Tuesday, October 29, 2019

Thoughts on Faith Goldy

This person seems to be important enough to show up on my Twitter feed, constantly defended. I also see the metacanada freaks on reddit are all over her with love and admiration. From what I've seen from her she seems like a typical alt-right Trumpist that plays white identity politics. That pretty much disqualifies such a person immediately for me. But is she a Nazi or white supremacist? I thought I'd finally figure it out just so I can cut through the rhetoric of the 'new right' and the reactionary left.

Daily Stormer Podcast Appearance - White Supremacy Podcast

Daily Stormer is a white supremacist website. I'm not sure if they're officially linked to Storm Front, the massive online white supremacy forum, but it would seem their name was taken in that spirit. The site features podcasts of various white supremacy creators including 'The Krypto Report'. This was the podcast that Faith Goldy was on.

The Krypto Report and Faith Goldy



I'm not going to go on in detail regarding this podcast. They're nazis and that's that. The image above is literally their own chosen image to represent an episode. Due to attending this podcast or at least the financial and media fallout to Rebel Media - she was fired.

Here is Faith's response to all this. This tweet was deleted by her (I guess she wasn't going to stand by it?). Tweet procured by archive.org.



Is there a possibility that she was completely unaware of this podcasts nazism? I suppose. It's not like one can expect to know every fringe group in the world, though I regard this as a short leash. When stacked against other evidence it seems less and less likely to be an innocent coincidence.

Here is the audio of the podcast. Andrew Anglin's name was brought up during this podcast. Again she may not know the guy, but he's the founder of Daily Stormer.

I will add that there was a joke that was circulating around that she made about Ezra being a Jew. At first I thought it was a stupid joke, but harmless. The fact that this joke came on The Krypto Report makes it very suspicious she didn't know it was a white supremacy podcast. At the end of their interview it was asked by the host (for his viewers) if Ezra (who is Jewish) mixes meat and dairy. She responds, "I’ll tell you that if you — and this is something that he agrees with — if you ever offer him free bacon, it’s free — free bacon — anyway…" If there wasn't a throwing a bone to the audience she is aware of, I don't know.

Unite the Right Rally and Faith Goldy

Faith went to the Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville. This protest was a white supremacist rally. It was organized by Richard Spencer and Jason Kessler, both alt-right white supremacists. Featured speaker at this event was someone that goes by "Azzmador" or known as the host of The Krypto Report that interviewed her in the podcast listed above.

Now Goldie said she just went there as an impartial media person to checkout the event. She was just a person, not representing Rebel, because Ezra Levant told her not to go. During her time there she didn't end up seeing the featured nazi speaker for which she had an interview with later, allegedly. In her interview she spoke about this event as the peaceful 'right' and the violent left. Not as the white supremacists (who do have the right to free expression and protest) versus the violent left. There's a difference in the way she talks about the narrative of this event. Even the discussion on the podcast devolves into this white men + testosterone + left's identity politics = no choice to get violent.

Infowars and Faith Goldy

I have very little sympathy for those that associate, reference Infowars (and Alex Jones). Faith Goldy did go on the Alex Jones Show. Something she is more than happy to display on her Twitter. For those that don't know, Alex Jones (and his website Infowars) is a conspiracy theorist and general paleoconservative politics. Paleoconservative's tend to fall into that conspiracy view, very nationalistic and riddled with racists. It's despicable that anyone would entertain this guy or go on his show.

The 14 Words and Faith Goldy

The 14 words is a Neo-Nazi saying, typically used more cryptically like 14 or 1488 (88 means heil Hitler). The 14 words is "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children". It's basically a more condensed version of Hitler's from Mein Kampf.

What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe. Every thought and every idea, every doctrine and all knowledge, must serve this purpose. And everything must be examined from this point of view and used or rejected according to its utility. (Vol. I, Chapter 8)

IMAGE ALT TEXT

This is Faith Goldy on video saying the words, as requested when she was talking with "Millennial Woes" - who happens to be an alt-right, white supremacist. It appears that her... ignorance... with who she speaks with is not a one off - if we are to take her claim. This particular story was found by Right Wing Watch.

She proceeded to double down and defend her use of the 14 words because everyone else, apparently, can say it without problem. Two wrongs don't make a right Faith.

