Showing posts with label Anthropology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anthropology. Show all posts

Thursday, December 28, 2017

Five Things Professors Actually Said In 2017

Via Campus Reform,


Most Americans expect college professors to be beacons of knowledge and wisdom, or at least to exercise more maturity than their teenage students.



Every year, however, Campus Reform comes across professors who unashamedly make outrageous, preposterous, and downright absurd remarks in their classrooms and on social media, denigrating conservatives and their viewpoints.


In 2017, President Trump’s first year in the Oval Office brought academic rage to new heights as professors frequently blasted the Commander-in-Chief and berated his voters, traditional conservatives, and anyone who does not embrace progressivism.


Here are five things that professors actually said in 2017:


1) Prof suggests Texans deserve hurricane for supporting Trump


A University of Tampa professor was so upset about the outcome of the 2016 presidential election that he publicly suggested that Texans deserved Hurricane Harvey because the state voted Republican last year.


“I don’t believe in instant Karma but this kinda feels like it for Texas,” Professor Ken Storey tweeted in August. “Hopefully this will help them realize the GOP doesn’t care about them.”


Shortly after the controversial remarks, the university announced that it had fired the professor.


2) Prof says House GOP ‘should be lined up and shot’


An Art Institute of Washington professor was so furious about the House GOP’s effort to repeal and replace Obamacare that he said GOP lawmakers “should be lined up and shot” for their actions.


“They should be lined up and shot,” Professor John Griffin wrote on his Facebook page. “That’s not hyperbole; blood is on their hands.”


3) Prof calls whites "inhuman assholes," says "let them die"


In June, Trinity College professor Johnny Eric Williams made national headlines after appearing to suggest that the first responders should have let the victims of the congressional shooting "fucking die” because they are white.


“It is past time for the racially oppressed to do what people who believe themselves to be ‘white’ will not do, put end to the vectors of their destructive mythology of whiteness and their white supremacy system. #LetThemFuckingDie,” Williams wrote in a Facebook post, including the hashtag as an apparent reference to an op-ed with the same title that he had shared two days earlier.


Following his controversial remarks, Williams was placed on leave but is slated to return to teaching in 2018.


4) Prof says Otto Warmbier "got exactly what he deserved"


A University of Delaware professor claimed that Otto Warmbier, a young American who died after being held in a North Korean prison camp, “got exactly what he deserved.”


Professor Katherine Dettwyler made her remarks on her personal Facebook page and in the comments section of an article published by National Review.


Dettwyler maintained that Warmbier behaved like a “spoiled, naive, arrogant U.S. college student who never had to face the consequences of his actions” when he visited North Korea, and that he had a “typical mindset of a lot of the young, white, rich, clueless males” she teaches.


5) Drexel prof blames "whiteness" for Texas massacre


George Ciccariello-Maher, an assistant professor at Drexel University who made headlines by calling for “white genocide” last year, was at it again in 2017.


In early November, the academic pinned the blame for the Texas massacre that killed 26 people on what he called “whiteness” and “entitlement.”


“Whiteness is never seen as a cause, in and of itself, of these kinds of massacres, of other forms of violence,” Ciccariello-Maher said in an interview with Democracy Now!, asserting that “whiteness is a structure of privilege and it’s a structure of power, and a structure that, when it feels threatened, you know, lashes out.”









Tuesday, December 26, 2017

Is Christmas Inefficient?

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Mises Institute,


After hundreds of years of attacks on Christmas, economists have finally gotten into the act.



Yale University’s Joel Waldfogel, writing in the American Economic Review, condemns what he calls “The Deadweight Loss of Christmas.” Once you cut through the calculus and graphs, his conclusion is clear: though Christmas generates a $50 billion gift-giving industry, a tenth to a third of that is sheer loss. Why? Because the recipient doesn’t always get what he wants. Given the chance, the recipient would have purchased something else.


All of this follows directly from his underlying theory. In neoclassical economics, the consumer is best off when he chooses, within his means, the highest-rank good or service on his “utility” scale. If he can afford a steak, and he has to settle for a hot dog because the restaurant is out of t-bone, he experiences dead-weight loss. It’s even worse if he has to pay the price of steak and gets a wiener instead.


So it is with gifts. They generate a net loss, this theory says, unless the recipient would have otherwise purchased, with his own cash, precisely what he unwraps. Of course, this is rarely the case. To provide empirical meat to his theory, Professor Waldfogel interviewed students. The students received an average of $438 in gifts, for which these kids reported they would have paid only $313 if they had done the shopping themselves. The gap narrows when the gift is from a friend, and widens when it’s from the family.


Imagine Mr. Waldfogel attending your next Christmas gathering. Aunt Janie gives her nephews soap-on-a-rope, and they all praise her for her generosity and thoughtfulness. The economist then prods the youngsters to ‘fess up that soap-on-a-rope isn’t so great after all, and with the $9.95, they would have bought the newest Spice Girls tape. He declares the gathering a waste and encourages the party to break up in the interest of everyone’s economic welfare.


Professor Waldfogel proposes that we could eliminate these losses, which could be as high as $13 billion per year, by giving money instead of gifts, and letting the recipient spend it as he chooses. But then why not take matters one step further? What is the point of all this shuffling around of cash in the first place? According to neoclassical theory, it would be far better if everyone just clung to his own bank account and spent his own money as he saw fit. Indeed, we’d all be better off economically if Christmas were merely abolished—heck, maybe the Congress should do it—until such time as we all have perfect knowledge of each other’s preferences and are willing to act on them.


Far from being one man’s opinion, this thesis is becoming a classic “extra credit” question on microeconomics tests. Waldfogel is only distinguished for having formalized the model and tested it against his own students’ experience. The conclusion allows economists to presume they are smarter than the mass of the buying public, which persists in the irrational habit of buying things for each other instead of sending money or, even better, just spending it on themselves.


So, what’s wrong with the theory? Plenty. It equates personal utility with dollars spent, the classic conflation of value and price. In fact, a gift is a special kind of good with its own value. For example, we value the soap from the Aunt precisely because of its tie-in with familial affection. Even if the recipient would never have bought it, his personal utility is enhanced by the knowledge that his extended family is thinking about him and cares enough to give.


The source matters. If soap were given by a classmate who complains that you are odoriferously challenged, the “gift” is an insult in disguise. It has negative value. “Rich gifts wax poor when the givers prove unkind,” writes Shakespeare, who seemed to have a more complete view of economics than Professor Waldfogel. Neither is the person who receives a gift purchased under duress likely to be grateful. People on long-term welfare, for example, tend to think of taxpayers as suckers.


A comment later published in the same journal picked up on this. The authors (one from Harvard, one from the University of Miami) also did an empirical test. They used a different method (asking students about prices of specific gifts, not whole bundles), a larger sample of students (209 instead of 78), and asked more detailed questions. The results were the opposite of Waldfogel’s. The authors showed that more than half valued the gift above its retail price, suggesting that Christmas giving actually represents a gain in social welfare.


Moreover, these authors found that gifts asked for were less valued than gifts that were not. This fits with experience: we’re pleased to get what we want, but especially appreciative when we like something we had not expected. Indeed, good gift shoppers think about this ahead of time. They buy someone a tie he would never buy for himself. They buy items the receiver might be too modest or frugal to purchase himself, even if he had the resources.


Some items are just gifts and nothing more: fancy soaps, paisley boxer shorts, blankets with school logos, coffee cups printed with witty slogans, and the like. That’s why there can be such things as “gift shops” as distinguished from regular stores. Gifts have a different value because they are altogether different goods. They embody not only themselves but also their meaning. Imagine if someone came to dinner, and instead of bringing a bottle of wine, gave you $15 and told you to spend it on anything you wanted. It’s just not the same.


For his part, Waldfogel responds by accusing the authors of biasing their results. The very nature of their survey questions encouraged students to report “sentimental value” instead of pure “material value.” Going back to the drawing board, and correcting for this and other supposed errors, Waldfogel surveyed another group of students—455 this time—and still found a dead-weight loss, less than before, but a substantial one nonetheless. Christmas is inefficient: that’s his story and he’s sticking to it.


