Thursday, March 31, 2022

The Defense Production Act won’t bring us supply-chain security

Emphasizing the importance of rare earth metals and minerals to America’s national security and economic well-being, two prominent members of Congress — Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), head of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the committee’s ranking Republican — have urged President Biden to ramp up domestic mining operations immediately by invoking the Defense Production Act (DPA).

Title III of that 1950 law was dusted off by President Trump to jumpstart the production of ventilators for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. President Biden issued executive orders in February 2021 authorizing the act’s taxpayer-financed incentives — loans, loan guarantees, direct purchases and purchase commitments — to ensure that the U.S. economy has sufficient capacity to produce “critical items” like vaccines and personal protective equipment.

More than two years into the federal government’s demonstrably ineffective and costly response to the now-endemic SARS-CoV-2 virus, Washington seems to have awoken at long last to another policy-manufactured “crisis” that has been in the making for two decades: overreliance on imports from China and other hostile trading partners for supplies of essential inputs such as nickel, lithium, and manganese.

A year ago Murkowski called U.S. dependence on mineral imports our Achilles’ heel. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the ensuing chaos in global commodity markets seem to make it even more urgent to address the problem head-on.

It is true that U.S. manufacturers rely fully on mining operations located overseas for supplies of 17 essential minerals, including most of the metals required for electric-vehicle batteries. China is home to about 16 percent of the world’s capacity for mining and processing raw lithium. It also dominates global cobalt supplies from the mines it controls in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where much of that blue metal is found and is a major player in nickel. All told, China controls about 80 percent of the materials necessary for making batteries, and is the chief source of rare earth minerals, along with almost all manganese and graphite-refining capacity on the planet.

Russia and two former Soviet states, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, account for just under half of the fuel consumed by U.S. nuclear power plants, nuclear medicine facilities, and other industrial uses. As one response to the Ukraine invasion, the Senate is considering a ban on uranium imports from Russia, from which the United States obtains 16 percent of its total uranium supplies.

Depending on China and Russia for imports of critical materials would not be worrisome in a peaceful world of unfettered international commerce. But that is not the world now dancing to the tunes of Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.

The irony is that neither globalization nor supply-chain interruptions explain why the United States relies heavily on foreign suppliers of production-critical minerals. Such resources — worth an estimated $6.2 trillion — are available in the ground here. They remain unexploited, though, because of environmental and other regulations that hamstring domestic mining operations. A decade or more is required nowadays just to obtain the permits needed to open a new mine, assuming that the permits eventually are granted. Minerals production can be “re-shored” by lightening the regulatory burden on U.S. mining operations and speeding the permitting process.

Invoking the Korean War-era Defense Production Act is an ill-considered response to a supply-chain crisis for which Washington itself largely is responsible. It represents crony capitalism at its worst, empowering politicians and bureaucrats to shower financial incentives on some U.S. mining companies but not others.

President Biden is notorious for trying to shift blame to “Big Oil” and “Big Food” for inflation and other adverse consequences of his own policies. He has warned that the United States faces serious materials shortages that could derail efforts to deploy advanced clean-energy technologies and even to produce weapons essential for national defense.

While it may seem counterintuitive, the digital age and the brave new world of fossil-free energy will require more mining than ever. The demand for lithium, for example, is predicted to explode 42 times its current level by 2040. Getting Washington out of the way and allowing market price and profit signals to guide resources into the mining of “critical” minerals is a surer path to supply-chain security than channeling taxpayer-financed largesse to a few favored recipients.

Mobilizing one policy tool (the Defense Production Act) to offset the counterproductive effects of another (keeping minerals “in the ground”) is a fool’s errand, but it’s business as usual in our nation’s capital.


MSNBC, CNN, ABC and more repeatedly pushed critical race theory ideology on TV while denying it exists

Liberal media outlets hosted guests that espoused CRT phrases like ‘systemic’ and ‘institutional racism’ while hosts claimed the educational theory was a myth created by Republicans.

Jon Stewart’s new episode of his Apple TV show saw the comedian host left-wing guests who took on the topic of race in America, arguing that all White people are on some level inherently racist and uphold the "systems" and "structures" of racism in U.S. law and culture.

It was yet another example of ideology crucial to critical race theory (CRT) receiving a prime media platform, which MSNBC, CNN, ABC, and other mainstream media outlets have pushed consistently while at times denying CRT exists.

The topic of CRT was reignited this month when Republican lawmakers fielded questions about it to Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson. Liberal media networks subsequently accused the GOP of racism, sexism, and more.

Back in January, when it was announced that President Biden would make good on his campaign promise to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court, "The View" co-host Sunny Hostin pushed back on the idea the president was playing "identity politics" and argued the candidate would likely be "overqualified" because she had overcome institutional and systemic racism.

"If a Black woman graduated from Harvard and graduated from Harvard Law School, even in spite of sort of the institutional racism, the systemic racism that occurs in this country, that is just part of the very fabric of this country, she’s probably overqualified for any of these positions and that is just the truth of it," Hostin said.

Multiple media outlets, including "The View," have frequently uttered phrases found in CRT definitions, books and educational papers despite claims that CRT is "lie" or "boogeyman" created by the GOP. Some pundits have even asserted that CRT simply "does not exist" despite a plethora of online resources, even resources found on their own websites, which indicate the contrary.

In April 2020 with the pandemic just beginning, contributor Eddie Glaude Jr. said on MSNBC that the increased rate of COVID morbidity for Black Americans was the result of "deep structural racism that has defined American society for generations."

Dr. Chris Pernell, a public health physician, also told CNN in January 2021 that "systemic racism" was to blame for the disproportionate number of COVID deaths among Black Americans.

As the 2020 presidential campaign season kicked off, MSNBC analyst Zerlina Maxwell speculated the Iowa Caucus was a "perfect example of systemic racism" because 91% of the state’s voters are White and the "kids in cages" at the Southern Border were not.

New York Times editorial board member and MSNBC analyst Mara Gay took it a step further when she claimed in June 2021 that it was "not a theory" but a "fact" that racism is "embedded in the structure" of American institutions.

ABC also jumped in on the action when liberal commentator Angela Rye said "systemic racism" was not something you could "cherry-pick" and decide when one wants it to apply. "It means the system at its core is rotten," she added.

Moments later she asserted that White Americans carry "White body supremacy" while Black Americans carry "Black body trauma."

MSNBC, ABC, CNN, and CBS made references to "systemic racism" and "institutional racism" as well as other points that indicated American government and laws were inherently racist on numerous other occasions, echoing an important facet of CRT.

Yet, many of these media networks also downplayed CRT or outright denied its existence despite engaging in its vernacular and themes.

Both MSNBC’s Joy Reid and then-CNN anchor Chris Cuomo referred to CRT as a "bogeyman" propped up by conservative politicians.

The day after the Virginia gubernatorial race, CBS late night host Stephen Colbert said it must be difficult to campaign against someone who’s "promising to eliminate things that don’t exist," referring to Youngkin's opposition to CRT.

Following Youngkin’s win, MSNBC anchor Nicolle Wallace declared that CRT "isn’t real."

"…Critical Race Theory, which isn’t real, turned the suburbs 15 points to the Trump insurrection-endorsed Republican," Wallace said.

In a separate segment she compared banning CRT to "banning ghosts."

"There are no ghosts," she added.

Many other pundits and guests, while not flat-out denying its existence, claimed that CRT was not taught in Virginia schools or virtually any K-12 schools in the country and instead could only be found at the college-level.


British Leftist leader refuses to answer when asked whether a woman can have a penis

Sir Keir Starmer refused to answer the question of whether a woman can have a penis in the latest Labour Party confusion over the transgender debate.

The topic has been a point of division in the party for more than a year after Sir Keir said backbencher Rosie Duffield’s comment that “only women have a cervix” was “not right”.

Yvette Cooper and Anneliese Dodds, two of Labour’s frontbench MPs, both declined to give a definition of a woman on International Women’s Day earlier this month.

Speaking to LBC’s Nick Ferrari during a phone-in, Sir Keir, the Labour leader, was asked multiple times whether or not “a woman can have a penis”.

“I don’t think that discussing this issue in this way helps anyone in the long run,” he said.

“What I want to see is a reform of the law as it is, but I am also an advocate of safe spaces for women and I want to have a discussion that is... Anybody who genuinely wants to find a way through this, I want to discuss that with. I do find that too many people – in my view – retreat or hold a position of which is intolerant of others.

“And that’s not picking on any individual at all, but I don’t like intolerance, I like open discussion.”

