Healthcare: Trump just got promoted from Hitler to incompetent.

Healthcare: Trump just got promoted from Hitler to incompetent, by Scott Adams.

Today we are witnessing one of the most important events in political history. But you probably can’t see it because the news is talking about healthcare, and how Ryan and Trump totally failed to get enough votes. …

With the failure of the Ryan healthcare bill, the illusion of Trump-is-Hitler has been fully replaced with Trump-is-incompetent meme. … By year end, you will see a second turn, from incompetent to “Competent, but we don’t like it.”

In the 2D world, where everything is just the way it looks, and people are rational, Trump and Ryan failed to improve healthcare. But in the 3D world of persuasion, Trump just had one of the best days any president ever had: He got promoted from Hitler to incompetent. And that promotion effectively defused the Hitler-hallucination bomb that was engineered by the Clinton campaign.

In all seriousness, the Trump-is-Hitler illusion was the biggest problem in the country, and maybe the world. It was scaring people to the point of bad health. It made any kind of political conversation impossible. It turned neighbors and friends against each other in a way we have never before seen. It was inviting violence, political instability, and worse. …

No one wants an incompetent president, but calling the other side a bunch of bumblers is routine politics. We just went from an extraordinary risk (Trump=Hitler) to ordinary politics (The other side=incompetent).

NY Mayor De Blasio connects racist murder to Trump, ‘atmosphere of hate’, but media never connect murders of cops or conservatives to leftist ‘climate of hate’

NY Mayor De Blasio connects racist murder to Trump, ‘atmosphere of hate’, but media never connect murders of cops or conservatives to leftist ‘climate of hate’, by John Sexton.

Last week James Harris Jackson surrendered himself to police after (allegedly) stabbing 66-year-old Timothy Caughman in the chest. … What shocked the city, and the reason this murder became national news, was Jackson’s motive for the crime. According to a prosecutor in the case, Jackson said he had driven from Baltimore to New York for one purpose: to kill black people. Jackson told police the murder of Caughman was “practice” for a larger attack he intended to carry out in Times Square.

But the Mayor of New York thinks he already has an idea what motivated the killing. … “It has particularly come out in the open after the election and it’s clearly related to the rhetoric of Donald Trump and even other candidates during the presidential election that have unleashed forces of hate all over the country.” De Blasio went on to say, “It gets back to the core point. An atmosphere of hate has been created and we have to fight that atmosphere of hate with everything we’ve got.”

This is one of the left’s most cherished political arguments. Every time a racist or an insane person with a gun attacks someone the left immediately connects the killing to a climate of hate which serves to spread the blame to the right in general. …

What you rarely, if ever, see is the same argument being made when a killer appears to be acting with a left-wing motive. For instance, five police officers were killed in Dallas last year, plus 3 more in Baton Rouge by killers who could arguably have been said to be motivated by a left-wing climate of hate. What would De Blasio think of that argument?

In 2014, a man named Ismaaiyl Brinsley drove from Baltimore to New York, just like James Harris Jackson did, only his motive was to shoot and kill cops as revenge for the highly publicized deaths of Mike Brown and Eric Garner. Brinsley assassinated NYPD officers Wenjian Liu and Raphael Ramos as they sat in their patrol car. At the time, De Blasio did not connect the killing to any broader movement. … “Our entire city was attacked by this heinous individual.” De Blasio went on to say, “I don’t think it’s a time for politics or political analysis,” thereby refusing to make any broader, societal connections.

At some point, it would be nice if the media would notice that the left constantly uses this climate-of-hate argument to indict the right every chance it gets but denies any such climate exists when the target is a conservative or a police officer.

Google and social media companies could be prosecuted if they show extremist videos

Google and social media companies could be prosecuted if they show extremist videos, by Christopher Hope.

Google, Facebook and other internet companies could be prosecuted if they do not stop extremist videos from being seen on their websites by people in Britain, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

Ministers are considering a new law which would mean Google – which owns YouTube – and other social media sites like Facebook and Twitter can be prosecuted if they allow such videos to be disseminated.

Theresa May, the Prime Minister, made clear her displeasure at internet companies that publish extremist content on Friday, saying “the ball is in their court” over taking action.

All non-PC speech is “extremist”, in the opinion of the PC elite. Google is a PC company, so letting it decide what to allow will mean that non-PC speech is banned or curtailed soon.

Google already down-rank non-PC websites in its search results. They’ve been doing it for at least five years. For example, climate skeptic sites are pushed down so that the warmist sites and minor sites critical of skeptics display prominently in search results.Which demonstrates that Google are quite happy to push the information you receive in a PC direction.

This is a pretty important argument:

See also here. The world needs a non-PC alternative to YouTube.

Islam and the Jihad in London

Islam and the Jihad in London, by Andrew McCarthy.

There is diversity in Islam, including millions of Muslims who adhere only to its spiritual elements or see themselves as more culturally than doctrinally Islamic. But when we speak of Islam, as opposed to Muslims, we are not speaking about a mere religious belief system. We are talking about a competing civilization — that is very much how Islam self-identifies. It has its own history, principles, values, mores, and legal system.

Islam, thus understood, is not non-Western. It is anti-Western. …

Individual Muslims may assimilate, but Islam doesn’t do assimilation. Islam does not melt into your melting pot. Islam …  is content with nothing less than political, cultural, and civilizational dominance. …

When the Islamic presence in a Western community reaches a critical mass, Islam’s hostility to Western mores and demands for sharia governance result in non-Muslim flight. Marriages between Muslims resident in the Western community and Muslims overseas tend to result in childbirth rates and household growth that dwarfs that of the indigenous population. Arranged, intra-familial, and polygamous marriages, endorsed by Islamic mores, drastically alter the fabric of communities in short order. …

Western political and opinion elites remain willfully blind to this. They cannot help but project onto Islamic beliefs and practices their own progressive pieties — which take seriously neither religion nor the notion that there is any civilization but their own. …

The movement does not want cohabitation. It wants conquest. It starts with assimilation-resistant enclaves that nurture sharia supremacism today and thereby breed the jihadists of tomorrow.

