Knaval Architects

Yesterday I said this:

I have no doubt Notre Dame will be restored, but there will be small but noisy campaigns for the money to be used elsewhere or the building replaced with something “more inclusive”.

Sure enough:

Yet the damage wrought by the Notre Dame fire has also raised important questions about the cathedral’s symbolic significance in an increasingly divided France, and how to rebuild (or which version of the cathedral should be rebuilt) going forward — and in some ways, these questions are one and the same.

It has been my experience that anyone who uses the term “going forward” is either trying to distract you from a catastrophe of their own making or is trying to sell you something which goes very much against your interests.

But for some people in France, Notre Dame has also served as a deep-seated symbol of resentment, a monument to a deeply flawed institution and an idealized Christian European France that arguably never existed in the first place. “The building was so overburdened with meaning that its burning feels like an act of liberation,” says Patricio del Real, an architecture historian at Harvard University.

If the claim is that “some people in France” resent Notre Dame, why the need to quote an American academic? Surely a Frenchman on the streets of Paris would suffice, no? Or did they tell you va te faire foutre?

What it means to be “French,” however, has obviously changed a great deal over the past few centuries.

I don’t think this is obvious at all. What is obvious, though, is that over the past couple of decades cultural Marxists have done everything they can to destroy any tangible means by which people can feel themselves French.

Although Macron and donors like Pinault have emphasized that the cathedral should be rebuilt as close to the original as possible, some architectural historians like Brigniani believe that would be complicated, given the many stages of the cathedral’s evolution. “The question becomes, which Notre Dame are you actually rebuilding?,” he says.

The one that was there last week, you cretin. And why does anyone care what an Italian professor in New York thinks?

Any rebuilding should be a reflection not of an old France, or the France that never was — a non-secular, white European France — but a reflection of the France of today, a France that is currently in the making.

Ah, finally we get to it. These grifting foreigners don’t want the French to restore Notre Dame to how it was, they want some steel-and-glass monstrosity to arise in its place, preferably bearing their name. That, or a mosque.

“The idea that you can recreate the building is naive. It is to repeat past errors, category errors of thought, and one has to imagine that if anything is done to the building it has to be an expression of what we want — the Catholics of France, the French people — want. What is an expression of who we are now? What does it represent, who is it for?,” he says.

If it’s up to the French people, why are you sticking your beak in? Now I know this is only Rolling Stone but the ashes on the floor of Notre Dame are still warm and already the postmodernists are turning up with a crane and a wrecking ball. Thankfully I’m confident the French will tell them where to shove it and restore the cathedral properly, but if this were Britain and St. Pauls a blackened shell you can be sure these sociopaths would be welcomed with open arms by half our political class. Knowing both countries quite well, the big difference I can see between France and the UK is the French establishment, at least for now, doesn’t seem to detest France quite as much as the British elites hate Britain. Right now, that’s a valuable edge.


Worse than a crime

Yesterday I discovered via Twitter that Notre Dame cathedral in Paris had caught fire, and not long after this photo was circulating:

The reason 9/11 had such an effect, at least on me, was the visual impact of the towers falling in real time. It was surreal, and the next morning I woke up wondering if it really happened. The death toll was appalling, but it was watching the towers collapse on live TV which made it an event equivalent to previous generations’ shooting of JFK whereby we’ll always remember where we were when the news broke.

I felt a similar sensation yesterday watching the spire of Notre Dame fall, knowing things will never quite be the same again. It sometimes takes a lot to move me – I can walk around concentration camps and WWI trenches and not feel anything other than the wind – but the sight of a monument to western civilisation, over 800 years old and the survivor of wars, invasions, revolutions, plagues, and occupations, going up in flames left me incredibly sad.

It also left me angry. This should never have happened. Fires during construction and renovations are common, and renovation work recently started on Notre Dame. There are hundreds if not thousands of rules, regulations, standards, and best practices which exist precisely to prevent fires breaking out on building sites. I know this because when you do work on an oil and gas installation with hundreds of tonnes of pressurised hydrocarbons all around you, you pay attention to them. It seems someone working on Notre Dame didn’t. I doubt this was arson, despite the increasing number of arson attacks on churches in France, not to mention a priest getting his throat cut by Islamists.

I expect the investigation will find the cause was either someone not making his equipment safe before leaving for the day, e.g. he didn’t switch it off or put something hot on something flammable (in the offshore oil industry, someone must stand watch for an hour after work stops to make sure nothing spontaneously combusts), or it was an electrical fire. When renovation work is going on there are a lot of cables lying around, temporary junction boxes, and other equipment which gets bashed around and overloaded. That a fire risk is well known on such sites ought to have led those in charge to apply prevention and mitigation measures to 150% considering the importance of the building. I expect cost was one reason they didn’t, and I’d be willing to bet the modern managerial technique of loafing around in offices at the expense of employing good quality tradesmen and supervising them properly also played its part as well. I expect the investigation will state the technical facts of how the fire started and say little about organisational failings, especially if there’s someone important or a union involved. This is the modern way, an inevitable result of the utterly shameless being put in charge of a no-blame policy.