Placeholder image for youtube video: r81aZGJHDeM
Asked by a caller whether it was fair that transgender women were allowed to compete in women’s sports, Sir Keir said it was a matter “for the sporting bodies to decide for themselves”, acknowledging that there were “difficult questions”.

Lia Thomas, a swimmer transitioning from male to female, this month became the first transgender person to win a title at the highest level of American collegiate sport.


How gender studies took over the world

Raquel Rosario Sánchez

Why are so many people in such a muddle over the word ‘woman’? Sadly, a share of the blame falls on women’s studies and gender studies. I should know: this has been my academic field for over a decade.

As a teaching assistant, I remember repeating the phrase ‘there is more difference among the sexes than between the sexes’ in front of a group of students, without properly thinking it through. A sociology of gender professor taught me that, and I absorbed it like a sponge. It was only upon reflection that I realised the consequences of denying sex differences. Most of my cohort never changed their minds.

During the confirmation hearings this week of Ketanji Brown Jackson, who could become the first black female Supreme Court judge in the United States, Jackson was asked to define the word woman. She refused, saying: ‘I am not a biologist.’

Just a few days earlier, a fierce debate opened up in the US regarding the inclusion of male athletes in female sports, following the high-profile victory of trans swimmer Lia Thomas over other women in the National Collegiate Athletic Association swimming championship.

In Britain, some politicians are at last seeing sense on the gender issue. At PMQs this week, Boris Johnson said: ‘When it comes to distinguishing between a man and a woman, the basic facts of biology remain overwhelmingly important.’ But plenty of his colleagues in Parliament don’t appear to agree.

The subject I have spent years studying carries a great deal of responsibility for the reason why progressive politicians like Labour’s Anneliese Dodds, the shadow minister for women and equalities, become unstuck when it comes to the word ‘woman’. During an appearance on International Women’s Day, of all days, Dodds was asked to define what the five-letter word meant: ‘I think it does depend what the context is surely,’ she said. While Dodds didn’t answer the question, her response was revealing.

Why? Because focusing on ‘context’ is the way academics in my field try to deal with difficult implications of their views on gender. In Women’s Realities, Women’s Choices, a foundational text in women’s studies published in 1983, the Hunter College Women’s Studies collective pondered:

‘Do biological characteristics give us a definition of ‘woman’? The answer is not as simple as we might expect it to be. Biological and physical attributes are frequently used in defining ‘woman.’ Scientists, who are primarily men, reflect the biases of the culture. Average differences between males and females in physical behavioural attributes, such as physical strength and height are frequently cited. An average, however, is a statistical concept. The range of differences within any one sex is greater than it is the average differences between the sexes.’

While this line of thinking – which blends the barriers between the sexes – started off as a campus pursuit, it has now oozed out into the mainstream – as Dodds’ confusion shows all too clearly. Women’s studies sought to transform and revolutionise academia by applying scientific rigour to the concept that ‘the personal is political.’ Given the hostile reception to the movement at the time, this could only be achieved by squashing the idea that female biology – the ability to carry and feed children – determined our destiny.

The idea was that if a patriarchal system treats women as inherently inferior to men then it made sense to ferociously advocate that both sexes are, in fact, equal in almost every respect. So biology became an enemy that would naturally come back to haunt us. In this pursuit for equality, what we all surely know to be true – that humans are differentiated by sex on a chromosomal level – was left out of the picture.

Yet while progressive politicians – and gender studies theorists – might like to imagine there is no downside to this approach, they are wrong. After all, pretending that male and female bodies are no different from each other risks causing no end of problems: women suffering from a heart attack might be dismissed as having anxiety and stress. Why? Because the medical establishment has long been dominated by men. It seems natural that male doctors are more likely to educate students on male bodies and ‘male symptoms’ for many ailments. If women and men are viewed as one and the same, these differences can get ignored.

More broadly, feminists have rightly raised concerns that blending the two sexes could represent a green light for a man to access women’s prisons, refuges and sport competitions. There is also a risk that statistical data needed to understand the scale of male violence against women is muddled up.

As for women’s studies, this gender confusion also poses an important conundrum: if there is no material difference between men and women, why do feminists need an academic field devoted solely to one sex? This argument, along with the parasitic emergence of postmodernism, saw women’s studies shape shift into the more encompassing gender studies, and lately into a cooler incarnation in the form of queer studies. The revolutionary project was torpedoed from within.

Now as these departments churn out ‘gender specialists’ and ‘gender consultants’ into the world, intent on erasing biological differences from policy and legislation, we are all paying the price. Mediocre male athletes take gold in women’s sports competitions; women feel uneasy about whether their locker rooms and safe spaces are indeed safe.

Although I was never a true believer of ‘gender identity’ theories, I realised I needed to change my mind about some of the most strident arguments I had accepted as received wisdom. Will Labour do the same and ever come back from this brink? Under Keir Starmer’s leadership, it seems unlikely.

If so, they are making a grave mistake. While blurring the lines between the sexes has a certain appeal to both the academic and the political fringes, there are life and death conversations to be had about women’s health, safety and privacy. None of us need a dictionary to define half the planet’s population. We just need common sense and a backbone.


The Boris Johnson version of freedom

“I’ll tell you something. It is the invincible strength of this country that we believe by and large and within the law that people should be able to do whatever they want provided they don’t do any harm to anybody else. And that’s called freedom [and] we don’t need to be woke, we just want to be free.”

These are the spring conference words of the man who banned Christmas.

These are the words of a man whose government have banned TV stations that give a different view.

These are the words of the man who oversaw the greatest assault on your rights and your freedom in peacetime in the modern era.

These are the words of Lockdown Boris. The man who put millions of us under house arrest and decided that HE, rather than WE, decide which experimental medicines we have the right to refuse.

He made us so f*cking free that people were arrested for sitting on a park bench.

“By and large and within the law”. Which means, you are only free when you obey. You only have rights when they are bestowed by your government. There are no inalienable rights anymore, no firm boundaries on what your government can and cannot do.

There are still millions of people who don’t realise this. Who think that our freedom is ‘real’ when it can be taken away at will, and still ‘real’ because it is handed back like a tattered gift given by an abusive partner. I kicked the shit out of you darling, buy yourself a nice dress.

This is the context that makes the I Stand With Ukraine drones so grotesque. The sudden NATO lovers. The absurdity of digging up old Thatcher quotes as if western leadership and the West of today was the freedom loving West of the past.

That’s gone. That was thrown away and shit on. By the people the drones just keep obeying and keep trusting and keep taking seriously when they talk about freedom.

Boris locked you in your f*cking house and told you that you couldn’t visit your dying relative and that if some Marxist geek in a lab coat wanted to inject your little child with a toxic just invented cocktail of MRNA experiments by god you better just f*cking accept it and thank the State for being so generous with its expensive poison.

Boris. Not Putin. The ‘Free West’ has been riding down freedom protests with cavalry charges and happily allowing you to starve for the wrong opinion. How the f*ck can anyone still not see that? Just because, probably, they are themselves pretty comfortable financially and pretty happy to conform with whatever f*cking lie they are sold next.

“Freedom” in the mouth of ANY globalist is like “I love you” slobbered on you by your rapist.




Wednesday, March 30, 2022

The Real 'Reset' Is Coming

Victor Davis Hanson

President Joe Biden believes the Ukraine war will mark the start of a "new world order." In the middle of the COVID global pandemic, Klaus Schwab and global elites likewise announced a "great reset."

Accordingly, the nations of the world would have to surrender their sovereignty to an international body of experts. They would enlighten us on taxes, diversity, and green policies.

When former President Donald Trump got elected in 2016, marquee journalists announced partisan reporting would have to displace the old, supposedly disinterested approach to the news.

There is a common theme here.

In normal times progressives worry that they do not have public support for their policies. Only in crises do they feel that the political Left and media can merge to use apocalyptic times to ram through usually unpopular approaches to foreign and domestic problems.

We saw that last year: fleeing from Afghanistan, the embrace of critical race theory, trying to end the filibuster, pack the court, junk the Electoral College, and nationalize voting laws.

These "new orders" and "resets" always entail far bigger government and more unelected, powerful bureaucracies. Elites assume that their radical changes in energy use, media reporting, voting, sovereignty, and racial and ethnic quotas will never quite apply to themselves, the architects of such top-down changes.

So we common folk must quit fossil fuels, but not those who need to use corporate jets. Walls will not mar our borders but will protect the homes of Nancy Pelosi, Mark Zuckerberg, and Bill Gates.

