Hunter and Malthus

Vincent J. Curtis

9 Aug 2018

Hamilton's small-time academic, Dr. Latham Hunter, professor of "cultural studies and communications," is at it again.  She condemns Ontario's new Premier Doug Ford for betraying her children because he cancelled the cap-and-trade carbon tax regime - fulfilling a campaign promise.  Hunter confesses to saying things to her children that, said by a conservative, would be classed as child abuse by a progressive.  Anyhow, read the piece for the full context of the article below.

RE: Ford’s greatest betrayal of our children

It’s a pity Dr. Latham Hunter didn’t read my submission entitled, “Can Ontario stop global warming?”  She could have saved herself a lot of worry.

Had she read my 1996 piece on the then just concluded Kyoto treaty conference, she might be able to look forward to grandchildren.

However, she has utterly trapped herself in a prison of post-modern progressivism, and refuses to break out of it.

This scientist, over twenty years ago, recognized anthropogenic Global Warming as the post-modernist political farce it was.  Kyoto was that space cadet Al Gore’s baby, and he was into Malthusian catastrophe since the days of Paul Ehrlich and “The Population Bomb” of the 1970s.  This scientist said at the time, based on thermodynamics and elementary logic, that if the earth was getting warmer, then so must the sun.

But since 1998, atmospheric temperature measurements of the earth by satellite have shown no increase.  That twenty year gap in actual warming is why “Global Warming” morphed into climate change.  It’s hard to argue a cause-effect relationship between man’s activity and warming when the effect is not observed even though the cause is present and active.  The earth isn’t going to turn into Venus because of Western civilization.

Hunter should, just for laughs, try reading and refuting the other side of the argument.  Condemning the other side as not worth listening to because they are sexist/racist/homo-trans-Islamophobic and socially conservative leaves the intellectual muscles flaccid, and prevents one from learning something new.

A thought for Hunter:  was this world of sex that she finds so challenging to children created by social conservatives or by progressive post-modernism?  A question:  are you really that indifferent as to whether you have grandchildren, or not?  If you are that indifferent, why do you pretend to care about what will be happening to the earth 80 years from now?  You will be dead, and your children would be in their 90's.

Hunter should have more faith in the Western society that brought us to the high level of success we enjoy, and that is expanding into the third world.  In eighty years, the world will still be here and so will advanced, western civilization.

-30-

Saudi - Canada Dispute Screws up Bigger Islamic Project

Vincent J. curtis

12 Aug 2018

Saudi Arabia joins Iran and Abu Dhabi among Muslim countries with whom Canada has profound diplomatic differences.  The Islamic Republic of Iran has yet to provide a satisfactory accounting of the torture, rape, and murder of Zahra Kazemi, a Canadian citizen of Iranian descent, at the hands of agents of the Iranian state.  Saudi Arabia has imprisoned a woman’s rights activist, Samar Badawi, for activities which the Saudi authorities deem hostile to the regime.  In the latter case, Prime Minster Justin Trudeau describes the Canadian side of the dispute as the application of Canadian values to Saudi Arabia.

Canada’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, Chrystia Freeland, tweeted out her support of Saudi women’s rights activists and called upon the Saudi regime for their immediate release.  The Saudi regime reacted strongly, expelling Canada’s ambassador, recalling its own, and ordering its students to leave Canada immediately.  (We can still buy their oil, but they won’t buy our wheat.)

So far as I am concerned, good riddance.  Canada has next to no interest in these and other Middle Eastern countries, and the less we have to do with these brutal regimes, the better.

What is odd is that “Canadian values” are freely applied by Liberals to the internal affairs of Muslim countries but their application by conservatives here in Canada is regarded as abhorrent and certainly as impolite.  It was only last year that Dr. Kellie Leitch was run out of polite society for her campaign for applying “Canadian values” in Canada, particularly in the realm of immigration.  Leitch was condemned as a closet Islamophobe for her effort to stop creeping Sharia supremacism in Canada, and yet the actions of avowedly Sharia law regimes cause grave diplomatic problems with multiple Liberal governments.