In 2004, the West audibly gasped when its preeminent scholar of Islam famously told the German newspaper Die Welt,“Europe will be Islamic by the end of the century,” if not sooner. Listen carefully. He did not say that Muslims will be the majority population in what is still recognizably Europe. No, Professor Lewis said “Europe will be Islamic.”

Lessons From the London Westminster Attack

Lessons From the London Westminster Attack, by John Hinderaker.

Like nearly all Islamic terrorists, [Khalid Masood, whose real name was Adrian Elms or Adrian Ajao,] had a middle-class upbringing and at one point lived in a million dollar house in East Sussex. Drugs apparently precipitated his descent, and he had a criminal history that landed him in prison. Masood was not religious until his incarceration–his parents are Christians–but, like many others, he converted to Islam while in prison. After his release, he persuaded one of his daughters to adopt Islam, change her name and wear a hijab. At 52, he was quite a bit older than most terrorists. …

Masood reportedly spent several years in Saudi Arabia, where he was immersed in Wahabbism. That is a pretty good predictor of radical belief and behavior. …

Many terrorists are second generation immigrants, and others, like Masood, are Islamic converts. …

The problem is Islam. Not all or even most Muslims, of course, but rather Islam as a political ideology. …

America is committed to the assumption that Islam, in all of its varieties and manifestations, is merely a religion. This entitles Islam not only to the full protection of the First Amendment, but also to the presumption that it is a benign if obsolete force, like other religions. Which explains why journalists puzzle over what could possibly have motivated the terrorist who shouts “Allahu akbar” to kill infidels.

Bad assumptions are behind most epic stuff ups. (For instance, a single bad assumption is behind the whole global warning imbroglio. Book coming soon.)

Theresa May: “The fight against terrorism and hate speech has to be a joint one”

Theresa May: “The fight against terrorism and hate speech has to be a joint one”, by Robert Spencer.

By this May means … that “the fight against jihad and those who oppose jihad is a joint one.”

This is because opposition to jihad terror is routinely characterized by Theresa May and her colleagues as “hate speech.”

It has been a years-long chess game: first came the charge, ridiculous on its face but relentlessly and indefatigably repeated, that to speak honestly about how jihad terrorists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and make recruits among peaceful Muslims constituted “hate.”

Then came the likewise specious charge that “hate speech” was not “free speech,” and was capable of being identified by neutral, impartial observers, and that it did not deserve the protection that various governments gave to the freedom of speech.

None of that is true. In reality, hate speech is a subjective judgment based on the political perspectives of the one doing the evaluating, and freedom of speech protections were first instituted in order to ensure that speech that was hated by the party in power could still be aired: the freedom of speech is our fundamental bulwark against tyranny, and prevents tyrants from declaring opposition to their will to be “hate speech” and thereby outlaw it.

Our global elite, even when on the right like Theresa May, are much too prone to censoring free speech. The remedy for bad speech is good speech, not endless and ultimately fairly fruitless attempts to police what people can say and think.

Facebook and Twitter have blocked 90% of their daily referrals from Jihad Watch, and the site is blocked by many Internet service providers in the UK and Europe. Soon, apparently, Google will follow suit.

Westminster attacker acted alone and motive may never be known, say police, say the Guardian. This is an example of the extreme cluelessness of the global elite, where they won’t face up to the reality. They regard much of reality as “hate speech,” and wish only to censor it. Industrial-scale denialism.

Britain’s Mainstream Media Blames ‘Racism’ for Westminster Attack, by Oliver Lane.

In their reporting and social media coverage, Britain’s Daily Telegraph has strongly implied Islamist Khalid Masood went on a killing spree in central London because he’d once been a victim of racism in the past.

If the PC elite didn’t censor information about Jihad and the nature of Islam, everyone would know this was complete bollocks.

The Telegraph are falling for the leftist thought-trap of Structuralism, that societal forces can push people into crime and this is something ‘victims’ of these forces have no control over. This logic denies individuals — like Masood — their agency by absolving them for personal responsibility for actions.

Yep.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Obama Spied On Trump and the Media Lied To Cover It Up: Something similar happened in Sweden

Obama Spied On Trump and the Media Lied To Cover It Up: Something similar happened in Sweden. A reader writes:

In the 1970s the Social Democrats had created at secret network of party hacks in the State Security Police and the Military Intelligence, outside parliamentary control. They tapped the telephones and had agents inside the new administration. So the Socialists know most of what the new coalition government intended to do and how split they were over some important issues, ex. nuclear power and taxes.

So the whole agenda of 1976 broke up and the government split in 1978. Still they had the parliamentary majority, so voters could blame them for the mess. The media  was fed a stream of “scoop” from leaking bureaucrats.

This  situation was even more evident with the Moderate, Center, Liberal government led by Carl Bildt in 1991-94. Ministers did not trust telephones and faxes, making it quite difficult to govern.

The Social Democrats had created a deep state of security services and the tax-agency, normally regarded as the Stasi in Sweden.

The lesson: if the left control the deep state of intelligence and bureaucracy, they can, if they wish to stoop to those lows, make it almost impossible for the right to govern — thereby steering the country left by underhand means. In the US, the Democrat’s and media’s refusal to accept Trump’s victory at the ballot box mean they are prepared to use these methods. This will destroy faith in fair government, and increase tribalism, which bodes badly for the long term future of the US and the West.

Free speech is being shut down in South Africa

Free speech is being shut down in South Africa, by Marian Tupy.

