The NBA-China spat reveals some interesting truths

The NBA-China spat reveals some interesting truths, by the Z-Man.

The NBA’s public relations disaster with China is one of those unanticipated events that is both amusing and clarifying. The amusing part is easy. The people who run the NBA are the worst sorts of people, so watching them get slapped around by the Chinese government brings lots of pleasure. Seeing the Chinese carry on like hysterical girls is a lot of fun too. The paper-thin skin of the ChiComs is a reminder that despite their tough talk, they live in mortal fear of the society over whom they rule.

The clarifying part is the most important, as it reminds us that despite what our rulers tell us, countries still matter. China likes consuming product, but they like being Chinese more than they like watching the human flea circus that is the NBA. When the choice is between who they are and consuming product, the former is going to win. As John Derbyshire pointed out, the Chinese are focused on becoming a global power, not folding themselves into the bland nothingness of the global community.

Of course, what makes this so clear is that the NBA is a billion-dollar enterprise that throws its weight around America in the culture wars. When George Zimmerman shot the hoodlum Trayvon Martin, the NBA players took the side of the hoodlum. The players would wear hoodie sweatshirts like the hoodlum. When the Ferguson cop shot Michael Brown, the players came out against the cop. The league and its players drip with anti-white animus and no one in authority dares say anything about it.

In contrast, one unfortunate tweet and the NBA owners were crawling on their bellies, begging the ChiComs for mercy. Lebron James, the league’s biggest star, was seen volunteering to harvest organs from executed Chinese political prisoners. As Derbyshire pointed out, it was a display of raw power. The NBA will tell Donald Trump to take a hike, but they won’t dare get on the wrong side of the communists. The ChiComs have no fear of the human flea circus. They know who holds the power.

Power and nationalism:

This incident gets to some eternal truths about human society. One of those is that power springs from identity. The man who is confident in who he is, will project power, regardless of his circumstances. This scales up very well. Societies that have a strong sense of identity, can punch well above their weight. You see this in Eastern Europe where countries like Poland and Hungary are successfully squaring off with the EU over immigration policy. The EU can’t stop the Poles from being Polish.

Of course, that strong identity is not enough. The people have to believe they have a shared destiny. They need a coherent narrative to explain how it is they are a people and why they have a future. It does not matter if that narrative is true. What people believe will always trump facts. That is another one of those eternal truths about humanity. The Chinese believe they are a people with a future, one where China dictates terms to the world. That’s what makes them so bold. …

The next link in the great chain of causality is culture and that’s something China has more than anyone. It probably has to do with the homogeneity. The Han are roughly 92% of the Chinese population. The other people are relegated to the fringe. When there is no need to accommodate differences, the culture can concentrate. Whatever the reason, Chinese culture is as strong as any on earth. So strong, in fact, it could endure the homicidal maniacs of the Cultural Revolution.

“Ethnic diversity not a strength but a weakness”, study says

“Ethnic diversity not a strength but a weakness”, study says. By Arthur Lyons.

The study, conducted by professors at the University of Copenhagen and Aarhus University in Denmark, looked to answer the question of whether “continued immigration and corresponding growing ethnic diversity” had a positive impact on social cohesion, unity, and togetherness.

In short, the study found that “continued immigration and corresponding growing ethnic diversity” exerts the exact opposite effect on society, meaning that it undermines and degrades social cohesion, unity, and togetherness.

Following a meta-analysis of 1,001 estimates from 87 studies from countries from the Western world, researchers found that there was indeed a “statistically significant negative relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust across all studies”.

I’m wearing my shocked face.

The PC media didn’t mention this side-effect of immigration diversity. Reckon they’ll ever mention it? Not a chance.

As some cynically point out, diversity + proximity = conflict.

Fuel Stupidity Australia

Fuel Stupidity Australia, by David Archibald.