Stephen Harper was accused of playing on Islamophobia when he insisted that the swearing the oath of citizenship be done in the Canadian style, i.e. with face uncovered rather than masked in accordance with Sharia law  Both France and Quebec have been condemned as Islamophobic for passing laws against face coverings consistent with French values of laicité. 

When confronted with the realities of Sharia, the liberal mind is appalled; and yet, for votes and for the applause of post-modernist progressives, liberals offer Motion 103 and condemn others who want to protect Canada from Sharia supremacism.

The pulling of Saudi money and Saudi Arabians from Canada is a good thing, and the less Sharia in Canada, the better – however it is achieved.  If the Trudeau Liberals apply Canadian values throughout the rest of the Islamic world, perhaps we will be much less troubled by Sharia supremacism.  We want Sharia law countries to pull their money, their diplomats, their Wahhabi Imams and their nationals out of Canada – for this is consistent with the truest of Sharia law, not to sojourn in the land of the infidel.

-30-

Ban handguns under Bill C-71? An idea full of holes.

Vincent J. Curtis

3 Aug 2018

RE: It’s time for Canada to consider a handgun ban.

The Hamilton Spectator tried to make a reasonable sounding appeal for the banning of handguns.

The Spectator’s argument to consider a ban on handguns is shot full of holes.

Let’s consider the Spectator’s facts.  The shooting in Greektown was committed by Faisal Hussain, who was not the gun’s owner.  He took it from his brother, Fahad, who is comatose from a drug overdose and who is not a lawful owner himself.  The gun in question is illegal in Canada because it is capable of fully automatic fire, and was reportedly stolen in Saskatoon after being illegally imported from the United States.

Since the illegal owning of illegal handguns in Canada is already banned, it is not clear that the banning of legal handguns legally owned by law-abiding Canadians would have stopped the Greektown shooting.  The proposed solution doesn't solve the very problem it is offered to solve.

The banning of handguns would create an altogether new mass of gun-criminals in Canada: the formerly law-abiding gun owners who were made felons by the new law, until such time as they turned them in.  That leaves open the question of who, exactly, is going to collect these hundreds of thousands of guns, and how will the blameless owners be compensated for the dispossession of their formerly legal property?

Then there is the problem of equal treatment under the law, as guaranteed under the Charter  If farmers, hunters, trappers, and Aboriginals have legitimate reasons for owning long-guns, why can’t target shooters or collectors own them – are their reasons not “legitimate” and aren’t they equal under the law?  Is gun ownership an Aboriginal right?

Why should the police be armed under the new legal regime?  They aren’t in the UK.  The murder rate in London now exceeds that of New York City, but it is accomplished with knives and motor vehicles instead of guns.  Gun bans don’t solve the underlying social issues that give rise to violence.

Here’s my modest proposal: deport all males between the ages of 15 and 50 of Jamaican or Middle-Eastern descent.  Among them and in the drug trade is where the illegal and violent misuse of guns lies.  But so radical a solution would never be adopted, so instead the comfortably ignorant wish to discharge their pain on the law-abiding and the invisible.

-30-

Bennedetti defends Jordan Peterson

Vincent J. Curtis

31 July 2018

RE: Taking the kids out (written by Paul Bennedetti, published in the Hamilton Spectator on 28 July 2018.  Bennedetti attended Jordan Peterson's lecture in Hamilton with his children.  He reported that Peterson seemed perfectly normal and reasonable, and so were the other members of the audience.  Progressives denounce Peterson as a fascist/sexist/misogynist/transphobe/Islamophobe deplorable to discredit what sounds perfectly sensible and reasonable coming from his mouth.)

Paul Bennedetti performed a highly useful service by providing us with his impressions of the Jordan Peterson lecture given in Hamilton the other week.  He reports that Peterson is common sensical and not at all like the alt-right fascist monster he had been made out to be by many public figures.  Nor does he attract such people.

The next step in the analysis is to compare one’s actual impressions with those he was told he would experience by those public figures.  Bennedetti commented on the wide discrepancy between the actual and the advertised.