Hunter Biden's lost laptop will be declared, by fiat, not news. In contrast, the fake Alfa Bank "collusion" narrative will be national headline news for weeks.

Middle-class lifestyles will be curbed as we are instructed to strive for sustainability and transition to apartment living and mass transit. But the Obamas will still keep their three mansions, and Silicon Valley futurists will insist on exemptions for their yachts.

In truth, we are about to see a radical reset - of the current reset. It will be a different sort of transformation than the elites are expecting and one that they should greatly fear.

The world and the United States are furious over hyperinflation that may soon exceed 10% per year. We will be lucky if it ends only in recession or stagflation, rather than a global depression.

The mess was created by the same apparat who bought into "modern monetary theory." That silly university idea claimed prosperity would follow vastly expanding the money supply, keeping interest rates at de facto zero levels, running huge annual deficits, piling up unsustainable national debt, and subsidizing workers to stay home.

Natural gas and oil costs are now soaring to unsustainable levels - and to the point where the middle class simply will not be able to travel, keep warm in winter, or cool in summer.

Both in Europe and the United States left-wing governments deliberately curbed drilling and non-Russian pipelines. They shut down nuclear power plants and subsidized costly, inefficient solar and wind projects. They ended up not with utopia, but with fuel shortages, high prices, and energy dependency on the world's most repressive regimes.

The woke revolution in the West was supposed to teach us that the "white male"-dominated Western world is toxic. Its origins, ascendence, and current leisure and affluence were supposedly due only to systemic exploitation, racism, and sexism.

Elites introduced cancel culture, doxxing, deplatforming, and social ostracism to shame these supposed exploiters and to destroy their lives and careers.

Few asked how a supposedly noxious West of some 2,500 years duration became the number one destination of millions of global non-Western migrants and offered the greatest degree of global prosperity and freedom for its citizens.

So a reset reckoning is coming - in reaction to the "new orders" championed by Biden and the Davos set.

In the November 2022 midterms, we are likely to see a historic "No!" to the orthodox left-wing agenda that has resulted in unsustainable inflation, unaffordable energy, war, and humiliation abroad, spiraling crime, racial hostility - as well as arrogant defiance from those who deliberately enacted these disastrous policies.

What will replace it is a return to what until recently had worked.

Closed and secure borders with only legal and measured immigration will return. Americans will demand tough police enforcement and deterrent sentencing, and a return to integration and the primacy of individual character rather than separatist fixations on the "color our skin."

The public will continue to tune out of the partisan and mediocre "mainstream" media. We will see greater increased production of oil and natural gas to transition us slowly to a wider variety of energy, strong national defense, and deterrent foreign policies.

The prophets of the new world order sowed the wind and they will soon reap the whirlwind of an angry public worn out by elite incompetence, arrogance, and ignorance.


The scriptural basis of American civilization

Victimization Of Children is Evil

“There are more important things to worry about in this world than giving eight-year-olds access to pornography in the school library. Far more important, wouldn’t you say? “

No, with all due respect, I would not. Sadly, eight year old’s in public school have seen more porn at that age than many of their grandparents. Desensitizing the children through porn and grooming them for sexual predators, PC; minor attracted persons. So, they grow up with no concept of right and wrong, believing murder as the answer to unwanted babies, murder as an answer to old people (Euthanasia) and murder as an answer to settle an argument over whatever they have been told is emotionally important and expedient to them. This is the problem with today’s conservatism. It has no morals. Is God’s priority Russia or China or the threat of a World War? What should conservatives really care about?

Matthew 18:1At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? 2And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, 3And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. 4Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. 6But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

1 Timothy 3:1This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

It’s Time to Reveal a Secret

For America to lead the world her house needs to be in order. What made America great was the Christian heritage and America’s moral compass. Both Russia and China as well as Islam know that our immorality is what will destroy us from within. That’s why eliminating God, by entering the Seminaries in the 60’s was a top priority of the subversives that stayed behind during the Vietnam War. Removing prayer, the Bible and the pledge of allegiance are key components of the 45 Goals of the Communist Party. Infiltrating the schools, perverting the minds of our children, and traumatizing them so we have no next generation to lead. We are well down that road.

Kinsey’s influence on our education system is generations old. Hugh Hefner’s life was held up as some great examples of his contributions to our culture. That should tell you the condition of the soul of America. Are there more important things than to protect and defend the most vulnerable in our own nation so that there is a future generation? The liberal schools know the answer to that, and they know that a morally bankrupt conservative movement that has signed on to the mantra “those are social issues” is no threat to their agenda. If our rights come from God and not man, then shouldn’t we be paying attention to the things He says are important in order to preserve those rights?

Luke 6:39And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch? 40The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master. 41And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 42Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.

A New Evil Axis Has Formed

In closing let me say that what we are witnessing is the rise of an evil axis, Russia, China and Iran, Putin, Xi and Raisi. All aspire to grow empires and advance their visions of dominance. All have empty, soulless ideologies of death and torture. They are all godless, yes Islam is a godless cult of death and destruction. In fact, they are so ruthless that even the Nazi SS abandoned them in Africa during WWII because their atrocities were too much even for them.

Here in the west, we can hardly conceive or even imagine this kind of evil, yet the atheism that spawns it has made its way into the minds of our children. This is the real battle. There is no power on earth that can repel this kind of evil with its resolve, save the goodness of God revealed in the sons of God, blood bought through Jesus Christ our King, and America was chosen for such a time as this.

The bible reminds us that the Word does not return void but prospers in everything that it is sent out to do. The seed of the Word of God is deep in the soil of America. Blood was spilt on this land to pay for the freedom the Benjamin Franklin spoke of. More blood was spilt in an attempt to obtain that more perfect union in our civil struggle. Still more American blood has been spilt across this globe in the pursuit of stopping despots like the ones we face today.

Excerpt from Pastor Greg Young


Enraged Disney employees say their beliefs are 'coming under attack' in open letter calling for the company to be 'politically neutral'

A group of anonymous Disney employees with conservative beliefs are slamming their coworkers for creating an 'environment of fear' and calling on the entertainment company to remain 'politically neutral' in the face of protests against Florida's so-called 'Don't Say Gay' bill.

'The Walt Disney Company has come to be an increasingly uncomfortable place to work for those of us whose political and religious views are not explicitly progressive,' workers said in an unsigned letter published Monday.

'We watch quietly as our beliefs come under attack from our own employer, and we frequently see those who share our opinions condemned as villains by our own leadership.'

The statement comes as a number of the Disney's high-profile stars have criticized the company - with the actress Raven-Symoné and the staff of her show, 'Raven's Home,' joining an employee walkout Wednesday.

The longtime Disney star, 36, posted a video on Instagram showing the cast of her show walking out in support of the demonstrations.

'We don't like it. We're walking out. It's stupid,' she said.

Amid these protests, the group of anonymous employees also accused their liberal colleagues of calling them 'bigots' - and criticized CEO Bob Chapek's 'evolving response' after he walked back comments saying that corporate statements do nothing but divide a company and its customers.

The workers added that some of them were reluctant to respond to an internal poll that was circulated a few months ago out of fear that its results would be used to 'target' them for contradicting the 'progressive orthodoxy' at the company.


Affirmative action blows up in Korea

Seoul: The young man hangs his head in frustration. Overlooked for another job in favour of a woman, the university graduate leaves his interview angry at policies that he believes have put him in this position – unemployed and emasculated.

The scene played out across millions of TV screens in South Korea in February. “Fix this broken system of social equality and common sense,” the ad read.

This was not an abstract television commercial from a men’s rights group. It was an ad for South Korea’s new conservative President-elect Yoon Suk-yeol.

South Korea, the world’s 10th largest economy and the innovation centre of Asia, has spent the past 12 months in a gender war. A poll of 23,000 adults in 28 countries by the King’s College London and IPSOS last year found 80 per cent of Koreans thought there was a “great deal or fair amount” of tension between men and women – the highest rate of any country surveyed.

Anti-feminists have called young women miso or “kimchi girls” – slang that derisively suggests they get support from their boyfriends. Older women have been labelled “mum-roach” and accused of raiding their husband’s wallets.

Feminists have called the young men misogynists. They say they are intent on keeping their place in an economic order that has produced a gender pay gap in Korea that is twice the average of 38 other advanced economies.

“It is going to become much more intense,” said Koo Jeong-woo, professor of sociology at Sungkyunkwan University in Seoul. “I think what has happened to South Korea is something that could also happen to other countries.”

The feminist and anti-feminist camps once represented passionate but small groups in a country where overall economic growth has surged over the past two decades.

