — as seen with the Safe Schools (program) nationally and the marriage equality debate — clinicians and the (trans) community share concerns of funding sustainability with changes in governments.” …

There is global concern about the safety and ethics of trans medical treatment amid a spike in atypical teenage patients, mostly girls, diagnosed with dysphoria.

Critics say the influence of pre-existing issues — including mental health problems, autism, same-sex attraction, and family trauma — is not properly investigated by gender-focused clinics.

Dr Telfer says her hospital has the expertise to start trans mastectomies but lacks the money. …

Dr Telfer’s evidence did not mention international criticism of the 2018 RCH treatment standards, a 2011 Swedish study showing post-surgery trans adults had suicide rates 19 times above the general population, a 2015 Dutch study reporting worrying levels of uncertainty among clinicians about the safety of puberty blocker drugs that can lead on to surgery, or the trend of regretful young adult “detransitioners”.

Taxpayer money for progressive surgeons to carry out the agenda of the sexual revolutionaries. What could possibly go wrong?

PISA global educational rankings: Australian schools fail on maths, science

PISA global educational rankings: Australian schools fail on maths, science. By Rebecca Urban.

Australia has plunged in global education rankings, with the ­nation’s 15-year-olds performing at a significantly lower standard in reading, mathematics and science than a decade ago, despite government funding for schools rising by more than $20bn over that period.

The 2018 PISA results comparing the academic performance of 79 countries, released on Tuesday night, reveal Australia’s long-term declining academic achievement had continued, with average scores now at record lows across all three tested domains.

Australia’s decline in maths has been equated to the loss of more than a year’s worth of schooling since 2003 — the first year in which the subject was the emphasis of PISA testing — pulling the nation back in line with the OECD average for the first time alongside Latvia, Iceland, Portugal, Russia, Italy, New Zealand and the Slovak Republic.

Is there anything our progressive bureaucracy cannot do? They answer back in today’s Sydney Morning Herald:

When he was at boarding school in China, Nicholas Zhang, 16, would wake up at 6.30am. …

Nicholas estimates he studied maths alone for 20 hours a week in China. Since starting his exchange at Scotch College, Melbourne, at the start of this year, that has dropped to three or four hours.

The [PISA results] shows that in mathematics the average Australian student lags more than 3½ years behind their Chinese counterparts and three years behind Singapore. …

Nicholas believes year 10 students in China take their studies as seriously as year 12 students in Australia. He said teachers had more of a guiding role because class sizes are much larger in China — an average of 50 compared to 20 at Scotch College — but each teacher was “very professional and super, super fast” with questions.

Hardly explains why Australia does poorly compared to its recent past, or compared to lots of non-Confucian countries that don’t put in extreme hours. And it puts paid to the favorite of the teacher’s union, class sizes.

Is even more money the answer? Maybe not. Can’t fix a broken system by making it bigger.

This is interesting. Check out the red bars:

Lion of the Blogosphere injects some realism into the progressive fantasy swamp, after the US also put in a fairly average performance:

If you are trying to gauge the effectiveness of schools, making international comparisons without taking race into account is useless. But because the fakestream media denies the scientific truth of racial differences in IQ, you get junk articles like this.

American test scores ought to be declining because school-age white children are being replaced by lower IQ Hispanics and “other.” (Also Asians who are smarter, but the Asians are outnumbered by the Hispanics and the “other,” ….)

But actually, no country is better than the United States at training low-IQ children to score higher on tests, because of massive drilling and teaching to the test. Which is why test scores have held “stagnant” since 2000 … instead of declining.

Steve Sailer:

And every three years the one dissenting voice is usually … me. I ritually point out that each race within the U.S. (see the red bars in my graph) did pretty darn good compared to the rest of the world. (Keep in mind, though, that the U.S. usually spends more per public school student than all but a few tax havens like Luxembourg.) …

At 521, U.S. whites outscored all countries founded by whites (light blue bars) except Estonia. American whites edged Japan and South Korea by one point, which isn’t shabby. …

U.S. Hispanics at 470 outscored all Latin American countries, with Chile scoring highest at 438. …

U.S. blacks scored 436, which is higher than Malaysia, Romania, and Thailand. No truly black-run country took the test, but in past years, American blacks beat Trinidad, a part black, part Asian Indian island country with oil money.

