The Paris Statement

Archbishop Cranmer brings us tidings of a new statement, ‘The Paris Statement’ they call it. One of the writers is no less than Professor Sir Roger Scruton. That makes it worth paying attention to. So does the content. Here is some of his description.

In May 2017, a group of conservative scholars and intellectuals met in Paris…

No, don’t yawn.

They say they were “brought together by their common concern about the current state of European politics, culture, society and, above all, the state of the European mind and imagination. Through delusion and self-deception and ideological distortion, Europe is dissipating her great civilizational inheritance.”

Well, that’s true, isn’t it?

Unless your name is Nick Clegg, AC Grayling, or you happen to be a bishop in the Church of England (not Shrewsbury).

These fine conservative minds, which included our very own Professor Sir Roger Scruton, produced ‘The Paris Statement’, which kind of makes sense as a title because they were in Paris when they issued their tome, which might indeed be viewed as a statement because their words were issued quasi-authoritatively, as conservative scholars and intellectuals are wont to do. And ‘Paris’ gives the statement an aura of continental enlightenment in ways which, say, ‘The Slough Statement’ or ‘The Lewisham Statement’ probably never could.

The preamble continues:

Instead of simply wringing their hands in fruitless anxiety, or adding yet another tome to the ample literature that diagnoses “the decline of the West”, the Paris participants believed it was important to make an affirmation, and to do so publicly. They expressed their attachment to “the true Europe,” and did so with reasons that can be recognized by all. In doing so, it was first necessary to give an account of this true Europe, which lies hidden beneath the fashionable abstractions of our age.

The result is, “A Europe We Can Believe In.” This Paris Statement is a ringing call for a renewed understanding of, and appreciation for, Europe’s true genius. It is an invitation to the peoples of Europe to actively recover what is best in our tradition, and to build a peaceful, hopeful, and noble future together.

The Paris Statement is good, very good, contrasting, as it does, the false Europe of teleological superstition and utopian tyranny with the true Europe of nation-state cooperation based on Christian solidarity and civic loyalty. Consider:

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.

Good, that.

Well, you know what? I just read their statement, and aside from a few quibbles, much the same ones as His Grace mentioned in his article it is very good. So good on them. It’s also very good to see that there are conservatives in western Europe, we’re all aware of Sir Roger, but from the rest, it’s a rare (and most welcome) spark of conservatism. The Statement is here, and well worth a read.

I very much fear that Europe is a lost cause, but then again so was the American Revolution, so I wish them luck and Godspeed in their mission. For most of us, Europe is our ultimate homeland, and watching it go down without a fight is disheartening at best. It is time for Europa to again tame the bull, I think.

Advertisements

Provide for the Common Defense

CT57UEaXIAEpS78I want to pick up on some of Jess’ points which she made so well, yesterday. She’s right, very few of the refugees had much of anything to do with causing the problems in Middle East. But there is also this, the highest duty of our secular governments, is to ‘provide for the common defense’.

That doesn’t mean that we don’t have a duty to help them, but it does mean we have the right to control who we allow into our countries, and we should not allow those who seek to destroy them. That is plain common sense. it is also one of the reasons, we set up governments, in the first place.

She’s also right, that America, not least because of the calumny directed at her for the last few decades (and other reasons) does appear to be returning to our historical outlook. We are remembering John Quincy Adams words:

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will [America’s] heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force…. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.

And that is much of what we are seeing happen, and we don’t like it. And so if Europe is to be defended, it will likely be up to Europe to do so. Mostly we have decided that three times in the last century is enough. And it is, it has dislocated our economy and our theory of government, but those ogres were so big, that we knew Europe would succumb.

It it succumbs to radical Islam though, it will be from essentially suicide. Andrew Bolt wrote recently in the Melbourne Herald Sun:

Why Brussels? Why have Muslim terrorists in Brussels this week slaughtered 34 civilians in the city’s airport and underground?

Why did Muslim terrorists from Brussels earlier join the Islamic State attack in Paris that killed 130 people?

Why did a Muslim terrorist in Brussels kill four people at the city’s Jewish museum? Why did Muslim terrorists from Brussels have a deadly shootout with police last year and again last week? Why have an astonishing 450 Belgian Muslims–the vast majority from Brussels–served with Islamic State?