I also noticed what is probably a minority of morons on social media celebrating the destruction as just desserts for a hodge-podge of alleged sins on the part of the French including colonialism, antisemitism, slavery, and every other grievance they think they can make a buck out of mongering. A lot of them seem to be from the former French colonies, particularly Algeria. I’m not surprised by their remarks, but the question I have for those people wringing their hands is where did these attitudes come from? Who has been banging on about the evils of colonialism, Christianity, western civilisation, and European history for decades? Who have made whole careers out of telling non-Europeans they have been and continue to be oppressed, enslaved, and exploited by the evil white man? The answer is western institutions which have been captured by Marxists and other lefties who hate our civilisation, culture, and history and want the whole lot destroyed. I wonder, how many professors at the Sorbonne who this morning look across the Seine at the blackened, roofless masonry of Notre Dame perpetuated the mindset which is now upsetting them so?

I have no doubt Notre Dame will be restored, but there will be small but noisy campaigns for the money to be used elsewhere or the building replaced with something “more inclusive”. If you think I’m exaggerating, consider that a sizeable chunk of Britain’s ruling classes think ISIS butchers should be welcomed into Britain and given free housing and the western response to terrorist attacks is to arrest those who talk about them in an unapproved manner. The fire at Notre Dame is a tragedy because a wonderful monument to an incredible civilisation almost got destroyed. The greater tragedy is that the civilisation itself is almost destroyed, and few have the courage or desire to put the fire out.


Pride and Prejudice

Some news from Edmonton, Canada:

Mayor Don Iveson said he was sad to hear the 2019 Pride Festival was cancelled but also understands it’s a complex situation and not unique to Edmonton.

“I know many Edmontonians from all walks of life enjoy the spirit of inclusion and diversity and everyone being welcome at Pride,” he said Thursday. “A lot of people are mourning that today, concerned that they won’t have that opportunity this year. So it’s very unfortunate.”

So what caused the 2019 Pride Festival to be cancelled? Angry Christian fundamentalists? Alt-right incels in Make Canada Mediocre Again hats? White supremacists? Not quite:

A member on the society’s board of directors, whose name Global News has agreed to keep anonymous, said a funding and volunteer deficit, as well as a belief the organization could not fulfill its goal, led to the decision to cancel the event.

“We felt that we were not fulfilling our mission this year, which is to unify our community.

“And so we felt it best to step back now at a point where we can do that without causing harm to the society’s structure.”

Be patient, soon all will become clear:

In another email, festival organizers wrote about a heated meeting last week between EPFS members and other LGBTQ+ groups called Shades of Colour, which advocates for “queer and trans Indigenous, Black, and people of colour,” and RaricaNow, a group that promotes human rights for LGBTIQ+ refugees and newcomers in Canada.

“The festival has been provided demands, involving a complete restructuring of our festival and our commitments to sponsors, which we needed to bring to our membership,” the Pride Society said in an email dated April 6. “A special meeting was called as per our bylaws.”

So what was presumably a fun day out for the sane if a little extravagant gay community in Edmonton has been hijacked by a tiny bunch of lunatics who think the event should focus more (meaning, only) on non-whites, transsexuals, and refugees.

Police ended up being called when the disagreements became heated.

Which is a polite way of saying when the intersectional headcases didn’t get their way they turned violent.

“They really need to ask themselves: where is that fear coming from?” said Victoria Guzman, a member of Shades of Colour. “Because we are not the source of that fear. Who taught them to be afraid of us? We have been trying to sit at the table peacefully with them for months now. If anyone is going to be violent, it’s going to be the hate groups that show up.

Such as yourselves?

“We never asked for the festival to be cancelled whatsoever,” Guzman added. “We just asked for… We were negotiating on needs that needed to be met.”

We never wanted the guy’s restaurant burned to the ground, we just wanted our money.

She said the groups definitely made demands, but that they were negotiable.

“We made these demands because we felt that the meetings we were going to for the last 10 months weren’t really going anywhere and that they weren’t taking our needs seriously.”

Kevin Michael Grace has generously provided me with the list of demands (word doc). Let’s try to figure out why they weren’t taken seriously:

Reorganize the structure of Pride. Open Pride with a protest lead by QTIBPOC, trans folx and their allies. Allocate funding for QTIBPOC and trans folks to host community building and creative workshops – and make this the main feature of Pride in the Park.

The entire festival must be restructured so as to be in celebration of us.

It is essential, and in line with the theme ‘Stonewall’, that Pride is lead with a protest against systemic injustice. This protest will be filmed in the News…

…and a plane fully loaded with fuel will be waiting on the tarmac at Edmonton airport.

Shades of Colour Community and RaricaNow will assess via email who applies to partake in the protest and ensure the applicants adhere to a set of criteria based on the values and principles of the protest. Upon inspection by Shades of Colour and RaricaNow, applicants will be either permitted or denied entry.