But a divisive election campaign convinced enough Koreans on March 9 that one of the solutions to their woes was to elect Yoon, a 61-year-old political novice who promised to abolish the Gender Equality Ministry.

Yoon’s election victory was not built on a sudden surge in anti-feminist sentiment, it grew out of a slow, bubbling malaise – particularly among young men who would have historically voted for his more progressive Democratic Party opponent.

In the past two decades, these men had their advantage in the job market – hiring credit for compulsory military service – taken away from them, and watched apartment prices soar (including doubling in the last five years). Many of them have been stuck at home with their parents as #MeToo emboldened a generation of women already increasingly carving out their economic independence by choosing not to have children.

Kim Nae-hoon, the 29-year-old author of Radical 20s: K-Populism and the Political said older generations who had lived through the Korean War lived each day hoping for a better tomorrow.

“But such a luxury isn’t allowed for the current generation,” he said in an interview in Seoul.

Michael Sandel’s book The Tyranny of Merit won critical acclaim across Europe and the United States when it was released in 2020. But it found an even bigger fan base the following year in South Korea, where it became the second-best non-fiction seller at Kyobo, the nation’s largest book chain.

Sandel argues that meritocracy is a facade – undone by entrenched structural hurdles such as money and education. But because it persists as an ideal, it leaves those who don’t achieve their aspirations frustrated and blaming themselves.

When those workers look for answers, they find it in populist politicians like Donald Trump and Yoon, who tell them that immigrants or gender equality are the problem, and that they have the solution.

Park Ji-hae, 20 an account manager in Seoul said lots of Korean voters wanted presidential candidates to bring “straightforward, gratifying campaign promises on lingering social issues that have been bothering us”.

“There is a big, powerful and persuasive argument that the reason why young men got upset and engaged in collective action was because of the economic insecurity they felt. But I think that’s unfair and actually might be insulting. I think the reason why young men are upset is they have legitimate grievances about the very powerful framework that has existed in this country.”

Koo argues that gender equality has defined education curriculums and hiring practices over the past decade.“It is actually biased towards women,” he said. Koo said men, who are still expected to be able to buy a home for their wife before they get married, are disadvantaged after doing 18 months of military service, and then struggle to get into a tight job market that requires two or three degrees before full-time employment can be secured.

“They have masculine duties,” said Koo. “They should at least have the capacity to provide shelter.”

South Korea is ranked 102 out of 156 countries in the World Economic Forum’s Gender Gap Index. Decades of preferential treatment for men at the top of its big chaebol firms like Samsung and LG, in the National Assembly, and across its workforce have seen gender expectations entrenched among older generations.

Hwang Jung-min, a 29-year-old researcher said Yoon’s opponent, the Democratic Party’s Lee Jae-myung – who lost the presidency by less than 1 per cent – was the only candidate who wanted to protect women’s rights.

“He genuinely leaned toward listening to women’s voices. I don’t think Lee [could] resolve all gender issues; however, at the very least, among other candidates, Lee seems to be the only one who’s been wholeheartedly listening to women’s voices,” she said.

In a Seoul coffee shop last week, Hwang In-beom said he knew little about South Korea’ Gender Equality Ministry until dismissive posts started appearing on social media in 2018.

The Ministry was formed in 1998 but did not play a significant role until 2014 when it started setting gender quotas for government committees and targets for female managers and school principals. Its top goal is to promote awareness of gender equality, but females still make up less than 50 per cent of representatives across key areas and industries.

“Reading through negative comments about the ministry on an online news article makes me feel as if no one would get hurt even if the ministry gets abolished,” said Hwang.


Australia: Teaching sexual consent in high schools

Bettina Arndt makes a number of good points below. She is undoubtedy right to ascribe present policies to anti-male feminists.

She should have gone further, though. WOMEN also need education about consent. I doubt that any consent education will do much but I am sure that almost any experienced man will tell you that female consent can be an enigma wrapped in a mystery.

It used to be well-known that women play games with men. They may be open to having sex with a man but will at no stage utter a clear consent. It is essentially a "wait-and-see" strategy that is not inherently unreasonable but it sure can be confusing to the male concerned

I have always refused to be part of such games. I was willing to spend time talking with a woman but if the conversation seemed too flirtatious I would simply desist from further conversation, apparently to the confusion of the woman concerned on some occasions. I once left party rather early after having a rather involved conversation with an Eve but was told the day after by a friend who had also been present: "You could have got her into bed, you know". I think he was right. I felt that at the time. I just didn't like the complexity of the games.

So in my case I have confined myself to situations where an approach of some sort from me was met with clear agreement, but not necessarily verbal agreement. Behaviour can be more eloquent than words. So I have always acted with clear consent but am well aware that I have missed out in situations where consent was less clear. And I have no doubt that on some such occasions the woman concerned has felt frustrated by my "stupidity". I know that because the woman concerned has persisted with me and been much more direct on a second occasion.

And a big problem often is that a rather assertive approach by a male is required for the woman to give consent. The consent will be genuine but for various reasons the woman likes an assertive approach. And thererein lies a big problem. How is the male to work out when assertiveness is required as opposed to where consent is genuinely not given? It can be a guessing game and guessing games can go wrong. Neither party is at fault when it goes wrong. The fault lies with a culture in which female consent or the lack of it may not be clear

So can we "educate" women to be clearer in giving or refusing consent? I would like to think so but am not holding my breath

Last month it was announced all Australian high school students are to be taught about sexual consent and coercion. Mandatory education programs are being rolled out across the country teaching boys not to rape.

It’s mainly due to Sydney schoolgirl Chanel Contos, who burst into the limelight last year when she announced that a school sex education course had led her to discover she’d been raped two years earlier. As a 13-year-old she’d been ‘forced’ to go down on a boy at a party but it took a Year-10 school sex education course for her to realize what had happened to her. She started a website encouraging other girls to tell stories of similar sexual assaults and nearly 2,000 obliged. Ever since she’s been out there calling out male misbehaviour and lobbying for school sexual consent courses.

This is just the latest front in the mighty feminist battle to rein in male sexuality and punish more rapists. I wrote recently about how the NSW parliament was misled by false statistics which were used to assist the smooth passage of enthusiastic consent regulations into law. At much the same time over 1,500 school kids were signing a Contos petition calling for enthusiastic consent to be taught in schools.

Our compliant media dutifully pushed the fear-mongering as Contos met with members of parliament and other power brokers to make it all happen. We heard shocking stories of drunk girls waking up to discover males taking advantage of them, boys behaving badly, circulating photos of their mates having sex, etc. some truly unacceptable male behaviour.

But gradually questions started appearing in online comments about why so many girls were finding themselves in these risky situations, why were so many vulnerable youngsters attending these alcohol and drug-fuelled parties?

Naturally, any suggestion that girls needed to take care of themselves were howled down. A principal of a Sydney girls school dared to suggest that along with more sex education in schools, parents need to be ‘having conversations regarding consent, the impact of alcohol, risk-taking behaviours, and self-respect’. Her sensible suggestion was treated with disdain by journalists who lined up enlightened souls to put her straight. The problem is ‘not about girls’ pronounced an executive from the Alliance of Girls’ Schools, but rather about the ‘underbelly of disrespect, privilege, and callousness displayed by young men towards young women’.

‘This is a systemic, centuries-old societal problem,’ she explained. ‘Behaviour that endorses male sexual entitlement, lack of accountability, and a power imbalance.’

That’s it, you see. Feminism 101, all designed to tie in nicely with the ‘respect for women’ ideological claptrap already rolled out in the Respectful Relationships programs allegedly tackling domestic violence, which are currently indoctrinating children in schools – teaching them about toxic males and helpless females.

Now sexual consent education will reinforce that message. I’ve just been sent snapshots taken from the brand-new curriculum being introduced in one South Australian school. Apparently, there’s flexibility in how the educators choose to address the topic but it seems most schools will take a similar approach.

It’s fascinating seeing how the educators twist themselves into knots to avoid any hint of victim-blaming. They’ve come up with a new slogan: ‘Vulnerability is not the same as responsibility.’ Look at this little scenario featuring Kim. Be warned, it’s pretty confusing because we aren’t given the gender of Kim, who uses the pronoun ‘they’.

Kim is out drinking, and a man ‘they’ know offers ‘them’ a ride home but instead drives to a secluded spot, parks and wants to have sex. Our educators spell out the message very clearly: it’s the villain, the driver, who is 100 per cent responsible for his actions and whether or not Kim is safe. Kim is simply ‘vulnerable’ as a result of decisions ‘they’ have made to get into this situation.