Keep in mind that there are of course methodological problems with a global test as ambitious as this. For example, if you want to score higher, don’t round up your dumber students to take the test. There are big differences in coverage between countries. For example, in the past, Argentina would complain that they rounded up 80% of their assigned 15-year-olds while Mexico did more like 60%. (Most First World countries are above 80% in coverage).

Can we trust the Chinese numbers? Beats me.

What would happen if we broke out the Australian scores by race? PC tantrums I expect.

New Chinese era of living dangerously

New Chinese era of living dangerously, by Greg Sheridan.

Australians need to absorb a disturbing message — the scale of foreign intelligence activit­y against us today is greater than it was during the Cold War. …

We have had a deluge of powerful institutional warnings about Beijing’s activities. Duncan Lewis, the recently retired head of ASIO, said Beijing was using interference techniques to try to control Australian politics, and that the threat was long-term. …

More drama­tically, Lewis said foreign interference was a greater existential threat to Australia than terrorism and “the current scale of foreign intelligence activit­y against Australian interests is unprecedented”. …

Dennis Richardson, also a former­ boss of ASIO, and former head of the Department of Defence and DFAT, in reflectin­g on the angst with Beijing, told The Weekend Aust­ralian: “At the base of it is China’s own actions. We would not be having this debate if it were not for China’s actions both in Australia and overseas. In part it is their tendency to hack into everything that moves in Australia.

Richardson, Warner, Lewis and Adamson are not swivel-eyed, right-wing loons — Richardson was Bob Hawke’s chief of staff. Their statements, and many others, represent the mature conclusio­ns of the deepest work and analysis of national policy instituti­ons. …

A bit of history:

From 1972 to 2014, the Australia-China relationship was like a market stock that trended ever upwards. … And it ended in 2014 when Abbott hosted China’s President, Xi Jinping. On that visit, Xi embraced a Comprehens­ive Strategic Partnership between­ Beijing and Canberra. During Abbott’s tenure the two nations also negotiated and finalised a wide-ranging free-trade agreement. This was both the high point and the last moment of the old paradigm. …

Since then, Xi has changed Chinese political culture fundamentally. His government has crushed all internal dissent, ­suppressed religious minorities, arrested all the human rights lawyers­, occupied and militarised the South China Sea, forged a dangerous strategic relationship with Moscow, interfered in the domestic politics of numerous nations­, incarcerated foreign indiv­iduals as bargaining chips in bilateral disputes, and aggressively engaged in cyber and other espionage at a level beyond that of other nations. These actions are where the big change lies. …

Even sucking up to Beijing does not guarantee calm sailing. No businessman could have done more to cultivate good relations with mainland Chinese leadership than James Packer, yet no Australian business was ultim­ately treated more cruelly. …

Peter Varghese, former head of DFAT and the most sophisticated of our foreign policy thinkers, believe­s the relationship has changed profoundly since 2014. He tells The Weekend Australian: “We will see a bifurcation of the relationship into economic and non-economic parts. The econo­mic will be positive. But the rate of growth will slow. The non-econo­mic will be very truncated. We are beginning to recognise that our strategic congruence is limited. China’s fundamental strategic positioni­ng is not consistent with our interests.

“There is still a view among some that there’s a problem in the relationship and Australia has to fix it. But most of the problems we have arise from the nature of the Chinese political system.” …

Now we enter the era of living dangerously.

How banks, debt, and feminism are changing society

How banks, debt, and feminism are changing society. By Alan Kohler.

In the 1970s, most families were single income. Now most are double-income, both parents working are needed to pay off the mortgage. Is that really an improvement in living standard? Who benefits?

This is a huge, quiet change in our society. Why is it happening? Because of debt, says [ deputy governor of the Reserve Bank, Guy Debelle, ]. “The rise in debt levels has broadly coincided with the increase in the participation rate of females.” …

Are debt levels higher because more households have two incomes and can afford to borrow more? Or is it (as I suspect) that more women with young kids are working because of the amount of debt the family has had to take on to buy a house?

The data is inconclusive on that but it’s certainly true that housing debt has exploded — from 15 per cent of GDP in 1980 to 95 per cent now. As a proportion of income, total Australian household debt has gone from 50 per cent in 1980 to 200 per cent now.

And it’s also true that a place to live in has become much more ­expen­sive, relative to incomes. In 1980 the capital city house price-to-­income ratio was 2: now it’s about 7. …

The price of houses and the amount of debt required to buy them are changing society. Workforce participation is up because more mothers and more older people (because they still have a mortgage) are working, and so is underemployment because people want/need more hours to service their debt.