Of course there is no way to decouple one kind of value from another kind of value, since all economic value is ultimately subjective. Surveys can’t reveal what people value; only action in the marketplace does that. What’s deeply odd about this wrangling is that everyone seems to agree that only the value to the recipient should matter. That leaves out the really crucial point of gift giving: that it benefits the giver as well as the receiver.


People feel good in being generous, especially towards family and friends. Giving is an act of charity and liberality, virtues people practice because they’re good for the soul. And even if they aren’t, economists should follow the rule of “demonstrated preference”: if a person gives a gift, it is because he preferred giving the gift to keeping his own money. The action is “utility enhancing” on its own terms. Why? Because it, as opposed to something else, took place. Value is revealed in the preferences people demonstrate voluntarily. A well-chosen gift also reveals something about ourselves: we care enough to make our affections known in a personal way.


Again, the problem of the welfare state presents itself. In its form of “charity,” people do not give voluntarily. So resistant are people to dumping billions of dollars on millions of freeloaders, that the government has to threaten them with fines and jail terms (that’s what taxation is) to get them to fork over this “gift.” No one demonstrates a preference for the welfare state (voting doesn’t count since people are not using their own resources to purchase the services for which they vote). This degree of redistribution has to be imposed. Taxation, in contrast to Christmas, is a clear example of a utility-reducing activity.


But economists of the neoclassical school have rarely bothered with such distinctions. Their theories leave little room for reflection on property rights, individual choice, and the distinction between market exchange and forced redistribution. For them, a mathematically determined standard of efficiency is the only test that matters. Not even an absurd conclusion—for instance, that giving gifts is inefficient—causes them to rethink their core theory.


Economists are hardly alone in this. Skeptics and opponents of the market economy have long had a beef with the idea of giving and charity, especially as it occurs at Christmas.


Perhaps the socialists have long understood something about Christmas that others, even advocates of the market, have overlooked. In the institution of the gift, we find a strong rationale for the establishment and protection of private property and the capitalist economy. In order to give, we must first produce, acquire, own.


G.K. Chesterton, a great defender of Christmas against English Puritans who regarded it as corrupt and pagan, observed that collective ownership would mean the end of voluntary giving. Moreover, he clarified, “giving is not the same as sharing: giving is the opposite of sharing. Sharing is based on the idea that there is no property, or at least no personal property. But giving a thing to another man is as much based on personal property as keeping it to yourself.”


And contrary to the complaints of materialism at Christmas, meaningful gifts can be as elaborate as gold, frankincense, and myrrh, or as humble as two fish and five loaves.


It’s no wonder, then, that history’s dreariest socialists have denounced Christmas. The economic core of its gift giving centers on private property, while its ethical core belies the claim that private property institutionalizes greed.


“There is the greatest pleasure in doing a kindness or service to friends or guests or companions,” wrote Aristotle in The Politics, “which can only be rendered when a man has private property. These advantages are lost by excessive unification of the state…. No one, when men have all things in common, will any longer set an example of liberality or do any liberal action; for liberality consists in the use which is made of property.”



As for intellectuals—economists no less—who have failed to understand this simple truth, it’s staggering to think of the dead-weight loss their ideas have imposed on society.









Saturday, November 18, 2017

WTF Chart Of The Day: America"s Youngest Child Brides & Grooms

Between 2000 and 2015, at least 207,468 minors were married in the United States.


As Statista"s Martin Armstrong notes, despite an overall fall in child marriage since 2000 (25,583 to 9,247), there are still a shocking number of young children legally married in the country. Only 14 percent married other minors, meaning 86 percent wedded an adult.


As the infographic below shows, the youngest to marry since 2000 were three ten year olds.


Infographic: America


You will find more statistics at Statista


According to Frontline, the three girls married men aged 24, 25 and 31 in Tennessee in 2001.


While certain conditions have to be met before a minor can marry, and consent from a parent or judge is usually required, every state in the U.S. allows children to marry to some extent.


In Oregon and Nebraska, for example, the lower limit is set at 17.


In 26 states, there is no minimum age for marriage.









Friday, November 17, 2017

A Europe We Can Believe In

Via Oriental Review,



In early October a group of European intellectuals published a conservative manifesto with 36 tenets defending "old Europe" and its values, which we are republishing today in full:



1. Europe is our home.


Europe belongs to us, and we belong to Europe. These lands are our home; we have no other. The reasons we hold Europe dear exceed our ability to explain or justify our loyalty. It is a matter of shared histories, hopes and loves. It is a matter of accustomed ways, of moments of pathos and pain. It is a matter of inspiring experiences of reconciliation and the promise of a shared future. Ordinary landscapes and events are charged with special meaning—for us, but not for others. Home is a place where things are familiar, and where we are recognized, however far we have wandered. This is the real Europe, our precious and irreplaceable civilization.


2. A false Europe threatens us.


Europe, in all its richness and greatness, is threatened by a false understanding of itself. This false Europe imagines itself as a fulfilment of our civilization, but in truth it will confiscate our home. It appeals to exaggerations and distortions of Europe’s authentic virtues while remaining blind to its own vices. Complacently trading in one-sided caricatures of our history, this false Europe is invincibly prejudiced against the past. Its proponents are orphans by choice, and they presume that to be an orphan—to be homeless—is a noble achievement. In this way, the false Europe praises itself as the forerunner of a universal community that is neither universal nor a community.


3. The false Europe is utopian and tyrannical.


The patrons of the false Europe are bewitched by superstitions of inevitable progress. They believe that History is on their side, and this faith makes them haughty and disdainful, unable to acknowledge the defects in the post-national, post-cultural world they are constructing. Moreover, they are ignorant of the true sources of the humane decencies they themselves hold dear—as do we. They ignore, even repudiate the Christian roots of Europe. At the same time they take great care not to offend Muslims, who they imagine will cheerfully adopt their secular, multicultural outlook. Sunk in prejudice, superstition and ignorance, and blinded by vain, self-congratulating visions of a utopian future, the false Europe reflexively stifles dissent. This is done, of course, in the name of freedom and tolerance.


4. We must defend the real Europe.


We are reaching a dead-end. The greatest threat to the future of Europe is neither Russian adventurism nor Muslim immigration. The true Europe is at risk because of the suffocating grip that the false Europe has over our imaginations. Our nations and shared culture are being hollowed out by illusions and self-deceptions about what Europe is and should be. We pledge to resist this threat to our future. We will defend, sustain and champion the real Europe, the Europe to which we all in truth belong.


5. Solidarity and civic loyalty encourage active participation.


The true Europe expects and encourages active participation in the common project of political and cultural life. The European ideal is one of solidarity based on assent to a body of law that applies to all, but is limited in its demands. This assent has not always taken the form of representative democracy. But our traditions of civic loyalty reflect a fundamental assent to our political and cultural traditions, whatever their forms. In the past, Europeans fought to make our political systems more open to popular participation, and we are justly proud of this history. Even as they did so, sometimes in open rebellion, they warmly affirmed that, despite their injustices and failures, the traditions of the peoples of this continent are ours. Such dedication to reform makes Europe a place that seeks ever-greater justice. This spirit of progress is born out of our love for and loyalty to our homelands.


6. We are not passive subjects.


A European spirit of unity allows us to trust others in the public square, even when we are strangers. The public parks, central squares and broad boulevards of European towns and cities express the European political spirit: We share our common life and the res publica. We assume that it is our duty to take responsibility for the futures of our societies. We are not passive subjects under the domination of despotic powers, whether sacred or secular. And we are not prostrate before implacable historical forces. To be European is to possess political and historical agency. We are the authors of our shared destiny.


7. The nation-state is a hallmark of Europe.


The true Europe is a community of nations. We have our own languages, traditions and borders. Yet we have always recognized a kinship with one another, even when we have been at odds—or at war. This unity-in-diversity seems natural to us. Yet this is remarkable and precious, for it is neither natural nor inevitable. The most common political form of unity-in-diversity is empire, which European warrior kings tried to recreate in the centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire. The allure of the imperial form endured, but the nation-state prevailed, the political form that joins peoplehood with sovereignty. The nation-state thereby became the hallmark of European civilization.


