Doing this once a week means that the quotes will be long, and as an experiment I will try to structure this post. This is the week that Petersen imploded, and his lobster boys demonstrated they were more programmed than NPCs.
The better reviews of the week are, as usual, over at the Woodpile Report, Matt Brigg's Doom Report and at Adam's place (but not this week). Sadly, Social matter's 1000 plus word posts seem to have disappeared.
What happened this week
Will demonstrates that our Kiwi Prime Minister has a fair amount of doofus in her. He missed the point that she's embroiled in her parties current scandal involving harassment.
She is arguing that on the scandal and where she was she is poorly informed.
'To argue that the Prime Minister is the victim of her adviser's failure to keep her informed may offer Jacinta some measure of exoneration - but only at the cost of casting her as a hopeless political ingenue. A star-dusted muppet whose only job is to keep the punters entertained while the big boys get on with the job of running the country. Even worse, it casts those 'Big Boys' as deeply cynical power-brokers who long ago lost their moral compasses. And that, in turn, casts Jacinda as the hapless little woman kept in the dark by a bunch of cold-hearted bastards prepared to do whatever necessary to keep their mate in his job.'
Chris Trotter, quoted No Minister
Homeland security has decided to move away from immigrants and Islam and look instead at white supremacy as a source of terrorists. The local media are calling those who are xenophobic gutless and racist. They want any dissent silenced. Sadly, most of the media are local, so we cannot send them back.
There was supposed to be a climate strike and a day of no cars this week -- perhaps the climate strike is next week (it is this Friday). Driven by one of those people who may be bright, but really needs to be in a university or monastery, where they can have a keeper appointed for them. Matt Briggs proceeds to summarise the irrationality pithily
It should not be considered hurtful or insulting to call somebody ignorant when this somebody knows naught about the subject on which she is preaching. If even I, for example, were to lecture and harangue you on the subject of pre-Columbia Peruvian pottery, about which I know zippo, except that such pottery exists, you could rightfully call me ignorant. I would not weep.
Greta Thunberg, who is leading tykes the world over on a “climate strike”, is ignorant about the earth’s climate. Beyond knowing that it exists, and having absorbed a slew of false and monstrously improbable statistics, little Greta is abominably untutored about the physics of a differentially heated fluid flowing over a rotating sphere. I have fifty bucks says she could not define vorticity. And it’s a good bet she doesn’t even know why they sky is blue. During a cloudless sunny day, that is. (Do you, dear reader; without looking it up, I mean.)
Yet she says she wants us to feel the fear she feels over the climate. Sorry, sweetheart. Nobody still in love with Reality would attempt simulating the emotional state of a teenage girl. Especially about global warming.
William M Briggs
Calling people ignorant is a useful test. The wise acknowledge where they don't have knowledge. Fools, however, are offended. This test applies to executive officers, mayors, ministers of the state and religion. For sometimes it is better to say that you don't know anything about the subject.
But correcting peoples ignorance must be stopped. Even if you are as progressive as Jim Flynn.
Philosopher Jim Flynn is no stranger to controversy, having been fired from universities in the United States for views deemed too liberal.
However, his rejection by a UK publisher for potentially inciting racial and religious hatred with his book on free speech on campus has left him scratching his head.
The University of Otago emeritus professor and IQ expert's book In Defense of Free Speech: The University as Censor, was turned down at the last minute by Emerald Press due partly to legal concerns around the inclusion of scholars with inflammatory views.
A letter from the publisher said Emerald's concerns included the potential for circulation of the more controversial passages of the manuscript online.
"It's a rather ironic situation ... The book itself is defined as no longer permissible speech," Prof Flynn said yesterday.
"I wasn't surprised they sought a legal opinion, but I couldn't imagine anyone would interpret Great Britain's hate speech laws, which were meant to ban people from going online and saying `kill all Muslims' or going online and saying `shun black people' ... would be stretched to the point where ... even though you've only stated [views of other authors] to be refuted, it's something that may be interpreted as hate speech."
The theme of his book was many academics, particularly in America, did not feel free to speak their own minds due to a "party line".
"They feel terribly insecure because of student informants, and secondly, many departments take a dogmatic position," he said.
Otago Daily Times
Our prime minister was to meet with Trump, but this was not significant enough for him to put into his twitter video. The local press were offended.
I'm relieved. Living in an unimportant, quiet, part of the world is good. Be where the crowds are not.
In the meantime, the UK Supreme Court (which we can blame Tony Blair for) has gone full moron and over ruled Johnson. The reaction is scabrous.