Australia’s fuel security position is parlous to the extent of being an existential threat. We signed up to the International Energy Agency treaty in 1979 but we are the only country that is delinquent with respect to our obligations under that treaty to hold at least 90 days of imports as stocks. In November 2018, Australia had 53 days of stocks. The Federal Liberal government intends to get to its treaty obligation of 90 days in 2026, so it says. …

Credit: crudeoilpeak.info

Instead of encouraging Australian oil exploration, our current government is making it more difficult. Offshore oil exploration is now administered by an entity called NOPSEMA, which has 124 staff in the following categories:

  • 82 environmental officers
  • 5 well integrity engineers
  • 20 offshore installation inspection staff
  • 20 admin staff.

There is need for the environmental officers, because there is a not a single instance of long term environmental damage done by an oil spill in Australia. The earth’s surface is just too oxidising for any oil molecule to last long.

It is the well integrity engineers that did the most damage recently. A company called Cooper Energy was drilling a well called Annie-1 in the Otway Basin off Victoria. The rig broke a couple of anchor chains during a storm, which can happen with a deep water rig operating in shallow water. While off location, the rig decided to change out the drilling line. During that process the line broke and hit a deckhand in the shoulder. The injured worker didn’t want to be taken off the rig, so it was not a completely serious lost-time accident.

Nevertheless NOPSEMA decided to get involved and shut down operations on the rig until they inspected it. They didn’t come out to the rig for 10 days. Meanwhile the rig was costing Cooper Energy of the order of $1.0 million per day. When they resumed operations they missed a weather window for moving back on location to complete the well abandonment. In all, NOPSEMA’s action is thought to have cost Cooper Energy in the range of $12 to $15 million. Cooper Energy had planned to drill a well called Elanora-1 after Annie-1, but the cost overrun caused by NOPSEMA meant that they had run out of money to drill it. Elanora-1 is now scheduled for the 2021 drilling campaign.

When you have a major fuel security problem the last thing you want to do is discourage oil and gas exploration by acts of stupidity. All companies operating in oil exploration offshore Australia would be aware of what NOPSEMA did to Cooper Energy, and would be adding a 20% NOPSEMA-stupidity contingency to their well costs.

Identity Politics in Australia

Identity Politics in Australia, by Mark Latham.

In political history, 2019 will be remembered as the year Labor lost the unlosable election due to wrong-headed tax policies. …

The clearest example of this process is in the Labor/Green embrace of identity politics, judging people by race, gender and sexuality. Poor people with the wrong skin colour (white), gender (male) and sexuality (straight) are automatically excluded from social justice consideration.

One only needs to visit a public housing estate in Western Sydney to know that straight white men are a big part of Australia’s underclass. Restructured out of manufacturing work and forced into welfare dependency, identity politics has no solution for their poverty. Even worse, it sneers at them as an example of ‘white male privilege’, creating enormous resentment among one of the most disadvantaged groups in society. Social justice never works well as a zero-sum game, when one disadvantaged group can only prosper at the expense of another.

Labor has lost the support of a generation of straight white men (perhaps a quarter of the electorate) who see their needs being wiped by the emergence of employment quotas, workplace discrimination and accusatory domestic violence propaganda aimed at them. That’s a massive constituency shedding, driving the ALP primary vote into the low 30s. …

The rise of identity politics has divided Australia into competing identity groups, making people less inclined to trust in the collective role of government and fair allocation of public resources. It’s been a social justice disaster that Labor should abandon immediately, returning the party to the principles of meritocracy.

Oops, forgot to post these earlier. This post and the next three are from July.

Say it, Republicans!—or just give it up: open borders is treason! the left is anti-white!

Say it, Republicans!—or just give it up: open borders is treason! the left is anti-white! By James Kirkpatrick.

Republicans still don’t know how to talk about race, identity and nation. Which is a problem, because, as an article in Axios recently bragged, “The single biggest threat to Republicans’ long-term viability is demographics.”

The repeating pattern: a Republican 1) says something 2) is accused of racial insensitivity 3) immediately grovels and offers concessions. The mostly white Republican base gets demoralized, the Cultural Marxist Left is emboldened, and the Overton Window shifts in the wrong direction. …

The solution is simple. But it requires a modicum of courage—one person with influence explicitly defending the right of Americans as Americans to defend their interests. For years, American leaders, including supposed “conservatives,” have been saying that anyone who believes in certain “ideas” is an American. Not surprisingly, current American political leaders are taking this to its logical conclusion and saying that America belongs to everyone in the world — not its citizens. As Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently declared, the country “belongs to everyone.”