8. We do not back an imposed, enforced unity.


A national community takes pride in governing itself in its own way, often boasts of its great national achievements in the arts and sciences, and competes with other nations, sometimes on the battlefield. This has wounded Europe, sometimes gravely, but it has never compromised our cultural unity. In fact, the contrary has been the case. As the nation states of Europe became more established and distinct, a shared European identity became stronger. In the aftermath of the terrible bloodshed of the world wars in the first half of the twentieth century, we emerged with an even greater resolve to honor our shared heritage. This testifies to the depth and power of Europe as a civilization that is cosmopolitan in a proper sense. We do not seek the imposed, enforced unity of empire. Instead, European cosmopolitanism recognizes that patriotic love and civic loyalty open out to a wider world.


9. Christianity encouraged cultural unity.


The true Europe has been marked by Christianity. The universal spiritual empire of the Church brought cultural unity to Europe, but did so without political empire. This has allowed for particular civic loyalties to flourish within a shared European culture. The autonomy of what we call civil society became a characteristic feature of European life. Moreover, the Christian Gospel does not deliver a comprehensive divine law, and thus the diversity of the secular laws of the nations may be affirmed and honoured without threat to our European unity. It is no accident that the decline of Christian faith in Europe has been accompanied by renewed efforts to establish political unity—an empire of money and regulations, covered with sentiments of pseudo-religious universalism, that is being constructed by the European Union.


10. Christian roots nourish Europe.


The true Europe affirms the equal dignity of every individual, regardless of sex, rank or race. This also arises from our Christian roots. Our gentle virtues are of an unmistakably Christian heritage: fairness, compassion, mercy, forgiveness, peace-making, charity. Christianity revolutionized the relationship between men and women, valuing love and mutual fidelity in an unprecedented way. The bond of marriage allows both men and women to flourish in communion. Most of the sacrifices we make are for the sake of our spouses and children. This spirit of self-giving is yet another Christian contribution to the Europe we love.


11. Classical roots encourage excellence.


The true Europe also draws inspiration from the Classical tradition. We recognize ourselves in the literature of ancient Greece and Rome. As Europeans, we strive for greatness, the crown of the Classical virtues. At times, this has led to violent competition for supremacy. But at its best, an aspiration toward excellence inspires the men and women of Europe to craft musical and artistic works of unsurpassed beauty and to make extraordinary breakthroughs in science and technology. The grave virtues of the self-possessed Romans and the pride in civic participation and spirit of philosophical inquiry of the Greeks have never been forgotten in the real Europe. These inheritances, too, are ours.


12. Europe is a shared project.


The true Europe has never been perfect. The proponents of the false Europe are not wrong to seek development and reform, and there is much that has been accomplished since 1945 and 1989 that we should cherish and honor. Our shared life is an ongoing project, not an ossified inheritance. But the future of Europe rests in renewed loyalty to our best traditions, not a spurious universalism demanding forgetfulness and self-repudiation. Europe did not begin with the Enlightenment. Our beloved home will not be fulfilled with the European Union. The real Europe is, and always will be, a community of nations at once insular, sometimes fiercely so, and yet united by a spiritual legacy that, together, we debate, develop, share—and love.


13. We are losing our home.


The true Europe is in jeopardy. The achievements of popular sovereignty, resistance to empire, cosmopolitanism capable of civic love, the Christian legacy of humane and dignified life, a living engagement with our Classical inheritance—all this is slipping away. As the patrons of the false Europe construct their faux Christendom of universal human rights, we are losing our home.


14. A false freedom prevails.


The false Europe boasts of an unprecedented commitment to human liberty. This liberty, however, is very one-sided. It sells itself as liberation from all restraints: sexual freedom, freedom of self-expression, freedom to “be oneself.” The Generation of ’68 regards these freedoms as precious victories over a once almighty and oppressive cultural regime. They see themselves as great liberators, and their transgressions are acclaimed as noble moral achievements, for which the whole world should be grateful.


15. Individualism, isolation, and aimlessness are widespread.


For Europe’s younger generations, however, reality is far less gilt with gold. Libertine hedonism often leads to boredom and a profound sense of purposelessness. The bond of marriage has weakened. In the roiling sea of sexual liberty, the deep desires of our young people to marry and form families are often frustrated. A liberty that frustrates our heart’s deepest longings becomes a curse. Our societies seem to be falling into individualism, isolation and aimlessness. Instead of freedom, we are condemned to the empty conformity of consumer- and media-driven culture. It is our duty to speak the truth: The Generation of ’68 destroyed but did not build. They created a vacuum now filled by social media, cheap tourism and pornography.


16. We are regulated and managed.


At the same time that we hear boasts of unprecedented liberty, European life is more and more comprehensively regulated. Rules—often confected by faceless technocrats in league with powerful interests—govern our work relationships, our business decisions, our educational qualifications, our news and entertainment media. And Europe now seeks to tighten existing regulations on freedom of speech, an aboriginal European freedom—freedom of conscience made manifest. The targets of these restrictions are not obscenity or other assaults on decency in public life. Instead, Europe’s governing classes wish to restrict manifestly political speech. Political leaders who give voice to inconvenient truths about Islam and immigration are hauled before judges. Political correctness enforces strong taboos that deem challenges to the status quo beyond the pale. The false Europe does not really encourage a culture of freedom. It promotes a culture of market-driven homogeneity and politically enforced conformity.


17. Multiculturalism is unworkable.


The false Europe also boasts of an unprecedented commitment to equality. It claims to promote non-discrimination and the inclusion of all races, religions and identities. Here, genuine progress has been made, but a utopian detachment from reality has taken hold. Over the past generation, Europe has pursued a grand project of multiculturalism. To demand or even promote the assimilation of Muslim newcomers to our manners and mores, much less to our religion, has been thought a gross injustice. A commitment to equality, we have been told, demands that we abjure any hint that we believe our culture superior. Paradoxically, Europe’s multicultural enterprise, which denies the Christian roots of Europe, trades on the Christian ideal of universal charity in an exaggerated and unsustainable form. It requires from the European peoples a saintly degree of self-abnegation. We are to affirm the very colonization of our homelands and the demise of our culture as Europe’s great twenty-first century glory—a collective act of self-sacrifice for the sake of some new global community of peace and prosperity that is being born.


18. Bad faith grows.


There is a great deal of bad faith in this thinking. Most in our governing classes doubtless presume the superiority of European culture—which must not be affirmed in public in ways that might offend immigrants. Given that superiority, they think that assimilation will happen naturally, and quickly. In an ironic echo of the imperialist thinking of old, Europe’s governing classes presume that, somehow, by the laws of nature or of history, ‘they’ will necessarily become like ‘us’—and it is inconceivable that the reverse might be true. In the meantime, official multiculturalism has been deployed as a therapeutic tool for managing the unfortunate but ‘temporary’ cultural tensions.


19. Technocratic tyranny increases.


There is more bad faith at work, of a darker kind. Over the last generation, a larger and larger segment of our governing class has decided that its own self-interest lies in accelerated globalization. They wish to build supranational institutions that they are able to control without the inconveniences of popular sovereignty. It is increasingly clear that the ‘democratic deficit’ in the European Union is not a mere technical problem to be remedied by technical means. Rather, this deficit is a fundamental commitment, and it is zealously defended. Whether legitimated by supposed economic necessities or autonomously developing international human rights law, the supra-national mandarins of the EU institutions confiscate the political life of Europe, answering all challenges with a technocratic answer: There is no alternative. This is the soft but increasingly real tyranny we face.


20. The false Europe is fragile and impotent.


The hubris of the false Europe is now becoming evident, despite the best efforts of its partisans to shore up comfortable illusions. Above all, the false Europe is revealed to be weaker than anyone imagined. Popular entertainment and material consumption do not sustain civic life. Shorn of higher ideals and discouraged from expressing patriotic pride by multiculturalist ideology, our societies now have difficulty summoning the will to defend themselves. Moreover, civic trust and social cohesion are not renewed by inclusive rhetoric or an impersonal economic system dominated by gigantic international corporations. Again, we must be frank: European societies are fraying badly. If we but open our eyes, we see an ever-greater use of government power, social management and educational indoctrination. It is not just Islamic terror that brings heavily armed soldiers into our streets. Riot police are now necessary to quell violent anti-establishment protests and even to manage drunken crowds of football fans. The fanaticism of our football loyalties is a desperate sign of the deeply human need for solidarity, a need that otherwise goes unfulfilled in the false Europe.