The political firestorm that has engulfed the Premier of Western Cape, Helen Zille, following her tweets in praise of some aspects of the British colonial legacy in Singapore, raise serious questions about the very possibility of reasoned debate in South Africa. It does not augur well for the future of the country. …

Having spent a week on a business trip to Singapore and waiting to board a plane to Cape Town, Zille published a series of tweets:

What might have prompted such thoughts in the mind of a former anti-apartheid activist – a fearless journalist who exposed the extra-judicial killing of the Black Consciousness leader, Steve Biko, as well as a politician who has so successfully navigated the treacherous waters of South African politics for the last two decades? …

The tenets of political correctness, unfortunately, dictate that Zille’s comments could not possibly come out of justified despair for the socio-economic performance of South Africa in recent decades. Predictably, the erstwhile opponent of white rule now stands accused of racism.

That the neutered and cowardly South African intelligentsia should reach for such a lazy and dishonest explanation of Zille’s tweets is unsurprising. What is surprising is the speed with which Zille was abandoned by her own party. The leader of the Democratic Alliance, Mmusi Maimane, has even referred her to the party’s Legal Commission for punishment.

Under pressure, Zille caved in:

PC rules! Badly.

Group discipline to further the interest of the group is far more important to the left than free speech or the truth — which works brilliantly in the short term, but woefully in the long term.

hat-tip Matthew

China’s one-child policy a ‘demographic disaster’

China’s one-child policy a ‘demographic disaster’, by Derek Parker.

The real problem was the interaction of the policy with the cultural preference for sons. Abortion was often used for sex selection and baby girls were abandoned or sometimes simply killed. Sons were seen as the means by which the parents would be supported in old age — necessary when the government pension system was rickety at best.

The outcome should have been obvious: as the one-child babies grew up, there would be a stark gender imbalance. Fong finds many sad men who will never have a partner.

But the imbalance has done little to improve the social position of women, especially outside the major cities. It is unusual for a wife to have any ownership of marital property and domestic violence is common. Fong asks one man what he seeks in a woman. His answer: “obedience”.

Little wonder that many rural towns are almost devoid of young women, who move to the cities looking for a better life.

There is another huge problem coming down the demographic road as the one-child parents begin to move into retirement. It means that each couple from the one-child generation will have to support four ageing parents as well as a child of their own. It is hard to see how the numbers can work.

As for the children of the one-child policy, Fong wades through survey data that finds them to be a rather unpleasant, unimaginative bunch, spoiled children growing up into self-centred adults. How this — plus a huge number of discontented men rolling around looking for something to do — will affect China as a geopolitical player is unknown, but it is unlikely to be good. …

The one-child policy eventually was lifted in 2015, allowing couples to have two children. But so far there appears to have been little impact on the birthrate. Many people see a second child as too expensive, given the skyrocketing prices of everything from houses to education.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Theodore Dalrymple explains how Britain went down the drain

Theodore Dalrymple explains how Britain went down the drain, by Kevin Chinnery.

He’s the psychiatrist who broke a taboo. In 1990, Theodore Dalrymple, prison shrink, slum area hospital doctor, and freshly appointed magazine columnist started telling the awful truth about Britain’s poor. … His books, essays, and columns for The Spectator, The Times and the New Statesman, have been compared to Orwell in their observations of Britain. …

He shows a new Gin Lane, a Hogarthian horror show of self-destructive behaviour: drink- and drug-addled deadbeat parents, feral children, random violence and chosen idleness. Chaos and ignorance, encouraged by the welfare and education systems, and treated as both normal and unavoidable. …

Blame is reserved for the intellectual class that made all this happen. Not through the indifference of the 1930s, but overindulgence. Trendy 1960s social theories have run amok and caused endless harm to the people they are supposed to be helping, he says. Academics, writers, artists and journalists tore down old values like personal responsibility and civility, replaced by ideas that “society is to blame” and a moral relativism that says that nothing is wrong. …

Zero self-control and zero connection between effort and reward did not make people happy, but left them trapped in “cheerless self-pitying hedonism and the brutality of the dependency culture”, he wrote in the book, Life at the Bottom.

The start of the rot:

Dalrymple hazards a precise starting date for this: when John Osborne replaced Terence Rattigan as the leading British playwright, he says, and angry young men replaced the stoicism of The Browning Version. It was people who “showed off their cleverness and their virtue” by attacking the status quo. The damage didn’t matter, so much as their pet theories. It’s the radical vanity I well remember at uni in the 1970s … with intellect equated with contempt for conventional life. It’s the same in art, he adds, where you have to be transgressive just for the sake of it. …

The rot works its way through Britain’s classes:

Having trickled down from the top, moral licence has now percolated up again from the bottom. Its tidemark, for Dalrymple, is tattoos. The middle classes began tattooing themselves out of empathy, he once thought, with marginal people like criminals or bikers.

“But unfortunately, when you imitate something, the role becomes the reality.” Mass drunkenness and mass vulgarity is now routine across British society. In the 1960s, stung by criticism it was too middle class, the BBC hired Jimmy Savile, he says. Decades before Savile’s sexual predation was revealed, “he was the start of an evangelical vulgarisation that has proved unstoppable“. …

Random observations about the loss of culture in modern Britain:

British urban dwellers, he wrote in his book Our Culture, What’s Left of It, are like barbarians camped out in the ruins of an older, superior civilisation they don’t understand. …

“I have often thought the worst fate is to be an intelligent and sensitive person born into the British underclass. The social pressure on you to fail is enormous. I remember a girl who wanted to study French but, ‘they said I was stupid because I was clever’. Can you imagine growing up in that environment?” He looks sad as he says it. …

What’s the answer? The real problem is “the modern miracle of British education, in which people come out of school knowing even less than when they went in”. …

You could run a hotel in France with French staff. In England, employers would choose a Pole. Their English is more functional and their attitude better. The locals “can’t tell the difference between service and servitude, which is a terrible thing in a service economy”. …

He says that he once signed up as the vulgarity correspondent of the Daily Mail – he smirks at that one – sent on assignment to an England soccer friendly in Italy. A hundred middle-class Englishmen he travelled with routinely hurled abuse at any passing Italian. “I asked one of them, a computer programmer, why he did it. He said, ‘you have to let your hair down’. I said, ‘well, no, you don’t. You should keep it up’. We used to be known for our emotional constipation. Now it’s emotional incontinence. …

“We are prepared to tolerate public vomiting, but if you use the term ‘actress’, you are a sexist. A very well-educated lady told me public vomiting is all right: ‘They can clear it up.’ This is how the elite now thinks. They are so anxious not to seem narrow-minded or bigoted, or of being ‘judgmental’.”

hat-tip Stephen Neil

$15,000 a month offered to ‘A Teams’ to fight Trump agenda

$15,000 a month offered to ‘A Teams’ to fight Trump agenda, by Paul Bedard.