Neat, eh? In this particular scenario we don’t know the gender of the potential victim, but the bulk of the responsibility/vulnerability examples given in the curriculum involve males taking advantage of girls who arguably signal sexual interest in various ways by: wearing low-cut dresses; or inviting a boy to ‘snuggle’ with them in a private room at a party. Here’s a classic example, featuring Jen and Luke. Note that it is taken from an American publication called Men Stopping Rape – which says it all…

The predominantly female teachers who will be guiding the students’ discussion of these scenes will no doubt work hard to convince the kids that the boy is inevitably 100 per cent ‘responsible’ while the innocent girl is simply ‘vulnerable’.

Very occasionally they do present a girl as the baddie. Like the sexually aggressive Mila who is all over her boyfriend Luke and gets very indignant when he says he wants to take his time. ‘I said it was time to be a real man and do the deed,’ responds Mila. A rare toxic woman but overwhelmed by large numbers of pushy blokes who don’t take no for an answer, have sex with sleeping girls and boast about having sex to their mates.

The curriculum does include one scenario, Ali and Josh, describing the situation of a girl who has sex because she fears her boyfriend might dump her if she doesn’t. That’s true to life – a very good example of a girl giving consent she may later regret. The great pity is there is so little in this curriculum about the many reasons girls might be ambivalent about consent. The central myth of the ‘enthusiastic consent’ dogma is the notion that girls/women know their own minds and clearly indicate their desires. The truth is males are forced to interpret the muddy waters of female sexual ambivalence, obfuscation, and confusion. The apparent ‘Yeses’ that are really ‘Maybes’ or secret ‘Nos’.

This week I had a live chat on Thinkspot with a famous YouTuber, Steve Bonnell – also known as ‘Destiny’. Bonnell has made big bucks as video game Twitch streamer. but this clever, articulate young man is also a political commentator, debating all manner of issues usually from a leftist perspective. Funnily enough, just after our conversation Bonnell was banned from Twitch for ‘hateful conduct’ which might just have included our chat about sexual consent, which certainly would have got up the nose of the woke folk running social media.

Bonnell regularly challenges the new dogma on this issue, throwing down the gauntlet by declaring that women no longer have bad sexual experiences – if was bad, it was rape and the man’s fault. His argument is that men are being forced into a parental role – treating women like infants with no agency of their own. Bonnell also declares that if you invite someone to your house, you must expect them to see that as a sexual invitation. And that when it comes to stealthing, women shouldn’t have sex with anyone whom they wouldn’t be comfortable telling not to remove a condom.

Naturally I agreed with him on these points, but amusingly Bonnell was very careful not to align too strongly with what he sees as my overly protective pro-male stance. I was intrigued to hear him talk about young women today, whom he claims enter every sexual encounter with some element of fear. As I pointed out, I’ve never felt like that and see this as a total failure of modern feminism. Whatever happened to feminism’s celebration of women’s female strength and independence? Remember Helen Reddy’s triumphant song – I am woman, hear me roar?

Many of you will know Camile Paglia’s famous story about being in college in the 1960s when girls were still chaperoned and locked safely away from boys at night. She describes their fight to rid themselves of this protectionism, the fight for the freedom to risk rape. ‘I think it is discouraging to see the surrender of young women of their personal autonomy,’ she says, amazed that women are welcoming ‘the intrusion and surveillance of authority figures over their private lives’.

That’s the bottom line here. The sexual consent courses being introduced in our schools are simply the latest effort to convince young women that they are all potential victims, needing protection from dangerous males. Another step to creating a divided society.




Tuesday, March 29, 2022

Young women are being scarred by botched DIY freckles after injecting henna or black ink across their cheeks in TikTok beauty trend

Amusing.  Freckles are a fairly reliable indicator of some Celtic ancestry.  I have them.  Women used to be embarrassed to have them on their face -- as they detracted from a smooth image.  And it is very hard to imitate the natural thing if a foolish attempt is made to do so.

The real thing:

This is a fairly extreme example of facial freckles.  Most are lighter than that. They are most prominent during childhood and tend to fade with age.  They are often associated with red hair.  My father was a redhead

Experts have raised safety concerns about a TikTok beauty trend that has seen young women disfigured after creating DIY tattoo freckles.

Videos posted on the social-media platform show people using needles to inject dots of henna or black ink across their nose and cheeks, which is believed to have been inspired by the Duchess of Sussex’s natural freckles.

But clinics have reported an increase in the number of women needing expensive tattoo removal treatment after botched jobs that trigger allergic reactions and run the risk of permanent scarring.

Laura Kay, a London-based permanent make-up artist who specialises in applying eyebrows, eyeliner and lipstick, said: ‘I wouldn’t advise that you get tattoo freckles done. People who do tattoos at home without a licence are known as scratchers, and that’s not legal.

‘Tattoo artists must have a licence, and DIY tattoos pose a real risk of HIV or hepatitis.’

Bottles of black ink, advertised as ‘DIY Tattoo Fake Freckles’ sell for as little as £5.70 online, while plant-derived henna can irritate the skin.

Australian reality TV star Tilly Whitfield went viral last year after her DIY attempt at fake freckles, using lead-based ink copied from TikTok, left her with permanent scarring and temporary loss of vision in one eye. And one young British TikToker who attempted henna freckles said it took hours to rub the black stain off her face.


British Archives staff put trigger warning next to the U.S. Declaration of Independence flagging it 'outdated, biased and offensive'

Leftist hate has no limits

A famed British historian has hit out at 'moronic' National Archives staff who decided to erect a 'trigger warning' next to the Declaration of Independence for fears its 'outdated' content could cause offence.

Professor Andrew Roberts said that a rare copy of the 18th century document, which represents the founding papers of the United States, is now adorned with a trigger warning for 'outdated, biased and offensive' content at its home in the National Archives in Richmond, London.

The visiting professor at King's College London and critically-acclaimed author said: 'Anyone who thinks an 18th century document is not going to be outdated, biased and offensive is frankly a moron.

'When you go to see the declaration, you read what it says about Native Americans and so on, you won't be so offended that you can't stand up,' he said sarcastically of the trigger warning.

It comes just days after it was revealed that Bath Spa University had slapped offensive content caveats on the likes of celebrated English poets William Wordsworth and John Keats - though the addition of content warnings to historical texts suggests the 'moronic' practice is being taken one step further.

Trigger warnings have gained popularity in recent years in response to concerns that people could be adversely affected by any troubling content.

But there has significant pushback from historians on any mention of trigger warnings being applied to historical texts or documents for fear that the practice will lead to attempts to censor or erase important parts of history.

A spokeswoman for the National Archives said: 'We are aware that some of the terminology used at the time [of the declaration's writing] is not appropriate or may cause offence today.

'If we are using documents in a talk or webinar, for example, then we would endeavour to make people aware that the documents may contain terms that we would not use today.'  

The US Constitution was written as part of a months-long process that included deliberations and compromise by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

The most notable delegates included some of the nation’s founding fathers, including James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin. The convention was presided over by George Washington, the country’s first president.

It was convened in order to remedy the deficiencies of the Articles of Confederation, which to that point was the country’s governing document.

Adopted after the 13 states won their independence from Great Britain, the Articles proved ineffectual in allowing a central government to perform basic tasks, like taxation, raising an army, and adjudicating interstate disputes.

But in recent years, as the nation has wrestled with its history that saw non-white communities like Native Americans and African slaves severely marginalized, some have proposed changes to the language of the founding documents.


Inside the spectacular $200,000 wedding of bespoke spray tanner complete with a street full of supercars, Lebanese drummers and a designer bridal gown

Nobodies pretending to be somebody.  The ostentatious Mediterranean taste involved looks rather repulsive from an Anglo perspective.  And was that a good use of $200,000?  I would have added it to my portfolio of blue-chip shares.  The bride looks pretty attractive anyway so surely she would have been enough to adorn the occasion with minimal context

My last wedding was enjoyed by all -- particularly the children present -- even though the wedding breakfast was in my back yard with a couple of buckets of KFC.  I thought my 5'11" bride by herself was spectacular enough.  See her below.

A professional spray tanner and her husband have tied the knot in spectacular style at one of Sydney's most sought-after wedding venues after rescheduling their nuptials due to a Covid lockdown.

Justin and Justine, both 32, envisioned a super chic modern wedding with traditional elements to pay homage to their Lebanese and Greek background at Doltone House on Jones Bay Wharf.

The couple from Sans Souci, who have been together for seven years, spent $200,000 bringing their vision to life with supercars escorting them around the city for the day and a dress by Australian designer Steven Khalil.  