But it doesn’t. It belongs to American citizens. And if American citizens can’t stake an exclusive claim to their own country, then they must admit they simply don’t have one anymore. And if that is the case, whites, like every other group, should collectively organize for their interests in this continental shopping mall masquerading as a nation-state. …

The excellent blogger The Z Man has accurately noted that whites are forever searching for an “external standard against which they can measure their preference.” “Only then can they declare that desire valid,” he wrote, “because it matches that standard. Whites no longer feel as if what they want is valid because they want it.”

Thus, conservative beliefs can only be defended if they are said by a black person, a Jewish person, a Hispanic person, etc. Many non-whites within the Conservative Movement have used this to their economic advantage and have lucrative careers preaching to white audiences at conservative gatherings. …

The solution is for Americans to speak as Americans explicitly in defense of American interests.

What is America? America is a majority-white nation created by Anglo settlers, built upon English legal customs and institutions, and speaking the English language. If it ceases to be these things, it ceases to be America.

Period.

Looks like the era of MLK has ended, and tribalism has returned.

One of the great achievements of white (aka European) civilization was that it manged to reduce tribalism to a whisper, to the enjoyment and prosperity of (nearly) all. This worked while whites were a clear majority in their own countries, and they welcomed modest numbers of talented members of other tribes into their midst. Sadly, the left launched a strategy of monopolizing non-white votes to gain power, which led to a creeping tide of anti-white racism. It is now being called, and it’s not clear which way this is going to go.

The Lessons of the Versailles Treaty

The Lessons of the Versailles Treaty, by Victor Davis Hanson.

In comparison to other treaties of the times, the Versailles accord was actually mild — especially by past German standards.

After the 1870-1871 Franco-Prussian war, a newly unified and victorious Germany occupied France, forced the French to pay reparations and annexed the rich Alsace-Lorraine borderlands.

Berlin’s harsh 1914 plans for Western Europe at the onset of World War I — the so-called Septemberprogramm — called for the annexation of the northern French coast. The Germans planned to absorb all of Belgium and demand payment of billions of marks to pay off the entire German war debt.

In 1918, just months before the end of the war, Germany imposed on a defeated Russia a draconian settlement. The Germans seized 50 times more Russian territory and 10 times greater the population than it would later lose at Versailles.

So, under the terms of the Versailles Treaty, the winning democracies were far more lenient with Germany than Germany itself had been with most of its defeated enemies.

No one denied that Germany had started the war by invading Belgium and France. Germany never met the Versailles requirements of paying fully for its damage in France and Belgium. It either defaulted or inflated its currency to pay reparations in increasingly worthless currency.

Versailles certainly failed to keep the peace. Yet the problem was not because the treaty was too harsh, but because it was flawed from the start and never adequately enforced.

The Versailles Treaty was signed months after the armistice of November 1918, rather than after an utter collapse of the German Imperial Army. The exhausted Allies made the mistake of not demanding the unconditional surrender of the defeated German aggressor. …

WWII:

After the Treaty of Versailles, the victorious Allies of 1945 did not repeat the mistakes of 1919. They demanded an unconditional surrender from the defeated Nazi regime.

The Western Allies then occupied, divided and imposed democracy upon Germany. Troops stayed, helped to rebuild the country and then made it an ally.

In terms of harshness, the Yalta and Potsdam accords of 1945 were far tougher on the Germans than Versailles — and far more successful in keeping the peace.

Republican ad attacks the Squad

Republican ad attacks the Squad. Notice that it implicitly calls them out for racism and identity politics.

It’s going to be all about race. For two decades the left has built an electoral strategy around a coalition of the fringes and anti-white racism. Quotas! Special treatment! Diversity! Black Lives Matter! White civilization is racist, sexist, etc! White religion is bad!

Tolerant whites have looked on but said little. But now that political power and their future is being taken away by mass non-white  immigration in the US, the uncouth Trump is speaking up. Likewise Europe is finding nationalist leaders who are standing up to the racist tide.

The left trashed the politics of Martin Luther King and went tribal. They started this.