A group known for its successes fighting digital wars, notably net neutrality, is offering $15,000 to activists who quit their jobs and form “A-Teams” to jump into a war on President Trump’s agenda.

Fight for the Future, started in 2011 as a digital activist group, on Monday issued the offer with this eye-catching opening: “Terrified about Trump? Quit your job, start an A-Team. We’ll fund it.”

“We’re still working out the details, but if you’ve got a strong 2-3 person A-Team and a target we’d give you $15,000 right now for the first month, just to see what you can do,” said the promo. “If you make a big splash or measurable impact on your target in that time, we’re pretty sure we can find you more,” it added.

Where do the funds come from? As noted by Stephen Green, Fight for the Future got its initial funding from the Media Democracy Fund, which the Capital Research Center says is backed by George Soros.

George Soros

How many of those Internet activists of the left are paid?

 

Transgender ‘Girl’ Saddened and Shocked That Straight Boys Aren’t Interested in Her

Transgender ‘Girl’ Saddened and Shocked That Straight Boys Aren’t Interested in Her, by Megan Fox.

It’s sad that we’ve come to this point in human history where biological males who are attracted to other biological males don’t understand that heterosexual biological males aren’t interested in them sexually even if they dress up like girls and learn how to do contour makeup. This is apparently something trans teens hadn’t considered before deciding to live like girls. Parents of these teens must accept some responsibility for allowing them to deny science and chase after the imagined unicorns in their heads.

The Mirror reports that transgender teen “Claire” is having some difficulty dating. “Hoping on finding a boyfriend, she reveals that she doesn’t like telling people the truth and is desperate for an operation. She says: “In a lot of ways, I don’t like telling a guy. Once I tell him all respect goes out of the window. Straight guys just can’t get over you having the male parts.” …

It seems no one is outraged at the idea that this “girl” is having a sex change so she can fool heterosexual males into having sex with her. Instead, we are treated to a saccharine telling of her sob story complete with weepy videos and a plea for tolerance.

Parents, if you are raising your children and allowing them to “transition” … please explain to them that it is their duty as a moral human being to be honest with potential dates. It is not acceptable to lie to anyone about who they are. And that’s really the heart of this, isn’t it? Because who you are isn’t in your imagination but in your DNA. And no amount of makeup or surgeries or science-denying can change that.

PC has a lot to answer for.

‘Safe Spaces’ Parody Goes Viral, Sparks Tour

‘Safe Spaces’ Parody Goes Viral, Sparks Tour.

Steve McGrew thinks he knows why Stephen Colbert and co. are reticent to mock Safe Space Nation. Those late night shows, which almost uniformly skew liberal, assume college snowflakes are “their real audience,” McGrew says.

“It might have been the old forest for the trees thing. They were just too close to see the humor in the idiotic concept of segregated safe spaces,” he says.

Bigger than Watergate: 12 Pieces Of Proof that the MSM Knew Obama Spied On Trump and LIED To Cover It Up

Bigger than Watergate: 12 Pieces Of Proof that the MSM Knew Obama Spied On Trump and LIED To Cover It Up, by John Nolte.

Our national media has known for months that the Obama administration spied on Team Trump. This was not only common knowledge within the media community, it was no secret. In fact, as you’ll see below, for two big reasons, the media was overjoyed that this spying had occurred: (1) they got scoops damaging to Trump, and (2) in their provincial and cultish minds, the very fact that the oh-so pure Obama administration felt the need to spy, could only mean Trump was in bed with Putin.

In fact, the media was actually having a big public party using Obama’s spying. Hoo-hah here’s a scoop! Whee-hee Flynn said this! Woo-woo palace intrigue! Ha-haaah here’s what so-and-so said! Tra-la-la here’s what so-and-so did!

And then on March 4, in a series of tweets that had the exact same effect as political nukes, Trump himself confirmed what the media had already told us, that the Obama administration had spied on him and his team. Trump’s brilliance was focusing on the sleazy and illegal act of the actual spying. And this is when the media realized that all their ha-has and tra-la-las were about to backfire. Their Precious Barry was now at risk, and so the shameless cover up and lying began …

Suddenly, right around 8 a.m. on Saturday, March 4, the conventional wisdom and public knowledge that the Obama administration had spied on Trump, was surrounded by the media’s semantic wagons which were manned by lying journalists armed with hair-splitting. …

The bottom line, though, is this …

  • Trump accused Obama of spying on him.
  • Obama did spy on Trump.
  • The media knew Obama spied on Trump.
  • The media lied and covered up the fact that Obama spied on Trump.

We know this with absolute certainty because the media itself told us so.

Then follows the twelve MSM pieces that prove all of this.

‘Hunt & Kill All White Women’ Facebook Post Deemed Not Hate Speech

‘Hunt & Kill All White Women’ Facebook Post Deemed Not Hate Speech, by Paul Joseph Watson.

When the post was reported by another user for “hate speech,” Facebook responded with the message, “We reviewed the comment you reported for displaying hate speech and found it doesn’t violate our Community Standards.”

Meanwhile, posts by Christians that simply state bible passages in discussions about homosexuality are being removed, while pages devoted to showing grisly mock images of President Trump being assassinated are not taken down. …

It seems that Facebook is too busy complying with threats to remove so-called “fake news” to deal with actual examples of hate speech and violence.