The answer? There are now 300,000 Muslims in Brussels. That’s why.

Brussels is Europe’s biggest Muslim city, home to a virtual colony large enough to sustain its own culture and hide entire networks of terrorists from the police. What’s more, the huge Muslim enclave is in a European country already torn between its Flemish and Walloon halves, making newcomers in this militantly multicultural land more likely to take refuge in their own ethnic identity, too.

But maybe it’s already too late.

The vast demographic experiment of the West–importing largely unskilled immigrants from an essentially hostile culture–has failed and cannot be undone.

Europe is now paying the deadly price. There have been mass murders by Muslim extremists in Madrid, London, Paris, Frankfurt, Copenhagen, Brussels and Toulouse.

There have been attacks on cartoonists in Denmark, riots against Jews in Paris, a rape epidemic in Scandinavia, pack attacks on women in Cologne and the assassination in Amsterdam of a film director who mocked Islam.

And more every week.

Leslie Loftus wrote in The Federalist after the attacks on France last fall:

The hashtags might fly. The city skylines will glow in thick stripes of red, white, and blue. The politicians and so many others will publicly claim a prayer to a God that many of them don’t believe in. We will put on a good show of caring, but the harsh truth is, we aren’t coming.

We remain at heart as our sixth president had described. Unless we elect one of the Cuban senators, Americans will not come to Europe’s aid until they are in chains or on their knees and we feel the threat on our own shores. Perhaps that will happen faster than in the past, but students of history know that is how this story goes.

“What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun. Is there a thing of which it is said, ‘See, this is new’? It has been already in the ages before us” (Ecclesiastes 1:9-10).

And that is, as always, true.

Global Warmists Angry Half The Earth Isn’t Covered In Ice

I’ve said any number of times that I don’t believe that the case has been made for anthropogenic global warming/global cooling climate change. That’s especially true in the last 50 years as the industrial nations have cleaned up their act, well the first world ones, anyway.

Climate change has been happening ever since climate got started, that’s a different story. Is it conceivable that we did affect the climate when the industrial revolution was going strong. Yes, it is. Like the current scenarios, it’s not proven but as this article shows, I think it is more likely than the current crony capitalist/rent seeking scenario. Think about this for a while, maybe industrialization came just in time to save us from an ice age. Wouldn’t that be ironic?

A newly published study indicates human-caused global warming starting shortly after the Industrial Revolution may have helped the Earth narrowly avert a catastrophic ice age, and global warming advocates and their mainstream media allies are very angry about it. Yes, really.

For the past 3 million years, the Earth has undergone a regular cycle of long ice age glaciations occasionally interrupted by short warm periods. The glaciations last approximately 100,000 years and the warm periods last an average of only 10,000 years. Our present warm period has been in existence for 10,000 years, leading many scientists to worry that a new ice age glaciation may be imminent.

A study in the science journal Nature examined the natural cycles that cause the cyclical glaciations and warm periods and concluded that by the 1800s—after 500 years of cooling temperatures during the Little Ice Age—the conditions were at hand for the Earth to end its 10,000-year warm period and plunge into another full-blown glaciation.

During glaciations, ice sheets more than a mile deep cover much of Europe, Asia, and North America. The Nature study concluded human-caused global warming may have been the deciding factor preventing the plunge into another ice age. The study also noted that ongoing human-caused global warming may be preventing such a plunge even today.

via Global Warmists Angry Half The Earth Isn’t Covered In Ice.

Are Low Oil Prices Good or Bad? Yes

0621_WTIC_Crude_Oil_Prices_Per_Barrel_HistoryIt seems that oil prices, like climate temperatures, are an all-purpose villain, when they go up they hurt the economy, and when they go down, they hurt the economy, and when they stay put, they are a drag on the economy. Steven Hayward had something to say about it yesterday.

There’s just no pleasing some people.

When oil and gasoline prices at the pump are high, liberals (and Bill O’Reilly) complain that the oil companies are gouging us, even though certified enlightened opinion among environmentalists is that cheap oil and fuel prices are bad because it encourages consumption and makes it harder for their (subsidized) renewable energy unicorns to compete in the marketplace. I still have somewhere the New York Times headline from 1991, the second-to-last time oil prices were this low, that read “Low Oil Prices Are Bad, Some U.S. Experts Say.”

