Welcome to Britain 2018, Where Jokes Are Now Illegal

Welcome to Britain 2018, Where Jokes Are Now Illegal, by James Delingpole.

I’m referring, of course, to the case of the blogger Markus Meechan – Count Dankula – who has now been convicted by the Scottish courts of the “odious criminal act” of teaching his pug dog to do a Hitler salute. He is facing a possible prison sentence. …

Since when did we get to the stage where free speech needs defending? Where jokes – in however poor taste – suddenly become justification for a prison sentence?

Let me spell it out.

All that matters is this: in 2018 — the age of Islamic State terror; underage girls groomed and raped by mostly Muslim gangs; Antifa thuggery; epic financial fraud; acid attacks; an epidemic of knife violence; and flagrant assassination attempts by foreign powers — the British justice system (of which Scotland’s is regrettably a part) now considers it a priority to employ valuable police, courts, and jail time punishing cheeky young men for winding up their girlfriends.

That’s how it started, remember. Meechan, a straight speaking, shambolically entertaining, libertarian-leaning social media shit-poster decided to wind up his more PC girlfriend by teaching her pug dog how to give a Hitler salute. Then he posted the video on the Internet, where, of course, it went viral.

Sure it was tasteless. But then, so was Mel Brook’s “Springtime for Hitler” routine in The Producers. (Made in 1967, by the way, when there were many, MANY more Holocaust survivors still alive to be offended.) So was the stunt pulled by The Who’s Keith Moon and the Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band’s Viv Stanshall when they went out drinking in London’s Chelsea dressed as Nazis. So was John Cleese doing his Nazi goosestep in the “Don’t Mention the War” episode of Fawlty Towers…

That is, after all, the point of tasteless jokes: they’re not in good taste. They push the bounds of acceptability. They taunt social squeamishness. They say the unsayable. And, in doing so, they serve both an entertaining low purpose and an edifying higher one.

The low purpose is that they provide some people with a cheap, naughty, schoolboy laugh: the peculiar kind of laugh you can only enjoy when you’re laughing about something you just know you’re really not meant to laugh about.

The edifying higher purpose is that, whether they intend it or no, stunts like Count Dankula’s are an affirmation of perhaps the most valuable commodity in our entire culture: the right to free speech.

Without free speech, we are little more than slaves. It’s what separates the civilized world from theocracies like Iran, dictatorships like North Korea, eunuchcracies like President Bieber’s Canada, authoritarian states like China: we can say whatever the hell we like, without fear of punishment. This not only frees us from the fear of having to censor ourselves before we speak, but it also enables us to challenge bad ideas wherever they are aired. Countries that celebrate freedom are more prosperous, happy, and advanced than those that don’t.

Count Dankula and Buddha on the whole situation:

hat-tip Charles

Labor, unions risk awakening a political beast

Labor, unions risk awakening a political beast, by Paul Kelly.

Australia’s progressive alliance — Labor and the trade unions — keeps getting more radical and making more risky bets that the Australian public will follow it.

ACTU chief Sally McManus issued an extreme and naive agenda for workplace transformation this week. …

This follows Labor’s imputation credits policy the previous week that creates a large number of losers and many problems arising from intended and unintended consequences. …

The progressives are provoking their opponents, taunting a political beast they assume is slouching to defeat. They risk igniting a broad alliance of small and large business, investor, retiree and aspiration voters against them. The sheer degree of financial redistribution intensifies the stakes. …

The potential is obvious — a more broadbased and energised Coalition alliance. Forget whether Malcolm Turnbull has been inept at maximising the policy differences between Labor and the government. That was yesterday’s debate. As Labor and the unions go radical the job is being done for Turnbull. ….

The ACTU agenda is an activist campaign devoid of any sense about how to work with a governing party. It would turn the clock back decades. It signals a collapse of effective strategy from unions still consumed by their pure electoral power. It constitutes an attack on independent workers, consumers and free enterprise.

‘Hahaha, you are going, white man’

‘Hahaha, you are going, white man’. By Iavan Pijoos.