Flags for so-called fake news which cite Snopes – a far-left partisan outfit – as an independent fact checker, are already appearing when users attempt to post links to certain stories.

The censorship wars have begun. If this was said in Australia, do you think our Human Rights Commission might raise an eyebrow?

Westminister Bridge Terrorist Shows Bad Immigration Policies Can Kill Innocent People Over a Half Century Later

Westminister Bridge Terrorist Shows Bad Immigration Policies Can Kill Innocent People Over a Half Century Later, by Steve Sailer.

The conventional wisdom is so committed to the notion that you and I shouldn’t dream of reducing immigration to a more prudent level that they tell us it’s reassuring that this Muslim terrorist wasn’t an immigrant. …

From the NYT: “He was born on Dec. 25, 1964, in Kent, in southeastern England, and recently lived near Birmingham … It was there, in the Spring Hill neighborhood, that Mr. Masood rented from an Enterprise branch the Hyundai Tucson that he used in the attack.” …

Ooooh, sick burn!

But he wasn’t an immigrant, much less a refugee, so what are you moronic Trump voters worrying about?

Granted, logically, these cases suggest that the problems stemming from immigration aren’t short term, that they can well manifest themselves more than a half century after this guy’s parents immigrated. So, reason would suggest that we need to be a lot more prudent about who we let in in the near future because immigration could still be causing problems for our great-grandchildren in the distant future.

But, the conventional wisdom doesn’t see it that way. Instead, the solution is always More Immigration.

Canada: Visiting imam at Montreal mosque preaches that Muslims should kill Jews

Canada: Visiting imam at Montreal mosque preaches that Muslims should kill Jews, by Robert Spencer.

This video surfaced just before Canada’s House of Commons voted on the “anti-Islamophobia” motion M-103, and they still voted in favor. This is completely insane. The Canadian Parliament should have considered this video, and the Toronto imam who says Muslims will eventually kill all Jews, and the  other Montreal mosque where the imam prayed for Jews to be killed, and the other Toronto imam who asked Allah to kill the enemies of Islam, and recognized that the group that is really under threat in Canada is that nation’s Jews, not the Muslims. “Islamophobia” is a propaganda neologism designed to intimidate people into thinking it wrong to oppose jihad terror.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Everything You Think You Know About Campus Sexual Assault Is Wrong

Everything You Think You Know About Campus Sexual Assault Is Wrong, by Justin Dillon.

By now, if you have followed this controversy at all over the last few years, you have heard of “one in five” — the idea that one in five women are sexually assaulted on college campuses.

Now, you might think that seems like an awfully big number given how many college students there are in the [USA]. If that statistic were true, it would constitute an absolute epidemic of rape. The authors put that number in sharp relief:

“The most recent data from the Department of Education indicate that approximately 10 million women are enrolled (full- or part-time) as undergraduates. The one-in-five figure would indicate that 2 million of them will be sexually assaulted at college. That’s 400,000 to 500,000 sexual assaults per year … For comparison’s sake, under the expanded definition of rape used in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, in 2014 there were 116,645 rapes in the entire United States, a nation of 160 million females, one-sixteenth of whom are in college.”

When you actually sit down and do the math, common sense would tell you that “one in five” is false. …

“The National Crime Victimization survey (NCVS), conducted every six months by the U.S. Census Bureau for the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), has long been regarded as the gold standard of crime surveys. In 2014, BJS estimated that 0.61 percent of female college (and trade school) students, of whom 0.2 percent are raped, are sexually assaulted per year. Nonrape sexual assaults include unwanted sexual touching, attempted rape, and threats.”

So PC says one in five, but the reality is one in fifty.

Melbourne man ‘slaughtered’ wife in front of children over desire to join Islamic State

Melbourne man ‘slaughtered’ wife in front of children over desire to join Islamic State, prosecution says, by Emma Younger.

Police believe a Melbourne man who allegedly “slaughtered” and then mutilated his wife in front of their three young children may have murdered her because she did not want him to join the Islamic State group in Syria …

The children had never attended school and only spoke broken English. “He wanted them to only speak Lebanese, and learn the Koran,” the prosecution summary stated. “He wanted to teach them about guns, swords, war and jihad.”

Not really assimilating. And the PC crew try and tell us it is the Religion of Peace.

hat-tip Scott of the Pacific

Freedom of speech easily beats 18C as a civilising force

Freedom of speech easily beats 18C as a civilising force, by Brendan O’Neill.

Of all the bad ideas spouted by the intolerant new left, none is so obnoxious, so threatening to liberty and equality, as the idea that … freedom of speech might benefit whites, especially well-connected whites, but it harms blacks, Asians, and Aboriginal communities.

We hear this argument all the time now. … To privileged white men, freedom of speech might mean the right to think and say and draw whatever they like, defenders of section 18C say. But to non-whites, especially marginalised ones, it means the “right” to be subjected to foul barbs.

These warriors for keeping section 18C intact — still outlawing the offending, insulting or humiliating of a person or group on the basis of their origins — have come to equate freedom of speech with abuse. Speech must be controlled, they say, in order to protect the feelings and sense of safety of certain groups in society. They implicitly paint freedom of speech as the enemy of minority groups, and censorship as their friend. …

The message was as clear as it was depressing: this freedom of speech you people want is the harbinger of hatred. It hurts minorities. It’s dangerous. …

Australian Greens senator Scott Ludlam says freedom of speech now seems to mean “we’ll all be able to say the N-word”. … The Sydney Morning Herald columnist Mark Kenny thinks campaigners against section 18C are fighting for “the pure pleasure of firing off racial slurs”. …

The counter-argument:

Right now I am struggling to think of any contemporary idea as wrongheaded, paternalistic, riddled with illiberalism, and ironically racially prejudiced as this one. It does something even worse than hurl abuse at minority groups: it depicts them as lacking the capacity to engage in free, public life; as missing the moral resources required for freedom.