Judiciary is 95% Remain it’s therefore biased and corrupt.
Dangerous times when the Judiciary is an enemy of the people.
Watch Tory and Brexit Party polling soar as a reaction to the corruption and anti British extremism of the Judiciary.
The first act of the next Tory government must be abolition of the Supreme Court.
This is a constitutional crisis, Judiciary made. Cromwell would have told them to go, in the name of God. Most of these muppets know that the English will do it at the next election. Not to say that the US politicians are any better.
Everybody needs to calm the hell down. My expectation is that this latest “scandal” will prove to be nothing, and that it will end up hurting Democrats more than it hurts Trump. Be patient.
No, they have to react. Like lab rats.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi launched a formal impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump on Tuesday, yielding to mounting pressure from fellow Democrats and plunging a deeply divided nation into an election-year clash between Congress and the commander in chief.
The probe focuses partly on whether Trump abused his presidential powers and sought help from a foreign government to undermine Democratic foe Joe Biden and help his own reelection. Pelosi said such actions would mark a “betrayal of his oath of office” and declared, “No one is above the law.”
The impeachment inquiry, after months of investigations by House Democrats of the Trump administration, sets up the party’s most direct and consequential confrontation with the president, injects deep uncertainty into the 2020 election campaign and tests anew the nation’s constitutional system of checks and balances.
Trump, who thrives on combat, has all but dared Democrats to take this step, confident that the specter of impeachment led by the opposition party will bolster rather than diminish his political support.
Trump has a lot of dirt on the Democrats, and he will bring it up... right through election year. I predict a trumpslide. The question has to be asked: is it possible to underestimate the cognitive challenges the progressive face?
This is from the States, but the same dynamic works in the Antipodes. Many of the credentialed want to micromanage those without the same certificates: their need to micromanage is a sign of their insecurity. This strategy does not work because the credentialed, like all elites, are a minority, hiding in their very expensive ghettos.
From which, like the senior common room, the majority vote Green or Labour. Both tend to fail.
You see, it comes down to appealing to their core base of supporters and volunteers- to be more specific, the credentialed professional class. As I have said in some of previous posts, a lot of the odd behavior displayed by democratic party makes sense once you realize that its most important non-corporate supporters are people who owe their well-compensated livelihood to credentials obtained from “famous” educational institutions. It is also no secret that most of those who work for or volunteer at higher levels in that party have such socio-economic backgrounds.
But why would that translate into support for gun control? Why would such a socio-economic group, or class, be interested in gun control? Let me try to explain it in the nicest possible language.. never mind- because they are greedy and insecure parasites. The credentialed class (especially in USA) derives its income, livelihood and social status from thievery and extortion through law and rules. That is why doctors in USA makes much more money than other developed countries while not being any better than them. That is why tenured professors at large “famous” universities in USA can make so much extra money though side projects. That is why pretty much any credentialed or licensed professional makes more in USA than other developed countries.
The degree of parasitism displayed by the credentialed professional classes in USA is second only to outright legalized theft and extortion practiced by corporate entities. But why then are corporations not especially interested in gun control? Why the professional class but not corporations? The answer to that is simple- because corporations already have the full might of the state behind them. Credentialed professionals, on the other hand, are in that peculiar zone where they are visibly doing better than others in a rapidly impoverishing society but lack any special protection by the state. In other words, they can feel (if only on a subconscious level) that they will become targets for popular rage if the proverbial shit hits the fan.
And that is why the credentialed professional class, which is the 2nd most important constituency for democrats as well as the source of most of their party establishment cadre want to disarm “less deserving” poorer people. Parasites, you see, prefer hosts who are unable to stop the party.
The correct response to this is to trust God, but everyone else better show you their evidence. Adam notes that we should think for ourselves. True skepticism is the ability to discern what is gold from that which his mere gilt.
Yes, I know thinking is hard, but the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads from damnation and freedom from the spirit of this age.
It’s easy on the surface to just believe what people are saying and get on board. But that slothful intellectual attitude ultimately leads you to falling down a rabbit hole of convoluted lies and deception. It’s much better in the long run to exercise a bit of skepticism in regards to whatever lies are in the process of being pushed.
Skepticism should be your default state in regards to all things except the word of God. Go outside and buy today’s newspaper. Now open it and read every article with the attitude that it is bullshit. Not only that, you have now acquired wisdom and accurate information, for if everything you read is an untruth then you have just discovered a whole lot of truth by taking a contrary viewpoint. Sure, you might make a mistake here and there but overall you’ll be a long way in front.