21. A culture of repudiation has taken hold.


Europe’s intellectual classes are, alas, among the chief ideological partisans of the conceits of the false Europe. Without doubt, our universities are one of the glories of European civilization. But where once they sought to transmit to each new generation the wisdom of past ages, today most within the universities equate critical thinking with a simpleminded repudiation of the past. A lodestar of the European spirit has been the rigorous discipline of intellectual honesty and objectivity. But over the past two generations, this noble ideal has been transformed. The asceticism that once sought to free the mind of the tyranny of dominant opinion has become an often complacent and unreflective animus against everything that is our own. This stance of cultural repudiation functions as a cheap and easy way of being ‘critical.’ Over the last generation, it has been rehearsed in the lecture halls, becoming a doctrine, a dogma. And to join in professing this creed is taken to be the mark of ‘enlightenment,’ and of spiritual election. As a consequence, our universities are now active agents of ongoing cultural destruction.


22. Elites arrogantly parade their virtue.


Our governing classes are advancing human rights. They are at work fighting climate change. They are engineering a more globally integrated market economy and harmonizing tax policies. They are monitoring progress toward gender equality. They are doing so much for us! What does it matter by what mechanisms they inhabit their offices? What does it matter if the European peoples grow more sceptical of their ministrations?


23. There is an alternative.


That growing scepticism is fully justified. Today, Europe is dominated by an aimless materialism that seems unable to motivate men and women to have children and form families. A culture of repudiation deprives the next generation of a sense of identity. Some of our countries have regions in which Muslims live with an informal autonomy from local laws, as if they were colonialists rather than fellow members of our nations. Individualism isolates us one from another. Globalization transforms the life prospects of millions. When challenged, our governing classes say that they are merely working to accommodate the inevitable, adjusting to implacable necessities. No other course is possible, and it is irrational to resist. Things cannot be otherwise. Those who object are said to suffer nostalgia—for which they deserve moral condemnation as racists or fascists. As social divisions and civic distrust become more apparent, European public life grows angrier, more rancourous, and no one can say where it will end. We must not continue down this path. We need to throw off the tyranny of the false Europe. There is an alternative.


24. We must turn back ersatz religion.


The work of renewal begins with theological self-knowledge. The universalist and universalizing pretensions of the false Europe reveal it to be an ersatz religious enterprise, complete with strong creedal commitments—and anathemas. This is the potent opiate that paralyzes Europe as a political body. We must insist that religious aspirations are properly the province of religion, not politics, much less bureaucratic administration. In order to recover our political and historical agency, it is imperative that we re-secularize European public life.


25. We must restore a true liberalism.


This will require us to renounce the mendacious language that evades responsibility and fosters ideological manipulation. Talk of diversity, inclusion and multiculturalism is empty. Often, such language is deployed as a way to characterize our failures as accomplishments: The unravelling of social solidarity is ‘actually’ a sign of welcome, tolerance, and inclusion. This is marketing language, a language meant to obscure reality rather than illuminate. We must recover an abiding respect for reality. Language is a delicate instrument, and it is debased when used as a bludgeon. We should be patrons of linguistic decency. Recourse to denunciation is a sign of the decadence of our present moment. We must not tolerate verbal intimidation, much less mortal threats. We need to protect those who speak reasonably, even if we think their views mistaken. The future of Europe must be liberal in the best sense, which means committed to robust public debate free from all threats of violence and coercion.


26. We need responsible statesmen.


Breaking the spell of the false Europe and its utopian, pseudo-religious crusade for a borderless world means fostering a new kind of statesmanship and a new kind of statesman. A good political leader stewards the commonweal of a particular people. A good statesman views our shared European inheritance and our particular national traditions as magnificent and life-giving, but also fragile gifts. He does not reject that inheritance, nor does he chance losing it all for utopian dreams. Such leaders covet the honors bestowed upon them by their people; they do not lust for the approbation of the ‘international community,’ which is in fact the public relations apparatus of an oligarchy.


27. We should renew national unity and solidarity.


Recognizing the particular character of the European nations, and their Christian mark, we need not be perplexed before the spurious claims of the multiculturalists. Immigration without assimilation is colonization, and this must be rejected. We rightly expect that those who migrate to our lands will incorporate themselves into our nations and adopt our ways. This expectation needs to be supported by sound policy. The language of multiculturalism has been imported from America. But America’s great age of immigration came at the turn of the twentieth century, a period of remarkably rapid economic growth, in a country with virtually no welfare state, and with a very strong sense of national identity to which immigrants were expected to assimilate. After admitting large numbers of immigrants, America closed its doors very nearly shut for two generations. Europe needs to learn from this American experience rather than adopt contemporary American ideologies. That experience tells us that the workplace is a powerful engine of assimilation, that a generous welfare system can impede assimilation and that prudent political leadership sometimes dictates reductions in immigration—even drastic reductions. We must not allow a multicultural ideology to deform our political judgments about how best to serve the common good, which requires national communities with sufficient unity and solidarity to see their good as common.


28. Only empires are multicultural.


After World War II, Western Europe cultivated vital democracies. After the collapse of the Soviet Empire, Central European nations restored their civic vitality. These are among Europe’s most precious achievements. But they will be lost if we do not address immigration and demographic change in our nations. Only empires can be multicultural, which is what the European Union will become if we fail to make renewed solidarity and civic unity the criteria by which to assess immigration policies and strategies for assimilation.


29. A proper hierarchy nourishes social well-being.


Many wrongly think Europe is being convulsed only by controversies over immigration. In truth, this is but one dimension of a more general social unraveling that must be reversed. We must recover the dignity of particular roles in society. Parents, teachers and professors have a duty to form those under their care. We must resist the cult of expertise that comes at the expense of wisdom, tact and the quest for a cultured life. There can be no renewal of Europe without a determined rejection of an exaggerated egalitarianism and the reduction of wisdom to technical knowledge. We endorse the political achievements of the modern era. Each man and woman should have an equal vote. Basic rights must be protected. But a healthy democracy requires social and cultural hierarchies that encourage the pursuit of excellence and give honor to those who serve the common good. We need to restore a sense of spiritual greatness and give it due honour so that our civilization can counter the growing power of mere wealth on the one hand and vulgar entertainment on the other.


30. We must restore moral culture.


Human dignity is more than the right to be left alone, and doctrines of international human rights do not exhaust the claims of justice, much less of the good. Europe needs to renew a consensus about moral culture so that the populace can be guided toward a virtuous life. We must not allow a false view of freedom to impede the prudent use of the law to deter vice. We must be forgiving of human weakness, but Europe cannot flourish without a restoration of a communal aspiration toward upright conduct and human excellence. A culture of dignity flows from decency and the discharge of the duties of our stations in life. We need to renew the exchange of respect between social classes that characterizes a society that values the contributions of all.


31. Markets need to be ordered toward social ends.


While we recognize the positive aspects of free-market economics, we must resist ideologies that seek to totalize the logic of the market. We cannot allow everything to be for sale. Well functioning markets require the rule of law, and our rule of law should aim at more than mere economic efficiency. Markets also function best when they are nested within strong social institutions organized on their own, non-market principles. Economic growth, while beneficial, is not the highest good. Markets need to be oriented toward social ends. Today, corporate giganticism threatens even political sovereignty. The nations need to cooperate to master the arrogance and mindlessness of global economic forces. We affirm the prudent use of government power to sustain non-economic social goods.