This must be what SJWs mean when they say they’re inclusive.

Workshop themes can and should include: Poetry writing,
songwriting, visual art workshops, navigating gender, navigating race, spirituality and race, unlearning misogyny for masc individuals, queer and trans representation in the media, refugee storytelling workshop, refugee support workshops, cultural music, dance & drama activities, QTIBPOC mentorship, Climate Justice activism, protecting our land, indigeneity, etc.

The only bit of that I recognise is the navigating race, but why they don’t just call it orienteering like everyone else I don’t know.

These workshops and resources should take up the most space and be at the centre of Pride

For all their anti-colonialist rhetoric, this lot make the Conquistadors sound humble.

End Pride in the Park with a vigil to honour the lives of LGBTIQ2S+ activists and community members that were lost due to systemic oppression including transphobia, racism, classism, capitalism, etc.

And that nasty junction out on Highway 216.

Part of this would include setting up a memorial wall listing the names of LGBTIQ2S+ lives lost including those in other countries where their identities are delegitimized and punished.

So the organisers of gay pride need to construct a wall to keep out Mexicans, carving into it a list of unknown locals and foreigners who have died from, among other things, classism and capitalism. I have no idea why their demands weren’t taken seriously.

Moving forward, we desire Pride in the Park to continue this activity and make it a tradition in the following years.

That’s a lot of wall-building.

Let us also acknowledge the LGBTIQ+ refugees who have suffered not only in refugee camps but also within their own countries due to their sexual orientation.

I’m sorry, I’m trying to picture a tranny wandering around in a refugee camp and I’m having a hard time keeping my composure. All that, by the way, was merely Demand No. 1. Here’s Demand No. 2:

Rework the budget, and provide Shades of Colour (SoC) and RaricaNow with $20,000 each.

At least this now looks like an old-fashioned shakedown.

While we feel that $20,000 is necessary – we are open to negotiations.

How generous. But they’re not done yet. Here’s Demand No.3, and it concerns money again:

Provide the SOC Team and the RaricaNow team with money to access ongoing training so we can best create these spaces for our communities.

At this point a blank cheque will do.

As community organizers we often find ourselves facilitating the training for other agencies, and unfortunately, do not have the opportunity to access conferences ourselves. Often, the knowledge we’re desperately seeking isn’t here yet, and can only be found outside of Edmonton. In these situations, we realistically may need to travel to larger more established cities such as Brooklyn, Oakland, etc where this knowledge exists. Our demand is that the Pride Board funds these learning opportunities so that we can bring the knowledge back to our own communities.

There isn’t enough intersectional lunatic expertise in Edmonton so you need to pay for us to go on jollies to hotbeds of degeneracy such as Oakland and Brooklyn. Demand No. 4:

$1500 to fund a SOC organized QTIBPOC sober dance party on the evening of pride.

I get asking $1500 for a pissup, but who the hell shakes down an organisation for money for a sober party?

Our vision is to provide QTIBPOC with a space to move their bodies in ways that they may not feel safe doing in everyday life or mainstream queer spaces.


When people face queerphobia, transphobia and racism collectively, it can be difficult to form positive relationships to their bodies. For some, dance offers a way to work through those difficult feelings.

Anyway, we need $1500. And shouldn’t you have made a start on that wall by now? Demand No. 5:

Write a public accountability Statement outlining the harm the EPFS has caused the QTIBPOC community and a public commitment to rectifying this harm. This statement will be publicly released with this document by the EPFS.

You, the relatively normal people who were previously minding your own business when we showed up, must release a public statement denouncing yourselves.

We appreciate that the EPFS agreed to meet our demands in 2018. However, there is still some public confusion about your stance on supporting QTIBPOC communities. Our demand is that the EPSF writes a public accountability statement about the harm that the EPFS has caused QTIBPOC+ communities, and also about their commitment towards change.

But don’t forget the twenty grand each we asked for earlier. Demand No. 6:

Feature Shades of Colour and RaricaNow on the front four pages of the Pride Guide.

All your newspapers are belong to us. Demand 7:

Work with RaricaNow to support QTIBPOC refugees and newcomers. Provide resources in writing support letters when necessary, and make a public commitment to centre these communities.

Thought you’d joined Pride to mix it up with like-minded gay folk? Think again: you’re now in the refugee business. Little wonder the organisers decided to pull the plug on the whole thing. Here’s what the mayor said:

The mayor said he’s heard of Pride organizations in other cities encountering similar situations.

“This is not something limited to the city of Edmonton. We understand Pride organizations are encountering challenges around North America, with increasing complexity and what does it mean to be inclusive to everybody.

“I have sympathy for the Pride board and the challenges that they faced trying to figure out how to create an event that is welcoming to everyone, which is the spirit of Pride, that’s its heritage.”

In other words, the tiny minority of intersectional headcases are ruining it for everyone everywhere.

Iveson said it’s not really the city’s place to step in and either mediate the dispute or organize the event itself.