IMAGE ALT TEXT

White Identity Politics and White Ethnonationalism

White Genocide Conspiracy

Faith did a video on white genocide for the Rebel. It has since been pulled. Here is the archive of the page, but unfortunately no video. The tweet for the video below:



IMAGE ALT TEXT

"Ethnonationalism is the greatest propeller of human history." - Faith

Conclusion

She walks like a Nazi. She talks like a Nazi. She associates with a Nazi. She's probably a Nazi.

Thoughts on Climate Change

 

My Climate Change Skepticism

There are a few things that make me quite skeptical. I find the science to be quite sloppy and maybe I'll get sometime to go into this, but the big thing is that proponents generally talk a big game and then don't give a shit about implementation.

If we're truly at the end, where we need to ACT NOW to save the planet, why is proposed policy, implementations, and feel goodery so milquetoast.

We are literally told, 12 years (as of 2019) that we must act to save the world.

  • Justin Trudeau implemented his economy wide carbon tax, yet he has exempted key industries in politically strategic areas.
  • Solar panels and wind turbines are typically garbage in my electrical engineering opinion. They're not good power sources to provide the necessary energy to replace gasoline vehicles and such. The only option is nuclear or damming every single moving water source we can. No one wants to do this. Everyone is interested in the milquetoast solar/wind options.
  • Zero emission electric cars are not zero emission. Nothing produced is zero emissions. A German study found that electrical vehicles produce more CO2 per km compared to diesel. It's not like it cheap, easy or energy efficient to mine rare earth metals to produce batteries.

So here's me, sitting on the sidelines watching. The end of the world is coming and all the proponents and people of power parroting this allow bad players to keep on doing their thing, they support energy options that move us no closer to fixing anything (while ignoring or HATING nuclear that is the only option that truly works) and they parade around products that are worse than conventional - and call them zero emissions.

What am I supposed to think?

This really boils down to two questions for me:

  1. Should we act?
  2. And if we're going to act, how should we?

Should we act? No is my view.

But I like to discuss the second one more. Why? Simply, Canadians want to fight climate change in overwhelming numbers. Politicians will fight it and I want to see the best policies put in place. Policies that damage my standard of living the least.

Carbon Tax is the Best Option

Both Justin Trudeau, Andrew Scheer (the two big parties) and the NDP are all planning to meet the Paris targets. Scheer says he's going to do it without a carbon tax.

This is my issue and my whole point that conservatives tend to not get; a revenue neutral carbon tax (ie: a tax on carbon and a reduction in income tax) is the least impactful method of reducing carbon. It's one of the few ways that lets the market work, where regulation and red tape can actually be cut/eliminated, and allow productive action to become more efficient since productive taxation is reduced.

Manitoba's government has said they aren't doing a carbon tax anymore, but are planning to continue on with their climate change related goals. Andrew Scheer hasn't released any plans on how his non-carbon tax way of meeting Paris will happen. Ontario also is getting out of the cap and trade system, though I assume they will still pursue climate change related goals, but it all points to one thing: regulatory regime. Without a market based mechanism than how else are these magic numbers going to be met? There has to be a regulatory manner of stiff arming businesses/individuals into doing things.

I want to point out that the carbon tax, in and of itself, is not hurtful (assuming it is revenue neutral). The hurtful part is the change required to be less carbon polluting. It's the capital that is required to be invested to upgrade equipment, buildings and such. A market mechanism or the government regulation machine causing businesses and individuals to pour capital into things they wouldn't normally do is the cost. That's the penalty. That's what makes things expensive.

The problem with the regulatory machine is that it is more expensive. It is more hurtful to the economy. It creates a bureaucracy of government, of enforcement and of red tape. In the end it will cost consumers more than a revenue neutral carbon tax. It also buries the cost, where at least a carbon tax is transparent and understood.

I see conservatives cheering the end of carbon taxes in some provinces, but they ignore the fact that these same governments are going to continue to pursue the same climate goals. If they're not using a carbon tax, then it's going to be a regulatory regime. We're all going to pay more.

I've been finding myself getting more irritated by the Canadian Tax Payer federation regarding this over two particular discussions. The simple fact that they have trouble weighing costs of various forms of taxes and trade-offs makes me feel they are probably doing more of a disservice to the cause of lowering taxes. Here's Aaron Wudrick, Federal Directory of the Canadian Taxpayer Federation.





Aaron Wudrick is someone I don't like and I think he did a piss poor job at even articulating a simple point. Like most, he wants to walk this line about being for fighting climate change, but would prefer the smoke and mirrors of a regulatory regime. If he doesn't believe that, then he certainly advocates for it.