32. Education needs to be reformed.


We believe Europe has a history and culture worth sustaining. Our universities, however, too often betray our cultural heritage. We need to reform educational curricula to foster the transmission of our common culture rather than indoctrinating young people into a culture of repudiation. Teachers and mentors at every level have a duty of memory. They should take pride in their role as a bridge between generations past and generations to come. We must also renew the high culture of Europe by setting the sublime and the beautiful as our common standard and rejecting the degradation of the arts into a kind of political propaganda. This will require the cultivation of a new generation of patrons. Corporations and bureaucracies have shown themselves to be poor stewards of the arts.


33. Marriage and family are essential.


Marriage is the foundation of civil society and the basis for harmony between men and women. It is the intimate bond organized around sustaining a household and raising children. We affirm that our most fundamental roles in society and as human beings are as fathers and mothers. Marriage and children are integral to any vision of human flourishing. Children require sacrifice from those who bring them into the world. This sacrifice is noble and must be honoured. We endorse prudent social policies to encourage and strengthen marriage, childbearing, and childrearing. A society that fails to welcome children has no future.


34. Populism should be engaged.


There is great anxiety in Europe today because of the rise of what is called ‘populism’—though the meaning of the term seems never to be defined, and it is used mostly as invective. We have our reservations. Europe needs to draw upon the deep wisdom of her traditions rather than relying on simplistic slogans and divisive emotional appeals. Still, we acknowledge that much in this new political phenomenon can represent a healthy rebellion against the tyranny of the false Europe, which labels as ‘anti-democratic’ any threat to its monopoly on moral legitimacy. The so-called “populism” challenges the dictatorship of the status quo, the ‘fanaticism of the centre,’ and rightly so. It is a sign that even in the midst of our degraded and impoverished political culture, the historical agency of the European peoples can be reborn.


35. Our future is the true Europe.


We reject as false the claim that there is no responsible alternative to the artificial, soulless solidarity of a unified market, a transnational bureaucracy, and glib entertainment. Bread and circuses are not enough. The responsible alternative is the true Europe.


36. We must take responsibility.


In this moment, we ask all Europeans to join us in rejecting the utopian fantasy of a multicultural world without borders. We rightly love our homelands, and we seek to hand on to our children every noble thing that we have ourselves received as our patrimony. As Europeans, we also share a common heritage, and this heritage asks us to live together in peace as a Europe of nations. Let us renew national sovereignty, and recover the dignity of a shared political responsibility for Europe’s future.


*  *  *


Signers:

Philippe Bénéton (France)


Rémi Brague (France)


Chantal Delsol (France)


Roman Joch (Czech Republic)


Lánczi András (Hungary)


Ryszard Legutko (Poland)


Pierre Manent (France)


Janne Haaland Matlary (Norway)


Dalmacio Negro Pavón (Spain)


Roger Scruton (United Kingdom)


Robert Spaemann (Germany)


Bart Jan Spruyt (Netherlands)


Matthias Storme (Belgium)



 









Friday, August 25, 2017

China Launches Official Investigation Into US Intellectual Property Practices

By Chris at www.CapitalistExploits.at


Last week, China bypassed the World Trade Organisation agreements and using an old law officially launched a probe into Americas intellectual property practices.


China"s foreign affairs minister, talking of America, stated that:





"We’ve come to the conclusion that they’re in an economic war and they’re crushing us.”



Reiterating this stance, a Chinese Communist Party spokesman went on to say:





“The economic war with America is everything and we have to be maniacally focused on that.”



 


“If we continue to lose it, we’re five years away, I think, 10 years at the most, of hitting an inflection point from which we’ll never be able to recover.”



China"s president Xi Jinping explained things further:





“It’s my duty and responsibility to protect the Chinese workers’ technology and industry from unfair and abusive actions.”  



“We will stand up to any country that unlawfully forces Chinese companies to transfer their valuable technology as a condition of market access. We will combat the counterfeiting and piracy that destroys Chinese jobs.”



Actually, none of that happened. At least not that way around.


Think about it for a minute. Put the shoe on the other foot and it seems outrageous... because, well, it is.


Ok now I"ve just three things to say about this.


1. Whenever a government - who we should remind ourselves is not a producer but rather a consumer of resources - states that they are having "their" intellectual property stolen, this should make the private individuals, corporations stakeholders, and employees of those companies stand up and say: "Whoah! Hang on a second... You don"t own that. I do. What the hell?"


It"s a strange situation where the guy who got a C average in his high school finals and never made it into university but actually runs a business dealing with China can see it makes no sense but a politician with a degree from Oxford cannot.


When some Chinese company copies the iPhone, it"s not Washington"s IP they"re stealing. It"s Apple"s. Nobody wants Washington"s IP because raw sewerage isn"t valuable. That Washington lays claim to the IP of all US businesses should scare the isht out of any US-based company.


Which brings me to my second point...


2. Imagine you"re a US company with most of your value in your business being in IP. Now, imagine further that Washington brings about a trade war. What happens next?


Well, your product has just been cut off from THE world"s fastest growing consumer market in the world, and the decision as to whether or not you would participate in that market was just taken away from you whether you like it or not.


That"s all dandy if you"re 4. Parents need to make those calls for you until you"re emancipated. But you"re a grown adult entirely capable of making that judgement call all by yourself.  


A US-led trade war vs. China would be disastrous for tech firms targeting the world"s fastest growing consumer market.


A couple of reminders are worth looking at...


When I was explaining how China is increasing political global power, I mentioned that China is:


  • Asia’s largest trading partner

  • US largest trading partner

  • Germany’s largest trading partner

  • Australia’s largest trading partner

  • Russia’s second largest trading partner (after Germany)

  • Africa’s largest trading partner

  • South America’s largest trading partner

So you see the trend is most certainly established, and this trend is like a supertanker - difficult to turn around. It"s certainly a lot smarter to get on the right side of that trend than to fight it... which is impossible.


The other thing with IP is precisely what I was rabbiting on about in when discussing the coming financial disruption. You see, governments, and the nation state in particular, survives by commandeering assets. Don"t believe me? Stop paying your property tax and find out who exactly owns your house.


This sort of control is kinda easy when the assets are Billy"s steel factory but when it"s something like Vitalik Buterin"s Ethereum platform or Google or Baidu... or any number of the thousands of companies out there where IP forms the largest value component, then things get a wee bit trickier for the nation states.


Moving IP is really very easy. It involves cancelling your gym membership, downloading software onto an encrypted drive in the cloud, and booking a one-way ticket to someplace friendlier.


3. And the third thing... Ok, I lied. I"ve only 2 things to say, though I do think there"s a single reason for all this.


The Real Reason for This Stupidity


While it could backfire more spectacularly than a 50-year old Lada, it"s probably this:


Washington"s strategy to dealing with North Korea has been attempting to get Xi to do the dirty work on that snotty kid next door who"s making them look impotent. It"s silly as I mentioned last week when I explained how brain dead sanctions on young Kim really are, which is all the more reason why politicians will pursue it.


Let me make a suggestion, because let"s face it, I"m not here to do anything other than figure this stuff out and see where and why capital will flow in any particular direction.


Governments, most of them being more broke than Borris Becker after Forbes & Manhattan screwed him over, are coming for our assets. The toughest assets to actually seize are those that live in the "digital world"... which is to say their value is more often than not in intellectual property and as such they can "live" pretty much anywhere.


The Best Investment Tip You"ll Read All Year


If you"ve a business built on IP, then may I suggest that looking NOW, ahead of trouble, for the best domicile could well provide you with the best ROI you"ll ever get.


And I won"t charge you a cent for the advice, though you can send donations to Bitcoin Address: 1LNjVKrv8pT1n5SZxkhNpPN9JPWxMwnHmm


Seriously, though remember Zimbabwe, which I spoke about recently? Well, after Mugabe seized all the fixed assets, they found that without the intellect available (it"d fled) those assets became worthless. And while that"s the case the intellect has moved on. It now provides value in other countries, countries that are more receptive to value.


Question


Wow Poll 23 Aug 2017


Cast your vote here and also see what others think holds more value


- Chris


"If protection of intellectual property begins to disappear, creative companies will disappear or never get started." — Steve Jobs


--------------------------------------


Liked this article? Then you"ll probably like my other missives on


this topic as well. Go here to access them (free, of course).


--------------------------------------

Tuesday, August 22, 2017

What Would A U.S. Civil War Look Like?