And the other way society has changed is that banks dominate the sharemarket, our super, our lives, and when they stuff up, it’s a very big deal.

The banking system provides effectively unlimited credit now, so we’ve  bid up the prices of houses to crazy levels, competing with each other. Is that anyway to live life, working to compete to buy a nicer house? What a waste of human effort. Couldn’t we just build more desirable housing?

Who wins? The interest bills are much larger, so whoever is receiving that interest is winning. It’s good for banks, the people who manufacture the credit (money).

Where Have All the Alphas Gone?

Where Have All the Alphas Gone? By David Solway.

For some time now I have watched the immensely popular HGTV [a US pay TV channel] as a window on the culture … providing a cameo on the conventions of middle-class society. One notices, with few exceptions, that the wives tend to be voluble and bossy; they speak first, far more often, more insistently and more authoritatively. Their needs and desires are clearly predominant. The husbands, for their part, are mostly bland and subservient, almost leguminous in comparison, generally deferring to their wives with only the occasional mewl of protest.

One notes, too, the lack of genuine taste, the utter preoccupation with trivialities, and the cloying banality of conversation among the often obese participants. They are obviously hewing to script, but the ideas, habits, physical attributes, speech patterns, attitudes and expectations on display are close enough to the cultural norm to seem authentic. People recognize themselves and their aspirations in these TV episodes. Although the self-indulgence and broadly decorticate behavior one observes is certainly off-putting, the absence of gender parity, in favor of the wives, is perhaps the most conspicuous quality that affirms itself. …

The ascendancy of the now-dominant, rule-giving female and the attendant decline of the proud and assertive male is the order of the day. The male essence is not a privilege but a fact of nature — that is, when nature is allowed to take its course. Yet, everywhere we look men are surrendering their right to be men — to be strong, confident, honest, unashamed and productive. I do not blame the vindictive and self-righteous feminists for the debacle. I blame the men who have allowed a social disaster to come to pass.

We now see the gradual disappearance, or at least the alarming paucity, of alpha males in the social mix accompanied by the rising tide of beta males — apologists for their “toxic” nature … — who are complicit with the feminist agenda. …

I’ve had occasion to write in a previous article about the posturing feminist firebrand, Mona Eltahawy, who urges the weekly killing — she calls it “culling” — of men. Eltahawy cites a local instance of her determination to resist the patriarchy and her fierce courage in fighting it, referring to an episode in a Montreal club in which she physically beat up a man who groped her. I am willing to bet the story is apocryphal. Yet her fable limns a social truth, if only metaphorically, for the straw man in Eltahawy’s fevered imagination is the fictive representative of the actual beta male who has permitted, and even abetted and cultivated, the travesty of his unmanning. …

As far back as 1913, E. Belfort Bax in The Fraud of Feminism framed the issue with his characteristic insight and precision. He is worth quoting at length. “In any conflict of interest between a man and a woman,” he writes, “male public opinion…sides with the woman, and glories in doing so.” …

These men may have acted from motives of chivalry or principles of moral virtue. They were not necessarily weaklings or beta males, but the consequences of their actions led to a dilution of the male spirit and temper and to the formation of a class of sexual herbivores who took the path of least resistance. They are our contemporaries, men who may believe they act from high ethical considerations but in reality are feminized creatures who have sold their masculine birthright for a mess of saccharine pottage. In short, they are beta-men. “Men seem to be so cowed that they can’t fight back,” said former feminist Doris Lessing at the 2001 Edinburgh Book Festival. And she was right.

As poet Robert Bly writes in his 1990 bestseller Iron John, begging forgiveness for being a man, in violation of natural male vigor and energy, is a form of psychological suicide. It is a function, says Bly, of male naïveté, increasingly prominent in the modern era. …

Beta men are committed to resisting what they regard as their raw and turbulent masculinity. They believe that masculinity as historically conceived and as feminists insist is demonic. …

In economist Tyler Cowen’s terms, America is suffering from a “low-hanging fruit” mentality. We need high-reachers, innovators, motivators and stubborn achievers to renew a lost momentum; in other words, alpha men. … The concept of making do with low-hanging fruit fits the beta man with a strange perfection. These low-hanging fruit are the ideas, attitudes, compulsions, platitudes and opportunities associated with the feminist movement, which serve the appetite for conformity and approval—until, that is, the tree is bare. For a great reckoning is approaching unless we can learn once again to struggle upward where the best fruit can be found. …

It is time “for some major gaslighting, some alternate ways of viewing social life,” to explode the “feminist racket” and educate its male collaborators. This will be a monumentally difficult task. The beta male (aka the “soyboy”) is now the Western model of masculinity to be emulated by all right-thinking men. Unfortunately, Nancy Sinatra’s boots are walking all over him.