Johannesburg – EFF leader Julius Malema has reiterated his pledge to remove current DA Nelson Mandela Bay mayor Athol Trollip, in a Twitter spat at the weekend. …

Malema replied [to Trollip], saying: “Hahaha, you are going white man. I’ve got no sympathy for whiteness, it feels so good for a black child to determine the future of the white one.”

Trollip told Malema that this confirmed the real reason for his removal.

“Not those fudgy contrived reasons provided in your Councillors’ motion. Just have the courage of your racist convictions and say what you mean,” Trollip tweeted.

Western Cape Premier Helen Zille later joined the Twitter war, saying Malema’s comments were “undisguised racism”.

“Nothing to do with performance, work ethic, delivery, integrity. Just the colour of Athol’s skin. Apartheid and racial prejudice live on.”

Tribalism and identity politics reasserts itself, again. Perhaps color blindness was a dream, only ever practiced in large numbers by white men.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Muslim abuser who ‘didn’t know’ that sex with a girl of 13 was illegal is spared jail in UK

Muslim abuser who ‘didn’t know’ that sex with a girl of 13 was illegal is spared jail in UK, by Paul Bentley.

A muslim who raped a 13-year-old girl he groomed on Facebook has been spared a prison sentence after a judge heard he went to an Islamic faith school where he was taught that women are worthless.

Adil Rashid, 18, claimed he was not aware that it was illegal for him to have sex with the girl because his education left him ignorant of British law.

Earlier Nottingham Crown Court heard that such crimes usually result in a four to seven-year prison sentence.

But the judge said that because Rashid was ‘passive’ and ‘lacking assertiveness’, sending him to jail might cause him ‘more damage than good’.

Different laws for different folks? Deterrence or encouragement?

Rape victim, 13, reveals her social worker LAUGHED when she found out she was being sold to Asian men for sex – while staff at her care home responded by putting her on the Pill

Rape victim, 13, reveals her social worker LAUGHED when she found out she was being sold to Asian men for sex – while staff at her care home responded by putting her on the Pill. By Siofra Brennan.

A woman who was trafficked into prostitution by another teenager at her care home when she was just 13 has revealed how everyone around her — from police to staff to teachers and social workers — shockingly turned a blind eye.

Zoe Patterson’s book Trafficked Girl is published today and details how she was sexually abused and raped by older Asian men while living at a Midlands care home, often being forced to have sex with multiple men on a nightly basis.

When she first admitted to a social worker what was happening, she was laughed at and the only real response from staff at the unit was to put her on contraceptives.

The British authorities have peculiar priorities: imprisoning native comedians while letting Islamic rapists run free. Whose side are they on?

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Israeli victory essential for Middle East peace

Israeli victory essential for Middle East peace, by Daniel Pipes.

The moment is right for fresh thinking to dispatch the old and stale Palestinian-Israeli conflict. With Arabs focused on other issues — the Iranian nuclear weapon build-up, civil wars in Libya, Yemen, Syria and Iraq, Turkey going rogue, the Islamist surge and the water drought — hoary anti-Zionist taboos have lost much of their pungency. A prosperous and strong Israel has lost hope in decades’ worth of “peace process”. The cowboy in the White House likes breaking with precedent. And the global left’s turn towards anti-Semitism, exemplified by Jeremy Corbyn of the British Labour Party, adds further reason for urgency; when it eventually holds power, the implications for Israel will be dire.

Conventional wisdom holds that the Arab-Israeli conflict will end only when the Palestinians’ grievances are sufficiently satisfied so that they accept the Jewish state of Israel. This paradigm has reigned almost unchallenged since the Oslo Accords of September 1993; yet that 25-year period also has made clear that Palestinians in overwhelming numbers (I estimate 80 per cent based on scholarship and polling data going back a century) seek not peaceful coexistence with Israel but the brutal elimination of the “Zionist entity”. With such attitudes, it comes as no surprise that every round of much-hyped negotiations eventually has failed.