It makes them moral wards of the state, to be cared for by the Australian Human Rights Commission … it infantilises certain racial groups.

It implicitly divides society between those capable of enjoying freedom — white men, mostly — and those incapable of enjoying freedom: ethnic minorities. It suggests that the free life, a fully open public sphere that includes difficult speech alongside nice speech, is just too tough a prospect for certain people to cope with. And so they must be protected by laws and quangos. …

It reverses the greatest gain of the struggle for racial equality: the defeat of the nauseating idea that non-white people are childlike, whether vulnerable or dangerous, and thus require special protection or policing. It is shot through with a neocolonialist urge to protect minorities from the experience and consequences of freedom and of adult, autonomous life. …

Worse, it overlooks that, far from harming the marginalised, free speech has always been their greatest ally, the very means through which they have challenged their marginalisation. … Whether it was former slaves insisting on the right to criticise slavery — which was outlawed in some southern states on the basis that it would cause slaves to become “discontented” — or the Committee to Defend Martin Luther King challenging libel rulings that restricted its right to place comments in newspapers, the struggle of marginalised people has been assisted, made possible in fact, by freedom of speech. …

Section 18C must be scrapped. Not only because it is censorious, but ­because in treating minority groups as children requiring protection, it does more to insult, humiliate and offend them than any racist throwback ever could.

18C erodes the principles of equality before the law and that law be based on objective facts rather than alleged feelings. It is so open to abuse, so regressive, so encouraging of tribalism. The answer to bad speech is  good speech.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Combat hate speech with battle of ideas, not laws such as 18C

Combat hate speech with battle of ideas, not laws such as 18C, by Frank Furedi.

Throughout the Western world, laws against hate speech have emerged as the weapon of choice for campaigners demanding recognition for their cause and for moralists determined to regulate the public’s behaviour. Laws such as section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act are designed to protect people’s dignity. It is an expressive law designed to send out a message about how the public should communicate and behave.

The social engineering ambitions of Australia’s hate speech laws were spelled out a few years ago by two of its academic supporters. Luke McNamara and Katharine Gelber noted that hate speech laws were about “setting a standard about what’s not acceptable”. They added that “standards are worth proclaiming no matter how many times we fail to live up to them”.

Unfortunately, such laws do not simply set standards but police people’s opinions. They determine which opinions are legitimate and which are not. They decide what is a legitimate political statement and what is hate speech. These are unusual laws that censor verbal communication and regulate behaviour. Yet experience shows that one individual’s hate speech is another’s political opinion.

The left’s drive to harvest votes by highlighting people’s identities then pushing for extra rights or privileges for those identities — the electoral coalition of the fringes — is behind this. They love group politics, but it merely trivializes everything and tramples over individuals.

The main driver of the crusade against hate speech is identity politics. The politicisation of identity — be it cultural or lifestyle — has fostered a climate where sensitivity to a perceived slight often serves as a prelude to the demand that “something must be done” to punish the harasser.

Sadly, the preoccupation with group injury is one of the most visible features of identity politics. Identity politics perceives such slights as a form of harassment. …

What matters is not the intention of the accused but the sense of injury proclaimed by the accuser. That is why legislation against hate speech constitutes an unprecedented subjective turn in law-making. In previous times, blasphemy laws punished insults to the dignity of God. Hate speech penalises affronts to the dignity of the ordinary mortal being. At least the charge of blasphemy could draw on the written authority of the Bible. The accusation of hate speech is based on the capricious subjectivity of individual feelings and emotions. …

Hate speech laws not only constrain freedom but also treat citizens as immature children who lack the moral resources to hear hateful opinions and not be swayed by them. From the standpoint of an enlightened democracy, the censoring of hate is a far worse evil than the expression of hate. Why? Because it prevents people from judging and evaluating for themselves how to respond to the views — however prejudiced — of their fellow citizens. …

Laws against hate speech violate the true spirit of democracy. Instead of offering genuine protection to individuals and groups targeted by hate, they encourage the illusion that there is an administrative solution to a cultural problem.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

UN Watch Fires Back at Countries Accusing Israel of Abuses, ‘Where are your Jews?’

UN Watch Fires Back at Countries Accusing Israel of Abuses, ‘Where are your Jews?’ by Jack Heretik.

During a meeting of the UN Human Rights Council on Monday, several Middle Eastern countries took turns bashing Israel, saying that it has imposed apartheid and violence against Palestinians. …

“Israel’s 1.5 million Arabs, whatever challenges they face, enjoy full rights to vote and to be elected in the Knesset, they work as doctors and lawyers, they serve on the Supreme Court,” Neuer said. …

“How many Jews live in your countries? How many Jews lived in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco?”

Neuer pointed out. “Once upon a time, the Middle East was full of Jews.”

Neuer went through a list of those countries asking, “Where are your Jews?” after stating how many Jews used to live there.

“Where is the apartheid, Mr. President?” Neuer asked.

hat-tip Scott of the Pacific

European Countries Inspired by Breitbart to Crack Down on Soros

European Countries Inspired by Breitbart to Crack Down on Soros, by Aaron Klein. This should be interesting. There is as warrant out for his arrest in Russia of all places!

Eastern European leaders have “drawn inspiration” from conservative U.S. media outlets, especially Breitbart News, to crack down on groups financed by billionaire George Soros that are allegedly attempting to meddle in domestic politics, Reuters reported: …

“The campaign against Soros in countries formerly dominated by Moscow appears to follow a template set by Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose own crackdown on foreign-funded charities drove Soros’s foundation out of Russia two years ago.” …

Breitbart News has featured a large number of stories documenting Soros’s financing of groups pushing open borders in Europe and worldwide, with specific focus on the use of the migrant crisis to achieve policy aims.

In the U.S., Soros has been tied to advocacy for illegal aliens, opposition to immigration enforcement, and, most recently, to activist groups attempting to halt President Trump’s domestic agenda.