Now, what does that discrepancy tell you about the judgement of those who were so wide of the mark?  Ought their judgement be trusted in other matters?  (Supposing they said the police department was racist?)  Did they pass judgement on Peterson without hearing him out?  What agenda have they exposed in condemning Peterson’s common sense conclusions and presentation as the product of fascist thinking?  Did you notice the technique of condemning the man rather than his argument?

The public figures who condemned Peterson as a fascist are in office and are running for office.  They are the ones who get to vote on city council, and in provincial and federal parliament.  Given what we just learned about their agenda and their judgment, should they be allowed to touch the levers of power again?

-30-

Hunter attacks Jordan Peterson

Vincent J. Curtis

30 July 2018

RE: Jordon Peterson’s intellectual hucksterism

(by Latham Hunter, Ph.D. The Hamilton Spectator of this date.  Hunter is described as a professor of cultural studies and communications )

A reply:

Speaking of intellectual hucksterism, what the hell is “cultural studies and communications” anyway?

On cue, the progressive movement is reacting to a sensible alternative to its intellectual pretensions -  by accusing a dangerous antagonist of being a racist and misogynist.  How tiresome!

By racist is meant, not a person who “demonstrates prejudice against persons of other races,” but a person who doesn’t buy into that recently minted concept of racial privilege.  By misogynist is not meant a person who “despises or is strongly prejudiced against women,” but a man who makes observations about women, as a clinical psychologist makes observations about his practice.

In short, racist and misogynist mean “a person I disagree with and wish to smear.”

The Marxist roots of post-modernism is not an invention of Jordan Peterson.  It is admitted by those who espouse it.  Its aim is to demoralize, confuse, and bring low those liberal western democracies with free-market economies that exposed the fraud of communism and destroyed the Soviet Union.  

“White privilege” and what Latham Hunter calls misogyny and racism are inventions of post-modernism with that aim in mind, and Peterson is not wrong in naming them and in attacking them, since he believes in, what was called in the mid-twentieth century, liberalism. 

Hunter’s own discipline of “cultural-studies” and the continuing invention and proliferation of fill-in-the-blank-studies courses are products of post-modernism, and came at the expense of what used to be called liberal-arts programs. (Victor Davis Hanson has said a lot about this.)

Hence, Hunter’s criticism of Peterson amounts to a predatory assault, in characteristic manner, of post-modernism upon main-line liberal arts, and its views and conclusions.

Hunter’s critique of Peterson is another sorry example of a losing progressive losing her mind.

-30-

Andrea Horwath proves me right!

Vincent J. Curtis

25 July 2018

On Monday, July 23, the Spectator saw fit to publish a letter of mind, penned a week earlier.  It ran as follows:

Having taken a week off for vacation, I returned to peruse the last week of Spectator issues.  The most striking thing was the level and the quantity of hysteria both in opinion pieces and even in alleged news pieces.

We read that Trump is a fascist.  Trump is Putin’s poodle.  Trump doesn’t deserve to be treated fairly or honestly.  Ford is Trump.  The use of the 1998-2015 Sex-Ed curricula endangers our students.  Social conservatives are inherently evil.  Jordon Peterson is a fascist, and so must be the guy who rents him a hall to speak in.

People need to get a grip.  One reason why Trump has an unshakeable hold on a large core of supporters, is the hysteria that comes from his opponents.  Anti-Trumpers are dismissed as simply finding new ways of venting their hysteria.  The little-leaguers go after Ford with an obviousness that is tedious.

It must be that the progressives realize that they are losing, and are losing their minds over it.

                               *                                  *                                                  *

It didn’t take Andrea Horwath, leader on the Ontario NDP, long to validate my claim that progressives were losing their minds after she attacked Premier Ford that very day in the legislature on the Sex-Ed issue.  He’s a radical extremist, beholden to his wicked, social conservative base, and regression in Sex-Ed was their payoff, she says.

“…prevent kids from learning about consent, cyberbullying, gender identity, and LGBTQ families” she said.

(Poor progressive Andrea is not educated enough herself to understand the intellectual farce that is gender-identity theory.  Teaching gender-identity as fact is like teaching the discredited caloric theory of heat or the phlogiston theory of combustion as fact.)