'We had our traditional twist on entertainment which included many Lebanese drummers, in conjunction with the Greek bouzouki player and saxophone player, whom all intertwined to create one of the best atmospheres you could ever imagine,' she said.

'My bridal party and I had the perfect glam team with flawless makeup done by Melissa Sassine and hair by Sino Hairdressing. All our suppliers we worked with on the day and leading up were just simply amazing.'

Scottish pupils will be taught the Loch Ness monster is anti-Scottish because its legend was a creation of the British class system that portrayed Scotland as 'primitive'

Some Scots clearly have a big chip on their shoulders

To many, it’s a fun fairytale to lure tourists; to others, it’s a genuine mystery – or just a silly hoax.

But to woke education chiefs, the Loch Ness Monster is a potent symbol of England’s domination of Scotland – a theory which will now be taught in schools.

Pupils north of the border are to be told how the mythical beast reinforces negative stereotypes and ingrains bias about the Scots.

Schoolchildren will be taught how the class structure had a role in the creation of the legend, and how stories surrounding the creature relate to debate on Scottish Independence and even the Cold War.

But campaigners last night criticised the classes as ‘nationalist, anti-British propaganda’ aimed at ‘brainwashing’ pupils.

The remarkable claims about Nessie come in a 17-page social studies lesson plan to help secondary school teachers teach what the monster’s portrayal in films says about Scotland’s image and how it affects ‘wider contemporary topics, such as the Independence Referendum’.

The material aims to help 11-to-14- year-olds ‘recognise persuasion and bias’ and asserts that the monster was ‘designed as a tourist attraction to appeal to the motoring middle classes’ during the Depression.

Though the earliest reports date from the 6th Century, the Nessie phenomenon exploded in the 1930s with a flurry of alleged sightings and photographs.

And the first film about Nessie was 1934’s low-budget horror romp The Secret Of The Loch.

The lesson plan says the movie monster ‘shows the somewhat ambivalent position that Scotland holds in the Union… the very idea of a prehistoric monster in a loch affirms the stereotypical idea that Scotland – by contrast to England – is a rural wilderness, perhaps one bypassed by progress.

‘The monster’s depiction suggests that although there was a “primitive” wilderness in Scotland before the state of Britain, the modern state has the ability to control it using advanced knowledge and technologies.’

The document goes on to describe how the Nessie legend was ‘indicative of the development of the modern state of Britain’, and that the creature’s depiction ‘reveals a lot about Scotland’s position within the Union… the supposedly unified national community to which people could “imagine a sense of belonging”.’

It adds that ‘cinematic depictions of Nessie enabled Britain to imagine itself as a modern and unified state’.

Also placed under scrutiny are the 1996 family drama Loch Ness, starring Ted Danson and Joely Richardson, and the 1983 short The Loch Ness Monster Movie, in which a cheaply animated claymation Nessie rampages through Edinburgh.

The teaching aid says: ‘This monstrous destruction of the nation’s capital questions whether Scotland may be dragged into the dangerous arena of the Cold War due to its relationship with England… and indeed, Britain’s “special relationship” with the USA.

In this movie, Nessie is a Scottish monster, questioning whether, in the circumstances it finds itself in, it should reconsider its position in Britain in order to find a different place in the world.’

Chris McGovern, chairman of the Campaign for Real Education, slammed the material, saying: ‘There is no question about it presenting anti-British bias. It seeks to brainwash pupils into believing that Scotland is the victim of a wicked conspiracy to subvert and infantilise its identity.

‘The nationalist cause must be in desperate trouble if it has to resort to such propaganda tactics with young people. My advice to teachers is to use the Nessie Plan itself as an example of how “bias” is used by educators.’




Monday, March 28, 2022

'Love-rat' boyfriend is dumped FIVE times after ex-girlfriend, 27, finds and befriends his FOUR other partners

The guy is a fool.  I once had three girlfriends at once but I never lie to women so each lady knew she was not the only one.  We all drifted apart eventually but there was no acrimony over it.  All three relationships lasted years.  It is amazing what women  will put up with from men they like but one thing they will usually not put up with is being lied to

A serial cheater was dumped five times in quick succession after his ex-girlfriend found and befriended the four other women he was dating at the same time.

The woman, known as Michaela, said she was dating the man for six months when she discovered he was in relationships with four other women in London.

Michaela, 27, then decided to reach out to the women, who all quickly became friends and confronted the man. They all soon dumped the 'love-rat'.


Some oddities

There is a conservative site here that is a bit hysterical.

They start by dredging up an old story about Bill Gates.  According to the story Gates said that vaccines reduce the population.  He did say that but it was mainly the population of poor Africans he was aiming at.   He said if they were healthier they might stop having so many children.  He wanted MORE Caucasian babies.

The other lulu is a story about aluminium in vaccines.  It is actually right in one way.  Aluminium compounds WERE once routinely added to vaccines to make them more effective.  There is no real evidence of harm from it but, in recent years, the practice has come under question.  So NO aluminium is used in Covid vaccines


Are we controlled by a hidden race of reptiles in human form?

We see that claim from time to time, paticularly in the messages of David Icke, who is a good publicist whatever else he is.

So where does that idea come from?  I think I know.  The key lies in the traits ascribed to the reptilians concerned.  They deny what they really are, are emotionally cold and are aiming at our destruction.  So where do we find people like that?

We really are ruled by them.  They are the Leftist elite who exercise very extensive control over our society, do their best to undermine it and whose compassion is only a shallow front.  Leftists are the reptiles concerned

I don't think they are literally reptiles but they are close enough to it in character to have inspired the idea of reptilian control.

A good comment from a reader

Yes, psychologically lefties are reptiles, due to their psychologically cold blooded hearts, which radiate no true love, so crave a sense of warmth from external sources, particularly admiration from others, and which strokes their egos, and gives them a sense of status and feelgood emotions.

When I observe certain lefties like Trudeau, Hanson-Young, and others I have met in person, their cold heartedness and insincerity is clear.

In person, their eye contact can give them away too. The only heartfelt sense of warmth they can self-generate is anger, which the smartest of them try to hide but it is easily triggered to show forth. They don’t know love, forgiveness, or thankfulness, in the true sense.

Of course I’m referring to the cunning ones, the teachers, preachers, manipulators and instigators of leftism. Not the ones who are deceived and led astray.  


A good comment about the slave trade era in North and South America

There is a video below spoken by a black man which shows how far history differs from the usual narrative.  There is a long apologetic prelude which lasts for about the first third of the video

A good comment emailed by Bill Rowe:

As the Jews have not been the only people who suffered and died throughout the millennia, the blacks are not the only people who suffered under slavery.  And since we can never own property because of property taxes, and our labor is taxed through Income Tax, we are all slaves now.  And the best slave is the slave who does not know they are a slave


Antisemitism in Australia

Antisemitism is not something one normally associates with Australia and antisemitic public utterances are very rare in Australia.  Though "Anti-Zionism" does pop up among Leftists  occasionally.

I am myself rather philosemitic.  I even donate at times to Israeli charities.  For the avoidance of doubt, however, I hasten to add that NONE of my best friends are Jews (!)

So it has always surprised me how often I encounter anti-Jewish utterances among people I meet here. Just about any mention of Jews that I hear is negative to some degree.  I even hear it from otherwise kindly people and I even recently heard one person say that they would like to kill all Jews. My usual response to such utterances is to listen but keep my mouth shut.  There are some ideas that it is pointless to argue with.

And I have been noting such utterances for a long time. In 1973 I had published (in a Jewish journal) a summary of the different antisemitic utterances I had heard at that stage.

So this note is essentially an update.  Nothing has changed:  For one reason or another, antisemitism is actually still quite common in Australia.  It is mostly low-level but not entirely so.

So why is it so? At some risk of being misunderstood, I did at one stage put together an article which attempted to trace the origin of one type of antisemitism but in the present era of greatly inflamed political correctness I suppose I take some risk of great opprobium in referring to it




Sunday, March 27, 2022

BlackRock Chief Says Ukraine War Marks End to Globalization

This is a quick about-turn for Davos man Larry Fink, formerly a great supporter of globalization. It seems that he is quick to embrace whatever is fashionable. He is right this time, though. Both the economic war on Russia and global supply chain breakdowns have hit hard at globalization thinking. It has been thoroughly overtaken by reality.