Stacey on the reaction some people are having to a discussion with a pickup artist. Being a pickup artist is bad for your soul and a temptation to the gentler sex. However, the reaction -- you would have to read the whole thing.
Now, I do not endorse deliberate emotional manipulation and, as a Christian, I must condemn fornication as a a sin. But the feminist reaction . . . They’re totally losing it.
I should read Schneiderman more. He's reporting on market research reporting the obvious: if you want to keep the wife happy, tidy up a bit. If you want to keep the husband happy, don't pretend he will tidy was well as you would.
As if this was not already known.
In truth, if we had to decide which of two members of said domestic partnership is more concerned about the open chip bags… you do not need to guess. As for which partner is more likely to fly into a rage because the toilet seat was left up, again, this is not a mystery.
In truth, women care far more about the tidiness of their homes. Women define themselves, in some part, by their ability to make a home. I recognize that the concept has gone out of style, thanks to you know who, but still, human behavior does not just change because you want it to change.
In short, feminists insisted that men must do their fair share of household chores. But, men do not care about said chores. Women do. Besides, women prefer to exercise control and authority over their homes, attitude that does not exactly work well with the idea that men should be doing their fair share.
As a formula, dividing household chores equally between men and women does not work. Empowering women to scream at their husbands for not tidying up after meals is a formula for a broken relationship. Imagining that you can cure it with good sex is delusional.
Will anyone imagine that this merely proves the value of the old division of household labor? Not a chance.
Vive la difference.
Just under half of mankind is born female. Most of them grow up to be women. But being a lady is a title that you earn. It is not to do with wealth or status, but an attitude, a grace, and a set of standards made out of reinforced concrete and chromium steel. A lady is feminine. She is not weak. Nor does she miss the evil in this world, but calls it.
One evil is leaving the next generation ignorant, and Elspeth calls this correctly.
There have always been the arguments raised about whether kids should be forced to read classic literature because it is “too hard” for them, they might it boring, or simply because the kids don’t like to read old books for any number of reasons. Sometimes the teachers themselves might not enjoy sifting through the language and themes with students. Nonetheless, it was generally accepted that the benefits of reading and discussing classic literature added a level of intellectual and literary value that cancelled out most of those complaints.
Lately however, as our culture has become increasingly ideologically divided and more cultural battle lines are being drawn, educational consensus has given way to the kinds of rhetoric displayed above. The Western canon, at least the portion which is authored by European descended men, features traditional Western norms or considers religious mores in any way virtuous, are under severe attack. They are “unengaging, irrelevant, and lacking in cultural diversity” based on the above commentary.
Somehow, as this piece from The Federalist points out, there seems to be little hand wringing or hesitation about subjecting students to questionable content from books which are assumed to be more “engaging, relevant and culturally diverse” so long as they are written by approved, qualified authors.
Amy generally writes well -- but for women. If you find yourself visible then you will find yourself being criticized. One trick is to dress just a little better than others. Deliberately... says weka, barefoot on the couch. For we are always visible and always a witness.
You are really affecting the people with whom you interact, not just the people with whom you interact intentionally. If you drive poorly, you affect the other drivers. If you smile at the clerk, or give your place in line, you’re affecting the people in the grocery store. If you scowl at them, you’re affecting them. There is no “I’m not here”, and so there should not be, “so don’t look at me”.
If you act as if those around you are unengaging, boring (again, I am speaking as one who prefers to be alone) then you are giving others the message you are boring and uninteresting.
It is far better to be problematic. It is better to eat the same food as your family (and cook it from scratch).
Rachael reinforces the need to declutter digitally as part of housework.
(I need to keep these notes for January -- for in NZ we start the academic and professional year after the Christmas and Summer break, not at the beginning of spring. It's exam time here).
This can be sensitive – some folks really enjoy all things -book and -gram for sharing fun and business and keeping up with far-away friends and family. I use a couple of accounts with some regularity, and really don’t see them as intrinsically evil. That said, (the collective) we clearly have a case of cultural voyeurism which simply isn’t healthy. I have finally trained myself to unfriend, unfollow, unplug, without guilt. No one ever died from not snapchatting, and according to my kids, Facebook is for old people. We are under no obligation to participate in social media. If it’s a source of stress for whatever reason, ditch it or edit it in such a way you’re only receiving the posts and articles that you find interesting or bring you some happiness.