Year Zero fanaticism was identified during the French Revolution.  The revolutionaries were going to create a new man and a new society from scratch, disregarding all common sense.  Year Zero was the date of the Revolution.  The experience with this led to the French saying, “drive away Nature, and she returns at a gallop.”

The fact that a Sex-Ed program last used in 2014 is beyond the pale, and only the 2015 program is sufficient is a sign of Year Zero fanaticism.  What about the Ontario students who went through school in the 1960s, when there was no sex-ed program to speak of?  How did they figure out how to produce Gen X and Gen Y without 2015 approved instruction?  How did mankind make it through the last 40,000 years without there even being an Ontario Ministry of Education?!

The implication is that Andrea Horwath holds the millennial generation in utter contempt, believing them unable, without detailed instruction, to figure out how to reproduce.

If I were more charitable, I would think that Andrea’s real objection is not the education, but the morality that is transmitted through the new program.  That is entirely Marxist in orientation, and explains her concern for the satisfaction of social conservatives.  What defines social conservativism except a position on moral rectitude and propriety?  Andrea finds these people inherently evil, and I’m sure, given the chance, she would deprive them of the right to vote and the right to free expression.

With the fall of the Soviet Union, Marxism was exposed as an utter failure.  Committed Marxists turned their attention to the criticism, the undermining, and the bringing low of successful, western democracies that have free-market economies.  The Global Warming hysteria is of a piece with this.  Breaking down social morals and encouraging division based on race and class are other targets of this underground Marxian criticism.

What progressive-Marxist Andrea wants to preserve in the 2015 program is the moral code, because it is much more destructive of Judeo-Christian morality and of Western values than the 2014 program was.  And this is entirely in keeping with modern Marxism.

Of course, I could be giving Andrea more credit than she deserves.  She could be simply be giving an utterly knee-jerk, opportunistic reaction to change.

-30-

Can Ontario stop Global Warming?

Vincent J. Curtis

1 July 2018

RE:  Ford’s Doctrine of Short Term Gain (Hamilton Spectator 30 June 18)

Dr. Winfield’s article perpetuates the myth that Canada, and even Ontario, has the means of stopping the critical amount of world carbon dioxide production - the production that will send the earth into overheating hyperdrive.  They would have us believe that Ontario needs to cripple its economy in order to save the world.

The facts say otherwise.  Canada’s proportion of world carbon dioxide emission is 1.54 percent.  Canada ranks below International Shipping (at 1.78 %) and above International Aviation (1.39 %) on the list of emitters.  If world trade and international travel increase, Canada’s proportion of world emissions would drop, while a world-wide recession would see Canada's proportion increase.  Canada’s contribution to world carbon dioxide emissions is so small, that factors far outside her control have greater impact than anything Canada is capable of doing.

Of Canada’s contribution, Ontario’s is about a third of the total – about 0.5 percent of the world’s total emissions.  Now, a third of nothing isn’t very much and half of that is even less.  If the world is going to hell because of carbon dioxide, the sacrifice of Ontario’s economy now isn’t going to stop it.

Strangely, those measures that are demanded of Ontario to save the world track closely with the progressive view of the good and wholesome: “renewables”, public transit, higher gasoline taxes, cap-and-trade, “efficiency”, and in general more government control and taxation.  Nuclear power is bad, despite being completely reliable and not emitting carbon dioxide.

In February, 1996, the Spectator published an article of mine that held that only nuclear and hydro-electric generation could meet North America’s growing need for cheap electricity.  Solar and wind were too expensive and too unreliable to meet Ontario's needs.  The Ontario Liberals’ madcap fifteen years proved that forecast true.

I said then [i.e. 6 Jan 96] and it is still true, that the progressive view is that the economic and cultural success of the western world is an evil and needs to be humbled.  The shaming of western societies and the crippling of western economies has been progressive’s constant policy, and Dr. Winfield’s article is just one more little raindrop in that thunderstorm.

The people who have been affected by two decades of shaming and economic humbling are starting to react, and are voting in governments that are going to pay attention to their needs, not to the chest-thumping of the comfortable moralizers.

-30-