Andrew Coyne and I probably don't agree on question one at the start of this page (should we act?), but we definitely agree on the second question. We both agree if we're going to act, it should be done in the least damaging way possible.


Another useless irritating reply from Paige MacPherson at the CTF. When pointed out that the Manitoba government still plans to pursue their climate related goals, she says there are more options than regulation and carbon taxes. When asked what that is, crickets she gone. The magic solution is not to be found.

Again this is another game of playing in the middle somewhere. If the CTF wants to be against doing anything, that's cool. That's where I'm at, but playing in the middle - against the carbon tax, but quasi for fighting climate change - and convinced there is a magic way of doing it only undermines the potential good.


I'm not sure what to make of Maxime's series of tweets here. In one part he says he's for the 'do nothing' column, but on the other side we can see what experiments are being played out by provinces to see which is best. Through economic study we have seen what happens with a tax on things. Right? It's not like it's not understood. The other part about market based solutions seems to be more of definition mismatches. Where he's merely defining a market based solution as market creations versus Coyne's version which is allowing the market to drive the solution out - rather than stiff arming businesses/individuals with regulations.

At first he complains that none of these solutions reach 'concrete results', yet talks about the driver of consumer demand as the solution - even though consumers can't be fully knowledgeable on such subjects. I'm an electrical engineer, but I have no clue what would be an appropriate CO2 emission quantity for a power plant. I also want a strong military, but I have no idea how many tanks or planes we need, let alone where they should be stationed.

I'll also point out (again) a carbon tax doesn't have to result in regulation. We can cut regulation to zero because the carbon tax is the driver of change not regulation. I agree that none of today's standards result in any results precisely because they're not strong enough. How about a high carbon tax and 0% income tax for both individuals and businesses? Conclusion

I hate to actually have to advocate for a carbon tax. I'm not really. I'm more advocating for sound rational thought on this issue and the prevailing headwinds of public opinion. I'm in no way interested in doing anything, but since most people today want to - I have to accept that is where the politics is going. I know a revenue neutral carbon tax - where we slash and cut income taxes, eliminate red tape and regulation is the best possible approach. British Columbia is somewhat in that direction. Obviously they suck at eliminating red tape/regulations and their revenue neutral aspect has trended out of neutral, but at least in spirit they're one of the few places that attempted to do it right.

Here is a recent article on how the government doesn't follow the good ideas by economists on the subject. Ross McKitrick: The Liberals' carbon tax plan bastardizes actual, sensible Nobel-winning economics. Let's hear a quote:

Canada has a patchwork of highly inefficient regulations with marginal compliance costs, in many cases well in excess of the conventional estimates of the benefits of greenhouse gas emission reductions. But rather than repealing the inefficient regulations and replacing them with a carbon tax, the federal plan involves adding even more regulations to the mix — then sticking a carbon tax on top. This looks nothing like what economists have recommended.

This is what is so infuriating to me as someone that doesn't even believe in climate change. Only a small minority of people are ACTUALLY discussing the proper way of doing this. We have partisan hacks on each side happy to endorse a carbon tax, with high regulation and no tax cuts - with other partisan hacks against the carbon tax with huge back end regulation and costs plus no tax cuts. Why we can't have a sensible discussion on the best approach is beyond me and it's the reason we end up with crap policies.

This particular issue sort of grinds my gears with the Canadian Taxpayer Federation more because it illustrates their total lack of understanding context with regards to tax and that makes me think they would step in the way of truly good tax reform. They see the word 'new tax', foam at the mouth and complain. How would they contemplate an issue with introducing HST in Alberta and 0% tax rate on the first $56,000 earned on income -as proposed by the School of Public Policy as a more efficient revenue neutral option? I think they would absolutely destroy any chance of such a good tax change because of their myopic stupidity. Carbon Dividend

I seen some people, such as Andrew Coyne, selling the idea of a carbon dividend. It would be a system where we have a carbon tax and people receive essentially a rebate of cash. The way Coyne and others sell it is that it is a more politically acceptable view because people will typically receive more money back than they actually spend on a carbon tax. When I hear about people profiting off such a plan, there has to be losers.

The problem with this particular scenario is that those that suffer, productive businesses, get stuck with the bill - while the general population receives a hand out. The good thing about a revenue neutral carbon tax is that both individual income tax and business income tax is cut.

This carbon dividend idea is merely a soak 'big business' scheme.

The Energy Market with Unreliables

 The energy market is going to be something that will be on people's minds for a long time because right now there is very poor policy a...