Which is the mayor’s way of backing away slowly, very slowly. I’ve said many times before that gays will rue the day they appended the T to LGB and hooked their campaign wagons together. Although the way the gay lobby works these days, e.g. hounding Colorado bakers to the Supreme Court, my sympathy is limited.


Nigel’s Main Sell

I’ve said before that the British right need to get a lot smarter if they’re to claw back any of the territory they’ve lost to the left in the past couple of decades, which is pretty much all of it. A few days ago Nigel Farage launched his Brexit party with a speech which immediately triggered outrage among establishment politicians and their lackeys in the media.

This was predictable, and a sign that those opposed to Brexit will do anything to shut down the debate especially if it’s headed by someone like Farage with the knack of drawing a crowd and getting them to vote. One hopes that those running the Brexit party knew this would happen and planned for it. The correct response to the faux outrage is not to highlight the many instances of racism, antisemitism, and incitements to violence on the part of the left, but to reframe every conversation, question, and remark back towards Brexit. As soon as they start explaining they’re playing the left’s game, and they’re not going to win by painting them as hypocrites. That only works with people who have shame and principles, and Farage’s opponents have none of either.

Rather than react to the media, Farage needs to take a leaf from Trump’s book and make them chase him. This means avoiding interviews and appearing on panel shows. Let’s be honest, nobody watching the BBC, Sky News, or Channel 4 is ever going to see something that makes them vote for Farage, so he has nothing to gain by cooperating with them. He needs to understand he’s not leading a normal party, so he can’t expect to behave like he is. He should let the mainstream media run with their lies and smears, because this will serve the dual purpose of keeping his name in the headlines and making them look ridiculous. Again, Trump has shown how this can be done. Instead, Farage should take to social media and podcasts to speak to his supporters, who will quickly learn where they can find him.

Most importantly, he needs to have one policy and one policy only: leave the European Union with a wholly new withdrawal agreement or no deal at all. Absolutely everything else should be ignored until this single, pressing issue is delivered. In fact, if it were me I’d say the party will disband once Britain has left the EU. This would serve to quell the bickering which has already started between his new party and UKIP. Nobody cares what UKIP’s policies are outside of Brexit, so they should agree to join forces until after the UK has left. Of course they won’t, which leaves Brexiteers with no choice but to abandon UKIP completely. By banging on about Brexit 24/7 to the exclusion of everything else, Farage also protects himself from the slings and arrows the ruling classes will throw at him:

“Racist? Why no, we welcome Leavers of all backgrounds. It’s Remainers who lie to the electorate that we object to. Next!”

Farage must not play their game, if he does he’s toast. He’s a smart chap when it comes to politics and he’s spent time around Trump. It’ll be interesting to see what he’s learned since June 2016.


Worm Eaton

A couple of days ago New Statesman published an interview between their deputy editor George Eaton and the conservative philosopher Roger Scruton. Here’s how Scruton approached the interview:

I recently gave an interview to the New Statesman, on the assumption that, as the magazine’s former wine critic I would be treated with respect, and that the journalist, George Eaton, was sincere in wanting to talk to me about my intellectual life.

Turns out it was a hit job. Eaton littered the piece with quotes stripped of context which portrayed Scruton as antisemitic, an Islamaphobe, and derogatory towards Chinese. For example, the New Statesman interview contains this paragraph:

Perhaps most remarkably, he commented of the rise of China: “They’re creating robots out of their own people… each Chinese person is a kind of replica of the next one and that is a very frightening thing.”

Scruton’s actual words were:

“They’re creating robots out of their own people by so constraining what can be done. Each Chinese person is a kind of replica of the next one and that is a very frightening thing.”

It is clear from the full quote that Scruton is talking about the Chinese political system and its demands for uniformity from the population. By removing the words in bold, Eaton makes it sound as though Scruton’s saying Chinese people are indistinguishable from one another. Eaton claims he removed the context for reasons of space, which tells you he doesn’t care much for his reputation, that of New Statesman, or journalism as a whole.

When the interview came out, Scruton served as  an adviser on a government architectural committee. For reasons that are scarcely fathomable even for an outfit so inept, unprincipled, and cowardly as the Conservative party, UK Communities Secretary James Brokenshire fired Scruton. A spokesman for the Prime Minister said his remarks were “deeply offensive, completely unacceptable and it’s right that he’s been dismissed”. Even half-sensible Tories stuck the boot in:

New Statesman is less of a news journal than a leftwing agitprop organ. They publish Laurie Penny, for goodness sake. What the hell the Tory party are even doing reading it, let alone letting it dictate who they fire, I don’t know. For his part, Eaton posted this on Twitter before later deleting it:

In other words, it was a deliberate hatchet job by a lefty hack and the Tory party, perhaps thinking their reputation for incompetence, treachery, and cretinism was not quite solid enough from Brexit, walked right into the trap laid for them. As Scruton responded in The Spectator and news reached the dolts in Tory HQ that the interview had been misleading, they removed one foot from their mouths and replaced it with another:

So the sacking of Scruton was a panicked, knee-jerk reaction based on left wing propaganda they didn’t bother verifying. And these are the sort of people who think they should be running the country.