Authored by GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs" Gregory Copley via OilPrice.com,


Yes, there is a civil war looming in the United States.


But it will not look like the orderly pattern of descent which characterized the conflict of 1861-65. It will appear more like the Yugoslavia break-up, or the Russian and Chinese civil wars of the 20th Century.


It will appear as an evolving chaos.


And the next US civil war, though it yet may be arrested to a degree by the formal hand of centralized gov-ernment, will destabilize many other nation-states, including the People’s Republic of China (PRC).


It may, in other words, be short-lived simply because the uprising will probably not be based upon the decisions of constituent states (which, in the US Civil War, created a break-away confederacy), acting within their own perception of a legal process. It is more probable that the 21st Century event would contage as a gradual breakdown of law and order.


The outcome, to a degree dependent on how rapidly order is restored, would likely be the end, or constraint, of the present view of democracy in the US. It would see a massive dislocation of the economy and currency. It would, then, become a global-level issue.


Humans mock what they see as an impulse toward species suicide among the beautiful lemming clan of Lemmus lemmus. In fact, these tiny creatures have a societal survival pattern which seems more consistent than that of their human detractors. The pattern of human history shows that civilizations usually end through internal illness rather than at the hand of external powers.


It is significant that the gathering crisis in the United States was not precipitated by the November 7, 2016, election of Pres. Donald Trump, and neither was the growing polarization of the United Kingdom’s society caused by the Brexit vote of 2016.


In both instances, the election of Mr Trump and the decision by UK voters for Britain to exit the European Union were late reactions — perhaps too late — by the regional populations of both countries to what they perceived as the destruction of their nation-states by “urban super-oligarchies”.


The last-ditch reactions by those who voted in the US for Donald Trump and those who voted in the UK for Brexit were against an urban-based globalism which has been building for some seven decades, with the deliberate or accidental intent of destroying nations and nationalism. It is now crystallizing into this: urban globalism sees nations and nationalism as the enemy, and vice-versa.


The battle lines have been drawn.


The urban globalists — the conscious and unconscious — have thrown their resources behind efforts to avert a return to nationalism, particularly in the US and UK, but also in Europe, Canada, Australia, and the like.


Urban globalists control most of the means of communications [is this new “means of production”; the 21st Century marxian dialectic?] and therefore control “information” and the perception of events.


“Nationalists”, then, are operating instinctively, and in darkness.


There is little doubt that the US, despite the evidence that economic recovery is at hand, could spiral into a self-destructive descent of dysfunction, dystopia, and anomie. The path toward a “second civil war” has significant parallels with the causes of the first US Civil War (1861-65). Both events — the 19th Century event and a possible 21st Century one — saw the polarization of a fundamentally urban, abstract society against a fundamentally regional, traditional society.


In some respects, it is a conflict between people with long memories (even if those memories are flawed and selective) and people to whom memories and history are irrelevant. Equally, it is a conflict between identity and materialism, with the abstract social groups (the urban populations) the most preoccupied with short-term material gain.


I have covered the US for 50 years, and my earliest view of it was, a half century ago, that its populations would inevitably polarize into protective islands of self-interest, surrounded by seas of unthinking locusts. What is ironic is that the present islands of wealth and power — the cities — have come to represent short-term materialism, as cities have throughout history.


But what is interesting is that, despite the global attention on the political/geographic polarizations occurring in the US and other parts of the Western world, there has been a reversion in other parts of the world to a sense of Westphalian or pre-Westphalian nationalism. The fact that “the West” may have ring-fenced Iran, Russia, and so on, with sanctions and other forms of isolation may well be what ensures their endur-ing status.


They have avoided the contagion of globalism.


Russia, indeed, recovered from the Soviet form of globalism in 1991.


An urban globalist “victory” over Trump and Brexit would trigger that meltdown toward a form of civil societal collapse - civil war in some form or other - as the regions disavow the diktats of the cities. That would, in turn, bring about the global economic uncertainty which could impact the PRC and then the en-tire world.


But such a conflict - physical or political - could, equally, lead to a victory for nationalism over globalism, and to the protection of currencies and values. We have seen this cycle repeated for millennia.


It is the eternal battle.

Saturday, July 22, 2017

How The Elites Betrayed Working-Class America

Authored by Bill Bonner via InternationalMan.com,


Win-win deals get people more of what they want. Win-lose deals – usually imposed by government – bring them less. The few (the insiders) use government to exploit the many (the rest of us).


Win-lose deals also depress economic progress for everybody. Partly, this happens for an obvious reason.


Dropping the atom bomb on Hiroshima was a technical milestone, but not the kind of progress we’re talking about. Progress only makes sense if it means that people are able to get more of what they want.


By definition, when a person is forced into a bad deal, he gets less of what he wants.


Progress is also a learning process. You try something. You see what works and what doesn’t. As people experiment in this way, they learn… and the economy accumulates knowledge and wealth.


They learn to get to work in the morning, for example… to say please and thank you… to save their money… and to invest it wisely.


Win-lose deals interrupt the learning process. That’s why welfare programs fail: People get money without learning.


Temptation to Cheat


That is the real reason the Soviet Union failed, too.


Consumers were forced to buy whatever shoddy products were made available to them; producers had no way to learn how to make good ones.


Toward the end, products available for purchase in the Soviet Union were worth less than the raw materials and labor that went into them.


What do you need for win-win deals?


Three things:





1) People must be free to make choices with their time and money.



2) They must have money they can trust.



3) They must trust each other to respect their rights and property.



These things don’t happen smoothly and without interruption.


Progress is cyclical. Win-win deals add wealth and move society forward. But they depend on trust. And as trust increases, so does the temptation to cheat. When everyone leaves his liquor cabinet open, for example, who can resist having a drink?


Then trust declines. Barriers go up. Costs increase. Win-win gives way to win-lose. Progress goes into reverse.


Money You Could Trust


The invention of real money – based on gold – gave a boost to win-win deals… and to progress.


Why?


It was money you could trust.


If you are paid a gold coin for a day’s labor, you don’t have to trust the person who pays you. You don’t have to wonder if he has the money in his account to cover his check… or what will happen to his money in the future.


You don’t have to trust him; you put your trust in gold. This allows you to do transactions more freely – and speeds up economic progress.


Gold-backed dollars were trustworthy for nearly 200 years (setting aside Lincoln’s phony “greenbacks”).


People became so confident in the integrity of the dollar that they hardly noticed when the gold backing was removed (on March 19, 1968, when President Johnson signed a bill eliminating the “gold cover” for Federal Reserve notes).


But that’s the way it works: The more trusting people become, the easier it is to rip them off.


Set Up by the Elite


Of course, as trust expands and win-win deals proliferate, some people gain more than others.


The typical Chinese day laborer makes six times as much today as he did in 1999. The typical American day laborer has gained little.


And job competition from overseas made him feel like a loser. Now he wants walls – to keep out foreigners and foreign-made products. He wants win-lose deals that guarantee to make him a winner again.


He has no idea that he was set up by his own elite.


Former Fed chiefs Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan got their pictures on the cover of Time magazine. Most people think they are heroes, not rascals. Most people think they saved the economy from another Great Depression by dropping interest rates and injecting it with trillions of dollars in quantitative easing (QE) money.


Most people – even the POTUS – believe we need more fake money to “prime the pump” and get the economy rolling again.


Almost no one realizes it, but it was these stimulating, pump-priming, new credit-based dollars that fueled the trends that ruined America’s working-class wage earner.


Overseas, his competitors used cheap credit to gain market share and take away his job. At home, the elite imposed their crony boondoggles… their regulations… and their win-lose deals – all financed with fake money.


The average American’s medical care now costs him more than seven times more than it did in 1980. His household debt rose nearly 12 times since 1980.


Subtle “Bezzle”


He blamed the Chinese, the Mexicans, the liberals… the media… and the government.


He wanted change.


But who would have guessed that he had been ripped off by his own untrustworthy money?


After you account for inflation, the American worker has not had a significant raise in 40 years – almost since the new money system was put into place after 1971.