When it comes to stereotypes, words matter. By Armin Brott.

Take, for example, the word “behave” as it’s often used in schools. For decades, we’ve been telling boys in classrooms that they should “behave” properly: sit still and be quiet behavior that’s strongly associated with girls. Unfortunately, that’s not the way boys learn best.

Boys get the message that girls’ behavior is “right,” and that there’s something wrong with boys’ behavior. Parents are told that their sons have ADHD, and they rush out to find a doctor who will confirm that “diagnosis.” As a result, way too many boys are unnecessarily drugged.

Today’s Yale grads aren’t qualified to lead in the 21st Century

Today’s Yale grads aren’t qualified to lead in the 21st Century, by Estaban Elizondo.

Last weekend, 148 students stormed the field at the Harvard-Yale game to protest climate change, causing a 50-minute delay and forcing the players to finish in the dark. The Post editorial board called it “the college-version of a toddler’s meltdown,” and that is exactly right. As a current Yale student, I am constantly stunned by the childish behavior of my peers, who are voting-age adults attending what is supposedly one of the most prestigious colleges in America.

At Yale, there is seemingly a new protest every week. Each protest carries the same juvenile self-righteousness, enabled by a university administration that never dares to challenge its student body.

Yale Univesity

Where PC fantasies shape tomorrow’s leaders

Yale “first-years” arrive on campus curious and mostly capable, but the university quickly proceeds to bubble-wrap their young minds, eliminating any trace of discomfort from their college experience. Rather than allowing students to learn through adversity, the administration creates a safe space where students are never told “no.” Instead, they’re provided with amenities ranging from therapy puppies to sandboxes — more fitting of a day-care center than a university.

Rather than confront its student body with uncomfortable truths, the university creates an alternate reality, where the only opinion that matters is yours, especially if you’re a leftist. …

But at Yale, there is little interest in challenging infantile thinking, because doing so would not advance the university’s objective: making sure students stay happy in school and get employed after graduation to satisfy its paying customers (parents). As a result, Yale undergrads spend four years totally detached from the rest of America and graduate without the skills needed to become future leaders who can meet the complex challenges of the 21st century. …

This sense of immunity from the real world could be heard at last Saturday’s protest, where some students shouted “My father is a lawyer!” to police officers trying to persuade them off the field. These protesters did not sound like people who have faced true hardship or even learned the basics of a proper argument. But then again, why would they? They were taught to avoid all that at Yale.

Training PC soyboys, and their more feminine masters.

Yale graduates today inherit control of the world, they don’t win it.

Australian ABC’s glaring refusal in London Bridge terror coverage, and the end of a united Australia

Australian ABC’s glaring refusal in London Bridge terror coverage, and the end of a united Australia. By Andrew Bolt.

No fewer than four ABC reports — one on TV lasting more than six minutes — refused to mention the killer was Muslim.

The most they’d admit was that he’d “been convicted of a terrorism offence in 2012”.

The headline of a fifth report — “Who was London Bridge terrorist Usman Khan?” — did suggest the ABC would finally come clean on this killer’s creed and inspiration.

But even then our national broadcaster could not bring itself to use the word “Muslim” or “Islamic”.

The closest it came to informing Australians of the killer’s ideology was to say he’d been “inspired by slain al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaqi” and — aha! — had been a “jihadist”.

What was going on? Surely the job of news outlets is to tell us what’s going on, not to protect us from the truth?

ABC guidelines mean that PC mascots and identity groups courted by the left — everyone almost, except white men –cannot be reported as doing anything bad, lest their feelings be hurt (“alienated”). Above criticism, these groups rein supreme and their behavior will only get worse.

ABC guidelines also now eliminate the word “us”, with further devastating consequences down the line:

But, whoops, I used the word “us”. And that, declares the ABC, is also now a no-no.

“Do not speak of ‘us’ or ‘our values’ in ways that exclude minorities,” its guidelines add.

So I guess the ABC doesn’t want staff to say things like: “We’re part of Western civilisation.” Or: “It’s against our values to have women cover their face to blot out their identity.” Or: “This terrorism is an attack on all of us and all we stand for.”