It reminds me of a saying attributed to the aristocatic former British PM Harold Macmillan, who was known for his pragmatism, wit and unflappability. A journalist once asked him what could throw his government off-course in the next two weeks. He replied: "Events, dear boy, events"

Larry Fink, chief executive of BlackRock, the world’s biggest asset manager, said that the war in Ukraine will put an end to globalization as governments and businesses cut ties with Russia, while warning that a large-scale reorienting of supply chains will be inflationary.

“The Russian invasion of Ukraine has put an end to the globalization we have experienced over the last three decades,” Fink wrote in a March 24 letter to shareholders, in which he noted that the Russian offensive in Ukraine had catalyzed nations to sever financial and business ties with Moscow.

“United in their steadfast commitment to support the Ukrainian people, they launched an ‘economic war’ against Russia,” Fink wrote.

Russia has been hit with crippling sanctions over what it calls a “special military operation” in Ukraine. The measures have targeted Russian banks and wealthy oligarchs, there’s been a closure of airspace to Russian planes, and the export of key technologies has been banned.

The sanctions also include a freeze on around $300 billion of Russia’s central bank hard currency reserves, an unprecedented move that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov denounced on March 23 as “theft.”

Fink noted in his letter that capital markets, financial institutions, and companies have gone beyond government-imposed sanctions, moving quickly to terminate longstanding business and investment relationships.

He predicted that Russia’s decoupling from the global economy will prompt governments and companies to re-evaluate their manufacturing and assembly footprints more generally and reconsider their dependency on other nations.

“This may lead companies to onshore or nearshore more of their operations, resulting in a faster pull back from some countries,” Fink wrote.

There will be challenges for firms as they seek to rejig supply chains, he said.

“This decoupling will inevitably create challenges for companies, including higher costs and margin pressures.”

“While companies’ and consumers’ balance sheets are strong today, giving them more of a cushion to weather these difficulties, a large-scale reorientation of supply chains will inherently be inflationary,” he added.

Fink said central banks find themselves in a challenging moment, weighing how fast to raise rates in a bid to curb surging inflation, which has been exacerbated by the conflict in Ukraine and the associated energy price shocks.

“Central banks must choose whether to live with higher inflation or slow economic activity and employment to lower inflation quickly,” he said.

The Federal Reserve last week hiked rates for the first time since 2018 and Fed chair Jerome Powell said on Monday that the U.S. central bank must move “expeditiously” to raise rates and possibly “more aggressively” to keep an upward price spiral from becoming entrenched.

Annual inflation in Russia accelerated to 14.5 percent as of March 18, the fastest pace since 2015, the economy ministry said on Wednesday, as the battered rouble sent prices soaring amid biting Western sanctions.


Utah bans transgender athletes from competing in girls sports despite governors veto

GOP lawmakers in Utah pushed through a ban on transgender youth athletes playing on girls teams Friday, overriding a veto and joining 11 other states with similar laws amid a nationwide culture war.

The ban previously received support from a majority of Utah lawmakers, but fell short of the two-thirds needed to override it.

Its sponsors on Friday flipped 10 Republicans in the House and five in the Senate who had previously voted against the proposal.

A dozen states now have some sort of ban on transgender kids in school sports. Utah's law takes effect July 1.

Republican sponsor Rep. Kera Birkeland, who is also a basketball coach, welcomed the decision and said conversations with female student athletes compelled her to act.

'When we say, `This isn´t a problem in our state,´ what we say to those girls is, `Sit down, be quiet and make nice,'' she said.

Lawmakers anticipate court challenges similar to blocked bans in Idaho and West Virginia, where athletes have said the policies violate their civil rights. They´ve argued the bans violate their privacy rights, due to tests required if an athlete´s gender is challenged. The ACLU of Utah said on Friday that a lawsuit was inevitable.

The bill overrides a veto letter from Gov. Spencer Cox, who stalled the bill after he argued it would target vulnerable transgender kids already at high suicide risk.

Cox was the second GOP governor this week to overrule lawmakers on a sports-participation ban, but the proposal won support from a vocal conservative base that has particular sway in Utah´s state primary season. Even with those contests looming, however, some Republicans stood with Cox to reject the ban.

'I cannot support this bill. I cannot support the veto override and if it costs me my seat so be it. I will do the right thing, as I always do,' said Republican Sen. Daniel Thatcher.

Business leaders also sounded the alarm that the ban could have a multimillion-dollar economic impact on Utah, including the possible loss of the NBA All-Star Game next year. The Utah Jazz called the ban 'discriminatory legislation' and opposed it.

Not long ago efforts to regulate transgender kids´ participation in sports failed to gain traction in statehouses, but in the past two years groups like the American Principles Project began a well-coordinated effort to promote the legislation throughout the country. Since last year, bans have been introduced in at least 25 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. This week, lawmakers in Arizona and Oklahoma passed bans.

'You start these fights and inject them into politics,' said Terry Schilling, president of the American Principles Project. 'You pass them in a few states and it starts to take on a life of its own and becomes organic. We helped start this fight and we´re helping carry it through, but a lot of this is coming from the local level.'

Leaders in the deeply conservative Utah say they need the law to protect women´s sports. The lawmakers argue that more transgender athletes with possible physical advantages could eventually dominate the field and change the nature of women´s sports without legal intervention


Mental illness and the Left

Emil O. W. Kirkegaard


It has been claimed that left-wingers or liberals (US sense) tend to be more mentally ill than right-wingers or conservatives. This potential link was investigated using the General Social Survey. A search found 5 items measuring one's own mental illness in different ways (e.g."Do you have any emotional or mental disability?"). All of these items were associated with left-wing political ideology as measured by self-report. These results held up mostly in regressions that adjusted for age, sex, and race. For the variable with the most data, the difference in mental illness between "extremely liberal" and "extremely conservative" was 0.39 d. This finding is congruent with numerous findings based on related constructs.


It has been claimed that left-wingers or liberals (US sense) tend to more often suffer from mental illness than right-wingers or conservatives. This potential link was investigated using the General Social Survey cumulative cross-sectional dataset (1972-2018). A search of the available variables resulted in 5 items measuring one's own mental illness (e.g., ”Do youhave any emotional or mental disability?”).

All of these items were weakly associated withleft-wing political ideology as measured by self-report, with especially high rates seen for the“extremely liberal” group. These results mostly held up in regressions that adjusted for age,sex, and race.

For the variable with the most data (n = 11,338), the difference in the mentalillness measure between “extremely liberal” and “extremely conservative” was 0.39 d.Temporal analysis showed that the relationship between mental illness, happiness, andpolitical ideology has existed in the GSS data since the 1970s and still existed in the 2010s.

Within-study meta-analysis of all the results found that extreme liberals had a 150%increased rate of mental illness compared to moderates.

The finding of increased mentalillness among left-wingers is congruent with numerous findings based on related constructs,such as positive relationships between conservatism, religiousness and health in general.

It has been reported that left-wingers or liberals (US sense) tend to more often suffer from mentalillness than right-wingers or conservatives (Bullenkamp & Voges, 2004; Duckworth et al., 1994;Guhname, 2007; Howard & Anthony, 1977; Kelly, 2014; Unorthodox Theory, 2020). This suggestion is consistent with other research showing that religiosity predicts both mental andphysical health (AbdAleati et al., 2016; Cotton et al., 2006; Dutton et al., 2018; Moreira-Almeida etal., 2006; Seeman et al., 2003; VanderWeele, 2017), given the known strong relationship betweenpolitical conservatism and religiousness (Koenig & Bouchard Jr., 2006; Ludeke et al., 2013).

Furthermore, political conservatism has been found to be associated with longevity (Kannan et al.,2019).In a recent series of tweets, Lemoine (2020) analyzed data from the Slate Star Codex (SSC)2020 reader survey2 (n = 8,043; Alexander, 2020), and showed that self-rated political ideologicalposition (1-10 scale) and self-rated far-left labels were related to mental health.


America’s most powerful, elite institutions now cooperate to misinform the public and suppress dissent

It’s hard to think otherwise during the arc of the Hunter Biden laptop story that turned out to be true.

Last week, The New York Times reporters wrote that they authenticated email “obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. [Hunter] Biden in a Delaware repair shop.”

This is in reference to a story the New York Post broke in 2020, shortly before the presidential election, about emails sent from the laptop of the president’s son, Hunter. The emails suggest that Hunter was using his father’s name and office to enrich himself. It raised serious questions about whether now-President Joe Biden was involved in any way.

Don’t go celebrating The New York Times’ sudden commitment to truth and accuracy. The paper buried the lede and put the acknowledgment that the emails were real on the 24th paragraph of its story.