But the rich – as measured by the inflation-adjusted Dow – are 10 times richer.


Who would have imagined that after 3,000 years, the elite would have come up with money that betrayed his trust… a “bezzle” so subtle that he didn’t even notice?


*  *  *


Recently we’ve been wondering if it’s possible that America could be on the brink of a second civil war. We did some digging… and while the stuff we found may offend and shock you… We recommend you take a look anyway by clicking here.

Friday, July 21, 2017

"Dirty, Difficult, And Dangerous": Why Millennials Won't Work In Oil

Authored by Tsvetana Paraskova via OilPrice.com,


Like many industries today, the oil industry is trying to sell its many job opportunities to the fastest growing portion of the global workforce: Millennials. But unlike any other industry, oil and gas is facing more challenges in persuading the environmentally-conscious Millennials that oil is “cool”.  


During the Super Bowl earlier this year, the American Petroleum Institute (API) launched an ad geared toward Millennials, who now make up the largest generation in the U.S. labor force.   


“This ain’t your daddy’s oil”, the ad says, in what API described as “a modern look at how oil is integrated into products consumers use now and in the future supported by bold visuals.”  


Despite its pitch to speak the Millennials’ language and reach out to the elusive generation, the ad sparked anger with many consumers and viewers.


Millennials continue to have the most negative opinion toward the oil industry compared to all other industries, and they don’t see a career in oil and gas as their top choice of a workplace. The oil industry’s talent scouting and recruiting methods of the past are failing to reach Millennials, who want their work to have a positive impact on society, various studies and polls have found—a rather big ask for the oil industry.


This failure to reach the group that makes up the largest portion of today’s workforce—which now surpasses Generation X—points to a huge problem for the oil sector, as Baby Boomers move into retirement in droves.


Not only are Millennials snubbing oil and gas because of its negative image, they also seek different job perks than previous generations sought, and in this regard, the oil industry will need to do more as it becomes increasingly obvious that Millennials want different things than what oil executives think they want. 


A total of 14 percent of Millennials say they would not want to work in the oil and gas industry because of its negative image—the highest percentage of any industry, McKinsey said in September 2016.





Young people see the industry as dirty, difficult, and dangerous, according to an EY survey published last month. EY’s survey polled Millennials—the 20-to-35-year-olds today—as well as Generation Z coming after them, and found that younger generations “question the longevity of the industry as they view natural gas and oil as their parents’ fuels. Further, they primarily see the industry’s careers as unstable, blue-collar, difficult, dangerous and harmful to society.”



In addition, two out of three teens believe the oil and gas industry causes problems rather than solves them, the survey showed.



So ‘not your daddy’s oil’ is not sinking in with Millennials and Generation Z, and with many of them, it never will, despite the oil lobbies’ marketing efforts to try to make it sound like an attractive career path.


According to executives polled by EY, the top three drivers for young people would be salary (72 percent), opportunity to use the latest technology (43 percent), and a good work-life balance (38 percent). But young people—although they are also prioritizing salary—have other views on what they look for in a job. Salary is still the top priority at 56 percent, but a close second comes good work-life balance (49 percent), with job stability and on-the-job happiness equally important at 37 percent.


Executives are underestimating the importance of work-life balance and stability for Millennials, while overestimating the allure of technology as a factor. It’s not surprising that Millennials are not as attracted to the opportunity to use new tech as oil executives believe they are – Millennials generally don’t see technology as a perk, they take it for granted.


Moreover, Millennials don’t see the oil and gas industry as innovative – a major driver of career choice among this generation. According to a recent report by Accenture, “Despite evidence to the contrary, many Millennials believe the sector is lacking innovation, agility and creativity, as well as opportunities to engage in meaningful work. In fact, only 2 percent of U.S. college graduates consider the oil and gas industry their top choice for employment.”


Accenture is warning that ‘the talent well has run dry’ and said:





“We believe the growing workforce deficit will, in fact, be a greater barrier to oil and gas companies’ upturn success than any deficits that might exist in capital, equipment or supplies.”  



The oil   and gas industry is losing the competition for talent recruitment to industries that are more appealing to Millennials, and U.S. oil and gas firms will face the talent crunch first, according to Accenture.


“Any mature industry has to think about the fact that there’s a new sheriff in town with new values, new spending habits,” Jeff Fromm, an expert in marketing to American Millennials, told Bloomberg.


And if the oil and gas industry wants to get this ‘new sheriff in town’ on board, it needs to profoundly change recruitment strategies and talent sourcing. But with the negative image that is probably set to become even more negative—despite oil organizations’ marketing efforts—oil and gas has a huge workforce problem looming.

Monday, June 26, 2017

UCLA Releases 'Resistance' Handbook; Defines Trumpism As "White Supremacy, Misogyny, Xenophobia..."

There is little doubt that America"s bastions of higher indoctrination (a.k.a. "Universities") have become nothing more than training grounds for future generations of social justice warriors.  The war for America"s college campuses has become so heated that liberal administrators, the same people who used to pride themselves on challenging their students to step outside their comfort zone and open themselves up to dissenting opinions, have taken to shutting down free speech when it doesn"t perfectly align with their "enlightened" world view.


That said, the Institute on Inequality and Democracy at the University of California Los Angeles, a publicly funded institution mind you, seems to be stepping things up a notch with their recently released "Resistance" handbook for America"s snowflakes.  Among other things, the handbook specifically defines "Trumpism" as a movement that "consolidates power through white supremacy, misogyny, nationalism, xenophobia, corporatism, and militarism."





"This resource guide outlines the first steps the UCLA Abolitionist Planning Group has taken to understand Trumpism as a moment in United States politics. Building on long-standing exclusions, Trumpism consolidates power through white supremacy, misogyny, nationalism, xenophobia, corporatism, and militarism. Committed to a philosophy of abolitionism, the Abolitionist Planning Group seeks to understand how urban planning, as discipline and professional practice, can analyze and address the systematic oppressions expanded and institutionalized by the new administration."



The organization calls on urban planners to abide by 4 simple rules:





1.  “Refuse to design, plan, or build systems that divide and oppress communities, including the proposed wall between the US and Mexico."



2.  "Declare [your] spaces ‘sanctuaries’ to undocumented immigrants, while planning sanctuaries for all victims of injustice.”



3.  “Commit to abolishing mass incarceration and the prison-industrial complex, while expanding ‘abolition’ to all systems that promote racial and social exclusion." 



4.  "Reflect critically and historically on the political economy of planning to understand and resist our complicity in systems of racial capitalism and patriarchy.”



Triggered



But, as the Daily Caller points out, the organization"s goals go well beyond setting up snowflake-inspired urban centers.  They"re also extremely triggered by bathroom bills and will not stop until Facebook appoints a poor, minority woman as it"s CEO...because anything less is simply racist and sexist.





UCLA insists that the Trump administration’s “harmful and divisive rhetoric” “is fueling an open war of bigotry and hate towards nonwhite populations, mainly targeting people from Latin American and Muslim-majority countries.” The school cites President Donald Trump’s wall, executive order on immigration, and mass deportations as examples of such a war.



The institute proceeds to bash “corporate feminism,” which it sees comprising Facebook executive Sheryl Sandberg and TV/magazine writer Neil Scovell’s book “Lean In.” Instead, UCLA advocates “collective social action,” which it implies supports minority and poor women.



“[Bathroom bills] seek to limit the public mobility of transgender individuals and institutionalize efforts to exclude trans, gender non-conforming, or genderqueer individuals from public view,” says UCLA in another section of the pamphlet.



Elsewhere, the institute describes its conception of “the Sanctuary City,” a city which, moving beyond protection for illegal immigrants, also provides a guarantee of federal employment, a living wage, unionization of day and domestic laborers, and protection against climate change.



“We call on our fellow students, planners, and city dwellers to build this new Sanctuary City with us,” said  the institute. “We can begin by calling hateful ideologies by their proper names and working to delegitimize and eliminate them.”



American tax dollars hard at work...