I shall propose an entirely different approach to resolve the conflict, a reversion to the strategy of deterrence and victory associated with Zionism’s great strategist, Vladimir Jabotinsky (1880-1940): Israel should aim not to please its enemies but to defeat them. Counter-intuitively, I shall show why Palestinians need precisely such an Israeli victory to slough off their current oppression, extremism, and violence, and to become a successful people. …

An important fact often overlooked:

History shows wars typically conclude not through negotiations but through defeat and victory. As military historian Victor Hanson says, “Conflicts throughout history become serial when an enemy is not utterly defeated and is not forced to submit to the political conditions of the victor.” Defeat means giving up war ambitions. Victory means imposing one’s will on the enemy. …

This process will be neither easy nor quick: it requires Palestinians to suffer the bitter crucible of defeat, with its attendant deprivation, destruction and despair. Unfortun­ately, there is no shortcut.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Will the Deep State Break Trump?

Will the Deep State Break Trump? By Pat Buchanan.

Today, another deep state conspiracy, to break another presidency, is underway.

Consider. To cut through the Russophobia rampant here, Trump decided to make a direct phone call to Vladimir Putin. And in that call, Trump, like Angela Merkel, congratulated Putin on his re-election victory.

Instantly, the briefing paper for the president’s call was leaked to the Post. In bold letters it read, “DO NOT CONGRATULATE.”

Whereupon, the Beltway went ballistic.

How could Trump congratulate Putin, whose election was a sham? Why did he not charge Putin with the Salisbury poisoning? Why did Trump not denounce Putin for interfering with “our democracy”?

Amazing. A disloyal White House staffer betrays his trust and leaks a confidential paper to sabotage the foreign policy of a duly elected president, and he is celebrated in this capital city.

If you wish to see the deep state at work, this is it: anti-Trump journalists using First Amendment immunities to collude with and cover up the identities of bureaucratic snakes out to damage or destroy a president they despise. No wonder democracy is a declining stock worldwide. …

A color revolution in the USA:

What is going on in this city is an American version of the “color revolutions” we have employed to dump over governments in places like Georgia and Ukraine.

Goal: Break Trump’s presidency, remove him, discredit his election as contaminated by Kremlin collusion, upend the democratic verdict of 2016, and ash-can Trump’s agenda of populist conservatism. Then, return America to the open borders, free trade, democracy-crusading Bushite globalism beloved by our Beltway elites. …

The Trump White House is behaving as if it were the prospective target of a coup d’etat. And it is not wrong to think so. …

A perspective on Trump:

Trump, in a way, is the indispensable man of the populist right.

In the 2016 primaries, no other Republican candidate shared his determination to secure the border, bring back manufacturing or end the endless wars in the Middle East that have so bled and bankrupted our nation.

Whether the Assads rule in Damascus, the Chinese fortify Scarborough Shoal, or the Taliban return to Kabul are not existential threats.

But if the borders of our country are not secured, as Reagan warned, in a generation, America will not even be a country.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

John Bolton: Dog Of War

John Bolton: Dog Of War, by Rod Dreher.

Damon Linker says we should all be very, very worried about the John Bolton appointment. Excerpt:

Having a man who so consistently — one might almost say instinctually — favors military action serving as the national security adviser to the president would be dangerous in any White House. But in the Trump administration it could be catastrophic.

Trump is utterly ignorant of the world, prone to making impulsive decisions, and tends to defer to the most forceful voice in the room, especially when it conveys information with confident bluster. That would give Bolton enormous power to shape policy — which means the power to get the United States to launch big new wars as well as expand the numerous ones we’re already waging across wide swaths of the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia.

I’ll never forget the moment that I first thought Donald Trump would be an improvement over any other Republican possibility for president: when, in the South Carolina GOP debate, he said from the stage that the Iraq War was a mistake. It had taken 13 years for a major GOP presidential candidate (I’m excluding Ron Paul) to state the bleeding obvious, but Trump did. One big point in favor of voting for him, from my point of view, was that he would be more realistic and less belligerent on foreign policy than Hillary Clinton.