No grand mea culpa here, just a little acknowledgment that it got things wrong a year late and a dollar short.

When the story initially broke, the Times and most of the legacy media dismissed it entirely. They called it a non-story and promoted the idea that it was likely Russian disinformation.

NPR explained that it just couldn’t cover the story because its “assertions don’t amount to much.”

This is the same publicly funded media network that found time to air a segment about “decolonizing fitness,” and how exercising is white supremacy or something.

It wasn’t just the legacy media that went radio silent about the story, refusing to even investigate the issue. Big Tech swung into action to ruthlessly suppress the Post exposé from being disseminated. Twitter outright prevented people from posting it on the website, and Facebook used its internal algorithm to prevent people from seeing it.

Jack Dorsey, who was the Twitter CEO when the Hunter laptop story was suppressed, said that blocking the story was a “total mistake,” but never explained how the mistake was made and was replaced shortly thereafter by a man who is even less enamored with free speech.

As my colleague Katrina Trinko pointed out, the Hunter Biden story certainly demonstrates the sham of Big Tech’s war on “misinformation.”

Is Big Tech conducting a genuine effort to stop misinformation, or is this really just a smoke screen to justify the suppression of information or ideas that interfere with the Democrat Party’s agenda?

To top this whole mess off, when the Post initially broke the Hunter laptop story, a group of former senior “intelligence experts” put their name to a statement saying that the Hunter Biden story has all the “classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”

They had no actual evidence besides their claims to expertise.

Trust the experts! Isn’t that what we are told all the time these days?

“If we are right, this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in this election, and we believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this,” the former intelligence officials said.

Biden even used this letter in a debate with former President Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential campaign to prove it was all just Republican misinformation.

Well, they were wrong. It appears that it was actually politicized former senior intelligence operatives who were trying to influence our elections. Americans need to be aware of this.

Has there been any accountability for all these people and institutions that got this wrong? Not at all.

Of the 51 former senior officials, so far none have apologized or demonstrated any kind of accountability for what they did. Some even doubled down.

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper only said that he stands by the statement they made “AT THE TIME.” No explanation for why it was bogus or contrition for misleading the American public.

Andy Liepman, former National Counterterrorism Center deputy director, said in his statement to the Post, “As far as I know I do [stand by the statement] but I’m kind of busy right now.”

It seems some in our intelligence services have forgotten that they serve us rather than the other way around.

The former intelligence officials didn’t just get the facts wrong, as the New York Post pointed out. They actively tried to turn a story about potential Biden family corruption into a story about how Russian election interference was victimizing the Bidens.

They used their positions, or former positions, as a pedestal of authority when they were engaging in what now appears to be political hackery.

When you put this all together, the Hunter Biden laptop story is about much more than media malpractice and political hackery in the intelligence services.

It’s about even more than just Big Tech censorship.

The bigger story is about how all the above, in unison, work together to suppress information that hurts an ideological and political cause that they value most and amplify favored narratives regardless of merit.

They are now in lockstep promoting the “narrative” over the truth.

Elite institutions once thought to be nonpartisan, bipartisan, or at least somewhat objective are becoming ruthlessly ideological and perfectly willing to use their power to crush dissent.

In the case of the Hunter Biden story, there were clear implications for what looked like a closely matched presidential election.

A Media Research Center poll of Biden voters in key 2020 election swing states found that not only were many of these voters unaware of the Hunter Biden story, but about 10% also said that its revelation would have changed their vote.

Think about this for a moment. For years, this same nexus of institutions promoted the Russia collusion story about Trump. The New York Times and Washington Post won the Pulitzer Prize for their coverage, which led indirectly to Trump’s impeachment.

As the Russia collusion story was winding down, the Biden laptop reporting broke and was ruthlessly suppressed on the eve of a presidential election. The story was dismissed as based on nothing but preposterous, pernicious Russian disinformation. It was also true.

If they got these things so wildly wrong and were willing to use all their power to project ultimately false information to the public, what else have they been wrong about and what other things are they willing to suppress to produce favorable political outcomes?

Again, there has been effectively no acknowledgment of failure from the institutions themselves, no explanation for what happened.

Wall Street Journal editor Gerard Baker called this America’s crisis of accountability. He wrote that the way people in power can be kept in check is through the ballot box.

“But how can that even work when the people we want to hold accountable decide what information the voters are allowed to see?” Baker asked.

That’s a fair and chilling question. That’s why the Hunter Biden story is a big deal.

The possibility that the president’s son used his father’s official position to enrich himself is bad enough. But it’s nowhere near as threatening to our free society than the institutional corruption that suppressed and manipulated the story to suit political ends from the beginning.

This story, at its heart, is about a willful distortion and suppression of truth and reality by those who believe they will never be held accountable.


The Left Strikes Again at Freedom of Speech in Akron, Ohio

Recently, the Akron Roundtable of Ohio invited me to give a presentation on the issue of election integrity as part of a recurring series it calls “Point/Counterpoint.”

As I told the audience, the sponsors of the Roundtable, which includes the Kiwanis Club, the Greater Akron Chamber, and the Akron Beacon Journal, were to be applauded for upholding the great American tradition of having civil, even vigorous discussions on important issues from individuals with differing points of view, a tradition that has virtually disappeared in our communities and college campuses.

The progressive, radical left, however, has no interest in upholding this tradition, protected by the First Amendment, which is vital to a functioning democracy.

I experienced a shameful example of this before arriving in Akron: the League of Women Voters lodged a protest with the Roundtable for allowing me to speak. The minions of the left want to silence anyone who disagrees with them or questions what they assert is the only acceptable “truth.”

The Akron Roundtable is one of the diminishing number of organizations that is still committed to open and civil discourse. As its website says, it is dedicated to promoting “community dialog and networking by presenting speakers who inform and educate listeners on diverse topics of importance to the region, the nation and the world.”

True to that mission, the organization has invited guests as disparate as Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio; Center for Immigration Studies Director Mark Krikorian; and Paul Helmke of the Brady Center. I was just the latest speaker to join this long list of more than 400 guests who have spoken to the Akron Roundtable, which is made up of a very diverse group of individuals, many of whom have different points of views on everything from politics to culture.

The League of Women Voters took issue with the Roundtable inviting me to speak. Its local chapter president, Rosanne Winter, sent the Roundtable a letter expressing the group’s “strong disappointment,” and protesting my choice as a speaker. The Roundtable should select “respected speakers,” said the League, by which it clearly means only those who don’t disagree with the League.

Winter was upset that I actually talk about examples of election fraud in our country, which, as the Supreme Court itself said, has “been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected journalists and historians.” Apparently, they believe that speaking about that, or telling the public about The Heritage Foundation’s Election Fraud Database, which is now up to 1,349 proven cases of fraud, should not be allowed in a public forum.

What is particularly ironic about this letter is that the League of Women Voters had already spoken to the Roundtable about this issue. Remember, this is a “Point/Counterpoint” series. I spoke on March 17, but in February, the members of the Roundtable heard from Jessica Jones Capparell, the director of government affairs for the League of Women Voters of the United States.

The League’s shameful protest graphically illustrates how much the League of Women Voters and too many others no longer believe in the First Amendment, and want to chill the speech of anyone who disagrees with them.

There was also a letter to the editor from Sherry McMillen that was published in the Akron Beacon Journal (approvingly cited by the League) protesting my being allowed to speak, saying that giving me a “platform” would be a “disservice to our community and our nation.” Apparently, Ms. McMillen believes that allowing anyone to speak who disagrees with her view of the world is a “disservice.”

She would have fit in very well in the countries my mother and father grew up in before they immigrated to the U.S. to get away from governments, societies, and cultures that did not allow dissent or countering views on the accepted political orthodoxy.

According to the League and the letter writer, they are the sole and unequivocal arbiters of truth and morality, so any dissent must be silenced for the common good.

Fortunately, the Akron Roundtable doesn’t agree. And neither do other citizens in Akron, like Robert E. Williams II, a Vietnam veteran who wrote his own letter to the editor criticizing such censorship efforts and those individuals who apparently believe that free speech is only “for those you agree with.”

I have no doubt there were individuals in the room who disagreed with my views and opinions. But they allowed me to speak and everyone there was extremely cordial, polite, and civil—which is the same way they treated the speaker from the League of Women Voters.

I vehemently disagree with the League’s uninformed views on election integrity, its dishonest claims of “voter suppression,” and its unfair attacks on efforts to reform the election process to improve its fairness and honesty. But the difference is that it would never occur to me to send a letter to the Roundtable protesting its choice of a speaker from the League.