Larry Correia hates File 770. Larry writes books that are fun to read. Such books are rare. One should always quote the author, because the invective should suffice.
Some of you may be asking, who is Mike Glyer and why is he a simpering feculent? Well, count yourself lucky that you’ve avoided running into him, because he’s basically an oily discharge from a diseased dog’s colon. He’s a loathsome slug of a man, who creates nothing of value, but who makes himself feel important by tearing down people who do create things. He runs a sci-fi and fantasy lit “news” site for the dimmest, most pathetic, social justice dipshits you’ve ever seen, and 97,000 Chinese robots.
You’ve heard the term “clown shoes” before? Well, Mike Glyer is clown shoes, but only if the sewer clown from IT threw out his pair because of the fungal infection and all the rotting toenails that had broken off inside.
This offended the aforementioned Social Justice Warriors.
Peter Grant, commenting on how criticising the approved authors gets you banned and onto gab.
It must be frustrating for the poor, hardworking (?) social justice warriors over at Facebook, Twitter and elsewhere. So few of us give a damn about them any longer . . . and there are a growing number of worthwhile alternatives that don't censor their users (e.g. MeWe, Gab, etc.)
Larry Chimed in.
So he leads with The Failure Mode of Clever. That’s actually a Scalzi quote (and to be fair to John, a pretty good one), The Failure Mode of Clever is Asshole.
Am I an asshole? Sure. But only to lily pads like Glyer. This shocks no one. But the real issue is “failure”. I got booted off of Facebook because their bots auto banned me for something obviously goofy. My fans then rallied and had a shit ton of fun with it. (seriously, if you missed it, they went nuts. 48 hours and it’s still positively gleeful in there. SO MANY MEMES). And then because my fans were having fun, I decided I’d have some fun with it too, so me, my wife, and my son staged a funny pic. (what good is having a bunch of military surplus stuff if you can’t occasionally do a photo shoot?) The fans friggin’ loved it.
You’ve got to understand, these are the same fans who still give me stuffed Cookie Monsters dressed as a mercenary because of a Facebook thread from eight years ago. They COSPLAY this stuff. Jack my merch guy is already working on shirts. And when fans get excited, they talk about my stuff, and when their friends see them having fun, I sell more books.
Brother Mundabor notes that the Vatican can't balance the books anymore. It may be that the faithful are voting with their wallets: I have done the same with many parachurch ministries. J.M. Smith, over at the Orthosphere, produces this delight.
it is OK to be black, or white, or Maori, or whatever, and to like your own nation and people. We have been placed in peoples since babel, and to ensure that we are all united, bland and beige is the heresy of babel. Avoid such.
I am writing to announce the Society for the Encouragement of Xenophobia, or SEX. SEX promotes healthy insularity, combats the prejudice against provincialism, and celebrates the beauty of exclusivity. SEX affirms that suspicion of strangers is natural and healthy, and that its free expression is the birthright of every man, woman and child. SEX is necessary because xenophobia is nowadays repressed, persecuted and defamed by Cosmopolitan bigots. These zealots have succeeded in criminalizing xenophobic behavior, and in planting morbid feelings of guilt and shame in the minds of many xenophobes.
Well, yeah. Trump is a patriot, but not of my nation. My leaders hate him, and want bland and beige. But that time is past.
Only hours after Donald Trump called for an end to globalism, claiming that "the future belongs to patriots", New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern used the same podium to call on the world to reject "fierce nationalism".
An emotional Prime Minister appeared to fight back tears while describing the Christchurch Mosque attacks and its aftermath in an impassioned speech.
"If instead of fierce nationalism or self-interest, we seek to form our tribes based on concepts that can and should be universal," Ardern said in her national statement to the United Nations, the 15-minute speech each country gets allocated at the annual UN meeting of national leaders.
"What if we no longer see ourselves based on what we look like, what religion we practice, or where we live, but by what we value?" Ardern asked.
She also used the statement to call for an end to fossil fuel subsidies, battle climate change through trade and reiterated the importance of the Christchurch Call and combating global terrorism, warning that in a more interdependent world "more often domestic decisions that have global ramifications".
My papist friends have that one sorted out quite well. They know that confession and repentance are part of the human experience, because no man is without sin (I John 1:8). And we should mistrust those who use virtue signals as a stimulant.
If you normally use the word ought in conjunction with the word I, morality depresses you. I know that I have often been filled with a hopeless lassitude when I think of the many things I ought to do, but do not do, and likely never will do.