There are a few points to make here. Firstly, it shows the incompetence and lack of principles we’ve seen over Brexit is not a one-off: it runs to the very core of the Conservative party. Like a lot of people these days, they’re more interested in pandering to the metropolitan middle classes and people who hate them than their core constituents. They are also woefully inept. If Britain is to revive its political fortunes, the Conservative party needs to be destroyed, the building razed, and the ground it stood on soaked with anthrax. There is nothing left to save, and nobody to redeem (except the one MP who reads my blog of course, because by doing so she’s proven she exposes herself only to the best ideas).

Secondly, journalists like to claim they are under attack more than ever before. They do so on the rather pompous presumption they are guardians of the truth who hold the powerful to account. I doubt journalists in the UK are in any greater danger than ironing-board vendors, but if I wanted to increase the online abuse and threats media figures receive, and diminish public sympathy if and when one gets smacked in the mouth by a disgruntled citizen, publishing a brazenly dishonest interview and quaffing champagne in celebration when the subject gets fired is how I’d go about it.

Thirdly, I don’t give a damn if Scruton’s words weren’t doctored. The idea that anyone slightly to the right should be hounded from his position for holding opinions which don’t conform to the ever-shifting standard set by lunatics in university social science departments needs to be resisted, and hard. This is especially true when those on the left – even those in positions of substantial power – frequently engage in open racism, antisemitism, and misandry to rapturous applause from their followers. As I’ve said before, if the right are going to join the left in condemning their own every time they utter an unapproved opinion, they’re part of the problem. If the right can’t support Scruton now, regardless of what he said or didn’t say, could they at least have the decency not to complain during the next decade or two of cultural Marxist domination?

And maybe now’s not the best time to talk about principles either, Johnny:

Now where did I put my Gallic shrug?


Keep digging, Johnny:


Kicking the can’t down the road

When I was working in Nigeria I knew a French manager who was, putting it charitably, rather weak and scared of his own shadow. As is common in oil companies, especially big French ones, he’d been made a manager largely due to his age and nationality. One day he decided to give one of his Nigerian subordinates a rather useless administrative task to do. The Nigerian was also a manager, and also useless, at least when it came to his job function. Apparently he ran a few other businesses on the side and was a chief somewhere, but these involved doing more than just showing up. Have a guess where his efforts went?

Anyway, the Nigerian said he’d do this task but never bothered. There then followed a pantomime whereby every few days the Frenchman would ask the Nigerian if he’d done it, and the Nigerian would say no but he’d do it today, and then he’d not do it. This went on for over a year and it became a running joke between me and a former colleague who witnessed it. The Frenchman seemed to think there were practical reasons why the Nigerian hadn’t done this task, whereas I knew after the second or third week it would never get done. The Nigerian didn’t want to do it, and he’d worked out the Frenchman would never compel him to.

Over the years I’ve formed a phrase which I like to deploy which says if something was going to get done, it would have been done by now. There comes a point beyond which it isn’t going to get done because someone either can’t do it, or doesn’t want to do it. Yesterday one of my professors asked me what was happening with Brexit, and I said I didn’t think it was going to happen. If those in charge wanted to leave the EU everything was in place for them to do so on 29th March. Legally and politically, it was all aligned for them, but they didn’t. Why not? Because they don’t want to, so they’ve come up with one fudge after so they don’t have to. Yesterday’s agreement to extend the deadline to 31st October keeps Britain in the EU another six months, after which another fudge will be found.

A lot of Brexiteers now find themselves in the position of the Frenchman, asking someone again and again to do something they long ago decided not to. They need to accept that the phase of Brexit which began with the 2016 referendum is over. If that was the route to Britain leaving the EU, we’d be out by now. A new route will have to be found.


Omar Badly

She’s at it again:

Stephen Miller happens to be Jewish, but that matters little to the Somali congresswoman: he’s still a white nationalist.

The alt-right barely exists outside of 4chan and Gab these days, but its members never went away nor did their concerns. A little closer to the political centre are those who call themselves the dissident right, and closer again are a large number of conservatives and right wingers who’ve spent a decade or two looking for a political home. The fact all these people voted for Trump shows they weren’t too fussy about who took charge provided it wasn’t another production-line politician like Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush.

Something someone said recently was that any new political movement on the right must have a positive message; it can’t just be a laundry list of complaints. The way identity politics is shaping the political landscape in America, particularly how being openly racist is perfectly acceptable for certain groups, it’s a matter of time before someone competent joins the dots and makes white nationalism the rallying call for those on the right who feel disenfranchised. This won’t happen for a while because attitudes in America aren’t quite ready for that yet, but the ground is being prepared and it’s being done so by the left.