The catch-22, of course, is that to stand up to this sort of racism you look racist yourself. Recognizing white identity and celebrating or defending things white — just like blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Cubans, Somalis, Arab, and every other ethnic group — is indeed mildly racist. Need the media to keep on suppressing that impulse for whites:

Bank of England Warns of an ‘Abrupt’ Financial Collapse Due To Climate Emergency

Bank of England Warns of an ‘Abrupt’ Financial Collapse Due To Climate Emergency, by Damian Carrington.

Companies and industries that are not moving towards zero-carbon emissions will be punished by investors and go bankrupt, the governor of the Bank of England has warned.

Mark Carney also told the Guardian it was possible that the global transition needed to tackle the climate crisis could result in an abrupt financial collapse. He said the longer action to reverse emissions was delayed, the more the risk of collapse would grow. …

The Bank of England has said up to $20tn (£16tn) of assets could be wiped out if the climate emergency is not addressed effectively. …

US coal companies had already lost 90% of their value, he noted, but banks were also at risk. “Just like in any other major structural change, those banks overexposed to the sunset sectors will suffer accordingly,” he told the Guardian.

Sure. Only if you and your mates wipe those companies out or prevent them selling their products. Was Carney making a threat? Or readying an excuse for the impending next stage of the debt crisis?

A reader comments:

The excuse the central bankers, who created the coming financial crisis in the West, will use is the Climate Emergency.

Oh, wait a minute, they invented the Climate Emergency too.

Now we know why they push the climate lies so hard. It’s their excuse.

What Pelosi Really Wants From Impeachment

What Pelosi Really Wants From Impeachment, by Charles Lipson.

The most important thing to know about Democrats’ impeachment inquiry is this: It is not about removing President Trump now; it is about damaging him now so he can be defeated next year.

Nancy Pelosi … knows a Republican Senate is very unlikely to convict Donald Trump without a lot more evidence than has been brought to light along with a groundswell of public support. So, the House speaker has a more realistic goal, and it’s a purely political one. Her aim is to prevent Trump’s reelection. To do it, she has exerted tight, unilateral control over the process and handed day-to-day investigation to her California protégé, Adam Schiff, who heads the committee on intelligence. His secret hearings are in sharp contrast to the open ones held for Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton by the House Judiciary Committee. …

Voters want clear-cut evidence of high crimes before removing a duly-elected president from office, especially since they get to vote on him next year. They also want evidence that impeachment is bipartisan, that it seeks to protect our country and not just one party.

Pelosi knows she cannot provide it. She is not counting on an avalanche of damning new evidence or a collapse of Trump’s Republican support in the House or Senate. Instead, she’s counting on the damage she can do to Trump’s chances in 2020. It’s a risky strategy, one that could sink the president but could also endanger the Democrats’ House majority.

The clincher:

The best way to understand the speaker’s true aim is to ask “How would Pelosi, Schiff, and their allies act if their goal was really to remove Trump from office by impeachment?”

The short answer is that they would bend over backwards to show the whole process is fair, open, and deliberate. They would use that impartial process to forge a broad, bipartisan consensus that the president had committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” and should be removed. That’s exactly what Democrats did during the Nixon impeachment. It’s not what they are doing now.

The Democrats are corrupting the political process, using the impeachment mechanism simply to smear their opponent. Cynical.

The corruption of Joe Biden

The corruption of Joe Biden, by John Hinderaker.

No evidence of wrongdoing? The evidence is that Hunter Biden collected millions of dollars from foreign companies which he had no qualifications to work for. Why did Burisma think it made sense to pay him $3 million when he had no knowledge of either natural gas or Ukraine? Hunter pretty much admitted the reason in an interview earlier today

Robach: If your last name wasn’t Biden, do you think you would have been asked to be on the board of Burisma?

Biden: I don’t know. I don’t know. Probably not

Joe Biden didn’t do anything wrong? A time-honored method of taking bribes is having them paid to a family member, usually in exchange for nominal or nonexistent services. It is comical to watch “reporters” pretend not to understand this.

Or having them paid to your so-called charity, e.g. the Clinton Foundation.