The most Soros-aligned group in Australia appears to be GetUp!

hat-tip Scott of the Pacific

The One Thing Trump Must Get Right

The One Thing Trump Must Get Right, by Roger Kimball.

Trump has filled all his key cabinet posts and has, moreover, filled them with people very unlike the dramatis personae of recently past cabinets. Trump’s cabinet is manned not by political apparatchiks, think-tank denizens, or academics. It is manned by successful — the most successful — businessmen, entrepreneurs, and military men, people whose chief aim will not be to “protect their turf” and coddle the bureaucracy under their charge but rather to get the nation’s business done as efficiently as possible. …

On March 13, the Trump administration released an Executive Order calling for a “Comprehensive Plan for Reorganizing the Executive Branch.”  It directs the head of the Office of Management and Budget to “propose a plan to reorganize governmental functions and eliminate unnecessary agencies  . . .  components of agencies, and agency programs.”

The document is quite specific. Within 180 days, the Director of the OMB is charged with submitting a plan “to reorganize the executive branch in order to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of agencies.” Moreover, this is no mere shell game, where Department A is renamed Department B and given new offices, a larger staff, and a more lavish budget on the other side of the Potomac.  No, the Executive Order calls for eliminating “unnecessary agencies, components of agencies, and agency programs, and to merge functions.”

The bureaucracy is the main engine behind progressivism and PC:

Readers of Quadrant will be familiar with Tocqueville’s famous passages about the character and operation of “democratic despotism” in modern societies. It operates, said Tocqueville, not like despotisms of yore: instead of tyrannizing over man, it infantilizes him.  And it does this by the promulgation of rules and regulations that reach into the interstices of everyday life to hamper initiative, stymie independence, stifle originality. This power, said Tocqueville, “extends its arms over society as a whole.”

It does not break wills, but it softens them, bends them, and directs them; it rarely forces one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one’s acting; it does not destroy, it prevents things from being born; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, compromises, enervates, extinguishes, dazes, and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals of which the government is the shepherd.

Tocqueville’s analysis has led many observers to conclude that the villain in this drama is the state. But Burnham saw that the real villain was less the state than the bureaucracy that maintained and managed it.

The shepherd was really a flock of shepherds, a coterie of managers who, in the guise of doing the state’s business, prosecuted their own advantage and gradually became a self-perpetuating elite that arrogated to itself power over the levers of society.

Donald Trump’s executive order is a sighting shot across the bow of the managerial elite that has hollowed out our democracy and elevated itself to a position of nearly untouchable unaccountability. …

As of this writing, Donald Trump has been President for less than two months. … He has moved with blinding speed, has indeed undertaken a sort of political blitzkrieg to keep his promises on enforcing immigration laws, repealing Obamacare, rolling back the regulatory state, and reinvigorating the military.

Behind it all, however, is an attack on the managerial elite that has overseen and extended the bureaucratic quagmire that has the West in its clammy and enervating grip.  If Trump manages to unravel the prerogatives of that elite, if he succeeds in handing back power to the political process, he will have fulfilled his most important campaign promise.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

The Terrifying Brilliance of Islam

The Terrifying Brilliance of Islam, by Citizen Warrior. This is from a site dedicated to teaching people about the problems of Islam.

The collection of ideas that make up the religion of Islam makes Muslims behave and feel as they do.

Collections of ideas compete with each other in the same way that collections of cells (organisms) compete with each other. And because idea-collections compete, and because new ideas can often be added or subtracted from the collection, and because some collections gain more believers than others, collections of ideas can actually evolve. …

[Suppose there was a religion] with a “live and let live” attitude, and never tried to encourage its followers to bring in converts. But then someone comes up with the idea that if you can persuade a non-believer to become a believer, you earn some sort of spiritual merit. … After a thousand years, which of the two variations will have more believers? I’m betting on the motivated-to-spread-it version.

Let’s assume, for the moment, that the motivated version gets far more followers. Does that mean it makes people happier? Or more successful in life? Or have healthier children? No. Just because a collection of ideas successfully gains followers does not mean it benefits any of the people believing those ideas. …

If you were going to deliberately design a collection of ideas with the purpose of making one that might eventually dominate the world — one that would eventually out-compete or eliminate every other religion or political system — you would be hard-pressed to do better than Islam.

The article considers many of the ideas that make Islam spread. Here are the main ones:

The Quran includes instructions for its own spread. It tells believers they must spread Islam. It is their holy duty to bring Mohammad’s warnings and Islamic law to every corner of the world. …

The idea-collection includes instructions for its own preservation, protection, and replication fidelity. The Quran, the most important of the Islamic holy books, directly tells its followers that they can never change or modify or “modernize” any of the teachings within the idea-collection. It is perfect as it is. It is a capital sin to try to do so. This idea ensures the preservation of the whole collection.

Islam commands its followers to create a government that supports it. This may be one of the most ingenious ideas in the whole collection. Islam is the only religion that uses it. Other groups of religious people have had political aspirations, but no other major religious group orders its followers — as a religious duty — to create a government that follows its own system of law. Islam has a system of law, called Sharia, and all Muslims are obligated to continually strive to make their government — wherever they are — follow it. Because of some of the other ideas added to Islam, you will see that this political addition to the idea-collection has significant consequences. Not only is this perhaps Islam’s most brilliant innovation, it is also the most terrifying to non-Muslims. …

Permission to spread the religion by war. This is another brilliant innovation. Although some other religions have spread themselves using force, they had very little justification from their own religious doctrines to do so. Not so with Islam. Expanding by conquest is very much accepted and encouraged by the idea-collection. Islamic teachings present it this way: The poor non-Muslims not living in an Islamic state need to be saved from the sin of following laws other than Allah’s. If they won’t voluntarily change their laws to Sharia, then it is the duty of Muslim warriors to insist. The world cannot be at peace until every government on earth follows the laws of Allah. …

Lands must be conquered. Lands that Islam has lost must be reconquered, like Spain and Israel, for example. …

The idea-collection provides for new soldiers by allowing polygamy. A Muslim man can marry up to four wives, and he can have sex with as many slave girls as he wishes. The Quran especially encourages men to marry widows. This is an important idea to add if you are going to be losing a lot of soldiers in war. You need some way of replenishing your army.