And now he has appointed the worst possible Republican on matters of war as his national security adviser.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Trump’s Choice of Bolton Reflects American Greatness

Trump’s Choice of Bolton Reflects American Greatness, by Daniel Greenfield.

Fifteen years ago, North Korea banned John Bolton from the useless nuclear talks. “Such human scum and bloodsucker is not entitled to take part in the talks,” its foreign ministry declared.

North Korea had freaked out because then Undersecretary of State Bolton had called Kim Jong Il, a “tyrannical dictator” and life in the socialist hellhole, a “hellish nightmare”.

Bolton would later describe that as one of his proudest moments.

Back then, North Korea had defended the move by pointing out that Bolton’s views differed “from the recent remarks of the U.S. president”. And so it could claim that he didn’t represent the United States.

Fifteen years later the game has changed. Kim Jong Il is dead and the President of the United States has called his successor, “little rocket man”, a “madman” and “short and fat”.

John Bolton very definitely does represent the views of this president.

And to prove it, President Trump has appointed him as his new National Security Adviser.

Bolton knew then that appeasing the North Korean dictatorship would never work. Bill Clinton’s bad North Korean deal paved the way for the even worse Iran deal. It took a decade and a half for an administration to actually listen to him. And his appointment sends a clear signal to North Korea.

The media had been buzzing that McMaster would be replaced by a more conciliatory figure on North Korea. The establishment even had their man all lined up. Trump also sent them a clear message.

President Trump is tired of the failed establishment foreign policy of appeasement. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was replaced over the Iran deal. The new lineup of Pompeo heading the State Department and Bolton cleaning house at the NSC shows Trump is ready to get tough on the Mullahs and the Norks.

McMaster spent his tenure at the National Security Council ruthlessly forcing out Trump supporters while protecting Obama holdovers. His obstructionism enabled the leakers undermining the president. He refused to call out Islam, put a Hamas apologist on the Israel desk, and blocked the investigations of the eavesdropping and unmasking efforts aimed at the future president by Obama associates. …

Policy u-turn?

It takes a warrior to pick the political warriors who want to fight to win. And who understand that standing up to bullies, thugs and tyrants is less likely to lead to a fight than surrendering to them. …

The David Horowitz Freedom Center has spent decades waiting for a man who would lead the fight. And it’s happy to see many of the political warriors who have rallied the troops at its weekends, who lifted spirits in the years when things were hard and convinced us that victory was on the way, in his army.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Abbott to the Rescue of the Australian Liberal Party

Abbott to the Rescue of the Australian Liberal Party, by Christopher Carr.

In South Australia, the change of government notwithstanding, no single party could be described as a genuine winner. The relatively poor performance of the minor parties — Nick Xenophon’s SA Best, Greens, and Australian Conservatives — enabled the Liberals to secure a lower house majority despite falling some 7% short of their primary vote at the previous state election. …

Steve Marshall’s emergence as premier is not so much a win for the Liberal Party as it is a victory for the mainstream centre-right over what proved less-than-viable competitors. …

The Australian Conservatives’ failure to meet predictions and expectations is another matter. Senator Cory Bernardi attracted large crowds of disillusioned Liberals and right-inclined voters at meetings conducted around Australia during 2017. Nationwide, more than 15,000 Australians joined the Australian Conservatives. Yet among voters at large, the party seems to have gained little traction. …

Why the gulf between great expectations and the anti-climatic thud of tally room numbers falling way short? Well, by my reckoning, Tony Abbott must take much of the credit for keeping conservatives inside the Liberal tent.

Tony Abbott

Let me explain: against furious opposition from the NSW party’s “moderate” power brokers, [Abbott] secured passage of the so-called Warringah Motion which aimed to ensure all members of the Liberal Party have an equal say on the selection of parliamentary candidates, an initiative endorsed by a large meeting of rank-and-file party faithful at Randwick Racecourse. At a subsequent meeting of the Liberal Party State Council, the faction bosses staged a partial fightback, failing to realise that Tony Abbott and his fellow conservatives had saved the Liberal Party from a mass walkout by giving ordinary branch members hope that the cronyism, branch-stacking, general deviousness and Labor-lite policies of the current NSW regime are not beyond reform.