Teacher Fired For Giving Zeros To Students That Failed To Hand In Their Work

Teacher Fired For Giving Zeros To Students That Failed To Hand In Their Work, by Bernadette Deron.

Social studies teacher Diane Tirado, 52, was fired from West Gate K-8 School in Port St. Lucie in south Florida …

“I was not allowed to give anything lower than a 50.”

But after a group of students from her class didn’t hand in any work at all, Tirado felt that they didn’t deserve any credit at all, let alone 50 percent, and so handed them “zero” grades. …

“It’s absurd to give someone something for nothing and to do that is creating a future that is pretty darn bleak.”

“We’re creating monsters out of our children,” she added. “We have a nation of kids that are expecting to get paid and live their life just for showing up and it’s not real…people that experience that kind of childhood…then you’re entitled for the rest of your life.”

School policy in the student and parent handbook

This school’s alleged “no zero” policy is an example of one of the latest parenting trends known as the “participation trophy” which claims that rewarding kids for mere participation will boost their self-esteem. Those that support “participation trophies” believe that eliminating the possibility of a “loser” gives all kids the recognition required to improve their confidence.

A policy that introduces kids to politically-inspired fantasies. In reality, no work leads to no reward. And the teacher was sacked! These kids are being taught to be free-loading parasites, that honest work and effort do not pay, but that numbers count in politics and awarding the goodies. How do you think they are being trained to vote?

Can the Right Fight Without Saying White?

Can the Right Fight Without Saying White? By David Cole.

For years I worked alongside the innocuous, cuddly conservatives who dominated the Southern California Republican scene. And as the left steadily upped its antiwhite vitriol, to the extent that “blame whitey” became the dominant theme, my National Review-consuming chums struggled to counter the new rhetoric. When leftists would scream, “Whites are privileged, evil, and must be reduced in numbers and influence,” we’d hit back with the zinger “You’re the real racists.”

Uh, yeah. So what? You know what doesn’t offend real racists? To be called real racists. Imagine telling a 1920s KKK kleagle, “You know what, dude? You’re a racist.” He’d nod.

“1925 Ben Shapiro destroys Klansman with brilliant retort: ‘You’re racist!’”

If you want to counter a racist, you don’t point out that he’s racist; you point out that he’s wrong. But “Party of Lincoln” conservatives get queasy at the thought of saying anything positive about whiteness. They prefer room-temperature pap about how “we don’t ‘see’ race! America’s an idea, not a color! There are no inborn factors among humans that can’t be overcome with a Thomas Sowell book and a flag pin.” …

Cuddly conservatives believe that the best response to the left’s rabid racism is to be “better than that.” And when nonwhite voters see how determined we are to avoid mentioning race, they’ll flock to the GOP in droves! …

The sad fact is, the fear of appearing racist makes dunces of a lot of otherwise clever conservatives.

“By gum, those Founding Fathers sure were a brilliant group of men.”

“And how would you describe those Founding Fathers? You know, their identity?”

“Why, Judeo-Christian, of course! What other identity could possibly matter? Because I don’t see race. Hell, I always thought Ben Franklin was an aboriginal Pintupi. You’re telling me he wasn’t? Well, he could have been.”

Everything the left is today, everything it does, is based on the notion that white is bad. “White bad” is the cornerstone of all leftist positions, from the economy to the environment, entertainment, the internet, sports, science, and academia. And here come the cowed, delusional, milquetoast conservatives who think they can counter “white bad” without saying or even implying “white good.” …

The left’s current raison d’être is “We hate white,” which cuddly conservatives hope to counter with an enforced and mandatory collective response of “We’re indifferent to white.” There’s no passion in indifference, and no willingness to fight. The indifferent will always be defeated by the zealous. That rule is ironclad and eternal. …

If you police language and associations in the name of some kind of purity test meant to purge those who see being white the same way we Ashkenazim see being Jewish — something to be proud of, something that isn’t just “not bad” but good — you do so at your own risk. Unless you want rightists to lose the war.

The Ratchet Effect of the Left’s Cynical Approach is Triumphing, Which is Ominous for Whites

The Ratchet Effect of the Left’s Cynical Approach is Triumphing, Which is Ominous for Whites, by the Z-Man.