Don’t say such things, because there’s no longer an “us” you can count on to agree. “We” are too divided.

And here’s where I think: you damn hypocrites. You see, I warned of exactly this problem last year.

There is no ‘us’ any more, as a tidal wave of immigrants sweeps away what’s left of our national identity,” I wrote here.

No longer can we assume Australians share anything but territory.

That is just what the ABC’s new guidelines now assume, too. There is no “us”. Every time you say “us”, you’ll hear people shouting “not us”.

But when I said this last year, the ABC went feral. Its presenters had never heard anything so racist. …

I gave so many examples of this death of an “us”. For instance, we now have suburbs that are turning almost into ethnic or religious colonies.

In Melbourne’s Box Hill, 38 per cent of residents now speak a Chinese language. In Sydney’s Lakemba, 59 per cent are Muslim.

Meanwhile, we have a self-loathing cultural elite that damns Australia Day as divisive, and despises our national flag as the symbol of racists.

Now Labor is saying even our national parliament no longer represents us all, and we need a new advisory parliament just for Aborigines.

No flag, faith, national day, parliament or civilisation can be said now to represent “us” all. And as the ABC’s new rules suggest, even when terrorists attack, reporters must no longer assume they’re attacking an “us” or “our values”. …

Without common values, or the assertion of them, we’re fracturing into tribes.

Tribes? Voting blocs, you mean. This is how the left builds an electoral majority nowadays. If it didn’t work this year,  just wait until importing more voters does the trick.

The Myth of the Neutral Public Square

The Myth of the Neutral Public Square, by Paul Collits.

Homo-fascism is the phenomenon when homosexual activists strive for advancing themselves beyond favored status to supremacy. In line with instructions in After the Ball (the LGBTI equivalent to Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto), the homosexual movement avoids using such terms as “favored status” or “supremacy”, but rather outwardly pretend their goal is “tolerance” or “acceptance”. Supremacy is then the stage in which the homosexual movement and its allies take effective control of most or all of the centers of power of a government or other organization. When they have achieved this level of control they use and abuse their power to suppress and/or punish those who openly disapprove of the homosexual lifestyle or its agenda.

In the US, Chick-fil-A has withdrawn sponsorship from some charitable organisations in the face of hostility and blackmail by homosexual activists and advocates. What the activists who have been intimidating the well known Christian chicken sandwich making company are demanding is that organisations like them not support any third organisation that does not “affirm” homosexuals and homosexuality. Wow. …

Affirming means accepting the substance of the homosexual lifestyle, not merely tolerating difference and avoiding being judgemental. We have to like it! And, in the religious context, it also must be acknowledged that homosexual lifestyles are not sinful. End of discussion. The demand that all “affirm” homosexuality is taking things even further than the activist charge that conservative social views “hurt”, “offend” or “demean”.

So Chick-fil-A cannot support (sponsor, donate to, etc) any organisation that does not embrace the homosexual lifestyle as fine, OK, normal, whatever. Or we will make you pay. …

It is all of a piece with the homo fascists’ core strategy. We cannot (yet) control what you think, but we sure as hell can control what you say. …

And if you dare to have a publicly expressed different view to us, we will brand you unfit to have a public voice. …

Of course the oldest trick in the book is that if you simply “say” homophobia often enough, people will believe that support for traditional marriage is, indeed, homophobic. …

Margaret Court may or may not come to Melbourne to celebrate her tennis achievements. She may or may not be booed by the homo fascists. Israel Folau may or may not win his legal battle over his right to hold and express unfashionable religious views. But each effort at chipping away the rights of traditionalists to express publicly their views on issues core to their being is a further step down the road towards the virtual extradition of the silent minority from their own country. Even though they still live here. They won’t get public recognition. They may be forced out of a job, even a career, hence a future. They will be unplatformed. …

The public square is rigged. It is a minefield for the believers in tradition and the believers in the Jewish and Christian God. Those who would do harm to the beliefs and the public expression of them use the so-called neutral public square to their decided advantage. And, what is more in Australia, they get a mighty (one billion dollar plus) leg-up from the public broadcaster, whose blatant (and ceaseless) anti-conservative and anti-Christian bias is a national disgrace. Ditto the publicly funded universities.

Overreach indeed. Like all PC icons, gays are beyond criticism (unless they conflict with Muslims). And if history is any guide, it will become permanent.