It is a punishable offense to criticize Islam. You can see why this one is a good supporting idea for the collection. It helps suppress any ideas that would reduce the authority of Islamic ideas. This one, like many of the others, is good for the idea-collection, but bad for people. This one limits freedom of speech. This idea is in the Quran, and Mohammad set a fierce example of punishing people who criticized him or Islam. The punishment was usually death. …

You can’t leave Islam once you’re in. This is an interesting one. It is actually illegal in Islamic states to convert out of Islam. This is a critical part of Sharia law. Someone who has rejected Islam who was once a Muslim is an “apostate.” This is a crime and a sin, and the punishment for it is death (and eternal damnation in hell thereafter) … Every time a group of Muslims decides that maybe Islam should be updated for the 21st century and maybe women should have some rights or maybe the government should be more democratic, the devout Muslims call them apostates and discredit them or even try to kill them.

Islam must be your first allegiance. This is a great idea to add to the collection if the goal is world domination. You are a Muslim first, before any allegiance you give to your family, your tribe, or your country. …

Dying while fighting for Islam is the ONLY way to guarantee a man’s entrance into Paradise. This is a great idea for creating fearless, enthusiastic warriors, especially given the Quran’s vivid descriptions of the sensuous delights of Paradise. …

The prayers involve moving together in time. When Muslims pray, they all face the same direction, they bow down, get on their hands and knees, and put their face on the mat, all in unison, and then rise back up. Again and again. When people move together in time, whether dancing or marching or praying, it creates a physical and emotional bond between them. That’s why all military training involves close-order drill (marching in unison), even though it has been a long time since military groups have actually marched into combat. …

A woman is in a thoroughly subordinate position. … If women had too much influence, they’d try to curb the warring. Women in general don’t like to send their husbands and sons off to war. But if women have no say, then the rest of the ideas can express themselves without interference. By subordinating women, the idea-collection prevents their effective vote against war, violence, and conquest. …

Allah gives Himself permission to edit his own work. … It says in the Quran that if a passage written later contradicts an earlier passage, then the later one is the better one … The Quran was written … over a period of 23 years. The circumstances of Mohammad’s life and his religion changed quite a bit over those 23 years. In his first 13 years of peacefully preaching, Mohammad only managed to win 150 followers. But as a military leader and violent conqueror, he was able to subjugate all of Arabia to Islamic law in less than 10 years. The peaceful ways were too slow. Conversion by conquering and establishing Sharia was much faster and more efficient. …

Non-Muslims must pay a large tax. Once Muslims conquer a country and convert the government to Islamic law, any non-Muslims have the choice between becoming Muslim or becoming a dhimmi. Dhimmis are allowed to practice their non-Muslim religion if they pay the jizya (a tax). If they convert to Islam, they no longer have to pay a tax, so there is a practical incentive to convert. But another aspect of this makes it a brilliant idea to add to the collection. The tax takes money away from the non-Muslims and their competing idea-collections and gives that money to support Islam. This is pure genius! …

Non-Muslims are not allowed to own weapons of any kind. …

A Muslim is forbidden to make friends with an infidel. A Muslim is allowed to pretend to be a friend, but in his heart he must never actually be a friend to a non-Muslim. This is one of the best protections Islam has against Muslims leaving the faith because in every other religion conversions to the religion are usually made because a friend introduced it. Being forbidden to make friends with infidels effectively prevents that from happening. …

The Quran counsels the use of deceit when dealing with infidels. Mohammad instructed one of his followers to lie if he had to (in order to assassinate one of Mohammad’s enemies). The principle was clear: If it helps Islam, it’s okay to deceive non-Muslims. …

The explicit use of double standards. Islam has one standard for Muslims, and a different standard for non-Muslims, which always gives the advantage to Muslims and within a Muslim country, it provides incentives to convert. … [For example] when Islam is defamed in any way, Muslims should violently defend it. Even in a cartoon. But Muslims can and should defame Jews and Christians in Muslim newspapers and television, and they should defame any infidel or enemy, as they defame the U.S. today. … [Another example:] The Islamic supremacists of Saudi Arabia are pouring money into building mosques all over the free world. But according to Sharia law, which is the law in Saudi Arabia, no non-Muslim religious structures are allowed to be built. …

It is forbidden to kill a Muslim (except for a just cause). It is not forbidden to kill an infidel. This causes a bond between Muslims, fear in non-Muslims, and motivation to become Muslim. …

The message in a standard Quran is difficult to decipher. Whether it was done intentionally or not, the Quran’s message has been scrambled and in a sense, coded. This discourages almost all non-Muslims and a significant percentage of Muslims from understanding it. … So the only ones who really know what’s going on are the imams and the scholars. They call the shots. Everyone else is in the dark. …

The end result?

Everyone practices the religion in an Islamic state (or they are flogged, taxed, or killed) and no one can criticize it, not friend-to-friend, and not through any media. The psychological impact of this is enormous. Three generations later, it would be almost impossible for any Muslim living in that state to think outside of Islam. The authority and social proof would be overwhelming. …

What can we do?

And yet, I don’t think the situation is hopeless. Many Muslims now living in Islamic states are trapped and would defect from Islam if it were safe to do so.

The first thing we in the multicultural and tolerant West need to do is help each other become aware of the formidable idea-collection threatening to overtake us. We need to help our fellow citizens awaken to the fact that Islamic supremacists will deliberately take advantage of our tolerance and our freedom so as to ultimately eliminate it.

This is an ideological war, so the ideas in the heads of your fellow Westerners makes all the difference.

A long read, but unfortunately this issue is now of vital importance in the West.

hat-tip Tim Ireland