This desire [of conservatives] to make a deal is why Progressives have run wild in American politics, especially over the last few decades. Their opponents in every election are white civic nationalist types, who are always willing to accept the results of the election and work with the other side on a good deal. … They would win an election and then cut a deal with the Left that was a complete sellout. …

Progressives, in contrast, use this willingness to do a deal to ram their agenda through when they win. When they lose, they use the same intransigence to bottle up any effort of the winners to push through their agenda. …

The question that has been on the minds of dissidents for a long time is when will people wake up to this reality? When will those civic nationalists and good government types realize that they can never bargain in good faith with the other side, because the other side never bargains in good faith? Unless and until the good citizen accepts the cynicism of the Left, not necessarily embrace it, but just accept it, elections will always be heads the Left wins, tails the Right loses. …

Demographics and racial prejudice could get ugly:

What happens when most white people figure out that the other side will never cut a deal with them? There will always be suckers, who never give up hope, but what happens when the majority of whites realize they can never make a deal with their opponents? How long before this realization leads to the conclusion that they can never live in the same country as their opponents, because their opponents hate them and want them dead?

Most likely, the typical white person looks at the madness engulfing the political class and thinks the fever is bound to break soon. Maybe Trump winning in 2020 or the Democrats nominating a shrill crank like Warren will break the spell. Older folks talk about how the 1960’s eventually burned itself out. Lots of normal white people think something similar will happen this time. What if it doesn’t or what if whites simply get tired of waiting for their opponents to snap out of their rage?

Remember when females were a minority at universities, and feminists demanded equal numbers? More girls were good, boys were bad. Well ok, when it gets to 50:50 the bias and prejudice and “affirmative action” will stop.

Nope. It became 50-50. No change in policy or rhetoric. Now it’s 60% female and 40% male, and still no changes in rhetoric or policies — girls good and are encouraged, boys bad and are discouraged. Now of course they wheel out the excuses, like that girls are more suited to university because they are more conscientious or something. More equal. But note the complete lack of calls for equality. There is no fairness.

You think it’s going to be any different with whites and diversity? Like men, whites will be demonized by the left and the bureaucracy/academia/media long after they are a minority — because the left draws its electoral support from non-white identity groups. The anti-white racism and the anti-male sexism from the left and their fellow travelers is going to continue … until when? It’s tribal.

It’s just about power. The sort of nonsense that a society can only engage in when it thinks it has no enemies or rivals. Merit and effectiveness can take a back seat because now the left’s tribes are grabbing  all the goodies for themselves.

Oxfod Police response to ‘transphobic’ stickers branded ‘extraordinary’

Oxford Police response to ‘transphobic’ stickers branded ‘extraordinary’, by Victoria Ward.

Credit: Oxford Pride/SWNS

Thames Valley Police has announced that those responsible could be charged with a public order offence and has appealed for witnesses. … Hundreds, or even thousands, of the stickers have been put up around Oxford since March, the police have said. …

Transgender supporters have been removing the labels and replacing them with pro-trans messages. They contain messages such as: “Non-binary finery” and “trans women are women.”

[Michael Biggs, Associate Professor in Sociology at the University of Oxford] said: “If putting up stickers is a crime then it should apply to both sides. The police are taking one side in what is quite a heated political debate and that’s not their job.” …

Zayna Ratty, the chair of Oxford Pride, said the stickers were “inducing hate crime”. She told the Oxford Mail: “I’m not sure why this is being categorised as a public order offence instead of a hate crime. …

Latest figures suggest there were more than 1,000 violent and sexual offence crimes in Oxford in the 12 months to August, an increase of almost 20 per cent on the previous year. …

A hate crime, including hate speech, could attract a sentence of six months to three years’ imprisonment, or a fine.

Reminder: Posie Parker’s billboard in Liverpool was taken down by UK police, who recognize a crime when they see one:

The PC left control the bureaucracy and most government functions. Using the power of government to enforce one side of a political debate is clearly wrong, but the left are doing it anyway. Where do you suppose this trend will stop? It didn’t work for the Soviet Union…