For a start, the epithet of white nationalism is fast losing its association with prison gangs and cranks thanks to Ilhar Oman and her chums using it to describe normal people on an everyday basis. We also know that people are used to being told they voted for white nationalism because that’s all they’ve heard since Trump was elected. We know the left and the media will scream blue murder if a candidate runs on a white nationalist platform, but they do that if a Republican runs on a moderate platform. We know the political establishment will mount a coup against any such candidate because they already tried that with Trump. If America’s ruling classes are going to have a meltdown and denounce every mildly right wing candidate as a white nationalist, what defences do they have against a real white nationalist? Are they even going to be able to tell the difference?

America has been fortunate so far that white nationalists have tended to be grossly incompetent. This is because there’s been no future in subscribing to it, it’s a dead-end losers’ game. But if Somalis in headscarves are going to spend their time denouncing white people from congress, while at the same time you have a tens of millions of disenfranchised right wingers who happen to be white, an avenue of opportunity might open up. And then instead of the bunglers some competent people arrive on the scene who’ve carefully observed how the ruling classes behave, know how to evade their counterattacks, and form a movement which suddenly becomes too big to shut down. And then the fun really begins.

The Democratic primaries and 2020 presidential election are going to be interesting in this regard. I expect both will become a battle of escalating identity politics where straight, white, men are insulted, abused, and denounced for being all three. Not only has America been fortunate that white nationalists have been incompetent, but also that white Americans don’t see themselves as defined by their skin colour. The left are pushing them harder and harder to do so. Personally I don’t think it’s a hard sell especially in current economic and demographic conditions, and once that seed is planted the promotional material and campaigns write themselves. Would white Americans rather be ruled by white nationalists or Somalis in headscarves who hate them? If things carry on like this, that will be the choice inside many people’s heads.

Ilhar Omar might end up only serving one term in congress, but she could influence American politics to a degree disproportionate to both her position and intellect. Serious countries would never have let things even get this far.


Plod Trans Action

I don’t remember when the legislation was debated, or even if it was debated, but I expect when the police asked for the powers to force website owners to reveal the identities of their subscribers it was done under the guise of identifying murderers, child abusers, drug traffickers, and terrorists.

But as always, once a government authority gets some power it wields it way beyond its original scope:

A transgender activist has won a High Court ruling ordering Mumsnet to reveal the identity of a user who allegedly abused her.

Stephanie Hayden tweeted an image of the court order, issued by Mr Justice William Davis, which requires the parenting website to name the anonymous user and provide their address, email and date of birth.

On the caption she wrote: ‘The days of defaming, abusing, and harassing transgender people on Mumsnet behind the cloak of anonymity are over.’

At the beginning it’s to thwart al-Qaeda’s plans to set off a nuke in the middle of London. Pretty soon it’s to prosecute people for upsetting transgenders online. Activist transgenders, that is:

Ms Hayden has been involved in several of online spats in recent years.

In 2018, she reported Father Ted creator Graham Linehan to the police for ‘transphobic harassment’ after he shared a tweet saying she was a ‘dangerous troll’.

Sitcom writer Mr Linehan was given a verbal harassment warning by West Yorkshire Police after transgender activist Miss Hayden reported him for referring to her by her previous names and pronouns on Twitter.

Wait, there’s more:

And in February, a mother was arrested in front of her children and locked up for seven hours after referring to Ms Hayden as a man online.

Three officers detained Kate Scottow at her home before quizzing her at a police station about an argument with an Ms Hayden on Twitter over so-called ‘deadnaming’.

The 38-year-old, from Hitchin, Hertfordshire, had her photograph, DNA and fingerprints taken.

Mrs Scottow denied harassing or defaming Miss Hayden and said she holds a ‘genuine and reasonable belief’ that a human ‘cannot practically speaking change sex’.

As well as potential police action, she is facing a £25,000 civil lawsuit over alleged defamation, use of private information and ‘harassment’.

She has also agreed to been made the subject of an injunction that bans her from writing about Miss Hayden online.

I expect that Hayden targeted Mumsnet – a forum mainly for mothers, i.e. women – quite deliberately in order to goad someone into saying something she could go running to the police with.

There are two things happening here. Firstly, the transgender movement – which the gay and bi-movements have decided to hitch their wagon to – are engaged in seeing just how far they can push the public until they no longer need to invent claims of being persecuted out of existence. Because if stuff like this keeps happening, that’s what’s going to happen. Secondly, the police and judges are involving themselves in a similar experiment. Pendulums swing in both directions, and when this one returns it’s going to take on the size and force of a wrecking ball.


No sex-attached strings

From Slate:

I am a single woman in her early 30s. I’m attractive and have never had issues attracting a partner.

When you were in your twenties, you mean?

But after a series of disappointing relationships, each around a year, I’m just not in a mood to engage emotionally with men right now.

So at the age when those in a relationship need to grow up and take it seriously, you found one or both of you weren’t up to it.

The thing is, I have a high sex drive, and I can’t fully satisfy myself on my own—though believe me, I try. The cliché is that this should be an easy problem to fix: Plenty of men want to have sex with a woman with no strings, right?