The full Resistance guide can be read here:

Monday, May 8, 2017

Is This WalMart 'Free-For-All' A Taste Of Things To Come?

by Stefan Stanford via AllNewsPipeline.com,


In the new story over at Survival Dan called “During The Collapse: Where To Go And What Places To Avoid”, he reports that when IT hits the fan, America’s ‘population hubs’ will likely explode with violence, looting and the total breakdown of law and order as resources become next to impossible to get and the masses suddenly realize the government isn’t coming to save them.


Whether that be via total collapse, WW3 coming home to roost upon US soil or a ‘grid event’ that leaves tens to hundreds of millions either without power or access to the money in their bank accounts, the video directly below from a WalMart in Mexico gives us a very small taste of what that world without law and order can quickly devolve into.


Showing what happens when suddenly ‘lawless people’ realize that there aren’t enough security guards in a Wal Mart store to stop them, we witness the kind of all-out ‘free for all’ that we’ll likely see in a collapse event, though the smart people would be carrying out food, toilet paper and other necessities instead of flat screen TV’s. And in an all-out SHTF event, we’d expect that the people will likely be fighting with each other for the few remaining resources as they are now in Venezuela where children are literally starving to death.


Following Alt Market’s Brandon Smith warning that ‘a full spectrum crisis is about to take place’ a Wal Mart in Mexico gives us a small glimpse of what might happen here once it all comes crashing down amid more signs that what we’re witnessing in Venezuela may be coming to America.



As commenters on the live leak video clearly point out, we’ve already witnessed events in America similar to what happened in the video above with packs of roving gangs showing up in malls and convenience stores ‘en masse’, taking whatever they want and parading out as if laws don’t matter to them. Knowing such events are already taking place in 2017 America, how much worse might things get when SHTF? As Susan Duclos reported this morning on ANP, parts of America are already a boiling cauldron read to boil over. How many Americans are the frogs in the simmering water?


In this December 2016 story on ANP called “Map Shows Us Where We Don’t Want To Be When It All Turns Ugly”, we reported that nearly 50% of Americans live in very small geographical locations. According to this story from the Daily Mail, half of the US population live within 146 counties while the other 157 million are scattered across the other 3,000+.


The map seen directly below gives us a visual representation of what that looks like with the counties seen below in blue making up approx. 50% of the US population while the remaining 50% of Americans live across the rest of the country in counties seen in gray. When SHTF, does anyone want to be in the blue areas?



As we also reported back in December, the map seen above showing the US counties with the biggest populations coincides quite eerily with the map of US counties won by Hillary Clinton during the last election seen below.



The next map below from James Wesley Rawles’ Survival Blog shows US cities with approx. 100,000 population in yellow circles with the shaded areas surrounding them indicating the distances from those cities with each shaded increment representing approx 40 miles. Showing that most of the East coast and eastern half of the US are within 120 miles of big cities, it’s easy to understand why videographer The Prepared Mind selects some of the areas seen in the final video below as his ‘go to’ areas for when SHTF.


As M.D. Creekmore over at the Survivalist Blog has previously brought to the attention of preppers, getting out of the cities may not be possible for some who are tied to their jobs when SHTF and many of the same areas mentioned in that videohave such low populations for a very good reason – a major lack of jobs in areas long ago hit by the globalists economy that has decimated much of America.



According to Brandon Smith in this recent story over at Alt Market, “I continue to believe that a greater crisis is brewing that is economic and global in nature. With numerous financial bubbles artificially inflated over at least eight years of central bank stimulus, the question is not “if” but WHEN the system will enter the final stages of its ongoing collapse.


Smith’s warnings echo the warnings given by Doug Casey who recently stated “a civilization always collapses from within. World War 1, in 1914, signaled the start of the long collapse of Western Civilization. Of course, termites were already eating away at the foundations, with the writings of people like Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx. It’s been on an accelerating downward path ever since….”

Monday, May 1, 2017

Doug Casey On Why Gold Is Money

Authored by Doug Casey via InternationalMan.com,



It’s an unfortunate historical anomaly that people think about the paper in their wallets as money. The dollar is, technically, a currency. A currency is a government substitute for money. But gold is money.


Now, why do I say that?


Historically, many things have been used as money. Cattle have been used as money in many societies, including Roman society. That’s where we get the word “pecuniary” from: the Latin word for a single head of cattle is pecus. Salt has been used as money, also in ancient Rome, and that’s where the word “salary” comes from; the Latin for salt is sal (or salis). The North American Indians used seashells. Cigarettes were used during WWII. So, money is simply a medium of exchange and a store of value.


By that definition, almost anything could be used as money, but obviously, some things work better than others; it’s hard to exchange things people don’t want, and some things don’t store value well. Over thousands of years, the precious metals have emerged as the best form of money. Gold and silver both, though primarily gold.


There’s nothing magical about gold. It’s just uniquely well suited among the 98 naturally occurring elements for use as money…in the same way aluminum is good for airplanes or uranium is good for nuclear power.


There are very good reasons for this, and they are not new reasons. Aristotle defined five reasons why gold is money in the 4th century BCE (which may only have been the first time it was put down on paper). Those five reasons are as valid today as they were then.


When I give a speech, I often offer a prize to the audience member who can tell me the five classical reasons gold is the best money. Quickly now—what are they? Can’t recall them? Read on, and this time, burn them into your memory.


Money


If you can’t define a word precisely, clearly, and quickly, that’s proof you don’t understand what you’re talking about as well as you might. The proper definition of money is as something that functions as a store of value and a medium of exchange.


Government fiat currencies can, and currently do, function as money. But they are far from ideal. What, then, are the characteristics of a good money? Aristotle listed them in the 4th century BCE. A good money must be all of the following:



  • Durable: A good money shouldn’t fall apart in your pocket nor evaporate when you aren’t looking. It should be indestructible. This is why we don’t use fruit for money. It can rot, be eaten by insects, and so on. It doesn’t last.




  • Divisible: A good money needs to be convertible into larger and smaller pieces without losing its value, to fit a transaction of any size. This is why we don’t use things like porcelain for money—half a Ming vase isn’t worth much.




  • Consistent: A good money is something that always looks the same, so that it’s easy to recognize, each piece identical to the next. This is why we don’t use things like oil paintings for money; each painting, even by the same artist, of the same size and composed of the same materials is unique. It’s also why we don’t use real estate as money. One piece is always different from another piece.




  • Convenient: A good money packs a lot of value into a small package and is highly portable. This is why we don’t use water for money, as essential as it is—just imagine how much you’d have to deliver to pay for a new house, not to mention all the problems you’d have with the escrow. It’s also why we don’t use other metals like lead, or even copper. The coins would have to be too huge to handle easily to be of sufficient value.




  • Intrinsically valuable: A good money is something many people want or can use. This is critical to money functioning as a means of exchange; even if I’m not a jeweler, I know that someone, somewhere wants gold and will take it in exchange for something else of value to me. This is why we don’t—or shouldn’t—use things like scraps of paper for money, no matter how impressive the inscriptions upon them might be.



Actually, there’s a sixth reason Aristotle should have mentioned, but it wasn’t relevant in his age, because nobody would have thought of it…it can’t be created out of thin air.


Not even the kings and emperors who clipped and diluted coins would have dared imagine that they could get away with trying to use something essentially worthless as money.


These are the reasons why gold is the best money. It’s not a gold bug religion, nor a barbaric superstition. It’s simply common sense. Gold is particularly good for use as money, just as aluminum is particularly good for making aircraft, steel is good for the structures of buildings, uranium is good for fueling nuclear power plants, and paper is good for making books. Not money. If you try to make airplanes out of lead, or money out of paper, you’re in for a crash.


That gold is money is simply the result of the market process, seeking optimum means of storing value and making exchanges.


*  *  *


Doug thinks the price of gold could hit $5,000 in the coming years. To help you take advantage of this rare opportunity, he’s sharing the specific method he’s used to make gains as large as 487%, 711%, and even 4,329% in previous gold bull markets. The “Casey Method” is unlike any other investing strategy. If used properly, it could make you HUGE gains over the next few years. Doug explains it all right here. You’ll also learn how to get instant access to a special report that names 9 gold stocks with huge upside. Each of these stocks could rise 100%, 200%, or more in the coming years. Click here to get started.