Far from being the disruptive and divisive force, as so often depicted by the lockstep thinkers on the left who opine for the ABC and Fairfax Media, Abbott and his fellow conservatives in the Liberal Party continue to provide a conservative ballast against the further heeling to port of the ship whose bridge Malcolm Turnbull and his minions seized and still control. Much as he might wish, Turnbull cannot cast himself in full measure as the antipodean Angela Merkel. In this regard he owes Abbott a great debt for saving him from his own worst impulses and instincts.

The more Abbott, Molan, Andrew Hastie and others continue to speak out, the more irrelevant any rival party on the right, such as Bernardians and Hansonites, will remain.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Trump signs $1.3 trillion spending bill into law despite being ‘unhappy’ about it

Trump signs $1.3 trillion spending bill into law despite being ‘unhappy’ about it, by Jacob Pramuk.

An “unhappy” President Donald Trump signed the $1.3 trillion spending bill into law Friday, his second about-face in 24 hours on the measure to keep the government open.

The president said he approved the legislation to fund the government through September for national security reasons, as it authorizes a major increase in military spending that he supports. But he stressed that he did so reluctantly.

Trump slammed the rushed process to pass the more than 2,200-page bill released only Wednesday. Standing near the pile of documents, the president said he was “disappointed” in the legislation and would “never sign another bill like this again.” …

Trump highlighted the portions of the bill he supports: the nearly $80 billion increase in defense spending, a $1.6 billion boost to border security funding and a cash injection to fight the opioid epidemic. The border money will go mostly toward surveillance technology and fencing similar to structures that already exist on the southern border. The amount of funding came in far below what the president wanted. …

While Republicans and the president himself have said the bill funds Trump’s “wall,” the money goes to miles of new fencing similar to existing structures.

Trump, who has tried to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, reportedly wanted $25 billion in long-term wall funding in exchange for protections for the young immigrants. Democrats and some Republicans have sought to extend the DACA program. Trump reportedly did not want to give up to 1.8 million immigrants a pathway to citizenship as part of that deal, as Democrats wanted.

The Tea Party crew have supported Trump. even though many have misgivings about his character, because he acted like a conservative. But if Trump acts like a free-spending liberal and does not build a wall, that support will evaporate.

You Can Vote For Conservatism, But You Can’t Get It, by John Hinderaker.

I first made that observation — you can vote for conservatism, but you can’t get it — quite a few years ago. Sadly, it remains true, as exemplified by the $1.3 trillion spending monstrosity that President Trump signed today.

Quick. You’ve only got a few hours to read this before voting on it!

All Republicans, and some Democrats, run on a platform of smaller government, less spending and lower taxes. Voters, more often than not, elect such candidates. But the forces pressing for more and more spending, toward ends that are increasingly removed from the proper purposes of government, are inexorable.

Growing questions about CNN’s airport monopoly as network veers left

Growing questions about CNN’s airport monopoly as network veers left, by Brian Flood.

CNN’s ubiquitous presence in airports — where it broadcasts from thousands of screens to a captive audience of millions — is facing new scrutiny after the cable network’s hard left turn.

The CNN Airport network dates back to when CNN was known for straightforward news programming — and has been a fixture at airports since before competitors MSNBC and Fox News even existed. But critics are now asking if busy travelers should be subjected to CNN’s increasingly ideological programming — at gates, bars, food courts and baggage claims — which can include on-screen chyrons or subtitles that gleefully mock President Trump. Many travelers have even taken to Twitter and started online petitions to urge airports to change the channel. ….

CNN pays airports to leave the network on, and many travel hubs even have agreements in which CNN pays for their TVs and infrastructure. Long-term contracts typically give CNN the ability to curate content seen by travelers whether they like it or not. The eight-year contract that was signed in 2016 promises Miami International Airport “a maximum annual guarantee of $150,000” that may be adjusted annually to ensure the deal is on par with similar airports.