“Experts” would say that. That’s why they’re experts. (Or “top men,” as they’re rightly called in Raiders of the Lost Ark.)

But there is a bit more to the story, that you likely haven’t heard.

Six Years Later, 93% of U.S. Counties Haven’t Recovered From Recession, Study Finds

More than six years after the economic expansion began, 93% of counties in the U.S. have failed to fully recover from the blow they suffered during the recession.

Nationwide, 214 counties, or 7% of 3,069, had recovered last year to prerecession levels on four indicators: total employment, the unemployment rate, size of the economy and home values, a study from the National Association of Counties released Tuesday found. . .

via Are Low Oil Prices Good or Bad? Yes | Power Line.

As Steve noted, it’s remarkable that Obama hasn’t told us about that, isn’t it?

Save the planet…from Barack Obama

w704 (4)Well, Obama is back from wasting, however much energy he could in his jaunt to Paris and back, to make an interminable, wasted, and wrong speech on something that no one in the world care about much, unless one is a crony-green-capitalist.

Have you noticed, as I have, that nearly every one of those bleating on (and on, and on) about global cooling global warming climate change. That’s right they stand to benefit, in money or power (and don’t kid yourself, money and power can easily be turned into each other) from the money that government steals from its citizens to fund these boondoggles.

And don’t kid yourself, they don’t give even a smidgen of a damn about anybody but themselves. Because who these policies will hurt more than anyone is the poor, in unaffordable energy, lack of jobs, lack of opportunity, and, yes, loss of liberty, as well.

If they have not taken it already, Obama’s actions and inactions portend an enormous human toll with adverse environmental consequences thrown in for good measure. Yet Obama is in Cloud Cuckooland (White House transcript here, video below) talking about imaginary catastrophes in a far-off future:

The reason is because [sic] this one trend — climate change — affects all trends. If we let the world keep warming as fast as it is, and sea levels rising as fast as they are, and weather patterns keep shifting in more unexpected ways — then before long, we are going to have to devote more and more and more of our economic and military resources not to growing opportunity for our people, but to adapting to the various consequences of a changing planet. This is an economic and security imperative that we have to tackle now. And great nations can handle a lot at once.

Obama takes his cue from Book 3 of Gulliver’s Travels, devoting himself to undoing what the scientists of Laputa sought to do. The scientist of Laputa sought to extract sunbeams from cucumbers. Obama would force sunbeams back into the cucumber — to mitigate the phenomenon formerly known as global warming. Swift! thou shouldst be living at this hour. But this might be beyond the powers of the greatest satirist ever to write in English:

You go down to Miami, and when it’s flooding at high tide on a sunny day fish are swimming through the middle of the streets.

Source: Save the planet…from Barack Obama | Power Line

Matt Ridley writing in The Spectator adds this:

The next generation is watching, Barack Obama told the Paris climate conference this week: ‘Our grandchildren, when they look back and see what we did in Paris, they can take pride in what we did.’ And that, surely, is the trouble with the entire climate-change agenda: putting the interests of rich people’s grandchildren ahead of those of poor people today.

Unfair? Not really, when you look at the policies enacted in the name of mitigating climate change. We’ve diverted 40 per cent of America’s maize crop to feeding cars instead of people, thus driving up the price of food worldwide, a move which according to one study killed about 192,000 poor people in 2010 alone, and continues to affect nutrition worldwide. We’ve restricted aid funding for fossil-fuelled power stations in developing countries, leaving many people who would otherwise have had access to electricity mired in darkness and cooking over wood-fires — the biggest environmental cause of ill health, responsible for more than three million deaths every year.

Closer to home, by pushing up energy prices with climate policies, we’ve contributed to the loss of jobs of steelworkers in Redcar and Scunthorpe, and of aluminium workers in Northumberland (where I live and where coal from under my land has supplied the now-closed Lynemouth smelter — whose power station announced this week that it will reopen as a ‘biomass’ plant, that is to say burning wood from American forests, producing more carbon dioxide per unit of energy and at twice the price of coal). We’ve also worsened fuel poverty among the poor and elderly and we’ve damaged air quality in cities. These human costs are not imaginary or theoretical: they are real.