Yes and no. If you’re under 30 then yes, pretty much. If you’re over 30 the number of men into that sort of thing drops off a cliff and you’re left with, well, those who will always be into that sort of thing.

Here are my limitations: In the past, when I’ve had hookup buddies,

So far this woman has spent her twenties having “no issues attracting a partner”, her late twenties/early thirties having “a series of disappointing relationships”, and now there are multiple hookup buddies thrown into the mix. Like many women who write these pieces, she appears unable to build lasting relationships and thinks bed-hopping is a substitute.

I like them, but it never really is just sex—we inevitably get to know each other better and then I end up getting entangled with him, whether I want to or not.

Unless you’re a sociopath this is true for just about anyone. Women really ought to watch less TV.

I also am not really into sex parties or the poly scene; for better or worse, I like the intimacy of one-on-one connections, even if all I want is sex right now.

For the sake of my blogging that’s a shame, but it’s refreshing to find someone who admits the poly scene is more about sex than intimacy.

So I’m not really sure how to proceed. I’ve identified a few bars in my town that are … good for this sort of thing, but that is hit or miss for finding an attractive guy.

What’s this, the 1990s?

Tinder and similar apps for straight people are full of creeps who have no game, and I’m afraid if I’m upfront about what I want, I’ll attract even more of that type.

Eh? You only want sex with no strings attached, but the man must have game? Why? And yeah, Tinder is full of creeps. What did you expect from a hookup app, a roomful of Rhodes scholars? And yes, announcing to a bunch of strangers online that you just want a shag is going to attract all sorts of weirdos while men with options back away slowly. Most will probably take a few antibiotics afterwards just to be sure.

Here’s the advice she’s given:

It’s true—even when both parties are completely uninterested in anything serious or romantic, you can still eventually end up in the bath-products aisle together debating whether your connection means anything and having moments of odd, sticky feelings toward each other.

Well, yes. This is why polyamorists who watch their lovers go into the bedroom with another person on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays are either sociopaths or an emotional wreck inside.

In your case, it sounds like at least some of the entanglement is coming from your end. So put reminders in your phone: Make the guys have names like “Chris Nothing Serious Johnson” or “Joe This Is Just Sex Beatty.”

Yes, this is perfectly normal.

Whatever will underscore the boundaries you’ve set and need to respect for yourself, in addition to expecting the guy to adhere to.

This no-strings sex is looking a little stringy.

Hopefully that’ll make it easier to keep a good casual connection going (once you’ve found an acceptable partner) without tipping into what you don’t want.

Yes, your innate biological desire to pair-bond can be outwitted by putting reminders in your phone next to men’s names.

As far as apps go, I’m wondering if you’ve specifically tried Bumble.

Bumble is middle class Tinder, where people pretend they’re looking for friends to hang out with in cool capital cities while actually just looking to date. Instead of making duck faces, women put their grad school on.

I’m also wondering if it’s possible to go back to former flings for another round or two.

I’m guessing self-respect isn’t a consideration here?

Having a few partners you see somewhat less frequently might make it easier to prevent the entanglements that can result from too much close proximity.

I suspect her real problem is the hookup partners aren’t there any more and she’ll be doing well to find one who isn’t a complete weirdo. Everything was so much easier when she was 25, wasn’t it?

Still, unfortunately, you’re going to have to get out there and wade through at least some potential creeps.

Let’s switch the sexes around for a second: still, unfortunately, you’re going to have to get out there and wade through at least some potential sluts.

They might all turn out to be mostly benign, but some might not.

They might all turn out to not want payment, but some might.

Meet in public places that are likely to have people around, be careful with the location of your home, and remember you can always leave if you get uncomfortable or feel a weird vibe.

It beggars belief that this needs to be said to a woman in her thirties. And that turns out to be the end of the advice. Not very helpful, was it? Then again, what can you do? My advice to her would be to engage in serious thought about why her previous relationships failed, perhaps with the assistance of a trained psychologist, and look at what she can do to improve her chances of success. But that’s not the modern way, is it?


Paddy Feelz

I found this article illuminating:

The stampede for Irish passports since the UK voted to leave the EU has been widely interpreted as an effort by Britons to avoid hassle at airports. Produce proof of an Irish granny and voilà, no matter what happens with Brexit, you have a burgundy passport and can travel freely throughout the EU.

Applications for Irish passports have risen to record levels, with almost 250,000 requests since January, a 30% increase from the same period last year, according to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Of the 860,000 Irish passports issued last year, about 200,000 applications came from the UK.

The vast majority of those 200,000 British people applying for Irish passports haven’t the slightest interest in Ireland; they simply want the convenience of an EU passport. There was a time when citizenship actually meant something, and if you speak to Irish nationalists they insist it still does – although only in the very narrow sense of not being British. But now Irish citizenship is becoming something akin to a flag of convenience in the shipping world whereby the holder knows nothing about the country and cares even less. But whereas flags of convenience were sold as revenue-raisers by tax havens or failed states, Ireland seems almost proud to be handing out passports to those fleeing the horrors of non-Brexit Britain.