For example, feminists used to moan about how there were fewer females than males at university. How unfair! Bias! Leaving aside the issues of greater male ambition due to not being able to have babies, and that there more brighter males due to bell-curve genetics, suppose we accept their claim that 50:50 was fair. But for the last decade, 60% of university students throughout the West have been female. Where are the cries of “unfair” and “bias” now? Where are the urgent government inquiries and task forces into rectifying the situation? There are none. So, it was all a power-grabbing con.

I know too many young men of stellar ability who are not planning to go to university and refuse to try hard at high school. Why? How much loss of talent can our society bear? Another factor dumbing down our society. It’s a rigged schooling system and a rigged job market, so why should young men play? Why support a society that treats them thus? Marriage too has become rigged — ask any divorced man — so why would men participate? Now women are moaning that there are not enough eligible and willing men. Who could have seen that coming? How “unlucky.”

But back to gay supremacy and “affirmation.” An up and coming US presidential candidate, Peter Buttigieg, is gay. With the top three Democrat candidates all failing and broadly seen as unacceptable (Biden, Warren, Sanders), Buttigieg is now leading in the polls for the Democrat primary in Iowa (though not more generally). From an article by Jim Goad about Buttigieg and the gay lifestyle we must now “affirm”:

Call me old-fashioned, but I think that people who have unprotected sex with others without informing them that they’re HIV-positive are downright rude. …

Pete’s on the right

What I do know is that Buttigieg recently declared that laws which criminalize nondisclosure of being HIV-poz are “not fair.”

Beware of a world where the mere idea of possibly giving someone who is the sexual equivalent of a drunk driver a social stigma is considered more damaging than a drunk driver plowing through a crowd without caring who gets hurt. …

Buttigieg, along with Elizabeth “Dry Gulch” Warren and Cory “Scary” Booker, say they agree that laws designed to punish HIV-positive sluts who willingly put others in harm’s way are “antiquated” and “archaic” and have no basis in real science.

Buttigieg noted that someone who’s dosed his bloodstream with antiretroviral drugs may have such a low viral load that it is undetectable and therefore untransmissible. That’s all fine and dandy, but these laws do not differentiate between people with low viral loads and those who are so chock-full of HIV they could infect all of Brazil with one sticky wad.

There are endless documented cases of people using HIV as a murder weapon, either intentionally or with reckless disregard for the life of the person they were jizzing all over.

Just last week, John Conner III — a professional dance coach and star of TV reality show Bring It — pled guilty to exposing a 16-year-old boy to HIV when Conner was 26 and they’d “had unprotected sex inside Conner’s vehicle multiple times.” Now 30, Conner was aware of his HIV-positive status in 2012 and is also being investigated for possibly exposing two other males to the virus.

Last year, a Scotsman named Darryl Rowe received a life sentence after he went on an eighteen-month campaign of vengeance to purposely infect as many other gay men with HIV as possible. Rowe claims he had unprotected sex with hundreds of men through the gay dating app Grindr; he is confirmed to have infected at least five of them. He would wait for days after exposing them to the virus so that they’d have no chance of nipping it in the bud with retroviral cocktails before he’d send them text messages such as:

  • “Maybe you have the fever. I came inside you and I have HIV LOL. Oops!”
  • “You can’t get rid of me. You’re gonna burn. I ripped the condom. You’re stupid. I got you.”
  • “You’re a fucking revolting jackass. Ha Ha Ha Ha. I’d taken the condom off.”
  • “I hope you enjoyed four of my loads. I have HIV.” …

In 2015, a California landscaper named Thomas Guerra was convicted of infecting others with HIV based on 11,000 text messages that saw him reveling in the fact that he was infecting others: “Yay lol. Someone getting poz that day. Poor Sucka.” Guerra’s punishment for potentially killing dozens of people? Six months in jail. …

In 2008, an ostensibly heterosexual Australian father of five named Michael John Neal was convicted of fifteen charges including “attempting to infect another person with HIV, rape and procuring sexual penetration by fraud.” Neal estimated that he infected about 75 men and confessed that he “gets off” on the idea of transmitting the virus. …

Sorry, fruitcakes — this is a situation where your legendarily fragile feelings must take a back seat to public safety. You can shoot at someone with a loaded gun and entirely miss your target, and it will still be charged as attempted murder. Having unprotected sex with someone and not telling them you’re HIV-positive should be treated the same way.

Affirm it, or be banned from the public square.