If you normally use the word ought in conjunction with the words you, or they (or even we), morality motivates you. Thinking about the imperfections of others can be more invigorating than a cup of strong coffee.
This occurred to me as I listened to an invigorated colleague warming to the subject of an alleged injustice recently. It was like watching a pile of dry sticks catch fire.
A man is hesitant to confess his own sins. The longer he speaks, the more softly he speaks. He ends with a groan, silence, or tears. But a man is eager to to deplore the sins of others. He seizes the first opportunity and then swiftly warms to his subject. The longer he talks, the louder he talks. And when he has finished, he glows like a man who has just come in from a brisk walk in crisp autumn air.
The tonic quality of righteous anger is most evident to one who is unmoved by the object of that anger. When you see a woman getting “all worked up over nothing,” you begin to suspect that she rather enjoys getting “all worked up.” It is getting “all worked up” that puts zest and sparkle into her day. It leaves her feeling fit to tackle a tiger.
Righteous anger is also an excellent stalking horse for wily self-interest, and those who enjoy it are therefore able to, as it were, get drunk and conduct business at the same time. This is because the louder their roars of righteous anger, the less apparent will be the self-interested scheming and stratagems in the moral remedies they demand. Indeed, passionate words on behalf of some species of poor people have often served as a royal road to riches and power.
This is why you should look with extreme prejudice on anyone who claims to be an advocate for the poor and powerless. Most of them are anger junkies, and many are pickpockets to boot.
I am not, repeat, not, a morning person. I write the blogs for the following day the night before -- and regular readers can work out when I'm writing first thing in the morning by the number of errors there are. I work best at nights. This meant that when my kids were little I started work at 9 am. Caleb Wait argues that it is better to do it the other way round.
For myself, early mornings amount to waking up at 4am. While in seminary, this gave me at least 2-3 hours of uninterrupted work every day. The main reason, however, that I maintained this routine through seminary was that I was not willing to sacrifice Saturdays for studying. When I did study on the weekend, it was minimal. My wife and I did not look at weekends as “free time,” but a time that we needed to especially strengthen ourselves and our little ones through rest and creativity. Part and parcel to weekends is time without mandatory obligations; for the most part, there is no work, no class, no meetings, etc. I suggest taking full advantage of days like these, not to get extra work done, but to cultivate memorable and meaningful times with your kids and spouse.
Very wise words. Add to that this. Stephen MacAlpine knocks the standard progressive talking points around. Because the only antipodean people left in the church are those who are serious about their faith, and it's very clear when you are coasting if you are in community with your brothers.
All that the culture is left with is “Husbands love your wives as.. FILL IN THE BLANK” – and that “BLANK” can be anything from “as long as you feel you want to” to “as long as you think she’s hot”. When marriage is about finding the right sexual partner and being fulfilled, then “woke” is going to be a passing phase.
That is the default of modern, Christless marriage. While not every Christian man is going to obey Ephesians 5, if he’s living in community with other Christians who are, he’s going to be challenged by that. And if he’s not being challenged by that, then it’s not much of a Christian community. I’ve been so encouraged in our church how the men challenge the selfishness in each other, and call each other to love and serve their wives, and indeed point out instances where they see each other failing to do that.
Second, we’ve already been awakened – by Christ. Ephesians 5 again: “Awake oh sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.” Compared to how awake you are when Christ awakens you, you’re only ever going to be ‘half-woke.” Christ’s awakens us away from sin and selfishness, and towards godliness and other-person-centredness. And only his power can do that fully.
Once again, my experience of Christian men in community is that they are, by and large, concerned to put their wives first, to raise their children to be godly, and most of all to model sobriety and good judgement to their families.
Most of all, by and large they don’t come home after work and slob on the couch. And they also have a group of other men who encourage them away from workaholism, or selfish versions of letting off steam.
Third, the level of transparency among Christian men is traditionally higher than that among those outside the church. Where else do men call out the sin in other men while showing them great affection at the same time?
I would add that leadership is in part about delegation and taking responsibility. At times that means you listen a lot. At times that means you have to model change. And at times this means that set frames and boundaries that are needed, even though you don't want them. Because of the need of your kids.
Who are now being damaged by their education so they can become the new idols. Dalrock is trenchant.
The symbolism of a child come to save us from our own sin (Wall Street greed, Climate Change, etc.) is painfully obvious. Social Justice Warriors have not only rejected Christ, they are desperately trying to make their own. This is industrial strength feminist territory marking.
What can I say? Do not be them. Do not be like them.