I supposed we shouldn’t be too surprised. Ireland sold its culture to corporations decades ago, proliferating around the world one fake pub with tin-whistle band at a time. I wrote about this here:

It’s interesting to note how St. Patrick’s day has become a meaningless excuse to get hammered while displaying just about every ignorant stereotype about Irish people you can imagine.

From what I can see, Ireland is fast becoming a meaningless blob of woke multiculturalism and supplicant internationalism with a fake green tinge. Their economy is based on giant foreign corporations paying little tax, and their prime minister is a gay man of Indian extraction. Their most important political decision in a generation, the lifting of the ban on abortions, had them throwing street parties. Not that there’s anything wrong with those per se –  it’s up to the Irish how they run their affairs – but it does indicate they’ve abandoned conservatism and gone full-on liberal in the American sense. I’m not convinced this is a path to success, longevity, and happiness for any society.

What’s ironic is the Irish hate the English, particularly the London-based elites who look down their noses at everyone else. They complain the media reports clumsily on Ireland, except for the BBC who still think it’s part of Britain. Most of all, they detest the arrogant political classes who ride roughshod over ordinary people and are never held accountable for their actions. Which is fine, but they’ve now added Brexit to their list of gripes, as if it were the Westminster ruling classes who voted Leave and the ex-miners in the provinces who voted Remain. It’s an odd thing to hate the English elites for Brexit when it is they who’ve done all they can to scupper it. Indeed, the way things are going Theresa May might well turn out to be the most pro-Irish British prime minister in history.

This contradiction is illustrated further in the examples The Guardian uses of Brits who are looking to flee non-Brexit and settle in Ireland:

“I’m building up to be an Irish citizen, that’s the long-term goal,” said Keith Donaldson, 37, an office manager from Jarrow in north-east England who moved to Dublin last year.

He has no Irish lineage but can apply for naturalisation after five years’ residency. “Some things you can’t do unless you’re a citizen,” Donaldson said. “I’ve started getting involved in various political groups. It’s about contributing, being a member of Irish society. I identify myself as being a Brexit refugee.”

Remarkably, the Irish seem happy to welcome Englishmen whose views are indistinguishable from those of the Westminster elites to come and meddle in their politics before he’s even got citizenship. This is quite some shift in attitudes.

“Moving here gave me the possibility to be here long enough and apply for citizenship. I have to be here for five out of nine years,” said Alexandre de Menezes, 39, a dual British-Brazilian national who teaches soil microbiology at National University of Ireland Galway. “Being half British was always important to my identity, but Brexit took some of the shine away.”

So he was already in Ireland.

Kate Ryan, 40, a food writer from Bristol, married an Irish man and lived in Clonakilty, County Cork, for more than a decade without thinking much about nationality. Then came the referendum.

“It was always in the back of my mind that I would go for citizenship, but Brexit has forced my hand,” she said. This week, Ryan lodged an application for naturalisation. In the absence of Irish lineage, it entailed reams of paperwork and will cost about €1,500 (£1,285). “I decided to crack on and get this thing done.”

This is a paperwork exercise which she probably should have done anyway.

Ryan is proud of her British heritage and regularly visits her parents – who voted for Brexit – in Wales. But she feels European. Becoming Irish would underline that identity: “I see it as an opportunity to redefine who I am and my place in the world.”

So she wants to become an Irish citizen in order that she identifies with something else, and her place in the world is defined by the paperwork she holds. Being a member of a modern, western society seems to have a lot to do with worshiping political institutions and little to do with shared history and culture.

Mike Clarke, who recently left Brighton to take up a post as director of campus infrastructure at Trinity College Dublin, envisages putting down roots. “I plan to stay in Ireland as long as I can. UK plc will take an awful long time to heal,” he said.

Clarke, who grew up in Croydon, south London, has an Irish grandparent, so has a smooth path to citizenship. “I’m a very proud Englishman and British citizen. But I think of myself as European,” he said.

I’m a very proud Englishman and British citizen but I’ll become Irish via bureaucratic fiat because I think of myself as European. Personally I have no problem with Ireland inviting in people who want to dine at the smorgasbord of multicultural identity, I’m just not sure their society will be strengthened by their doing so.

Bill Foster, the managing director of the Irish division of the immigration consultancy Fragomen, said he probably would not stay long enough to obtain citizenship. But for now, he is glad to have swapped London for Dublin.

“There’s a feeling here that we want to move forward and not hanker back to the past. Living here has made me feel more European in many ways,” he said.

I find it hard to believe he found London a hotbed of English nationalist Brexiteers, so what I think what he’s saying is, having moved from London to Dublin, he’s noticed he’s now living among a lot more Europeans.

What’s obvious from all this is the Irish professional classes have a lot more in common with the English professional classes than they think, and the Irish ruling classes aren’t a whole lot different from those who are squatting in Westminster. It’s only the fault lines of history that are preventing them seeing where the real divides are.