“Airports feel like a lesser version of hell with dirty seats, overpriced food and propaganda posing as news on CNN,” Fox News host Tucker Carlson said last month.

Camouflaged Elites

Camouflaged Elites, by Victor Davis Hanson.

Even in the mostly egalitarian city-states of relatively poor classical Greece, the wealthy were readily identifiable. A man of privilege was easy to spot by his remarkable possession of a horse, the fine quality of his tunic, or by his mastery of Greek syntax and vocabulary. …

Throughout history, the elite in most of the Western world were easy to distinguish. Visible class distinctions characterized ancient Rome, Renaissance Florence, the Paris of the nineteenth century, and the major cities of twentieth century America.

A variety of recent social trends and revolutionary economic breakthroughs have blurred the line separating the elite from the masses.

First, the cultural revolution of the 1960s made it cool for everyone to dress sloppily and to talk with slang and profanity. Levis, T-shirts, and sneakers became the hip American uniform, a way of superficially equalizing the unequal. Contrived informality radiated the veneer of class solidarity. Multimillionaires like Bruce Springsteen and Bono appear indistinguishable from welders on the street.

The locus classicus is perhaps Facebook owner Mark Zuckerberg, who wears T-shirts, jeans, and flip flops to work. …

Second, technology has done its part to dilute superficial class distinctions. The nineteenth-century gap between a rich man in his fine carriage — with footman and driver — and someone walking three miles to work has disappeared. The driving experience between a $20,000 Kia bought on credit with $1,000 down and a $80,0000 Mercedes paid in cash is mostly reduced to the superficial logo on the hood and trunk. …

For a hundred dollars, a man can go into Wal-Mart, buy Chinese-made slacks, a dress shirt, tie, and shoes, and look basically like a Wall Street investor with an ostensibly similar $10,000 imported Italian wardrobe. Brand names, and not always quality, are what we pay for.

Third, the classes often live their lives in close quarters to one another. Walk a Manhattan sidewalk, and try to guess who has a credit line of $10 million and who has one of zero. Take a transcontinental business class flight — who paid $5,000 for it and who saved up his frequent flyer miles for a year to travel in style? The guy in the jogging outfit and the girl in a business suit have no real clue of where the other falls in the social hierarchy. …

Over the last three decades, technological breakthroughs have rendered old Marxist theories of endless class struggle somewhat stale. Consider how smartphones give someone on public assistance infinitely more access to global knowledge and entertainment than did the million-dollar mainframe of a few decades ago. Consider that even the poorest in public housing have hot water and a refrigerator — and that their water is just as hot and their fridges just as cool as the water and fridges in a fancy Upper West Side apartment building. The vast majority of Americans take for granted access to clean water, electronics, cheap food and clothing, and shelter. For most of human history, securing such goods was the major challenge of being alive. That’s no longer the case. …

Visible class distinctions of the past were a result of pride in achievement and old-fashioned snobbery. But their practical effect was to warn that the interests and agendas of the elite were not always the same as those of the public. Today’s billionaire hipsters blur these ancient distinctions. But just because a Master of the Universe looks like us does not mean that his dogged pursuit of tax exemptions, offshoring and outsourcing, and vertically integrated monopolies is in our interest.

Men In America: Fatherless boys are a terrible danger, but unmarried mothers are a vital part of the left’s electoral strategy

Men In America: Fatherless boys are a terrible danger, but unmarried mothers are a vital part of the left’s electoral strategy.

Boys raised without fathers are a terrible risk. The breakup of families is the largest public health problem today.

Unmarried mothers are a large part of the leftist electoral coalition — 74% of unmarried mothers voted for Obama. Hence, the left and media never criticize unmarried mothers, and instead put marriage in a bad light.

Unmarried motherhood is a disaster, especially for boys. It would appear that divorce, unmarried mothers, and the welfare state that makes them possible really are wrecking society — especially for males. Maybe the progressives went too far.