Source: The green blob: who will protect the victims of environmentalism?

The thing is, if we are worried about people going hungry, we could run American cars without burning forty percent of our corn crop in the fuel, gasoline would be cheaper as well, although I grant that Iowa farmers might get a bit less welfare.

On the other hand, Allen Brooks, writing on www.masterresource.org reminds us:

“The earth is greener. Terrestrial ecosystems’ productivity is up 14% since 1982. Even the IPCC has acknowledged that productivity is 5% greater than that experienced during pre-industrial times. What this has meant is a significant increase in human well-being.”

“Until the movement shifts away from its witch-hunting approach to debate, the climate change believers look increasingly like the mobs that over-ran the Bastille during the French Revolution. I’m sure some of the climate change believers would be happy to see the guillotine resurrected in the Place de la Concorde (formerly Place Louis XV and then Place de la Revolution) and used against deniers and doubters. Maybe it is fitting that COP21 is being held in Paris.”

In the face of the impending COP21 conference, a new report authored by Indur Goklany for the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), CARBON DIOXIDE The good news, was published. It reminds one and all that carbon dioxide (CO2), the major manmade greenhouse gas, is not a pollutant but a positive part of the biosphere.

After reading (a lot) about it, and applying my common sense, I have reached my conclusion

It’s a Scam; and nothing else.

Many people have (and will) get rich of off government largesse, and the people (the ones who have to work for a living) will, as always, be the losers.

Even Piers Corbyn (Jeremy’s brother) has figured that out.

This Column Is Exactly What ISIS Wants

paris-attack-friday-13 (1)This insane silliness is beeing heard all over the formerly free world.

Because when we argue for the annihilation of terrorists, the terrorists win.

President Obama was in Manila yesterday getting worked up about the only thing that really grinds his gears, the GOP. “I cannot think of a more potent recruitment tool for ISIL than some of the rhetoric that’s been coming out of here,” he said of Republicans, who were demanding a pause in the influx of Syrian refugees.

Oh, c’mon! Not one? I can. In fact, I can think of a bunch, because ever since Paris was attacked by a group of religiously unaffiliated men who happened to also yell “Allahu Akbar!” before randomly shooting civilians, liberals have offered an array of conceivable causes for the proliferation of terrorism. There’s Republican rhetoric, of course. Climate change. People drawing mean cartoons about Islam. Blowback for various wars Americans have started without any provocation whatsoever.

The problem is that no matter what the GOP says these days it is “doing exactly what ISIS wants” — the most popular platitude this side of ‘those Syrian refugees are just like Baby Jesus.’

ISIS wants war, you say? Well, it doesn’t matter how many civilians it beheads or how many mass graves it fills or how many Western cities they terrorize, we’re not going to give into those bastards! Because when we annihilate the terrorists, we’re doing exactly what they want.

Source: This Column Is Exactly What ISIS Wants

Maybe we should quit worrying so much about what ISIS wants, and concentrate on what we want, say and end to ISIS. If we did that it might be clearer what the path forward is.


Then there is this, Powerline:

[…]

One of my friends in intel in Europe said tonight they got one cell in France but they believe there are others in Belgium, Spain, Germany and “other countries.” Their big worry at the moment is the possibility that these guys are trained or training to do swarm attacks on soft targets in major cities, where 2-4 guys drive to a location, shoot everyone in sight, then drive to another location, repeat, etc., until the police catch up to them. Since the police are always responding to the last place hit, there’s a certain amount of luck involved.

I commented that we’re very unprepared for that and he said the Europeans are even more unprepared, especially the British, where the cops don’t have guns (most of them). Imagine if you had three or four carloads of guys driving around to predetermined locations, shooting and scooting, how quickly the law enforcement response would be overwhelmed. It is, I have to say, a very low tech but rather daunting, not to mention frightening possibility.

Source: ISIS CALLING

That is, I suspect, a tactic that is going to be hard to counter, and as they said, especially in Europe, which long ago became supposedly a gun-free zone. Or as we call them here, ‘a target’/

 

%d bloggers like this: